Catholic Church's stance on gun ownership

[stanmaxkolbe]

True CHL war story:
Laura Poldson worked for the Texas State Rifle Association in a Dallas suburb. She stopped for gas at a station she often used and was filling her car. She is a CHL holder. She refers to her car as “Mom-mobile,” a dirty white Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme, when an older model sedan with two men in it pulled in behind her.
One of the men pumped gas, while the other leaned on the hood of his car and said: “Nice car you’ve got.”

As her car was no way special, warning bells went off in her head. Laura replied in a noncommittal tone: “It gets me where I want to go and back.”

“Nice car; maybe I should get one like it,” the man said. “Maybe I should take yours,” he said in a non-threatening tone.

She decided she was through filling her tank whether it was full or not. She put up the pump nozzle with one hand and reached for her keys with the other. Meanwhile the man had straightened up and was no longer leaning on his car, though he had not moved towards her.
“What are you, ten-foot tall and bulletproof?” Poldson retorted.
“Have you got a gun?” the man asked in alarm.
“That’s for me to know and you to find out,” she replied.
The two men immediately got into their car and drove off.
She got back in her car shaking. After a few minutes, the manager came out of the convenience store and asked her if she was all right. She felt scared to death. “I couldn’t believe I just did that,” she said.
—THE CONCEALED HANDGUN MANUAL by Chris Bird.
That’s a part of the story not all of it—Stan.

Wow think about it; this was a gas station she went to every week probably for years. That lady did exactly what she was supposed to do, avoid the confrontation. I look at this way if I draw a gun in public I have to answer to a police officer, if I shoot someone I will be arrested, face a Texas grand jury, and pay a lawyer. I’m thinking is a scumbag thug worth it? NO! I would rather go home and give the money to the ol lady than to a lawyer.

She didn’t have to draw it; she didn’t have to use it. Just the hint of a person carrying a firearm can save your life.

If you’re a member of the National Rifle Association you get one of there magazines and every month there are stories about Americans with firearms all over the country saving their lives from thugs that you will never hear about on the main stream news.

 

[Ilroy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mvinca
And what happens when your police become like the Chinese police/government? Who protects the people from the police?

Strange comment. How does that possibly apply to the European countries?

Does the name Adolf Hitler ring a bell? If you remember actual history you would know that one of the first things he did was to disarm the general population. Last time I checked Germany was still part of Europe…

 

[thistle]

In Texas we have this thing called a CHL Concealed Handgun License. I have one and I carry all the time. The only time I don’t carry is during my Bible study group and RCIA. The only reason is because they are done inside a school. Texas law states we cannot carry a firearm in a school. Very dumb law think about Virginia Tech they have a no carry law on campus.

The reason I carry a gun is because carrying a police officer is too heavy.

This just happened to me. I was home on vacation during the week of July 4th. It was about ten in the morning I was outside working on my garage when I notice there are a lot of police cars driving around the neighborhood I’m thinking they must me looking for somebody.

I go inside to get a drink of cold water. In the morning my wife opens all the windows to get fresh air in the house. I notice in the backyard my side gate opens and a guy steps in my yard looking around. You can tell he’s looking for a place to hide. I yell at him and he starts running to my backyard fence and jumps over it. I tell the wife come on we go to the front yard trying wave down a cop. A patrol car goes by don’t see us his windows rolled up his A/C is on.

The police were looking in another part of our neighborhood. To make a long story short there were six patrol cars in my neighborhood the police were less than a minute away from my home and I could not get one. Yes I was on the phone with 911 still it took fifteen minutes for me to get a police officers attention and that was by me yelling at four them standing around trying to figure out where the guy was. They finally did get the guy. I thank God I was home and my wife was not alone that morning.

So you people stating that the police are going to protect your family you’re a day late and a dollar short. What if that guy kicked in my back door the only one to protect my family is ME. I am not going to rely on some local government agency to protect my family. In fact that’s not there job there job is to protect the entire city and they do a great job doing it. They cannot be everywhere at once.

In June the State of Texas executed a man. His crime he and his buddies murdered a man because one of them wanted to get an eye drop tattoo to look good in his gang. These people don’t care about human life.
**
I’ve said this before on these boards if you live in the United States and you do not** own and know the safe use of a firearm to protect your family it’s a sin.

You are actually saying that any Catholic in America who does not own a gun is committing a sin?? If I were an American Catholic I would be outraged by a comment like that. The Church does not teach that. Even your other gun toting fellow posters have not gone that far.

 

[thistle]

No.

What the Church’s teaching means is that:

If you are responsible for the lives of others, including family, you have a Moral obligation to defend them from attack via the best means possible in accordance with the moral law.

Do to otherwise is a grave sin (mortality of the sin depends, as always, on three factors, 1. In must be grave matter, 2. You must willing choose to do it 3.) You must be aware that it is sinful)

We can only speak to the gravity matter in this discussion .

Another point you are missing (see highlight above), is that ALL Catholics have the moral right to bear arms. So you have the right to bear arms. That is what the Church has stated.

Yes, you currently have civil laws that repress your rights under the Moral Law.

But what are your obligations when that happens?

What are you, as a Catholic, supposed to do when civil law is in conflict with the moral law? Which are you to support or act on?

I already told you the precautions people take but you choose not to accept that even though the Church does NOT teach we MUST bear arms.
The Church most certainly also does not teach we should incite civil disobedience to get gun ownership allowed.

 

[thistle]

this is just a great thread!

**
i think the Church says it is just for us to defend ourselves or others, and how WE decide to do that is up to us. ** i have both a bat next to my bedroom door, and a .38 special under the bed. it would be UNJUST for us to NOT defend ourselves and/or others.

**hating Americans is quite fashionable nowadays, but you Europeans easily forget it was America’s guns that saved Europe from being Nazi, and it has been the presence of American guns that have kept Europe from being under Soviet control. your safety and freedom have come to you by way of AMERICA and our guns. **
your welcome.

**
so we should ban kitchen knives, cars, baseball bats, pipes, boots, rocks, water, tree branches, chairs, frozen legs of lamb, and any other item that has ever been used as a weapon? while we are at it, lets ban hoods and ski masks, because those have been used in crimes also. wait, shouldn’t we also ban hands and feet, and also eyes and thinking minds as well, because all those can be used in crimes. **

seriously though, if someone is criminal enough to attack another, or to break into the house of another, they are not really innocent, helpless saps. assault and battery, and home invasion are crimes with serious intent, and add to the mix that most people who involve themselves in these crimes are also involved in drugs, and therefore have quite unpredictable, often violent behavior. to take precautions against these types of individuals is not unjust, it is only common sense. if a person feels they can use only their hands and feet to fend off this type of criminal, then they are free to try it. if a person feels they need a firearm to defend themselves against this type of criminal, they should be free to have that ability, so long as they go about it in a responsible manner.

Your first comment is one I totally agree with and what the other posters disagree with.

Unfortunately your second is a bigotted one and completely irrelevant to this thread. If you want to discuss the war then please open another thread.

Tree branches, legs of lamb etc. Being silly I see. Now you are contradicting your opening comment which I actually agreed with.

Let me make it crystal clear I have never said I would not use anything (leg of lamb et al) that comes to hand in my home or outside the home to defend myself or my family if we were attacked. That is not construed as owning a weapon or arming oneself.
My beef is with those who contend that if we do not bear arms (i.e. purchase a weapon for self defence)) then we are in a state of mortal sin. The Church does not teach that.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

thistle:
You are actually saying that any Catholic in America who does not own a gun is committing a sin?? If I were an American Catholic I would be outraged by a comment like that. The Church does not teach that. Even your other gun toting fellow posters have not gone that far.
Your just wrong.
End of line.

 

[thistle]

Your just wrong.
End of line.

Wrong about what? I can’t get anyone to give me a straight answer! They keep dancing around. I’ll try you.
Are you saying every Catholic who does not own a gun is committing a mortal sin?

 

[Sir_Knight]

It isn’t a simple yes or no answer but dependent on numerous factors. Take my particular case for example. I am a husband and a father. Therefore, according to the CCC, I am responsible for the safety and welfare of my family. If someone were to break into my home and threaten my family’s safety and I successfully protected them with a baseball bat, then I have fulfilled my duty of defending them.

If, however, the baseball bat proved to be insufficient in protecting my family and harm came to them and I could have used a better means (a gun, for example) to protect them but did not because I did have one but COULD HAVE had one, then I have committed a sin of omission.

Now, if I knew of this GRAVE duty that the church places upon me, then the sin is definitely mortal. If I was unaware of either the duty or of it’s grave nature, it can be argued both ways whether ot not the sin is mortal or not.

I’ve seen that aspect of it discussed on these forums several times. Not with this sin but with sin in general. Some have argued that as adults having reached the age of reason, we have a duty to have an understanding of our faith and ignorance is not an excusre while others have argued that one must be aware of it in order for it to be a mortal sin. Again, I’ve seen it argued both ways and I see no point in discussing that aspect of it here since several other treads on this topic have failed to reach a conclusion even after very lengthy discussion.

But the bottomline is that if harm comes to someone under my care and I could have used a better means of defense and did not, then I have committed a sin of omission and that sin MIGHT be a mortal sin depending on circumstances and how you factor ignorance into the equation.

Does that address your question?

 

[Nino]

The battles at Lexington and Concord were over the colonists protecting themselves with guns and powder…the brits were after the storehouses etc.thats why the right to keep and bear arms is so high up on the Bill of Rights…numero duo! There is an Italian saint who is considered the patron saint of private ownership of firearms and I will wait and see if anyone out there can name him…he fought off some thugs in Italy etc etc. At the beginning of the movie Red Dawn a statue is shown of a Rough Rider and a saying underneath…anyone know that one…come on boys and girls…or else no recess today…Nino

 

[Brendan]

Wrong about what? I can’t get anyone to give me a straight answer! They keep dancing around. I’ll try you.
Are you saying every Catholic who does not own a gun is committing a mortal sin?

I gave you a straight answer.

First of all, you are rather unclear on the Moral theological requirements of mortal sin. As I mentioned eariler, we can only determine if the matter is grave. There are two other requirements for mortal sin, knowledge and intent. I think knowlege has been pretty well covered here as well, but it remains less objective than the matter, so we will leave that one alone.

So if you continue to harp on “Mortal Sin” all you are really doing is expressing ignorance of what the Church teaches. If you read through my posts, you will find that I have said nothing contray to the Church.

The one single post of mine that you copied and underlined specifically had the word “MAY” in it ( in fact you underlined that word too). I don’t think that the differences between US English and UK English are so different as the alter the meaning of that word.

The Church most certainly also does not teach we should incite civil disobedience to get gun ownership allowed.

The Church very much does teach that when the Moral law and the civil law are not in harmony, then we have an obligation to follow the moral law, and to work to change the civil law to comply with the moral law.

Do you disagree with the above statement? ( I would hope not)

Secondly, as it has been pointed out, that the Vatican stood against the majority of nations in discussions in the UN over the arms trade. The Vatican sided with the US (and several other countries) recognizing the inherient human right to armed self defense, and that any restrictions on the small arms trade should not impact the right of the human person to arm themselves in defense.

I am presuming that you are from the UK, please correct me if I am wrong on this.

Are you proud that your government stood agains the Vatican on this issue?

If you are displeased when your government stands against the Vatican on issues that the Church defines as a moral right, are you willing to take steps to bring your government more in line with what the Church defines as moral rights and obligations?

On the civil disobedience, unlike most totalitarian regimes, the UK does allow a modicum of gun ownership. I think that you over estimate how difficult it is to obtain a shotgun license.

As I mentioned earlier, the large majority of my relatives reside in Ireland (my parents are from there). Most have shotguns and rifles for hunting, even my relatives in the North. I had no difficulty obtaining a permit to bring my own shotgun to Ireland to go pheasant hunting ( I mailed an application to the local consulate, and recieved the permit about 2 weeks later)

In addition, I also do historical re-enacting and have a number of friends in the Sealed Knot (a UK based English Civil War re-enactment organization - thesealedknot.co.uk/ ) . . You need a shotgun license to own a musket. But the members that I talk to have no problem getting the shotgun permit.

( I still wonder why the English bother to regulate muskets. Are they really afraid that some musket wielding ner-do-well is going to rob them on the Underground. The Irish, Germans and Canadians don’t bother regulating muskets. One of the best manufacturers of historical weapons is UK based. They can ship a museum quality matchlock to an Irishman, German or a Canadian (or American) with no issues what so ever. But not to an Englishman. I guess Germans and the Irish are more trustworthy in these matters )

But I digress.

It is certainly possible, even feasable, for you to legally arm yourself, and it is morally responsible to use that arm in defense of yourself or your family.

I would highly encourage you to investigate further into it.

Also, I challenge you, as a Catholic, to work to conform your civil laws to conform, in every way, to the Moral Law as taught by the Church.

 

[Brendan]

There is an Italian saint who is considered the patron saint of private ownership of firearms and I will wait and see if anyone out there can name him

St. Gabriel Possenti - Sir Knight has his medallion as part of his sig line.

When St. Gabriel was a seminarian, the town where the seminary was in was attacked by a group of thugs (soliders from Garibaldi’s army).

With the permission of the Seminary rector, Gabriel entered town. Once there, he saw a woman being attacked by one of the soliders.

St. Gabriel grabbed a pistol from the solider and ordered him to release the woman. He grabbed another revolver from another solider and, using those pistols, and expert marksmanship, he drove the bandits from the town.

That is why he is considered the patron of those who use handguns.

I have a St. Gabriel Possenti medal embossed on my holster.

 

[Sir_Knight]

There is an Italian saint who is considered the patron saint of private ownership of firearms and I will wait and see if anyone out there can name him…he fought off some thugs in Italy etc etc.

St. Gabriel Possenti - Sir Knight has his medallion as part of his sig line.

http://fud-files.netfirms.com/image/private/misc/GUNST1.JPG

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Wrong about what? I can’t get anyone to give me a straight answer! They keep dancing around. I’ll try you.
Are you saying every Catholic who does not own a gun is committing a mortal sin?

YES!
If a Catholic doesn’t do all possible means to protect his family it is a sin. So that that means in the United States use must own and know the safe use of firearms to protect your family.

It’s pretty clear I didn’t think I needed to explain it.

 

[Brendan]

YES!
If a Catholic doesn’t do all possible means to protect his family it is a sin. So that that means in the United States use must own and know the safe use of firearms to protect your family.

It’s pretty clear I didn’t think I needed to explain it.

Actually, in all fairness, all we can really say is that it is Grave Matter. That is what the Church teaches.

Mortal sin requires **grave matter **( present), knowledge ( most likely present considering the resources quoted, but willing to give the benefit of the doubt), and intent (unknown, varies by individual and circumstances)

 

[Julianna]

My brother has a saying regarding gun ownership…

“I’d rather be tried by 12, than carried by 6.”

thistle…the other posters are not saying “YOU have to have a gun”…you are misreading them completely.

A police officer once told me to get a can of wasp/hornet spray…it sprays up to 20 ft. He says aim for the “eyes”. So maybe you would be better off with wasp/hornet spray.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Actually, in all fairness, all we can really say is that it is Grave Matter. That is what the Church teaches.

Mortal sin requires **grave matter **( present), knowledge ( most likely present considering the resources quoted, but willing to give the benefit of the doubt), and intent (unknown, varies by individual and circumstances)

Catechism Of The Catholic Church:

1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

**1859 **Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

If I have full knowledge that there are thugs out there that can harm my family and I don’t do anything. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

So in the twenty-first century I must do everything possible within the laws of my country to protect my family. In the United States that means the owning and knowledge in the safe use of firearms to protect my family. So I must be prepared to protect my family.

 

[thistle]

My wife and I are going out of town for about a week so this might be my last post until I get back as her sister does not have a computer and I don’t know if there is an internet cafe near her but I hope this thread is still running when I get back.

My parting comments until then.

The Church does NOT teach that any Catholic not owning a gun for self protection and protection of family is committing a mortal sin.

One poster directly says not owning a gun is a mortal sin.

Two others say that is not accurate but indirectly they say not owning a gun is a mortal sin. How? They quote we have a “grave duty” to protect the family. They then say that means we must use the “best” means to do that. They say owning a gun is the “best” way and so using their private interpretation if we don’t own a gun then we are not using the “best” way to protect our families and so we are committing a mortal sin.
I would therefore contend that using their (false) way of interpretation they are committing a mortal sin. How?
Well I would say the “best” way to protect your family would be to hire armed bodyguards 24/7 living in and accompanying family members wherever they go. If it is argued that is not practical or too expensive what do you do? Settle for “second best” by owning a gun. Using the two posters interpretation they would be committing a mortal sin by not using the “best” means to protect their families.

 

[Sir_Knight]

thistle, you seem to have, at least in this thread, a habit of either mis-reading or leaving out parts of what people say.

You must use the best means POSSIBLE. If you can afford to hire armed bodyguards 24/7 living in and accompanying family members wherever they go and you fail to do so and something happens to them, then you have failed in your duty to protect them. Otherwise, that is not the best means POSSIBLE.

 

[Brendan]

My wife and I are going out of town for about a week .

Enjoy your holiday

Tell your Sister in-law that a bunch of crazed Yanks you know say ‘Hi’ :yup:

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

My wife and I are going out of town for about a week so this might be my last post until I get back as her sister does not have a computer and I don’t know if there is an internet cafe near her but I hope this thread is still running when I get back.

My parting comments until then.

The Church does NOT teach that any Catholic not owning a gun for self protection and protection of family is committing a mortal sin.

One poster directly says not owning a gun is a mortal sin.

Two others say that is not accurate but indirectly they say not owning a gun is a mortal sin. How? They quote we have a “grave duty” to protect the family. They then say that means we must use the “best” means to do that. They say owning a gun is the “best” way and so using their private interpretation if we don’t own a gun then we are not using the “best” way to protect our families and so we are committing a mortal sin.
I would therefore contend that using their (false) way of interpretation they are committing a mortal sin. How?
Well I would say the “best” way to protect your family would be to hire armed bodyguards 24/7 living in and accompanying family members wherever they go. If it is argued that is not practical or too expensive what do you do? Settle for “second best” by owning a gun. Using the two posters interpretation they would be committing a mortal sin by not using the “best” means to protect their families.

Have a safe trip brother, talk to you when you get back.
May the Lord be with you-Stan.