Vatican welcomes Obama gun control proposal

The Vatican praised President Barack Obama’s proposals for curbing gun violence, saying they are a “step in a right direction.”

The Vatican’s chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress “to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths.”

Lombardi renewed Vatican appeals for disarmament and encouragement for measures to fight “the production, commerce and contraband of all types of arms,” an industry fueled by “enormous economic and power interests.”

Interesting but not surprising given the USCCB’s position. :thumbsup:

Well this isn’t the word of the Pope.
What do they mean the Vatican. . . .
It’s the main stream media spin!!!
It’s not official doctrine.
Um. . . abortion. . .

(grumble, grumble, grumble)

I’m afraid the bishops especially and the Vatican will one day deeply regret their support of the trashing of the Second Amendment. The bishops do look pretty disingenuous in their complaints about First Amendment restrictions when they wholeheartedly support the restriction of the Second Amendment, they can’t pick and choose, the constitution must stand in it’s entirety.

Well since the Vatican itself retains armed Swiss guards ( complete with handguns and assault rifles) we can correctly assume that the Vatican is not referring to arms in the hands of those who defend those to whom are entrusted to them.

That is clear in that, if the Vatican intended that ALL commerce in arms cease, it too would cease equipping it’s security staff.

The Vatican’s comments should thus be taken to refer to the criminal element, in which I am in full agreement with the Vatican.

And like the Vatican, I will pray and work for a day where the Swiss Guards are no longer needed and even their halberds are retired.

Sure they can criticize parts of the Constitution. It’s not the Bible.

Yes, I suspect that is their meaning entirely!! :rolleyes:

What else could it be, to hold a contrary opinion would be to claim that the Vatican engages in hypocrisy. And that is something I will never hold to.

After all, if all commerce in all arms is wrong, then retention of the Swiss guards would be a moral error. Even their halberds constitute ‘arms’

Or should we then focus on the qualifier of ‘contraband’ that the Vatican used. That term might give us more insights to what the Vatican statement meant.

Perhaps it is the contraband engagement in arms production, commerce and use that is wrong.

And once again, I am in full agreement with the Vatican.

I am sure, for example, that prior to equipping a guardsman with an assault rifle, a background check for felony convictions is done, and the Swiss government would inform the Vatican of any known mental health issues. All of which I am fully in favor of.

Well do you agree with the administration’s propositions on gun regulation? The Vatican seems to. Surely they understand what they are agreeing with and the propositions of the Obama administrations address more than the movement of illegal guns.

They are entitled to their opinion.

The USCCB has stated that those with legitimate authority, i.e. those entrusted to maintain public order, can have guns. That doesn’t mean you or I popping out of the woodwork with an AR15. They specifically make exception for police, military, and security guards.

The Vatican, like any other country, is a state. The Swiss guards are those with legitimate authority in the Vatican state, with lives entrusted to their care, as the Catechism speaks of.

We shouldn’t spin everything the Church speaks on, to fit our own personal view.

I agree with the E.O’ that Obama has issued. Certain practical elements remain to be seen, for example the mental health reporting.

I can see a possibility that it will result in those who are most in need of this provision specifically NOT seeking mental health care because of concerns of this.

Even in NY, a Psychiatric Professor has been counseling his peers to ‘over report’, pretty much as a CYA measure. Now that is specific to the State law, but I can see legal ramifications even in the Executive Order, specifically in regards to civil suits and malpractice insurance rates. That alone would raise operating expenses for mental health professionals and thus discourage mental health coverage. A follow on regulation to indemnify ‘good faith’ diagnoses would go a long way in addressing my concerns on that.

And that too, is something that I feel is in line with what the Vatican wants.

The Second Amendment is in place to make sure that those entrusted with maintaining public order do not abuse their power. Examples of this abuse by governmental authorities have been, and continue to be, prevalent.

As far as the regulations go, most are utterly useless. Most problems with guns deal with criminals, who won’t obey the existing laws, and won’t obey the upcoming laws. The result is that law-abiding citizens are punished, which is highly immoral.

Which tells me that, in that interpretation of the Second Amendment, private gun ownership is worthless. When has it ever succeeded in preventing or stopping tyranny in the United States? Never.

The USCCB and the Vatican don’t seem to think so. :shrug:

A father, as head of his family, with legitimate authority in his family, with lives entrusted to his care has the same duty and right to protect them.

I think the statements of the USCCB and the Vatican stand on their own without tacking-on additional exceptions they haven’t approved.

The Vatican and the bishops are entitled to their opinion however in this matter the US constitution is the “bible”. The constitution does not say that only those in authority should be armed, to the contrary it says the citizenry should be armed without interference from the government and implies a defense against a tyrannical authority. Church support of the Obama position on gun control is not limited to nor can it be restricted to commerce in weapons, their support will undoubtedly be interpreted to encompass the whole package. I repeat, the bishops, all of us by extension, will deeply regret their support of the trashing of the 2nd amendment.

We have a right, and a duty, to protect our families. Does this mean we need every type of gun available to all? Does this mean we need everyone licensed to carry a concealed weapon? Does this mean we allow the public to be endangered, because we want to own guns?

The discussion has gone from an endangered public, to a right to keep government in check. The USCCB speaking went immediately into ‘no experience.’ The Vatican has gone to ‘not talking about my guns.’

When, the greatest majority of, guns are manufactured, they are legal. When the greatest majority of those guns are purchased they are legal. At some point guns can, and do, become illegal. Controls are needed to keep the honest aware of their own actions, and to lessen the availability of legal guns becoming illegal.

I don’t know that the Constitution is especially important to the opinions or teaching of the Church.

It is simply human text dealing with governance. Nearly every country has one. Nothing special about ours.

I think the mental health issue has got to be dealt with carefully, though. We had an incident recently in my area where a mentally ill man shot and killed a would-be robber. This man had a valid concealed license, took a different route and called 911 when he noticed the two suspects following him, yelled stay back at the one that approached him, displayed his gun and even fired a warning shot before finally firing the fatal shot when the suspect still didn’t stop. He was actually on the phone with 911 this whole time. Had this man not been allowed to own and carry a gun, he might be dead now instead of the suspect (the other one said his buddy had two knives that he planned to use to rob the guy and they were found in a bush right next to where the suspect fell).

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