Gun Totting Catholic? Disagree with The Church on Gun Control


#1

So I’m having a hrad time with this. I joined CA after years of just reading posts I dug up on google, I had to come on here and ask about gun control.

I believe iN Christ, I believe He founded our Church for the good of all mankind, and rarely find myself disagreeing with Holy Mother Church, but this has got me going nuts.

Almost 2 years ago I received a call from an unknown person threatening to kill me. The threat was real, it was scary, and I was freaked out. I went out and bought a shotgun for my home. I live in NYS and getting a long gun outside of the city is no problem, getting a handgun, and esp. a handgun for concealed carry is a different story, what’s more I work in NYC and that is not at all easy.

I have always believed in the 2nd amendment, I believe in self defense, but this was the first time I felt I needed a gun.

Now I am a big gun buyer, guns have always fasinated me, they are tools, and in many cases, beautifully crafted machines. What’s more, a gun could one day save my life, and the lives of my family. I pray to God that never has to happen, but if it does, I want to be ready. In researching, I have found that US Bishops favor gun control, even want to one day eliminate guns entirely from our society, that is almost a direct quote. How can Catholic Bishops be this way? I understand the role of the Church as peace maker, and I wish the world were perfect and guns were NOT necessary, but they are. There are evil people out there, and sometimes one guy with a gun is all it takes to stop evil.

How can the Bishop who made the above statement say that the police and military should be the only ones to have guns? Are we not allowed to defend ourselves when the police or military are not an option? Are we not granted by the founding father this basic right in order to prevent tyrants from taking over our nation?

Did Jesus not say;

Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you without purse, bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered. He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. It is written: `And he was numbered with the transgressors’ ; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. (Luke 22:35-38, NIV)

?

We are meant to preserve life are we not? Are our own lives not worth preserving? Must we coward and wait for the govt to come and rescue us?

This and the economic lean to the left of the Church in recent times as left me questioning some of our leaders, not Gods instrument on earth, but those who are leading her.


#2

At least one saint used his skill with a handgun to stop the sexual assault of a young woman by a mob. There is a movement to commemorate him as the patron saint of handgunners:

gunsaint.com/stagnaro.asp


#3

I've never owned one.


#4

I don't understand your dilemma. The Church doesn't forbid guns, and certainly doesn't forbid protecting one's self or their loved ones.

I would worry about being paranoid though. And I would make sure you know how to properly use a gun.


#5

I own two guns and also believe in gun control. Gun control does not mean that there are no guns. Responsible and legal ownership is what the laws should encourage. I also believe that there are certain guns that should be banned as far as private ownership. This is only common sense.


#6

I own a shotgon , and its in my room - but I would like to see the day where guns aren't need - although I don't think it will be in our lifetime


#7

Maybe bazookas, rocket lauchers and such.

I personally do not like guns, though I own one. I prefer to rely on less lethal means of protection. But this is not a Church issue. The Catholic Church has always supported the right to use deadly force to protect yourself or others. It can even be a grave duty in some situations. I think the OP is concerned about something that doesn’t exist. Practically speaking, an armed populace is the greatest deterent to crime and tyranny, in my opinion. Really, most of the practical application is just opinion and we can all disagree.


#8

Sensible gun ownership? Sure, if you’re a raving looney, I would hope you don’t own a gun, if you’re a person with a criminal past, and you paid your debt to society, you should not be stripped of your rights though. If you’re that bad, perhaps we shouldn’t let you out of jail.

Registration does nothing to prevent gun violence or crime, I don’t believe in it, it only serves to tell the government which can be tyrannical, who has guns and how many they have.

And what guns should we not have? Full auto rifles? Why not? The military and police have them, why can’t we? It was the visiion of our founding fathers that we have the SAME weapons as the government. To give the government free reign, and letting them have some weapons and not us. That opens the door to tyranny.

High capacity magazines? Why not? I see no issue with types of weapons unless we’re talking about offensive weapons such as nuclear weapons and the like, these weapons can not be used to defend but to destroy, we can’t put the genie back in the bottle and governments will have them, and if governments will have them anyway, I don’t want our government left out.


#9

[quote="rightwingcon81, post:1, topic:283092"]
So I'm having a hrad time with this. I joined CA after years of just reading posts I dug up on google, I had to come on here and ask about gun control.

I believe iN Christ, I believe He founded our Church for the good of all mankind, and rarely find myself disagreeing with Holy Mother Church, but this has got me going nuts.

Almost 2 years ago I received a call from an unknown person threatening to kill me. The threat was real, it was scary, and I was freaked out. I went out and bought a shotgun for my home. I live in NYS and getting a long gun outside of the city is no problem, getting a handgun, and esp. a handgun for concealed carry is a different story, what's more I work in NYC and that is not at all easy.

I have always believed in the 2nd amendment, I believe in self defense, but this was the first time I felt I needed a gun.

Now I am a big gun buyer, guns have always fasinated me, they are tools, and in many cases, beautifully crafted machines. What's more, a gun could one day save my life, and the lives of my family. I pray to God that never has to happen, but if it does, I want to be ready. In researching, I have found that US Bishops favor gun control, even want to one day eliminate guns entirely from our society, that is almost a direct quote. How can Catholic Bishops be this way? I understand the role of the Church as peace maker, and I wish the world were perfect and guns were NOT necessary, but they are. There are evil people out there, and sometimes one guy with a gun is all it takes to stop evil.

[/quote]

The Church does not forbid gun ownership or use for legitimate purposes and nothing any Bishop or group of Bishops have said should be construed otherwise.

You are free to disagree with a Bishop or group of Bishops on this matter, as it is not an essential teaching of the faith, likewise, they are free to disagree with you.


#10

[quote="rightwingcon81, post:8, topic:283092"]
Sensible gun ownership? Sure, if you're a raving looney, I would hope you don't own a gun, if you're a person with a criminal past, and you paid your debt to society, you should not be stripped of your rights though. If you're that bad, perhaps we shouldn't let you out of jail.

[/quote]

I am kind of glad we don't let convicts run around with guns. Just because people eventually earn their freedom does not mean that it is wise to let them have armed freedom. A little thing called recitivism, you know. Some criminals do go back, or even escalate their crime.


#11

Greetings,

Regarding the original post, was there something said or that you read that had you believe there was a teaching against guns by the Church?

I don't own guns but do own tactical knives and other non-firearm weapons for practice of martial arts and self-defense. I would never use these weapons on another human being with the intent to hurt them other than as a last resort of self-defense. I don't remember seeing any "official" teaching of the Church against this.

Perhaps this was a priest or bishop expressing his opinion on the matter?

In Christ,
Bryan


#12

Is there some specific statement from a bishop or bishops that would lead you to conclude that the official Catholic position is that guns should be banned?


#13

[quote="Joe_5859, post:12, topic:283092"]
Is there some specific statement from a bishop or bishops that would lead you to conclude that the official Catholic position is that guns should be banned?

[/quote]

"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."

That's followed by a footnote that states: "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society."

Quote from they US Bishops Conference. Found on uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians


#14

[quote="rightwingcon81, post:13, topic:283092"]
"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."

That's followed by a footnote that states: "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society."

Quote from they US Bishops Conference. Found on uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

[/quote]

Well not only is the above statement a bit naive on the part of the bishops, and a bit irresponsible, but it's also not infallible. Though I do understan and acknowledge that they have the best of intentions. Of course they don't want even law enforcement to carry firearms. But that's not a realistic goal.


#15

[quote="rightwingcon81, post:13, topic:283092"]
"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer -- especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner -- and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."

That's followed by a footnote that states: "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions -- i.e. police officers, military use -- handguns should be eliminated from our society."

Quote from they US Bishops Conference. Found on uscatholic.org/news/2011/01/gun-control-church-firmly-quietly-opposes-firearms-civilians

[/quote]

These types of statements disturb me. Throughout history Police officers and militaries have confiscated guns and slaugtered their own citizens. I also resent these types of remarks from the Bishops.

Last year our bishop encouraged everyone in his Diocese (Rockville Centre) to support a handgun stamping bill. The bill is ridiculous and would do nothing to reduce crime. If I wanted to commit a crime I could file off the stamp or use a reolver.

The Bishops should stick to Faith and morals. If they need to make political statements how about statements encouraging liberty.


#16

:popcorn:


#17

Domenico Cardinal-Deacon Calcagno is a gun enthusiast and he has a nice collection of firearms.

translate.google.com/translate?sl=it&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ilsecoloxix.it%2Fp%2Fsavona%2F2012%2F04%2F12%2FAPCzYIIC-armi_parroco_con.shtml%23axzz1tvQXprjT


#18

Peter often carried a sword. It's the usage of any weapon that can become an issue.


#19

From the catechism.

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.66

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.

Note, under US law the police are under no obligation or legal duty to protect an individual. See
Warren vs the District of Colombia (ruled no obligation without a specific agreement between police and a specific individual. It is the invdividual's responsibility to protect themselves)

Castle Rock vs Gonzalez ( a restraining order does not establish an agreement as referenced in Warren vs DC)

Most states also reiterate that in their laws, for example California-
"California's Government Code, Sections 821, 845, and 846 which state, in part: "Neither a public entity or a public employee [may be sued] for failure to provide adequate police protection or service, failure to prevent the commission of crimes and failure to apprehend criminals.''

So, under US law it is your responsibility to defend yourself and your family, not the police. Hypocritical of DC to have banned the means on one hand claiming people should rely on the police, than on the other hand argue in court that the police have no duty to protect you.


#20

[quote="rightwingcon81, post:8, topic:283092"]
...

And what guns should we not have? Full auto rifles? Why not? ...

FWIW, as it applies to US law- from the DC Court of Appeals ruling in Heller, which was upheld by SCOTUS. The core of their ruling:
"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right
existed prior to the formation of the new government under the
Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for
activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being
understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the
depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from
abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the
important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the
citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient
for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to
placate their Anti-federa¬list opponents. The individual right
facilitate¬d militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be
barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth
for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment’s civic purpose, however, the activities it protects
are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual’s
enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or
intermittent enrollment in the militia."

In the dicta, an interesting bit on page 53 related to types of weapons:

" The modern handgun—and for that matter the rifle and
long-barreled shotgun—is undoubtedly quite improved over its
colonial-era predecessor, but it is, after all, a lineal descendant
of that founding-era weapon, and it passes Miller’s standards.
Pistols certainly bear “some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” They are
also in “common use” today, and probably far more so than in
1789. Nevertheless, it has been suggested by some that only
colonial-era firearms (e.g., single-shot pistols) are covered by
the Second Amendment. But just as the First Amendment free
speech clause covers modern communication devices unknown
to the founding generation, e.g., radio and television, and the
Fourth Amendment protects telephonic conversation from a
“search,” the Second Amendment protects the possession of the
modern-day equivalents of the colonial pistol. See, e.g., Kyllo
v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 31-41 (2001) (applying Fourth
Amendment standards to thermal imaging search).

That came up in the orals before SCOTUS:

"GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, Justice Scalia, I think our principal concern based on the parts of the court of appeals opinion that seemed to adopt a very categorical rule were with respect to machine guns, because I do think that it is difficult -- I don't want to foreclose the possibility of the Government, Federal Government making the argument some day -- but I think it is more than a little difficult to say that the one arm that's not protected by the Second Amendment is that which is the standard issue armament for the National Guard, and that's what the machine gun is.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But this law didn't involve a restriction on machine guns. It involved an absolute ban. It involved an absolute carry prohibition. Why would you think that the opinion striking down an absolute ban would also apply to a narrow one -- narrower one directed solely to machine guns?
GENERAL CLEMENT: I think, Mr. Chief Justice, why one might worry about that is one might read the language of page 53a of the opinion as reproduced in the petition appendix that says once it is an arm, then it is not open to the District to ban it. Now, it seems to me that the District is not strictly a complete ban because it exempts pre-1976 handguns. The Federal ban on machine guns is not, strictly speaking, a ban, because it exempts pre - pre-law machine guns, and there is something like 160,000 of those.
JUSTICE SCALIA: But that passage doesn't mean once it's an arm in the dictionary definition of arms. Once it's an arm in the specialized sense that the opinion referred to it, which is -- which is the type of a weapon that was used in militia, and it is -it is nowadays commonly held.
GENERAL CLEMENT: Well -
JUSTICE SCALIA: If you read it that way, I don't see why you have a problem.

GENERAL CLEMENT: Well, I -- I hope that you read it that way. But I would also say that I think that whatever the definition that the lower court opinion employed, I do think it's going to be difficult over time to sustain the notion -- I mean, the Court of Appeals also talked about lineal descendants. And it does seem to me that, you know, just as this Court would apply the Fourth Amendment to something like heat imagery, I don't see why this Court wouldn't allow the Second Amendment to have the same kind of scope, and then I do think that reasonably machine guns come within the term "arms."

High. ( No. You're referring to Standard-capacity magazines. Most of the magazines referred to as high-cap are the standard capacity for the weapon, change of term to imply they are inherently odd. Of course, in California, depending on your viewpoint this kind of backfired since mfrs started making much smaller more easily concealed handguns due to the legal 10 round limitation) capacity magazines? Why not? I see no issue with types of weapons unless we're talking about offensive weapons such as nuclear weapons and the like, these weapons can not be used to defend but to destroy, we can't put the genie back in the bottle and governments will have them, and if governments will have them anyway, I don't want our government left out.

[/quote]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars"


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.