Is the Catholic Church calling for Gun Control?

[TheEgg]

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]

Yeah, what TheEgg said! That's what I was getting at.

It seems that their current position is not in-line with their earlier position from a few years ago.

 

[gjwandkids]

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]

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]

(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]

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]

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]

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]

Well, they are certainly for Control. Guns are only a part of it.

 

[afasano]

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]

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-...d=91065&query=gun&SCOPE=EnglishUI&hiword=gun

 

[PATH]

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]

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]

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]

Let's let sleeping dogs lie.