Gun use can be morally necessary

[MPat]

That quoted fragment by itself is wrong, and the entire passage (Defense of Property) is recklessly vague as to the criteria for lethal defense of property. One can envision few circumstances where a theft can be considered life threatening, for example, if someone steals your horse in the middle of the desert. There is certainly nothing in my possession that is worth the life even of a thief.

I’m afraid that if you start “battle of authorities”, “Catholic encyclopedia” is going to win against a random anonymous Internet user like you or me.

You did offer an argument, but, in fact, “Catholic encyclopedia” already answers it (“for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice.”).

Of course, “Catholic encyclopedia” is not anywhere close to being the supreme authority, and it could be outranked by, let’s say, Papal encyclical, writings of some Doctor of the Church.

In fact, this matter seems to be “borderline”. For example, St. Thomas Aquinas writes (“Summa Theologica”, Second Part of the Second Part, Question: 64, Article 7 - https://dhspriory.org/thomas/summa/SS/SS064.html#SSQ64A7THEP1): “On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 22:2): ‘If a thief be found breaking into a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die; he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood.’ Now it is much more lawful to defend one’s life than one’s house.”. He seems to imply that at least in some cases defence of property is (or, at least, was) lawful, but does not explain the relevant conditions…

Anyway, while it would be nice to get a clear high-ranking authority, at this point all that is necessary is the fact that having a gun for self-defence as such is not unlawful (since contrary claim was being made). Which seems to be established.

 

[po18guy]

Duly chastized, I will slink away.

 

[PJH_74]

Duly chastized, I will slink away.

There are things I too might jump in on quickly given a passionate view on them. I must say I’m not one to be against general gun ownership, there are many uses that are incontrovertible to me. My concerns boarder where this Catechism speaks of. Now you and I might differ on where the implementation of that line is based on some different beliefs. But I’m sure we both can (and hopefully others) agree that only using enough force to halt the incident is the moral choice. I certainly don’t want your any of your guns. The problem with today’s politics is that they have become exceptionally black and white, guns are especially one of the. There are a good number of people with similar thought as mine.

 

[Peebo]

I don’t have a problem with guns for self defense…I have my own at home…where morality seems to be getting blurred is here in the US…teachers in schools with guns…cops or armed security guarding schools…worshipers in church with guns…people carrying…concealed or open carry…instead of being a freer society we’re becoming more and more cautious…where we are…always be aware of your surroundings…is anyone acting suspiciously…where are the exits…I don’t consider that a free society always on alert…parents afraid for their kids at school…in college…at clubs…cops shoot first because they don’t know who or who isn’t armed…will they get home after their shift to see their wife and kids…and so on…my elderly neighbors are afraid to go to the downtown mall over fear of what could happen…even I’m well up in years and while I don’t carry I have to admit over the last 10-15 years I’ve become increasingly wary of my surroundings…and I shouldn’t have to live like that…checking people out…no on should…no siree

 

[Eric_Hyom]

As for guns, well in Luke’s Gospel, Jesus said this:

Luke 22:35 “When I sent you without money or provisions or shoes, did you lack anything?”
Luke 22:36 And they said, “Nothing.” Then he said to them: “But now, let whoever has money take it, and likewise with provisions. And whoever does not have these, let him sell his coat and buy a sword.
Back then was sword, today perhaps a glock.

If you are going to quote Luke 22 as a justification of gun ownership, please could you also include Luke 22 - 49

49 His disciples realized what was about to happen, and they asked, “Lord, shall we strike with a sword?”
50 And one of them struck the high priest’s servant and cut off his right ear.
51 But Jesus said in reply, “Stop, no more of this!” Then he touched the servant’s ear and healed him.

Although Jesus said two swords is enough, he still did not want his disciples to use them.

 

[fide]

re: Lk 22:49 ff – I would add, Jesus did not want His disciples to defend His life at that time and place - HIS “time”, HIs hour, had come to finish His mission on the Cross.

Early in His ministry, before His hour had come, when the crowd came at Him to throw Him over the cliff:

Luk 4:28 When they heard this, all in the synagogue were filled with wrath.
Luk 4:29 And they rose up and put him out of the city, and led him to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.
Luk 4:30 But passing through the midst of them he went away.

That is, He did not let them kill Him - He defended His life (in what appears to be a supernatural way) by “passing through their midst” untouched.

 

[JerryZ]

Actually what Jesus wanted was that the Disciples wouldn’t interfere with the plan in motion.
Jesus knew he would die the next day. And Simon (Peter) cutting the ear of the high priest servant would not accomplish anything but probably throw Peter in even more trouble.
Therefore that passage has no bearing to the particular question of gun ownership “according to the Bible”.

 

[Abaxvahl]

I doubt it, and I am a complete pacifist (they are often called non-resistants), according to my priest who catechzed me and CCC-2306 and his interpretation of it, it is an allowed position within the Church, to deny yourself violence in all forms like this always.

 

[upant]

Someone might choose out of altruism to use it to defend others but there is no duty or obligation to do so.

St JP II says different, (the bold is mine)

Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical of Pope St. John Paul II, 1995 A.D.​

1. This should not cause surprise: to kill a human being, in whom the image of God is present, is a particularly serious sin. Only God is the master of life! Yet from the beginning, faced with the many and often tragic cases which occur in the life of individuals and society, Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes.43 There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defence, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defence. The demanding commandment of love of neighbour, set forth in the Old Testament and confirmed by Jesus, itself presupposes love of oneself as the basis of comparison: "You shall love your neighbour as yourself " (Mk 12:31). Consequently, no one can renounce the right to self-defence out of lack of love for life or for self. This can only be done in virtue of a heroic love which deepens and transfigures the love of self into a radical self-offering, according to the spirit of the Gospel Beatitudes (cf. Mt 5:38-40). The sublime example of this self-offering is the Lord Jesus himself.
   Moreover, “legitimate defence 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”.44 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 action brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason. 45

— Evangelium Vitae. © Copyright, Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

there is nothing that I own that is worth shooting over

it isn’t always what you own but as St JP II says the family you are responsible for protecting.

 

[runningdude]

Guns are a tool. Mere use of any tool is morally neutral.

There are tasks that are morally necessary, such as defense of self or others. Using a gun to accomplish that task, however, is neither morally prohibited, nor morally necessary. It is a matters of prudential judgement as to what tool is best to accomplish a particular task.

 

[fide]

you wrote: “Guns are a tool. Mere use of any tool is morally neutral.
There are tasks that are morally necessary, such as defense of self or others. Using a gun to accomplish that task, however, is neither morally prohibited, nor morally necessary. It is a matters of prudential judgement as to what tool is best to accomplish a particular task.”

– And also very important: what “tools” one has when the mortal danger is a few feet in front of you.

 

[Babaganoush]

There are people on the political left who question a right to self defense. Many on the left don’t believe in a right to bare arms. Among them are a lot of Catholics.

At the base of morality is respect for your own life and a certain love of yourself. You are to love your neighbor as yourself and do unto him as you would have him do to you. A disregard for your own life will also imply a disregard for that of your neighbor.

There is a new principle arising in leftist circles; treat your neighbor how they would have you treat them, not how you would have them treat you. The end result is that your autonomy and your conscience are destroyed because they have no place in any social context. The destruction of all truth follows.

 

[Babaganoush]

I think there are very few people who actually want to shoot someone. They just don’t want to be prevented from defending themselves or their loved ones by the law.

 

[PhiriTalk]

Would I be committing a sin if I chose to not defend myself through the use of gun violence?

Would I be committing a sin if I knew that other people were being violently harmed by a gun (or a person with a gun for those of you out there that prefer to be politically correct) and I didn’t defend them using gun violence?

A postscript: If guns don’t kill, then what do they do? It seems to me that a gun that doesn’t kill is a broken gun.

 

[Emeraldlady]

Emeraldlady:

Someone might choose out of altruism to use it to defend others but there is no duty or obligation to do so.

St JP II says different, (the bold is mine)

Evangelium Vitae, Encyclical of Pope St. John Paul II, 1995 A.D.​

But I was referring to the US legal status of self defense guns. Not what the Church teaches. The majority are either not Catholic or not practicing Catholic so wouldn’t feel bound to defense of others as part of gun ownership.

 

[upant]

[No message]

 

[PhiriTalk]

What good can come from killing another human being? Shouldn’t restraint be exercised no matter what?

I don’t think that gun violence should be the first option when defending one’s self from violence.

 

[Abaxvahl]

Nothing good comes of it except the perpetuation of sins.

 

[twf]

Thanks for this. I remember on another gun thread, one poster boasted that he / she would “shoot first and ask questions later” if an intruder entered their house. That’s not Catholicism… that’s an extreme sort of American conservatism.

 

[PhiriTalk]

It seems to me that gun violence should be the absolute last of last resorts when defending one’s self. It shouldn’t be nearly as common as it is today. The “shoot first justify later” outlook is not one which respects the sanctity of human life.

Also, it’s good to see that there are posters here who aren’t using the Catholic Church’s position on the 6th amendment to justify killing.