Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians

[sidbrown]

Yes. It looks like the Catholic Church is quite strongly in favor of gun control: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

This is something every Catholic should work for - obedience to our bishops and the elimination of handguns from our society.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Yes. It looks like the Catholic Church is quite strongly in favor of gun control: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

This is something every Catholic should work for - obedience to our bishops and the elimination of handguns from our society.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm

So long as criminals exist, so does our right to defend ourselves against them. And so long as evil exists, so will criminals.

You might as well work getting yourself into Heaven because the evil of crime has been existing since the time of Cain pal.

 

[Adonia]

Yes. It looks like the Catholic Church is quite strongly in favor of gun control: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

This is something every Catholic should work for - obedience to our bishops and the elimination of handguns from our society.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm

I do not agree at all with the “elimination of handguns from our society”. You say this as if somehow handguns are inherently evil. My .22 cal handgun has provided numerous meals of tasty snowshoe hares as I have been out and about in the woods of of my home in northern Vermont. This tool is light, handy and packs just the right amount of power for many types of small game. In a holster on my belt it leaves my hands free to perform the other tasks that I do while in the woods. As for other handguns of various calibers, they too have their place in our society. Would you want the police to be unarmed? Would you want the good citizens of our society to be defenseless?

Also, as a citizen in a free society, I DO NOT want the police and military to have a monopoly on firearms ownership. There was a great christian country not so long ago, that when the police and military had the exclusive ownership of firearms - people ended up in ovens!

 

[TEPO]

Yes. It looks like the Catholic Church is quite strongly in favor of gun control: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

This is something every Catholic should work for - obedience to our bishops and the elimination of handguns from our society.

Sure, we will in “the long run”… Just as soon as “our society” as a whole becomes faithful to the bishops and the Catholic Church in it’s entirety.

In other words, not anytime soon.

.

 

[Brendan]

Yes. It looks like the Catholic Church is quite strongly in favor of gun control: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

You missed this part, probably because the writer of the article seemed to have missed it as well

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".

The statement from the Vatican doesn’t quite say what you think it says.

Sure, we can all agree that it would be nice to not need handguns for self defense, but until that happens, the Church recognizes that it is a right, even duty, to defend ones family using arms.

 

[sidbrown]

Sure, we can all agree that it would be nice to not need handguns for self defense, but until that happens, the Church recognizes that it is a right, even duty, to defend ones family using arms.

According to Roman Catholic teaching, as expressed in the papal encyclical Lumen Gentium: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
That is why Catholics must follow the teaching of the bishops on gun control and work for the elimination of handguns from our society: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

 

[RobbyS]

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

The context of the 2nd Amendment is a list of powers denied to the Federal government. Its right to “regulate” is therefore quite limited, and extends mainly to its guarantee of republican government to the States. Interestingly enough, this was Washington’s excuse
for raising a Federal force against the Whiskey Rebellion and Lincoln’s excuse for a similar force in 1861. In this matters as in so many, liberals would have us do things as they are done in Europe, forgetting that all European states are essentially monarchies where only the state is armed. Having lived in Germany for many years, I appreciate the lack of violence. In the Kreis(county) in which I lived, there were only two shootings in five years.
Only the other hand, there is much less liberty of action available to the individual in all
fields . Many Germans have expressed to me their envy of our lack of regulation. Of course many Germans know little about the United States. I can recall how astonished a German lady–married to a retired American Colonel–was to learn that our churches are all self-sustaining. I sometimes fear that our bishops hanker after government support because they think like Europeans.

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

According to Roman Catholic teaching, as expressed in the papal encyclical Lumen Gentium: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.”
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
That is why Catholics must follow the teaching of the bishops on gun control and work for the elimination of handguns from our society: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

Yet we have another encyclical right up there by JP2 stressing the right of an individual to legitimate defense. That’s Church teaching as well you know.

 

[lel]

Where would I begin in researching the Church’s historic opinion on gun control?

Also, are statements by bishops’ conferences always meant to be universally applicable to the Church everywhere, or only within the jurisdiction of the conference?

 

[Medic_Mark]

Meh.

I carry a gun all the time. I don’t see what the big deal is, really. Poop happens; best to be prepared and provide for your own protection. I consider it a matter of self responsibility to do so and a matter of virtue to not murder anyone.

Murder is as old as creation, so let’s not pretend we’d be fixing anything by stopping reasonable folk from packin.

 

[patricklappert]

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

Interesting interpretation of the amendment James.
I have a problem with your grammar however. Verb/ subject agreement requires us to admit that what is well regulated is the militia, not the possession of the firearms.

The second amendment was written at the inception of the American republic in recognition of the fact that governments are the eventual enemies of liberty; that no matter how sublime the government may be today, human frailty tends to eventually produce tyranny. We call that tendency concupiscence. All government is subject to it. I needn’t quote Lord Acton’s overused epigram to you.

To have the government regulate, in it’s own favor, the very mechanism that keeps it in check is obviously one of the short-cuts to that same tyranny. King George regulated firearms to preserve the prerogatives of the crown, including the prerogative to tell his subjects what they could manufacture, what they could buy, and how they would worship. If the Minutemen had shown up with bows and pikes, we’d all be Anglicans.

Firearms ownership is prudential.

Here is a link to a society that promotes a Catholic saint. You may find it interesting.

possentisociety.com/

Regards,
Patrick

 

[Tigg]

Also, are statements by bishops’ conferences always meant to be universally applicable to the Church everywhere, or only within the jurisdiction of the conference?

The decisive new emphasis on the role of the bishops is in reality restrained or actually risks being smothered by the insertion of bishops into episcopal conferences that are ever more organized, often with burdensome bureaucratic structures. We must not forget that the episcopal conferences have no theological basis, they do not belong to the structure of the Church, as willed by Christ, that cannot be eliminated; they have only a practical, concrete function. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)

…Clearly, the conference cannot, on its own authority, substitute for the persons of the bishops, who are, according to Canon 753, “authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.” In his interview, Cardinal Ratzinger confirmed: “No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission: its documents have no weight of their own save that of the consent given to them by the individual bishops.” …

Cardinal Ratzinger insists that clarity about the distinctive role of the bishop is critical:
Because it is a matter of safeguarding the very nature of the Catholic Church, which is based on an episcopal structure and not on a kind of federation of national churches. The national level is not an ecclesial dimension. It must once again become clear that in each diocese there is only one shepherd and teacher of the faith in communion with the other pastors and teachers and with the Vicar of Christ. (The Ratzinger Report, 59-61)

insidecatholic.com/feature/t … rence.html

This is what many would like to ignore so that their politics match what only the liberal bishops are saying.

 

[Timothy17]

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

Rights are responsibilities, and the latter form the foundation for recognition of the former.

From a realpolitik perspective of the 2nd ammendment, as Niccolo Machiavelli said, governments formed for or with the people’s support generally tend to put arms in the hands of those citizens, whereas those that are not tend to remove them from the same, and place them instead in the hands of soldiery/mercenaries or other direct dependents.

In the U.S, most administrations seek only a balance between the right and the general well-being and safety of citizens.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Tigg]

Yes. It looks like the Catholic Church is quite strongly in favor of gun control: “…we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

This is something every Catholic should work for - obedience to our bishops and the elimination of handguns from our society.
catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1100159.htm

The problem is, the “CHURCH” isn’t saying this. Please provide documentation that the teaching magisterium supports your statements.

 

[lel]

This is what many would like to ignore so that their politics match what only the liberal bishops are saying.

The problem is, the “CHURCH” isn’t saying this. Please provide documentation that the teaching magisterium supports your statements.

The quote in the first post and then the second post seem to contradict each other. It seems like the bishops collectively are saying that there should be more gun control. It’s not a decisive statement, but it doesn’t sound like we can ignore this.

At a base level I am very uncomfortable with restrictions on firearms, but if it’s what the Church says, I need to quit being so stubborn all the time and submit.

 

[Timothy17]

The problem is, the “CHURCH” isn’t saying this. Please provide documentation that the teaching magisterium supports your statements.

I have to agree with Tigg.

I have a copy of The Prince that includes notes on those few parts that the Church censored (namely, the part where Machiavelli asserts that princes need not keep Faith with other princes if it’s no longer in their interest to do so). If the Church then had no issues with the idea of weaponry in the hands of private citizens, I am curious as to at what point they did take issue.

We have gun control in Canada, but this by no means has in any way prevented gun violence, which is largely confined to troubled neighbourhoods and gangs fighting each other. Arguably, it is much harder to get a gun here, but by no means is this impossible ; nonetheless, criminals just use black market guns or guns they stole during house invasions. While I agree with certain measures like registering them, etc., I do not agree that this will necessarily reduce gun violence, but only assist law enforcement with gun trafficking. The two are not immediately connected because moral, law abiding citizens are vastly different in character and constitution than those who are not ; nonetheless, the State should do what it can to deprive the latter of weapons if they are discovered to have or own any.

It is logical for the State to ensure that people who might harm recklessly themselves or others do not have guns, i.e., those with serious mental issues, addictions, etc. We’ve also all heard the sad stories of children finding their parents’ guns and someone pointlessly and accidentally being killed as a result. This kind of death is pointless and needless, and responsible citizens should ensure that such things do not happen.

Pax,
Tim

 

[Brendan]

According to Roman Catholic teaching, as expressed in the papal encyclical Lumen Gentium: “In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.”

What I presented was the teaching of the Pontifical Academy for Life, with following quotes from Pope John Paul II’s encyclical “Evangelicum Vitae”

If particular bishops are teaching in opposition from the Holy See, then, as Catholics we have no obligation to follow them.

 

[Ender]

The quote in the first post and then the second post seem to contradict each other. It seems like the bishops collectively are saying that there should be more gun control. It’s not a decisive statement, but it doesn’t sound like we can ignore this.

At a base level I am very uncomfortable with restrictions on firearms, but if it’s what the Church says, I need to quit being so stubborn all the time and submit.

The point has been made, however, that this is not what the Church is saying (see Brendan’s posts) and we do not have any obligation to accept it simply because the statement came from the USCCB (see Tigg’s posts).

The question about whether or not the public should have the right to own handguns is not a question of either faith or morals; it is a prudential question about which Catholics are free to form their own opinions and follow their own inclinations.

Ender

 

[Rence]

This thread is an almost perfect example of what I see when Catholics try to teach others what the Church teaches, and why they are not reliable as such “teachers”. Some Catholics completely disregard the actual teachings that are available in black and white curtesy of the Vatican itself; and instead decide they are holier than the Pope in interpretation. Soooo, right there in black and white, the Church supports the rights of individuals to protect themselves (provided, for example, by Brendan), their loved ones, etc even up to the use of arms…and there will always be someone out there to say that if one wants to be in alignment with the Church they must eliminate civilians’ right to bear arms.

This is yet another almost perfect example why, although online Catholic forums are a wealth of good - and bad - information, one should rely on the priests and on the CCC and not worry about what strangers on an online forum claim to be a true teaching of the Church.

We see this all the time, don’t we? Someone will ask what a “grave” reason is to practice NFP, and there will be dozens of opinions on what is grave and what is not…when the reality is, the Church allows one to decide in their own circumstances, what those “grave” reasons are. We see the same about voting. Right there in black and white are the guidelines, but individuals claiming to be the beginning and the end of documentation interpretation will say for whom specifically you may vote, or not vote. We see this when someone asks if they can get divorced and still be practicing Catholics…and it goes on and on and on and on.

What this forum is really great for is when quotes and links to the actual teachings are given, that way those who have questions can read them for themselves. Thank you to those who know how to do good research and share what you have found with us. I appreciate you all!!

And Tigg, don’t worry, we’ll always have guns to protect ourselves, especially those of us living in remote rural locations. And I think more than just you and I will agree that if guns were ever outlawed, they’d just be obtained illegally The government knows it’s better to control the regulation, rather than move them all to the black market where they will not be controlled. It’s not going to happen that we can’t bear arms. Maybe in some places, like big full cities, but not in all places. But you don’t have to comply with the wishes of the Bishops when they are in direct conflict with the Vatican. The Bishops are trying to make the US a safer place for its citizens, they mean well even though I believe they don’t understand the dynamics of gun usage throughout the entire US. But the Vatican already spoke about this and it’s position is clear. So don’t worry about your guns, you’ll still have them available and yes, don’t let anyone tell you that you can’t be in alignment with the Church if you have one or ten, because you still are

 

[Tigg]

Tigg;7464312:

This is what many would like to ignore so that their politics match what only the liberal bishops are saying.

The problem is, the “CHURCH” isn’t saying this. Please provide documentation that the teaching magisterium supports your statements.

The quote in the first post and then the second post seem to contradict each other. It seems like the bishops collectively are saying that there should be more gun control. It’s not a decisive statement, but it doesn’t sound like we can ignore this.

The first comment, if you will reference the entire post, speaks about the nature of the episcopal conference (like the USCCB.) They are not part of the magisterium of the Church. They have no teaching authority in and of themselves. Their interpretations of doctrine are only binding insofar as your own bishop has lent his name to the interpretation. Only bishops together in a general ecumenical council have the power to teach as a College and even then, the councils are ultimately subject to the authority of the pope.

The comment was made that many choose to ignore this if what the bishops are saying happens to agree with their political agenda (or perhaps they simply don’t understand the distinction.) They then make the claim that this is official church teaching when it pertains to neither faith nor morals.