Church Social Teaching and Gun Control

[Cristiano]

Let’s cut to the chase here.

Is it a sin to own a gun?

Is it a sin to defend one’s self?

This reminds me of when I was talking about rattlesnakes in the garage. My pastor simply said “pull out your gun and shoot it”.

 

[shipwrkd]

Let’s cut to the chase here.

Is it a sin to own a gun?

Is it a sin to defend one’s self?

No, my parish priest owns several and has since his childhood.

 

[scipio337]

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.

There is no “love affiar”, just a very strong self-determined streak. See the Penal Laws of 1695. For on oppressed people, I would assume most Irish would understand the desire for self-protection.

I pray that we are able to avoid these tragedies, but I don’t think forbidding law abiding citizens from ownership would do that. I am very concerned about the dangers of guns in the hands of people who shouldn’t own them.

 

[shipwrkd]

Mine was an avid bird hunter that took me to hunt with him several times because my father allowed him to hunt on our land. He had a beautiful Remington 1100 shotgun. I don’t recall him reminding me to confess my sins for hunting with him.

Our last fundraiser was a game farm pheasant hunt. If I didn’t need it to shoot, I’d have given my left arm for his Citori Lightning

BTW, I did ask if I needed to confess the fact that I coveted his gun. He said he’d let me off…this time

 

[DL82]

Submachine guns? Do you realize how regulated those things are and how much paperwork you have to go through to purchace one? Let alone the purchace price of one (the “cheap ones” are in the teens, the more expensive ones run over $100,000).

Not to mention the fact how rare it is that one commits a crime with one - since 1968 only two registered automatic weapons have been used to commit a crime - both were committed by police officers. All “legally” civilian owned automatic weapons are registered with the BATF.

For more information go here:

atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-machine-guns.html

There are a number of militias that own those kinds of weapons. Further down the cost scale, Semi-automatic handguns could also be described as purpose-built man-killers. They aren’t built for hunting or sports, they are for killing. Sure, you could shoot a small animal with one, but going back to my earlier analogy, it would be like the fantasy adulterer justifying his condoms with the remote possibility that he might put a hole in one to give CPR.

 

[scipio337]

There are a number of militias that own those kinds of weapons.

Source?? The Branch Davidians converted some, illegally, but making more restrictive laws wouldn’t have stopped that.

DL82:

Further down the cost scale, Semi-automatic handguns could also be described as purpose-built man-killers. They aren’t built for hunting or sports, they are for killing. Sure, you could shoot a small animal with one, but going back to my earlier analogy, it would be like the fantasy adulterer justifying his condoms with the remote possibility that he might put a hole in one to give CPR.

The 2nd Amendment wasn’t written for “hunting or sports”. You’ve had the most restrictive gun laws in NYC for almost a century.

How’s that workin’ out for ya?

 

[pnewton]

It goes further, however, as even the NRA have acknowledged - to rehearse, imagine, dwell upon the act of violently killing another human being is itself a grave sin.

I do not think this is something the Catholic Church teaches. Police regularly rehearse the killing of another human being. It is part of their training. One who carries a gun also needs to roll over in his head this act, and practice if he can, so that training can take over in an emergency.

Perhaps you mean it is a sin to want to violently kill someone? Jesus did speak to that. To harbor hate even against a criminal is to murder as lust is to adultery.

 

[pnewton]

In the same way, if I review ‘tactics’ for an efficient kill, stockpile assault weapons, train and practice for the act of deliberately killing (even if I say it is killing in ‘self-defense’ there is still a big difference between self defence where someone dies and deliberately killing an attacker), I would argue that you are basically coveting the kill, even if you never fire your gun in anger.

Such a judgmental leap would be contrary to charity. The Catholic Church has never taught tactical training is sinful.

 

[DL82]

Perhaps you mean it is a sin to want to violently kill someone? Jesus did speak to that. To harbor hate even against a criminal is to murder as lust is to adultery.

This is what I mean. To want the kill, even if you can justify it by self defense, is to murder what lust is to adultery.

The Church is quite clear that even in war the soldier should not hate his enemy, even though he must kill him in battle. This requires great spiritual discipline, and the chivalric orders of old spent their lives perfecting it. To train when it is necessary is one thing, but what drives anyone to rehearse over and over the act of killing as a private individual, and do they have the discernment to avoid these bad motivations?

I would draw an analogy with a doctor seeing patients of the opposite sex naked. It is no sin, and is necessary to their duties, but i would have grave concerns if people started coming into a male accountants office for amateur breast exams.

 

[DL82]

PS, I’m not against American gun culture. I’m a swordsman, and have studied the Japanese sword culture - they had a highly developed philosophy of how to discipline yourself so as to kill without hate, to hide violence so as to preserve peace. I think America’s traditional gun culture, as it existed 50 years ago, or maybe still does in some of the inland states, had that too.

What I find odd is the move to a ‘tactical’ culture where a sizeable chunk of the population are now financially, materially and psychologically invested in the collapse of civilisation. It isn’t just right wing extremists and doomsday preppers, but all those who sincerely believe that they will soon find themselves fighting a war against their neighbours and/or the government, and who seem not the least bit remorseful at the prospect. This doesn’t seem to be a healthy way to live, in my humble opinion.

 

[pnewton]

What I find odd is the move to a ‘tactical’ culture where a sizeable chunk of the population are now financially, materially and psychologically invested in the collapse of civilisation. It isn’t just right wing extremists and doomsday preppers, but all those who sincerely believe that they will soon find themselves fighting a war against their neighbours and/or the government, and who seem not the least bit remorseful at the prospect. This doesn’t seem to be a healthy way to live, in my humble opinion.

I think this subculture is much smaller than one is made to believe through the media.

 

[Mike_Pasamano]

Hitler used “public safety” as an excuse for “gun control”! How do you think the Holocaust started? The Jews were disarmed! There was virtually no crime in the Old West! Why do think that was! Everyone had guns!

 

[shipwrkd]

It goes further, however, as even the NRA have acknowledged - to rehearse, imagine, dwell upon the act of violently killing another human being is itself a grave sin. In the same way as imagining yourself committing adultery and dwelling on the fantasy would itself be a mortal sin whether or not you actually do it, in the same way such thoughts are a grave sin against the 5th commandment.
?

I’d be interested to see where the NRA speaks on rehearsing a violent act as sinful, especially comparing anything having to do with weaponry to the 5th commandment.

This is significant when you consider the ‘tactical’ side of a tactical weapons ban. What is going through someone’s head when they stockpile military assault rifles in their home? Are they not doing so on the basis of where they can most easily access them if they need to kill other human beings? When they fire these at a weapons range, are they imagining killing other human beings? If they train with a militia, are they not imagining a war scenario against their fellow human beings? The concept of ‘tactical’ weaponry is that you define your ‘tactics’ in order to be the most efficient killer. Before you have killed one person, you have killed him hundreds of times in tactical scenarios in your mind. That is not spiritually healthy (also not socially or psychologically healthy in my opinion)

Seems we have yet another term introduced. “Tactical Weapon”.

youtube.com/watch?v=N-36SMjAUCc

Hunting rifles are one thing, picking up a hunting rifle and using it to shoot an intruder to protect your home is one thing, but, as my wife put it, who needs a 200 round clip to shoot a deer?

Most hunting rifles could also be labeled as “tactical” if that’s the way they are used. When not in a duck blind, my 12 gauge has an 18 1/4" barrel on it with five rounds of 00 buck in it. That’s fifty .30 caliber pellets or 20 more then the standard 30 round high capacity magazine made for a so called “assault weapon”. Not sure where your coming up with 200 rounds but if they exist, they would make a weapon bulky and awkward to shoot. you see, there is a bit of exaggeration in both camps.

I think this subculture is much smaller than one is made to believe through the media

I tend to agree with this

 

[Spider42]

There is nothing whatever in Canon law or Church teaching that prohibits a discussion of … Church teaching.

Since I have an obligation to the truth I must point out that is not what I said. I stated, truthfully, that I could not debate the meaning of Apostolic Authority, one particular subject, in this way (a public, anonymous, forum), at this time. And I noted that the limit was not a broad one, but an individual one, based on my own particular circumstances.

Now, I realize, you were simply trying to collapse something I had stated into an absurdum, ridiculous on it’s face, hence easily dismissed. But although it is not even remotely close to my statements, your statement above is, in of itself, quite incorrect. And, fortunately, this is an area I am quite free discuss.

There are actually many circumstances that could arise in Canon law where discussing Church teaching could be prohibited for an individual or group of Catholics. Like a Catholic asking his bishop for permission to join the seminary and become a priest and permission being granted with the condition that the applicant cease expressing public opinions on Canon Law during the formative period of his training. These sorts of conditions are generally licit and recognized in various forms of the Ecclesiastical court.

But we don’t have to go off topic. Anyone who follows the Associated Press knows that the Holy See has a position on gun control. As the recent Vatican editorial praising the Obama administration’s “first step” noted, the Church’s position is already in pastoral documents.

Now look at the document you provided:

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html

If you don’t have the patience to read the whole thing, just read Section IV, it covers how theologists and the Magisterium are supposed to interact and “The Problem of Dissent”.

Now, imagine you are a Catholic theologian teaching at a Catholic university or a seminary. You come here, to this very forum and make statements like many we can find in this thread, flatly disagreeing with what the Church is now teaching on gun control.

You get called into a meeting with the bishop overseeing your teaching facility. And he points out some mistakes from the document you provided above. ‘You didn’t come to me with your disagreement first…’ (21-24, cites Church constitution, and 30). ‘We disagree over wether this is doctrinal, but even if it were not you never should have presented your position as a non arguable conclusion…’ (27, which is under the expressly invoked Canon Law principle of unitas caritatis). ‘You even claimed you were not bound to the teaching because it was not dogmatic/infallible, this is the most radical form of dissent…’ (33-34, which gives this exact example in almost these exact words and cites Church constitution; it also falls under the Oath of Fidelity, not common for the laity, but assumed (22) for our theologian)…

I know that last one is close to the topic I cannot debate here, but we are talking about a hypothetical theologian and his instructions from the document above. In any event, I could go on and on, but let’s just say that the bishop takes disciplinary action which includes limiting certain types of public speech on this topic (gun control) at least until all the steps outlining on how theologians are supposed to try to reach common understanding with the Magisterium outlined in the document above are exhausted.

Do you really believe that if our theologian appealed his situation in the court system of the Catholic Church that his bishop’s actions would all be wholly unfounded under Canon Law?

Part of the reason that people understand Canon Law so poorly is that the primary enforcement mechanism is the individual’s desire for something from, or simply participation in, the church. If our hypothetical theologian didn’t care about working for the Magisterium or access to Sacraments, the law would be unenforced, but it would still be the law.

 

[pnewton]

Seems we have yet another term introduced. “Tactical Weapon”.

I think when it comes to home defense, we need to contrast tactical weapons, those used for an immediate defense, with strategic weapons, those which make tactical defense unnecessary. We might, for example, have a security system, adequate outdoor lighting, sliding bolt locks, all of which are strategic weapons.

This does raise the moral question of whether we consider doing everything to secure our home against the need for defense first. If we spend a fortune on an arsenal to keep us safe, do we also spend money on a security system that can keep us safe without the need to take a life?

However, when it comes to something like a tactical baton, the name is used to sell it. All police batons are tactical. All police weapons that they carry are tactical. But manufactures like to use the term to tie into the SWAT mentality. It is not immoral. It is marketing.

 

[DL82]

I’d be interested to see where the NRA speaks on rehearsing a violent act as sinful, especially comparing anything having to do with weaponry to the 5th commandment.
:

economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/01/hollywood-and-nra

‘Isnt fantasising about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography’ - Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP of the NRA

Ok, maybe I have quoted him a little out of context, but I don’t see how you can say that fantasising while playing a video game is worse than fantasising while holding a real weapon at a gun range.

 

[DL82]

I think when it comes to home defense, we need to contrast tactical weapons, those used for an immediate defense, with strategic weapons, those which make tactical defense unnecessary. We might, for example, have a security system, adequate outdoor lighting, sliding bolt locks, all of which are strategic weapons.

This does raise the moral question of whether we consider doing everything to secure our home against the need for defense first. If we spend a fortune on an arsenal to keep us safe, do we also spend money on a security system that can keep us safe without the need to take a life.

I like this a lot.

The Japanese have a story about a samurai who was asleep on a boat heading over to the South Island. On the ship there was also a braggart who wanted to pick a fight with him. The braggart asked what sword school the samurai belonged to, and the samurai replied the ‘no sword school’. The braggart laughed and said he would very much like to test his own skill against this ‘no sword kenjutsu’. The samurai thought for a second, then accepted the challenge, ‘but not here, in case we hurt innocent passengers’. They agreed to row out to an island and fight on the beach there. When the two men got close to the island, the braggart jumped into the shallow water and waded up to the beach… While the samurai turned the rowboat around and headed back to ship.

 

[shipwrkd]

I think when it comes to home defense, we need to contrast tactical weapons, those used for an immediate defense, with strategic weapons, those which make tactical defense unnecessary. We might, for example, have a security system, adequate outdoor lighting, sliding bolt locks, all of which are strategic weapons.

This does raise the moral question of whether we consider doing everything to secure our home against the need for defense first. If we spend a fortune on an arsenal to keep us safe, do we also spend money on a security system that can keep us safe without the need to take a life?

However, when it comes to something like a tactical baton, the name is used to sell it. All police batons are tactical. All police weapons that they carry are tactical. But manufactures like to use the term to tie into the SWAT mentality. It is not immoral. It is marketing.

Again, a bit of an exaggeration. An arsenal is of no use for self defense. You can only use one weapon at a time (unless your a TV actor) and in a defensive situation only one or two rounds should be necessary. Most people who own an arsenal are hunters who pursue multiple species or collectors.

In responds to the security system, it usually buys the owner enough time to call 911 and gather his weapon. Unless a homeowner is away, the police will not make it to an alarm until after harm can be done.

Marketing terms cut both ways. A baton is tactical but a baseball bat will do more damage and almost every kid has one. What is the REAL difference between a revolver and a semi-auto handgun or a tactical sniper rifle and a long range target rifle? Not a thing but you better not call your Remington 700 a sniper rifle. My ex-neighbor was a sniper and was allowed to purchase his weapon from the Marine Corp because it was built specifically for him. It’s now a hunting rifle.

 

[shipwrkd]

I like this a lot.

The Japanese have a story about a samurai who was asleep on a boat heading over to the South Island. On the ship there was also a braggart who wanted to pick a fight with him. The braggart asked what sword school the samurai belonged to, and the samurai replied the ‘no sword school’. The braggart laughed and said he would very much like to test his own skill against this ‘no sword kenjutsu’. The samurai thought for a second, then accepted the challenge, ‘but not here, in case we hurt innocent passengers’. They agreed to row out to an island and fight on the beach there. When the two men got close to the island, the braggart jumped into the shallow water and waded up to the beach… While the samurai turned the rowboat around and headed back to ship.

Nice story but someone invading your home is not a braggart and I certainly wouldn’t ask what weapon he was carrying and invite him outside where we wouldn’t harm others.

 

[shipwrkd]

economist.com/blogs/prospero/2013/01/hollywood-and-nra

‘Isnt fantasising about killing people as a way to get your kicks really the filthiest form of pornography’ - Wayne LaPierre, Executive VP of the NRA

Ok, maybe I have quoted him a little out of context, but I don’t see how you can say that fantasising while playing a video game is worse than fantasising while holding a real weapon at a gun range.

I would say so. His comments were made in responds to a question about violent movies not your average gun owner. I’m close to several LEO’s who fantasize quite the opposite…they hope never to have to kill another human being but they constantly prepare for it. Preparation and fantasizing are quite different. Ask any soldier.