Is the Catholic Church calling for Gun Control?

Status
Not open for further replies.
telomerase said:
Actually, most of that link reads pretty anti-civilian-ownership:
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.)
 
The Real Hawkeye said:
The Institutional Roman Catholic Church has been solidly in the hands of the one worlders since Vatican II.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tellner said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's not the same thing. Unity in Faith is one thing. One worlders want unitary world government.
 
The Real Hawkeye said:
That's not the same thing. Unity in Faith is one thing. One worlders want unitary world government.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Good post, The Real Hawkeye. There is a difference between unity in faith and unity through a single world government.

MechAg94 said:
I think it is nice the Church has affirmed defensive use of guns. Hope they don't change that position.
Click to expand...

They won't.
 
Of 49 major conflicts in the 1990s, 47 were waged with small arms as the weapons of choice.
Click to expand...
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
 
google methodist gun control and catholic gun control. not at the same time of course.a lot comes up.
 
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".
 
tellner said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
cosine said:
Highland Ranger said:
As far as the Church goes, I thought they supported the God given right of self defense . . . . . .
Click to expand...
They do.
Highland Ranger said:
but if they go the other way
Click to expand...
They cannot.
Click to expand...
Why not?

I'm not disagree'ing with you. I'm Catholic & pro-gun and looking for documented re-assurance.
 
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
 
Robert J McElwain said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Lone_Gunman said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Alan Fud said:
Why not?

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

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.
 
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.
 
TheEgg said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top