Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[BiologyBrain]

I haven’t had a chance to read all the comments yet, but I find myself very confused. The most frequently referenced CCC statement seems to be #2264. I don’t understand how anyone can read that statement and think it is many to deny anyone the ability to defend themselves against an aggressor by whatever means possible. Closely following that is #2265 giving those with authority the duty to defend the common good. Neither of these statements seem to indicate that citizens owning weaponry and using said weaponry in defense is anything but accepted and expected by the Church.

At one point someone (maybe tongue-in-cheek?) mentioned that the scary rapist/assailant/murderer scenario is uncommon and used much like old fairy tales – to scare people into caution. However, less than 2 miles from my home a little old lady (80+) was herded into her bedroom by a burglar turned assailant. We live 20 miles from the nearest police station and she lived alone (widowed). Had she “turned the other cheek” or thought the tales of scary men with weapons breaking into her home were hogwash, she would no doubt no longer be among the living. As it was, she & her husband had always kept a large knife under the mattress in their bedroom. She was able to retrieve the weapon and protect herself and her possessions from him without harm to herself or even to the assailant. Most cases of self-defense end that way – no shots fired or blood drawn. The instinct for self preservation is very strong, so a show of force without actually committing any action can often deter crime.

The argument over gun control both from a morality standpoint and from a legislative standpoint should actually begin by addressing the common person. The common person is not looking to vindictively harm anyone with a weapon. I own several weapons and have a concealed carry permit. However, I pray that I never have to use my weapon(s). Yet, since we do live in a society where a show of force is sometimes necessary and those with the “authority” to protect (law enforcement/military) are not nearby, I have training in the use of my weapons and will use them if forced.

From a completely non-moral perspective, the US is different from most other countries that have already placed more restrictions on guns: distance. While I’m not a world-traveler, I do know that the US has a geographically larger area than most countries. The citizens are more spread out across this area. As I mentioned earlier, I live at least 20 miles from the nearest police station. If I were to call about an attacker, I’d be long dead before the police could reasonably assist me. The same is true for many many many Americans. Therefore, by our Constitution we are all given the duty to defend ourselves and even our neighbors to this day.

 

[Ender]

“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.”

You continue to belabor the point we agree on and ignore the one where we disagree. The comments on gun control do not come under this definition; they are not doctrines, they are the application of doctrines which are in fact prudential judgments.

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.

First, this is untrue. There is no teaching even from the US bishops that the private ownership of a fire arm is immoral or contrary to Church doctrine. It is one thing to support laws that would prohibit private ownership and quite another to state that such ownership is sinful. The former is an opinion on the effect a gun ban would have while the latter is a moral law and only the former claim has been suggested; no one has suggested the latter is true. Second, doctrines are explained, not interpreted. No interpretation is required to understand the doctrines against abortion, contraception, or women priests. We easily understand the doctrine that obliges us to help the poor; what requires interpretation and expertise is the application of that doctrine and those choices are not themselves doctrines but prudential judgments. We are obliged to accept the doctrine but we are under no such obligation to accept anyone’s opinions about how it should be implemented.

you have flatly asserted that prudential teachings are not especially binding on Catholics.

This is true, I have. More relevantly, I cited a cardinal making that assertion; it is not mine to be summarily dismissed. Are we at least agreed that your citations on gun control represent prudential judgments and not doctrines?

This means that both the “primary dangers of dissent” identified by the Church are now involved.

Do you dissent from Cardinal Dulles’ assessment? Why do you charge me with dissent when I disagree with the bishops you cite but feel yourself free of the charge when you dissent from the cardinal I reference?

Your intensity and seeming animosity to me is noted.

I have unapologetically disagreed with your assertions. Take that however you will.

I am deeply sorry to hear that you are expressly in disagreement with what you refer to as ‘prudential’ teachings of the Magisterium…

And I am sorry you find it necessary to dodge the argument I have made. The comments of the USCCB cannot be considered to be anything like the teaching of the Magisterium, nor has that Magisterium said anything definitive on the private ownership of firearms. You have gone from “Let there be peace” to “the Church has banned gun ownership.” What you consider to be Church doctrine is merely your own and you should be little surprised that I dispute it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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

2265 grants the right of armed force to authorized representatives. It is your personal interpretation that this is granted solely to them; that passage certainly doesn’t say this. The endnote for that passage references Aquinas comment about the lawfulness of killing in self defense, a point the Church has made in every catechism she has produced. If there is any Church doctrine that prohibits the use of weapons in self defense please point to it.

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.

I don’t dispute that it is dogmatic, I dispute your understanding of what it says … and does not say.

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.

Let us understand these points together: 2265 grants civil authorities the right to armed self defense while GS 78 requires that they disarm. Surely you cannot believe the Church teaches mutually exclusive doctrines.

True peace is not yet practical so nations must, unfortunately, arm themselves…

Well, given that neither is true peace available to the individual citizen, why should it be considered practical to disarm him? Either the “practical” excuse applies in both cases or it applies in neither. I am certainly prepared to accept GS 78 as a long term objective rather than an immediate obligation.

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”.

Your misunderstand LG 25 as well. It identifies three types of teaching: doctrines that are declared infallible, doctrines that are taught infallibly, and doctrines of the ordinary Magisterium. It is quite true that our religious submission is obliged even when the Magisterium is not teaching infallibly, but this refers to ordinary teachings, not prudential judgments. That section in fact says nothing at all about such judgments nor does the catechism.

Ender

 

[Ender]

I do not see any doctrinal prohibition on the use of firearms for self-defense…

You have not found such a doctrine because none exists.

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.

Nor do I. Here (again) is Aquinas’ explanation:Now moral acts take their species according to what is intended, and not according to what is beside the intention, since this is accidental as explained above (43, 3; I-II, 12, 1). Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one’s life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one’s intention is to save one’s own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in “being,” as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful
There is nothing there to suggest that the lawfulness of an act of self defense depends on the particular means used, only that the intent be one of protection (and not e.g. revenge) and that the means be proportionate to that objective. If those criteria are met then whether we use our hands, a rock, or an AK47 our action is justified. This, by the way is the section cited by CCC 2265.

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.

Not surprisingly I agree with this statement.

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 …

It is not merely that the laity will in fact be better educated and far more experienced in such areas (law enforcement, budget issues…) but that it is their responsibility to address such problems. That is the lay role in society.

Ender

 

[10gr8kids]

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.

Yes, but Joan of Arc is a saint also. Maybe we aren’t all called to be pacifist.

 

[Oumashta]

Yes, but Joan of Arc is a saint also. Maybe we aren’t all called to be pacifist.

True The Church isn’t completely pacifist.
But I think the discussion is now about non-legitimate authority possessing guns. St. Joan of Arc was a soldier, and so right now according to the pro-gun control argument, she would have had a right and duty to use her weapons to defend her country. They’re now talking about civilians (people like me and you, not police or soldiers) having guns.

 

[Tony2255]

Well, given that neither is true peace available to the individual citizen, why should it be considered practical to disarm him? Either the “practical” excuse applies in both cases or it applies in neither. I am certainly prepared to accept GS 78 as a long term objective rather than an immediate obligation.

Have a question about GS 78. By long term objective you mean working to reach the end goal, disarmament? To achieve this goal would require some form of law or regulation reducing the number of arms over time correct?

The way I’m understanding it is not, there’s no true peace so everyone’s armed and if everyone is armed there will never be true peace, a stalemate. Instead. We presently do not have true peace but should always be to striving to achieve it through the reduction and eventual elimination of armaments.

Is this correct?

 

[nordskoven]

The only way I am giving up my gun is if it is pried from my cold, dead fingers…Unless the Democrat-aligned Catholics, who effortlessly forfeited our First Amendment right to freedom of religious practice, seamlessly forfeit our Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms, a proven crime quasher. One down, Two to go. These are the same law-and-order bishops who evaded justice and shielded sex offenders to the extent the USCCB had to show a good faith effort in appointing a lay oversight committee on sexual abuse by clerics. That included two pro-abortion Clinton Democrats; and the head of Johns Hopkins psych department who supported their sex clinic–founded by pro-pedophilia Dr. John Money–in their refusal to comply with Maryland law and report active pedophiles. Are these same bishops chronically leaking cash from the CRS funds to anti-Catholic causes like abortion and homosexual marriage support?

I was just reading Christ’s ban-worthy execrations heaped on the priests of His day. “Hypocrites.” “Woe!” Well, I don’t wish to get banned, but do the words “Fast & Furious” ring a bell? Anybody raising a stink over 2,000 weapons channeled to Mexican drug gangs that left a death toll of around 200 Mexicans? This straining of gnats through our collective teeth and swallowing the camel of mass murder via Catholic-funded abortion and sterilization; and gun running to drug cartels from a heavily Catholic-supported administration is…two-faced. Will the real Catholics please kneel down? If God’s people humbly pray, repent and do justice, He will have mercy and heal our land.

 

[Tony2255]

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice Issued by USCCB, November 15, 2000

*Challenging the culture of violence and encouraging a culture of life.
All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse.35 As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.36

Note 36
**However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society. *“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.’” U.S. Catholic Bishops, New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990), 10.

old.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml

 

[Brendan]

True The Church isn’t completely pacifist.
But I think the discussion is now about non-legitimate authority possessing guns. St. Joan of Arc was a soldier, and so right now according to the pro-gun control argument, she would have had a right and duty to use her weapons to defend her country. They’re now talking about civilians (people like me and you, not police or soldiers) having guns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Without a firearm, how would a physically weaker, even frail person, exercise their right to defend themselves. The rights of Natural Law cannot be rendered meaningless in exercise.

 

[Brendan]

Note 36
**However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society. **“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.’” U.S. Catholic Bishops, New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990), 10.

old.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml

And the bishops are correct. But, under the dictates of Natural Law, it is those who use them for evil must lose their access to them first.

We see that in the call for ‘effective’ control of hanguns. Nothing proposed so far in the civil realm has been effective in achieving what the bishops ask for.

All that has happened is the disarming of those who use them for legitimate defense, while leaving them in the hands of the attackers, which is the exact opposite of what is called for under Natural Law.

 

[10gr8kids]

True The Church isn’t completely pacifist.
But I think the discussion is now about non-legitimate authority possessing guns. St. Joan of Arc was a soldier, and so right now according to the pro-gun control argument, she would have had a right and duty to use her weapons to defend her country. They’re now talking about civilians (people like me and you, not police or soldiers) having guns.

If someone was to come to my house to do harm, I would be lucky if a policeman arrived within 30 mins. I do not consider myself a non-legitimate authority in protecting myself and my young children. The Catachism says,

“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave DUTY for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the FAMILY or of the state.” 2265

It seems to me many well meaning and caring Catholics have issues with guns in the hands of private citizens. It reminds me of the concern of many Protestants in the bible belt that I know who have a problem with alcohol. They believe consumption of alcohol to be sinful because some people abuse it. The sin is not in drinking alcohol, but in abusing it. Just as there is no sin in owning guns and using them if need be in self-defense. If you don’t believe alcohol needs to be banned, or heavily regulated,why guns? IMHO alchol is responsible for more negative effects on people and families than guns are. Alcohol is involved in more deaths in the US than guns. When a football player killed his girlfriend and himself we heard cries to ban guns. The very next weekend a drunk driving accident takes the life of another football player. I didn’t hear anyone making suggestions on banning alcohol. Surely you must see the double standard.

 

[ELCore]

Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice Issued by USCCB, November 15, 2000

*Challenging the culture of violence and encouraging a culture of life.
All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse.35 As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.36

Note 36
**However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society. ***“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.’” U.S. Catholic Bishops, New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990), 10.

old.usccb.org/sdwp/criminal.shtml

These are prudential judgements. The bishops are entitled to them, and they are entitled to express them. But they are not doctrinal statements, and are in no way binding on the faithful.

I note that the bishops do not make it clear that these statements are not binding on the faithful. I suspect the omission is not accidental.

I also suspect that these expressions have as much to do with liberal sensitivities as with Catholic sensibilities.

 

[Ender]

Have a question about GS 78. By long term objective you mean working to reach the end goal, disarmament? To achieve this goal would require some form of law or regulation reducing the number of arms over time correct?

Well, I was being a bit facetious with my comment because even if we lived in that peaceful society without crime I would still not support a ban on firearm ownership because there would still be people wishing to use them for sport shooting and hunting. In fact, however, inasmuch as we will never live in a crime free society there is no reason to believe it would ever be reasonable to disarm the average citizen and leave him to defend himself and his family with nothing but knives and baseball bats.

The way I’m understanding it is not, there’s no true peace so everyone’s armed and if everyone is armed there will never be true peace, a stalemate.

I think this is a misunderstanding of what is required for peace - and it isn’t an absence of weapons. We have an enormous stockpile of weapons yet are completely at peace with Canada because both sides recognize no threat in their neighbor. My neighbor has any number of rifles and shotguns yet he is no more a threat to me than I, with no weapons at all, am to him. He is, however, better able to protect himself and his family from intruders. So it is not the presence of weapons that prevents us from having peace but the presence of the criminally minded.

We presently do not have true peace but should always be to striving to achieve it through the reduction and eventual elimination of armaments.

We cannot achieve peace by eliminating arms; that would do nothing other than deliver ourselves to those who don’t have our scruples. It is man’s nature that is the problem, not his tools.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

True The Church isn’t completely pacifist.
But I think the discussion is now about **non-legitimate authority **possessing guns.QUOTE]

OK, but legitimate authority would include just about everyone.

We would first need to take a look at what ‘legio’ the Church believes grants legitimacy to the authority. The two candidates are the Civil Law and the Moral Law.

Since I trust the Church and know that the Church believes (as Aquinas taught) that the purpose of civil law is to make manifest the Natural Law. An unjust civil law, by definition, is one that acts contrary to the Natural Law.

Under the Natural Law, an elderly woman would be under no moral wrong to defend herself against a deadly attacker. That would include by any targeted means, a knife, a club, even a firearm. Such a woman has the moral authority to do so. In fact, even the right to so.

In a just system of laws, therefore, the civil right to conduct such a defense, would be, by definition, preserved.

A non-legitimate authority, therefore, is the restricted to the unjust attacker, not the just defender.

So when the Catechism speaks of ‘legitimate authority’, it does, by definition, speak about the common people and causes and needs of personal defense.

 

[ELCore]

But I think the discussion is now about non-legitimate authority possessing guns. St. Joan of Arc was a soldier, and so right now according to the pro-gun control argument, she would have had a right and duty to use her weapons to defend her country. They’re now talking about civilians (people like me and you, not police or soldiers) having guns.

This gets back to the confusion I tried to elucidate earlier. Self-defense and defense of the common good are two different activities.

In the Catechism of the Catholic Church, # 2264 addresses self-defense, # 2265 addresses defense of the common good. It is the latter that acknowledges that proper authorities may act in defense of the common good with force of arms (it does not, I notice, say “firearms”, just “arms”). # 2264 says nothing whatever – neither by way of approval nor of disapproval – about the means by which self-defense may be effected.

The claim that “arms” (again, not “firearms” just “arms”) are allowed by the Catechism only to proper authorities is wrong – and stems from the confusion of self-defense and defense of the common good.

 

[Graubo3]

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).

I am not even certain where to begin addressing your ‘shotgun’ approach to a myriad of topics with a plethora of references. I would refer you and others to marywarfield post #47, it is very succinct.

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.

So striving for ‘Utopia’ is dogmatic which I agree with but how to achieve this in reality is not as clear cut dogmatic as some say it is which I also agree with. That is why while sleeping, one hand is on the rosary and the other is free to throw the Catechism at an intruder.
I notice in your whole Apostolic Authority exhortation, you fail to reference Pope John Paul II’s Apostolos Suos:vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/motu_proprio/documents/hf_jp-ii_motu-proprio_22071998_apostolos-suos_en.html. Is this deliberate? Why is this document not referenced to by the USCCB? In fact, Apostolos Suos negates the authority of your stated references regarding the USCCB. In fact, the USCCB as an organization has no teaching authority according to the infallible ordinary Magisterium over any particular lay Catholic (cf nos.10, 11, 12, 19, 20). It truly is a shame more Catholics do not know this. In the matters of faith and morals we are bound to our diocesan bishop being in communion with the college of bishops being in communion with the pope. Coy assertions by you that I reject Church teachings and you playing the victim card are very ACORN’esque.

 

[Ender]

One of the subtopics of this discussion deals with whether our assent is required when individual bishops, or even the entire Magisterium, makes a prudential judgment. Here are some comments relevant to that discussion. The point common to all of them is that assent to prudential judgments is not an obligation.

• Beyond that, it has included a prudential judgment (the only such one in the “Catechism” on any topic, so far as I am aware) that, by its nature, cannot be binding in conscience. *(Karl Keating)
  catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp

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) http://www.catholic.com/newsletters/kke_040302.asp
catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=4100

• In matters of public policy, some elected officials, Catholic and non-Catholic, will invariably disagree with the Church’s position on a particular issue or legislative proposal. Sometimes the issue is so morally clear and so fundamental to the faith, that the disagreement cannot be justified or reconciled with being Catholic. Other times, there can exist legitimate differences of opinion as to how to best to respond to a social problem. ** By recognizing these differences in “prudential judgment,” the Church acknowledges that at the level of concrete political action various views and methods can exist without running afoul of Catholic teaching.** *(North Dakota Catholic Conference)
  ndcatholic.org/editorials/june04/index.html

When it comes to the question of interventions in the prudential order, it could happen that some Magisterial documents might not be free from all deficiencies. Bishops and their advisors have not always taken into immediate consideration every aspect or the entire complexity of a question. But it would be contrary to the truth, if, proceeding from some particular cases, one were to conclude that the Church’s Magisterium can be habitually mistaken in its prudential judgments (CDF - Donum Veritatis)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

Ender

 

[Emerald_Isle]

As a non-American I find it hard to understand your love affair with guns. I pray that you will be able to come to a peaceful agreement on how to avoid tragedies like the deaths of those young children and their teachers. I think that if we are prolife we can’t be unconcerned about the dangers of guns. I cannot imagine a situation in which Our Lord would carry a gun.

 

[Brendan]

. I cannot imagine a situation in which Our Lord would carry a gun.

Good Point, I suppose that when you can level whole cities like Sodom and Gehmorrah with just a point of your finger, a 9mm does seem a bit pathetic.

But for the we mortals, there are sometimes few other options to defend our lives.

BTW, I’m an Irish ex-pat, and my cousins in Sligo have just as many (if not more) guns than I do. I just have more pistols.

Same for my in-laws in Quebec. So it’s not just an ‘American’ thing.