A man has the right and the responsibility to defend himself and his family. Yet the bishops say...
Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.
The most direct statement comes in the bishops’ “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” from November 2000.
“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.”
That in turn reiterates a line in the bishops’ 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse, which called “for effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”
Pope Benedict wrote in his message to the disarmament conference that no reduction or elimination of arms can happen without eliminating violence at its root. Every person “is called to disarm his own heart and be a peacemaker everywhere,” the pope said.
Other also read:
Your reasoning here shows just how tiny your brain is.
LOL I’d really like an explanation for that one, Robert.
St Luke 22: 34-38: “And He said: I say to thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, till thou thrice deniest that thou knowest me. And He said to them: When I sent you without purse, and scrip, and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said He unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip; and he that hath not, let him sell his coat, and buy a sword. For I say to you, that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me: And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end. But they said: Lord, behold here are two swords. And He said to them, It is enough.”
Catechism of the Catholic Church:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing.
“The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.)
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.” (St. Thomas Aquinas, STh II-II,64,7, corp. art.)
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.
A prime minister of Russia once said that it would be impossible to disarm America, thus making the strategy for invasion impossible!
“Japan would never invade the United States. We would find a rifle behind every blade of grass.” Isoroku Yamamoto
Thank you for posting this — as discouraging as the statement from the USCCB is. You’re catechesis from CCC and St. Thomas clearly shows the 2000 statement is not consistent with either. Our Constitution, while not perfect, is a solid statement reflecting human reason and natural law. Every dictator knows the two ways you obtain complete control of the people is to take away their ability to defend themselves (i.e. seize all the guns) and then engineer the impoverishment of the masses by controlling their money and food supply. It worked for Stalin, Hitler, Mao and every other dictator who ever lived. And it’s working today in the US . . . but there is a growing awakening and resistance.
The US bishops are playing right into the globalists agenda who, if anyone carefully follows their actions, are working feverishly to do all three. And America is the last stronghold. We are waking up thanks to non-Catholics like Alex Jones (Austin, TX) who has dedicated his life to exposing the truth of the new world order. Unfortunately, we only give fuel to his suspicions against the Church because of statements like these which so NOT reflect what we actually believe. He’s not perfect in all of his analysis, but after studying his content for years now, he is the most accurate on geo-political realities than anyone else I have heard. Where are the Catholic Alex Jones figures out there (I pray for his conversion daily)? Why aren’t ‘we’ the leading voice of truth and moral authority in the world? We are the one who possess it in all its fullness. Our Lady at LaSalette’s prophecy is ominously coming true.
I guess Chesterton, the “Apostle of Common Sense,” was a terrible Catholic because he not only carried a sword in his cane, but also a pistol . . . because he loved his wife and wanted to be able to protect her.
As someone once said, “An armed society is a polite society.”
While my weapon of choice is always the holy Rosary and fasting, being a layman with a family and understanding well the signs of the times in which we live, possessing and responsibly knowing how to use a firearm for the protection of what has been entrusted to my care is a prudent course of action for those who have the means. It is always for defensive purposes, just like war is supposed to be.
Examine all cities where firearms are banned . . . they all have the highest crime rates. Why? Because criminals will always have access to guns and they will always target the defenseless.
The bishops should focus on the conversion of hearts instead of erroneous social statements that only further damage their credibility — it does grave injustice to the solid bishops out there (and they are out there) who do not subscribe to such statements, but are lumped in there because the majority won out in their passing. How about a pastoral statement calling for all Catholics to pray the rosary daily, consecrate families to the Immaculate Heart of Mary, the power of fasting in stopping wars and converting hearts? These all require spiritual conviction and sadly, as a conference, that conviction is just not there.
Thanks again for the post, Colleen.
God bless you.
Interesting how the CNS writer conflated “Church Doctrine” and the authority of the Vatican with the USCCB. The USCCB has no authority. Now, if Bishop Farrell were to state that he demands all faithful Catholics to relinquish their handguns, that would be a statement with authority (but would not necessarily result in that demand having to be carried out – it would depend on many things). This is why I detest all these national conferences – they have no authority, the bureaucracy is totally infected with leftism, and the apparatchiks therein try to transmute into some kind of authority the position of the USCCB to work their leftist beliefs in the Church.
Note, there is not a statement from the Vatican that ordinary folk should be denied handguns. There are attempts to limit the trade of small arms, but that is different than an outright ban. Even then, the statements seeking to curb the arms trade are not doctrinal or authoritative. And, we must recognize that the same institutional leftism that affects almost all the national (and state, and other) conferences infects much of the bureaucracy of the Vatican, in particular the lay bureaucracy. So, all told, this is nothing more than an attempt by some element within the USCCB to advance their gun control agenda, using the USCCB’s official news arm, CNS, to do so.
I don’t even own a handgun, but this is offensive to me. I do, however, own several firearms.
And four bows. And a sword! If all else fails, I’ll run the bad guy through!
Seriously, though, one could easily argue that the statement in the Catechism that “those who legitimately hold authority” can use firearms to repel an aggressor can apply to any homeowner and especially a parent. A parent is certainly in authority in a home with children.
Actually, the Vatican is for strict gun control. Colleen, I believe you’re taking those Catechism quotes very much out of context. Those Catechism quotes are referring to self-defense, but they mention nothing of private ownership of guns. Please read these quotes from the Vatican which clearly match up with the Bishops’ statements:
“4.8 It is urgent to find an effective way to stop the flow of arms to terrorist and criminal groups. An indispensable measure would be for each State to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and
small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe upon the rights of anyone.” ~ Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Vatican, in ‘The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection.’
“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.” ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, Paragraph 2316
“Seeds of war are also being spread by the massive and uncontrolled proliferation of small arms and light weapons, which it seems are passing freely from one area of conflict to another, increasing violence along the way. Governments must adopt appropriate measures for controlling the production, sale, importation and exportation of these instruments of death.” Pope John Paul II, Message for the 1999 World Day of Peace.
Please take these important quotes into consideration. You will never find a situation where the USCCB contradicts the Vatican. God Bless!
Which man would be more guilty? The man who gave up his sword/gun in subservience to a ruler, then later helplessly stood by as his house and family were ravaged by a criminal. Or, the man who stood firm and in defense of his wife and children, dealt the criminal a mortal wound?
Which man would you want in your family?
Which example would you want for your children?