Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[pnewton]

Bishops individually are responsible for teaching but conferences are a new creation in the life of the church and they have no official authoritative weight at all. cases have done extraordinary work and made extraordinary sacrifices.

I am not confused. I try to learn from the Church, not hold the Church to my own opinions. How long the have existed is irrelevant. They are their own juridic person under canon law for the purposes outlined above.

but it cannot be stated enough that bishops as a whole have been lacking in the teaching of the very subjects there faithful need to hear them make a strong stand against. namely avoiding object evil in there midst.

You base this on what, your own personal disagreement? You pick a strange place to attack Catholic Church leaders, a Catholic forum. These men have a harder job than you ever know and I find your lack of respect for them sad.

The bishops of the United States believe that their responsibility includes reflecting on the moral implications of local issues. Since they are the boss, and this is not a right or wrong issue, then it does include these tasks, nay-sayers and political partisanship not withstanding.

 

[pnewton]

Oumashta,

I think when you read statements from the Church you understand that they are written very precisely. One must be careful not to read anything into them. No where will you find that Catholic should not carry guns. That is because it is not a Catholic Church position. Take this quote:

“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.”

What this statement does not do is limit this duty to military or government employees. I will try to find the statement where Cardinal Ratzinger place parents under this statement. Someone quoted earlier. What it also does not do is define (or limit) defense to deadly force. The Church only gives moral guidelines, not specifics. Sometimes deadly force in defense is moral, sometimes not. The Church does teach that life has value in and of itself. It does teach that one has a greater responsibility to value one’s own life. Again, this does not mandate self-defense, but it does allow for self-defense.

I think if you are looking for a smoking gun rolleyes on this issue, you will not find it. The Church supports legitimate self-defense, values life, supports the need to carry guns for some, looks to a time when this would no longer be needed.

Remember, we consider Hope to be a virtue.

 

[down_under]

I am not confused. I try to learn from the Church, not hold the Church to my own opinions. How long the have existed is irrelevant. They are their own juridic person under canon law for the purposes outlined above.
You base this on what, your own personal disagreement? You pick a strange place to attack Catholic Church leaders, a Catholic forum. These men have a harder job than you ever know and I find your lack of respect for them sad.

The bishops of the United States believe that their responsibility includes reflecting on the moral implications of local issues. Since they are the boss, and this is not a right or wrong issue, then it does include these tasks, nay-sayers and political partisanship not withstanding.

I base this observation on bishops in our catholic church turning seminaries into Pink Palaces(not my observation see good bye good men).
I base the observation on a bishop in California printing in his diocese newspaper that homosexuality is a gift form God.
I base this observation on so many liturgical abuses in many cases (not all) encouraged by bishops who are still fighting the Vatican on the whole Latin mass even after the Pope got involved.(and a whole range of other liturgical issues/abuses)
I base this observation on what use to be catholic institutions teaching all kinds of strange things (Harvard) and not caring what scandal they bring, perhaps enjoying it cause they keep doing it.

mean while the bishops conference chimes in on global warming and gun control.
crying about a priest shortage, funny really small diocese that are known for there orthodoxy have no problem getting ordinations. (a local example would be waga waga but there are US examples I just don’t have one in this moment)

They need to stop talking about political points which ARE important but not directly linked to religion, and clean there own house which is being torn apart.

in case you missed it the first time I said it (plus the time another person pointed it out with sources above) the bishops conference has no weight in a given diocese unless the bishop of that diocese gives it weight, and if the bishop of a given see does not like a document that came out of the conference it has no authority of any kind in his diocese. The bishop in a diocese is the ultimate authority in his diocese and no group of bishops (other than Papal called dogmatic councils which we are not talking about like VII) has any authority in his diocese.

The church does not forbid private gun ownership. There are various opinions from various church members (and councils) some of whom were outright saints on both sides of the issue, that is all they are opinion of 1 person or groups of people.

And for the record I don’t really have a problem with the bishops per say,(I am a catholic in good standing with the church in line with the Pope) I don’t have a problem with the national councils (which have not really accomplished much IMHO) I have a problem with the way people think about the plethora of documents that come out of these things. and I definitely have a problem with bishops who left the church a long time ago but are still working 9-5. The Pope does not seem to care for them either he has a name for them professional bishops or some such. Its disgraceful and scandalous for a bishop in any see to stand up and oppose known church teaching and the current Pope directly on international tv. Scandalous

I am not upset or flaming here just saying my piece nor am I the first person to say these things. I have heard them any number of times from the Pope, Groshel (among a laundry list of EWTN talking heads), Church militant TV, I can’t even list the # of people who have pointed out the obvious nature of the problems of bishops setting himself against bishops and the church itself. I’m sorry but this is the current state of affairs its not my opinion. The Pope recently talked like this current problem was as bad as the fall of the roman empire. I’ve gone on too long peace I’m out.

 

[Cristiano]

I base this observation on bishops in our catholic church turning seminaries into Pink Palaces(not my observation see good bye good men).
I base the observation on a bishop in California printing in his diocese newspaper that homosexuality is a gift form God.
I base this observation on so many liturgical abuses in many cases (not all) encouraged by bishops who are still fighting the Vatican on the whole Latin mass even after the Pope got involved.(and a whole range of other liturgical issues/abuses)
I base this observation on what use to be catholic institutions teaching all kinds of strange things (Harvard) and not caring what scandal they bring, perhaps enjoying it cause they keep doing it.

mean while the bishops conference chimes in on global warming and gun control.
crying about a priest shortage, funny really small diocese that are known for there orthodoxy have no problem getting ordinations. (a local example would be waga waga but there are US examples I just don’t have one in this moment)

They need to stop talking about political points which ARE important but not directly linked to religion, and clean there own house which is being torn apart.

in case you missed it the first time I said it (plus the time another person pointed it out with sources above) the bishops conference has no weight in a given diocese unless the bishop of that diocese gives it weight, and if the bishop of a given see does not like a document that came out of the conference it has no authority of any kind in his diocese. The bishop in a diocese is the ultimate authority in his diocese and no group of bishops (other than Papal called dogmatic councils which we are not talking about like VII) has any authority in his diocese.

The church does not forbid private gun ownership. There are various opinions from various church members (and councils) some of whom were outright saints on both sides of the issue, that is all they are opinion of 1 person or groups of people.

And for the record I don’t really have a problem with the bishops per say,(I am a catholic in good standing with the church in line with the Pope) I don’t have a problem with the national councils (which have not really accomplished much IMHO) I have a problem with the way people think about the plethora of documents that come out of these things. and I definitely have a problem with bishops who left the church a long time ago but are still working 9-5. The Pope does not seem to care for them either he has a name for them professional bishops or some such. Its disgraceful and scandalous for a bishop in any see to stand up and oppose known church teaching and the current Pope directly on international tv. Scandalous

I am not upset or flaming here just saying my piece nor am I the first person to say these things. I have heard them any number of times from the Pope, Groshel (among a laundry list of EWTN talking heads), Church militant TV, I can’t even list the # of people who have pointed out the obvious nature of the problems of bishops setting himself against bishops and the church itself. I’m sorry but this is the current state of affairs its not my opinion. The Pope recently talked like this current problem was as bad as the fall of the roman empire. I’ve gone on too long peace I’m out.

Do you believe in apostolic succession?

 

[Ender]

Do you believe in apostolic succession?

The idea that every comment that proceeds from the mouth of a bishop is true simply because it is a bishop making it is foolish. It is demonstrably wrong and no one should take such a suggestion seriously. When they speak out on moral issues and the faith of the Church they are to be heeded but when they make prudential judgments on practical issues, then, while their comments are to be accorded due respect, we have no obligation to assent to them as those opinions do not carry the weight of their office. We are free to form our own opinions and act accordingly.

Gun control is just such an question. This is very much a lay issue and its solution should be seen as lying with us: it is our responsibility to solve.*Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. *(Gaudium et Spes)
Ender

 

[Robert_Sock]

Whatever happened to Christ’s teaching that “we should turn the other cheek.”

 

[Ender]

Whatever happened to Christ’s teaching that “we should turn the other cheek.”

If you assume that this means we are not to defend ourselves then you misunderstand the meaning of that passage. The Church has addressed the issue of self defense and declared that it is not just a right but often a responsibility, as has been pointed out in earlier posts. Nor are we prohibited from using deadly force in our defense. The criteria that determine the correctness of our defense have nothing to do with the weapons that are used but with the intent behind the actions and the determination that the force used was appropriate to the threat.

Ender

 

[Cristiano]

The idea that every comment that proceeds from the mouth of a bishop is true simply because it is a bishop making it is foolish. It is demonstrably wrong and no one should take such a suggestion seriously. When they speak out on moral issues and the faith of the Church they are to be heeded but when they make prudential judgments on practical issues, then, while their comments are to be accorded due respect, we have no obligation to assent to them as those opinions do not carry the weight of their office. We are free to form our own opinions and act accordingly.

Gun control is just such an question. This is very much a lay issue and its solution should be seen as lying with us: it is our responsibility to solve.Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. Rather, enlightened by Christian wisdom and giving close attention to the teaching authority of the Church, let the layman take on his own distinctive role. (Gaudium et Spes)
Ender

I do not understand what your statement has do do with my question to another poster.

 

[marywarfield]

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

I read through this thread with interest, just as the current gun control debate going on in the moral theology thread. I was interested to see the distinction made on the differences in arms and personal weaponry. Good points.

However, the bottom line for me when it comes to the Church is this: one of the very greatest things about Catholicism is it’s clarity. One really does not have to spend much time trying to figure out what the Church really thinks or what it really meant to say- the Church says what it means. The Church is anti abortion. Do we have to debate whether the Church is REALLY anti abortion? Do we have to go to several historical sources, quote them, then move up to some more recent saints, go back to the Bishop of XYZ in 1412 and see what he said about it then check the USCCB and see what the current thought is on abortion? No. We can just look at the catechism and it straight out tells us without a lot of hyperbole. No on abortion. The Church is solidly against it and one can figure that out in less than thirty seconds.
Adultery- same thing
Homosexuality-same thing
Theft- same thing
Birth control- same thing.

Gun ownership- not the same thing is it? One has to make a case for the Church being for/against. Therefore that immediately indicates the Church has no actual magesterial, catechetical teaching on the rightness/wrongness of a private person owning a gun. If it did, you wouldn’t have to debate whether it does or it doesn’t, would you?
Truly wonderful aspect of the Church. It says what it really means in no uncertain terms, which I understand can be very confusing for some people, but still…

 

[down_under]

I do not understand what your statement has do do with my question to another poster.

strange I thought he answered you question with unbelievable skill. He even provided a reference that I would not have found. The first thing I wondered from your comment is if you even read my post, or did you just read a few lines and the he comment. I thought your comment was right out of left field seeing’s how I pointed out in my comment that the bishops as a conference have no authority in a given see that the bishop of that see does not give them. its just there opinion. You then give a one sentence reply to a multifaceted post. No offence sir but you did not attempt to address most of what I said. just cherry picking.

As to gun control the local national bishops conference has made no document that is binding on the faithful (they don’t have that power without papal approval) on the issue neither has the Vatican. As I pointed out outright saints have been on both sides of the issue as well as bishops for that matter. It is left up to faithful to decide for themselves which makes my opinion very important for ME. as for me and mine I will not stand by during a violent attach and do nothing. If I have no gun against an armed assailant I can do very little to defend the person being assaulted who may very well be me and mine.

 

[pnewton]

Whatever happened to Christ’s teaching that “we should turn the other cheek.”

That can be a noble action, depending on the circumstances. If you a policeman confronting an armed gumnan, then it would be deriliction of a moral responsibility. Even if you have no one to defend but yourself, you still would have the right to defend your life, though no obligation to exercise that right if you choose sacrifice for a morally acceptable reason (martyrdom vs. suicide, for example)

In any case, this verse does not reference self-defense. A slap is not designed to kill but to humiliate. It is not an attack but an insult. For the Romans, it was designed to limit (in theory) what one soldier was allowed to do on his on perogative to any person in occupied territory. He could slap him once, but he could not beat him. He could conscribe a person to carry is pack for him, but only for one mile.

 

[Cristiano]

strange I thought he answered you question with unbelievable skill. He even provided a reference that I would not have found. The first thing I wondered from your comment is if you even read my post, or did you just read a few lines and the he comment. I thought your comment was right out of left field seeing’s how I pointed out in my comment that the bishops as a conference have no authority in a given see that the bishop of that see does not give them. its just there opinion. You then give a one sentence reply to a multifaceted post. No offence sir but you did not attempt to address most of what I said. just cherry picking.

As to gun control the local national bishops conference has made no document that is binding on the faithful (they don’t have that power without papal approval) on the issue neither has the Vatican. As I pointed out outright saints have been on both sides of the issue as well as bishops for that matter. It is left up to faithful to decide for themselves which makes my opinion very important for ME. as for me and mine I will not stand by during a violent attach and do nothing. If I have no gun against an armed assailant I can do very little to defend the person being assaulted who may very well be me and mine.

I see a lot of words but not a simple answer to my question, it looks like a lot of tiptoeing around. You accuse me of cherry picking, and that is simply a red herring. You do not have to answer if you do not want, it is your prerogative, I can live with that.

 

[pnewton]

I see a lot of words but not a simple answer to my question, it looks like a lot of tiptoeing around.

The question you asked was, “Do you believe in apostolic succession.” The answer to this should at minimun include a “yes” or “no” somewhere in it. Yet the answer you received did not. So I would agree that you were not properly answered, not that anyone should be obligated to answer.

 

[down_under]

The question you asked was, “Do you believe in apostolic succession.” The answer to this should at minimun include a “yes” or “no” somewhere in it. Yet the answer you received did not. So I would agree that you were not properly answered, not that anyone should be obligated to answer.

I said in my post that I believed in the Papal catholic church. Again did you read it and again you did not respond to anything I said. So yes you are cherry picking what you will answer. you claim you did not answer my question while at the same time you do not offer any rebuttal whatso ever to any of the facts that I pointed out in any of my posts or in the post mentioned. So yes you are avoiding the facts of the case that I have plainly stated.

 

[Ender]

I see a lot of words but not a simple answer to my question, it looks like a lot of tiptoeing around. You accuse me of cherry picking, and that is simply a red herring. You do not have to answer if you do not want, it is your prerogative, I can live with that.

Sorry, I assumed you had a purpose for asking an otherwise uninteresting question. It was sort of like asking if the Pope is Catholic but if you need a yes or no answer then clearly the answer is yes. To both questions. Will you now explain the relevance your question has to the debate?

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I said in my post that I believed in the Papal catholic church. Again did you read it and again you did not respond to anything I said. .

I did not respond to your post or anything you said on the topic of apostolic succession. I was responding to the answer in post 43. Why was this question asked? I do not know, but it should be simple to answer. Perhaps it confuses folks to see Catholics bashing the bishops. It is not a bad idea where one sees dissonance to start with the basics.

 

[Graubo3]

I read through this thread with interest, just as the current gun control debate going on in the moral theology thread. I was interested to see the distinction made on the differences in arms and personal weaponry. Good points.

However, the bottom line for me when it comes to the Church is this: one of the very greatest things about Catholicism is it’s clarity. One really does not have to spend much time trying to figure out what the Church really thinks or what it really meant to say- the Church says what it means. The Church is anti abortion. Do we have to debate whether the Church is REALLY anti abortion? Do we have to go to several historical sources, quote them, then move up to some more recent saints, go back to the Bishop of XYZ in 1412 and see what he said about it then check the USCCB and see what the current thought is on abortion? No. We can just look at the catechism and it straight out tells us without a lot of hyperbole. No on abortion. The Church is solidly against it and one can figure that out in less than thirty seconds.
Adultery- same thing
Homosexuality-same thing
Theft- same thing
Birth control- same thing.

Gun ownership- not the same thing is it? One has to make a case for the Church being for/against. Therefore that immediately indicates the Church has no actual magesterial, catechetical teaching on the rightness/wrongness of a private person owning a gun. If it did, you wouldn’t have to debate whether it does or it doesn’t, would you?
Truly wonderful aspect of the Church. It says what it really means in no uncertain terms, which I understand can be very confusing for some people, but still…

Very well stated marywarfield.

 

[Cristiano]

Sorry, I assumed you had a purpose for asking an otherwise uninteresting question. It was sort of like asking if the Pope is Catholic but if you need a yes or no answer then clearly the answer is yes. To both questions. Will you now explain the relevance your question has to the debate?

Ender

Being defensive by attacking a question that you claim to be uninteresting is what poker players would call a tell sign. I am just trying to understand how much people mix politics and religion and which one dominates when it comes to a perceived or possible conflict. It is interesting to me how humans tend to rationalize their decisions which are often driven by desire and not by reason. I am not saying that the object of the desire (e.g. freedom of gun ownership) is wrong, I am simply saying that a lot of arguments I see here are driven by desires and not by reason. I am not accusing you of anything especially considering that at the moment I find myself in your position; however, I just do not think it is a sufficiently solid position from either an intellectual or a moral point of view. I am just trying to form my conscience according to truth and reason and not according to my desires, that is why I ask very specific questions, one at the time. You could see how I challenged other posters arguing about the same topic when they stated that weapons elimination is a dogmatic statement of the Church.

 

[Ender]

Being defensive by attacking a question that you claim to be uninteresting is what poker players would call a tell sign.

When we failed to answer your question you said it looked like we were tiptoeing around a red herring (or words to that effect - I like the imagery). What do you call it when you fail to answer the question put to you?

It is interesting to me how humans tend to rationalize their decisions which are often driven by desire and not by reason.

Motivation is irrelevant; either a valid argument can be presented and defended or it can’t and the reason someone makes the argument doesn’t matter. Generally when someone attacks another person’s motivation it is because he is unable to rebut the arguments being made but the effort is pointless to begin with. Even if you showed that your low estimation of a person’s motivation was correct you have done nothing at all to refute his argument.

I just do not think it is a sufficiently solid position from either an intellectual or a moral point of view.

If you think this then present your argument, give us some reason to believe either that you are right or we are wrong. “I disagree” is not convincing.

Ender

 

[Spider42]

When we failed to answer your question you said it looked like we were tiptoeing around a red herring (or words to that effect - I like the imagery). What do you call it when you fail to answer the question put to you?

No disrespect intended, but it seems like an extremely relevant question to me. This subject isn’t exactly new. By 1978, when the USCCB, in communication with Rome (the CDF), first called on US Catholics to pursue serious restrictions on the import, manufacture, sale, and private possession of handguns (“Community and Crime”), they weren’t pulling the teaching out of thin air. They were were instructing on the application of a dogmatic teaching in the Pastoral Constitution of the Church (Gaudium et Spes 78).

That paragraph explains that the absence of violence through arms and threat is not true peace, true peace is the pursuit of Isaiah 2:4: “They shall turn their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into sickles. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”

The USCCB has since written pastorally about this at least two more times, 1990 (“New Slavery, New Freedom”) and 2000 (“Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration”). Both documents quote Rome extensively.

In 1994, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace provided a document on arms control. In it, all nations and states are called upon to regulate and restrict handguns and small arms.

Also in 1994, the new Universal Catechism of the Catholic Church was promulgated. Since John XXIII in 1962, popes had been publicly calling for the disarmament of individuals and states (John XXIII was named Time’s man of the year for it). The ‘pro gun’ portion of the Catholic laity initially thought that Blessed John Paul was their hero. They thought that CCC 2265 affirmed the individual right to armed self defense. But in 1997, Blessed John Paul promulgated “editio typica”, it specifically updated the wording and indexing of CCC 2265 to make it clear that armed defense is the right of proper civil authority only.

In case there was any doubt, Blessed John Paul specifically pointed to our US obsession with the individual ownership of guns as one of the worst symptoms of our “culture of death”. One of these speeches is specifically cited in the US Catechism for Adults which is approved by Rome and applicable to all US Catholics.

EVERY pope since John XXIII has spoken, with seeming uniformly, on this issue. In 2008 Pope Benedict XVI called a Vatican summit on disarmament. In his written statement to the summit, the Pope called on all individuals, particularly Catholics, to disarm. Both in St. Peter’s Square and during his visit to the US, the Holy Father stated that our fear of our fellow man was “existential” and “irrational” and at odds with Holy Scripture, where Jesus invites us to have no fear of our fellow man. In the US he was more specific, noting that modern “nihilistic culture” leaves a “hole in the heart” that we try to “fill with guns instead of God”.

So, we have 3 statements from the USCCB, bishops operating collegially and in their delegated pastoral positions applying a Dogmatic teaching (pastoral constitution of the church).

We have a Universal Catechism of the Church which specifically rebukes two common arguments for individual gun ownership (CCC 2265 on self defense and CCC 2243 on armed resistance to political oppression). For authority the Catechism points to the earliest teachings of the Church and Holy Scripture.

We have had 5 consecutive popes make the same call as the US Bishops, tying these teachings to fundamental Holy Scripture, including the Beatitudes. And the Vatican, as a state, has tried to pursue the restriction of handguns and small arms in international treaty.

Which leads to the question of Apostolic Authority (cont.)