Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[Spider42]

(cont.)

Regarding Apostolic Authority:

Catholics, in good conscience, can disagree with the Mother Church and believe that She has been on the wrong path for the last 50 years on this particular issue, but Dogmatic teaching requires us to handle our disagreement in a very special way. See the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church I cited previously. Bishops, when teaching in communion with Rome, are authentic teachers with the authority of Christ. We are supposed to strive for “religious submission of mind and will”. With popes, from which bishop’s authority flows, the obligation is even more pressing.

Apostolic authority is a fundamental and dogmatic teaching of the Church. It is so important that we reaffirm it, out loud, at almost every Mass and have done so since at least the 3rd Century.

Making arguments to the effect that bishops, even acting as a group and authorized by still more of their peers, aren’t authoritative, that provisions of the Catechism aren’t especially binding, or that express statements by the Vicar of Christ aren’t binding until they appear in dogmatic documents of a particular stature, are all, according to the Church, a “dangerous attack” on fundamental Church dogma. See Paul VI’s “Paterna cum benevolentia”, #25.

15 years later the problem was viewed as serious enough that, based on the Plenary Meeting of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Blessed John Paul instructed then Cardinal Ratzinger to to prepare a document on appropriate theological discussion. It was published in 1990.

As someone who recites the Nicene Creed without hesitation and accepts that any gaps between the certainty of my own moral conscience and the teaching of the Magisterium are most likely due to the incomplete development of my conscience, the express instructions in this document, absolutely, apply to me.

That makes the question of belief in Apostolic Authority critical. If the answer is no, then arguments to the effect that the rightful Magisterium carries less or little weight are of a different nature and I am prohibited from further public discussion with you. Certain types of arguments cannot licitly be debated in the “court of public opinion”.

This is no reflection on anyone here. Dogmatically, “nobody is to be forced to embrace the faith against his will” (“Dignitatis humanae” 10). But for me personally, Rome’s instructions on appropriate theological discussion and discourse are just as binding on me as CCC 2265, CCC 2243, Gaudium et Spes, and direct papal instructions on the proper application of the Sermon on the Mount.

 

[liturgyluver]

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.)

This, surely is pretty damning stuff for those who keep insisting that the Church has expressed no views on individual gun ownership.

I would be particularly interested to read the sections that you referred to below:

*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*.

Many thanks

 

[Spider42]

I would be particularly interested to read the sections that you referred to below:

In 1992, the English version of the Catechism read:

“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge.”

For CCC 2265 and linked to St. Thomas Aquinas. Some people took this as a an individual right and took proper authority to mean things like a concealed carry permit. In 1997 the English wording was changed to:

“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 that 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 (per “editio typica”, September 8, 1997)

The first sentence was also indexed to CCC 2240, to clarify that it meant civic authority and the erroneous index to an entire St. Thomas Aquinas work was removed (it actually belonged to a specific quote in CCC 2264, explaining that self defense has to be in moderation to be licit).

As far as the US Catechism, it is not conventionally numbered. See Chapter 29, Fifth Commandment: Promote the Culture of Life. The chapter cites Blessed John Paul’s Homily in St. Louis, 1/27/99 in affirming the teaching “The antidote to violence is not more violence”.

This, of course, is in lock step with the dogmatic teaching in Gaudium et Spes #78 on the difference between true peace and the absence of violence achieved via the threat of mutual harm.

I hope that helps.

 

[Ender]

Catholics, in good conscience, can disagree with the Mother Church and believe that She has been on the wrong path for the last 50 years on this particular issue, but Dogmatic teaching requires us to handle our disagreement in a very special way. See the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church I cited previously. Bishops, when teaching in communion with Rome, are authentic teachers with the authority of Christ. We are supposed to strive for “religious submission of mind and will”. With popes, from which bishop’s authority flows, the obligation is even more pressing.

You have made a goodly number of references to Church documents but you don’t seem to understand what they’ve said. Infallible doctrines “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” (CCC 891) Statements on gun control are not infallible doctrines. For a teaching from the ordinary Magisterium we *“are to adhere to it with religious assent.” *(CCC 892) Statements on gun control are not in this category either. It is a serious mistake to assume that every comment a bishop makes on whatever topic constitutes Church doctrine. Bishops express opinions like the rest of us and their opinions, like ours, oblige no ones assent.

Most egregiously, disagreeing with the USCCB in no way constitutes disagreeing with the Church, completely aside from the fact that the Church has no doctrines specifically relating to controlling the ownership of guns. Gun control perfectly illustrates the kind of comment Cardinal Dulles alluded to with his statement about prudential judgments: *“To differ from such a judgment, therefore, is not to dissent from Church teaching.” *This is the point you seem unwilling to accept

Apostolic authority is a fundamental and dogmatic teaching of the Church.

It is. It is also irrelevant for precisely the reasons I laid out in my response to the question as to whether we believed in apostolic succession … the statements that were ignored because I didn’t precede them with “Yes, but…”

Making arguments to the effect that bishops, even acting as a group and authorized by still more of their peers, aren’t authoritative, that provisions of the Catechism aren’t especially binding, or that express statements by the Vicar of Christ aren’t binding until they appear in dogmatic documents of a particular stature, are all, according to the Church, a “dangerous attack” on fundamental Church dogma.

None of this is accurate so let me repeat the argument I actually made: prudential judgments, regardless of who makes them, are not binding and we are not obligated to assent to them. That by the way is not my personal opinion but a statement of a cardinal who must be right inasmuch as he is … a cardinal. So, if Cardinal Dulles is right then we may in fact legitimately dissent from the opinions of bishops, but if he is wrong then this destroys your belief that every pronouncement from someone wielding apostolic authority is true. Either way, your position falls.

That makes the question of belief in Apostolic Authority critical. If the answer is no, then arguments to the effect that the rightful Magisterium carries less or little weight are of a different nature and I am prohibited from further public discussion with you.

We do not differ on the nature of apostolic authority, we differ on whether comments on gun control constitute Church doctrines. I am not disagreeing with the Church, I am disagreeing with you. What you interpret as doctrine I understand to be prudential judgments and the nature of apostolic authority is irrelevant to that disagreement.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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).

You cannot seriously believe that doctrines can emanate from the USCCB, and while a dogmatic teaching may oblige our assent the application of that teaching falls into an entirely different category … that of prudential judgment.

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…

Yes or no: Does an individual have a right to self defense including the use of deadly force?

Both documents quote Rome extensively.

I can quote Rome myself. Does that make my comments true?

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.

Provide the link please.

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.

I dispute this claim without having read the document. Provide the link … this (if you will pardon the allusion) is your smoking gun.

One of these speeches is specifically cited in the US Catechism for Adults which is approved by Rome and applicable to all US Catholics.

The reason it is necessary to provide links to your sources is so others can review your interpretation of them, without which there is little reason to assume you understand them correctly.

So, we have 3 statements from the USCCB…We have a Universal Catechism of the Church … We have had 5 consecutive popes

Actually, all we have are your interpretations. Pick what you think is the strongest citation and provide the link to it, then we’ll see what we really have.

Ender

 

[Cristiano]

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?
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.
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

You are being defensive and personalizing a question that was addressed to someone else. You should have a better grasp that when we talk about the Bishops’ positions we are really talking about moral theology and at that point motivation is of the essence. You are putting a lot of words in my mouth that I did not say. Again you are also talking about me trying to refute an argument and that is a falsity, I simply asked a question.

 

[Graubo3]

I hope that helps.

Most especially. It is very apparent where you stand. You twist the teachings of the Church to condemn myself and others for our belief in armed self defense. If defending my family puts me in Hell…oh boy.
Referencing CCC 2265, would you as easily condemn unarmed authority figures that failed to prevent the loss of life from an aggressor?

Actually, all we have are your interpretations.
Ender

Ender, you have a greater amount of patience than I at this moment. God bless!

 

[Spider42]

You have made a goodly number of references to Church documents but you don’t seem to understand what they’ve said.

To the best of my knowledge, I’ve made no interpretations. I’ve relied solely on the interpretations of the USCCB, the Pontifical Council for Peace and Justice, and direct explanations from various Vicar’s of Christ.

Most egregiously, disagreeing with the USCCB in no way constitutes disagreeing with the Church…

“For bishops are preachers of the faith, who lead new disciples to Christ, and they are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice, and by the light of the Holy Spirit illustrate that faith. They bring forth from the treasury of Revelation new things and old, making it bear fruit and vigilantly warding off any errors that threaten their flock. Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown so that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.” - Lumen Gentium 25

This is part of the citation used for both CCC 891 and CCC 892, so, with all due respect, they may not mean what you think.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith interprets it this way:

“When the Magisterium, not intending to act “definitively”, teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.” - Instruction on the ecclesial vocation of theologian, #23, citing Lumen Gentium 25 and Canon 752 from the Code of Canon Law

I am not disagreeing with the Church, I am disagreeing with you.

This is precisely why I am expressly prohibited from certain types of public discussions. I, personally, have made no arguments for or against gun control. Nor have I expressed an opinion as to wether or not I am in agreement with the Church. I am, as best I can, in the limited space and context, explaining the interpretation of Church teaching on gun control as it is taught by the US Bishops, the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and the Congregation for Catholic Education (In Seminaries and Institutes of Study). That is, as it is taught in Catholic Seminaries and Colleges.

In response you have tried to move the explanations from the rightful Magisterium to me personally AND you have flatly asserted that prudential teachings are not especially binding on Catholics. But, both paragraphs in the Catechism that you used point to the same paragraph in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, which expressly says the opposite (“even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” and “the JUDGEMENTS made by him are sincerely adhered to” (emphasis added)), and the express interpretation of the CDF of the paragraph is that “religious submission of will and intellect” is the appropriate response, even when the Magisterium does not intend to act “definitively”.

This means that both the “primary dangers of dissent” identified by the Church are now involved. Your intensity and seeming animosity to me is noted. But, again, this has nothing to do with you. I am prohibited, both by express doctrinal instructions from Rome and Canon law from publicly debating the merits of certain Church teachings. My disengagement is solely the result of my obligation to the Church and is in no way a reflection on you. In fact, I would wholeheartedly encourage anyone reading this to embrace the Church’s understanding of the 8th Commandment and take CCC 2477-2479 to heart.

I am deeply sorry to hear that you are expressly in disagreement with what you refer to as ‘prudential’ teachings of the Magisterium which the Vicar of Christ has identified as being connected to the “inalienable rights of the human person”. The apostles hold one aspect of the Church that cannot be transferred, they are the “chosen witnesses of the Lord’s Resurrection and so the foundation stones of the Church” (CCC 860). But my assistance in your growth in communion with the Magisterium must, at least for now, be limited to prayers of intercession.

 

[Spider42]

Most especially. It is very apparent where you stand. You twist the teachings of the Church to condemn myself and others for our belief in armed self defense.

Could you please identify where I have “condemned” anyone? The only point that I have made is that the authority and special nature of the Apostles of the Church should not be diminished. But I have expressly and repeatedly noted that this puts an obligation on me, but is not a reflection on anyone else.

About 80% of my posts so far have been quotes and references from Church documents. So far, I haven’t expressed a position on them, but I will now say that I am in complete agreement with them - as they have been expressly explained by the proper representatives of the Magisterium in general and the Holy See in particular. In this particular matter, my required “religious submission of will and intellect” is complete (CDF 1990).

In that light, your contention that I would not approve of an application of force that the Catechism expressly notes is licit seems wholly unwarranted.

I am sorry that the Church’s dogmatic call for all Catholics to heed Isaiah 2:4 (Gaudium et Spes, 78) and the special status of the Beatitudes (CCC 1722) do not seem to resonate with you and a number of others here, but they, along with the Commandments still apply to me. Direct rejection of the teachings of the local princes and the express statements of the Vicars of Christ is not something I can condone, but nor can I judge. I have no idea of the state of your spiritual grace and am compelled not to even try to judge it. I am also compelled to take even your attacks on my faith and character in the most favorable light (CCC 2478).

 

[down_under]

okay at this point I am not interested in this discussion. I will continue to listen to responces to see if someone is interested in addressing my assertion, but if you are just going to assault my character as a catholic in good standing because of my obviously correct assertions then there is no further point to this conversation

Good day

 

[Cristiano]

Could you please identify where I have “condemned” anyone? The only point that I have made is that the authority and special nature of the Apostles of the Church should not be diminished. But I have expressly and repeatedly noted that this puts an obligation on me, but is not a reflection on anyone else.

About 80% of my posts so far have been quotes and references from Church documents. So far, I haven’t expressed a position on them, but I will now say that I am in complete agreement with them - as they have been expressly explained by the proper representatives of the Magisterium in general and the Holy See in particular. In this particular matter, my required “religious submission of will and intellect” is complete (CDF 1990).

In that light, your contention that I would not approve of an application of force that the Catechism expressly notes is licit seems wholly unwarranted.

I am sorry that the Church’s dogmatic call for all Catholics to heed Isaiah 2:4 (Gaudium et Spes, 78) and the special status of the Beatitudes (CCC 1722) do not seem to resonate with you and a number of others here, but they, along with the Commandments still apply to me. Direct rejection of the teachings of the local princes and the express statements of the Vicars of Christ is not something I can condone, but nor can I judge. I have no idea of the state of your spiritual grace and am compelled not to even try to judge it. I am also compelled to take even your attacks on my faith and character in the most favorable light (CCC 2478).

You keep throwing the word dogmatic around as to imply that it is a dogma that individual Catholics do not have the right to bear arms and the right to self defense. Considering that you want to throw systematic theology around I asked once and II will ask one last time to show the specific dogmas and magisterial documents that indicate that the statements are dogmas.

 

[Spider42]

You keep throwing the word dogmatic around as to imply…

My apologies, for those not familiar with the precise terminology of Catholic theologians, dogma and dogmatic have a very specific meaning.

The Catechism, both universal and local is not, in it’s entirety, dogma. However, when passages directly quote dogmatic documents, I refer to them as dogma, since they are directly reflecting dogmatic teaching. Other passages, which explain dogma (the passage paraphrases a dogmatic document, and links to the underlying dogmatic document by citation) sometimes are and sometimes are not dogmatic. It depends on a set of conditions which are a bit involved to explain.

With regards to gun control, there are a couple of different issues and they are not all equiv. The two Catechism passages I pointed to do not, specifically address gun control. They address licit applications of armed force. For better or worse, CCC 2265 grants the right to armed force specifically to properly authorized representatives of civil authority only. Clarifying this was the explanation for the wording change provided by Rome in 1997.

CCC 2243 severely limits the right to armed resistance to political oppression. For better or worse, both these paragraphs are at least partially dogmatic. Remember, self defense and just war entered Catholic doctrine with St. Augustine and has been at least partially made dogmatic by the ecumenical councils. Likewise, the Beatitudes have been recognized dogmatically in Pastoral Constitutions for centuries (Jesus explains how to resist unjust oppression in them).

BUT, there is also some Magisterium interpretation of dogmatic teachings involved.

For the purpose of discussion, I will gladly concede that the limit in CCC 2265 to civil authority may not, in of itself, be dogmatic. It might simply be the Magisterium’s judgement on the proper application of the underlying dogmatic teachings.

With regards to gun control, actually restricting access to guns for the general citizens, it is even more clearly the Magisterium’s JUDGEMENT of proper application of dogmatic teaching that is involved. In addition to the underlying portions of dogma that are used for CCC 2265 and CCC 2243, there is Gaudium et Spes 78, which states that true peace requires disarmament. That is a dogmatic teaching, considered, in of itself to be infallible. Precise application is another matter.

The Church’s current judgement, based on pastoral documents from the bishops, doctrinal documents from Pontifical Councils and Congregations, and direct statements from popes appears pretty clear. True peace is not yet practical so nations must, unfortunately, arm themselves, but the dogma and doctrine of the Church is better served if nations work towards a disarmed general population. This was the explanation provided by Pope Benedict in 2008, and it seems to match the teachings of the USCCB and Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace well.

I, personally, have no problem with “religious submission of will and intellect” to the Church in this matter. But I fully respect your strong resistance to it. It does not reflect on your spiritual grace or your position as a dutiful Catholic.

There is also no problem with your not believing that this is, in fact, the current Church position. I am taking this from a portion of the Magisterium, but it is certainly possible that some discrepancy with the Holy Pontiff exists. That’s why I quote the Church as frequently as possible. The Apostles are the authentic and authoritative teachers, not me.

The area that I, personally, cannot go, is Ender’s seeming blunt assertion that what he refers to as ‘prudential’ teachings are not authoritative or binding. As I pointed out above, Lumen Gentium 25, the basis for both Catechism paragraphs he cited, expressly states differently, and the CDF’s interpretation of LG 25 is precisely the same as mine - namely, that even when it is NOT the Magisterium’s intent to teach “definitively”, the proper response is still, “religious submission of will and intellect”. Others are free to discuss such things, but I am expressly prescribed from certain types of public debates, and that is one of them.

However, again, this is no reflection on anyone but myself. From my point of view everyone here remains my brother and sister in Christ.

 

[livingwordunity]

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

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

Like the death penalty for convicted murderers, I think there should be wiggle room on the issue of gun ownership. And I think that’s why the Catholic Church has never made a clear and definitive statement about it which absolutely prohibits ownership of guns. When it’s a more urgent issue plenty of official Church documents can usually be found on the matter such as with the intrinsic evil of abortion or the protection of marriage. What we do know for sure is that the Catholic Church teaches that a person or country has the right and duty to defend themselves and the lives of the innocent. And it’s hard to do that when only the bad guys have the guns.

 

[sandomenico]

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.

In the United States, We the People are the constituted authority for the protection of our fellows, not the police. We are to promote the general welfare, and to secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity. The police are there to detect committed crimes, not punish them or prevent them. Who the Church means by constituted authority makes all the difference in the opinion of CCC 2265.

St. Thomas’ understanding does not alter the fact that an individual is allowed to execute lawful (moderate) force to repel an attacker – even to the point of dealing death, if so necessary. Even an individual who is not a constituted authority can do this. All the more for one who is so constituted.

Also early Christians did not fight against imperial Rome simply because they had neither the arms, nor the organization to do so.

Nonetheless, the people of the United States are the subject of this understanding in America; not the police.

God love you,
sandomenico

 

[Reep]

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 . . .

Is your comment on the Catechism a joke? When someone breaks into my home some night, whose job is it to protect MY family. The police? You should get out more.

The cops will arrive after the burglary/murder/rape is over. Nothing will ever convince me that anyone but me will be in a position to do anything during the ten minutes it will take the police arrive. The duty belongs not to the police but to me. I would fail my Christian duty if I fail to take this responsibility on myself.

“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)

This argues against action by the police. The homeowner/victim will always have a better grasp of the danger than the police. The police–once they GET there–can take forever just figuring out who the bad guy is, let alone what to do about him.

 

[GregBussey]

While it’s already been well established here that the two or three referenced committee statements are merely human opinions about very specific applications of gun policy, and are not universal infallible teaching on gun usage everwhere, nevertheless we can still consider the spirit with which these statements were made. That is, the stated goal was to eventually have a world where self defense is no longer necesary.

Can we all at least agree that the Church teaches a preference for reducing overall violence? Then how do we accomplish that agreed-upon goal?

As a matter of fact, we now know that of all public policies intended to curb violence, only one has actually ever had any impact on violent crime. Legallizing concealed carry has lowered violent crime. papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=161637 Therefore, to align with the bishop’s committee’s goal of reducing violence (which coincides with the goal of the authoritative Church), one must support private handgun ownership and concealed carry laws.

 

[ELCore]

With all due respect to everybody involved in this intricate discussion, ## 2264 and 2265 are about different activities.

2264 is about self-defense (though the term itself is not used); 2265 is about “defense of the common good”. The two are, obviously, similar activities, but they are not the same activities – which, I gather, is not quite so obvious – and much of the discussion here has been confounding the two. (Spider42, especially, seems oblivious to this necessary distinction.) More specifically, armed self-defense and armed defense are two different activities.

Taken together, I understand the conjunction of ## 2264-65 to mean that, though an individual has a right to self-defense, nobody has the right to (in contemporary American parlance) engage in vigilante justice: protecting the common good by violence is legitimate only when done by the proper authorities.

I do not see any doctrinal prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense; I would expect to see it, if there were any, in # 2264 because # 2265 is about a different activity. Any prudential judgement – by whosoever, it matters not – discouraging or prohibiting their use in self-defense is not binding in conscience on the faithful.

I have reviewed, as much as I can (which isn’t very much, frankly) the history of the Church’s… er… defense of self-defense. I have not found any distinctions in in the record along the lines of “Self-defense is acceptable if done with bare hands but not with knives; or acceptable if done with knives but not with swords”. Why in the world should we think that we now have the likes of “self-defense is acceptable with knives but not with firearms” unless this is said outright – which it is not. (Excuse me for repeating myself, but, remember, # 2265 is not talking about the same activity as # 2264.)

I am not quite sure, but it does seem to me, that if Spider42’s line of reasoning is correct, the use of any arms whatever in self-defense is prohibited: to be innocent, you must defend yourself with your bare hands. I do not think that can possibly be correct.

Let us think about the reality we are discussing. Which of the following is the better – the more merciful, shall we say – to do in a situation in which one must use deadly force to preserve one’s life from an unjust aggressor? To try to strangle him to death? To try to beat him to death? To try to bash him to death with a rock or a baseball bat? Or to be able to try to shoot him to death? (Remember, the unjust aggressor is to blame for whatever violence befalls him, for it is HIS choice that put him in his dire position, and he can always retreat.)

Any pastor or theologian who thinks the last option is worse than the others ought to be reminded that prudential judgement concerning political questions is not a charism of holy orders, and that their prudential judgements about such issues are not binding in conscience on the faithful.

Indeed, I will go further (as, I think, someone else has also done on the forum). The lay faithful who live in the ordinary every day world, and especially those with education and experience in law enforcement, are far, far more likely to have well-developed prudential judgement about what actually works, and works best, when it comes to issues of self-defense and defense of the common good than do theologians and pastors whose education and experience have done little, if anything whatever, to provide them with the means to make reliable prudential judgements about these issues. Let us not fall into a 21st-century style of clericalism.

 

[Oumashta]

The Church’s current judgement, based on pastoral documents from the bishops, doctrinal documents from Pontifical Councils and Congregations, and direct statements from popes appears pretty clear. True peace is not yet practical so nations must, unfortunately, arm themselves, but the dogma and doctrine of the Church is better served if nations work towards a disarmed general population. This was the explanation provided by Pope Benedict in 2008, and it seems to match the teachings of the USCCB and Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace well.

Agreed.

If I may, maybe this could add to the discussion in a positive way

St. Clare of Assisi, when the Saracens were on their way to attack her monastery, told her fellow nuns to bring her the Blessed Sacrament from the tabernacle and present Him to her. She then took the Blessed Sacrament and prayed fervently that God would protect them. Did St. Clare have a right to defend herself at that time? Surely! If St. Clare decided to borrow bows and arrows from some guards to defend her monastery and sisters from the aggressive Saracens, I would not have blamed her. I am sure that she could have used a weapon at that time even if she was not part of legitimate authority, since she and her country was experiencing a case of JUST WAR (unlike what is occurring in the USA)- the Saracens were attacking her and the whole country.

BUT

That’s not what happened.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[ELCore]

In response you have tried to move the explanations from the rightful Magisterium to me personally AND you have flatly asserted that prudential teachings are not especially binding on Catholics. But, both paragraphs in the Catechism that you used point to the same paragraph in the Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, which expressly says the opposite (“even when he is not speaking ex cathedra” and “the JUDGEMENTS made by him are sincerely adhered to” (emphasis added)), and the express interpretation of the CDF of the paragraph is that “religious submission of will and intellect” is the appropriate response, even when the Magisterium does not intend to act “definitively”.

The judgements mentioned in Lumen Gentium are judgements concerning doctrine, not prudential judgements.

I think everybody here agrees that long-standing doctrine allows for violence in the cause of self-defense, even to the point of killing. So there is submission.

You seem to be asserting, repeatedly, that doctrine disapproves of the use of firearms for self-defense. (If that is not so, I apologize.) As I sketched in my last post, I do not believe that to be the case. So it is not an issue of submission.

Any judgements about whether trafficking in firearms is to be discouraged are prudential judgements which are in no way require submission. Especially because the idea that fewer firearms necessarily means less violence is a theory which is, to say the least, not supported by empirical evidence.

 

[pnewton]

For better or worse, CCC 2265 grants the right to armed force specifically to properly authorized representatives of civil authority only.

Yes, but it does not deny the right to bear arms for the citizenry. They Catholic Church has never proclaimed such a thing. In fact, it is has upheld the right to self-defense, even to the taking of a life. 2240’s restriction is to those who have a grave duty, not just a right, to defense. I have yet to see one Catholic document that would deny this right, at least as an absolute. On the other hand, Catholics can believe that we should have no guns, or tight gun control and be equally within Catholic teaching. The latest USCCB document does not speak of banning guns, but of sensible restrictions. There is a lot of leeway in that statement.