Interpretation of this Vatican Document

[ddarko]

Hi All,

In a debate/argument on a different thread, a person keeps brining this piece of text

“In a world marked by evil … 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 original document in its entirety is here: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010711_trade-arms_en.html

I believe that this passage is speaking of the responsibility of the state and authority. In other words, it is simply acknowledging the right for the state personnel in charge of safe guarding the law, to bear arms.

Am I wrong/incomplete in my interpretation and is this talking about the right of all civilians in a society?

P.S. Please don’t make this a thread about gun control in general. I only want to know the interpretation of the above document.

God Bless

 

[runningdude]

…for the common good of the family…

Based on this, I believe the article allows for the personal ownership of firearms if necessary for the “legitimate” protection of one’s family.

This may even be construed to allow firearms even in cases where prohibited by “civil law” - however, only in circumstances where the civil government either fails to adequately protect its citizens, or actively persecutes its citizens.

I believe this document merely explains that the Vatican acknowledges a fundamental human right to defend one’s self, family, and nation. It states that firearms are a legitimate tool for such defense. However, the document does not appear to be an unconditional endorsement of firearms, nor restrict them solely to the regulation of the state.

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

Based on this, I believe the article allows for the personal ownership of firearms if necessary for the “legitimate” protection of one’s family.

This may even be construed to allow firearms even in cases where prohibited by “civil law” - however, only in circumstances where the civil government either fails to adequately protect its citizens, or actively persecutes its citizens.

I believe this document merely explains that the Vatican acknowledges a fundamental human right to defend one’s self, family, and nation. It states that firearms are a legitimate tool for such defense. However, the document does not appear to be an unconditional endorsement of firearms, nor restrict them solely to the regulation of the state.

**HOOAH! **SPOT ON!

**Catechism of the Catholic Church **

Innocent life:
I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE
The witness of sacred history
2259 In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.”

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. **Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. **

I refer you to Luke 22:36-38 where Our Lord commanded His followers to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do it. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

*Let us also not forget that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God and sometimes a sword or a gun is the correct response. *

So in the 21st Century that means you need to own firearms for self-defense.

 

[momor]

**HOOAH! **SPOT ON!

**Catechism of the Catholic Church **

Innocent life:
I. RESPECT FOR HUMAN LIFE
The witness of sacred history
2259 In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand.”

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:
For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.

2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.

2320 The murder of a human being is gravely contrary to the dignity of the person and the holiness of the Creator.

2321 The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. **Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. **

I refer you to Luke 22:36-38 where Our Lord commanded His followers to purchase a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do it. The “sword” (Greek: maxairan) is a dagger or short sword that belonged to the Jewish traveler’s equipment as protection against robbers and wild animals. Pretty much the equivalent of what a gun is today. A plain reading of the passage indicates that Jesus approved of self-defense.

*Let us also not forget that God rejected Saul as King of the Jews for FAILING to use the sword in executing the King of Amalek in 1 Sam 15:10-23 … clearly showing that being a pacifist was NOT pleasing to God and sometimes a sword or a gun is the correct response. *

So in the 21st Century that means you need to own firearms for self-defense.

The quotation in bold from Luke deserves it’s own thread but I’ll comment here in case anyone here wants to respond.

We know from the other thread that gave rise to this one that you and another person interpret this passage to mean that Jesus wanted his disciples to literally sell their cloak and buy swords to arm themselves. Other people pointed out to you Bible commentary that showed you were mistaken in your literal interpretation.

Rather than repost the same commentary you rejected on the other thread, hopefully fresh eyes here will see your interpretation and respond with their thoughts.

 

[ddarko]

Based on this, I believe the article allows for the personal ownership of firearms if necessary for the “legitimate” protection of one’s family.

This may even be construed to allow firearms even in cases where prohibited by “civil law” - however, only in circumstances where the civil government either fails to adequately protect its citizens, or actively persecutes its citizens.

I believe this document merely explains that the Vatican acknowledges a fundamental human right to defend one’s self, family, and nation. It states that firearms are a legitimate tool for such defense. However, the document does not appear to be an unconditional endorsement of firearms, nor restrict them solely to the regulation of the state.

Thanks for your reply!

I think I completely agree with you that there are situations where fire arms maybe used for self-defense.

But it always seemed to me that the document addressed Guns in terms of Authority. Even the opening paragraphs seem to talk about conflicts within states etc no? Even the excerpt is from the original document titled “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection”. Are you certain that this applies to individuals?

Plus, statements like the one below from the Catechism, seemed to suggest Authority does have a duty to regulate and make the final call

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

This is also stated by the USCCB in this document
nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/gunsample.shtml

We believe that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence

I can’t see how it can be reconciled with that Vatican document. For me it appears that the document must be speaking of Authority in that case. Otherwise every civilian could technically ask for a right to own a Gun as a duty. No?

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

The quotation in bold from Luke deserves it’s own thread but I’ll comment here in case anyone here wants to respond.

We know from the other thread that gave rise to this one that you and another person interpret this passage to mean that Jesus wanted his disciples to literally sell their cloak and buy swords to arm themselves. Other people pointed out to you Bible commentary that showed you were mistaken in your literal interpretation.

Rather than repost the same commentary you rejected on the other thread, hopefully fresh eyes here will see your interpretation and respond with their thoughts.

Good point, I will open a thread for that one too.

EDIT:

Here is the new thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=541460

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

**HOOAH! **SPOT ON!

…

So in the 21st Century that means you need to own firearms for self-defense.

Btw, Stan, this is not a thread on Gun Control. It is on the very specific issue of WHO/B] that Vatican document refers to.

Would appreciate it if you don’t derail this thread. I will also open a thread on your passage from Luke to see if your theological interpretation is correct.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

The CCC represents OFFICIAL Church teaching and trumps whatever the USCCB may say to the contrary and what does the CCC tell us?

**Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. **

Parents, husbands, wives, even sons, daughters and brothers & sisters can be responsible for the lives of others. A grave duty REQUIRES that the best means MUST be used to perform that duty; otherwise it can not be considered a “grave” duty.

 

[momor]

The CCC represents OFFICIAL Church teaching and trumps whatever the USCCB may say to the contrary and what does the CCC tell us?

**Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. **

Parents, husbands, wives, even sons, daughters and brothers & sisters can be responsible for the lives of others. A grave duty REQUIRES that the best means MUST be used to perform that duty; otherwise it can not be considered a “grave” duty.

2321 Legitimate defense, is a summary from the In Brief section on the Fifth Commandment. It refers back in a summary fashion to other paragraphs in the body of the instructions which explains more fully that this is referring to civil authority:

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.
**
2266 The efforts of the state** to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

But this has already been pointed out to you and Stan (and rejected) on the other thread. I agree that citizens have the right to arm themselves for good reason, BUT I object to taking quotes from the CCC, Scripture, and other Church documents and twisting their meaning to try and prove your points.

Let’s see how others interpret the CCC.

 

[ddarko]

The CCC represents OFFICIAL Church teaching and trumps whatever the USCCB may say to the contrary and what does the CCC tell us?

**Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good. **

Parents, husbands, wives, even sons, daughters and brothers & sisters can be responsible for the lives of others. A grave duty REQUIRES that the best means MUST be used to perform that duty; otherwise it can not be considered a “grave” duty.

I believe there is no contradiction between the USCCB and the CCC if correctly interpreted.

The grave duty entails use of ‘moderate force’. But that is not the issue at debate here. It is whether one can reconcile the above Vatican document as speaking of the individual (since it actually talks of bearing arms) with the statements of the USCCB.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

Read what 2321 says …

The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

… Legitimate defense is a grave duty for WHOEVER is responsible for the lives of others.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Use of the amount of force necessary to avoid being harmed. This can be from walking away from a situation to using lethal force to ensure your safety and the safety of your family.

 

[ddarko]

Read what 2321 says …

The prohibition of murder does not abrogate the right to render an unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. Legitimate defense is a grave duty for whoever is responsible for the lives of others or the common good.

… Legitimate defense is a grave duty for WHOEVER is responsible for the lives of others.

SK, I am going to have to report you to the mods for DERAILING threads. STICK TO THE THREAD. The question is not about use of GUNS. Its about who the above passage in the OP refers to.

ALRIGHT?

Last warning.

God Bless

 

[ddarko]

Use of the amount of force necessary to avoid being harmed. This can be from walking away from a situation to using lethal force to ensure your safety and the safety of your family.

Once again Kathleen, this is beginning to look like a circus. Stick to the topic of the thread.

As for your comment, anything more than moderate force is UNLAWFUL. Google it up with the word catechism and you will find the passage. But its not the topic of this thread.

God Bless

 

[Sir_Knight]

SK, I am going to have to report you to the mods for DERAILING threads.

Feel free. I’d be most interested in HOW I am derailing the thread.

STICK TO THE THREAD.

That’s exactly what I am doing.

The question is not about use of GUNS. Its about who the above passage in the OP refers to.

And what exactly is your opening post about … right of legitimate defense by means of arms. http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=642&pictureid=6061

ALRIGHT?

No, because we are discussing exactly what your asked about – the Vatican’s position on the “legitimate defense by means of arms” – what better way to explain the position of the Vatican than by posting a quote from an official teaching of the Vatican?

Last warning.

Is that a promise?

 

[runningdude]

Thanks for your reply!

I think I completely agree with you that there are situations where fire arms maybe used for self-defense.

But it always seemed to me that the document addressed Guns in terms of Authority. Even the opening paragraphs seem to talk about conflicts within states etc no? Even the excerpt is from the original document titled “The International Arms Trade: an Ethical Reflection”. Are you certain that this applies to individuals?

Plus, statements like the one below from the Catechism, seemed to suggest Authority does have a duty to regulate and make the final call

This is also stated by the USCCB in this document
nccbuscc.org/sdwp/national/criminal/gunsample.shtml

I can’t see how it can be reconciled with that Vatican document. For me it appears that the document must be speaking of Authority in that case. Otherwise every civilian could technically ask for a right to own a Gun as a duty. No?

God Bless

I confess I only briefly skimmed the original Vatican document, but basically, I think it boils down to owning the firearm for legitimate protection is not inherently sinful, even if obtained through an illegal network.

The USCCB document seems to be about shutting down supply of guns within the United States to block illegal trade. I don’t believe they conflict, just deal with similar similar but separate issues.

 

[ddarko]

I confess I only briefly skimmed the original Vatican document, but basically, I think it boils down to owning the firearm for legitimate protection is not inherently sinful, even if obtained through an illegal network.

The USCCB document seems to be about shutting down supply of guns within the United States to block illegal trade. I don’t believe they conflict, just deal with similar similar but separate issues.

I think thats not correct.

Because the USCCB states the following:-

We believe that only prohibition of the importation, manufacture, sale, possession and use of handguns (with reasonable exceptions made for the police military, security guards and pistol clubs where guns would be kept on the premises under secure conditions) will provide a comprehensive response to handgun violence

So I don’t think that is a document applied to illegal trading only, no? Or why speak of possible exceptions like the section bolded above?

Also, regarding the OP Vatican document, that seems to actually apply to State level since that document seems to be targeted at, specifically says “CONFERENCE ON ILLICIT TRADE IN SMALL ARMS AND LIGHT WEAPONS IN ALL ITS ASPECTS”. It even speaks of UN conventions during war etc which do not really get bought up when speaking of individual rights.

So is it not possible that the correct way of resolving the conflict between the two statements is

1. Interpreting Vatican document as applicable to states
2. USCCB as applying to civilians (since it explicitly states that state authority is the possible exception)

To me, this seems the most reasonable. You might have missed the bolded section above from the USCCB perhaps? Because it sure doesn’t seem like it speaks on illicit trade in the USCCB document by that statement.

God Bless

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hi All,

In a debate/argument on a different thread, a person keeps brining this piece of text

The original document in its entirety is here: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010711_trade-arms_en.html

This text is a not an exercise of the magisterium, but is instead a document of the Holy See as a soverign nation, a government document. It should not be treated as though it is binding teaching in any way. It is the opinion of a government office responsible for diplomatic and political activity, not the magisterium. Consequently, its interpretation is not normative in doctrinal discussions.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

BTW, the USCCB has no magisterial authority either.

According to Cardinal Ratzinger:

We must not forget that episcopal conferences have not theological basis…they have only a practical, concrete function… No episcopal conference, as such, has a teaching mission; its documents have no weight of their own, save that of their consent by the individual bishops.” [Ratzinger Report]

 

[otjm]

It is worth keeping in mind that a statement coming out of one of the various parts of the USCCB is at times not even vetted by the bishops. Of recent times there have been some lay-offs at the USCCB, lay-offs that were far, far overdue as staff was on their own agenda, supported by a few bishops but most definitely not doing a good job of reflecting the majority of bishops’ opinions, and at times straying from Church teaching.

It is a mistake to presume that something issued under the auspices of the USCCB reflects what the USCCB actually thinks (as opposed to the wirter(s)’ opinion), let alone reflecting what the bishops think. The USCCB in form has validity, a validity sometimes lacking in substance.

And when they issue an opinion, it may be cloaked in theological or Scriptural terms to lend it credibility. Too often substantially it only amounts to a sociological, psychological, or economic opinion, etc., and too often strays into areas in which there is no expertise, and in which opinions are stated as facts.