Does the Catholic Church have a position on gun control?

[Ridgerunner]

It’s not just the US Bishops speaking out, as Fr Lombardi the Chief Vatican spokesman refers to in his January editorial on gun violence this year, most of the religious world are at one with the Vatican on this issue. Certainly Australian Catholics are.

news.va/en/news/lombardi-editorial-against-arms

Fr. Lombardi, in the article you cited, has no specific proposals at all, and furthermore says he is under no illusions that trying to control guns in the U.S. would prevent massacres like Newtown. Here’s what he said:

“No one can be under the illusion that limiting their number and use would be enough to impede horrendous massacres in the future, such as the one in Newtown…”

 

[LongingSoul]

He isn’t the “chief Vatican Spokesman”. He’s the press officer. He, himself said he doesn’t speak for the Pope, saying as follows:

Upon assuming the directorate, Lombardi said he would not be a papal “spokesman” since he believes Benedict XVI did not need an interpreter, saying, “I don’t think my role is to explain the Pope’s thinking or explain the things that he already states in an extraordinarily clear and rich way.”[4]

Neither Pope Benedict nor Pope Francis has expressed himself on the specifics of the Obama/Prodigal proposition, which includes banning certain semiautomatic rifles that have a “military look” to them or requiring background checks when one person receives a rifle as a gift or by inheritance.

Even Fr. Lombardi didn’t have specific proposals. He endorsed the NOTION of gun controls, but said what he did before Obama proposed what he did.

Fr Lombardi is the Director of the Vatican Press Office. He is the voice reflecting the Vatican via the Press on the current issues requiring Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut. He is not a freelancer. He speaks via the press regarding the Churchs position on issues.

As for addressing specifics, the Church is primarily a guardian and teacher of ethics and morals. It doesn’t weigh the value of one brand of artificial contraception over another for instance. It doesn’t even play the statistics game. It addresses the mentality and attitudes that are promoting individual gun ownership for defense purposes, because that mentality and attitudes are also promoting other types rights protection that contribute to the ‘culture of death’ in society.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Fr Lombardi is the Director of the Vatican Press Office. He is the voice reflecting the Vatican via the Press on the current issues requiring Catholic (name removed by moderator)ut. He is not a freelancer. He speaks via the press regarding the Churchs position on issues.

As for addressing specifics, the Church is primarily a guardian and teacher of ethics and morals. It doesn’t weigh the value of one brand of artificial contraception over another for instance. It doesn’t even play the statistics game. It addresses the mentality and attitudes that are promoting individual gun ownership for defense purposes, because that mentality and attitudes are also promoting other types rights protection that contribute to the ‘culture of death’ in society.

If the Church could somehow impose it, all weapons worldwide would be banned. But it can’t impose it, and as Fr. Lombardi himself said, cutting down on weapons in the U.S. would not prevent Newtown type killings. Most certainly it would not cut down on the kinds of killings perpetrated by Timothy McVeigh or the 911 killers, each of whom killed more people than all the recent “spectacle shooters” put together, and without using any kind of gun.

If you think the Church has declared it immoral to protect ones life or that of another with a gun, please give the citation and a reliable source. I know you won’t, because it hasn’t.

It’s just silly to suggest that citizen ownership of guns contributes to “other types of rights” protection…by which one assumes you mean abortion. Legal individual ownership of guns long predated legalized abortion.

And Fr. Lombardi has been criticized in the past for attributing things to the Pope that the Pope did not say or intend. Regardless, he was expressing his own opinions about gun control; did not claim they were anything greater than that, and was nonspecific about what even he favored.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Except, of course, that the “men of the Church” have not said anything about the AR-15, despite your assertions that they support you and Obama on gun control.

They didn’t address it in 2000 and not since then either.

Really?

Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

New York City, N.Y., Feb 20, 2013 / 02:00 am (CNA).- Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York highlighted President Barack Obama’s “call for sensible steps on gun control,” noting that it is an area of agreement for the two leaders.

“I found myself nodding in agreement when the President said, ‘…Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the Second Amendment – have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun,’” the cardinal said.

In a Feb. 15 post on his blog, “The Gospel in the Digital Age,” he explained that he was “very much in favor” of legislation passed by New York last month that constituted “the most comprehensive gun control bill in the country.”

The cardinal’s statement came in response to Obama’s comments in his State of the Union address on Feb. 12.

“Gun control has been much on my mind since the Newtown killings,” wrote the cardinal, referencing the Dec. 14 shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., in which a 20-year-old man shot and killed 27 people, including himself and numerous young children.

Calls for stricter gun control laws have increased since the tragedy, and such legislation has been discussed at both the state and federal level in recent weeks.
**
However, advocating for gun control is “not something new” to the Church, Cardinal Dolan said.**

“The Holy See has continuously been a strong voice in opposition to international arms trading, the world’s version of gun control,” he noted.

In addition, he pointed out that the U.S. bishops have “for decades supported measures to get handguns off the streets, and to ban assault weapons

Vatican welcomes Obama gun control proposal

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican praised President Barack Obama’s proposals for curbing gun violence, saying they are a “step in a right direction.”

The Vatican’s chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress “to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths.”

“I am with them,” Lombardi said, in an editorial carried on Vatican Radio, lining up the Vatican’s moral support in favor of firearm limits.

“The initiatives announced by the American administration for limiting and controlling the spread and use of weapons are certainly a step in the right direction,” Lombardi said.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You have, indeed, said in effect that the 500+ bishops in the U.S. who have not supported Obama’s gun control proposal are derelict in their duty. If Obama’s (now dead) proposal is as big a moral imperative as you say it is, they are derelict in never mentioning it.

The U.S. bishops did not tell Catholics “how to vote”. They don’t do that. However, they did speak out on the HHS Mandate.

The full body of bishops speaks out when the full body thinks there is a sufficiently serious moral issue upon which to speak out, and have done so. They have not backed the Obama/Prodigal program.

You have exactly three bishops on your side out of more than 500. That’s it. Yet you keep pretending all the bishops support your point of view. If you were candid about who actually supports Obama’s now defunct proposal, you would admit that. I think you finally did in another thread on the same subject.

That’s false, and a distortion at the very least. I have said that a FULL BODY OF BISHOPS have approved the 2000 documents, which calls for gun controls.

Where was the full body of bishops that stated Catholics must vote for one candidate only?

Your ad hominem connections are very old. I don’t see a need to go any further with such false tactics in a discussion. They prove such arguments are weak, when one has to resort to such.

 

[Fairwinds]

That’s false, and a distortion at the very least. I have said that a FULL BODY OF BISHOPS have approved the 2000 documents, which calls for gun controls.

Where was the full body of bishops that stated Catholics must vote for one candidate only?

Your ad hominem connections are very old. I don’t see a need to go any further with such false tactics in a discussion. They prove such arguments are weak, when one has to resort to such.

the strong argument is that I just picked up 5,000 rounds of 12 gauge target ammo, gun grabbers notwithstanding.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Church has a position on gun controls. It’s sad to see some place guns above that, and anything else that might affect their high regard for the almighty gun.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the strong argument is that I just picked up 5,000 rounds of 12 gauge target ammo, gun grabbers notwithstanding.

And that’s applicable to the topic of the thread how?

 

[Fairwinds]

The Church has a position on gun controls. It’s sad to see some place guns above that, and anything else that might affect their high regard for the almighty gun.

http://www.shotguncache.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/mx_2005_combo.jpg

what’s the Vatican’s view on this? (its even italian)

 

[Fairwinds]

And that’s applicable to the topic of the thread how?

it means your grabbery isn’t working.

 

[Brendan_64]

As an outsider looking in on what Americans think about guns, It does seem a bit surreal (no offence intended). The emotional attachment that many seem to have to guns seems quite strange. It’s only a bit of machinery (a very lethal one) and it’s ability to protect a person going about their everyday life is overrated. With the huge amount of guns available in your country, if a person is going to murder someone else then they are likely to use a gun to do so, as seen by the large numbers of gun killings (mostly by legally obtained guns) in the USA. And if someone shoots you to try to kill you, it will be highly unlikely that you will be able to pull your gun from your pocket/handbag.holster etc. and kill him before he kills you. It would seem that the attachment to guns is psychological rather than practical.

 

[Fairwinds]

As an outsider looking in on what Americans think about guns, It does seem a bit surreal (no offence intended). The emotional attachment that many seem to have to guns seems quite strange. It’s only a bit of machinery (a very lethal one) and it’s ability to protect a person going about their everyday life is overrated. With the huge amount of guns available in your country, if a person is going to murder someone else then they are likely to use a gun to do so, as seen by the large numbers of gun killings (mostly by legally obtained guns) in the USA. And if someone shoots you to try to kill you, it will be highly unlikely that you will be able to pull your gun from your pocket/handbag.holster etc. and kill him before he kills you. It would seem that the attachment to guns is psychological rather than practical.

we live in very different worlds. I didn’t have to ask the government’s permission to buy that Perazzi in post 209, or explain to anyone why I want it, or “justify” owning it. in fact, I use that shotgun in formal competition but its really nobody’s damn business what I do with it, so long as I’m not harming anyone else. if the government wants to take it away, it has to find better reasons than the fear mongering seen lately in this country.

your mileage (actually, your mindset) may (does) vary, so I invite you to ignore the very existence of guns if you find them offensive (obtain all necessary government permits before expressing an opinion).

 

[LongingSoul]

we live in very different worlds. I didn’t have to ask the government’s permission to buy that Perazzi in post 209, or explain to anyone why I want it, or “justify” owning it. in fact, I use that shotgun in formal competition but its really nobody’s damn business what I do with it, so long as I’m not harming anyone else. if the government wants to take it away, it has to find better reasons than the fear mongering seen lately in this country.

your mileage (actually, your mindset) may (does) vary, so I invite you to ignore the very existence of guns if you find them offensive (obtain all necessary government permits before expressing an opinion).

You sound a bit disgruntled. I hope you’re not a postal worker??

 

[Fairwinds]

You sound a bit disgruntled. I hope you’re not a postal worker??

more annoyed at the whining.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

we live in very different worlds. I didn’t have to ask the government’s permission to buy that Perazzi in post 209, or explain to anyone why I want it, or “justify” owning it. in fact, I use that shotgun in formal competition but its really nobody’s damn business what I do with it, so long as I’m not harming anyone else. if the government wants to take it away, it has to find better reasons than the fear mongering seen lately in this country.

your mileage (actually, your mindset) may (does) vary, so I invite you to ignore the very existence of guns if you find them offensive (obtain all necessary government permits before expressing an opinion).

The bishops of the USCCB live in the same world.

What does the calls from the men of the Church have to to do with your shotgun, and your ‘formal’ competition? They have not called for a total eradication of ALL guns.

The only controls suggested, that might impact your ‘hobby,’ would be background checks. Even if there is more impact, it would still seem to be a minor inconvenience to a law abiding citizen, and a desire from those who recognize a dignity of life for all.

Take your response and fit it into a context of the Gospel message. That is the world that connects us all, even across borders. The dignity of life for all is everybody’s business.

It’s sad, and lacks compassion, when one refers to the death of 20 innocent children, in school, as fear mongering. People, in a theater, at the mall, or responding to a fire, thought they were safe, but the easy access to guns caused them to lose their lives. All of that adds to the realization of the problems of an easy access to guns. There’s a fear mongering, but it comes from the easy access to guns and those who say it’s nobody’s business. I’m sure all of the mass shooters felt the same way about their guns…

 

[Ridgerunner]

The bishops of the USCCB live in the same world.

What does the calls from the men of the Church have to to do with your shotgun, and your ‘formal’ competition? They have not called for a total eradication of ALL guns.

The only controls suggested, that might impact your ‘hobby,’ would be background checks. Even if there is more impact, it would still seem to be a minor inconvenience to a law abiding citizen, and a desire from those who recognize a dignity of life for all.

Take your response and fit it into a context of the Gospel message. That is the world that connects us all, even across borders. The dignity of life for all is everybody’s business.

It’s sad, and lacks compassion, when one refers to the death of 20 innocent children, in school, as fear mongering. People, in a theater, at the mall, or responding to a fire, thought they were safe, but the easy access to guns caused them to lose their lives. All of that adds to the realization of the problems of an easy access to guns. There’s a fear mongering, but it comes from the easy access to guns and those who say it’s nobody’s business. I’m sure all of the mass shooters felt the same way about their guns…

“The bishops” have never endorsed Obama’s senate bill proposals, which you appear to adopt. If you differ from Obama’s proposals, state how you differ. Until you do, it serves efficiency to simply acknowledge that you support Obama’s proposals. You have never distinguished your position from his. If you don’t want your position identified with his, tell us how you differ, if you do.

Again, the bishops in 2000 made a very general statement about gun control in connection with a lengthy discussion about crime generally, and that statement directly related only to cheap handguns. Lots of gun control measures have passed since then, so nobody really knows what they would say today.

You have admitted in other threads that you own guns yourself. So, in fairness to readers, you should distinguish the rights you claim for yourself versus those you would deprive others of.

Suffice it to say, the bishops as a whole have not thought it the moral imperative you do, or they would have addressed it. But 23 years have now passed and they haven’t seen fit to do so.

You can misrepresent what they said all you want, and you have done it incessantly. So, again, I encourage people to read the actual 2000 document. The part about gun control is about three sentences in a very lengthy document. Very non-specific.

Cdl Dolan never specifically called for banning the AR-15. Furthermore, he left it to the legislative bodies to determine what gun controls would be appropriate. The Democrat Senate tabled Obama’s proposal. So that’s that.

Nor have the bishops EVER called for, e.g., my doing a background check on my son before giving him a gift rifle; something you and Obama do want.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s sad, and lacks compassion, when one refers to the death of 20 innocent children, in school, as fear mongering. People, in a theater, at the mall, or responding to a fire, thought they were safe, but the easy access to guns caused them to lose their lives.

Tawdry, exploitive and wrong.

The “easy access to guns” did not cause those people to lose their lives. Sociopathic “spectacle killers” did that. They could have killed people with the guns you, yourself admit that you own and claim a moral right to own or, like McVeigh and the Boston bombers, done it with other means.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Anyone can look up the documents being discussed at the USCCB. There were clearly calls for gun controls, from the men of the Church. The calls were for support on an issue they view as ‘moral,’ and not political, as some make it out to be. Those who dismiss those who speak out, or say it’s not clear enough, do not show any inclination to attempt to answer the calls. Instead, they show they will continue to argue any point necessary to maintain personal views, that appear biased by a personal interest.

The men of the Church have spoken, through committees among their own ranks, documents approved by a full body of bishops, and spokesmen for the Vatican. Any search will produce numerous articles covering those statements. In other words, they are well publicized. None of the statements have been challenged, or clarified, by other men of the Church. There has been no distancing from the publicized statements issued. Those who dismiss the statements, as inadequate as to consider them guidance, do so without any support from those with authority in the Church. Those same people continue making it a ‘political’ argument, which we have a much higher calling than.

It’s not a political issue. Protecting a dignity of life for all is a moral issue. The differences can be seen, depending on the view one uses on the issue; e.g. spiritual or political.

 

[Fairwinds]

…
Take your response and fit it into a context of the Gospel message. That is the world that connects us all, even across borders. The dignity of life for all is everybody’s business.

It’s sad, and lacks compassion, when one refers to the death of 20 innocent children, in school, as fear mongering. …

you’d better NOT be suggesting that I lack compassion for the deaths of children. seriously, kid, this isn’t amusing and you’re not making brownie points for that kind of remark. that’s vile.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Anyone can look up the documents being discussed at the USCCB. There were clearly calls for gun controls, from the men of the Church. The calls were for support on an issue they view as ‘moral,’ and not political, as some make it out to be. Those who dismiss those who speak out, or say it’s not clear enough, do not show any inclination to attempt to answer the calls. Instead, they show they will continue to argue any point necessary to maintain personal views, that appear biased by a personal interest.

The men of the Church have spoken, through committees among their own ranks, documents approved by a full body of bishops, and spokesmen for the Vatican. Any search will produce numerous articles covering those statements. In other words, they are well publicized. None of the statements have been challenged, or clarified, by other men of the Church. There has been no distancing from the publicized statements issued. Those who dismiss the statements, as inadequate as to consider them guidance, do so without any support from those with authority in the Church. Those same people continue making it a ‘political’ argument, which we have a much higher calling than.

It’s not a political issue. Protecting a dignity of life for all is a moral issue. The differences can be seen, depending on the view one uses on the issue; e.g. spiritual or political.

And not a single one of the documents produced by the full body of bishops, in 2000 or since, has ever endorsed the Obama/Prodigal program or anything like it.

Nor did Father Lombardi, the Vatican press spokesman (who admitted he wasn’t speaking for the Pope).

Nor did Cdl Dolan have specific proposals for gun control, and left it to political leaders to work out whatever they felt was appropriate. Congress tabled the Obama proposal, and Cdl Dolan left it there.

And you have not yet shown us why your guns, which you have admitted you own, are morally okay but someone else’s are not.

And when one wants to impose gun controls by government, it is exactly a political question.