Is the Catholic Church calling for Gun Control?


PDA






Alan Fud
January 14, 2006, 01:34 PM
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=93435 ... The Holy See appealed to the international community to prepare and adopt a treaty to regulate the trade of small arms and light weapons. The Vatican believes that such a measure will also contribute to combat terrorism. The appeal was made Monday by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, when addressing a session of a U.N. preparatory committee. ...

Referring to the upcoming U.S. conference, the archbishop said that it would "be most useful to start a serious reflection on the possibility of negotiating a legally binding instrument on international arms trade, such as an arms trade treaty, based on the more important principles of international law, and in particular on both human rights and humanitarian law." "Such an instrument," the papal representative said, "could greatly contribute to uprooting the illicit traffic in arms and to underlining the responsibility of states to strengthen further the international regime on small arms and light weapons."

The United Nations estimated that there are more than 600 million small arms and light weapons in circulation worldwide. Of 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, 47 were waged with small arms as the weapons of choice. Small arms are responsible for over half a million deaths per year, including 300,000 in armed conflict and 200,000 more from homicides and suicides.

Archbishop Migliore observed: "If we consider both the humanitarian costs of the small arms and light weapons and the profound connection between them, and the process of human and sustainable development, then it becomes clear that greater attention now needs to be paid to reducing the demand for small arms and light weapons." ..Earlier Monday, in his address to the diplomatic corps accredited to the Holy See, Benedict XVI affirmed: "On the basis of available statistical data, it can be said that less than half of the immense sums spent worldwide on armaments would be more than sufficient to liberate the immense masses of the poor from destitution. This challenges humanity's conscience."

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the Catholic Church calling for Gun Control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
AirForceShooter
January 14, 2006, 01:36 PM
what will Bill O'Rielly do?
he's promised to get a gun.

AFS

The Real Hawkeye
January 14, 2006, 01:40 PM
The Institutional Roman Catholic Church has been solidly in the hands of the one worlders since Vatican II.

TallPine
January 14, 2006, 01:53 PM
The United Nations estimated that there are more than 600 million small arms and light weapons in circulation worldwide. Of 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, 47 were waged with small arms as the weapons of choice. Small arms are responsible for over half a million deaths per year, including 300,000 in armed conflict and 200,000 more from homicides and suicides.

That first number seems awfully low ... I would guess there are 200-300 million guns in private hands in the US alone. So the US has a third to half of all the guns in the world, but only accounts (outside of foreign wars) for ~15% (30K out of 200K) of homicides and suicides (can anyone say: "more guns, less crime" ???).

beerslurpy
January 14, 2006, 01:56 PM
To take this in a socio-political rather than religious direction, how would a declaration by the vatican that civilian firearms ownership is sinful affect the political scene in america? Would this represent a major change from the current balance of power?

Much of the catholic NE is already staunchly anti-gun. NJ, MA and NY contain large populations of catholics and are largely disarmed already. Are there any heavily catholic areas that are pro gun?

My main worry would be that it might spark an exodus of religious conservatives to the anti-gun democratic party (unlikely) or make the republicans more friendly to gun control (actually likely if the religious conservatives were strongly enough for it).

Alan Fud
January 14, 2006, 01:59 PM
The Institutional Roman Catholic Church has been solidly in the hands of the one worlders since Vatican II. The previous Pope was firmly AGAINST gun control and said so to the UN (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010711_trade-arms_en.html) ... In a world marked by evil, the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can justify the possession of arms.

K-Romulus
January 14, 2006, 02:14 PM
the conference to regulate international arms deals may be a good thing, for example, to prevent the PRC from selling M-16 clones to Iran.

The conference on regulating civilian possession is something else - a non-starter as far as I (and the Catholic Church, it seems) am concerned . . .

vrwc
January 14, 2006, 02:17 PM
From the The Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"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

vrwc
January 14, 2006, 02:19 PM
Also from the Vatican:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010711_trade-arms_en.html

In a world marked by evil, the right of legitimate defence by means of arms exists. This right can become a serious duty for those who are responsible for the lives of others, for the common good of the family or of the civil community. This right ALONE can justify the possession of arms.

Lone_Gunman
January 14, 2006, 02:28 PM
Such an instrument," the papal representative said, "could greatly contribute to uprooting the illicit traffic in arms and to underlining the responsibility of states to strengthen further the international regime on small arms and light weapons."


Note the word illicit. In other words, the treaty they are talking about deals with the already illegal trafficking of arms.

They are not referring to private firearm ownership. The Catholic Church has a well documented record of being pro-self defense.

captain obvious
January 14, 2006, 02:29 PM
the conference to regulate international arms deals may be a good thing, for example, to prevent the PRC from selling M-16 clones to Iran.
.


Why would that exactly be a bad thing? Better they use those than G3s :D

geekWithA.45
January 14, 2006, 02:30 PM
The Catholic church has been pretty solidly pro RKBA, as the above documents attest.

Hopefully, Pope Palpatine isn't going to pull a Zeuropean about face on that topic.

But hey, they're running out of popes, anyway, according the Prophecy of St. Malachy.

Thain
January 14, 2006, 02:31 PM
The Catholic Church (and this Catholic) are firmly in favor of legal, responsible, gun ownership... but also in favor of restrictions on international arms traffic.

Not the same issue.

Mizzle187
January 14, 2006, 02:32 PM
The previous Pope was firmly AGAINST gun control and said so to the UN (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010711_trade-arms_en.html) ...


Very interesting! Thanks for that link!

Robert J McElwain
January 14, 2006, 02:33 PM
Gun control belongs in the same league with Prohibition. The only effect is to move the manufacture underground into the hands of criminals. And, of course, in a large part of the world, only the criminals are allowed to have guns.

What's that quote I've seen?
"The difference between a Socialist and a Communist (or any other form of dictatorship) is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet."

Bob

longeyes
January 14, 2006, 02:33 PM
Authoritarianism, of all kinds, and gun control are kissin' cousins. RKBA is about bottom-up power; centralized monolithic institutions about top-down power. No surprise here.

Chipperman
January 14, 2006, 02:38 PM
Well I, for one, am doing my part in taking as many guns "off the street" as possible.




by putting them in my safes. :D

pax
January 14, 2006, 02:45 PM
So far, this is an excellent example of a thread with a topic right on the line, but which has stayed on the right side of the forum rules. No bashing or proselytizing, just good discussion of the church's teaching as it directly applies to the RKBA.

We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

Keep up the good work, folks.

pax

telomerase
January 14, 2006, 02:48 PM
Actually, most of that link reads pretty anti-civilian-ownership:


Such an approach is also directed against the culture of violence fed by, among other things, the illicit trade of small arms and light weapons, which sometimes could be wrongly recognised as one of the more effective instruments to solve the conflicts of daily life.

The ultimate goal uniting us in this area is the protection of the life and dignity of each and every human person. For this reason, it seems appropriate to ensure, even in this process, the centrality of the human person, and therefore to emphasize the importance of considering the human dimension in facing the problem of illicit trade in arms. It is well known that civil populations suffer the most tragic consequences from the use of light weapons and small arms; the majority of the victims of these arms are civilians, most of which are women and children.

The Real Hawkeye
January 14, 2006, 03:16 PM
The United Nations estimated that there are more than 600 million small arms and light weapons in circulation worldwide. Of 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, 47 were waged with small arms as the weapons of choice. Small arms are responsible for over half a million deaths per year, including 300,000 in armed conflict and 200,000 more from homicides and suicides.Interesting how they failed to mention the fact that most small arms related deaths that have happened in the 20th Century were from small arms possessed by governments that denied those same arms to their civilian population by law, i.e., they were government small arms that killed unarmed civilians who agreed to allow their government to take their arms away before their governments murdered them. If anything, wide disbursal of small arms in the hands of any people prevents mass murders by governments, and since most murders committed in the 20th Century were perpetrated by governments, this will also diminish the total number of murders. The UN, and the Catholic Church, therefore, should be advocating a wide disbursment of small arms among civilian populations to preven more Rwawanda-style, government perpetrated, mass murders and genocides.

oldfart
January 14, 2006, 03:53 PM
As several here have mentioned, this is about illicit and illegal arms and arms trade. At first blush, few would have any objection to such a ban. As people who are sworn enemies to gun control though, we should be able to recognize the sandy nose of that particular camel. How many times have we seen similar "good and reasonable" legislation pushed through state and federal legislatures only to see it used in ways we never imagined?
I am against ALL gun control. The only way I would deny anyone a gun is if I were then prepared to guarantee his/her safety. That goes for kids, old women, convicted criminals who have been released from prison and aliens.
It should be noted that I'm also against the U.N.:banghead:

The Real Hawkeye
January 14, 2006, 03:56 PM
As several here have mentioned, this is about illicit and illegal arms and arms trade. At first blush, few would have any objection to such a ban. As people who are sworn enemies to gun control though, we should be able to recognize the sandy nose of that particular camel. How many times have we seen similar "good and reasonable" legislation pushed through state and federal legislatures only to see it used in ways we never imagined?
I am against ALL gun control. The only way I would deny anyone a gun is if I were then prepared to guarantee his/her safety. That goes for kids, old women, convicted criminals who have been released from prison and aliens.
It should be noted that I'm also against the U.N.:banghead:What too many fail to understand is that, quite literally, the UN definition of "illicit small arms" is those small arms not in government hands. I am not exaggerating about that. That really is their definition. All privately owned firearms are illicit small arms according to the United Nations.

Highland Ranger
January 14, 2006, 04:19 PM
The previous Pope was firmly AGAINST gun control and said so to the UN

Two words: Warsaw Ghetto . . . . .

As far as the Church goes, I thought they supported the God given right of self defense . . . . . . but if they go the other way, I'd imagine folks would listen as well as they do for issues like birth control.

Big Mike
January 14, 2006, 04:35 PM
I'm Catholic and I carry concealed when I go to church every sunday. I'm not the only one either. Mike

cosine
January 14, 2006, 04:39 PM
As far as the Church goes, I thought they supported the God given right of self defense . . . . . .

They do.

but if they go the other way

They cannot.

TallPine
January 14, 2006, 04:57 PM
The Real Hawkeye: All privately owned firearms are illicit small arms according to the United Nations.


Just repeating that in case someone didn't get it the first time ;)

cabinboy
January 14, 2006, 05:20 PM
see also:

http://www.iansa.org/

and

http://disarmament2.un.org/cab/poa.html

and remember to read "illicit" as meaning "anyone (including but not limited to individual Americans) not being granted permission by the UN to possess small arms"

:banghead:

c_yeager
January 14, 2006, 11:14 PM
Actually, most of that link reads pretty anti-civilian-ownership:

Indeed, notice however, that *most* of that link was written in the voice of the author of the article. If you read the actual comments by the representative from the Vatican, you get a very different view. It is common for journalists to add a lot of "background" information in an effort to paint the tone of a piece into something other than the person who is the subject of it.

CAnnoneer
January 15, 2006, 12:14 AM
Exactly.

The Vatican may be talking about "illicit" guns, but many antis at home would be more than willing to overlook that distinction. Then the uninformed will buy it, and we may have major damage to the RKBA.

(Why should modern people care what a 100-year-old Hitler-youth in Rome has to say about anything is beyond me. Then again I am an atheist.)

tellner
January 15, 2006, 12:45 AM
The Institutional Roman Catholic Church has been solidly in the hands of the one worlders since Vatican II.

Since Vatican II? Try since the Nicean Conference. The Catholic Church has always seen itself as universal - hence the name - and the supreme unifying theological authority for the entire world.

The Real Hawkeye
January 15, 2006, 12:47 AM
Since Vatican II? Try since the Nicean Conference. The Catholic Church has always seen itself as universal - hence the name - and the supreme unifying theological authority for the entire world.That's not the same thing. Unity in Faith is one thing. One worlders want unitary world government.

MechAg94
January 15, 2006, 12:56 AM
That's not the same thing. Unity in Faith is one thing. One worlders want unitary world government.
Same difference to me. Just my opinion though.

Either way, I don't trust the UN on anything regarding my rights. I think it is nice the Church has affirmed defensive use of guns. Hope they don't change that position.

cosine
January 15, 2006, 01:33 AM
Good post, The Real Hawkeye. There is a difference between unity in faith and unity through a single world government.

I think it is nice the Church has affirmed defensive use of guns. Hope they don't change that position.

They won't.

AZRickD
January 15, 2006, 02:06 AM
Of 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, 47 were waged with small arms as the weapons of choice.
This reads like a VPC press release. They don't say by whom these conflicts were being waged. Where they being fought by Joe-average Congolese shop owner, or were they being waged by government and extra-government-hired thugs?

Visit http://www.jpfo.org to find out. ;)

Rick

slzy
January 15, 2006, 08:31 AM
google methodist gun control and catholic gun control. not at the same time of course.a lot comes up.

Radagast
January 15, 2006, 08:35 AM
I'll just repeat what Pax said. This is an interesting thread, don't get it closed for the rest of us.

Originally Posted by THR's Code of Conduct
We have learned from bitter experience that discussions of abortion, religion and sexual orientation often degenerate into less-than-polite arguments or claims that "my God is better than your God". For this reason, we do not discuss such subjects on THR, and any threads dealing primarily with these subjects will be closed or deleted immediately. Threads which deal with other subjects, but which mention abortion, religion or sexual orientation as a side issue, may be allowed to continue, but will be closely scrutinized, and closed or deleted if they "cross the line".

LAK
January 15, 2006, 09:36 AM
Since Vatican II? Try since the Nicean Conference. The Catholic Church has always seen itself as universal - hence the name - and the supreme unifying theological authority for the entire world.
Just to clarify this issue; the Catholic Church has from the beginning declared itself as the visible institution of the one true Faith, and hence has always asserted itself to hold authority over government in matters of Faith. It has also always asserted itslf as holding authority over government in matters of morals.

It has never made any bones about this, and it has always been a take or leave it issue.

It is a matter of teaching that there is a clear distinction between killing - as in a justifiable homicide - and murder. Thus soldiers in time of war killing an enemy soldier, or a citizen killing in self defense, or to prevent the theft or destruction of valuable property, would not be commiting acts of murder. The secular law in most countries reflected this, and many still do, and in many sub-jurisdictions as well, such as some of our States.
------------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Alan Fud
January 15, 2006, 09:50 AM
As far as the Church goes, I thought they supported the God given right of self defense . . . . . . They do.
but if they go the other wayThey cannot. Why not?

I'm not disagree'ing with you. I'm Catholic & pro-gun and looking for documented re-assurance.

Art Eatman
January 15, 2006, 02:00 PM
Yeah, Radagast, I thought pax was quite clear.

For those who haven't figured out what is the subject of the thread: It's the viewpoint of the Catholic Church about gun control, not what the Catholic Church is all about.

Art

Manedwolf
January 15, 2006, 04:19 PM
Gun control belongs in the same league with Prohibition. The only effect is to move the manufacture underground into the hands of criminals. And, of course, in a large part of the world, only the criminals are allowed to have guns.

What's that quote I've seen?
"The difference between a Socialist and a Communist (or any other form of dictatorship) is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet."

Bob

And the ability of criminal organizations to produce their own illegal guns is likely to become far more widespread in the 21st century, with computer-controlled machining. All it'd take is one copy of CAD plans, and any setup with adequate computer-controlled milling, which is getting cheaper and more compact all the time, could go into full production. Literally, a warlord/druglord/etc could set up shop in any warehouse or on an old freighter, take in only block and sheet steel or aluminum, and be producing endless combat weapons, full-auto and otherwise, with no parts trail to trace.

Which is why it's even MORE essential that law-abiding citizens of all nations need to be able to arm themselves with the products of legitimate manufacturers. They'll literally be outgunned by any wannabe despot, warlord or crimelord if not...without the need for import smuggling.

LAK
January 15, 2006, 05:26 PM
Note the word illicit. In other words, the treaty they are talking about deals with the already illegal trafficking of arms.

They are not referring to private firearm ownership. The Catholic Church has a well documented record of being pro-self defense.
Yes, but any privately owned firearm becomes "illicit" if legislation is passed that says it is so.

This tap dance is, like typical secular political manifestations, open ended and does not draw a specific and definitive line anywhere. It basically throws that firmly in the hands of the secular authority of the governments concened.

And we know what they are going to do with that. As The real Hawkeye has pointed out; all privately owned firearms are considered "illicit" by those behind the UN agenda.
---------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

odysseus
January 15, 2006, 05:38 PM
I believe you will find staunch support on both sides of the question of "gun-control" in the Catholic Church, outside of the discussion of "illicit" arms trading which is a subject in itself for definition. I am not suprised one will find articles from various writers of some hierarchical authority that appear to be different.

If the Church changes its traditional practice of only mumbling on issues of gun rights, to all out pushing for gun control and limitation on legal gun trading, well there will be quite an uproar in the USA and loss of support. I believe in the current road things have been going, there is certainly a good chance that might happen. I know personally Catholics who are very much into firearms for hunting, shooting, and self defense who view this as a human right. However there are many who have not seen the light on this issue.

gjwandkids
January 15, 2006, 08:53 PM
Hi Alan.

To answer your question, The Catholic church has not changed it's pro self-defense stance ever. In fact that was one of the minor issues the anabaptist movement had with the church (the major one being infant baptism). To this day the Amish are staunch pacifists. Since the Church has never changed doctrine and this would require 180* change I don't really see it happening.

Odysseus, lots of Catholics don't "toe the company line" on a number of issues. Not that I think this is ever going to be an issue. I don't see this causing a major split.

horge
January 15, 2006, 08:58 PM
Oddyseus,

The Catholic Church CANNOT but support KBA. It is found in the Christ's own words.
(I've posted this before, but it's been awhile)


"Those who live by the sword, die by the sword"
A lot is (un)made of Jesus' admonition to Peter at Gethsemane, but what
the events of that fateful night show is that Peter had a weapon to draw.

More importantly, it would follow that all the time prior, the Lord
did not object to Peter's keeping and bearing (a chereb, or short sword:
clearly a weapon, not some utilitarian 'knife').

Unfortunately, by drawing and wielding his weapon in that particular
instance, Peter was choosing to trust his weapon instead of the Lord
physically present before him! Thus was Peter rebuked.

Peter should have known that Jesus didn't need anyone's steel.
However, today as then, many innocents including our loved ones
and those we've never met-- just might. We, our wits and our weapons,
all that we are and have, can and should be intruments of God's will.
THAT is what the Church has always propounded.

For so long as Catholics keep and bear in the context of Christian faith
and humility, they aren't "living by the sword". They will instead be armed
and "living by the Lord"


Sadly, some of Jesus' other words are misrepesented the OTHER way:
"He who hath not a sword, let him sell his cloak and buy a sword"
is clearly NOT an instruction to take up arms, when it is read in context:

Luke 22:35 to 22:38
"(Jesus) said to them, "When I sent you forth without
a money bag or sack or sandals, were you in need of
anything?" "No, nothing," they replied.

He said to them, "But now one who has a money bag
should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who
does not not have a sword should sell his cloak
and buy one.

For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled
in me, namely, 'He was counted among the wicked';
and indeed what is written about me is coming to
fulfillment."

Then they said "Lord, look, there are two swords here."
But he replied, "It is enough!".

This is all after the Last Supper, right after Jesus foretells of Peter's threefold
denial of Christ, and just before they all go to Gethsemane and Christ's later
Agony in the Garden.

It seems plain that the Lord was foretelling, and rebuking the Apostles' over
their fast-approaching lack of faith: Judas' betrayal of Jesus for a money bag
of silver and Peter's faithless presumption in taking up a sword
to defend Jesus. He further foretells of His crucifixion among the wicked
in necessary fulfillment of scripture.

The Apostles misunderstood Jesus' words about selling their cloaks to buy swords
as a literal command, and brought out two swords, expecting His approval.

The Apostles simply didn't get it, and so Jesus cut them off with a reply
that contradicts any supposedly literal 'order' for each of them to arm himself:
"It is enough!".



I am not trying to proselytize here, but documentation has to be provided to show
why the Church historically does not oppose Keeping and Bearing, and above all:
in what context it regards Keeping and Bearing as moral, and therefore a duty,
given that all Christians are charged with safeguarding the weak, the oppressed
and the persecuted.

h.

Wiley
January 15, 2006, 08:58 PM
Two words for the Archbishop: Somalia and Darfur.

cosine
January 16, 2006, 03:20 AM
Alan, gjwandskids has the answer to your question. The Church cannot change its stance on self-defense and RKBA because it would require a 180* change in its philosophy and doctrine. (See the links already provided in the thread) A 180* change in doctrine would be the opposite of what once was taught. Therefore, it would be false. If it is false, one has no requirement to follow a false belief. In fact, one cannot in good conscience follow a false belief.

c_yeager
January 16, 2006, 12:03 PM
Why not?

I'm not disagree'ing with you. I'm Catholic & pro-gun and looking for documented re-assurance.

One of the biggest criticisms of the Church are directed towards its unwillingness to alter its doctrine to "change with the times". Say what you want about the Catholic church, but when it feels that something is "set in stone" it really means it. The self defense belief of the church is theologically based, and that means that there is no changing it.

It is important to remember that there is a clear distinction within the Church inbetween things that are based on tradition and things that are based on the "word". One can be (grudgingly) changed, the other cannot.

TheEgg
January 16, 2006, 03:01 PM
I am not very well informed about anything the Catholic Church does. However, I AM aware of the arms control process currently going on in the U.N. It's goal is to eventually abolish all private ownership of firearms, but it is using euphemisms to try to prevent people from knowing that that is the ultimate goal.

So if the Catholic Church is supporting the U.N. process, it seems to me they are moving away from the position that other posters on this thread have written about vis-a-vis gun ownership and self-defense.

At least it seems so to me.

c_yeager
January 16, 2006, 03:50 PM
I am not very well informed about anything the Catholic Church does. However, I AM aware of the arms control process currently going on in the U.N. It's goal is to eventually abolish all private ownership of firearms, but it is using euphemisms to try to prevent people from knowing that that is the ultimate goal.

So if the Catholic Church is supporting the U.N. process, it seems to me they are moving away from the position that other posters on this thread have written about vis-a-vis gun ownership and self-defense.

At least it seems so to me.

Can you point out for us an instance of a Church representative supporting any specific UN measure that has any refference to legal ownership of firearms whatsoever?

VirgilCaine
January 16, 2006, 06:28 PM
Why would that exactly be a bad thing? Better they use those than G3s :D
Ditto that.

TheEgg
January 16, 2006, 07:13 PM
Can you point out for us an instance of a Church representative supporting any specific UN measure that has any refference to legal ownership of firearms whatsoever?

Sorry c_yeager, I don't understand what you are getting at.

The original piece posted at the head of this thread had the following quote;

The Holy See appealed to the international community to prepare and adopt a treaty to regulate the trade of small arms and light weapons. The Vatican believes that such a measure will also contribute to combat terrorism. The appeal was made Monday by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See's permanent observer to the United Nations, when addressing a session of a U.N. preparatory committee. ...

The "Preparatory Committe" mentioned is part of the U.N. process to limit and then ban private ownership. It is in no small part being run by NGO's such as the IANSA. Most of the NGO's and most of the money going into this project are from the far-left ban-em-all school. Their documentation is rife with such phrases as "To ensure, ..., that the armed forces, police or any other body authorized to hold small arms and light weapons" -- if you read their stuff, it is clear that to them, the only people authorized to have small arms are the government.

If you want more, go here: http://www.un.org/events/smallarms2006/
their meeting is going on now, until the 20th of January.

So, I kinda thought that the original article would qualify as an answer to your question, but I am willing to learn, so please tell me were I went wrong. As I pointed out in my first post, I know little about what the Catholic church does or doesn't do -- my point was simply that if they are allies of the U.N. process, they are perhaps changing the position posted by many of our members who are more knowledgeable about such things than I.

Alan Fud
January 16, 2006, 07:40 PM
Yeah, what TheEgg said! That's what I was getting at.

It seems that their current position (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=93435) is not in-line with their earlier position (http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010711_trade-arms_en.html) from a few years ago.

gjwandkids
January 16, 2006, 11:38 PM
So that begs the question....is this the official Vatican line or is this one Archbishop rendering his opinion? If it's the former then I would say the U.N. or the representative in question misrepresented what's being proposed, and someone should correct the mistake and NOW!!!!!

Woodland_Annie
January 17, 2006, 12:44 AM
The Catholic Church has always maintained a definite Pro-Life stance. That is, against abortion and against the death penalty, which both constitute murder in the eyes of the Church. This is only an example of where the Church stands on issues, not meant to debate the pros or cons of those beliefs.

However, I was never aware of the Church taking a stand one way or another on RKBA. I have not seen any evidence one way or the other. The Church does support the right of governments to raise armies and kill in battle, which is as close as I know it comes to supporting RKBA.

My fear is that if this passes, it might legitimize government retribution against people/groups who only picked up small weapons (because the military has all the big ones) to defend themselves against that government in the first place.:(

However, telling from previous UN actions, it would be as enforceable as anything else the UN does, which is nil. AFAIK they pass resolutions and not binding laws.

LAK
January 17, 2006, 05:56 AM
(etc) .... It is important to remember that there is a clear distinction within the Church inbetween things that are based on tradition and things that are based on the "word". One can be (grudgingly) changed, the other cannot.
Good points. There is also a distinction between "traditions of men" and the Divine Traditions (referred to by St Paul in one of his letters to the Thessalonians for instance).

They form the basis for much Church doctrine and teaching, much of which has no explicit or fully articulated explanation in the Bible itself. But contrary to liberals and modernists - are not subject to change.

Can you point out for us an instance of a Church representative supporting any specific UN measure that has any refference to legal ownership of firearms whatsoever?
As for this: the current Vatican "hierarchy" supports the UN. Period.
-------------------------------------

http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org

Kim
January 17, 2006, 12:09 PM
The Catholic Church is not aganist Capital Punishment. I don't know how many times this needs to be repeated. The MSM and Catholics of the liberal bent repeat this over and over as do alot of Catholics because their preist is liberal. The Pope Ex Cathedra (not moral teaching, not doctrine, not biblical teaching but his opinion and his not as Gods Vicar on Earth) stated his opinion that in countries where the convected could be held in prision (no parole, the country has the money etc.) he personally thinks that is a good thing to do. The Bible is not aganist self defense killing,war or the death penalty. Now the Bishops in the US are for gun control, aganist the death penalty but that is not Gods Law or teaching it is their FEELING on the subject.

Mr. James
January 17, 2006, 01:02 PM
Thank you, Kim,

While the Church is resolutely opposed to abortion and euthanasia, its teachings (as opposed to any one pontiff's personal opinions) on the death penalty are a bit less precise. The Catechism acknowledges the right of societies to protect their people from violent criminals. Execution of duly-adjudicated criminals is held out as a last-ditch resort to be applied against those criminals not amenable to other forms of punishment, such as incarceration, rehab, etc.

The Church doesn't like the death penalty, but it doesn't abjure it, either.

10-4 on the U.S. bishops, too. In fact, some are far more adamant in their opposition to the death penalty (a position not required under Catholic doctrine) than they are in opposing abortion (which, of course, is required).

dpesec
January 17, 2006, 01:38 PM
the conference to regulate international arms deals may be a good thing, for example, to prevent the PRC from selling M-16 clones to Iran.

The conference on regulating civilian possession is something else - a non-starter as far as I (and the Catholic Church, it seems) am concerned . . .
I suspect I'm alone on this one, but no. I don't even like the limits international sales
Why? the camel's nose theory. You let some guberment start here, then they will expand becaues the first laws weren't effective. Thus starts the spiral

longeyes
January 17, 2006, 02:23 PM
Well, they are certainly for Control. Guns are only a part of it.

afasano
January 17, 2006, 09:03 PM
To take this in a socio-political rather than religious direction, how would a declaration by the vatican that civilian firearms ownership is sinful affect the political scene in america? Would this represent a major change from the current balance of power?

Much of the catholic NE is already staunchly anti-gun. NJ, MA and NY contain large populations of catholics and are largely disarmed already. Are there any heavily catholic areas that are pro gun?

My main worry would be that it might spark an exodus of religious conservatives to the anti-gun democratic party (unlikely) or make the republicans more friendly to gun control (actually likely if the religious conservatives were strongly enough for it).

In the Northeast they have a lot of wine and cookie catholics or a bunch of old timers that are still thanking the Dems for 1960 but still give to pro-life causes and not much else.

Woodland_Annie
January 17, 2006, 10:01 PM
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."65

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.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people's rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people's safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party's identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people's safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm#2263

You can go to the web site if you want to look up the footnotes. Thank you, Kim and Mr. James for clearing that up about the death penalty. I stand corrected.

The following comes from the Vatican web site on this topic. The heading is in Italian but the report is in English. He makes a good case for people needing guns in the first place (oppression and injustice at home, etc) but he does tend to lump in small arms ownership with the 9/11 terrorists and perpetuating a culture of poverty and violence. :banghead: It's very informative reading, though and not too long.

http://vatican.mondosearch.com/cgi-bin/MsmGo.exe?grab_id=0&page_id=91065&query=gun&SCOPE=EnglishUI&hiword=gun%20

PATH
January 18, 2006, 10:40 AM
Render unto Caesar that which is Caeser's! Render unto God that which is God's.

As a Catholic here in the middle of the NE I can say that what my Church has to say about firearms does not sway my opinion or behavior in any way! I think the same applies to the overwhelming number of folks who don't take heed of the teachings on birth control and premarital sex.

Kim
January 19, 2006, 04:36 AM
I want to make a correction to my post above. The "ex cathedra" phrase is the wrong term. I don't know what term I am looking for but the statement stands except for that one phrase. There is a word for when the Pope is speaking but it is not dogma. Ex cathedra means just the opposite of how I used it. I'm not Catholic so I guess I can be forgiven.

kingvillien
July 7, 2010, 05:52 PM
Southern Catholics for the most part are Conservative and Pro-gun. Around my neck of the woods(Acadiana) most people are Catholic and pro-gun.

Larry Ashcraft
July 7, 2010, 06:22 PM
Let's let sleeping dogs lie.

If you enjoyed reading about "Is the Catholic Church calling for Gun Control?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!