Why is the Catholic Church Anti-gun?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Black_Jaque
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
thistle:
Really!!??
What was it Christ said? Not only love your neighbour but love your enemy and pray for them.
Your comments don’t seem in synch with the teaching of Jesus!
Perfectly in synch. I can pray for God to touch the heart of enemy, pray that God calms my enemy, but I don’t have to sit there and take it from my enemy. Many times God answers our prayers through us. Maybe my knockling the snot out of my enemy when he attacks me might humble him.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
I’ll give you an interpretation. To love means to will someone’s good and act for someone’s good if possible. This means that it is not only permissible, but obligatory, to do things that might be painful or unpleasant to others, if it is for their own good. I would also say that we have an obligation to love and respect ourselves as human beings. So self defense is not only a natural right, it is a moral obligation. That is why pacifism is heretical and immoral. So, if my killing an assailant in self defense is good for myself and for the assailant, then it is a good thing to do. Now how can killing an assailant in self defense be good for the assailant? Well, there are at least two goods that are achieved here.

First, there is the objective good of protecting my own life. But second, there is the objective good of preventing the assailant from committing an even worse crime, murder, instead of attempted murder. Also, if the killing of the assailant is seen as an act of justice, then the assailant, to some extent, expiates his crime. It is a painful truth but one that needs to be said. Sometimes true love demands that we kill others. Self defense, capital punishment, and killing in just war, when just, are acts of love. We could even argue that killing a wicked person could be both a corporeal and spiritual work of mercy.
Show me a Church document that states pacifism is heretical and immoral and don’t refer me to CCC 2243 and 2265 because that says no such thing.

Your last sentence is utter nonsense and is against the official Church teaching that the end, no matter how good, does not justify the means, if not good. By the way, who are you to judge if a person is wicked or not?
 
Well looky here! It looks like we’ve found a topic that makes for lively discussions.

OK, so I’m on the side of less gun control that’s plain. But can someone from the other side explain to me why the argument FOR gun control is to reduce violent crime, but then when it is pointed out that violent crime goes up after gun control in enacted, suddenly crime rates are entirely independent of gun laws?
 
My point is regardless of crime statistics there is a separate but to my mind more important statistic of accidental death or injury with guns. And that is something that can clearly be affected by laws that make sure that people who have guns know how to use them.
Good idea! Let’s get rid of this sex-ed junk and start requiring gun safety in the public schools. I would go one-step further and say that gun safety should be a required course for everyone who has the *right *to keep and bear arms.
 
**
sigh Yes, a bit annoying at times. It is NOT a part of Canon or tradition even, it is just popular opinion of many vocal leaders within the Church. You are allowed to disagree with it.
**
OK so getting back to the topic - that is how gun-control relates to Church teaching:

So am I correct in drawing a distinction between opinions of the USCCB and the Sacred Tradition of the Church?

Aren’t we bound to any sort of obedience to the USCCB?

Is the USCCB in communion with the rest of the Bishop of the world on this topic?
 
40.png
thistle:
Show me a Church document that states pacifism is heretical and immoral and don’t refer me to CCC 2243 and 2265 because that says no such thing.

Your last sentence is utter nonsense and is against the official Church teaching that the end, no matter how good, does not justify the means, if not good. By the way, who are you to judge if a person is wicked or not?
An intrinsically just act of killing is good in the means as well as the end. It is a work of love insofar as it is done for the good of the one who is subject to punishment.
 
40.png
bones_IV:
Consider that ancient Israel was always at war with other nations. You just somehow skipped over that point.
That’s a good point. God not only permitted, but commanded Israel to bear arms and go to war.
 
Black Jaque:
Good idea! Let’s get rid of this sex-ed junk and start requiring gun safety in the public schools. I would go one-step further and say that gun safety should be a required course for everyone who has the *right *to keep and bear arms.
I think we should also consider the possibility of arming school teachers. Perhaps, we should make it a cultural norm that citizens carry unconcealed weapons in holsters. I am not opposed to that. I also think that arms training and possession will do much to bolster self esteem in the youth and would cut down on bullying in school. BTW, I’m being serious, not fascicious. Weapons are a good thing.
 
Black Jaque:
Well looky here! It looks like we’ve found a topic that makes for lively discussions.

OK, so I’m on the side of less gun control that’s plain. But can someone from the other side explain to me why the argument FOR gun control is to reduce violent crime, but then when it is pointed out that violent crime goes up after gun control in enacted, suddenly crime rates are entirely independent of gun laws?
Maybe you can explain why you want less control of guns to the parents and families of the many children who have been killed by guns getting into the hands of other children.
Gun safety courses!!! Give me a break. The only SAFE course is to ban guns completely!!
 
40.png
LeahInancsi:
If you’re going to use statistics, then use them all. How many stolen guns were used to kill innocent people or drug deals gone bad, etc, etc.?
I have never been able to find any numbers on stolen guns. Apparantly it does not occur often enough to merit documentation. As far as drug deals go, that is an interesting thing to look at. If you start with the total number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. and you subtract the number that are criminals shot by police, private citizens, or each other, you find that the U.S. is among the safest civilized countries on earth to live in. When you add to that the number of crimes that are foiled by private citizens with their privately-owned firearms (something that criminals in countries like England do not have to worry about) it becomes even more obvious.
I will never have a gun in my house. If God wants me, he can take me with a gun or a heart attack. It doesn’t matter to me, but I’m not going to have a robber use my gun on me or anything else of that nature
That is another thing that is so rare that there are no numbers on it. If you are not prepared to use a gun in self defense than you should not have one for that purpose.
 
40.png
thistle:
Maybe you can explain why you want less control of guns to the parents and families of the many children who have been killed by guns getting into the hands of other children.
Gun safety courses!!! Give me a break. The only SAFE course is to ban guns completely!!
This strikes me as another appeal to emotions; frankly, its a red herring.
 
40.png
DreadVandal:
This strikes me as another appeal to emotions; frankly, its a red herring.
You think the families see it as a red herring??
Its very real to them.
 
40.png
thistle:
You think the families see it as a red herring??
Its very real to them.
Frankly, the families of the victims are probably not the ones who should be deciding what actions to take legislatively until they are able to deliberate dispassionately. Legislation based on emotion is usually not a good thing.
 
If you start with the total number of gun-related deaths in the U.S. and you subtract the number that are criminals shot by police, private citizens, or each other, you find that the U.S. is among the safest civilized countries on earth to live in.
Interesting idea. Do you have a source? Can you point me to some numbers on this?
 
40.png
thistle:
Maybe you can explain why you want less control of guns to the parents and families of the many children who have been killed by guns getting into the hands of other children.
Gun safety courses!!! Give me a break. The only SAFE course is to ban guns completely!!
There have not been that many. National Safety Council statistics show that a child is twice as likely to die from injuries sustained while playing school sports (especially football) and seven times more likely to die choking on food. Gun-related death is FAR down the list, below car accidents, falls, drowning, burns, medical malpractice, and several other causes.

And, you do not need a break, you need an education. Teaching a child what a gun is capable of doing and how to react when they or one of their friends find one is the best way to protect them from accidents. My father taught me early on and as a result I knew not to touch them and to keep my friends from doing so. If one of my friends was playing with one and refused to stop I would have immediately left the room and found his/her parents. Also, having been introduced to them I was not curious enough about them to play with one in the first place. Whether you are talking about guns or pretty much anything else, education is always a good course of action.
 
Thistle, Vandal has got you. You are basing your arguments from an emotional standpoint.

No one is claiming that emotions are not real. The families’ grief is very real. But grief is a very limit point of view, no matter how real it is.

In the same manner that you wouldn’t want a person who is in a heated rage to be making a decision on whether to pull the trigger; neither do you want a person in a deep state of grief to be passing legislation.

Emotions are real, but they must be mastered. And at times, when we get emotional about something we must have the discipline to recuse ourselves from certain decisions.

Think of all the other rediculous laws you could pass based on how awful those poor families must feel. Suppose we pass legislation requiring mental/emotional stability profiling, anyone that fails we’d just lock up. After all wouldn’t it be better to lock someone up BEFORE they commit murder? (or perhaps you don’t see the rediculousness of this idea)
 
Black Jaque:
Interesting idea. Do you have a source? Can you point me to some numbers on this?
I can not remember if the numbers I saw were from FBI statistics or from another source. I will find them and let you know.
 
Black Jaque:
…In the same manner that you wouldn’t want a person who is in a heated rage to be making a decision on whether to pull the trigger; neither do you want a person in a deep state of grief to be passing legislation.
Very well said.
 
I wonder how many wives were ever involved in the decision to bring guns into their homes!!
 
40.png
thistle:
I wonder how many wives were ever involved in the decision to bring guns into their homes!!
What does this have to do with anything? I’m curious, are you female? I suppose I shouldn’t post unless I’m going to get back on topic. The topic, of course, is the Church’s teaching on gun control. It seems to me that the Church has no official teaching on gun control. The Church does not dictate every piece of concrete legislation and action that should be taken. Rather, the Church establishes general principles that serve as guidelines for evaluating the morality of legislation.

The question of gun control is a question of prudence and justice. An outright ban of all guns would be unjust. No gun control at all would be, arguably, imprudent. So the task of the legislator is to find the right balance between restriveness and the right to bear arms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top