E
ELCore
Guest
You can’t do both: pacifism is immoral.
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
You are apparently doing something incorrectly when you try to respond to someone’s comments as what you have responded to here is not a post I made. This happened before so you ought to check the steps you’re taking; something’s not right.
Ender
S
SamH
Guest
And found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting:
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Not much of a pacifist…
And when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers’ money, and overthrew the tables;
He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.”
Not much of a pacifist…
E
ELCore
Guest
Hhmm… Thank you.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
It’s your life and if you’d rather die than kill that okay. I probably would do the same.
Do you have children or loved ones in charge of protecting? What if they threaten your child instead? Will you kill to protect him or her?
The Catechism of the Catholic church states that self-defense can be a duty, yes a duty, if someone has children or family members to protect.
G
GregBussey
Guest
Perhaps the aspersions you cast stem solely from a political party’s ginned up narrative and reinforced ad nauseum by Hollywood’s desperation to sell products rather than to create real art. Consider the facts. There are 80 million firearms owners in the US and about 211 million automobile drivers – so about 38% as many shooters as drivers. If there was a problem with “unhealthy mentalities” among the shooters, then it would follow, all things being equal, that the number of gun fatalities would be far greater than 38% of the number of car fatalities. But in fact, we have about 38,000 traffic deaths per year and only 11,000 gun deaths per year. So death by gun is only 28% as prevalent as death by car, even though there are 38% as many shooters as drivers. This would indicate that guns are safer than cars, or that shooters as a group have healthier mentalities than drivers as a group. Obviously this is a great simplification of a complex issue, yet not quite as simplified as merely harboring a worry about someone else’s spiritual discipline.
G
GregBussey
Guest
S
Spider42
Guest
The problem with this analysis is what statisticians sometimes call ‘opportunity for influence’. I, myself, own 3 guns (two shotguns and a .30-06 I inherited from my grandfather) and 1 car. The guns spend about 360 days a year locked away, in a non firing condition, in another family member’s home. I drive the car almost every day…
Also, your 11,000 number might be a tad misleading. In 2010 there were 11,000 gun homicide deaths, but there were also 19,000 gun suicide deaths. So, the actual numbers would be 38,000 traffic deaths, 40,000 gun deaths.
The analogy breaks down further if we consider fender benders vs. non fatal shootings. I have no idea how many minor car accidents there were in 2010, but there were 76,000 non fatal shootings (23,000 accidental). When I backed into an SUV at the supermarket, I had no intent to do harm. Can the same be said of the 53,000 intentional non-fatal shootings?
If we just look at statistics, gun ownership does not look particularly mentally healthy. Higher probability of suicide, higher probability of killing a spouse or child, etc. But this is not remotely conclusive. Although we take some societal steps to avoid it, research suggests that gun ownership and gun stockpiling is statistically higher with individuals with certain mental disorders. This seems logical. If you are deeply paranoid and fearful, you are likely to want to own and stockpile things that you believe will help keep you safe. But this is a small slice of the population and, again, we put up some, imperfect, barriers to prevent this.
My own belief is that the US bishops, writing first in 1978 and most recently in 2000, were/are correct. We are all sinners, all capable of good and evil. We all have points were we are very down in our lives, and we all make mistakes. So the reason that gun owners manage to outpace automobiles in deaths or that gun owners are at higher probability for things like suicide is not that they are, fundamentally, better or worse people, but that they have a tool, specifically built to kill, at their ready disposal. Notice that the bishops, like Rome, focuses on handguns and semi-automatic rifles, weapons built specifically to be effective killers of children of God.
But the moral principle can be generalized. That’s why my guns are locked away and disabled most of the time. I enjoy hunting, particularly the time spent bonding with younger members of our family I see all too little of, but because I love them, I can not be the one providing an effective instrument of death at some unforeseen moment of spiritual despair in their lives.
And, again, I encourage Catholics to look to the Church. Vatican radio has had a good series on this issue all week. A committee director from the USCCB was just on a few days ago explaining the USCCB’s various statements and policies, and the Vatican’s formal spokesman did an excellent editorial last week explaining why and how the Vatican’s support of the Obama administration proposals is rooted in long standing pastoral teaching.
G
GregBussey
Guest
You prove my point. Guns are not needed every day and people can be perfectly responsible with guns. No one can rightly infer that you are mentally unbalanced or spiritually undisciplined just because you own guns.
First, 11,000 + 19,000 = 30,000 not 40,000. Regardless, what is your point? Are you implying that the mere presence of a gun caused the person to be suicidal, or that the suicidal tendency caused the person to become a gun owner? If neither is true in your case then why pin that on other gun owners?
The question to ask is not whether harm was intended but rather how many of the 53,000 were defensive actions intended to save lives. By the way, there were 2,239,000 non-fatal traffic injuries in 2010 in the US. That’s 42 car injuries for every 1 gun injury. If reducing injury is your goal, a crusade against cars would be much more effective than a crusade against guns.
Right, not conclusive. Never confuse cause with effect.
But they don’t, even if you add in suicides.
If you really want the truth of the matter, you must subtract from the number of deaths caused, the number of deaths avoided. If a mom saves her life and the lives of her 2 kids while injuring one attacker, do you bemoan the violence she perpetrated or do you applaud the greater violence that her actions circumvented? The church teaches authoritatively the moral imperative to defend those we are responsible for.
Now, how many attacks do cars prevent per death or injury that they cause?
Notice that the other bishops and the pope have prevented any authoritative teaching from focusing on the current weapons of just war or self-defense. Notice that magisterial documents emphatically require us to kill children of God who are attacking us as a last resort in the defense of the children of God being attacked.
So gun owners (except you) don’t love their kids?
I think everyone can agree that we should strive to keep guns (and cars) away from people who are so mentally unstable that they could use deadly force offensively. But that is far different than implying that anyone who would follow church teaching by defending her family with deadly force has a mental health problem or doesn’t love her kids.
Yes, look to the vast array of opinions that are welcomed under our “big tent” as we each grapple with the realities of sin in our world. Pay attention to which opinions are backed up by facts and expertise in the field and which are logical. But mostly, note what is and what is not among the church’s dogmatic magisterial teaching.
E
Ender
Guest
They may well be correct is suggesting that their proposals will reduce gun violence. I don’t think they are but that’s not the point you and I are arguing. The issue dividing us is whether their proposals require our assent. Believing their suggestions are correct is vastly different than believing those comments are doctrinal.
What moral principle are you referring to?
For what? Expertise on gun controls? The argument you are having with Greg Bussey is based on a statistical evaluation of gun safety, and whichever of you is right, the argument has nothing whatever to do with morality. To say that there would be fewer gun deaths if there were tighter controls on them might be true but it is a statement about facts, not morals.
Ender
D
DL82
Guest
No, my observation comes mostly from personal experience, I have never seen (and rarely heard of) anyone kill with a sword, but I have seen some misguided people turn into killers in their hearts through their obsession with one. In the martial arts community, such people are avoided like the plague, but sadly some of them can gather a small following. I think this is part of what Our Lord meant by ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’ - spiritual death, not just physical death.
Your statistics have already been taken apart by others on this forum, but I would also point out that other hunting-gun owning populations like Canada and Sweden have nowhere near the murder rate, in proportion to guns owned, as contemporary America. Gun ownership doesn’t require the training and discipline that being able to use other weapons historically required - point, pull trigger, kill - is all that is required. Perhaps these other gun owning societies, and some low-crime high-gun-ownership places in America too, have maintained more of a shared idea of how to properly value their weapon?
All I am really pointing out here is what we find in the Church’s traditional martial or military orders - a need for mental, social, and spiritual discipline around weapons training. Any responsible gun owner knows how to use it, how to keep it locked up safe, and prays never to have to use it.
G
GregBussey
Guest
I imagine some such evil swordsmen may eventually purchase guns. We can take from your anecdotal experience, first of all, that the evil in their hearts was not caused by the gun. We can also see that most swordsmen are not evil. Finally, we can learn that an evil person can kill offensively without even having a gun.
Nevertheless my point is that we cannot paint with so broad a brush as to imply a link between guns and mental illness – or not loving our kids or harboring violent tendencies. There are 60 million gun owners in the US and I know hundreds of them. Yet I know not a single person with violent tendencies. If anything, you’ve shown a link between fencing and violence, not between guns and violence.
Almost no industrialized country has ever had the murder rate of the US despite some having more guns and some having fewer. I suspect you get a murderous society when you mix liberty, ambition and godlessness. The solution is not to reduce the liberty or the ambition. But I digress… The point is that America is different for a number of reasons and always has been. Yet we can have an apples to apples comparison which sheds light on the relationship between guns and violence. Looking a little deeper at these other countries, you will see that when they have disarmed their citizens, their crime rates increased and when they armed their citizens, their crime rates decreased. See: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and others.
In my experience (and statistics bear this out) it is the rule that gun owners properly value their weapon and an extremely rare exception when a gun owner doesn’t.
We agree on that much. We may disagree on the extent to which gun owners as a group do already possess the requisite discipline.
S
Spider42
Guest
And I never stated such. Guns, in of themselves, are neither good or evil. How people approach their use and ownership is what dictates moral effect.
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.
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.
I’m sorry, I would have to disagree with that characterization. The Pastoral Constitution of the Church (Gaudium et Spes) notes that true peace is not lack of violence established by mutual threat. True peace requires disarmament of all nations and the fulfillment of the prophecy of Isaiah.
The Magisterium teaches that, at this time, nations have the right to arm themselves for defense, because it is the lesser of other evils, but the overall goal does not change.
We are never required to kill other children of God. We have a right to defend our own lives (CCC 2263), and it is not a sin if we inadvertently deliver a “killing blow” in doing so, provided our defense was with restraint and moderation (CCC 2264). Armed defense against unjust aggressors is a right granted to civil authority (government), not individuals (CCC 2265).
S
Spider42
Guest
Forgive the Canonist-speak, but if it makes it in the Catechism and Pastoral and Doctrinal notes from Rome, the teaching is, technically, doctrinal. Likewise, if the comments of bishops and the holy see are uniform and consistent on a subject they identify as being related to morals and faith, it is doctrine, just not yet “definitively taught” doctrine.
Doctrine is what the Church teaches. I believe that you may mean “Dogma”, teachings which are held to be infallible.
As it happens, I have never argued at what level the Church’s teachings regarding guns fall on a scale that ranges from ‘divinely revealed’ to ‘not definitive’, only that they are teachings.
Well, understanding why the Church believes it is a matter of both “faith and morals” would be a start. Gaudium et Spes dogmatically calls on us, as a faith, to works towards the fulfillment of Isaiah 2-4. That Jesus was and is the Messiah predicted by Isaiah is pretty foundational to our beliefs.
The Church has also identified the proliferation of certain types of weapons in civilian hands as contributing to a “nihilistic culture of death” (Benedict XVI, 6/2008) and amplifying certain moral ills. Life is the most fundamental inalienable right of the human person (Christifidelis Laici), so issues related to life are Catholic morality at its most pressing.
Understanding the Magisterium’s position correctly and completely is a requirement for legitimate dissent that does not impact Sacramental privilege (Sacramentum Caritatis).
I, myself, am under the obligation of an Oath of Fealty and direct, personal, ecclesiastical instructions. Because of this, I have repeatedly asked you for the courtesy of not engaging me on this particular, more dogmatic, subject of obedience and apostolic authority. Although you have repeatedly ignored, and even derided, those requests, my obligations are not optional. I cannot debate this issue. Pointing to what the Magisterium expressly says was and is the best I can do at this time.
So, again, look at the documents you provided. The bishops of North Dakota explained, correctly, we are “not a democracy”. Now look at the Doctrinal Note you provided:
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html
Since I cannot debate it, let’s take your interpretation, that the Holy See and bishops are simply giving their “opinion”, with no intent of teaching “definitively”, on gun control as is. What does the document you provided say about appropriate response?
It is possible for Catholics to be in dissent on this issue and still be fit for sacramental life. I have never stated otherwise. But, again, the document you provided assigns a description to the point of view you appear to be presenting:
The paragraph above is in a subsection titled “The Problem with Dissent”. Which explains how dissent, inappropriately expressed, undermines the rightful Church and it’s mission. Statements like this abound:
Again, for me, the position of the Magisterium as the rightful teachers of the Church with special moral authority is beyond debate. I have never suggested that my obligations are generic and I have never suggested that dissent with the Church on any subject discussed here reflects on anyone or is any indication of their spiritual grace or sacramental state.
What I have done is extensively quoted the Church. And some of the reactions have been intensely negative, including publicly questioning my motives and intent.
Believe it or not, this is perfectly understandable and I do not take it personally. Everyone here remains my brother and sister in Christ, and I will continue to point people to the Catholic Magisterium for moral guidance wether the suggestion is welcome or not.
S
shipwrkd
Guest
At the lowest level, who relays Church teaching to It’s followers? Would not that be the parish priest? When the question of abortion or gay marriage or even who to vote for is asked, the parish priests are given the job of passing that information to the parishioners. I have never heard anything on gun ownership or even control from those closest to us. I don’t believe it would be up to every Catholic wishing to hunt to wade through the obscure Vatican or USCCB releases to find if the particular firearm they wish to purchase is Church approved, or if any of them are. All one needs to do is look at the number of priests, including my own, who own guns. Would not the Bishops instruct the priests on Chiurch teaching in this area? And if the Church teaches against gun ownership wouldn’t the priests be the first to give their’s up?
E
Ender
Guest
If guns are not evil then how can it be evil to own one, and if it is not evil to own one then how could ownership be against Church doctrine?
This is akin to Luther’s claim that we are saved by faith alone. Despite the absence of the word and its meaning you are comfortable adding the word yourself and claiming that we are to be physically saved by civil authority alone. 2265 is the moral basis for a standing army; it has nothing whatever to say about the individual. In fact, the end note for that section refers to Aquinas’ thoughts on “Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense” so it is a good bit more reasonable to assume that if the justification for armed defense is based on the individual’s right to defend himself then in fact the individual also has the right to arm himself.
Ender
B
Brendan
Guest
Just to be clear, you misquoted the CCC. Here is the actual quote
What the CCC actually says is ‘those who legitimately hold authority’
In the United States, that is pretty much everyone.
It takes it’s root from the Latin legitimus, of the law. Now there are two laws which must be looked at, the civil law and the moral law.
A person who uses a firearm to defend themselves, or if they are members of a family, the life of a family member does so correctly (legitimately) under both laws.
In the case of the civil law, self defense is a defined legal right. A person who engages in that this has an authority (right) to do so that is legitimate ( under the law, legally)
They are a legitimate authority.
Under the moral code, the right of self defense is also permitted. A person has a moral right of self defense, therefore, under the moral code, the authority is legitimate.
If we take this further, a person with a Concealed Pistol Permit, or doing Open Carry in States which allow that, also have an authority which is legitimate (legal)
Those who have no legitimate authority under either code of law are those who have an intent of violence.
So yes, CCC 2265 is correct. Those who have an intent of violence have no moral or legal authority and thus should and could be rightly barred from the carrying of arms.
Your error was in that falsely restricted the legitimacy of an authority to cases legitimacy ( status under the law, either civil or moral) was actually present. No where in 2265 does it limit either the moral or the civil law only to the persons you claimed.
We can see that again in Pope John Paul II’s Encyclical Evanglicum Vitae (Gospel of Life)
The reference #44 is CCC 2265, but note that +JP II adds ‘the common good of the family’ to those specifically listed as having a duty of defense.
Do you think that Pope John Paul II misunderstood the CCC?
E
Ender
Guest
There is nothing in the catechism to support your claim. Your personal interpretation of 2265 is not supported by the text or the notes. As for pastoral and doctrinal notes from Rome, this would hardly apply to anything from the USCCB.
True, but none of this pertains in any way to the subject. You’ve already said a couple of times that the Church, for practical reasons, is not calling for disarmament … which makes one wonder if all Church dogma can be ignored “for practical reasons.”
Life is not such an inalienable right that one is never justified in taking it, and there is surely no doubt that the Church identifies times when the taking of human life is just. Regarding your allusion to BXVI, and cautioned by your interpretation of 2265, without a link to the document you reference I am disinclined to accept your understanding of what it actually says.
Whatever your particular obligations are they do not pertain to the rest of us and you have still not answered this question: does the laity have an obligation to assent to the prudential judgments of the clergy?
First, whatever proposals they make carry only the strength of their arguments and not the authority of their positions within the Church - what is said matters most, who says it matters less. Second, they don’t say anything specific. They imply that certain things should be done but they nowhere make concrete proposals, leaving others to make those proposals in their name and perpetuating the false belief that this is somehow required by Church doctrine.
This doesn’t clear things up. Do you mean we may dissent because we’re not discussing doctrines or that one can dissent from Church doctrine and “still be fit for sacramental life”?
There is no problem with dissent inasmuch as neither I nor anyone else in this discussion is dissenting from doctrine.
Yes it is. The Magisterium, however, is not represented by the opinions of individual bishops or the USCCB.
And what I have done is to dispute your interpretations of those documents.
Ender
E
Ender
Guest
This is a clever and rather convincing argument, I’m just reluctant to conclude that’s what was meant by “legitimate authority.” I’m not sure they weren’t trying to say something else and perhaps didn’t express it properly.
I think this objection is plainly true.
I particularly like this argument. JPII used 2265 (the right to armed defense) to defend the right of the individual to protect his family while 2265 uses Aquinas’ argument about the right of the individual to kill in self defense so it is not reasonable to hold that the individual has no right to armed self defense since the national right to armed defense is based on the right of the individual. I think the point here is that if one has an obligation then one also has a right to use the means necessary and sufficient to satisfy that obligation.
Ender
B
Brendan
Guest
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
I will admit that there are some who are not happy that CPL holders and those who open carry have legitimate authority, but there is no denying that they do.
The advantage of the US model, at least, is that both the civil and the moral authority is mirrored. That can not be truly said for the police and armies of dictators. The civil law might support their legitimacy, but the moral law makes no allowances for the use of arms in subjugation.
- Status