Why is the Catholic Church Anti-gun?

[thistle]

DreadVandal:

Are you being serious?

Yes I’m serious.
I don’t mean a butcher killing a cow, pig or chicken for food. My reply was to the poster who said guns can be used for hunting.
Are you saying its okay to kill animals for sport?
The Church doesn’t. Didn’t you read the CCC sections I posted?

 

[manualman]

thistle:

Why would anyone want to kill innocent animals?
Its barbaric!!

Vegetarianism is hardly a tenet of catholicism. IMO, one who has at least once in his life killed the animal he eats has a much better understanding of his food than those who think beef comes from a supermarket.

 

[1ke]

Black Jaque:

I see that the USCCB and even my homestate’s Catholic lobby is anti-gun.

I’ve read through some of the material, and so far I can’t see them citing any particular teaching that this stems from. It appears that the Church is just approaching this as a matter of prudential judgement.

Is it OK to disagree?

I’m kind of annoyed that my tithe is going toward this type of lobbying.

After reading the links you provided, it is clear that the US Bishops are not ‘anti-gun’ (they do in fact explicitly state hunting and those types of guns are not at issue). It is anti-violence, anti-unrestricted-handgun, and anti-crime as framed within the context of their Social Justice policies and statements.

The handgun statements is from 1975 and the other link is from 1990. Hardly a new stance or statement.

 

[Guar_Fan]

When I look at the links provided by Black Jaque, I don’t see an anti-gun stance but rather a desire to control handguns. To me, anti-gun involves banning them.

We recognize that this may be a long process before truly comprehensive control is realized. We therefore endorse the following steps to regulate the use and sale of handguns:

1. A several day cooling off period. This delay between the time of the sale and possession of the handgun by the purchaser should result in fewer crimes of passion.

1. A ban on “Saturday Night Specials.” These weapons are cheap, poorly made pistols often used in street crime.

1. Registration of handguns. This measure could provide an improved system of tracing weapons by law enforcement officials. Registration will tell us how many guns there are and who owns them.

1. Licensing of handgun owners. Hand. guns should not be available to juveniles, convicted felons, the mentally ill and persons with a history of drug or alcohol abuse.

1. More effective controls and better enforcement of existing laws regulating the manufacture, importation and sale of handguns.

usccb.org/sdwp/national/criminal/handguns.htm

Of course, number 2 calls for a ban on “Saturday Night Specials”, but I believe that was a topic of hot debate in the mid 1970’s when that document was issued. And the debate resolved by deciding “Saturday Night Special” was too hard to define, so laws regulating them as a class were impractical.

Assembly Bill 763
carrying a concealed weapon, possessing or transporting a firearm under certain circumstances, background checks for handgun purchases, photographic identification cards for retired law enforcement officers, requiring the exercise of rule-making authority, providing an exemption from rule-making authority, and providing penalties.

ethics.state.wi.us/scripts/2005Session/legprops.asp?key=REGSB403

Again, this doesn’t seem to be anti-gun position but rather a desire to regulate handguns - which to me is a good thing.

 

[thistle]

manualman:

Vegetarianism is hardly a tenet of catholicism. IMO, one who has at least once in his life killed the animal he eats has a much better understanding of his food than those who think beef comes from a supermarket.

Who said anything about vegetarianism?
Not me! Not the Church! Why do you throw that in?
I eat meat.
What is immoral is someone hunting and killing animals for sport and to claim that doing so gives someone a better understanding of his food is absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Black_Jaque]

However, Crimes with hand guns are a fact, accidents with hand guns are a fact…for those of you who said that the bishops shouldn’t be concerned, couldn’t the case be made that eliminating the weapons is a way of avoiding the temptation to use them and isn’t the physical safety of people part of respecting the dignity of life?

Yes that argument can be made. But one can make the same arguments for Freedom of Speech. Wouldn’t it be better is saying, “God Damn” would be punishable by law?

The truth is the personal right to keep and bear arms actually brings about a greater good than the evils that may come about from it.

If citizens owning guns prevents an autocrat from ever gaining too much power in the U.S. (because 300 million people armed with BB guns is still a force to be respected), it will have save more lives. If the citizens are disarmed, and because of that an autocrat siezes power, in a course of a decade he can undermine all the life-saving value of Three Hundred Years of gun control!

It has been correctly pointed out that had decisive action been taken sooner w/ respect to WWII, many more lives could have been saved. Now let’s take that one step further. Had the German people maintained the right to keep and bear arms, would Hitler’s attempt to round up Jews gone so smoothly?

So while the right to keep and bear arms may be costing thousands of lives. It is a very real possibility that infringing that right will cost millions of lives.

 

[bones_IV]

Libero:

Beacuse guns are horrible items, that can perform only one task DEATH. The question is actually why is the church not Anti - gun?

YAY!!

Why don’t you consider that in the U.S. criminals are allowed to have guns be we Americans aren’t. If terrorists are allowed to carry guns on planes then why shouldn’t we?

 

[bones_IV]

thistle:

Yes I’m serious.
I don’t mean a butcher killing a cow, pig or chicken for food. My reply was to the poster who said guns can be used for hunting.
Are you saying its okay to kill animals for sport?
The Church doesn’t. Didn’t you read the CCC sections I posted?

No,no, no. Hunting for the sport is always wrong. But you can hunt for them for food. What wrong with that?

 

[Black_Jaque]

CCC quotes:

**

**2243 **

Armed *resistance *to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

Note number 4. Of all the items listed, number 4) is the only criteria that a tyrant can use to render resistance to oppression morally illegitimate by being more oppressive. In other words, if a tyrant wishes to avoid an armed conflict he can either start making life better for the citizens, or he can confiscate their weapons. DUH!? Which choice do you think tyrants excersize? Think Concord and Lexington.

**

**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.
**

As a husband, I have the grave duty to defend my family. As a male citizen I have the grave duty to defend my country.

 

[thistle]

Black Jaque:

Yes that argument can be made. But one can make the same arguments for Freedom of Speech. Wouldn’t it be better is saying, “God Damn” would be punishable by law?

The truth is the personal right to keep and bear arms actually brings about a greater good than the evils that may come about from it.

If citizens owning guns prevents an autocrat from ever gaining too much power in the U.S. (because 300 million people armed with BB guns is still a force to be respected), it will have save more lives. If the citizens are disarmed, and because of that an autocrat siezes power, in a course of a decade he can undermine all the life-saving value of Three Hundred Years of gun control!

It has been correctly pointed out that had decisive action been taken sooner w/ respect to WWII, many more lives could have been saved. Now let’s take that one step further. Had the German people maintained the right to keep and bear arms, would Hitler’s attempt to round up Jews gone so smoothly?

So while the right to keep and bear arms may be costing thousands of lives. It is a very real possibility that infringing that right will cost millions of lives.

You are simply deluding yourself and trying to find any justification for having a gun.
Your justification too is against the teaching of the Church that the end no matter how good does not justify the means if the means is not good.

 

[bones_IV]

thistle:

You are simply deluding yourself and trying to find any justification for having a gun.
Your justification too is against the teaching of the Church that the end no matter how good does not justify the means if the means is not good.

Your interpretation is your own, not the Church’s.

 

[Black_Jaque]

There’s this quote:

Furthermore, the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons in connection with drug commerce reinforces our repeated “call for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

from “US Bishops and Guns”.

No they are not new statements, but they are current positions or attitudes.

 

[Black_Jaque]

Your justification too is against the teaching of the Church that the end no matter how good does not justify the means if the means is not good.

And what is the “means” that you are referring to?

The means I am referring to is the right to keep and bear arms. Owning a gun is not bad, much less maintaining the right to own a gun. Are you saying that a right, something that comes from God, is evil? I don’t think the Church would agree with that.

 

[Black_Jaque]

You are simply deluding yourself and trying to find any justification for having a gun.

I am speaking of the *right *to own a weapon, not owning a weapon outright. For the Second Amendment to serve it’s purpose, we do not need a gun in every household, a citizen simply needs to buy a gun whenever he/she sees a reason to.

As for my justification to own one under the present circumstances - I like to shoot pop cans and game animals with them.

(FYI the Catholic Church lists two Patron Saints of Hunters, St. Eustachius and St. Hubert. It appears to be condoning the sport.)

 

[vluvski]

When discussing most crimes committed with guns, it is necessary to realize that the gun laws have more often than not been broken.
Restricting gun ownership only puts limitations on legal gun ownership. Illegal gun ownership, the means by which a majority of criminals obtain their weapons, remains uncurbed by putting more and more gun laws into place.
I’m happy to hear that the original statement was a misinterpretation of the USCCB.

 

[trumpet152]

bones_IV:

The bible says we have the right to defend ourselves.

Where?

And does this mean we should allow all weapons? Perhaps we need bombs for our defense, or nuclear weapons. Nobody objects to the idea of self-defense, but are lethal weapons always needed? The line has to be drawn somewhere, we only debate where to draw it. Personally, I think that we should adapt a system of rubber bullets. Keep the guns, eliminate the ammo. That way the guns can be used for non-lethal defense.

 

[LeahInancsi]

Black Jaque:

I see that the USCCB and even my homestate’s Catholic lobby is anti-gun.

I’ve read through some of the material, and so far I can’t see them citing any particular teaching that this stems from. It appears that the Church is just approaching this as a matter of prudential judgement.

Is it OK to disagree?

I’m kind of annoyed that my tithe is going toward this type of lobbying.

Why do you need a gun unless you are having to hunt for your food?

Otherwise, guns do more harm than good. (My opinion and, most likely, fact.)

 

[Brendan]

thistle:

I’m British but it seems an odd question you ask.
Everybody in every country should be anti-gun. There is nothing positive about having a gun. Pretending they are needed for self protection is not a valid argument.
In the UK nobody is allowed guns yet gun related murders and crimes are less in our entire country than a major city in the USA.

Not quite true.

The rate for Violent crime ( murder, rape, armed robbery and assault) in the UK are about double.

Australia outlawed guns 6 years ago and violent crime increased over 34, and armed robbery with a firearm increased 70%

Kind of interesting that gun use in robberies INCREASED, now isn’t it. Could it be that the honest citizens turned in their guns, but the criminals didn’t. And now the criminals know their targets are unarmed and helpless

Austrailia now has a higher Violent Crime rate than the US now.

The USCCB is anti-gun, but the Church is not.

A fine case is St. Gabriel Possenti. While he was a seminarian, the town his seminary was in was attacked by bandits. St. Gabriel grabbed two pistols, and being an expert shot, defended the town from the bandits.

He is the Patron Saint for those who use Handguns.

Aquinas also supports the carrying of arms

And St. Thomas Aquinas postulated in Summa Theologica That is is permissmable for Catholics to be armed ( for defense)

it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): “He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God’s minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil”; (ST II, 40)

And Augustine

And St. Augustine

to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to “take the sword,” but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. (Contra Faustinus xxii, 70 )

 

[Brendan]

LeahInancsi:

Otherwise, guns do more harm than good. (My opinion and, most likely, fact.)

The FBI crime stats show that there were 1.5 million cases of a private person ( not police) defending themselves with a firearm in 1998 (Clinton Justice Dept figures).

In that time there were 30,000 firearms fatalities, including suicides and accidents.

1.5 million vs. 30,000

50 time more likely to stop a crime using a gun than to die by one, even by your own hand.

During the '90, gun ownership INCREASED by 40 million firearms, but the murder rate went DOWN by 40%

Britain and Austrailia outlawed guns and their murder rate INCREASED.

Kennesaw GA passed a city ordinance requiring a household to own a gun, and it’s burgulary rate dropped by 87%. Which is a no brainer, what criminal would try and break into a house where he knows the owner is armed.

 

[Libero]

Kind of interesting that gun use in robberies INCREASED, now isn’t it. Could it be that the honest citizens turned in their guns, but the criminals didn’t. And now the criminals know their targets are unarmed and helpless

Is that any suprise? Times change, crime itself would have increased even if we did have guns. Guns are more readily avaliable, and also more people live in the UK. Religion plays a less important role, thus making crime seem less of an issue.

We have just chosen not to employ the rather uneffective method of fighting fire with fire.