Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[Ender]

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.

This is flatly untrue. It should be obvious from JPII’s comment that I cited earlier that if one killed an attacker in self defense the responsibility for the act lay with the attacker and it makes no theological sense to suggest that we can defend ourselves with any and all weapons except guns or to suggest that we may not use weapons of any sort to defend ourselves. There is no doctrine suggesting that only unarmed self defense is allowed. What the Church addresses are acts of killing and when such acts are permitted. Since the means used are not relevant they are not addressed, thus the Church has nothing to say on whether one is justified in protecting oneself with baseball bats, hockey sticks, … or guns. What is relevant is whether the force used was necessary.

If a man kill another in self-defence, having used every precaution consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this commandment. (Catechism of Trent)

Nor was it ever the Church’s position that only those selected by the State had the moral authority to protect themselves or others:

• Wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 36) that “whoever does not ward off a blow from a fellow man when he can, is as much in fault as the striker”* (Aquinas)

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.

2265 talks about those who have the specific responsibility to protect others; that surely does not mean that those without that responsibility have no authority to protect themselves.

2243 allows armed resistance to oppression if qualifying conditions have been met. Again, there is nothing there that addresses private ownership of guns; it is addressing one aspect of when the use of those guns would be appropriate and it is hard to make an argument that their use can be acceptable when their ownership is forbidden.

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.

When the bishops speak about Church doctrine their comments are authoritative. When they express their personal opinions on political issues they are not.

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.

If the private ownership of guns violated Church doctrine one would think the first step in working to ban guns would be to state the relevant doctrine. Since there is no such statement, by this pope or anyone else, it should be reasonably obvious that owning a gun does not violate Church doctrine.

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.

Good, then those of you who follow Rome closely can surely show us the doctrine stating that owning a firearm is immoral and forbidden by the Church.

Ender

 

[InigoMontoya]

I’ll keep this simple and concise. Because without firearms for selfdefense my family would likely 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. It’s to late for us as a country to cross the Tiber on that option.

 

[_Abyssinia]

This is flatly untrue. It should be obvious from JPII’s comment that I cited earlier that if one killed an attacker in self defense the responsibility for the act lay with the attacker and it makes no theological sense to suggest that we can defend ourselves with any and all weapons except guns or to suggest that we may not use weapons of any sort to defend ourselves. There is no doctrine suggesting that only unarmed self defense is allowed. What the Church addresses are acts of killing and when such acts are permitted. Since the means used are not relevant they are not addressed, thus the Church has nothing to say on whether one is justified in protecting oneself with baseball bats, hockey sticks, … or guns. What is relevant is whether the force used was necessary.

If a man kill another in self-defence, having used every precaution consistent with his own safety to avoid the infliction of death, he evidently does not violate this commandment. (Catechism of Trent)

Nor was it ever the Church’s position that only those selected by the State had the moral authority to protect themselves or others:

• Wherefore Ambrose says (De Offic. i, 36) that “whoever does not ward off a blow from a fellow man when he can, is as much in fault as the striker”* (Aquinas)
  2265 talks about those who have the specific responsibility to protect others; that surely does not mean that those without that responsibility have no authority to protect themselves.

2243 allows armed resistance to oppression if qualifying conditions have been met. Again, there is nothing there that addresses private ownership of guns; it is addressing one aspect of when the use of those guns would be appropriate and it is hard to make an argument that their use can be acceptable when their ownership is forbidden.
When the bishops speak about Church doctrine their comments are authoritative. When they express their personal opinions on political issues they are not.
If the private ownership of guns violated Church doctrine one would think the first step in working to ban guns would be to state the relevant doctrine. Since there is no such statement, by this pope or anyone else, it should be reasonably obvious that owning a gun does not violate Church doctrine.
Good, then those of you who follow Rome closely can surely show us the doctrine stating that owning a firearm is immoral and forbidden by the Church.

Ender

Thank you for your informative post

 

[Oumashta]

Oh yes, I found the 1970’s document from the USCCB:

nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/gunsample.shtml

The bishops were really blunt about civilians not owning guns…

Hmmm, I did ask my priest who studied lots of Social Doctrine about this one, and he said that Americans aren’t currently engaged in a Just War where civilians must be armed to defend themselves, also defending one’s self from the ‘mean old man coming to rape your family and burn your house’ is too hypothetical, extreme, and near non-existent a situation to justify the use of civilian hand-gun use, but what is truly apparent are the constant cases of mentally-unstable people easily and almost effortlessly obtaining a gun and shooting hundreds of innocent children and civilians. Most people won’t side with the bishops on gun control unless it’s one of their children who has become a victim of a shooting. There are plenty of other countries out there that have extremely strict laws about civilian hand-gun use, even to civilians not owning guns, and they live perfectly fine. We don’t have to use guns to defend ourselves, and even if a situation were to arise where the mean old man comes to steal our stuff and burn our house, will a gun really be able to stop him? It seems like guns in civilian hands have caused more problems than they have solved. Also, he said that many people, both on the left and right, could care less about what the bishops, the shepherds of the people, have to say. He said that leftists claim “It’s my body; I can abort this baby despite what the bishops say” and the rightists claim “It’s my right to defend myself and use whatever means to do it”. My priest also said that it is the general consensus of the Church that civilians should not own hand-guns in a stable and law-abiding society as the United States that is not engaged in a Just War, and it would not be right to oppose the Church when one claims to be Catholic. The Church is a promoter of peace, and one should obey what it sees to be the best way to promote it.

I’m just trying to paraphrase the conversation that I had with my priest.

The question is, if we’re really going to defend ourselves, then shouldn’t children, who are often the victims of loonies, have guns as well? What about teachers? Should there be a rifle in every classroom just in case some crazy man comes walking into the classroom?

At the moment, I’m living with a relative outside of the USA, and here only police and soldiers are allowed to have guns. It’s a very very peaceful society, and I actually feel a lot safer here, since I don’t have to worry about people having guns on them and using them if they feel that I’m a threat to them or pulling them out in some sort of emotional spasm if something doesn’t go their way. Of course there’s still crime here, but it’s nothing compared to what I’ve heard happen in the USA recently and nothing to what I used to experience. With this in mind, I would much rather go back to the USA as a country where Catholics listen to the Church and hand-guns are controlled a bit more or completely outlawed for civilians, but that seems to be, sadly, quite a far-fetched wish :coffeeread:

I’m now very convinced that guns should not be in the hands of civilians in light of what I’ve read from the USCCB and what my priest said, and some people’s responses about self-defense don’t seem to be adequate in light of what is an acceptable proportion for it.

Holy Wounds of Christ, grant rest to the victims of gun-violence.
Requiem…

 

[InigoMontoya]

Hmmm, I did ask my priest who studied lots of Social Doctrine about this one, and he said that Americans aren’t currently engaged in a Just War where civilians must be armed to defend themselves, also defending one’s self from the ‘mean old man coming to rape your family and burn your house’ is too hypothetical, extreme, and near non-existent a situation to justify the use of civilian hand-gun use, but what is truly apparent are the constant cases of mentally-unstable people easily and almost effortlessly obtaining a gun and shooting hundreds of innocent children and civilians. Most people won’t side with the bishops on gun control unless it’s one of their children who has become a victim of a shooting. There are plenty of other countries out there that have extremely strict laws about civilian hand-gun use, even to civilians not owning guns, and they live perfectly fine. We don’t have to use guns to defend ourselves, and even if a situation were to arise where the mean old man comes to steal our stuff and burn our house, will a gun really be able to stop him? It seems like guns in civilian hands have caused more problems than they have solved. Also, he said that many people, both on the left and right, could care less about what the bishops, the shepherds of the people, have to say. He said that leftists claim “It’s my body; I can abort this baby despite what the bishops say” and the rightists claim “It’s my right to defend myself and use whatever means to do it”. My priest also said that it is the general consensus of the Church that civilians should not own hand-guns in a stable and law-abiding society as the United States that is not engaged in a Just War, and it would not be right to oppose the Church when one claims to be Catholic. The Church is a promoter of peace, and one should obey what it sees to be the best way to promote it.

 

[Ender]

Oh yes, I found the 1970’s document from the USCCB:

nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/gunsample.shtml

The bishops were really blunt about civilians not owning guns…

This is not a link to a document but to a page with extracts from several documents and your assertion is wrong for any number of reasons. First, it is not even clear that any bishop at all endorsed them; there is certainly nothing in the documents themselves that identifies which, if any, bishop was involved. Second, the one document that was linked to (the 1975 statement) in fact did not condemn the civilian ownership of guns but rather opposed the ownership of handguns. Third, it should be pretty obvious that what was presented was not a doctrinal statement of Church teaching but a prudential evaluation … an opinion. The end notes did not contain a reference to any Church document (encyclical, catechism,…) but instead all pointed to statistical analyses by various government agencies (ATF, FBI) or university studies.

Most people won’t side with the bishops on gun control unless it’s one of their children who has become a victim of a shooting.

I don’t side with the bishops because they haven’t made a compelling practical argument and there is no moral one to be made.

My priest also said that it is the general consensus of the Church that civilians should not own hand-guns in a stable and law-abiding society as the United States that is not engaged in a Just War, and it would not be right to oppose the Church when one claims to be Catholic.

Either the Church has a relevant doctrine or she doesn’t. The concept that she works by a “general consensus” is ludicrous and, since there is no doctrine opposing gun ownership, opposing your opinion is hardly the same as opposing the Church. The Church has no teaching about gun ownership and citing various USCCB documents is hardly relevant.

Ender

 

[partypilot1]

Jesus’ apostles carried swords and I didn’t read anywhere in the bible that Jesus told them to turn them over to Caesar. Jesus did tell one of them, when it used it to defend Jesus, to stop. Moreover, those “who live by the sword die by the sword”, I believe Jesus was speaking more to the psychological aspects of violence than the physical.

 

[Ender]

Jesus’ apostles carried swords and I didn’t read anywhere in the bible that Jesus told them to turn them over to Caesar. Jesus did tell one of them, when it used it to defend Jesus, to stop. Moreover, those “who live by the sword die by the sword”, I believe Jesus was speaking more to the psychological aspects of violence than the physical.

• 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. *(Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, Doctor of the Church, Treatise on Civil Government, late 16th century)
  Ender

 

[Ender]

The following is another citation from Robert Bellarmine’s Treatise on Civil Government where he presents the moral perspective on carrying weapons: if done by a prudent man for protection his actions are acceptable. There is nothing inherently wrong with using a weapon for protection and this right is in no way dependent on the type of weapon used. The factors determining whether its use is proper are based on the intent of the person who uses it and whether the force used was necessary. The form of the weapon is incidental.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. (Robert Bellarmine, Treatise on Civil Government, ch 11)

catholicism.org/de-laicis.html/11
This is the same explanation Aquinas gave:* But in him who defends himself, it may be without sin, or it may sometimes involve a venial sin, or sometimes a mortal sin; and this depends on his intention and on his manner of defending himself. For if his sole intention be to withstand the injury done to him, and he defend himself with due moderation, it is no sin, and one cannot say properly that there is strife on his part. But if, on the other hand, his self-defense be inspired by vengeance and hatred, it is always a sin. It is a venial sin, if a slight movement of hatred or vengeance obtrude itself, or if he does not much exceed moderation in defending himself: but it is a mortal sin if he makes for his assailant with the fixed intention of killing him, or inflicting grievous harm on him. *(Aquinas ST II-II 41,1)

newadvent.org/summa/3041.htm
There is no reason to believe that the Church’s position on self defense has changed, nor any reason to believe that the Church holds that it is immoral to own a handgun.

Ender

 

[Oumashta]

This is not a link to a document but to a page with extracts from several documents and your assertion is wrong for any number of reasons.** First, it is not even clear that any bishop at all endorsed them; there is certainly nothing in the documents themselves that identifies which, if any, bishop was involved.** Second, the one document that was linked to (the 1975 statement) in fact did not condemn the civilian ownership of guns but rather opposed the ownership of handguns. Third, it should be pretty obvious that what was presented was not a doctrinal statement of Church teaching but a prudential evaluation … an opinion. The end notes did not contain a reference to any Church document (encyclical, catechism,…) but instead all pointed to statistical analyses by various government agencies (ATF, FBI) or university studies.
I don’t side with the bishops because they haven’t made a compelling practical argument and there is no moral one to be made.
** Either the Church has a relevant doctrine or she doesn’t. The concept that she works by a “general consensus” is ludicrous and, since there is no doctrine opposing gun ownership, opposing your opinion is hardly the same as opposing the Church. The Church has no teaching about gun ownership and citing various USCCB documents is hardly relevant.**

Ender

Here is a link to a document:
nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/handguns.shtml

Here is a news extract from USCatholic about the position of the Vatican and USCCB about civilian possession of guns:
uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

Those documents were indeed compiled during a conference of US bishops.

The Church’s Social Teachins on relatively new issues, especially since the cases of hand-gun violence have become increasingly fatal within the last 50 years, is not easy to find, but it is there. This is similar to the new Ugandan Bill criminalizing homosexuality. The Church sees homosexual acts as wrong and sinful as they are, but the Catholic bishops of that country oppose that law on the basis that it does not differentiate between homosexual acts and the neutral inclination itself, and this new law could even give the death penalty to homosexuals.

lifesitenews.com/news/archive//ldn/2010/jan/10011101

Would it then be right to say that it’s ok to oppose the Ugandan bishops and support the death penalty for homosexuals just because you don’t think that the bishops present a compelling practical or moral argument? What about the US bishops’ stance on contraception and abortion? The USCCB published an extensive guide for voters before last November to choose which candidate to vote for on the basis of morality, but many Catholics chose to ignore it and vote for… well… the wrong candidate. So did they do the right thing by going against the general consensus of the bishops regarding the most moral decision of a presidential candidate? The Church does not have to dogmatize every single one of its social doctrines, since many of the Church’s viewpoints towards specific social issues can change with time, since an issue almost never remains the same (except for specific issues of human sexuality). This is the case with gun control. In the US, crime and immorality are on the rise, and in order to protect innocent people, the bishops see it as necessary to control hand-gun use until they are effectively eliminated from society.

The concept that she works by a “general consensus” is ludicrous and, since there is no doctrine opposing gun ownership, opposing your opinion is hardly the same as opposing the Church. The Church has no teaching about gun ownership and citing various USCCB documents is hardly relevant.

The Church’s social doctrine is mainly compiled of the general consensus of the Church’s bishops and the Holy Father on the basis of human dignity and the right to life.
Why would the unanimous convictions of the US bishops not be relevant?

From the link you objected to:

From: New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse, USCC, 1990.
Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated “call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

In the country I’m living in now, the previous leader was a Catholic, but he went head-first against the bishops of the country’s unanimous consensus that some of his policies (about certain economic and organizational issues) were wrong. He simply didn’t listen to the bishops’ opinion. Because of his disobedience, the policies that were not corrected eventually lead him to become one of the most notorious leaders of this country because everything became a disaster in economics. :dts: Was it then right for him to oppose the bishops’ “opinions” because he didn’t believe they presented a compelling moral and practical argument?

But if you honestly believe that the US bishops are wrong about gun control, there really is nothing I can do to stop you from believing so, and likewise, if I now side with the bishops based on what I have read from them and from what my priest has told me, then I guess I’ll be a gun-control advocate from now on …

Pacem in Terris!

 

[Ender]

Here is a link to a document:
nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/handguns.shtml

This is the document I already discussed and raised objections to which you have not addressed.

Here is a news extract from USCatholic about the position of the Vatican and USCCB about civilian possession of guns:
uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

The Catholic Church’s position on gun control is not easy to find…It’s almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops’ conference and it’s mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.
Two thing should be glaringly apparent here: no Church doctrine should be hard to find and doctrine cannot be created by a bishops conference. As for it being “mentioned in passing” in Vatican documents, this claim is without warrant. What is being discussed in the Vatican documents are controls on the international trade of firearms, not their ownership by individuals. This is a bait-and-switch argument.

Would it then be right to say that it’s ok to oppose the Ugandan bishops and support the death penalty for homosexuals just because you don’t think that the bishops present a compelling practical or moral argument?

The Ugandan bill regarding homosexuals is irrelevant to this debate. To assert that the bishops have overstepped on the question of gun control says nothing whatever about whether their involvement in any other issue is valid.

The Church does not have to dogmatize every single one of its social doctrines, since many of the Church’s viewpoints towards specific social issues can change with time, since an issue almost never remains the same (except for specific issues of human sexuality).

The idea that Church doctrine can change with the times is not a concept the Church herself supports. Morality is constant and does not change with time or place. Prudential choices may change but these are practical considerations, not moral ones.

The Church’s social doctrine is mainly compiled of the general consensus of the Church’s bishops and the Holy Father on the basis of human dignity and the right to life.

If this was the case Humanae Vitae would never have been written.

Why would the unanimous convictions of the US bishops not be relevant?

You have not even shown that any bishop was involved with either writing or approving of these documents, let alone that the bishops unanimously approved them. In fact the 1975 document says nothing more than that it was drawn up by the Committee on Social Development and World Peace.

From the link you objected to:

I have never doubted that there are some bishops who would like to outlaw the private ownership of handguns. What I have said is that their personal opinion is not Church doctrine and no one is obliged to assent to it.

But if you honestly believe that the US bishops are wrong about gun control…

Let’s start by correcting the notion that documents released by USCCB committees represent the opinions of “the US bishops.” They do not. They carry no weight whatever other than what is given them by each individual bishop.

I guess I’ll be a gun-control advocate from now on

You are well within your rights to advocate however you will, as are the bishops. Neither you nor they, however, are justified in claiming that your position on this issue is any more morally or doctrinally sound than opposing positions.

Ender

 

[down_under]

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.
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).

forgive the hatchet job above just making space for a response. I am interested in knowing where the compendium of the social doctrine of the church came from. is this one of the many works of the USCCB. I currently have no real appreciation for this council that seems to think it appropriate to comment on every issue society has to offer no matter how far from the issue of religion it is. They have really lost much of there societal credibility with this constant chiming in on every topic under the sun. Mean while there own house is a wreck. where is the call to return her own members to orthodoxy. It is drowned out by the constant drum beat of off topic letter and exhortations.

The long and the short of it. We live in a fallen world. In a perfect world there would be no guns. this is not a perfect world. defence of ones life is a legitimate use of a fire arm and well the cops are 4-11 minutes away.

more importantly NO institution in society has the responsibility to protect you or your stuff or your wife and children from harm. the cops are a general deterrent to crime. they have no responsibility to protect you only to show up afterword and do the autopsy. YOU are responsible for you. and that is just the way it is.

 

[down_under]

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.

while I will agree that there is a very fine line between self defence and murder I must entirely disagree with you on the point that there is a group assigned to protect common citizens from violent aggressors. the police do not have this role. the police are there as a general deterrent to crime and are in no way responsible for protecting you or stoping a crime. they are only responsible for being there to pick up the pieces afterward. yes sometimes the cops are there and they do a good job, but the law specifically states they cannot and are not responsible for stopping every individual crime including violent crimes to your person. and like I said they are 4-11 minutes away at the best of times. if cops are not responsible for defending you then YOU are responsible for defending yourself and you therefore require the tools to do this job. this is the world we live in. its not perfect but it is the only one we have.

 

[Oumashta]

Ender, the documents and links that I gave you were from the USCCB, which stands for United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, meaning that it is a conference of Catholic bishops of the United States. These documents were published by the USCCB, so it is only logical to assume that the bishops were involved, else they would not have published something officially in their name. They obviously don’t publish material in support of women’s ordination. If something that they published didn’t carry any importance for the faithful, why else would they publish it? I’m sure they just didn’t want to waste some paper and write down some random words.

What is being discussed in the Vatican documents are controls on the international trade of firearms, not their ownership by individuals. This is a bait-and-switch argument.

It seems to be very clear that the Church is here talking about those who are not part of the military forces of the state owning guns:

It is indispensable and urgent 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 among groups of combatants that are not part of the military forces of a State.

There is still a large trade of arms within the country.

The Ugandan bill regarding homosexuals** is irrelevant to this debate**. To assert that the bishops have overstepped on the question of gun control says nothing whatever about whether their involvement in any other issue is valid.

I stated this example to draw the point that bishops may have stances on immediate social issues regarding the country of their pastoral care that is not a dogma of faith, but yet indeed holds weight for Catholics in that country. What the bishops are saying in both the Ugandan case and gun rights case both are in accordance with the spirit of the Church in regards to her position on the dignity of human life and the promotion of peace.

Here is another website with links to documents about bishops’ statements regarding weapons legislation for civilian hand-gun use.
clevelandcatholiccharities.org/dsao/concealed.htm

The idea that Church doctrine can change with the times is not a concept the Church herself supports. Morality is constant and does not change with time or place. Prudential choices may change but these are practical considerations, not moral ones.

I’m really sorry if I didn’t make myself clear here ; I did NOT mean that Church doctrine changes, or else I would not have said that homosexual acts are a sin. Thanks for pointing out my mistake. What I meant to say is that what the Church says about specific social issues, such as gun rights,the right direction for unjust laws, and economic policies can indeed change depending on the time and context of these laws. Of course there are indeed unchangeable moral principles in social doctrine! But their explanation and application in real life may not always be as clear-cut as the faithful may desire; that’s why there are such things as bishops conferences, where bishops may unanimously state their positions on such things, which shouldn’t be taken as the mere passing opinion of another person.

If the faithful in that country decide to ignore the bishops and do contrary to what they have expressed, then well… you have the faithful voting for someone who is terribly unfit, the President in office wreaking horrible damage on human life, many people receiving death penalty, and some pretty nasty social problems.

If this was the case Humanae Vitae would never have been written.

That’s the whole reason that Humanae Vitae was written. People constantly disobeyed what the bishops and Holy Father have expressed or passed on regarding the new-fangled method of artificial contraception and human sexuality in Natural Law, so it was only logical to make an official official document regarding it. I’m sure that if the gun rights issue gets out of control anymore by having more innocent children killed, despite having thousands of US faithful disobey what the US bishops have been very clear on regarding the control of hand-guns, then I’m sure that Pope Benedict will either bluntly condemn it in one of his Angelus messages, or if need be, write a whole encyclical on it.

You are well within your rights to advocate however you will, as are the bishops. Neither you nor they, however, are justified in claiming that your position on this issue is any more morally or doctrinally sound than opposing positions.

The bishops have done extensive study of Social Doctrine and Moral Theology, and I’m sure we don’t have their level of education. The bishops have cited the dignity of human life in their works for their reason for supporting greater restriction of guns, so why else would their “opinions” be not more morally sound?

Violence is unacceptable. So, too, are public policies that may increase the proclivity to use deadly force. We remain deeply committed to upholding the value of human life and opposing those forces which threaten it.

taken from ohiocathconf.org/statements/concweap2.pdf

I have this hunch that this discussion will soon turn out like this:
:hug3: or like this :slapfight:

But I will be willing to discuss for as long as we can remain civilized about it, or until I simply can’t convince anyone about the Church’s message of peace and pray for those who believe violence is the answer, since many discussions here on CAF usually turn out quite… :blackeye:

God bless !

 

[Ender]

These documents were published by the USCCB, so it is only logical to assume that the bishops were involved, else they would not have published something officially in their name.

I’m sure there are bishops involved with the USCCB but their level of involvement varies greatly and it is wildly incorrect to believe that they are all involved in every document put out by that organization or that everything put out carries their approval.

If something that they published didn’t carry any importance for the faithful, why else would they publish it?

They publish documents to influence the (Catholic) public, much the same as the DNC and the RNC.

It seems to be very clear that the Church is here talking about those who are not part of the military forces of the state owning guns:

They are talking about arming insurrectionists - “groups of combatants.” That is a very different problem than controlling the violent tendencies of individuals.

I stated this example to draw the point that bishops may have stances on immediate social issues regarding the country of their pastoral care that is not a dogma of faith, but yet indeed holds weight for Catholics in that country.

What is true in general is not universally true. Their comments in one area might be quite appropriate without being at all valid in another. The validity of their comments on Uganda do not lend support to their comments on gun control.

Here is another website with links to documents about bishops’ statements regarding weapons legislation for civilian hand-gun use. clevelandcatholiccharities.org/dsao/concealed.htm

Both links are to the same statement which is quite clearly the personal opinion of those bishops about what they believe will be the result of changes to Ohio’s concealed carry laws. Reasonable people may have different opinions about the impact of such laws and there is no moral difference in reaching different conclusions.

But their explanation and application in real life may not always be as clear-cut as the faithful may desire; that’s why there are such things as bishops conferences, where bishops may unanimously state their positions on such things, which shouldn’t be taken as the mere passing opinion of another person.

You really do have a misconception about the USCCB. You keep talking about them issuing unanimous statements which would be an extraordinarily rare occasion. The only issue I am aware of where they did in fact speak with one voice was their opposition to the HHS mandate. I would be surprised to learn that there was any USCCB document which they unanimously supported.

If the faithful in that country decide to ignore the bishops and do contrary to what they have expressed, then well…

Mostly when I ignore the USCCB I am ignoring the opinion of some committee gnomes who work in Washington; I am not ignoring “the bishops.” On the other hand, I have no problem rejecting the stated opinions of bishops if I find their arguments lacking, nor is this inappropriate.

Since the Christian revelation tells us nothing about the particulars of contemporary society, the Pope and the bishops have to rely on their personal judgment as qualified spiritual leaders in making practical applications. Their prudential judgment, while it is to be respected, is not a matter of binding Catholic doctrine. To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching. (Cardinal Dulles)

The bishops have cited the dignity of human life in their works for their reason for supporting greater restriction of guns, so why else would their “opinions” be not more morally sound?

The question of how best to control gun violence is not a question of human dignity; it is a debate about … what will work, and this is not a moral problem. There is no moral issue to resolve.

But I will be willing to discuss for as long as we can remain civilized about it, or until I simply can’t convince anyone about the Church’s message of peace and pray for those who believe violence is the answer!

If you want to understand why so many discussions end up with angry words being exchanged you have only to re-read your own statement. You have framed the debate as being between those who believe in peace, love, and understanding on the one hand against those “who believe violence is the answer” on the other. This is not simply insulting it is simply nonsense. The Ohio bishops opposed loosening the concealed carry laws in their state believing that this would result in more violence. That is a prediction of the effect the law would have. Those who support such laws are predicting that they will have the opposite effect and while one side will surely be wrong both positions are morally neutral.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

I currently have no real appreciation for this council that seems to think it appropriate to comment on every issue society has to offer no matter how far from the issue of religion it is. They have really lost much of there societal credibility with this constant chiming in on every topic under the sun. Mean while there own house is a wreck. where is the call to return her own members to orthodoxy. It is drowned out by the constant drum beat of off topic letter and exhortations.

National bishop conferences do not exist for anyone’s “appreciation”.

Can. 447 A conference of bishops, a permanent institution, is a group of bishops of some nation or certain territory who jointly exercise certain pastoral functions for the Christian faithful of their territory in order to promote the greater good which the Church offers to humanity, especially through forms and programs of the apostolate fittingly adapted to the circumstances of time and place, according to the norm of law.

Catholics too often now days forget that bishops teach. We learn. Instead, we judge our teachers by our own opinions. I think we could all do with a good dose of St. Francis in this regard.

 

[janix]

Do you want to pass the free PMP Certifications exam? Take first the PMP practice exam at the exam central and access thousands of free PMP resources by registering at the examcentral.net. This was I’m doing when I am not yet a project manager and I want to share it to you guys that this PMP practice exam and other PMP resources will be accessed through the examcentral.net and will help yourselves to pass the actual PMP Certifications exam now.

 

[down_under]

National bishop conferences do not exist for anyone’s “appreciation”.

Catholics too often now days forget that bishops teach. We learn. Instead, we judge our teachers by our own opinions. I think we could all do with a good dose of St. Francis in this regard.

no bishops council has ANY authority in any individual diocese unless that bishop who is the Shepard of that see says it does. So lets not be confused with what these things are. 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. Especially when unspecified persons are chiming in on issues of little importance to the episcopate, in a religious sense,(in the name of the bishops) in a never ending crusade for more social justice. lets get back to the bishops teaching basic catholic morality and theology to the faithful and the general business of returning the faithful to orthodoxy something they have been at a loss to do for 50 years (as a council, individual bishops in some cases have done extraordinary work and made extraordinary sacrifices.)

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.

 

[ELCore]

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…

It is not limited so: you are cherry-picking the Catechism so it seems to support your false claim.

See, however, #2264: “Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.”

#2264 is not only an assertion of the right to self-defense, even to the point of taking the life of another, but also a defense and explanation of that right. That arms are not mentioned is irrelevant… unless you want to claim that the Church is asserting a right to self-defense only by fisticuffs.

#2265 is about “defense” (of the common good) rather than about “self-defense”. I think it would be easier to understand the meaning if the first sentence read as follows: “For one who is responsible for the lives of others, legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty.” In other words, #2265 isn’t talking so much about the legitimacy of defense, or the means thereof, but about who has not only the right but also the duty of defending the common good by force of arms.

 

[CaptFun]

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.

At the Vatican most gendarmes and Swiss Guards look like they are unarmed (or armed just with ceremonial pikes) … however …

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFgDQZEx7U9gVRBrzRS-FfhWzzkc2445obRsUdQkH1gAm6yvEI The armory at the Vatican. Firearms are not often shown but are available to the Vatican Security forces.

Vatican security officials have hinted that on some occasions, sharpshooters keep vigilance over papal events from Vatican rooftops adjacent to the square.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703237.htm

and another qualification on a right to armed self defense would be:

Luke 22:36

He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and **one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
** :bigyikes:

I don’t own a gun myself. My knives are steak and butter. And I don’t own a cloak … so a sword is out of the question now too. :nunchuk: < and are nunchuks just for nuns?