Many Catholics are nevertheless uncomfortable with American gun culture. After all, it’s hard to imagine Jesus carrying an AR-15 slung over his shoulder, for good reason. Our Lord allowed himself to be unjustly arrested, condemned, and executed, all without any resistance—he even rebuked Peter for his use of a weapon in resistance (John 18:11).
Yet it’s a fallacy to believe that because Jesus wouldn’t have carried a weapon then we shouldn’t either. It’s what I call the “WWJD Fallacy.” The WWJD movement was an attempt by Evangelicals to imitate Jesus as closely as possible by asking before any decision, “What would Jesus do?” It’s a well-intentioned idea, but it often fails in practice. Are you considering medical school? Well, Jesus wasn’t a doctor, so I guess you shouldn’t be one, either.
With the exception of certain saints like Francis of Assisi, most of us are not called to precisely imitate Christ’s life in all its particulars. Instead we follow Christ in the context of our own individual state of life (this is the benefit of the witness of the Saints—we can see a diverse panoply of ways people have lived as Christ’s disciples). And some of those states of life include protecting others from harm.
Contrary to what some modern Catholics may want us to believe, the Catholic tradition is clear that using weapons can be justifiable in many instances. The Christian Middle Ages is full of conflict and weapons, including even bishops leading troops into battle. The thought that a Christian couldn’t carry—and use—a weapon would have been as laughable to these Catholics as the idea that a man could declare himself a woman. While I’m not claiming that every such use of weapons in the Middle Ages was just, it’s clear that historically the Church has understood the need for people to defend themselves—and others.
Catholics are not obliged to own or carry a firearm. Owning and responsibly using a gun is a prudential decision that should take into account many individual factors. Yet Catholics are obliged to defend the right of individuals to own and carry a gun, because resisting tyranny and protecting the innocent is the duty of everyone.
— Eric Sammons in The Catholic Case for Guns
Then said He unto them, “But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it and likewise his pack; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one. Luke 22:36
Proof God likes 24-hour gun stores… 😉
Christ’s rebuke of Peter was not for having or using a sword in defense, but attempting to deny God’s plan.
“Then said Jesus unto Peter, Put up thy sword into the sheath: the cup which my Father hath given me, shall I not drink it?”
Note Christ didn’t ask Peter ” why do you have a sword?” or told him to get rid of the sword, just to not weild it right then, because He had a sacrifice to fulfill.
Indeed.
The correct translation of passage which has been badly rendered as “The meek shall inherit the earth.” is more correctly translated as “those who have swords but choose not to use them shall inherit the earth.” So Jesus definitely thinks you should have a sword, but be judicious in it’s application.
Going back as far as Aristotle, there’s nothing to suggest what you claim. It may look that way in some particular context, but the closest use actually is Aristotle’s; he uses it to mean those who keep their negative passions firmly controlled. But after him it is used for those who suffer and do not lash out, and those who in the face of calamity maintain their composure. By the time of Christ it was verging on a Stoic kind of use, those who are not crushed or dismayed by misfortune — and in Christian use, as one commentator put it, to be patient while suffering wrong, confident in being profoundly safe under the watch of the Lord, regardless of how things may appear.
I know where your claim comes from, but he’s far afield on this: https://quillette.com/2018/06/25/what-jordan-peterson-gets-wrong-about-the-beatitudes/
I’d imagine it’s pretty hard to conceal carry a sword. Especially to conceal it so well that even the son of God didn’t notice.
nah… haven’t you ever seen the pro-dress-code video where the kid pulls about a dozen handguns, and uzi, and a legit 870 out of his pants?
do a DDG or google video search for GUNS IN PANTS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zepAp5qQiDw
Its all about how you dress. In the fashion of the day, I would think it would be pretty easy to conceal a weapon. Keep in mind as well, at the time swords were smaller than they were later in the medieval period. The Roman Gladius was an average of 24″ then, growing to around 33″ in later centuries.
The people in Judea at the time were heavily influenced by Greek Culture, prior to the Roman conquest, however they used swords of their own design like the curved Sica, as well as Persian and Greek swords. Also keep in mind a Roman Dagger had around a 9″ blade and looked like a smaller version of the Gladius, which may have been carried as well.
back then, biblical, the common individual carry sword could have been anything from what today is the size of the common machete today to the longer swords used by the Romans. The ‘sickle sword’ design was popular carry for common folk, it was used mostly as a tool and the Romans didn’t confiscate them because they were used for harvest and other work the Romans needed the people to be able to do. The ‘sickle sword’ design was about the length of an adults forearm and was made for slashing. It would have been easy to conceal under robes.
When it came time for Jesus Christ to be arrested in the Garden of Gethsemane, the Bible says (Luke 22, the story is told verses 47 through 53 – beginning with the the kiss of betrayal), his disciples were upset at the sight of Roman soldiers and Jewish religious leaders who gathered there ready to take Jesus away. So, wielding a sword, one of them, Peter, cut off an ear of Malchus who was a servant of the Jewish high priest.
There was probably a brief “struggle” of resistance intercession from Peter and possibly Malchus fell down then Peter slashed down and cut off the ear. Its unlikely Malchus would have stood still with a man approaching him with a sword. But, none of us where there so who knows.
Most (or at least some others) of the disciples were probably armed with swords of the same type. When Jesus’ followers saw what was going to happen, they said, ‘Lord, should we strike with our swords?’ but only one, Peter, struck out and cut off an ear of the servant.
we know it was probably Peter that cut off the ear. Although the disciples asked if they should draw their swords, in JOHN 18:11 we find that Peter was the only one that Jesus told to put his sword away.
@ .40 cal Booger
What that passage shows about Peter is that he wasn’t properly ‘meek’, which requires discipline: he was both impetuous and sloppy with his weapon!
The word used for Sword (Machaira in Koine Greek) in the New Testament was rather fluid in its definition,, it could be anything from a large knife, dirk, kukri to a short sword. These resources might be helpful:
https://mistero.tripod.com/lukeswords.html
https://www.billmounce.com/greek-dictionary/machaira-0
Is there a legal definition for a ‘Dirk’?
(besides Dirk Diggler, a long-missing TTAG regular…)
Not to be picky, but that’s μαχαίρια, “machairia”.
I take it you have an aversion to things Apple, as you left out an “i”. 😉
(Apple would have an i-sword, right?)
NO – Apple would have “pee down leg” or a green diversity inclusion summit.
Jesus taught his followers to “beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”
On this day of Our Lord let us not forget how right Jesus was for History Confirms Gun Control Zealots are Wolves in Sheep’s clothing.
I would equate ” beating your plowshares into swords” from Bible passages to being okay to re-mill an old lawn boy into an AR receiver if need be. Without sounding blasphemous, I would guess there woud have been a thirteenth seat at the Last Supper if JStark were two thousand years older… levelling the playing field for the former meek.
Ummm, there already WERE thirteen seats…
Picky, picky, picky.
LOL
Cute reversal of words in that quote!
Just BTW, some have counted as many as sixteen seats at the Last Supper, including John the Disciple (not the Apostle) from Jerusalem plus a couple of others.
I’m wouldn’t limit my obligation to defense of others. I have a wife and three kids, and I’m pretty important to them. The longer I stay alive and healthy, the better for them and for me.
Amen. I ain’t a catholic either. If I don’t provide for my own(family)I’m worse than an infidel. That includes protection unto death. Amen again.
That is true for all mainstream Christians(with the possible exception of Quakers). Now, I may be wrong here, but even though certain insular Christian groups may not recognize a country’s right to call them up for military service, I think that Amish, Mennonites, and even JWs can and will protect themselves from armed conflict.
Conscription is slavery. I’m not sure what set of circumstances could exist that gives a country the ‘right’ to enslave an entire generation of men (and not women) through compulsory service that their countrymen aren’t willing to pay a market rate for. But that’s not a religious opinion.
Agree 100%. The Constitution gave Congress the right to raise an army, meaning to recruit willing members. Nowhere does that imply that the government has the right to compel people by force to participate. As I recall, we fought a war over another country’s practice of impressed service.
If you look at it from an economic view conscription is even more pernicious. When governments interfere with markets to create an oversupply of a commodity it leads to the squandering of that commodity. Only in this case the commodity in question is the lives and health of a generation of young men. Case in point, the British were rightly proud of their volunteer British Expeditionary Force at the start of World War I. (By then the British Navy had stopped abducting deck hands as you alluded to.) But as the casualties mounted it became impossible to recruit enough soldiers so in 1916 for the first time in history the British Army instituted the draft, effective in March. On July 1, 1916 they launched an offensive known as the Battle of the Somme. Had the generals been dependent on a volunteer army that battle would have been over in an hour, yet it went on for another 4-1/2 months. With more senseless battles to follow. All for the cause of honoring an 8 decade old treaty with a country that doesn’t even make sense in the first place (Belgium – half French, half Dutch) and had recently been committing horrible atrocities in the Congo. I don’t think the average British citizen had any interest in paying a market rate for a volunteer soldier to run across no man’s land for Belgium’s sake.
The Constitution bestows the authority to call up the militia. Since the definition of the militia is “all able-bodied citizens”, that’s pretty universal. In practice, though, you have a point; what the federal government actually did was call on the several states to send militia units, so while there almost certainly is a power to conscript, it does not belong to the federal government but to the states.
@ Gov. William J Le Petomane
The British did it wrong. They should have foreseen the need for more troops, and called for enough men to double the size of the Expeditionary Force and basically cloned that force by having its members train their “seconds”.
Roymond, you forget, the war was going to be over by Christmas (1914). Besides, if we’re going to talk about strategic military miscalculations of the First World War we’re going to be here all night and then some. The great miscalculation (for the British) was to get involved in the first place. My point stands though, that if all sides depended on volunteer armies the death toll of the war would have been a small fraction of what it was. Only through the forced labor of conscription could so much life be squandered.
As a side, in that volunteer BEF, every soldier was expected to make 15 shots on a 12″ target at 300 yards in one minute.
IN other words – you’re happy with SOMEONE ELSE defending you/your’s ass? Obviously you/your kids asses are more valuable/important than mine/my kids.
We’re at the point we need to REALISTICALLY decide if the US national interest can be protected by mercenaries (didn’t work for Rome) or the entire national body. Draftees of the 50-70s being largely useless for anything more than peeling spuds and painting rocks. Heinlein had it right – full citizenship/the vote must be earned thru national service. You chose not to serve, back of the bus.
You will mostly find the “WWJD” and “Jesus wouldn’t have a gun” arguments coming from people who have no idea what the Bible really says. Not surprisingly, they also tend to forget the part about selling your cloak to buy a sword once the apostles were about to leave the protection of walking with Jesus, and thus misinterpret the part about “That’s Enough” when showing they do have swords. And they confuse the “turn the other cheek” when insulted idea with doing the same thing under threat of being physically harmed, forgetting what FormerWaterWalker has posted about needing to provide for your family.
If I were a religious man, I’d think that the willful ignorance and misinterpretation of the Bible was part of Satan’s work to have people turn their itching ears away from the truth and follow false teachers who instruct in the ways of their own lusts.
I’m not a religious man though… So I just think that a lot of people are absolute garbage and too stupid to think beyond the immediate to see what others might have in store in the near future.
>You will mostly find the “WWJD” and “Jesus wouldn’t have a gun” arguments coming from people who have no idea what the Bible really says.
Basically how it always is. Opponents trying to use your own beliefs against you, when they neither believe nor even understand themselves. They’ve no right to hold you to them, that’s up to you and possibly your religious leader (priest, pastor, etc). Not the people trying to control and weaken you.
Dan form Detroit You’re more religious than you think. And more Catholic than some who call themselves Catholic.
Something overlooked is that technically only Roman citizens (or certain people in their employ) could carry swords (this varied between Senatorial and Imperial provinces, though). By directing His disciples to carry swords, Jesus was being incredibly radical! [Though in that volatile province, the legions probably tolerated quite a bit.]
Lots of idiots (including Christians) still parroting the BS of “shalt not kill”.
It’s shalt not MURDER
Well let me throw this out to make everyone upset. Their was not universal agreement that “Jesus” was actually a normal man, like most profits or a part of the whole of the being known as God. The Council of Nicea which convened in AD 325 which among other things voted on whether the Son had been ‘begotten’ by the Father from his own being, and therefore having no beginning, or else created out of nothing, and therefore having a beginning. The vote was not unanimous with the two holdouts being banished to Illyria.
So the point here is this, if you are actually a part of the entire being known as God, swords and weapons are really meaningless to you as a deity. So taking self-defense tips from the Devine is like a fish teaching you to swim.
If on the other hand “Jesus” was really a man that felt pain and had but one life on Earth, then it makes sense that when he fashioned a whip to go in to the Temple and assault the Money Changers (Bankers), he would have had three of his disciples bring swords for his and their protection from assault and possible death.
The other question this brings up, is if you are Devine, who cares if Humans torture and Kill you. Snap your fingers and say the magic words and feel no pain, no PTSD, etc., as you are a God. So what have you risked or really sacrificed, plus you know how it all is going to turn out anyway. If you are really just a man, like all the other profits before, then your pain and death actually have consequences and you really have something at stake.
Merry Christmas
Mauser6863,
Of absolute and primary importance:
1) We are finite beings in a fallen state (of sin) trying to understand the infinite.
2) We are trying to define the infinite with spoken language.
Those two simple facts ensure that we are unable to construct a completely clear and exhaustive understanding of God.
Thus, no matter what idea we form and how we try to describe it, there will be “holes” (so to speak) in that idea and description. That being the case, I encourage you to be gracious to yourself and others when you discover what you believe are “holes” in such ideas and descriptions.
Perhaps most importantly, do not discount characterizations of God and Jesus simply because you cannot fully grasp them. Doing so means you consider yourself superior to God.
With my above comment in mind, I can speak briefly to the question that you put before us.
When an idea is flawed or has inconsistencies, faulty assumptions (which are the foundation of that idea) are almost always why the idea is flawed or inconsistent.
The “difficulties” which you propose assume that Jesus could not have been fully God and fully man at the same time. Why not? I don’t see anything which precludes that. Furthermore, your difficulties assume that God would not choose to limit Himself when a man. Why not? Again, I don’t see anything which precludes that, either.
Last point to ponder: what was the complete nature of the suffering that Jesus would endure? Was it only physical and emotional suffering as a simple man being painfully crucified? Was it only spiritual suffering as God directed his ire of all human sin of all time at Jesus on the cross? Was it spiritual suffering as God “recognized” or “accepted” all of the pain of mankind’s sin all bundled up into a period of a few hours? Could it be all three of those ideas?
what is this? the false religions answer to christianity? gtfo
But long before Nicaea it was accepted that Jesus was also man. The whole discussion lurched from one side to the other, some holding He was a man who got “promoted”, others that He was just God “play-acting” in a “man suit”. Finally everyone realized He had to be fully both or He wasn’t a Redeemer.
Also, @ uncommon_sense–
His suffering began with the Annunciation: all at once an infinite being was confined to a mortal human womb. We think of His conception as wonderful, and from our perspective it is, but with good reason theologians have spoken of His conception as the beginning of His “humiliation” — He wasn’t just in a womb, He was for a moment a single human cell!
This is a sentiment shared by people that generally could not care less what Jesus would do. It isn’t any different from the more up to date theme of “follow the science” that gets pushed by those that don’t care about science and could not be bothered to understand it either.
Its all BS designed to make people think things that are not true…propaganda.
Science Matters until Political Agenda Matters More.
I have heard multiple claims that God forbids self-defense and/or weapons in the Bible. When you understand the whole Bible, those claims are clearly flawed.
In some cases those faulty claims are based on very poor translations of one or two verses. In other cases those faulty claims are based on a single principle or event taken out of context.
I can summarize the entire Biblical concept of self-defense and weapons as follows:
— All human life has immense intrinsic value.
— God wants us to preserve human life as much as possible.
— God graciously allows us to defend ourselves from attack.
— God tells us to be wise, shrewd, and effective.
— Weapons are necessary to effectively defend ourselves.
Thus, God graciously allows us to use weapons in righteous self-defense. Finally, when you realize that God wants us to resist evil and protect the innocent, you realize that God actually wants us (most people although definitely not every single person) to be armed with weapons for righteous and effective self-defense.
With all due respect — not as a figure of speech, but as a true expression of respect — I don’t care WWJD.
No offense Ralph, but one day you will…It’s best to make peace with God through Jesus before that day comes.
WWJD .
I always thought that was , What Would Jack Daniels Do.
I know all too well what JD does – Fvcks you up, leaves you with a nasty hangover, and drains your wallet at well over 20 bucks a bottle…
Makes you ten foot tall and bullet proof .
Country Western sounds good.
And falling down dont hurt as much.
… and don’t forget — all the women look great at last call.
that’s because you’re an inbred redneck….haha… funny….. get it, redneck?…..HAHA…. UGH
I had a history professor who was a Lutheran pastor/priest. For research on his PhD he’d spent two years in a Benedictine monastery. As he told it, he wouldn’t have made it without the company his friend Jack provided when he was set to watching sheep, which was supposed to be a time for meditating on his studies. One day someone asked who this friend Jack was, because Jack only showed up in his stories when he was watching the sheep. “Oh, that was Jack Daniels”, he replied.
(Which led to the story of how he managed to get his “friend” in through the monastery, which we all swore not to divulge for fifty years.)
The Catholic Hierarchy won’t even Defend Against Abortion. Why would anyone expect them to Defend the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Yeah, no one with the guts of an Anselm these days — the guy who refused to let the Emperor come to communion till he’d repented of his barbaric treatment of some foes, including penance and restitution!
I’m told that the marxist (current) pope will take up defending both “soon”.
I’m not Catholic. Nor much of a follower of any particular church. What I am is an old soldier and 1 who will do what needs to be done to protect those in my care. If that means using deadly force to stop a threat to whomever may be under my care, so be it.
We have the right of self defense as any other creature on Earth has. And while some will simply allow themselves to be taken as prey by the predators amongst us, I for 1 will not.
I’m not a sheep, nor am I a wolf. I’m the sheep dog seperating them.
To your statement, i will give a resounding AMEN !
I feel sorry for anyone “under the care” of some old blow hard redneck from alabamer…
Thanks for sharing AOL. useful
God could mm ands us us to defend the innocent, and blesses us for doing so. I recommend my book, “A Time To Kill: The Bible and Self-Defense”, by Greg Hopkins. It considers the entire Bible on the subject, in context. From a Chrisian/GunNut/Lawyer who taught Bible for 40 years. Available on Amazon.
Correction: God commands us….
I’m sure it’s a fine book, but if you want to level up…
https://www.amazon.com/Resistance-Evil-Force-Ivan-Ilyin/dp/1726472043
Thank you. I will check it out.
“Our Lord allowed himself to be unjustly arrested, condemned, and executed”. That’s because the Lord had to die for only 3 days; we, on the other hand, have to die for much longer.
“Catholics are Obliged to Defend the Right of Individuals to Own and Carry a Gun”
This is an odd interpretation. I’m Catholic, I will defend your right to own and carry a gun but there is nothing in being Catholic that makes it an obligation for me to do so.
“Contrary to what some modern Catholics may want us to believe, the Catholic tradition is clear that using weapons can be justifiable in many instances. The Christian Middle Ages is full of conflict and weapons, including even bishops leading troops into battle.”
The Catholic tradition is NOT clear that using weapons can be justifiable in many instances. The Catholic tradition is that using weapons can be justifiable in the name of God, thus the conflict and battle, e.g ‘Crusades’ (and for self-defense, see below).
“It’s clear that historically the Church has understood the need for people to defend themselves—and others.”
Yes, that’s true but the key words here are “defend themselves—and others”, and ‘others’ for the Catholic within the faith are those they have a duty to protect according to the church and not everyone.
Catholics have an obligation to follow ‘The Doctors of the Church’, the Magisterium, Papal decree, and the Holy See.
The Doctors of the Church and the Magisterium are clear that self-defense is not only a right, but in some cases, a duty. In the “Catechism of the Catholic Church,” the guidelines for when self-defense is legitimate are presented.
There are Catholics who are pacifist and would say that lethal force is never justifiable even in self-defense. However, the answer from the church is that lethal force can be justified. The Catechism tells us Catholics that lethal force can be justified if one is left with no other choice, and that killing is a last resort after everything else has been tried to avoid killing. There is no stand-your-ground or no-duty-to-retreat justification for a Catholic if they follow church teaching and dogma, they must, according to the Church, exhaust ever thing else first before employing lethal force to kill in self-defense and that includes running away.
But when it comes to use of force for a Catholic, after everything else has been tried to avoid it there is a ‘use of force continuum’. Citing Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Catechism says
“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.”
In other words the Catechism tells us that moderation in self-defense is responding to force with like force. For example, if a person is stealing a bike you don’t use a firearm, if a person is coming at you with a knife you can can respond in kind (lethal force to lethal force, use a firearm), By the way, this is where the idea for the modern day “use of force continuum” originated.
But the right of self-defense for a Catholic is based upon the need, ultimately in the name of God, based on rightly ordered self-love which puts God first in your relationship with your self and others. So self-defense for a Catholic, ultimately according to church dogma, is conducted in the name of God to preserve that self-love relationship as is employing the force or killing in defense.
So … Catholics …
1. have a legitimate right to self defense
2. have a duty to protect those in our care, such as our families
3. have a duty to employ force in moderation Force and that force should be met with like force
4. have a duty to ensure killing in self defense should be a last resort when all other options have been exhausted.
But, although the Church defines self-defense as legitimate for the Catholic it never defines self-defense as legitimate for those who are not Catholic. The only obligation for self-defense/defense force for a Catholic is for self or for those they have a duty to protect. Although Catholic history and tradition, and church teaching and dogma, support that arms were employed or can be employed, in that, the justification for possession and use of arms were reserved for Catholics and no obligation is imposed to defend a “right” for others who are not Catholic to own or posses arms.
But, just because one is Catholic does not mean they give up personal choice. And although it could be stretched a little to say that Catholics have a duty to defend those ‘oppressed’ such as rights being infringed, and there are Catholics and bishops who would in their personal opinion call it a duty and obligation to protect the rights granted under the Second Amendment, there is nothing in church teachings or dogma that makes it an obligation and its still a matter of personal choice for a Catholic to defend someones right to own and carry a gun and not an obligation.
Just to add…
In the context of Eric’s missive, the end sums it up
“Yet Catholics are obliged to defend the right of individuals to own and carry a gun, because resisting tyranny and protecting the innocent is the duty of everyone.”
It is true that Catholics are obliged to resist tyranny and protect the innocent. But being Catholic its self does not impose an obligation to defend the right of individuals to own and carry a gun.
The obligation is resisting tyranny and protecting the innocent, and if guns are needed to do that then so be it. Some consider it part of the obligation, as do I, but there is nothing in church teachings or dogma that obliges a Catholic to to defend the right of individuals to own and carry a gun.
“But, although the Church defines self-defense as legitimate for the Catholic it never defines self-defense as legitimate for those who are not Catholic.”
Sheer sophistry! And hypocrisy, because it says that Catholic lives are more valuable than other lives. It’s very Calvinistic, really — it boils down to saying that Jesus died just for Catholics and the rest can go to Hell.
“Sheer sophistry! And hypocrisy, because it says that Catholic lives are more valuable than other lives. It’s very Calvinistic, really — it boils down to saying that Jesus died just for Catholics and the rest can go to Hell.”
No it isn’t. Its Catholic dogma for Catholic’s just like, say for example, Baptist dogma is for Baptist’s.
Juts because it ever defines self-defense as legitimate for those who are not Catholic, it does not mean others not Catholic do not have a legitimate self-defense need.
“although the Church defines self-defense as legitimate for the Catholic” means in context with the Catechism and church dogma for the responsibility.
It just means that a Catholic is not responsible for the defense of others they do not have a duty to defend, just like, just like, say for example, a Baptist is not responsible for self-defense of others. Are you responsible for my self-defense?
The right of self-defense for a Catholic is based upon the need, ultimately in the name of God, based on rightly ordered self-love which puts God first in your relationship with your self and others. So self-defense for a Catholic, ultimately according to church dogma, is conducted in the name of God to preserve that self-love relationship as is employing the force or killing in defense.
In the Catholic faith self-love is a responsibly which puts God first in your relationship with your self and others. The same responsibly other christian faiths teach. In other words, in terms of self defense, the church teaches that each person is responsible for employing their own self-defense and defense of others they have a duty to protect.
“Juts because it ever defines self-defense as legitimate for those who are not Catholic,…”
should have been
“Just because it never defines self-defense as legitimate for those who are not Catholic, …”
As a practicing Catholic, but a poor one at that, I’ve yet to hear or witness any Anti 2A or Anti Gun bias from our diocese or from the laity. The overwhelming majority express pro 2 A beliefs even among our local K of C chapter.
Self Defense is a sticky subject for Christianity, as the Bible expresses both Pacifistic and Militant viewpoints, that at times are contradictory. It really comes down to one thing in my belief, and that as Christians, Catholic or Protestant, we are charged to be shepherds of both our families and our flocks. That a watchful shepherd will do what is necessary to protect and guard both his/her family and flock. Shepherds abhor the taking of life, but if it’s necessary to protect the flock, then so be it
A little unorthodox from main stream teaching that may be, buy it remains my belief nonetheless.
The church does not have a specific stance on pro or anti gun or the second amendment. The church does have a stance on illegal trafficked firearms to, for example, terrorist groups. There are some bishops who at times have expressed their personal opinion, for example, the U.S. Bishops Committee on Domestic Policy has a stance on violence in relation to Crime and Criminal Justice and drugs.
in 2000, the U.S. bishops’ Committee on Domestic Policy drafted a position paper titled ‘Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice’. It states in one section:
“All of us must do more to end violence in the home and to find ways to help victims break out of the pattern of abuse. 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 (‘Policy Foundations and Directions’). ”
A footnote to this section 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. ‘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.’ U.S. Catholic Bishops, New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse (Washington, D.C.: United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1990)”
The original source of the call for an ultimate elimination of handguns is a 1975 statement of the bishops’ Committee on Social Development and World Peace titled Handgun Violence: A Threat to Life.
These statements are not doctrinal declarations and do not fulfill the conditions specified in Apostolos Suos for being authentic (i.e., authoritative) magisterium. The U.S. bishops thus have not engaged their collective, particular magisterium on this question, and the statements in question are of a hortatory, advisory nature that reflects the prevailing opinion among U.S. bishops. This has not been accepted by the church, and Catholics have no obligation to it.
Comments are closed.