Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[Oumashta]

I’m having somewhat of an inner debate as to the stance of Church Social Teaching regarding civilian ownership of guns… Some person who I know very well recently sent me a message about the Church’s stance on gun control, and I’m really inclined to him, but after digging up some old CAF posts about it and seeing what other Catholics had to say, it seems like there is a genuine disagreement about the whole Second Amendment thing. Although I’m living in a foreign country right now, I was born and lived in the USA for a great part of my life, so I know about the whole gun control/ gun rights debate, but after converting to Catholicism and seeing some statements from the USCCB and the Holy See, I’m inclined to change my views about gun ownership on the basis that it’s unjust.

So… This person gave me permission to use his message here, since he said that he can’t force me to believe anything and that I have a right to question him, so I’ll give his message and I want to know if what he said is true. I know CAF forum rules say not to give more than 3 paragraphs, but since it’s not an article online and because he gave me permission to use his message, it might be slightly longer than 3 paragraphs, so please don’t delete this thread I genuinely want to know about what the Church teaches here. Please don’t personally attack him, he’s sincere and very faithful to the Pope, just attack his ideas if need be. Also, he has this habit of writing somewhat church-like if you know what I mean. It kinda feels like you’re reading a Vatican II doc or something

The Church has stated very clearly that nations should control and regulate the sale of arms to the common people and restrict their usage to competent authority whose right and duty it is to defend the nation to their authority has been entrusted (USCCB, Community and Crime: A Statement of the Committee on Social Development and World Peace, 1978. par. 79). Certain nations guarantee or permit the common people to purchase and use arms as part of their nations’ constitution or other such documents, but such documents, being created by men with concupiscence, have much room for error. Many civil laws are indeed unjust and should be corrected, such as abortion and contraception laws, and the constitutions or drawn out lists of of the rights of the people of these nations have the same capacity for error. The state does not speak on God’s behalf nor can it hold any extra moral weight than one’s conscience or the Divine Law of God expressed through His Church. Persons of Catholic Faith, as part of the faithful and Mystical Body of Christ, have a duty to place their Faith first and foremost above the laws and constitutions of his country and above their own political affiliations.

The Church makes it clear that individuals do indeed have the right to legitimate self defense in cases where the attacker can only be stopped by the use of force that could result in the unintended outcome of death of the attacker, (Evangelium Vitae par. 55) but the Church also makes it clear that this cannot be the case when one desires to eliminate a perceived threat by using violence where the intent is the harm or death of a person and is treated as a desirable end (USCCB Handgun Violence: A Threat to Life, par. 5). The late Blessed Pope John Paul II stated in his encyclical “Evangelium Vitae” par. 55 that the defense of one’s self and others resulting in the unintended death of the attacker is morally acceptable, but said nothing about the so-called right for the common people to possess lethal arms with the intent to avoid, prevent, stop, or scare off an attacker. Such a thing cannot be justified on the basis of self defense, and their availability to the common people only creates new conflicts and increases the intensity of those underway (Bl. Pope John Paul II, Message for the 1999 World Day of Peace, 11: AAS 91 (1999), 385-386.).

 

[Oumashta]

continued quote…

Self defense does not entail the right of individuals to bear deadly weapons anymore than it entails the right of individuals to possess deadly ingestible poisons on the basis that poisoning the food of an attacker is an acceptable means of self defense. Of course, there are those who would object by stating that guns are not the only objects than can be misused. Simple objects such as sticks, rocks, or chairs can be turned into lethal weapons, but one would be absurd to outlaw such things. It is true that guns are not the only physical objects to be abused, but deadly arms are created for the sole intent of the taking of a life. What other use would a portable device that fires metal pellets at lethal speeds with an accuracy lens to assist the shooter have? Certainly not to fix appliances. This is why lethal arms should be left to the responsibility of competent authority of the state rather than to an individual, as clearly stated in the Compendium of the Church’s Social Doctrine and reiterated by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, stated clearly by Bl. Pope John Paul II and yet again reiterated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Second Amendment of the United States may guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, and the Founding Fathers certainly had their reasons for including this in the Constitution, but the Founding Fathers were not the Apostles of Our Lord nor is the constitution a document of Divine Revelation dictated through the Church. The Congress and Supreme Court can most certainly not bear the same amount of weight as the Courts of Canon Law or the teaching authority of the Church in the area of her social doctrine. The Church, in her Divine Right, can and must have a say in the important social issues of our day, and to ignore such an important aspect of her Social Teaching on the control of arms on the basis that the Church and its bishops should not become involved in societal matters, economics, and politics, is an error condemned extensively by the great Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors No. 23-32 and No. 55

Certain nations have for these reasons enacted laws preventing the common people from the purchase of arms, restricting their possession and usage to competent authority to defend its citizens. Such nations are often nations of great peace, such as Canada, Australia, and much of Europe, and although the state cannot prevent sinful actions of its citizens stemming from concupiscence, it can prevent the possession of lethal weapons falling into the hands of common people that often contain mentally ill persons or those of evil intent. Therefore it is with great certainty that I say once again that the Church, in her Social Teaching, affirms that Governments “adopt appropriate measures to control the production, stockpiling, sale and trafficking of such arms in order to stop their growing proliferation, in large part of groups of combatants that are not part of the military forces of a State” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 51).

Therefore, the right of common people to bear and use arms is non-existent in her social teaching. The Church, in her mission of peace, has stated clearly through the USCCB, the legitimate representative of the Holy See in America, that it desires the US government to control it’s production and sale of arms, with the ultimate intent to eliminate altogether the use of guns from society, thus creating a more stable and peaceful society as proposed by the Will of God through the vision of the Church’s Social Teaching.
“Put up again thy sword into its place: for all that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” ~Matthew 26: 52 DRB

His argument does sound very convincing, and if the Church really teaches this, why is it that so many American Catholics refuse to yield to the bishops and continue to support ‘gun-rights’? I’m just kindly asking a question, and I hope it doesn’t lead to a flame war

Thanks and God bless!

 

[Oumashta]

I’m going to sleep now, since it’s night time where I live, so I’ll read any responses tomorrow Thanks.

 

[_Abyssinia]

adopt appropriate measures to control the production, stockpiling, sale and trafficking of such arms in order to stop their growing proliferation, in large part of groups of combatants that are not part of the military forces of a State (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 51)

Correct me if I am wrong but I think this refers to the arms trade in world conflicts

Catholic teaching does not forbid private ownership of guns for legitimate defense

I do not think there is any specific gun control infalliable teaching for countries that are not in a position of humanitarian conflict and an arms trade

 

[Ender]

His argument does sound very convincing, and if the Church really teaches this, why is it that so many American Catholics refuse to yield to the bishops and continue to support ‘gun-rights’?

I found it difficult to distinguish between what your friend sayd and what he claims the documents are saying and I couldn’t find the 1978 USCCB document, but this statement is simply wrong:* The Church, in her mission of peace, has stated clearly through the USCCB, the legitimate representative of the Holy See in America, that it desires the US government to control it’s production and sale of arms, with the ultimate intent to eliminate altogether the use of guns from society*

Not only is the USCCB not the representative of the Holy See in America it doesn’t even represent all of the bishops in America, as Cardinal Ratzinger made clear way back in 1985:*“No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” *
Your friend’s representation of the Church’s position on gun control sounds a good deal more scholarly than it is. I am unaware of any Church doctrine that makes the private ownership of guns immoral and in fact it should be obvious that the Church has no such position otherwise it wouldn’t be necessary to hunt and pick through any number of obscure USCCB statements to find something usable. I’ll respond to any point he makes if I can find the document and the relevant statement he cites.

Pius IX Syllabus of Errors: this pertains to the Church’s right to speak out on civil issues in general, there is nothing there about gun control.

JPII’s 1999 Message: he was expressing opposition to the proliferation of small arms which pass uncontrolled into areas of conflict. Again, nothing there about private ownership.

Social Doctrine of the Church 51: This is a misprint, it should be #511, which, by the way pertains, like JPII’s Message, to the arming of combatants in regional conflicts and has no relevance to the question of the right of private ownership.

Evangelium Vitae 55: The assertion that since JPII didn’t say we could defend ourselves with guns meant he disapproved of them is indefensible. What he did say was this, which would surely apply to the use of any weapon:* Unfortunately it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor*
Ender

 

[Joe_5859]

Regardless of how one feels about gun control, there really hasn’t been much in terms of specifics from Church documents. The strongest language I have even seen seems to come from footnotes of USCCB documents that list the desire to see handguns eventually eliminated from society. Those don’t quite carry the same weight as something coming directly from the Holy See.

That’s part of the reason there’s so much disagreement. If the Church had laid out a clear statement about it, there would be less wiggle room.

 

[liturgyluver]

continued quote…

His argument does sound very convincing, and if the Church really teaches this, why is it that so many American Catholics refuse to yield to the bishops and continue to support ‘gun-rights’? I’m just kindly asking a question, and I hope it doesn’t lead to a flame war

Thanks and God bless!

Good afternoon Oumashta. It would be very interesting to see the links to these documents if they are available so we can be clear about context.

One thing I would say is that I can understand, having read these why you have reached the conclusions that you have. The extract below is hardly an endorsement about the use of guns in civil society and it’s interesting that the US is conspicuoulsy absent from the list of nations of great peace.

*What other use would a portable device that fires metal pellets at lethal speeds with an accuracy lens to assist the shooter have? Certainly not to fix appliances. This is why lethal arms should be left to the responsibility of competent authority of the state rather than to an individual, as clearly stated in the Compendium of the Church’s Social Doctrine and reiterated by the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, stated clearly by Bl. Pope John Paul II and yet again reiterated by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. The Second Amendment of the United States may guarantee individuals the right to bear arms, and **the Founding Fathers certainly had their reasons for including this in the Constitution, but the Founding Fathers were not the Apostles of Our Lord nor is the constitution a document of Divine Revelation dictated through the Church. The Congress and Supreme Court can most certainly not bear the same amount of weight as the Courts of Canon Law or the teaching authority of the Church in the area of her social doctrine. ****The Church, in her Divine Right, can and must have a say in the important social issues of our day, and to ignore such an important aspect of her Social Teaching on the control of arms on the basis that the Church and its bishops should not become involved in societal matters, economics, and politics, is an error condemned extensively by the great Pope Pius IX in his Syllabus of Errors **No. 23-32 and No. 55

Certain nations have for these reasons enacted laws preventing the common people from the purchase of arms, restricting their possession and usage to competent authority to defend its citizens. Such nations are often nations of great peace, such as Canada, Australia, and much of Europe, and **although the state cannot prevent sinful actions of its citizens stemming from concupiscence, it can prevent the possession of lethal weapons falling into the hands of common people that often contain mentally ill persons or those of evil intent. *Therefore it is with great certainty that I say once again that the Church, in her Social Teaching, affirms that Governments “adopt appropriate measures to control the production, stockpiling, sale and trafficking of such arms in order to stop their growing proliferation, in large part of groups of combatants that are not part of the military forces of a State” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 51).

 

[Genesis315]

The way I understand it, there’s no God-given right to own a gun and neither is owning one necessarily evil. As such, a state may forbid or allow their ownership, based on the needs of the common good.

In medieval times when society was thoroughly Catholic, it was not uncommon for swords to be completely forbidden within cities and in more rural areas only permitted to be owned by the warrior class.

The Church, at the Second Lateran Council, also called the use of crossbows hateful to God and then forbade Christians to use them agaisnt each other (it doesn’t appear to make an exception for self-defense).

Of course, there is also plenty of examples of the Church and Catholic society being just fine with the ownership of weapons, including guns. As I said at the beginning, it’s prudential decision that falls within the authority of the state.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

We cannot expect the Church to make all of our political and social decisions for us. There is nothing morally wrong with the ownership of firearms or their use in sport or legitimate self defense.

 

[Spider42]

That’s part of the reason there’s so much disagreement. If the Church had laid out a clear statement about it, there would be less wiggle room.

Actually, the Church is pretty clear. Individuals have no real right to armed self defense. See the universal Catechism:

“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 than 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.” - CCC 2265, first sentence is cross indexed to CCC 2240.

To understand why armed defense is limited to those, like the police, who are specifically charged with protecting the common good, you need to understand that harm, particularly deadly harm to an attacker must always be a ‘double’ or unintended effect to be licit (CCC 2263). The explanation in CCC 2264 is probably clearest:

“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.” (quoting St. Thomas Aquinas)

Arms, especially small arms, have proven to be quite lethal, so they are very difficult to use in a way that meets our (Catholics’) high standards regarding life (any phase, any condition - Christifidelis Laici). The US Bishops have explained this twice that I can find, a document on crime in 2000, and a pastoral statement on substance abuse in 1990.

Above, someone seems to suggest that these statements can simply be dismissed, but for Catholics, that would only be true if the Bishops are at odds with the Holy See. Otherwise, they are to be presumed to be “authentic teachers” with the “authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium).

A year ago, Catholic News Service interviewed a representative from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace on gun restrictions and he, specifically, pointed to the Catechism and reiterated the exact same reasoning used by the bishops. He also pointed out two other important things. The Vatican’s 1994 document on armament only grants the right to armed defense to nations, not individuals and, in 2008, Rome hosted a conference on disarmament. In his message to the disarmament conference, Pope Benedict expressly called on individuals to disarm their “hands and hearts” and heed Christ’s call to “be peacemakers everywhere”.

I am actually surprised that there is any confusion at all. The late, great, theologian, Fr. Richard Neuhaus once referred to this as “Christianity 101”. He was explaining how CCC 2243 invalidates calls for armed resistance against the US government he had been hearing, but, as he often did, he got right to the heart of the matter. He pointed out that the story of Christianity is not the story of The Alamo. Early Christians did not ‘fight the good fight’ against better armed Rome and perish at arms. Early Christians were martyred, fighting armed aggression with their faith in the Prince of Peace.

 

[Ender]

The extract below is hardly an endorsement about the use of guns in civil society and it’s interesting that the US is conspicuoulsy absent from the list of nations of great peace.

What is conspicuous is the deliberate exclusion of the nation most responsible for peace in the world.

Therefore it is with great certainty that I say once again that the Church, in her Social Teaching, affirms that Governments “adopt appropriate measures to control the production, stockpiling, sale and trafficking of such arms in order to stop their growing proliferation, in large part of groups of combatants that are not part of the military forces of a State” (Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church 51).

Again, this comment has nothing whatever to do with the private ownership of guns. This section (#511) is about the ease of access to small arms in countries racked by conflicts and the fact that this inapplicable section is the best that can be found to support opposition to the private ownership of guns just shows that there is nothing in Church doctrine that supports that contention.

Ender

 

[liturgyluver]

What is conspicuous is the deliberate exclusion of the nation most responsible for peace in the world.
Again, this comment has nothing whatever to do with the private ownership of guns. This section (#511) is about the ease of access to small arms in countries racked by conflicts and the fact that this inapplicable section is the best that can be found to support opposition to the private ownership of guns just shows that there is nothing in Church doctrine that supports that contention.

Ender

We will have to agree to differ on the US’s contribution to world peace. I await the links with interest but what are your comments on the sections that talk about the Second Amendment. It seems like pretty strong stuff.

 

[Joe_5859]

Actually, the Church is pretty clear. Individuals have no real right to armed self defense. See the universal Catechism:

“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 than 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.” - CCC 2265, first sentence is cross indexed to CCC 2240.

To understand why armed defense is limited to those, like the police, who are specifically charged with protecting the common good, you need to understand that harm, particularly deadly harm to an attacker must always be a ‘double’ or unintended effect to be licit (CCC 2263). The explanation in CCC 2264 is probably clearest:

“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.” (quoting St. Thomas Aquinas)

Arms, especially small arms, have proven to be quite lethal, so they are very difficult to use in a way that meets our (Catholics’) high standards regarding life (any phase, any condition - Christifidelis Laici). The US Bishops have explained this twice that I can find, a document on crime in 2000, and a pastoral statement on substance abuse in 1990.

Above, someone seems to suggest that these statements can simply be dismissed, but for Catholics, that would only be true if the Bishops are at odds with the Holy See. Otherwise, they are to be presumed to be “authentic teachers” with the “authority of Christ” (Lumen Gentium).

A year ago, Catholic News Service interviewed a representative from the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace on gun restrictions and he, specifically, pointed to the Catechism and reiterated the exact same reasoning used by the bishops. He also pointed out two other important things. The Vatican’s 1994 document on armament only grants the right to armed defense to nations, not individuals and, in 2008, Rome hosted a conference on disarmament. In his message to the disarmament conference, Pope Benedict expressly called on individuals to disarm their “hands and hearts” and heed Christ’s call to “be peacemakers everywhere”.

I am actually surprised that there is any confusion at all. The late, great, theologian, Fr. Richard Neuhaus once referred to this as “Christianity 101”. He was explaining how CCC 2243 invalidates calls for armed resistance against the US government he had been hearing, but, as he often did, he got right to the heart of the matter. He pointed out that the story of Christianity is not the story of The Alamo. Early Christians did not ‘fight the good fight’ against better armed Rome and perish at arms. Early Christians were martyred, fighting armed aggression with their faith in the Prince of Peace.

I think CCC 2265 is not a very strong basis upon which to pin up an absolute gun ban.

I’m not arguing for or against gun control (whatever definition a person might give to that phrase). All I’m saying is that ecclesial statements about it are pretty sparse and generally non-authoritative. And official dogmatic statements are non-existent.

If you want to say that there is a general sentiment present in several ecclesial statements and among many bishops that gun ownership ought to be more restricted that it is, then you could probably say that. But to talk as if the Church is calling for guns to be banned is getting ahead of where the Church is presently at.

 

[The_Wizard]

You may want to check out "The Catholic Second Amendment " by David B Kopel. works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=david_kopel

 

[jay29]

I think what a person does with the gun is what is important. A gun itself has no moral value.

 

[Spider42]

I think CCC 2265 is not a very strong basis upon which to pin up an absolute gun ban.

Who is talking about an absolute gun ban? What the Church is saying (dogmatically in this case) is that the right to armed self defense is very narrow and only recognized for individuals specifically charged by society with protecting the common good.

The guns themselves are not evil, just like contraceptives, in of themselves, are not evil. But certain applications are, in both cases, gravely immoral.

If you want to say that there is a general sentiment present in several ecclesial statements and among many bishops that gun ownership ought to be more restricted that it is, then you could probably say that. But to talk as if the Church is calling for guns to be banned is getting ahead of where the Church is presently at.

Again, you are taking a giant leap. As a state, Rome has only sought to restrict access to handguns and small arms from civilians. It is almost alone in calling for small arms to be included in the UN Arms Treaty and has been doing so for several decades. The 1994 document from the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice calls on all nations and states “to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms” but expressly notes that nations have a need and right to be armed for their defense.

The same is true for the pastoral documents specifically intended for US Catholics. I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them, the first was developed with the help of then Cardinal Ratzinger, acting in his capacity as the head of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith. The bishops, again, focus on individual ownership of hand guns.

Understand, the primary audience for the Universal Catechism is the bishops. Two common arguments for individual handgun ownership, personal defense and defense against the state, are expressly covered (CCC 2265 and CCC 2243), and not to gun proponents liking.

Since the bishops worked with the CDF and base their argument on express teachings from the universal catechism, I don’t see how can be dismissed as somehow non authoritative.

“In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown so that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.” - Lumen gentium 25

This is Church Dogma in it’s highest form (it is literally the dogmatic constitution of the church). Then Cardinal Ratzinger was directly involved with the development of this particular Catechism, and advised the US bishops in his doctrinal capacity for the Church when they declared individual handgun ownership was something to work towards banning.

Since becoming Benedict XVI, the pope has convened a conference on disarmament where he directly called on all individual Catholics to disarm and, according to the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, he has instructed them to update their 1994 document to put “further emphasis” on the importance of “concrete controls and restrictions on hand guns and small arms sales”.

For Catholics, the pope is the Vicar of Christ and power of the Magisterium flows solely from him. So, for those of us who follow Rome closely, the ‘Church’s position’ has been very clear since '84, about 3 years after the assassination attempt on Blessed John Paul. Many US lay Catholics still struggle with the “religious submission of mind and will”, but that’s hardly unusual.

 

[Cristiano]

Who is talking about an absolute gun ban? What the Church is saying (dogmatically in this case) is that the right to armed self defense is very narrow and only recognized for individuals specifically charged by society with protecting the common good…

In the USA all individuals are specifically charged by society with protecting the common good. It isn called the second amendment of the constitution. Second I would like to see the reference showing the dogmatic statement that you are claming to exist.

 

[Ender]

I await the links with interest…

Pius IX - Syllabus of Errors: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
JPII - 1999 World Day of Peace Message: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-for-peace_en.html
JPII - Evangelium Vitae: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
USCCB - Community and Crime - ???

… but what are your comments on the sections that talk about the Second Amendment. It seems like pretty strong stuff.

What sections are you referring to?

Ender

 

[InigoMontoya]

Because without firearms for selfdefense my family would be dead. Even if America attempted a total ban on firearms (obviously excluding LE/Military), there are far to many for criminals to ever not be able to obtain them. We’re too far as a country to cross the Tiber on that option.

 

[liturgyluver]

Pius IX - Syllabus of Errors: papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9syll.htm
JPII - 1999 World Day of Peace Message: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/messages/peace/documents/hf_jp-ii_mes_14121998_xxxii-world-day-for-peace_en.html
JPII - Evangelium Vitae: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html
Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church: vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
USCCB - Community and Crime - ???
What sections are you referring to?

Ender

Many thanks Ender. I will have to read these when I have more time next week. I have learnt from experience that Vatican documents - perhaps understandably - are not renowned for their brevity.