Catholic Church's stance on gun ownership

[thistle]

I’m back. I see that the thread died so I don’t really want to resurrect it but simply report on my discussions with several priests in the meantime. I spoke to my sister-in-law’s parish priest and when I came back I spoke to my own parish priest and I additionally contacted a Redemporist priest I have known for a long time.

They all told me it is NOT a mortal sin not to own a gun, even in countries where guns are allowed and available.
While agreeing that we have a responsibility to the family and community the Church leaves it up to each individual to decide what is best for them in order to fulfill that responsibility. The Church does not determine what the best way is and they said neither can one individual tell another what is the best way. They said “grave duty” cannot be interpreted as meaning a gun is the best way.
If a person decides a gun is the best way to fulfill their responsibility then that is okay but that cannot be translated into meaning that a gun is the best way for everyone because the Church does not teach that.

So everyone reading this thread can rest easy knowing that they have not committed a mortal sin by not owning a gun.

 

[FindTruth7]

Now you are creating a strawman argument in an attempt to make your point. I never said that we have an obligation to toll up with some kind of weapon in anticipation of being jumped.

I said that according to church teaching, we have a duty to defend ourselves **** and others under our care from death and serious injury ]. The best way to fulfill this duty IN MOST CASES would be with a firearm and the church is in support of the private ownership and use of firearms for THAT reason as reflected in the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144.

I further went on to say that those who do not own a gun OR take some other steps to properly prepare themselves to deal with threats to their safety, have failed in this duty required of them and have committed a mortal sin of omission because the church refers to this as a SERIOUS duty.

To which, you argued that we do NOT have a duty to protect ourselves and that rests in the hands of the police which is in direction CONTRADICTION to what is found in the eaching of the Catholic Church as found in the CCC2265 which represents the OFFICIAL teachings of the Church – thereby, making your position INCORRECT with respect to Catholic Church teaching.

Talk about serious obsessive rules and regulations. Tell me, what’s the point of some of you Catholics, whenever you talk about even things as gun control, whethe rone has one or not, or for any situation regarding a theif, WHY do you always bring in “mortal sin, you’re going to hell if not repent, to suffer eternal torment forever and forever, because you didn’t think about protecting yourself from that theif that broke in your house and you know, raped your wife and blew off your head. Because of that, YOU now also ar egoing into hell.” I know it sounds ridiculous, but that’s how yo individuals sound in all do respect when it comes to these matters.

Why not focus on life, what’s important, instead of “mortal sin, going to hell, blah blah blah, because you didn’t follow through with percautions.”

peace

 

[FindTruth7]

Judging by this thread alone, it is TRULY remarkable how many “religious” people and “Christians” have such negativety and even hate to a certain extant (except thistle, you seem to have a good heart).

I know atheists who talk, behave and are more respectful, worrying about others and life, instead of slandering people into mortal sin for not doing this or that.

and so on and so forth.

 

[SFTor]

hi there:

This discussion moves at the ground level: it is about protecting one’s family etc.

Does anyone have any numbers on handgun deaths in the United States that may give us a higher-level view of the issue?

If firearms were always used to protect honest people from criminals I don’t think we would have much of an issue.

But how many innocents die by handguns kept in homes by law-abiding citizens? How many wives, husbands, and loved ones are killed by handguns during quarrels? How many kids are killed by handguns left around the house?

A key aspect of this discussion is that for a firearm to be of any use it has to be loaded and available. That implies risk. Do we have any numbers that may illustrate whether the risk is worth it?

Best,

Tor

 

[Sam_Maloney]

I’ve always found it interesting that Peter had a sword in the garden the night of the Passion.

Christ chastizes him for it’s improper use, but doesn’t seem to feel it’s wrong to have one.

At my point in life [middle aged, unmarrried, no kids] I’m not sure I’d kill to protect myself.

But could I kill to protect my extended family?

Yes.

I’m not saying anyone MUST own a gun, but I think its OK from a moral standpoint.

 

[Nino]

…no no no…the reason Jesus told off Peter.(a fisherman remember) was that He Jesus,had an important task for Pete…that was to be the first Leader…ie Pope of the new church Jesus was founding…Peter would have been easily cut down by the professional soldiers. Saint Gabriel Possenti is our un-official patron saint of handguns. He was a crack shot marksman in his youth and later joined the Passionists. it was in 1859 that a number of armed hoodlums ransacked the village of Isola,Itlay,setting fire to the buildings and generally terrorizing the residents…confronting the mob Possenti saved a young girl from rape and then the gang surrounded him…just then a lizard darted into the street.with a quick flick of his wrist,Gabriel shot the animal in the head…he then turned the pistol on the gangs leader and ordered them to drop their weapons…they did…and.also gave back the loot then he forced them to extinquish the very fires they had lite!.. he marched them out of town at gunpoint and warned them to never return,they never did…unlike the moronic marshall in High Noon who had to depend on the local prostitute ,good ole Katy Girardo I recall…to save the day…hollyweird always glamorized those wretched characters…anyway those of us who understand human nature and the type of ‘leadership’ we have not had in the white house and cogress for almost 100 years…will never give up our weapons of self-defense…thats what americas first longest day was all about.at Lexington and Concord…the brits wanted tthe storehouses that had the weapons and ammo stored…they wanted to disarm the colonists…thats when the farmers fired protecting that bridge and thus ,the shot heard round the world…lock and load…

 

[adelore]

Owning a gun is not a bad thing. It’s the Owners of the guns that Sometimes are the problem. I’ll explain.

I grew up with guns in our house, at the age of 7 I was shooting a K-22 Pistol and earned the nick name “Annie Oakley” because I was good and could even hit a moving target. (with my Dad teaching me at targets) My father and Mother taught us Safety about guns and that guns are Not toys. The guns were never locked up. Still aren’t to this day.

The saying in our house was (and what I passed down to our children) “It’s always the Unloaded Gun that kills.” We were to always treat a gun as if it were loaded. So many people have been “killed” by the “Unloaded Gun”. Because people have “thought” it was unloaded.

Childern now days aren’t (for the most part, not all children) taught to respect or what a gun can really do. Instead lots of parents (again not all parents) lock the guns up or put them away, and haven’t ever taught the children from a small child the “Proper Respect and Handling” of a gun.

Guns (shot guns and riffles) were used for hunting at our house, and we were taught they kill and how to hunt properly.

The K-22 (and other hand guns) we knew was for protection. At the young age of 7 I would have been able to protect my family in case of a home invasion if lives were threatened. (if for some reason someone broke in and my Dad couldn’t have got to the gun, anyone of us kids could have and we could have used it properly and believe me not missed.) We were also taught to “injure” a person not kill. It was to bring them down to take the “threat away”. If the injured shot wouldn’t stop them, then if the second shot didn’t stop them, the third shot would, because that would be the “kill shot”.

Do I think we should have guns and the right to own guns? Yes. As someone else said, not living in a big city, it could be hours before the cops arrived at our house. By then a lot could happen, so yes I’m going to protect myself. If my dogs don’t warn a person to stay out, (and believe me they will warn someone and even defend us if you don’t belong there, such as someone “breaking in”., not just someone knocking on the door and then being “invited in”. The dogs know the difference. ) then I wouldn’t hesitate a minute to grab a gun.

It all boils down to how a person is taught to Respect and Handle a gun.

 

[Scottgun]

Judging by this thread alone, it is TRULY remarkable how many “religious” people and “Christians” have such negativety and even hate to a certain extant (except thistle, you seem to have a good heart).

I know atheists who talk, behave and are more respectful, worrying about others and life, instead of slandering people into mortal sin for not doing this or that.

and so on and so forth.

I find it highly ironic that for someone in supposed truth-finding mode chooses to make sweeping characterizations of the people on these boards instead of engaging their actual ideas.

 

[JoeSchmeau]

This might be the most hilarious thread ever.

I’m an American, and I’m also a gun owner. I choose to own a gun. Truthfully, I choose to own several guns. I enjoy target shooting with them, and I also like to take one with me in the mountains when I backpack. We have quite a few cougars (mountain lions) around here, and since we’re allowed the weapons, I bring one…just in case.

Many Europeans, and actually many Americans now, just don’t understand our ideals. One of our biggest values is independence, or self reliance. Most of us feel an obligation to take care of things ourselves if it’s at all possible. We don’t expect the same things of our government that many Europeans do. We have a large land mass over here, with lots of room to spread out our wings. In many of these places, it’s difficult for police to be close by. Most in rural areas choose to have a firearm to protect against attackers, both two- and four-legged.

This doesn’t mean that we’re paranoid. It’s very safe here in most places…especially if you avoid the worst parts of the large cities. As I said, I have firearms, and I would use them for self defense if I needed to. But I don’t sit around, terrified to leave my house. That’s a total mischaracterization of the average American attitude. You’re not even trying to understand us. You’re just trying to mock us.

Just as I own a firearm and will likely never use it, I wear a seatbelt, I own a fire extinguisher, I have earthquake insurance…you get the picture. Fear doesn’t even enter the picture. I’m just doing everything possible to take care of myself, so that someone else doesn’t have to.

All of that being said, I think it’s a little extreme to assert that NOT owning a firearm is a mortal sin. I suppose that in some far-fetched scenario, one could make a case that it’s sinful to be defenseless, but I don’t think that’s usually the case.

It was interesting reading the arguing back and forth between a few of you. It’s frustrating to see us Catholics, people who should know better, forget the greatest commandments. We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ here. Why do our disagreements have to be so emotional? Why do we try so little to see to perspectives of those who disagree with us?

 

[Michael17]

Hello everyone,

I am utterly disillusioned by some of the posts in this topic. Some ‘Catholics’ here seem to be taking the Church’s message and are either entirely ignoring it or completely misinterpreting it. This is nothing short of scandal. I beg all of you who are reading this topic to research this issue for yourselves; absolute falsehoods have appeared above.

The Catholic Church clearly has a very anti-gun attitude, and undeniably advocates for gun control. Here is only a small sample of the many quotes that exist to prove this.

"The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order. " ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2316

"Seeds of war are also being spread by the massive and uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which it seems are passing freely from one area of conflict to another, increasing violence along the way. Governments must adopt appropriate measures for controlling the production, sale, importation and exportation of these instruments of death. Only in this way will it be possible to deal effectively and completely with the problem of the massive illegal traffic in arms." ~ Pope John Paul II, Day of World Peace Message, found here vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

*“Similarly, the unacceptable anomaly must cease by which certain States have stringent controls on the international transfer of heavy arms but few if any as regards the sale of small arms and handguns. The problem of the almost free circulation of these arms must henceforth become an integral part of all considerations of the arms trade.” ~ The Vatican’s Department of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, Paragraph 5.7

“It is urgent to find an effective way to stop the flow of arms to terrorist and criminal groups. An indispensable measure would be for each State to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe upon the rights of anyone. The time has also come for the international community to address the question directly, integrating it into its considerations on the phenomenon of arms transfers in general. That the General Assembly of the United Nations has already raised this problem is a sign of its recognition of the danger of the ready availability of such arms.” ~ The Vatican’s Department of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, Paragraph 4.8*

Considering Pope John Paul II calls handguns “instruments of death” as seen above, how could you possibly make the claim that the Catholic Church wants people to buy guns? Absurdity. You cannot be both Catholic and pro-gun-culture; if you are, you are simply ignorant of Church teaching. Guns are inherently tied with the culture of death, which opposes the culture of life and all that the Catholic Church stands for. There is no need for anyone outside of police and military forces to possess a gun. The USCCB’s pro-gun-control attitude clearly matches up with the Vatican’s attitude toward this subject.

God Bless!

 

[Sir_Knight]

Everything that you have quoted pertains to the illegal use of firearms and the Church is obviously against that. However, The Vatican is OFFICIALLY in support of the private ownership of firearms as evident by the following statement from the Vatican’s Official Website …

… the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms". (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144).

As far as actually using the weapon in self defense and maybe taking a life, I refer you to Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church …

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… The one is intended, the other is not.”

Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful… Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

… THAT is OFFICIAL Church teaching on this matter.

 

[0129141]

Hello everyone,

I am utterly disillusioned by some of the posts in this topic. Some ‘Catholics’ here seem to be taking the Church’s message and are either entirely ignoring it or completely misinterpreting it. This is nothing short of scandal. I beg all of you who are reading this topic to research this issue for yourselves; absolute falsehoods have appeared above.

The Catholic Church clearly has a very anti-gun attitude, and undeniably advocates for gun control. Here is only a small sample of the many quotes that exist to prove this.

"The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order. " ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2316

"Seeds of war are also being spread by the massive and uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which it seems are passing freely from one area of conflict to another, increasing violence along the way. Governments must adopt appropriate measures for controlling the production, sale, importation and exportation of these instruments of death. Only in this way will it be possible to deal effectively and completely with the problem of the massive illegal traffic in arms." ~ Pope John Paul II, Day of World Peace Message, found here vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-for-peace_en.html

*“Similarly, the unacceptable anomaly must cease by which certain States have stringent controls on the international transfer of heavy arms but few if any as regards the sale of small arms and handguns. The problem of the almost free circulation of these arms must henceforth become an integral part of all considerations of the arms trade.” ~ The Vatican’s Department of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, Paragraph 5.7

“It is urgent to find an effective way to stop the flow of arms to terrorist and criminal groups. An indispensable measure would be for each State to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe upon the rights of anyone. The time has also come for the international community to address the question directly, integrating it into its considerations on the phenomenon of arms transfers in general. That the General Assembly of the United Nations has already raised this problem is a sign of its recognition of the danger of the ready availability of such arms.” ~ The Vatican’s Department of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, Paragraph 4.8*

Considering Pope John Paul II calls handguns “instruments of death” as seen above, how could you possibly make the claim that the Catholic Church wants people to buy guns? Absurdity. You cannot be both Catholic and pro-gun-culture; if you are, you are simply ignorant of Church teaching. Guns are inherently tied with the culture of death, which opposes the culture of life and all that the Catholic Church stands for. There is no need for anyone outside of police and military forces to possess a gun. The USCCB’s pro-gun-control attitude clearly matches up with the Vatican’s attitude toward this subject.

God Bless!

NONE of this is official, infallible, Church teaching. They are opinions. Weapons, when “in the hands of the just,” are instruments of life. They protect you from wrongdoers who do not share your pacifist, loving attitude. The Church has never condemned weapon ownership until liberals and hippies infiltrated the Church. The Church never condemned owning weapons in the middle ages, when it wielded the most influence in its history; but it did condemn unneccessary and evil violence and bloodshed. Sts. Francis and Anthony preached peace, but never disarmament, now did they? In the late 1800’s Catholic used firearms to prevent a cathedral from being burnt down by rioting protestants (fortunatley they didn’t have to fire a shot.)

 

[Michael17]

NONE of this is official, infallible, Church teaching. They are opinions. Weapons, when “in the hands of the just,” are instruments of life. They protect you from wrongdoers who do not share your pacifist, loving attitude. The Church has never condemned weapon ownership until liberals and hippies infiltrated the Church. The Church never condemned owning weapons in the middle ages, when it wielded the most influence in its history; but it did condemn unneccessary and evil violence and bloodshed. Sts. Francis and Anthony preached peace, but never disarmament, now did they? In the late 1800’s Catholic used firearms to prevent a cathedral from being burnt down by rioting protestants (fortunatley they didn’t have to fire a shot.)

Hello, and thank you for responding to my posts. So you are immediately rejecting the very words of Pope John Paul II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Vatican just because you don’t think these words are infallible Church teaching? It’s sad to see that some Catholics don’t have any interest whatsoever in the opinions of the official Church and the Pope, or should I say the Vicar of Christ, simply because they do not fall in with your political agenda. And to clarify, Catholics are supposed to go by what the Catechism says; we are not Protestants who can pick and choose. In the end, regardless of what is officially infallible, the Pope - as referenced above - is for strict gun control, and you are not. So who’s side would you like to be on? The side of the Pope, or the side of your political agenda? Sadly, you appear to choose your political beliefs over the opinions of the Vicar of Christ Himself. By the way, you said that the Church never advocated for gun control until it was ‘infiltrated by liberals and hippies.’ If that’s the way you feel, you are calling Pope John Paul II a liberal hippie.

Interestingly, I gave you quotes from the Catechism and the Pope to prove that the Church is for gun control; you told me that these quotes were not infallible, yet you wanted to show me that guns are acceptable for Catholics by stating that individual lay Catholics 200 years ago used guns to save a Cathedral. I don’t understand how your argument is composed of a doctrinal statement and mine does not. Also, yes St. Francis and St. Anthony preached peace, but at the time, guns were not available as they are now. Besides, they lived hundreds of years ago in a different society in a different context. Our modern day Church is clearly for gun control as shown above. You can disagree with the opinions of the Church if you like, but in doing so, you are trusting your own political persuasion more than you are trusting God’s Holy Catholic Church. I hope you pray over this and form your views to be more Catholic. I mean you no harm, but your lack of allegiance to Church teachings and opinions should likely be of concern to you. I will pray for you. I’m going to end my conversation here because there’s nothing more I can do than show you the teachings and opinions of Church leaders and information from the very Catechism of the Catholic Church and hope you choose wisely. God Bless you!

 

[Michael17]

Everything that you have quoted pertains to the illegal use of firearms and the Church is obviously against that. However, The Vatican is OFFICIALLY in support of the private ownership of firearms as evident by the following statement from the Vatican’s Official Website …

As far as actually using the weapon in self defense and maybe taking a life, I refer you to Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church …

… THAT is OFFICIAL Church teaching on this matter.

Hello, and thank you for responding! However, you have gravely misinterpreted the Church’s teachings. The Vatican OFFICIALLY advocates for strict gun control; none of the quotes you mentioned above state otherwise. Yes, some of the quotes I listed above dealt vaguely with the illegal arms trade, but most of them did not. Paragraph 2316 of the Catechism states that guns - all guns, including guns in owned privately by individual citizens - “affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.” Thus, the Catechism of the Catholic Church advocates for gun control.

Then, when speaking about small arms and hand guns, Pope John Paul II states that “governments must adopt appropriate measures for controlling the production, sale, importation and exportation of these instruments of death.” Here, we see that Pope John Paul is advocating gun control; the Pope states that governments must control the PRODUCTION AND SALE of guns; this is clearly in reference to gun sales to private citizens, not strictly guns on the black market.

You mentioned the following quote: “the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms”. (Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994, p. 144). I have read this entire document before, and I’m not sure why you mentioned this quote, because it clearly does not advocate for private ownership of guns. It does say that those who are responsible for the lives of others may own guns, but that is in reference to police officers, not to private citizens. Nowhere in this quote is there mention of private ownership of guns; you’re reading into it far too much. Please tell me, where exactly does this quote advocate for the private ownership of guns? You have read this quote and interpreted in the way you desire it to be interpreted, but you are not taking it at face value.

Also, even if this quote did advocate for private ownership of guns (which it clearly does not), this quote would not constitute official Church teaching. It is not from a Papal Encyclical, the Catechism, or Scripture; it is from a magazine called ‘Origins’ (check the source). That is certainly not official Church doctrine. Nonetheless, I do accept everything that comes out of the Vatican whether it is Church doctrine or not. Regardless, the quote you referenced simply does not advocate for private ownership of weapons.

In addition, have you even read this document in its entirety? Please let me refer you back to your quote while including the next line of the document: "In a world marked by evil … the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms. This is not an absolute right, since there are specific conditions placed on the licitness of the production, possession and acquisition of arms."

Thus, immediately following your quote, the very same Vatican document mentions that the right to the possession of arms by even those responsible for the good of society (policemen) is not an absolute right because specific conditions must be placed on the possession of guns. Please make sure you read the full documents from which you quote rather than take one or two quotes out of context.

Please also see this quote from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace:

“Weapons cannot be considered as any other good exchanged on the global, regional or national market. Their possession, production and trade have deep ethical and social implications and they must be regulated by paying due attention to specific principles of the moral and legal order.” vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20061010_armi-convenzionali_en.html

Once again, the Vatican advocates for gun control.

 

[Michael17]

Everything that you have quoted pertains to the illegal use of firearms and the Church is obviously against that. However, The Vatican is OFFICIALLY in support of the private ownership of firearms as evident by the following statement from the Vatican’s Official Website …

As far as actually using the weapon in self defense and maybe taking a life, I refer you to Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church …

… THAT is OFFICIAL Church teaching on this matter.

And of course, I’m sure you’re familiar with this quote from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, whom we are supposed to be very faithful to:

“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer, and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns. However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e. police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society.” ~ US Catholic Bishops

This opinion clearly falls in line with the Vatican’s position, and if you do not see that, then I am afraid you are letting one of your political opinions outweigh your allegiance to Catholic teaching. The USCCB are not ‘too liberal’ as some would say; rather they are entirely faithful to Vatican teaching.

In addition, you mentioned Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You are once again making a large jump here that completely disproves your point. Not ONCE does the Catechism mention using a gun to defend oneself. The Catechism is simply stating that people may defend themselves and even deal a lethal blow to an unjust aggressor if there is no other way to defend themselves. But, not ONCE does the Catechism mention using a weapon - or more specifically, a gun - to deal a lethal blow. One is equally capable of dealing a lethal blow with a knife, a random object in the room, or even one’s own body. You have read a quote from the Catechism dealing with defending oneself, and you have quickly jumped to interpret it to support private ownership of guns; this is an absurd interpretation, as the quote mentions no such thing; it does not once mention guns.

Please find me one quote from the Catechism that clearly and directly advocates for private ownership of handguns. You will be unable to find such a quote for me, as no such quote exists. I have went to the index of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, looked up ‘arms,’ and every quote dealing with arms either discusses large arms (i.e. bombs) which the Church advocates for total elimination of, or each quote mentions strict gun control.

Instead, I will refer you back to Paragraph 2316 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.”

**The Vatican is for strict gun control, and THAT is OFFICIAL Church teaching on the matter. **Thank you for this discussion, I wish you well. God Bless!

 

[Sir_Knight]

And of course, I’m sure you’re familiar with this quote from the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, whom we are supposed to be very faithful to:

“As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer, and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns. However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e. police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society.” ~ US Catholic Bishops

This opinion clearly falls in line with the Vatican’s position, and if you do not see that, then I am afraid you are letting one of your political opinions outweigh your allegiance to Catholic teaching. The USCCB are not ‘too liberal’ as some would say; rather they are entirely faithful to Vatican teaching.

In addition, you mentioned Part 3, Section 2, Chapter 2, Article 5, Subsection 1, Heading 2, Paragraphs 2263-2265 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. You are once again making a large jump here that completely disproves your point. Not ONCE does the Catechism mention using a gun to defend oneself. The Catechism is simply stating that people may defend themselves and even deal a lethal blow to an unjust aggressor if there is no other way to defend themselves. But, not ONCE does the Catechism mention using a weapon - or more specifically, a gun - to deal a lethal blow. One is equally capable of dealing a lethal blow with a knife, a random object in the room, or even one’s own body. You have read a quote from the Catechism dealing with defending oneself, and you have quickly jumped to interpret it to support private ownership of guns; this is an absurd interpretation, as the quote mentions no such thing; it does not once mention guns.

Please find me one quote from the Catechism that clearly and directly advocates for private ownership of handguns. You will be unable to find such a quote for me, as no such quote exists. I have went to the index of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, looked up ‘arms,’ and every quote dealing with arms either discusses large arms (i.e. bombs) which the Church advocates for total elimination of, or each quote mentions strict gun control.

Instead, I will refer you back to Paragraph 2316 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them.”

**The Vatican is for strict gun control, and THAT is OFFICIAL Church teaching on the matter. **Thank you for this discussion, I wish you well. God Bless!

I didn’t make any great jumps anywhere. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that we not only have a DUTY but a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others. One can not require a grave responsibility of someone and then deny them the means by which to do it. That would be hypocritical. And the best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm.

Jesus, Himself, instructed His followers to purchase a sword if they did not have one even if they had to sell their cloak to buy one. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today.

And once again, the passages that you quoted have to do with the illegal use of firearms. When it comes to the lawful use of guns for self-defense, the Vatican is fully supportive of that position. None of what you quoted, changes the following …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…

 

[styrgwillidar]

Hello everyone,

I am utterly disillusioned by some of the posts in this topic. .

"The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order. " ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2316
However, this is about the transportation of firearms among nations, not about individuals having access and using them for personal defence- a legitimate option, and even a duty when extended to others you are responsible for. In addition, the private ownership of firearms does not increase the level of violence. In fact, in the US, where firearms are more prevalent there is reduced crime and violence.“Seeds of war are also being spread by the massive and uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which it seems are passing freely from one area of conflict to another, increasing violence along the way. Governments must adopt appropriate measures for controlling the production, sale, importation and exportation of these instruments of death. Only in this way will it be possible to deal effectively and completely with the problem of the massive illegal traffic in arms.” ~ Pope John Paul II, Day of World Peace Message, found here vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-for-peace_en.html
Once, again- firearms used in conflict in areas of unrest, not personal defense. This is actually a direct prohibition on the activities such as ‘Fast and Furious’, ‘Operation Castaway’ and the other unnamed activities of the US government (ATF/DEA/DHS/State Dept) in funneling weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. Ok, but this is about nations providing guns to areas of unrest and thereby increasing the level of violence. Nothing to do with an individual protecting himself (either from criminals or a tyrannical government)*“Similarly, the unacceptable anomaly must cease by which certain States have stringent controls on the international transfer of heavy arms but few if any as regards the sale of small arms and handguns. The problem of the almost free circulation of these arms must henceforth become an integral part of all considerations of the arms trade.” ~ The Vatican’s Department of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, Paragraph 5.7

“It is urgent to find an effective way to stop the flow of arms to terrorist and criminal groups. An indispensable measure would be for each State to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe upon the rights of anyone. The time has also come for the international community to address the question directly, integrating it into its considerations on the phenomenon of arms transfers in general. That the General Assembly of the United Nations has already raised this problem is a sign of its recognition of the danger of the ready availability of such arms.” ~ The Vatican’s Department of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection, Paragraph 4.8*
Limit, not prohibit. And again for the purposes of reducing the flow in international conflict. If this can be done by other means, i.e. you control your weapons, then this certainly is not an indictment or prohbition against personal ownership.Considering Pope John Paul II calls handguns “instruments of death” as seen above, how could you possibly make the claim that the Catholic Church wants people to buy guns? Absurdity. You cannot be both Catholic and pro-gun-culture; if you are, you are simply ignorant of Church teaching. Guns are inherently tied with the culture of death, which opposes the culture of life and all that the Catholic Church stands for. There is no need for anyone outside of police and military forces to possess a gun. The USCCB’s pro-gun-control attitude clearly matches up with the Vatican’s attitude toward this subject.

God Bless!

Guns are used in the US, an estimated 1.5 to 3 million times each year in self defense. (that’s 3 to 6 times more often than they are used in crimes). In most of these incidents, a shot is not fired, but the situation is de-escalated. That is, firearms reduce crime, violence and loss of life. They are more of a counter to the culture of death than a contributor.
So, if the Church’s concern is reducing the level of violence, then firearms in the hands of the public is certainly defensible, while firearms in the hands of governments aren’t, based on your reasoning. However, since both governments and inidividuals have the duty under the catechism to defend life- it comes back down to people having the tools and the morals to use them appropriately. All it takes for evil to succeed is for good men to do nothing. Well, kind of hard to do anything without the appropriate tools.

 

[styrgwillidar]

For thistle,
Paranoid. That’s me, I have fire extinguishers, smoke detectors, an escape ladder, motorcycle safety gear, life insurance, fire insurance and auto insurance. I have those because I take personal responsibility for my life. Not because I want, or even think there’s a high likelihood of those things happening. But because I can afford to take those measures. I also own firearms, mostly because I like putting holes in paper and busting clays. But, they are also handy in the event my life or my loved ones lives are threatened. And the risk of that is directly proportional, in the US at least, to the severity of the gun control laws. The stricter the gun control- the higher the crime rate and the greater the risk. I point to those areas with governments in agreement with your philosophy of Washington, D.C, New York, and Chicago. Yep, I’m a little worried there, I’m a lot less worried in Texas, Florida and Virginia which allow any law abiding citizen to apply for and receive a CCW.

Now, be advised here in the US, the police are not responsible for your safety. They are not responsible for protecting you. That is not their job. They are there to enforce the laws, not to act as personal bodyguards. Our courts have ruled that way repeatedly, Warren vs DC, Gonzales vs Castle Rock- here’s a link:
hematite.com/dragon/policeprot.html
So, your willingness to abdicate personal responsibility to your government can get you in some trouble here. Basically, the police will respond after you’re victimized and take a report, they aren’t guaranteed to be there at the time to protect you.

Gun control has nothing to do with crime. There is no correlation between gun control and crime rates. I can point to countries with strict laws and low crime, strict laws and high crime, liberal laws and low crime or liberal laws and high crime. So anyone justifying gun control by citing crime is either deluded or lying. Governments, like criminals, prefer unarmed victims.
It’s about controlling the population. Now, you seem to have a very low opinion of the US government, but then seem to believe we citizens of said country should just trust that government to take care of us. Seems a bit contradictory to me. The new atheists like to blame religion for all the conflict, violence and death in the world. They conveniently overlook the fact that people’s own governments have done a lot more killing than religions in the name of socialism, communism and order. (Germany, Bosnia, Iraq, Brazil, Cambodia, Vietnam, China). Something to consider, while I love my country and have a high opinion of it, I don’t suffer under the illusion that somehow makes those running the country any better human beings than anywhere else in the world. No more free from desire for power or control.

I don’t know if you’ve followed the ‘Fast and Furious’ / Gunwalker scandal. But agencies of the US government ATF/FBI/DEA/DHS and State Department have been providing weapons to the drug cartels in Mexico. (and possibly gangs within the US as well examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/exclusive-report-documents-indicate-atf-fbi-allowed-indiana-crime-gun-sales). Over 150 Mexicans have been killed by those guns, and at least two US government officials, one a Border Patrol agent. In addition, weapons have turned up at crime scenes within the US, note Indiana guns weren’t targeted at Mexico but gangs within the US). The FBI was even giving the cartels money to buy the weapons via informants, I guess in case the cartels were a little short on funds?
pajamasmedia.com/blog/gunwalker-explodes-fbi-hid-weapon-tax-dollars-subsidized-murder/
Odd, since the gun control movement has been citing violence in Mexico (ironically a country with some of the strictest gun control measures) as a rationale for stricter gun control laws. Even perpetuating the lie that 90% of the guns being used come from the US through sales to the public at gun shops.
pajamasmedia.com/blog/testimony-on-assault-weapons-guts-obamas-90-percent-lie/
stratfor.com/weekly/20110209-mexicos-gun-supply-and-90-percent-myth
It’s almost as if the government is cynically increasing the level of violence and willing to let people die to increase support for gun control. And as noted above, that is directly against the church’s teachings on morality. This being done by the government you suggest I trust implicitly in something as fundamental and important as the protection of my existence. Thank you, no.

Especially since the gun control movement in US has it’s roots in racism. (See amici briefs in Heller and McDonald cases before SCOTUS).

Anyway, for the OP:

• Know your state laws. They vary widely as noted above. In some, rape or threat of rape is not considered a ‘serious bodily injury’ and therefore use of lethal force is not legal.
• Do not plan on shooting to wound or to kill. You are shooting to stop the threat. No one is so good with a firearm that they can guarantee shot placement in that kind of situation. If you pull the trigger you may be killing someone. Ensure that is something you can live with. If you state you shot to wound, you are opening a can of legal worms. If they bleed out and die, you are guilty of manslaughter and liable for restitution to the victims family. Most jurisdictions interpret shooting to wound as an indication that you didn’t feel ‘in fear of imminent loss of life or serious bodily injury’, you will be found guilty of murder.
• You never lose the fight you avoid. Firearm should be the last resort in a larger plan. That is alarm systems, loud dogs, lights, indications that the dwelling is occupied. Property theives normally come during the day and avoid things that bring attention- they arent’ there to meet you, just take your stuff. Folks who ignore all those things are motivated by more than just grabbing property.

 

[0129141]

Hello, and thank you for responding to my posts. So you are immediately rejecting the very words of Pope John Paul II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and the Vatican just because you don’t think these words are infallible Church teaching? It’s sad to see that some Catholics don’t have any interest whatsoever in the opinions of the official Church and the Pope, or should I say the Vicar of Christ, simply because they do not fall in with your political agenda. And to clarify, Catholics are supposed to go by what the Catechism says; we are not Protestants who can pick and choose. In the end, regardless of what is officially infallible, the Pope - as referenced above - is for strict gun control, and you are not. So who’s side would you like to be on? The side of the Pope, or the side of your political agenda? Sadly, you appear to choose your political beliefs over the opinions of the Vicar of Christ Himself. By the way, you said that the Church never advocated for gun control until it was ‘infiltrated by liberals and hippies.’ If that’s the way you feel, you are calling Pope John Paul II a liberal hippie.

Interestingly, I gave you quotes from the Catechism and the Pope to prove that the Church is for gun control; you told me that these quotes were not infallible, yet you wanted to show me that guns are acceptable for Catholics by stating that individual lay Catholics 200 years ago used guns to save a Cathedral. I don’t understand how your argument is composed of a doctrinal statement and mine does not. Also, yes St. Francis and St. Anthony preached peace, but at the time, guns were not available as they are now. Besides, they lived hundreds of years ago in a different society in a different context. Our modern day Church is clearly for gun control as shown above. You can disagree with the opinions of the Church if you like, but in doing so, you are trusting your own political persuasion more than you are trusting God’s Holy Catholic Church. I hope you pray over this and form your views to be more Catholic. I mean you no harm, but your lack of allegiance to Church teachings and opinions should likely be of concern to you. I will pray for you. I’m going to end my conversation here because there’s nothing more I can do than show you the teachings and opinions of Church leaders and information from the very Catechism of the Catholic Church and hope you choose wisely. God Bless you!

Did you ever hear of precedent? Its where judges study past cases to see how they should rule on a case they are hearing. This is what I did. The Church has never advocated banning weapons in its history, up to (conveniently) after the second Vatican disaster. The USCCB is not infalllible. You say we should be faithful to them, and rightfully so, in what is right. Did you ever hear of St. John Fisher? He was one of the few, if not only, bishop who refused to give in to Henry VIII and sign the suprmecy act. And you got my reference to Francis and Anthony wrong. Of course there were no guns! Did you ever hear them telling people to get rid of their swords? NO! The Church clearly believes that weapons can be used for good. Look at the Crusades, and the wars that were fought against pagan invaders and the ottomans (such as Lepanto, of which St. Pius V was a major force.) Furthermore, Thomas Aquinas taught that there are no bad objects, only bad wills. Historically, strict gun control has also been used as a means for tyrannical governments to oppress the people. Also, it all too often leaves the innocent at the mercy of criminals who do not follow the law and buy guns illegally. This means that gun control would be contrary to what the Church teaches about justice and the right to protect yourself and your rights. You do not appreciate how many armed uprisings the Church supported in the middle ages to get back stolen rights for the people. And there were almost no standing armies in the middle ages; that means these armies were made of citizens who privately owned arms, with the Church’s apparent approval, since it did not condemn this. The Vatican is not infallible, and the CCC quote you gave refers more to policy which it wants enacted. It is lilely referring to weapons getting in the hands of terrorists and those who go about massacering people (i.e. Africa). I too wish there were some way of preventing these people from getting weapons, but historically, any effort by a government to do so leaves the innocent defenseless, and the bad guys typically find another way to get weapons. And the Church does teach the right to self defense, which strict gun control would hamper (and that would be copntrary to Church teaching.) This quote must be taken in a wider context, everything is not black and white. If everybody could be a theologian by just reading the CCC, we wouldn’t need advanced theological schools, would we? As a Catholic who sacrifices much for keeping ALL tenants of the faith, and not picking and choosing like you claim with poor evidence, I hope you can see I am keeping Church teaching clearly in mind.

 

[Michael17]

I didn’t make any great jumps anywhere. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that we not only have a DUTY but a GRAVE duty to protect ourselves and others. One can not require a grave responsibility of someone and then deny them the means by which to do it. That would be hypocritical. And the best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm.

Jesus, Himself, instructed His followers to purchase a sword if they did not have one even if they had to sell their cloak to buy one. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today.

And once again, the passages that you quoted have to do with the illegal use of firearms. When it comes to the lawful use of guns for self-defense, the Vatican is fully supportive of that position. None of what you quoted, changes the following …

… the right of legitimate defense by means of arms EXISTS. This right can become a SERIOUS duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can **justify the possession of arms **…

Again, you are making a massive jump. The Catechism states that we have a grave duty to protect those around us, period. It mentions nothing of using guns. You believe that guns are the best defense, but the Catechism does not say that. Therefore, you are making up your own version of the Church’s teachings.

Secondly, you are missing the point that the Vatican documents I have cited thus far - while primarily dealing with the illegal arms trade - also mention the control of regulation of guns in the hands of private citizens. Just because the primary topic of these documents is the illegal arms trade does not mean these documents have only one exclusive topic. The text makes this crystal clear. The Vatican is for strict gun control all around.

Finally, in the Vatican quote you mention, you are also reading too much into that - that quote does not state that private citizens should possess guns, it simply states that the right of defense by arms exists for those who are responsible for the good of others; you are inferring that the quote means that private citizens should possess guns to protect their families, but that is NOT what the quote says. That is your interpretation of the quote. Besides, I have researched the Vatican’s position more on this matter, and I have found a quote that ends our discussion:

"There is an urgent need to work locally, nationally, regionally and globally to eradicate small arms and light weapons." ~ The Holy See, October 3, 2005

This statement can be found on the Vatican’s website here: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2005/documents/rc_seg-st_20051003_migliore-disarmament_en.html

End of discussion. The above quote could not be anymore blunt and clear. The Vatican is not only for strict gun control, but the Vatican wishes to eventually eradicate all small arms and light weapons. In future debates, please make sure that you do not put your own spin on the Church’s words. However, I did enjoy this conversation, and I thank you for being respectful despite our opposing viewpoints. May God Bless you!