Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[Ender]

I’m going to assume that Church is well familiar with both the Latin legitimus and Aquinas’ teaching on the nature of authority, and that the Church has no desire to teach against either

What bothers me about the argument is that if it is valid then it is an indictment about the way the passage was phrased. If your interpretation is accurate (and it is quite convincing) then the passage seems constructed in a way so as to be deliberately ambiguous. I understand that the catechism was created principally for the episcopate, who would be expected to recognize the nuances of the terms being used, but I have never encountered the argument you made and confess it would not have occurred to me. I am uncomfortable with the idea that the catechism does not express straightforward concepts in a straightforward manner. I am confident that spider42’s interpretation of that section is incorrect but I am reluctant to accept that the passage was crafted in such a way that it led an intelligent person to believe the opposite of the truth.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Ender, I would not consider it an indictment of the passage. Rather, like all Catholic teaching, it is designed to be applied everywhere and for all time (at least until the Second Coming)

In addition, the Cathechism is not an Episcopal document, in that it is intended for the bishops to read and explain ( although they can certainly do that). It IS a document intended for consumption by the Faithful, just as the Baltimore Catechism is.

But the terms are theologically loaded ones. To really ‘get’ how the Church views what authority is, especially in terms of Natural Law and the role of Civil Law, it does need an understanding of Aquinas’ Treaste on Law ( S.T, I-II Q 90-108)

The Civil Law is to make manifest the Natural Law, as the purpose of law is to bring about the common good. The Civil Law, therefore is to permit what is permitted under Natural Law, and provide consequences for violations of the Natural Law, or at least the most grievous of them.

Likewise, there exist Natural Rights, which the civil law must uphold, one of which is self defense.

And there where Natural Rights exists, by definition, there must also exist the Natural Authority to engage those Rights.

So we can see, as does the Church, that there must exist such Authority in each individual to engage in the right ( Natural Right) and duty to safeguard oneself and those who are entrusted. The community may assist in that right via lawfully authorized police, and the State may likewise offer defense in the form of the military, but none of that can take away from the right of the individual to similarly defend themselves.

 

[pnewton]

Just to be clear, you misquoted the CCC. Here is the actual quote

Sidestepping the whole issue of 2265 for a minute, I think there is one important principle to remember in defending oneself and deciding how to defend oneself. If one does have a gun (an offensive weapon), it is morally incumbant to seek true defensive measures before taking life. Does one have a way of exiting the home safely? Does one have a security system. Have you thought through all means to deter an aggressor from staying, or to safely flee? Even then, if one is in a confrontation, it is not moral to shoot first an unarmed person, even in one’s home.

Gun ownership for one who has respect for life is not all it is cracked up to be. I personally keep a gun available, but I never forget that it is my last choice for defence. You can not give back a life once taken.

 

[Brendan]

Even then, if one is in a confrontation, it is not moral to shoot first an unarmed person, even in one’s home.

.

Sort of.

If a man is choking an elderly lady, and she can reach her firearm, or knife, or whatever she is within her moral rights to use that weapon until the attack ceases.

If one does have a gun (an offensive weapon),

I would claim that it is the use that defines the weapon. A gun used to defend would be a defensive weapon.

 

[pnewton]

Sort of.

If a man is choking an elderly lady, and she can reach her firearm, or knife, or whatever she is within her moral rights to use that weapon until the attack ceases.

Yes. I guess I was speaking more for someone like me, assuming other factors being equal.

 

[shipwrkd]

There will never be agreement on this subject but I truly enjoy the debating skills shown in this thread.

 

[davidmlamb]

But where do soliders and police GET the authority to bear arms, except from the people themselves.

And the nature of authority is that you cannot give to others what you do not have yourself.

Soldiers and police obtain authority to bear arms BECAUSE they are people, not in spite of it.

Every person, under the Natural Law, has the inate ability, right and duty to defend themselves. That includes the ability to counter against threats with equivalent force.

Soliders face machine guns, they can counter with machine guns. Armies face bombs, they can counter with bombs.

Individual people face attacks with knives, clubs and firearms, they can counter with firearms…

Brendan,

Individuals also face being bombed and blown up by airplanes. Does that mean they have a right to purchase an F-117 stealth fighter? Individuals face the possibility of being blown up by nuclear weapons. Does that mean they have a right to Plutonium and Uranium to manufacture their own nuclear weapons for protection? Your reasoning here is flawed. The right of civil authorities to bear arms is a right afforded to them by God (see Romans 13:1-6).

In Christ,

David

 

[davidmlamb]

Ask a police officer where the first line of defense lies. Squarely in your hands for when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. I strongly disagree with your scripture quote for I have two police officers in the family (one is my son) and they live by the gun. I certainly don’t expect them to die by the gun.

You can strongly disagree all you want but your argument is with Jesus and not me. Peter used a sword and cut off the ear of his aggressor “to protect” Jesus, and Jesus rebuked him for it. My brother is a California Highway Patrolman and he strongly believes in gun control. My brother believes that to own a gun is morally a privilege and a grave responsibility. Our gun laws are immoral and the immorality of it has resulted in judgment manifested in the death of innocent men woman and children. Therefore when entities such as the NRA and their members lobby congress to keep the laws they way they are than those individuals and the NRA itself are cooperating with an evil equivalent to abortion. This is why such gun lovers are guilty of idolatry.

Peace,

David

 

[Ender]

You can strongly disagree all you want but your argument is with Jesus and not me. Peter used a sword and cut off the ear of his aggressor “to protect” Jesus, and Jesus rebuked him for it.

Your interpretation of that incident is not shared by the Church. And as for “All that take the sword shall perish with the sword,” these words cannot be rightly understood except in this sense: Every one who commits an unjust murder ought in turn to be condemned to death by the magistrate. For Our Lord rebuked Peter not because a just defense is unlawful, but because he wished not so much to defend himself or Our Lord, as to avenge the injury done to Our Lord, although he himself had no official authority… (St. Robert Bellarmine, De Laicis, ch 13)
It should be clear that the Church sees no moral problem with the individual having weapons with which to defend himself.I answer that I deny the consequent, for if there is no law commanding or prohibiting something for everybody, many actions which are evil in one man will not be evil in others. For example, if there be no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons,* the carrying of weapons will be evil for him who is easily provoked to anger, and who has enemies whom he desires to kill; but it will not be evil for a peaceable man**, who only desires to defend himself; yet, if the law forbids it, then it is evil for all, for the law should not consider what is good or evil for this one or that one, but what will profit or harm the State. *(Ibid ch 11)
Ender

 

[ProVobis]

Has anyone mentioned these paragraphs from the CCC? It’s the same principle, no?

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

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 short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

 

[shipwrkd]

You can strongly disagree all you want but your argument is with Jesus and not me. Peter used a sword and cut off the ear of his aggressor “to protect” Jesus, and Jesus rebuked him for it. My brother is a California Highway Patrolman and he strongly believes in gun control. My brother believes that to own a gun is morally a privilege and a grave responsibility. Our gun laws are immoral and the immorality of it has resulted in judgment manifested in the death of innocent men woman and children. Therefore when entities such as the NRA and their members lobby congress to keep the laws they way they are than those individuals and the NRA itself are cooperating with an evil equivalent to abortion. This is why such gun lovers are guilty of idolatry.

Peace,

David

Your brother is half right, gun ownership is a grave responsibility but in our country ownership is not a privilege but a right granted under the second amendment. If that right is altered, how long before the right to practice our religion is altered or our freedom to speak? Again, California, New York and Washington DC have laws all but prohibitting guns and they have the highest incidence of gun crime.

 

[PeterGStanley]

I comes from a country with gun control - we don’t want automatic rifles in this country and we do just fine without them - hand guns are strictly regulated - you can only use them for target practice and when transporting them you cannot keep the bullets in the car with the gun they must be put in the trunk - the only problems we have had is American automatic guns coming over the border that fanatics and criminals smuggle to sell to gang members and any other criminal low lifes - so your gun laws affect our country and put these weapons in the hand of crazy people and criminals.We look in amazement that Americans actually want these types of weapons in society.

I don’t see what the big deal is - we don’t need those weapons.

 

[Ender]

the only problems we have had is American automatic guns coming over the border that fanatics and criminals smuggle to sell to gang members and any other criminal low lifes

You have been seriously mislead on this subject or you would know that automatic weapons are virtually banned in this country so there is no possibility that they are being smuggled into Canada or any place else.

Ender

 

[liturgyluver]

Has anyone mentioned these paragraphs from the CCC?
Quote:
2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations; it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

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 short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

It’s the same principle, no?

Thank you - this often gets overlooked. Guess which country is the largest producer and seller of arms in the world? I am sure you don’t need 3 guesses!

 

[Ender]

Thank you - this often gets overlooked.

If those passages are overlooked it is deservedly so since the references are not relevant to the topic. It should be noted both that those sections are under the topic of Avoiding War and that, despite those caveats, no one can seriously suggest that the Church has rescinded her teaching on the right of nations (or individuals) to defend themselves.

Ender

 

[SamH]

You can strongly disagree all you want but your argument is with Jesus and not me. Peter used a sword and cut off the ear of his aggressor “to protect” Jesus, and Jesus rebuked him for it.
Peace,

David

Peter cut an ear off one of the men who came to arrest Jesus. Perter was again putting his actions into play before thinking of the consequences. What was thinking he was surrounded by soldiers?

But Jesus answered, “No more of this!” And he touched the man’s ear and healed him.

Jesus calms the situation for Peter so that he may live.

Was Jesus a sword lover that was guilty of idolatry?

Then said he unto them, But now, he that has a purse, let him take it, and likewise his bag: and he that has no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

Sell your basic posessions that you may go into world armed?

 

[SamH]

You have been seriously mislead on this subject or you would know that automatic weapons are virtually banned in this country so there is no possibility that they are being smuggled into Canada or any place else.

Ender

You never know, Obama and Holder might enact Fast and Furious - Northern Edition.

 

[Ender]

You never know, Obama and Holder might enact Fast and Furious - Northern Edition.

I hadn’t considered this possibility … but it wouldn’t be called smuggling in that case. It would be policy and the left wouldn’t object to it.

Ender

 

[GregBussey]

My apologies, 11,000 intentional homicides plus 19,000 suicides is 30,000. You have to add in the accidental deaths to get to 40,000, I should have noted that. But, even if we ignore accidental deaths and use 30,000, death by percentage, your argument, tilts opposite near that point.

Sorry, but there were 606 accidental deaths by firearm in 2010 according to the CDC, not 10,000 as you claim. So even when including suicides and accidents, death is proportionally more attributable to cars than guns. Therefore, it is not reasonable to claim that guns are any more evil than cars. I make this point because although the anti-gun posters here are quick to admit that guns are not inherently evil, their arguments nevertheless drip with disdain for them, belying a false premise which perhaps motivates those arguments.

As to my point, people all display rash judgement, people all get depressed, and people make mistakes. A gun is a highly efficient killing machine, so if it is present when mistakes and rash judgement, a very human behavior is present, death is a likely outcome.

You seem to be saying that all people are just walking time bombs, devoid of rationality, restrained from murder only by the lack of access to a gun. That is an inaccurate view of humanity. Rather, all people are capable of temperance. While some people do become murderers, it is not inevitable for all. On the contrary, statistics show that death by firearm is quite rare. You will have to cite some studies to support your claim that the presence of a gun makes the probability of death greater than 50%.

I’m sorry, I would have to disagree with that characterization…We are never required to kill other children of God.

See CCC2265, specifically the part about defense being a “grave duty” that “requires that an unjust aggressor (child of God) be rendered unable to cause harm” (which can be impossible without killing them).

 

[shipwrkd]

I comes from a country with gun control - we don’t want automatic rifles in this country and we do just fine without them - hand guns are strictly regulated - you can only use them for target practice and when transporting them you cannot keep the bullets in the car with the gun they must be put in the trunk - the only problems we have had is American automatic guns coming over the border that fanatics and criminals smuggle to sell to gang members and any other criminal low lifes - so your gun laws affect our country and put these weapons in the hand of crazy people and criminals.We look in amazement that Americans actually want these types of weapons in society.

I don’t see what the big deal is - we don’t need those weapons.

One persistent suggestion in the post-Newtown conversation about gun control is a law requiring the registration of all guns, even so-called “long guns” like the rifle Adam Lanza used in the school killings. Lost in the discussion: Canada tried it and gave up, discovering like several other nations that attempting to identify every gun in the country is an expensive and ultimately unproductive exercise. Criminals, of course, don’t register their guns. And even law-abiding citizens tend to ignore registration when it comes to long guns mostly used for hunting and target shooting.

This article in Forbes seems to suggest you have a larger problem then you realize.

forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2013/01/22/canada-tried-registering-long-guns-and-gave-up/