Gun Control

[chain]

I am still troubled by an article I recently read in my Diocese newspaper on this subject. It was written by a Bishop from elsewhere in the US, and simply put that the goal of the Church was to eliminate private handgun ownership.

As far as I know, that is not the goal of the church and honestly my be contradictory to some church doctrine. The concept of subsidiarity is that responsibility to should be handed to the lowest level of government possible. Quite often the lowest level is the citizen themselves. As such, we are the party primarily responsible for sheltering, feeding, educating our family and for protecting our family. The article said that handgun ownership should be limited to those with a legitimate duty - who has a more legitimate duty than the individual themselves.

Irregardless of my frustration - I will admit to two forms of gun control I support. As owner we should be knowledgeable of safe use and handling. Too many accidents are caused by simple ignorance. I am not saying massive training should be mandatory, but personally feel it is our moral responsibility to know and use safe practices. Similarly, I believe that safe storage should be a personal responsibility - again I am not advocating legal requirements, just a moral one.

I have 4 children in my house. Safe storage is not a drawer, but combination locked safe. Perhaps in your living space safe storage is something entirely different.

 

[Ender]

I am still troubled by an article I recently read in my Diocese newspaper on this subject. It was written by a Bishop from elsewhere in the US, and simply put that the goal of the Church was to eliminate private handgun ownership.

Simply put, the statement that the Church has such a goal is incorrect. I once had a bishop who said we had a moral duty to support increasing the minimum wage. Invalid assertions by bishops are disturbing, but errors on their part do not impose obligations on us to accept those comments as valid.

Ender

 

[gamewell45]

Simply put, the statement that the Church has such a goal is incorrect. I once had a bishop who said we had a moral duty to support increasing the minimum wage. Invalid assertions by bishops are disturbing, but errors on their part do not impose obligations on us to accept those comments as valid.

Ender

How do you come to the conclusion that they are invalid? Is it because you don’t agree with their position? Or because of your interpretation of the statement?

 

[tommcguire]

I thought we got beyond the moral question. Jesus in his conversation with the rich young man asked him first to follow the commandments–moral imperatives. The man said that he obeyed the commandments. Then, Jesus requested him: “Go sell all you have, give it to the poor, and come follow me.” The rich young man walked away.

My question to those who trust in guns, is not about moral imperative. It is about discipleship. One of the qualities of a disciple is non-violence. “Do good to those who persecute you.” “Love your enemy.” “Turn the other cheek.” “Put away the sword,” “Blessed are the peacemakers.”

When I was in the National Guard and given a weapon and told how many men I could kill, I made a decision to become a conscientious objector. I got an honorable discharge from the National Guard. I have lived my life since then trying to become a non-violent person.

At times, I am violent. I have something or some idea that I am willing to hurt someone else in order to keep it. To me “go sell all you have” is a call from Jesus to give up even my life rather than be violent to another, even my enemy. I consider these movements in my heart contrary to my being a disciple of Jesus Christ.

How does one, who intends to kill the enemy, maintain the qualities of a disciple of Jesus?

 

[hxcCatholic413]

So we are not talking about a moral issue, but can we continue to explore implications of guns for disciples of Jesus Christ. We, as disciples are called to trust in the Lord Jesus Christ and proclaim good news that will reduce violence.

What the world needs is God’s love; it needs to encounter Christ and to believe in him. The Eucharist is thus the source and summit not only of the Church’s life, but also of her mission: “an authentically eucharistic Church is a missionary Church.” (234) We too must be able to tell our brothers and sisters with conviction: “That which we have seen and heard we proclaim also to you, so that you may have fellowship with us” (1Jn 1,3). Pope Benedict XVI

Have we, as Catholics, experienced the Love of Jesus Christ? If we have experienced this love, can we proclaim it with conviction and. at the same time, put trust in guns as a means of self defense?

Great Response…I personally think after being a part of this thread from its beginning that everyone is on a different level of holiness…some of us agree with what you wrote above^^^ while others still continue to think that we can truly love our neighbors as brothers and sisters, but have the need to carry guns.

 

[Ender]

How do you come to the conclusion that they are invalid? Is it because you don’t agree with their position? Or because of your interpretation of the statement?

If the bishop actually claimed that the Church opposes the private ownership of guns (I have not seen the statement) then he would be wrong. There is nothing in Church doctrine to support this position. You should ask yourself: in the 2000 years of Church history, who, besides this bishop, has ever made such a claim? Are we to believe that this bishop is the first Catholic ever to discover this moral truth? I call the statement incorrect because I am unaware of anything to support it and I challenge anyone to find something that does.

Ender

 

[tommcguire]

I did not want to go back to documentation, but this quote from Sojourner Magazine addresses a topic discussed often on this forum.

Catholic social teaching, one of whose pillars is the life and dignity of the human person, encompasses the duty of nations to protect the right to life by finding increasingly effective ways to prevent conflicts and resolve them by peaceful means. When the assault weapons ban expired in 2004, the U.S. Catholic bishops repeated their 2000 statement, “we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer,” going on to add, “we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”** Pope John Paul II also addressed the subject of light weapons when he wrote in 1999, “governments must adopt appropriate measures for controlling the production, sale, and importation of these instruments of death.”
**
by Joe Nangle, OFM,

 

[Ender]

Great Response…I personally think after being a part of this thread from its beginning that everyone is on a different level of holiness…

This is one of those “I’m holier than the Church” arguments. Whatever level you think you’re on it is not the same level as the Church since her position differs from yours. If you think otherwise then you should be able to cite something to directly support your opinion, something a little more specific than “Do unto others…”

Ender

 

[hxcCatholic413]

This is one of those “I’m holier than the Church” arguments. Whatever level you think you’re on it is not the same level as the Church since her position differs from yours. If you think otherwise then you should be able to cite something to directly support your opinion, something a little more specific than “Do unto others…”

Ender

Controversial Disclaimer: I feel that the Church can’t change its position on this matter because it doesn’t want to put itself in a vulnerable position…among a few other issues

 

[tommcguire]

In my meditation this morning on Mt 4: 5-7, I imagined myself with a gun. I wondered if taking that gun out to shoot and kill a person who aimed to kill me or others was a test of the Lord God.

I pray often “Lord, you are my rock, my stronghold, in you I trust.” If I used the gun to take another’s life in an act of defense: would I not be putting my trust in the gun not God? Would such an action say: “I trust you with my life to a certain extent, but not all the way. Just in case you fail me, I got this gun to defend myself.”

What does it mean to put trust in God as a disciple of Jesus Christ? The issue here is not about the moral imperative. A person can morally use lethal force in self defense. But Jesus when asked: " What must I do to be saved?" He went beyond the moral imperative. Is trust in God one of those acts of the human will that goes beyond the moral imperative?

 

[Tigg]

I did not want to go back to documentation, but this quote from **Sojourner Magazine **addresses a topic discussed often on this forum.

The quote-]/-], taken out of context may be accurate, but for Catholic truth, I generally shy away from this magazine as it is well known to be a progressive, evangelical publication. The founder and editor, Jim Wallis, is a leftist political activist and I’ve found, can have a tendency to distort Catholic social justice teaching while leaning toward marxism and socialism.

But thank you for pointing out to us, again, the political nature of this debate.

 

[gamewell45]

If the bishop actually claimed that the Church opposes the private ownership of guns (I have not seen the statement) then he would be wrong. There is nothing in Church doctrine to support this position. You should ask yourself: in the 2000 years of Church history, who, besides this bishop, has ever made such a claim? Are we to believe that this bishop is the first Catholic ever to discover this moral truth? I call the statement incorrect because I am unaware of anything to support it and I challenge anyone to find something that does.

Ender

Fair enough.

 

[angel18]

originally posted by Tigg

The quote, taken out of context may be true, but for Catholic truth, I generally shy away from this magazine as it is well known to be a progressive, evangelical publication. The founder and editor, Jim Wallis, is a leftist political activist and I’ve found, can have a tendency to distort Catholic social justice teaching while leaning toward marxism and socialism.

But thank you for pointing out to us, again, the political nature of this debate.

that all is clear evidence of the power of God that can not be unmatched and God is always with ushttp://freeimagestocks.com/content/11/dot.png

 

[Tigg]

Great Response…I personally think after being a part of this thread from its beginning that everyone is on a different level of holiness…some of us agree with what you wrote above^^^ while others still continue to think that we can truly love our neighbors as brothers and sisters, but have the need to carry guns.

And I thought we were past this type of denunciation of gun owners, whose motivation and interior disposition you cannot possibly know!

 

[hxcCatholic413]

In my meditation this morning on Mt 4: 5-7, I imagined myself with a gun. I wondered if taking that gun out to shoot and kill a person who aimed to kill me or others was a test of the Lord God.

I pray often “Lord, you are my rock, my stronghold, in you I trust.” If I used the gun to take another’s life in an act of defense: would I not be putting my trust in the gun not God? Would such an action say: "I trust you with my life to a certain extent, but not all the way. Just in case you fail me, I got this gun to defend myself."

What does it mean to put trust in God as a disciple of Jesus Christ? The issue here is not about the moral imperative. A person can morally use lethal force in self defense. But Jesus when asked: " What must I do to be saved?" He went beyond the moral imperative. Is trust in God one of those acts of the human will that goes beyond the moral imperative?

Good Job your post really makes a lot of sense
I feel that even if I did kill someone out of self-defense my chances of making it to Heaven would be limited; therefore I’d rather put my trust into God and submit to his will.

 

[hxcCatholic413]

And I thought we were past this type of denunciation of gun owners, whose motivation and interior disposition you cannot possibly know!

I never stated their inner disposition I merely was making an observation out of Christian Love for brother and sister that is all. God Bless!

Disclaimer: More or less I was stating the “Elephant in the Room” that no one wanted to address

 

[chain]

The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.
“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.”
That’s followed by a footnote that states: “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”
That in turn reiterates a line in the bishops’ 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse, which called “for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

The above was from this months issue of our Diocese’s newspaper. I do not necessarily agree with it’s premises or conclusion.

 

[Ender]

] If I used the gun to take another’s life in an act of defense: would I not be putting my trust in the gun not God? Would such an action say: “I trust you with my life to a certain extent, but not all the way. Just in case you fail me, I got this gun to defend myself.”

Let me ask again: do you lock your doors? To your house or apartment? To your car? Does this not also say “Just in case you fail me, I have this lock to protect me?” Why is it valid to trust in locks but not guns? Don’t both show a lack of trust in God? Or, more accurately, don’t both reflect the reality that we live in a fallen world and are justified in taking precautions?

Your position reminds me of this joke:

After Katrina, a man is stranded in his house, surrounded by water. His neighbors come by in a boat and offer to take him to safety but he responds: “I trust in the Lord, he will save me.” The water continues to rise, forcing him to the second story, when a sheriff’s boat comes by looking for anyone who couldn’t get out. Again, he refuses to leave, putting his faith in the Lord. Finally, perched on the very top of his roof, a Coast Guard helicopter comes by with one last offer to save him. Again he refuses, explaining that he trusts the Lord to save him. Naturally he drowns

Arriving in heaven he is quite annoyed and demands that God explain why He let him drown, especially as his trust in God was absolute. To which God responded: " What did you expect me to do? I sent you two boats and a helicopter."

Ender

 

[Captain_America]

Gun control is a good thing.

It’s interesting to see how many people fetishize their guns. And then turn them into little gods they worship at all cost, even of reason and sensibility.

 

[tommcguire]

I have not commented on Luke 22: 36-38 until I did a little study of the question. I wrote to Sister Lina, a friend and doctoral candidate in Sacred Scripture at Catholic University of America. Yesterday, she wrote back:* " I looked at the passage of Luke 22:36-38. Just like at other times, Jesus is using “sword” in a metaphoric sense." *

She sent three articles that discuss the issues raised. After reading them, I conclude the passage is difficult to interpret. There are different translations, suggesting different conclusions. One needs to take into consideration the historical context in which Luke wrote and take care in how this pericope is interpreted today.

In Jesus’ day the Zealots were an opposition group who sought violent solutions to oppression. Jesus was executed with two Zealots. Jesus did not condemn the Zealots, but never gave support to any act of violence. He died in solidarity with them. The swords can be interpreted as metaphors for preparation for the suffering people experience in violent struggle with their oppressors.

Luke writes these verses as part of a travel narrative of Jesus’ journey to Jerusalem… A journey, his disciples are expected to take as they carry out the mission of Jesus Christ. Fr David Gill, S.J. writes: “The story of the two swords follows (22:35-38), in which Jesus stresses again the necessity of the Passion (v. 37) and the disciples apparently misunderstand and must be corrected (v. 38). Interestingly enough there is also a reference to the mission in v. 35: “When I sent you out with no purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” (cf. Lk. 10:4).” The journey of discipleship like Jesus’ own journey is to be filled with denial, false accusation, misunderstandings, indeed all kinds of suffering and even death. Ultimately, Jesus calls for the disciple to take up the cross and follow him. He died rather than use his divine power to prevent his own execution.

I conclude, Luke 22:35-38 is inappropriately interpreted as a justification for the use of guns as self defense. I DID NOT SAY ONE DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO USE LETHAL WEAPONS FOR SELF DEFENSE. The pericope is rather about the cost of discipleship. One who takes up the mission of Jesus Christ will suffer; be prepared for that suffering.

In this week of Lent when the Gospel of Jesus’ temptation are offered for meditation: I ask myself what god do I worship that prevents me from being faithful to the mission of a disciple of Jesus Christ? Does everything I think, say, and do reflect the good news of salvation in Jesus Christ?