Does the Catholic Church have a position on gun control?

[Prodigal_Son1]

Matt: 10:34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Aug., Quaest in Matt., q.3: Otherwise, “I am come to set a man against his father;” for he renounces the Devil who was his son; “the daughter against her mother,” that is, the people of God against the city of the world, that is, the wicked society of mankind, which is spoken of in Scripture under the names of Babylon, Egypt, Sodom, and other names.

“The daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law,” that is, the Church against the Synagogue, which according to the flesh, brought forth Christ the spouse of the Church. They are severed by the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. “And a man’s foes are they of his household,” those, that is, with whom he before lived as intimates.

Raban.: For no other mutual rights can be preserved between those who are at war in their creeds.

Gloss. interlin.: Otherwise; He mean, I am not come among men to strengthen their carnal affections, but to cut them off with the sword of the Spirit; whence it is rightly added, “And a man’s foes are they of his household.”

Greg., Mor., iii, 8: For the subtle enemy when he sees himself driven out of the hearts of the good, seeks out those who most love them, and speaking by the mouth of those who are dearest, endeavours while the heart is penetrated by love, that the sword of conviction may pierce to the inmost bulwarks of virtue.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

matt: 10:34 do not suppose that i have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

haydock biblical commentary

mat 10:34 i came not to send, &c. That is, dissension and war, in order that the false peace of sinners may be destroyed, and that those who follow me, may differ in morals and affections from the followers of this world. the sword, therefore, is the gospel, which separates those parents who remain in infidelity, &c. &c. &c. (menochius) — it must be observed, that the gospel does not necessarily of itself produce dissensions amongst men, but that christ foresaw, from the depravity of man’s heart, that dissensions would follow the propagation of the gospel. The blame of this, however, does not attach to the gospel itself, since those who embrace it, after their conversion sought more than ever to keep peace with all men, even with their most bitter persecutors; whilst those who rejected the gospel, forgetting even the ties of kindred, persecuted even to death the followers of christ. (haydock) — send peace, &c. Indeed before christ became man, there was no sword upon the earth; that is, the spirit had not to fight with so much violence against the flesh; but when he became man, he shewed us what things were of the flesh, and what of the spirit, and taught us to set these two at variance, by renouncing always those of the flesh, which constantly endeavour to get master over us, and follow the dictates of the spirit. (origen)

 

[Ridgerunner]

Quite possibly, but that does not mean that the USA won the war for all the other parties. The American arrival boosted the strength of the Allied forces and gave the Allies the edge. The Russians, and the British won the war as much as the USA did.

Even Churchill admitted that, but for American help, Britain would have lost the war pretty early on. One has to question whether, without having to fight the Brits and Americans, Stalin could have held out. He did offer, at one point when it really looked dark for Britain and the U.S., Ukraine to Hitler in exchange for peace.

That whole war was, according to some, a lot closer thing than many think.

 

[Fairwinds]

The Church teaches defense, but it does not teach that each person is entitled to whatever type weapon they want. They quote the Catechism for defense, and parse/dissect the Catechism when it speaks of a right and duty of the state to regulate.

With all their wrangling, they don’t acknowledge that private sales allow for people to exchange guns for cash, without even sharing names, much less background checks, with each other. There are gaps in our present ‘regulations,’ and they seem content that it remain that way.

the CCC doesn’t say what weapon may be used and certainly isn’t concerned with background checks. it all depends on context. self defense/defense of others, just war may well require lethal weapons. an AR-15 is as good as some, not as good as a 12 gauge.

are you sure you’re up to speed on the CCC? or the second amendment? it looks like you engage in a lot of cherry picking.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the CCC doesn’t say what weapon may be used and certainly isn’t concerned with background checks. it all depends on context. self defense/defense of others, just war may well require lethal weapons. an AR-15 is as good as some, not as good as a 12 gauge.

are you sure you’re up to speed on the CCC? or the second amendment? it looks like you engage in a lot of cherry picking.

The AR15 is an assault rifle. That has been discussed by the bishops. They would like them banned. They are also concerned with ‘an easy access’ guns. That would mean background checks are acceptable, in an effort to prevent such an access. The teachings, and guidance are clear. One has to read something into them, or leave something up for interpretation to arrive at another meaning, and for what purpose, if not for a personal view?

And, this is not an eradication of all guns. It’s only presented that way to instill ‘fear mongering’ in others.

 

[Fairwinds]

Even Churchill admitted that, but for American help, Britain would have lost the war pretty early on. One has to question whether, without having to fight the Brits and Americans, Stalin could have held out. He did offer, at one point when it really looked dark for Britain and the U.S., Ukraine to Hitler in exchange for peace.

That whole war was, according to some, a lot closer thing than many think.

closer for the brits. not for the US. Japan lost its opportunity for a diplomatic resolution by failing at pearl harbor, and effectively lost the war by mid-'42 after the defeat at Midway. hitler winning the battle of britain and the submarine war and making the brits sue for peace is an intriguing historical possibility, given better decision making. a german-USSR war I think was inevitable.

 

[Brendan_64]

Even Churchill admitted that, but for American help, Britain would have lost the war pretty early on. One has to question whether, without having to fight the Brits and Americans, Stalin could have held out. He did offer, at one point when it really looked dark for Britain and the U.S., Ukraine to Hitler in exchange for peace.

That whole war was, according to some, a lot closer thing than many think.

Yes, without American help the Axis forces may well have won, but that does not mean that the USA won the war for the Allies. Their joining the Allies boosted the Allied forces sufficiently to give the Allies the edge. No one Allied force won the war, it was a joint effort with all major parties as responsible for the victory as the others.

And as for losing early on, we managed to hold turn back a potential German invasion by winning the Battle of Britain. Had we not done this Britain would have fallen to Hitler and the USA would have been powerless to act, even if it had then wanted to, as it could not have used Britain to set up bases and launch attacks from. If that had happened, Hitler could have turned to put his full force behind attacking the USSR. It could be argued that Britain won World War II by winning the battle of Britain.

I guess turning up late to World Wars is better than not turning up

 

[Annie39]

I drive a car but I cannot take a car into a school and kill the whole school with my car. Also your not allowed to drive a car when using alcohol. But I do believe people can just carry a gun even if they are pissed drunk. And I wonder what **** drunk people do with a gun when there’s a fight comming up?

And surely go buy more guns. Go tell me that I am stupid for being against guns. But when guns take the lifes of your childeren, grandchilderen or anyone else close to you don’t come to me. Though in America I can remember after a school got killed the people already started asking for more guns for protection. Surely when we all have guns no one will be killed.

You write: “I drive a car but I cannot take a car into a school and kill the whole school with my car. Also your not allowed to drive a car when using alcohol. But I do believe people can just carry a gun even if they are pissed drunk. And I wonder what **** drunk people do with a gun when there’s a fight comming up?”

My reply: Oh yes you can. Read as many of these urls as you want to there is more put I got tired of c/ping the urls. I have my own story to go along with this a member of my family was suicidal and thought of driving her car into a freeway overpass. Do you have any idea of how much carnage is caused by drunk drivers? Its epidemic. If you buy a car you are contributing to that carnage I guess by your logic. And as an aside your language is quite vulgar from time to time.

highbeam.com/doc/1P2-23124361.html

sptimes.com/2003/12/27/State/Man_drives_car_into_i.shtml

toraradical.com/2012/12/chinese-man-drives-car-into-crowd-of.html

cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-20053520.html

godlikeproductions.com/forum1/message2093932/pg1

newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/02/24/cops-3-hurt-after-woman-intentionally-drives-into-crowd-outside-new-cassel-hall/

tulsaworld.com/site/printerfriendlystory.aspx?articleid=20081102_11_A1_h745730

news.sky.com/story/688645/five-killed-in-car-attack-on-royal-family

nbc29.com/story/14693297/police-say-teen-in-louisa-deliberately-drove-car-into-a-crowd

 

[Fairwinds]

The AR15 is an assault rifle. That has been discussed by the bishops. They would like them banned. They are also concerned with ‘an easy access’ guns. That would mean background checks are acceptable, in an effort to prevent such an access. The teachings, and guidance are clear. One has to read something into them, or leave something up for interpretation to arrive at another meaning, and for what purpose, if not for a personal view?

And, this is not an eradication of all guns. It’s only presented that way to instill ‘fear mongering’ in others.

you are fear mongering and the USCCB hasn’t demanded a ban on AR-15s, as others have patiently explained to you maybe a hundred or so times.

its a fond grabtastic fantasy, but not going to happen.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t think we can squeeze Jesus’ attitude toward guns out of the Bible. He taught his disciples certain things and charged them with certain things. He told his disciples to leave their families and go preaching. That doesn’t mean all of us are commanded to do the same thing. He neither commanded nor forbade possession of weapons.

One thing that does strike one as curious. Remembering the Roman soldier of whom He said “I have not found greater faith than this in all of Israel”, one realizes that Roman soldiers had a great number of weapons and were taught deadly skills with them; skills they used. Death by Roman soldier was a mean death at the time.

Never did Jesus tell that soldier or any other to give up his profession or his weapons. Now, one can interpret that to mean Jesus did not oppose weapons in the hands of soldiery, even the oppressive Roman military. One can interpret it to mean Jesus didn’t think there was any point in telling the soldier to quit being a soldier. One can interpret it to mean Jesus was all for defensive weaponry in the hands of one who knew how to use it, even if the weaponry was sometimes used oppressively.

One can speculate forever, but one thing is for sure. Jesus never told that soldier or any other to disarm.

 

[SamH]

Are you kidding? Control over West Berlin, West Germany, military bases all over Western Europe and setting itself up as the dominant super-power facing the USSR. Without that, the USA would not have gone on to be the dominant world power it is today.

Why not? The US would have actually been even more dominate - imagine the power of the US without spending trillions upon trillions defending much of the free world.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“God asks each one of us: Where is the blood of your brother that cries out to me?,” Pope Francis said during his homily, quoting from the Genesis story of Cain and Abel. “Today no one in the world feels responsible for this; we have lost the sense of fraternal responsibility.”

-Pope Francis

Pope Francis then asked for forgiveness: for the “indifference towards so many brothers and sisters…for those who are pleased with themselves, who are closed in on their own well-being in a way that leads to the anaesthesia of the heart, … for those who with their decisions at the global level have created situations that lead to these tragedies. Forgive us, Lord!”

-Pope Francis

These words were from him speaking on “thousands of migrants who have died making the journey to Italy from Africa.” I can see the teaching being applicable to the tragedies from mass shootings, and those who fight against effective gun controls.

 

[SamH]

Yes but it does not say you can support a industry that costs the life of many? John Paul II was shot with a gun.

Mary Jo Kopechne was killed by an Oldsmobile.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

you are fear mongering and the USCCB hasn’t demanded a ban on AR-15s, as others have patiently explained to you maybe a hundred or so times.

its a fond grabtastic fantasy, but not going to happen.

No, others have denied committees of the USCCB, and the document approved by a full body of bishops. Do you think the bishops that speak for the bishops of the USCCB, through USCCB committees, are lying?

 

[Meemai]

Mary Jo Kopechne was killed by an Oldsmobile.

Though those aren’t made to kill people. But I get it you see a gun not as a weapon you can defend yourself right? That people in Syria are being shot with guns, that civilians are being destroyed by guns. Not your problem right?

No, others have denied committees of the USCCB, and the document approved by a full body of bishops. Do you think the bishops that speak for the bishops of the USCCB, through USCCB committees, are lying?

usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/upload/Letter-to-Senate-Leadership-on-Gun-Violence-Vote-4-18-13.pdf This link is also interesting.

 

[SamH]

Yup it’s a big industry and a lot of guns also are being exploited and sent to countries where you can not have them. And there they are used to wreak havoc and stuff like that. By supporting such a industry your a indirect murderer.

Actually I always thought those that stripped people of the ability to defend themselves as the direct accomplices to murder.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Mary Jo Kopechne was killed by an Oldsmobile.

And the Church has teachings on that, but it’s another topic.

 

[SamH]

Though those aren’t made to kill people. But I get it you see a gun not as a weapon you can defend yourself right? That people in Syria are being shot with guns, that civilians are being destroyed by guns. Not your problem right?

Who is killing them?

 

[Fairwinds]

No, others have denied committees of the USCCB, and the document approved by a full body of bishops. Do you think the bishops that speak for the bishops of the USCCB, through USCCB committees, are lying?

I think you’re mistaken, again, and shouldn’t presume to speak for the USCCB.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The AR15 is an assault rifle. That has been discussed by the bishops. They would like them banned. They are also concerned with ‘an easy access’ guns. That would mean background checks are acceptable, in an effort to prevent such an access. The teachings, and guidance are clear. One has to read something into them, or leave something up for interpretation to arrive at another meaning, and for what purpose, if not for a personal view?

And, this is not an eradication of all guns. It’s only presented that way to instill ‘fear mongering’ in others.

Are you going to provide the sources for this assertion? “That has been discussed by the bishops. They would like them banned.” You have not yet quoted any of them saying that. Please do so, giving a reliable source for it.

As to background checks in inter-family transfers, you can quote “the bishops” on that if you think they said that. You haven’t so far. Nor have you demonstrated that making me do a background check on my son before giving him a rifle will stop any crime.

And the civilian AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are fully automatic. You can’t buy a fully automatic weapon or even own one in the U.S. without a special license requiring a major FBI background check. You also have to consent to unannounced searches of your home at any time as a condition of having an automatic weapon.

I wouldn’t much doubt that most bishops, if not all, would oppose individuals having automatic weapons without those kinds of controls. But they’re already in place.