J
Jerome22
Guest
What is the Catholic Church’s view on owning a gun for protection? What should you do if you had to use it? Also, what is the Holy Mother Church’s view on being a sniper in the military?
- Status
G
George_Stegmeir
Guest
All Catholics have the moral right for self defense. If someone assaults you, you have the inalienable right to prevent them from harming you, your family, or your friends. However, Civil law may vary on the subject in different parts of the USA. The US Supreme Court has decided that all American Citizens who are not convicted felons have the right to own firearms and to defend themselves. However, certain cities, like New York city, Chicago, and San Francisco severely restrict that right. If you defend yourself in NYC with a firearm, you will be in serious trouble. The least that will happen is that your assailant can and will sue you if you hurt them!..Only in America (and maybe the United Kingdom)
There is nothing morally objectionable to owning and/or posessing firearms. Firearms are just another tool. It is their mis-use that can be sinful.
Like the old joke states: “Firearms do not kill people. Husbands who come home unexpectedly do!”
As for those who object to hunting: “If G*d did not want man to kill and eat animals, He wouldn’t have made them out of meat.”
So-off to the races for another Anti-Pro gun discussion!
There is nothing morally objectionable to owning and/or posessing firearms. Firearms are just another tool. It is their mis-use that can be sinful.
Like the old joke states: “Firearms do not kill people. Husbands who come home unexpectedly do!”
As for those who object to hunting: “If G*d did not want man to kill and eat animals, He wouldn’t have made them out of meat.”
So-off to the races for another Anti-Pro gun discussion!
T
thomc1980
Guest
Well for myself i own many guns and i believe firmly in my right to self defense and i would use it if i had to.
po18guy
Well-known member
From the catechsim:
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
J
john78
Guest
an excellent question and awesome responses, and believe it or not, a priest had actually discussed this one time during a homily, i forget the entire thing of it or why it even came up, but he pretty much said the same thing, that we have the right to defend ourselves, but something to the sort of not the right to pursue those fleeing, and again others have already addressed and answered the question i am just chipping in the point that i acutally heard this brought up at a Mass which as a young boy just astonished me.
We are called to turn the other cheek, and he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, yet those who are called to protect and defend are charged with doing so.
it is a hard line to walk.
and with such strict gun legistation flowing down the pipes, we might actually have to switch to swords !
maybe another topic for another thread for another day is how society has completely flipped the intentions of the constitution and the bill of rights and the right to bare arms.
We are called to turn the other cheek, and he who lives by the sword dies by the sword, yet those who are called to protect and defend are charged with doing so.
it is a hard line to walk.
and with such strict gun legistation flowing down the pipes, we might actually have to switch to swords !
maybe another topic for another thread for another day is how society has completely flipped the intentions of the constitution and the bill of rights and the right to bare arms.
po18guy
Well-known member
If a violent offender flees under circumstances which show a clear and imminent threat to others, we may also have a duty to defend those others who are threatened. Yet, legal restrictions and prudence must be employed.
An armed robber is the one who lives by the sword. A citizen, in the defense of life, is not living by the sword, but employing potentially lethal force in defense of innocent life. It is a reaction, not an action.
There was a book written decades ago about legitimate defense called “In the Gravest Extreme” and very grave it is. If one is not a sociopathic killer, then they must live for the rest of their lives with the decision that they have made. There are often no winners in such confrontations.
I hesitate to think of what wil happen if government physically attempts to subject American citizens to tyrannical control.
The government is now attacking the first amendment since its efforts to undermine the second have been, for the most part, stymied. Which part of the constitution can we live without? The framers clearly thought that we need all of them.
A
april32010
Guest
thanks po18guy for reminding us what the church teaches.as a fairly recent convert it has been a big awakening that i am to think as the church thinks,not as the founding fathers thought.
N
Newbie2
Guest
Key word is prudence, methinks. po18 guy summed it up well. 
S
shipwrkd
Guest
I also own guns, but not for protection, for sport hunting. I’ve read that the Vatican opposes this and secretly believes the only ones who should posses firearms are the police and the military.
Also, I’d like to know if it’s a sin for me to send a squirrel to his maker for causing damage to my lawn?
M
Mickey_Finn
Guest
I don’t know about the police and military having sole right to posses firearms. Sounds like a recipe for trouble.
But as a hunter, I do know, squirrel meat is some of the finest the Good Lord provided for us.
For the OP. I think it’s pretty clear that we have a right, and or, an obligation. To defend ourselves, and others. I don’t see how a sniper, is different from any other combatant. Who fights in a just war.
ATB
p.s. I’m a gunman as well.
po18guy
Well-known member
Not true. Internet legend. Dismiss it.
S
shipwrkd
Guest
M
maryjk
Guest
Were you asking about the Vatican or the US Bishops?
Because you said Vatican, but quoted the Bishops.
T
tabycat
Guest
Slightly off/on topic: There’s old saying among cops that if you shot someone breaking down your frount door and kill them on the frount steps, pull them inside and then call the cops.
S
shipwrkd
Guest
I quoted no one, I asked about a Vatican City News article. But ultimately, who gives the Bishops their direction. Just wondering which articles to believe and which to discount. I see a lot of opinion without facts in either direction. Just wondering what the Church’s position is really…seems to be some disagreement.
S
smndtupidisaftr
Guest
Such animosity it seems between the Vatican and US Bishops on so many issues. It’s just saddening.
On another note, this thread reminds me about the debate about nuclear weapons, or weapons of mass destruction. I don’t know the Catholic view on this (though I’m pretty certain that I can deduce it easily), but I would think that since the weapon can never be used specifically against those that are threatening you that even the possession of them would be immoral. Well, I should say the use of them, because maybe having it in a museum wouldn’t be bad. So even though we may have a right to weapons, we never have the right to weapons that can only be used for mass murder.
S
shipwrkd
Guest
My middle son is a Cop and sadly, that saying is’t as old or humorous as one would think.Slightly off/on topic: There’s old saying among cops that if you shot someone breaking down your frount door and kill them on the frount steps, pull them inside and then call the cops.
S
St_Francis
Guest
Sometimes bishops, either individually or in a group, will come up with some comments which, since they are mentioning it, people take to be Church teaching. However, this is not necessarily the case.
First, bishops do not determine Church teaching; secondly, even a group of bishops, such as the USCCB, has no standing greater than an individual bishop. Thirdly, they will often weigh in on a topic, but their view is limited to a certain locale, and so their statement cannot be taken to mean anything regarding Church teaching.
In addition, some of those “statements put out by the USCCB” or similar groups are actually just things written by people who are not bishops, they just work for the group, and they have nothing to do with anything except the writer’s own personal view. Sort of like all those “Vatican spokesmen.”
po18guy
Well-known member
Well, it is a political and not a magisterial document. It is the Vatican politics interacting with the UN. Although it must be watched, it mainly addresses the arms trade in third world nations. It seems to be the product of a sub-set of political liberals who invariably ally themselves with left-wing, governments. The Pope, on the other hand, has said that we must eliminate the source of the violence - which is in the human heart.
S
shipwrkd
Guest
Jesus allowed Simon Peter to bring a sword with him to Gethsemane and you don’t peel grapes with a sword. They were for battle or defense and were the most modern weapon at the time. If guns were around, Peter probably would have carried a Smith and Wesson.
po18 gives this thread the best information, IMO…except: .
. We end up with too much that should have been changed by dismissing things.
I would hope that it’s disagreement rather than animosity.
At the end of the day, I’ll keep my guns in good conscience and pray to God that the taste squirrels are all I need to use them on. I’ll also believe that there is room for all of Gods creatures…right next to the mashed potato’s.
- Status