Self-Defense and Firearms

by Jimmy Akin

in Apologetics, Moral Theology, Theology

anti-gun-control-rally-Reuters-640x480The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This amendment, along with the various interpretations given to its opening clause, guarantees that gun ownership will be a perennial topic in American politics.

In recent years there has been a marked shift in favor of those who support gun rights.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the second amendment entails an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes including self-defense within one’s home.

Public opinion polling has also shifted in recent years. Using two-year averages and data provided by the Gallup organization:

  • Those who felt that the nation’s laws on the sale of firearms should be made more strict dropped from 73% in 1990-1991 to 51% in 2014-2015.
  • Those who felt they should be less strict rose from 3% to 12% in the same time frame.
  • And those who thought they should be kept as they are now rose from 21% to 35%.

Similarly:

  • Those who thought there should be a law banning possession of handguns except by police and other authorized persons fell from 60% in 1959 to 27% in 2015.
  • In the same time frame, those who thought there should not be such a ban rose from 36% to 72%.

Both in legal courts and in the court of public opinion, those who favor gun rights have been making significant advances.

But what is happening in these arenas does not tell us much about what a Catholic should think concerning such subjects.

So: What does the Church teach?

 

Fundamental Principles

Firearms can be used for different purposes (hunting, target shooting, etc.), but here we will consider their use in self-defense.

An initial point of reference is found in the Gospel of Luke, where Our Lord indicates the legitimacy of the right to self-defense, telling the disciples:

Let him who has no sword sell his mantle and buy one (Luke 22:36).

In a modern context, the fundamental principles of self-defense are laid out in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Preserving the common good requires rendering the unjust aggressor unable to inflict harm. To this end, those holding legitimate authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their charge

The Catechism thus acknowledges the right to use lethal force in self-defense, including on behalf of others, when the use of this force is moderate (i.e., when it is not practical to use less force).

 

Applying the Principles to Firearms

The Catechism does not specify the means by which one may use lethal force in self-defense, but this may be inferred: If you are in a situation where the only effective means you have of defending your life (or that of another) is a gun then you can use it.

As the saying goes, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

This brings us to the question of gun ownership: Should you be allowed to have a gun?

 

Some Necessary Qualifiers

Of course, not everybody should be allowed to have a gun. Homicidal maniacs should not. Neither should toddlers.

In what follows, we’ll be considering ownership of firearms by ordinary, responsible people (responsibility including things like knowing how to use a gun and being committed to gun safety).

 

Statements of the Universal Magisterium

The Church’s universal magisterium is exercised either by the Roman pontiff or the worldwide college of bishops teaching in union with him.

I am not aware of any statements of the universal magisterium dealing with the ownership of firearms by ordinary, responsible individuals.

I am aware of no papal statements on this subject.

Neither am I aware of any statements by bodies such as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF), which also exercises the universal magisterium when its decrees are expressly approved by the Roman pontiff (Donum Veritatis 18).

A search of the Vatican web site on the term “handgun” does not turn up any results.

A search using the term “firearms” turns up a handful of references. These reveal that you’re not allowed to bring firearms into the Vatican museums, that the Holy See is concerned about illicit trafficking in firearms, etc.

The only relevant statement from a body connected with the Holy See that I have been able to obtain (and it took some doing to get it, because it is not on the Vatican web site), is found in a 1994 document titled The International Arms Trade: An Ethical Reflection by the Pontifical Commission for Justice and Peace (PCJP). Under the heading “Furnishing Arms to Groups That Are Not States,” the document says:

It is urgent to find an effective way to stop the flow of arms to terrorist and criminal groups. An indispensible measure would be for each State to impose a strict control on the sale of handguns and small arms. Limiting the purchase of such arms would certainly not infringe upon the rights of anyone (4:8).

This document does not address the question of handguns and small arms (rifles, etc.) except under the rubric of keeping them out of the hands of terrorists and criminal organizations. It thus does not engage the broader self-defense question.

It sees “a strict control on the sale” of such weapons as important (“indispensible”) for keeping them away from terrorists and criminal organizations, but it does not define what would count as this form of control. Presumably that would be determined by the individual states.

The document does not call for a ban on the sale of such weapons. It speaks of “limiting the purchase” of them, apparently within bounds that would “not infringe upon the rights of anyone”—presumably including their self-defense rights.

Ultimately, this document does not engage the Church’s magisterium. As noted above, the express approval of the pope (then John Paul II) is required—even for the documents of the CDF—to do that, and this document does not carry John Paul II’s express approval. It is therefore a hortatory, advisory document of the PCJP but not Church teaching.

Thus we do not seem to have any doctrinal statements by popes, the CDF, or others capable of exercising the universal magisterium.

Nor has the college of bishops as a whole made such statements.

 

Statements of Particular Magisteria

By divine law, individual bishops are also capable of exercising the teaching authority of the Church in their own, particular sphere.

I am sure that various bishops around the world have expressed their views on gun ownership, though I am not aware of any who have attempted to exercise their personal magisterium in this regard. (There is a difference between a bishop expressing an opinion and his saying, “This is Church teaching.”)

What about groups of bishops?—for example, the episcopal conferences like the U.S. bishops?

These bodies do not exist by divine law. They are erected by ecclesiastical law to serve pastoral purposes, but they were not instituted by Christ, and so they do not have the same teaching authority that the Roman pontiff and individual bishops do.

Consequently, episcopal conferences can only engage the Church’s magisterium in special circumstances.

As John Paul II established in his 1998 motu proprio Apostolos suos:

In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops referred to in No. 22 of the present Letter may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the recognitio of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote (IV:1).

If a doctrinal declaration were approved by each member of an episcopal conference then it would be equivalent to each bishop engaging his own magisterium, and so there would be a foundation in divine law for seeing the declaration as an expression of the Church’s magisterium.

Similarly, if the Holy See approved (gave recognitio) to the doctrinal decree then it would be equivalent to the Holy See exercising its magisterium, and thus there would again be a foundation in divine law. (The norm indicates, however, that the Holy See won’t consider doing this if a doctrinal declaration got less than a two-thirds vote by an episcopal conference.)

Most of the time, neither of these conditions is met, and so we have to read statements issued by or on behalf of bishops’ conferences with a significant degree of caution.

 

The U.S. Bishops and Guns

The views of individual U.S. bishops on guns appear to be mixed. That is virtually guaranteed by the fact there are more than 400 active and retired Catholic bishops in America, and unanimity among them on a public policy question that divides the American public is not to be expected.

Further, some bishops are known to be avid hunters and users of firearms.

This does not mean that there is not a generally prevailing opinion among the U.S. bishops. Judging by statements issued by representatives of the body, it would appear that the general ethos of the U.S. bishops conference favors gun restriction.

Whenever there are mass shootings, it is typical for representatives of the bishops to issue a statement of sympathy and condolence, and it is common for these to contain language supporting the restriction of firearms.

The same position is common in statements prepared by various bodies within the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

For example, in 2000, the bishops’ Committee on Domestic Policy drafted a position paper titled Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, which was later approved by the conference as a whole. It states:

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” 4).

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], 10).

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.

While these statements indicate a prevailing and longstanding view that favors handgun restriction among the U.S. bishops, it does not constitute Church teaching.

The relevant 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.

 

Conclusion

We thus arrive at the following takeaways:

  • Church teaching supports the right of individual self-defense, including the use of lethal force when necessary. It does not expressly address the means by which this may be carried out, but it is a reasonable inference that if a gun is the best way you have to defend yourself, you can use it.
  • The Church’s magisterium has not made any pronouncements regarding ordinary people possessing firearms for self-defense purposes, though the general ethos both at the Holy See and among the U.S. bishops seems to favor handgun restriction.
  • Therefore, this is an area in which, in Cardinal Ratzinger’s words, there may be “a legitimate diversity of opinion” among Catholics.

If you liked this post, you should join Jimmy's Secret Information Club to get more great info!


What is the Secret Information Club?I value your email privacy

{ 6 comments }

Sharon February 26, 2016 at 6:21 pm

I have watched hundreds of detective and crime programmes on YouTube and I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of times a handgun saved the victim. The victim was usually killed by people bursting into their homes and killing them before they had time to locate and fire their guns or shooting them from cars or a spouse or defacto shooting them during an argument. To my mind the use of hand guns sholud be gradually eliminated and very severe penalties placed on people who commit crimes using hand-guns. I know how difficult/impossible it will be to change the culture but surely viewing the statistics shows how urgent this need is. We did it with drinking and driving and smoking indoors in public places surely it can be done with handguns.

Jason February 28, 2016 at 9:31 am

Sharon, invoking detective and crime programs, YouTube and other fictional media as a basis for your decisions concerning firearms is–irresponsible.

Bill912 February 27, 2016 at 6:32 am

The evidence overwhelmingly shows that the counties in this country with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest rates of homicides and others violent crimes, while those counties which have the least restrictive gun control laws have the lowest rates of homicide and other violent crime. See, among other studies, John Lott’s “More Guns, Less Crime.” Or, look at Chicago, Baltimore, or D.C.

Bill912, 27-year police veteran

Jason February 28, 2016 at 9:29 am

Handguns are an essential tool for self defense. Peoples perceptions seem to be influenced largely by televisions, movies and lack of knowledge. Hollywood and the media and ignorance are not a proper base to make any decision, especially when considering ways to protect your life or those in your life.

Maurice O.Omollo March 6, 2016 at 4:46 am

COMMENTARY”Self Defense and firearms.”
Even though am not a theologian scholar tasked with biblical interpretations but I may share my opinion on the light of the Holy Spirit’s guidance as follow;
The interpretation of Luke22.36 may be alluded to shift a little bit from Jimmy’s opinion as follows;
i.)Money is normally defined by the business world students as a medium of exchange,i.e something used as a measure of value exchange and must be widely accepted by many within a given geographical area.
We may thus allude money to be in the spiritual world as anything valuable emanating from human creativity,an essence of man’s existence to multiply and dominate the world and may not necessarily be in currency / physical money form,since each person within this planet earth has a unique creative potential to complement other peoples’ lives by acquiring it through value exchange with some utility addition on it and thus the need / significance of harmonious co-existence / inter-dependence since we need one another.
The unfortunate thing is that this life time purpose take us ages of time to discover and be able to work on them by engaging on some hands on job of value / utility additions on them before we are able to sell them in exchange for what we may need / lack.
But the unfortunate thing is that the modern world seems to be feeding us a complete different of money,where by people want to tread even with God by charging God’s people for having rendered some services even to God’s Church who is the ultimate giver of these gifts due to our ignorance of the principles of wealth creation as follows,we have always to give something back to nature for our talents and blessings from God,the law of only reaping from where you sow,and that of giving.
We have brought all kinds of business back to the Temple,something which prompted Jesus to weep people,i.e money changers and turn their tables upside down,with materialism being a major threat to today”s Christianity.
ii)The sword as stated in the bible may be alluded to mean God’s word,which is a powerful weapon to destroy the works of the devil.These are words from Christ’s mouth(John1.1-7)
Since the Bible states that our war fare is spiritual and not carnal,therefore,we may not need physical weapons for our protection but the word of God has to dwell in our hearts in a abundance in order to bear these spiritual power and thus being able to scuttle the enemies’ schemes against our lives,with our minds basically the major battle field.
iii.)The coat / mantle,may be alluded to basically mean something hard / strong for protecting our chests,where the hurt resides.
From our traditional beliefs and cultures / set ups,we were protected with so many archaic / crude methods,e.g charms,blood sealing / pacts with demonic powers for our manipulations and even communication with the dead among many other things,all which oppose / rejects God’s word from breaking our hearts to enable real holistic transformation.
All the above protect our chests from where our hearts resides as a self defense mechanism and there by hampering with God’s word penetrations into our lives through our hearts from where lies the bosom of transformation,and thus the word of God urges us to sell them or get rid of them.
We sell them in the sense that we exchange their values by offering them to the feet of Christ on the cross and acquiring Christ’s values as embedded in his words.
Our self defense as Christians is clearly enshrined on Ephesians6.10-20,has nothing to do with physical firearms,since those are worldly thinking which must be transformed through God’s word.
The scripture states that he who have received Christ by being born again,is no longer living for himself but Christ lives within that person,since the flesh has been buried with Christ after it’s crucifixion,such a person no longer need to protect himself to an extent of carrying around firearms since such are slavery acts which Christ is said to have born for us.
Carrying around firearms shows our fear for some undefined causes,i.e either we seek to control people,short change them,deny them their rights,e.t.c and always feel that that if we are not protected,they might end up revenging on us unexpectedly.
Such thinking cannot create a peaceful society,but it can only be created by giving people what belongs to them,being ready to engage them in negotiations involving them by listening to their opinions to enable them own the process and bargaining for a give and take ceasefire in all we do to ensure that we accommodate everyone.
God’s blessings and Love,
Maurice.

Bill912 March 6, 2016 at 5:35 am

In other words: Let the bad guys run wild. Don’t protect yourself or your loved ones. Let them be assaulted, raped, robbed, killed. Don’t have armed forces to protect your country from attackers; just let the Hitlers and Stalins rule the world. How well do you think your last paragraph would have worked with Hitler? (Hint: Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the U.K., tried it).

Previous post:

Next post: