Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

[Abyssinia]

The Catholic Church’s position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?

The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.

But you won’t find that statement in a headline or a document subheading. It’s almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops’ conference and it’s mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm

 

[WetCatechumen]

The Catholic Church’s position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?

The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.

But you won’t find that statement in a headline or a document subheading. It’s almost hidden in a footnote in a document on crime by the U.S. bishops’ conference and it’s mentioned in passing in dozens of official Vatican texts on the global arms trade.

The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm

Just for clarification, this is not an infallible teaching of the church, but similar a consensus view of the bishops. So you NRA members don’t need to freak out, but please re-evaluate your position.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

I’m no NRA member but I kinda do see the logic in having the need to defend yourself as efficiently as possible. I also don’t see a point in putting up laws that ban guns when criminals don’t care about what’s lawful or not. >:\

 

[Tigg]

Not surprising at all that the U.S. bishop’s conference would oppose our 2nd amendment rights as they are most generally in political lock-step with the current administration. BTW, this would come under the heading of prudential judgment on the part of this episcopal conference.

 

[baylee]

I’m no NRA member but I kinda do see the logic in having the need to defend yourself as efficiently as possible. I also don’t see a point in putting up laws that ban guns when criminals don’t care about what’s lawful or not. >:\

Considering self-defense is in line with Church teaching, I tend to think that it is not against Church teaching for private citizens to bear arms.

 

[JRKH]

**Not surprising at all that the U.S. bishop’s conference would oppose our 2nd amendment rights **as they are most generally in political lock-step with the current administration. BTW, this would come under the heading of prudential judgment on the part of this episcopal conference.

But the question arises whether they actually ARE in opposition to our second amendment rights.
The Second amendment is rarely quoted in its entirety when used bu gun advocates. A little like pulling bible verses out of context…The Full Amendment reads…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
While it is clear from this that the ordinary citizen does and must retain, the right to keep and to bear arms, it is equally true that the idea of having a “well regulated militia” gives the government the right to, regulate gun ownership within certain parameters. The argument then becomes one of what those parameters are.

The Bishops conference statement:
“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.”
does not appear to violate the second amendment, since it speaks mainly of measures aimed at safety. The footnote on the other hand is certainly more problematic. Can/should an entire class of firearms (handguns) be prohibited under the second amendment. In short the answer to this is yes - for certain classes of firearms already ARE restricted or prohibited - fully automatic weapons for one…

I fully support those who fight for our rights to “keep and bear arms”, but we must remember that, with that right comes responsibility to accept being “well regulated”.

Peace
James

 

[militantsparrow]

Very well stated, James.

 

[Carlan]

The Bishops conference statement:
“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.”
does not appear to violate the second amendment, since it speaks mainly of measures aimed at safety. The footnote on the other hand is certainly more problematic. Can/should an entire class of firearms (handguns) be prohibited under the second amendment. In short the answer to this is yes - for certain classes of firearms already ARE restricted or prohibited - fully automatic weapons for one…

I fully support those who fight for our rights to “keep and bear arms”, but we must remember that, with that right ***comes responsibility to accept being “well regulated”.***Peace
James

Common sense, where has it gone??? Peace, Carlan

 

[desales09]

Great answer, James.

I also ordered the book you recommend in your signature line…it sounds good.

Lee

 

[Tigg]

But the question arises whether they actually ARE in opposition to our second amendment rights.
The Second amendment is rarely quoted in its entirety when used bu gun advocates. A little like pulling bible verses out of context…The Full Amendment reads…
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
While it is clear from this that the ordinary citizen does and must retain, the right to keep and to bear arms, it is equally true that the idea of having a “well regulated militia” gives the government the right to, regulate gun ownership within certain parameters. The argument then becomes one of what those parameters are.

The Bishops conference statement:
“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.”
does not appear to violate the second amendment, since it speaks mainly of measures aimed at safety. The footnote on the other hand is certainly more problematic. Can/should an entire class of firearms (handguns) be prohibited under the second amendment. In short the answer to this is yes - for certain classes of firearms already ARE restricted or prohibited - fully automatic weapons for one…

I fully support those who fight for our rights to “keep and bear arms”, but we must remember that, with that right comes responsibility to accept being “well regulated”.

Peace
James

This thread is not about the hotbed of controversy over the Bill of Rights, so I won’t go there, but here’s another quote from the bishops. I think their intent is very clear.

"[they are] for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society."

BTW, the Catholic News Service, aka the liberal Protestant News Service, states in their disclaimer that “while created in 1920 by the bishops of the United States, [it] is editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining division of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.”

Even the title of this article is misleading. The USCCB does not represent the entire Catholic Church.

 

[Ender]

Let’s be very clear here: contra the title of this thread the Church does not oppose firearms for civilians. This is a prudential issue about which the Church (unlike some of her bishops) is silent. The Supreme Court, however, has not been silent and ruled to overturn the DC handgun ban as being unconstitutional. Commenting on this topic is appropriate for justices, not so much for bishops.

Ender

 

[JRKH]

This thread is not about the hotbed of controversy over the Bill of Rights, so I won’t go there,

I agree and I did not intend to derail the thread by my post. Rather - You claimed tha the Bishops stand in opposition to the Second Amendment and I only wished to place the statement of the Bishops within the full context of the amendment.

but here’s another quote from the bishops. I think their intent is very clear.

"[they are]
for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society."

Here again the question can be asked whether this violates the second ammendment, which allows for regulation of a militia. The opposition is not to all firearms but to a certain class of firearms - handguns.
(Please note that, while asking the question, I am opposed to the idea of eliminating “handguns” on general principle.)

Peace
James

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

The USCCB does not represent the entire Catholic Church.

Quite true. But, you can be sure that if the USCCB were firmly in favor of citizens carrying guns, their statement would likely be taken “as gospel” by gun carry advocates in their efforts to bolster their position.

 

[Ender]

Quite true. But, you can be sure that if the USCCB were firmly in favor of citizens carrying guns, their statement would likely be taken “as gospel” by gun carry advocates in their efforts to bolster their position.

Nonsense is nonsense no matter which side endorses it. What is relevant here is that a comment found in a footnote to a document released by the USCCB does not represent Church doctrine and does not require our assent.

Moreover, the document - or at least the conclusion - shows at best an incomplete understanding of Catholic teaching on punishment. All in all, not the best document to go to for an understanding of what the Church teaches.

“We suggest that they use these reflections to assess how the system can become less retributive and more restorative.”

The problem with this is that it is retribution - the obligation of justice - that is the primary objective of punishment, and while we can always hope that felons can be successfully restored to a productive place in society we cannot become “less retributive” if that means applying a degree of punishment that is incommensurate with the severity of the crime. That would be a failure of justice, and although rehabilitation is a valid objective of punishment it is not an obligation. Only retribution is both.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

Mr. Di Ruzza seemed to have left out a class that is defined by the Church

From the article.

According to the catechism, the right to use firearms to “repel aggressors” or render them harmless is specifically sanctioned for “those who legitimately hold authority” and have been given the duty of protecting the community.

But Pope John Paul II acknowledged that the right is extended to more than just 'protecting the community", but to anyone responsible for another’s life, which would include spouses, parents, etc…

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. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."

-Evangelicum Vitae

And he enters a strawman argument of ‘revenge’, “a democracy, where there is respect for institutions (of law), the citizen relinquishes his right to revenge onto the state”.

Has any proponent of self defense advocated hunting the person down after the fact?? Or is Mr. Di Ruzza too unfamiliar with moral theology to note that self defense is not considered an act of revenge.

And to be honest, States are not supposed to engage in Revenge either, but simply act as agents for justice. Again the two are different things. God IS Justice, but God does not enact revenge.

So, in other words, this man is simply clueless on moral theology and we can freely discard his opinion on the matter.

 

[Hastrman]

Frankly, the French bishops who more-or-less caused—single-handedly—the anti-clerical aspect of the French Revolution, are still probably less politicking sellouts than the USCCB.

If that is the consensus view among the bishops worldwide, even if that is the view of the Pope, so what? It’s not remotely—it can’t be—infallible teaching, it’s not teaching at all; it’s prudential judgment. Popes make mistakes. My family still has the papers excommunicating my great-grandfather merely for advocating Bohemia’s independence from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Can you imagine prostituting the power of binding and loosing to political expedience like that? Because that Pope did it. Either the same Pope or his successor told the King of the Belgians not to fight back against Prussia’s invasion of his country, despite the Prussians’ atrocities (which would come to be known as the Rape of Belgium). Popes are no better than anyone else in politics; the Church teaches infallible principles, but there’s no charism protecting her leaders from being complete idiots in applying those principles.

Incidentally, the Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment does not refer to militias, but to private citizens; every Constitutional scholar is essentially agreed.

 

[cyberwolf001]

Once again elements of RCC leadership take a stance against the GOP and many turn on them.

 

[Brendan]

Once again elements of RCC leadership take a stance against the GOP and many turn on them.

So some lay guy says that is OK for governments to take revenge, and somehow we’re supposed to agree?

That alone should tell you he’s off his rocker!!

Can you really put any faith in the opinion of a man who thinks that Catholic theology somehow entials a ‘right to revenge’ AT ALL, let alone that it should be given to a governmental agency to enact?

 

[Ender]

Once again elements of RCC leadership take a stance against the GOP and many turn on them.

And once again “elements” turn out not to be speaking for the Church.

Ender

 

[Brendan]

I’m thinking this is just a really bad piece of journalism.

Here is the actual text of the Vatican document

the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right alone can justify the possession or transfer of arms".

-Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace- “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection” in Origins 8 (24), 7 July 1994

It is clear that the Church considers the right to defend oneself and family via arms exists for more than just police and military.

I also find it interesting that the text ( 1994) is reterated, almost verbatum by Pope John Paul II the following year in Evangelicum Vitae

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. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason