Well, here's some good news . . .
As you can tell, the above is the trendline of a Gallup poll concerning whether handguns should be banned, and the current reading on the trendline shows a historic low in the period covered above.
That's very good news as handguns are far more portable and easier to have around in case of emergency than longarms (that's why they make handguns), and the diffusion of handguns among the law abiding population has a protective effect on society as a whole–including those who choose not to learn how to use and own handguns.
Author: Jimmy Akin
Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith, and in 1992 he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live."
View all posts by Jimmy Akin
…and the diffusion of handguns among the law abiding population has a protective effect on society as a whole–including those who choose not to learn how to use and own handguns.
I’ll keep that in mind when some law abider pulls a gun on me in traffic, or when a inebriate decides to have some fun with his gun.
I don’t object to people owning guns in theory. It’s just that I wouldn’t want most of the people I know to own a gun. I mean if they can’t even take care of non-lethal things, who shall trust them with the lethal?
“I’ll keep that in mind when some law abider pulls a gun on me in traffic, or when a inebriate decides to have some fun with his gun.”
Aren’t those folks just as dangerous with the two ton vehicles they’re driving? In my experiences with bad drivers, they’re more likely to do something stupid with the car than a gun.
Very tough area of decision making in the congested areas of the country where if you miss the attacker, you could kill someone a block away and though protected criminally by a new law, you could find yourself in court in a civil case and face bankruptcy being sued by the person who died accidentally. Pistols are also tempting for someone to take with them illegally even if they live in a congested state where carry permits are like rare diamonds…virtually ex police and very large cash carriers.
I, in a congested state…NY harbor, have a pistol grip shotgun for in house protection and I had 3″ magnum shells and switched to the smaller shells and bird shot since within a house, birdshot will disable the intruder without going through the walls and hitting a neighbor while my 3″ shells have that risk and I can carry a few of those for a last resort. The weaker shell can have more accuracy too under pressure with a pistol grip. The 3″ shells are like holding an explosion (20 or 12 gauge) and the next day, you have a popeye hand.
Pistols are tough in the city. It would be great if science could come up with a weapon that would obviate the innocent bystander factor for congested areas. In the cities, your 6 year old could be paralzyed by a bullet from a person defending themselves a block away.
In the country, pistols should be allowed because for example women disappearing in those mountain hiking trips and being found raped and murdered. But in the cities, innocents could be maimed by any bullets that don’t lodge in the bad guy.
A little depressing, though, how many people still haven’t read the Second Amendment…
What do you mean by: “the current reading on the trendline shows not a historic low in the period covered above.” Did you mean “now” instead of “not”?
I don’t have the stats to back this up, but I remember reading where violent crime is up in places with the toughest gun-control laws and crime is down in areas with freer access to guns. Does anyone know if that’s true?
I can’t fathom why anyone would want to own a handgun unless they were fully prepared to use it on another living person, and by being fully prepared to use a hand gun, don’t those same handgun owners thereby admit that they are quite willing to harm another?
What for?
For personal protection?
If so, then should people be allowed to carry knives lawfully, and other weapons of choice to protect themselves? If not, why not?
If these weapons are owned for the protection of property, don’t we know that nothing we think we own is truly ours?
As a Catholic i don’t believe that the Churches position on firearms is that we should get us all some just in case some incident occurs to ourselves or our property at some future point….isn’t that premeditation?
It seems pertinant to me to remember that this is Holy Week. Our Lord’s example seems to me the best to follow. When the ear of Malchus was cut off by the sword, it was Jesus who told Peter to place his sword back in its sheath, and then Jesus healed the man’s ear.
If we are to be as Christ, when did Christ ever give us an example of retribution or retalliation to follow? He didn’t, because it is not our Teacher’s example.
It may be the ‘right’ of a resident in certain countries, to own a weapon…but it doesn’t make it the right thing to do, just because there is a law allowing it.
There are many lawful ‘rights’ in our world, not least the biggest evil being abortion,but rights aren’t always right.
Incidentally, what would you consider to be a ‘case of emergency’ ?
Suzy is correct. See John Lott’s book, “More Guns, Less Crime”. He did a study of every county in the U.S. and found that the counties with the strtictest gun control laws had the highest levels of violent crime, and the counties with the least restrictive gun control laws had the lowest levels of violent crime per capita.
In my 20 years as a police officer, I have never come across a pro-gun control argument based on evidence, only ones based on emotion, some of which were posted above.
UKOK, see “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”, paragraphs 2263-2265.
A great example can be found just down the road from me, in Kennesaw, GA, USA. They have a law that says essentially all homes must be equipped with a firearm for protection of family and property. When the law was passed, violent crime dropped by 89% and has stayed down (nearly 30 years have passed since the law was passed.)
Naturally, not everyone in Kennesaw owns a gun – the law isn’t enforced, no cops are going to haul your hinder in because they find out you don’t have a gun. But from the perspective of a would-be criminal, if you’re skulking around Kennesaw, the fact is that you know there’s a stronger likelihood that you’re going to invade the home of somebody who’s armed….and you’re more likely to head to one of the adjacent locales to do your crimes.
Self-defense is a good thing.
Too bad that leftists hate the concept.
Chris, my chiropractor used to live in Kennesaw. I asked him to confirm that law, which he did. I told him that I had heard that the crime rate there hovered just above zero. His reply: “That’s about right.”
“I don’t have the stats to back this up, but I remember reading where violent crime is up in places with the toughest gun-control laws and crime is down in areas with freer access to guns. Does anyone know if that’s true?”
It’s not true here in NYC. While gun control laws have gotten stricter and stricter, violent crime has gone down — to historic levels last year. It may only be a correlation, not causation, but it does show that looser gun control laws do not necessarily result in a drop in crime.
Also, not to say there is no value in owning a gun for defensive purposes, but don’t statistics also show a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?
Perhaps if one includes the families of criminals…
“If these weapons are owned for the protection of property, don’t we know that nothing we think we own is truly ours? ”
No. We know from history that others sometimes want what is truly ours and not theirs.
I think a person has an obligation to defend one’s family. Firearms enable one to at least have a fighting chance against thugs and murderers.
My 18 years experience in law enforcement has proven that to me. Of course if one wants to keep a gun, they better darn well know how to keep and use it safely—that takes committment and responsibilty. That takes character (which is something woefully lacking in Generation Narcissus)
FWIW GK Chesterton packed a pistol, bowie knife AND a sword cane, and he is regarded as “The Apostle of Common Sense.”
The bottom line is: if you’re not prepared to commit to gun ownership, you and the people you live with are probably better off without. BUT if you’re not prepared to defend your family, you’d also better be prepared to stand by and watch should a loved one suffer unspeakable violence. That takes a lack of character IMHO.
Ukok
Christ was never in a situation of being mugged for his belongings with the threat of death so we do not know what He would have done under those exact circumstances of being attacked by a mugger as opposed to being arrested by the soldiers of an evil intending authority. He took precautions though against crime. That is what comes from moving around with 12 other men in the first place with several of them having swords which Christ allowed them to have here:
Luk 22:38 “Then they said, ‘Lord, look, there are two swords here.’ But He replied, ‘It is enough!'” nab version
(He was not actually affirming the swords existence here but He was rather being impatient that they had took his word “sword” literally when they ought not have…but the implication in their having swords at all is that He permitted it else he would have spoken against it.)
Frankly that is exactly why when Judas came out with a crowd to arrest Jesus, and that crowd brought swords since they knew this was not 13 unarmed men:
Mat 26:47
“While he was still speaking, Judas, one of the Twelve, arrived, accompanied by a large crowd, with swords and clubs, who had come from the chief priests and the elders of the people. .”
So Christ permitted his men to carry swords because in those days if you permitted yourself to be conked on the head with metal, you would be permanently disabled and there would be no brain surgery at Colombia Presbyterian to make you better. Or if you were stabbed, there would be no emergency room to take care of that. If they broke your legs as happened to my father years ago in Brooklyn when he was mugged, there would be no modern medicine to set that leg perfectly.
In short, Christ let His men carry swords for a very good reason and He benefited from that as He traveled with the 12 of them. Peter had a sword at Gethsemane which makes it three swords the group carried that we know of for certain. And there well could have been 9 or 7 swords etc.
And we know that Christ found the Roman centurion to have the most faith of anyone in Israel and the centurion in effect carried 101 swords each week…his own and each man in the hundred men under him….and yet that centurion had more faith than Christ had found in all Israel. Don’t blame me…Christ made sure we had that information.
You grew up in a feminized Church that was trying to undo a centuries long reputation of using coercion too much….both itelf- Bugatti the papal executioner in the first half of the 19th century doing over 500 executions (read wiki)….and through others like friendly secular governments burning heretics when we knew they would.
Hence now the Church is too keen to reverse that reputation with creating a brand new and ooposite one out of thin air…which is impossible with the History Channel being present in most living rooms.
While gun control laws have gotten stricter and stricter, violent crime has gone down — to historic levels last year.
And what have been the recent changes to your gun control law?
I don’t object to people owning guns in theory. It’s just that I wouldn’t want most of the people I know to own a gun. I mean if they can’t even take care of non-lethal things, who shall trust them with the lethal?
Time for some new friends! Many of my friends own guns, and are responsible, intelligent, stable parents and citizens, and I have no worries about their gun ownership whatsoever.
Jimmy is out of step with the
The US Conference of Catholic Bishops
LINK TO BLOG FEATURING MATERIAL BY INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE TROLLED JA.O BEFORE DELETED.
Many people outside the US can understand pragmatic arguments for and against widespread gun ownership, but cannot understand the ideological adherence to the Second Amendment today as if it were Scripture – King George is no longer poised to invade, and neither is anyone else.
Neither can they understand why so many Americans do not make the seemingly obvious connection between the easy availability of guns and the frequency of massacres by disturbed individuals.
Leo, have you noticed that the massacres ALL occured in places where the crazy knew that he would be the only one armed with a gun. What would have happened if only one of the victims had the right to carry a gun. Different outcomes for sure!
Leo – USCCB proclamations are not binding. Fortunately.
Fr. John Corapi is a handgun owner, and has publicly admitted it. Further, he has admitted that he has had to brandish and yes, even fire his (if memory serves me) .44 Magnum. Leo, are you suggesting that he is ignorant to the teachings of the Catholic Church?
If having lots of guns makes shootings more likely, why aren’t gun shows massacres?
Could it possibly be that, just like through all the history I’ve read, folks get slaughtered when there’s disproportionate quality of weapons? So the bronze weapons beat the copper, the iron weapons beat the bronze….
As an example, GB is working on banning large knives, because near total banning of guns hasn’t kept people from killing each other.
Myself, I greatly favor guns. For the first time in history, a tiny woman can beat a huge, strong man in a fair fight, with proper training.
Dear Foxfier,
While the pistol is a very effective equalizer, but I must admit the following:
I, a huge, strong man have been thoroughly whooped by a tiny woman in hand to hand combat, multiple times even. The moral of the story is, “THAT is why she is called sensei”.
TonyC, everyone carrying guns would seem to be your protection against ‘crazies’ with guns. Although that would be of limited use if they wore body armour or choose a defensible position before shooting.
Most developed countries allow almost no-one to carry guns and seem to have fewer massacres.
Foxfier, a tiny woman (with a gun) can beat a huge, strong man (without a gun). What if they both had guns? There is an inequality of power if some have bigger better guns, and this leads to an arms race on the streets.
I personally might feel safer if I was the only one with a gun, but I don’t think I would feel safer if everyone had a gun.
Leo
Intellectually you are making a simplistic comparison amongst other countries and the US.
Quite simply, there is no comparison. The US draws whom? from the nations of the world…it draws some of the more aggressive of the members of other nations…ergo competition…ergo danger when a poor culture is in the midst of that competition. Luxembourg does not draw the aggressive of the world. Italy does not draw them. Norway does not draw them. Sweden does not draw them. We do and they feed competition for making a living but with an ex slave culture within that competitive mix and with 15 million illegal poorer Mexicans coming into that mix. Finland does not have that mixture of chemicals.
In addition, the US has a legacy of slavery and subsequent racism toward the free slaves who then became passive aggressive during the welfare years which morphed into violent aggression of some when the riots took place.
Meanwhile, Portugal which took part in about 30% of the slave trade (US was 6%)…was able to vanish back to the home country sans the slave legacy left in Brazil…and therefore did not have to live with the slave legacy problems she caused as the US did …but the US is one of few Euro derived cultures that had to live with its sins as Portugal and Spain and others in Europe did not….they left the problems in their colonies.
And then they lectured us as to how peaceful they were. Reminiscent of Britain and France forcing opium on China and then both suddenly forgetting the mid 19th century and now lecturing the US as to why we are so violent. While they were able to leave their opium problem in mainland China and it helped make communism victorious there.
Yes. If you’re not prepared to harm another when the circumstances call for it, God bless you, but some people have to be willing to shoulder the burden of doing so or society would descend into chaos.
Apropos the need to be willing to use force on certain occasions, cf. also recent experience regarding Nazis and what they did back in the 1940s.
Self defense and the legitimate defense of others.
In principle, yes. Especially those really long knives. . . . whaddaya call ’em? . . . swords! That’s what people carried for self-protection and the legitimate defense of others before they had guns.
It’s not my position, either. Not everybody should have firearms.
Premeditated self-defense and legitimate defense of others? Absolutely.
Yes, and just before this Jesus told the disciples to buy swords (even selling their cloaks if need be) to protect themselves in the time that was coming after his departure.
Who said anything about retribution or retaliation? I’m talking self-defense!
Also, as a Catholic, you know we don’t do theology by Scripture alone, much less by the example of Christ alone. If you don’t want people throwing “Where is that in the Bible?” in your face then you shouldn’t throw “Where is that in Jesus’ example?” in others.’
Quite true.
A standard example would be: Someone in earnest threatens the use of lethal force or the infliction of grave bodily harm and appears to have the means to carry it out.
BTW, though we apparently disagree on the issue above, it’s great to have you stopping by and commenting UKOK! It’s been a while! Hope you and yours are doing well!
Patrick-
Sensi, I sadly ne’re shall be.
Leo-
Foxfier, a tiny woman (with a gun) can beat a huge, strong man (without a gun). What if they both had guns? There is an inequality of power if some have bigger better guns, and this leads to an arms race on the streets.
I don’t think you have a very realistic idea of hand guns as used for self defense….
It’s not the size of the weapon, it’s a matter of accuacy.
Don’t have to be strong to aim well; just need some practice. I, no matter how I practice, would always lose to Andre the Giant– especially if he’d had some training; the risk of harm to him would be very low, give or take a tooth or two.
Two people with hand guns are in a situation where it’s skill against skill, the big guy is a better target, and the probability of damage to the criminal is very high– even if he manages to harm me.
You are still very dead from a .22 bullet, and it’s very easy to be very good with them. I had a .22 when I was 10 — thus, an adult woman is unlikely to have trouble with it.
I prefer a 38 special revolver, because I can handle it, it won’t jam, and it’s very easy to recognize– the fear factor, AKA deterrence.
You didn’t reply to the question of gun shows, BTW, or the other poster who pointed out the gun attacks have all been in gun free zones.
http://www.hipowersandhandguns.com/Corbon%2038%20Special%20Ammo_files/image006.jpg
Ones like this– small and light enough for my hands and wrist, heavy enough to become a bludgeon if I run out of bullets.
The .38 special is roughly 110 years old.
http://www.acepilots.com/ww2/colt-38spec.html
What if they both had guns?
Well, let’s suggest that Sue (4’11”, 92 lbs) is carrying a 9mm Beretta. She, being a responsible handgun owner, has taken a safety course, follows handgun etiquette, cleans her firearm after each use, and practices every other week.
Jack (6’5″, 290 lbs), on the other hand, carries a Desert Eagle that he bought hot from a fence’s trunk. It’s big, it’s bad, and getting hit by one of those bullets will make anyone’s day much worse. He goes to the range when he feels like it, goofs off while tearing up targets, and rarely cleans it.
Jack decides to mug Sue. Jack is very threatening, and even holds his handgun “Hollywood” style. Sue fears for her life and pulls out her own concealed handgun.
Scenario 1: Jack is really a cowardly bully, and runs off to assault someone else. Likelihood is higher than most tend to believe.
Scenario 2: Jack fires first, and his heap jams. Handgun ownership demands discipline, which Jack does not have. This has actually happened nearby from me, more than once. I have video of it, and no I do not live in the best of neighborhoods.
Scenario 3: Jack fires first, misses. Seriously, criminals are dangerously stupid, doing the strangest things because there is a rumor about how to make the bullets go faster. I’ve seen video of street thugs wasting entire magazines at close range. Sadly, bystanders sometimes do suffer for that idiocy. Even so, Sue is more likely than not to successfully hit Jack in the meantime.
Scenario 4: Jack fires first, and Sue dies. Well, at least she wasn’t dragged into a car to be raped and slowly tortured to death. While some people go nuts about a massacre, I’d be willing to bet more people die by serial killers. Trust me, I live in Wisconsin.
Scenario 5: Sue fires first, hits Jack. Yes, a 9mm handgun is weaker than many on the market. That does not mean that Jack will be any less wounded or even dead if Sue has a magazine filled with self-defense ammunition. While it is harder to hit a real person than a paper target, Sue’s chances of hitting Jack are far higher, as she has the training and practice. As for theoretical body armor, well, it doesn’t cover everything.
Regardless, Sue is better off for having the weapon. As for Jack, well, there are laws against felons from owning handguns, and good laws at that. So, since criminals have guns illegally, who is harmed by gun laws? As for the availability argument, I still have yet to hear how lax American laws have contributed to the use of fully automatic AK-47’s and mortars (both of which are severely prohibited in the US) in the turf war in Mexico.
Why carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.
One may legitimately refuse to use one’s right of self defense – that is a personal choice – but one may still have a responsibility to protect other innocent people, which is why policemen carry guns.
It’s one thing to be a pacifist in terms of my own personal safety, but it’s another thing to refuse to intervene on behalf of someone else. The latter could be seen as cowardice, as I may in one situation or another have a positive moral DUTY to intervene.
This doesn’t touch directly on gun ownership, but is just looking at the whole idea of the legitimate use of physical force.
I think we in the U.S. should adopt the Swiss model… every citizen ought to serve a mandatory stint in the armed services, and at discharge be sent home with their weapon and a crate of ammunition, which they must keep and maintain in good working order (verified by an annual inspection).
“Many people outside the US can understand pragmatic arguments for and against widespread gun ownership, but cannot understand the ideological adherence to the Second Amendment today as if it were Scripture – King George is no longer poised to invade, and neither is anyone else.”
Because the Second Amendment is the one real, tangible check on the power of the state. The Second Amendment was ratified well after King George had been tossed out, and at the time was far too busy with French Revolutionary upheavals to be a threat.
The U.S. Government is not a tyrant – not yet – but it has far more power and reach than King George ever did. It is not unimaginable that one day it could, in fact, become less benign.
And then there is the self-defense argument:
“Why carry a gun? Because a cop is too heavy.”
“Also, not to say there is no value in owning a gun for defensive purposes, but don’t statistics also show a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?”
That statistic is probably also true of baseball bats and table lamps. The more important statistic is the fact that over 250 million privately-owned guns are NOT used to commit any crimes each year.
A follow-up to the Sue/Jack senario above: Are gun owners generally prosecuted if they use their weapon? I would imagine not if it was clearly a case of assualt, but what about something like this–Sue shoots and kills Jack who was attacking her. But there are no witnesses and Jack does not have a criminal record. When the police arrive they find Jack dead and Sue OK carrying a completely legal handgun. After an investigation, what is the likelihood that Sue might be arrested, charged and prosecuted?
I’m wondering how many gun massacres took place in Switzerland? Oh yeah. Zero.
They have a mandatory gun possession law there.
I’m wondering how many gun massacres took place in Kennesaw, GA? Oh yeah. Zero.
They have a mandatory gun possession law there.
I do see a pattern here…..maybe I’m missing something.
“If so, then should people be allowed to carry knives lawfully”
What People’s Republic do you live that they aren’t? I carry a spring assisted folder (NOT a switchblade – perfectly legal) in my pocket and have a KaBar behind each seat in my truck. Blades 5.5″ or less per local ordinance. Why would anyone even consider this ther business?
My primary limitation is that I am prohibited from carrying my handgun at the day job, since my current project is located at a Federal facility. Since I have to park on-ite, that means I can’t have a gun in my vehicle, either. I find that greatly troubling, since I have to drive quite a distance back and forth, wind up unarmed at my evening job at the University, stop at the store on my way home, etc. On weekends or holidays, I always carry. I do need a permit to carry concealed on my person. I need no such thing to keep a pistol in my home, vehicle, boat or RV if I had one, or anywhere else I own as long as I am not a convicted felon, mentally ill, or fall under a few other restrictions by which one’s civil rights are curtailed – all of which are some subset of generally criminal behavior.
“Yes, a 9mm handgun is weaker than many on the market.”
Yes, but it’s a very comfortable round for a carry gun – a good compromise between power and high recoil in a lightweght pistol. 9mm has about an 85& one-shot stopping power, per the usual studies. I mistrust the accuracy of that, but it probably allows comparison with other, more powerful rounds like .45, .40, amd .357 magnum. The rule is you keep firing until the threat is gone (guy runs, drops his gun, or keels over); then you stop. My carry pistol holds 11 rounds of 9mm; with good hollowpoint ammo, that will stop the threat.
I simply don’t understand the comment about worshipping the 2nd Amendment. The Bill of Rights recognizes some of the rights that are intrinsically ours by being humans created in the imago Dei. The idea that nations can grant rights is a pernicious doctrine of tyrants. Rights come from God; the right of self-defense, and the obligation of defense of neighbor, are mine because I am a human being.
For thos who believe guns emit strange rays that cause people to behave irrationally, Concealed Carry permit holders not only have a far lower rate of committing crimes than the general public, they have a far lower rate of unjustified shootings than do the police themselves. And a high proportion of the crimes committed by CCW holders are violations specifically related to CCW – failure to conceal, not having your permit with you when stopped by the police, permit expired, etc. Ordinary, rational, undrugged people simply do not go around murdering each other.
If you want to go around the streets of the city carrying a wombat in your purse, go ahead; if I want to carry a 9mm in my fanny pack, it is no more your business than your wombat is mine.
Also,
I would add that while there hasn’t been many shootings in Europe yet (Germany and Finland anyone?), it seems to me that this is changing in spite of the strict gun ownership laws there.
“A follow-up to the Sue/Jack senario above: Are gun owners generally prosecuted if they use their weapon? I would imagine not if it was clearly a case of assualt, but what about something like this–Sue shoots and kills Jack who was attacking her. But there are no witnesses and Jack does not have a criminal record. When the police arrive they find Jack dead and Sue OK carrying a completely legal handgun. After an investigation, what is the likelihood that Sue might be arrested, charged and prosecuted?”
Well, I’m going to cop-out on that one with “it depends”. Sue could defend herself and her children from an intruder who happens to be a minority with his own drawer for a rap sheet, but unfortunately live on the North Side of Mosc- er Milwaukee, and will be prosecuted for both gun crime and hate crime, and get sued by the -ahem- victim’s family -ahem- for wrongful death. Even in such a bad situation, Sue can only be convicted if she acted criminally beyond a reasonable doubt. When that goes bad, there is also such a thing called an Appellate Court. Even here, the saying goes, “It’s better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.” I should know, I live in said wretched hive of scum and villainy.
Reasonably speaking, most people are very shaken by such a violent incident, and police are usually able to figure out the difference between a legitimate act of self defense or a murderer full of bovine-excrement.
And as a reply to Waffling Anglican, I completely agree that the 9mm is a very competent conceal-carry handgun, especially when loaded with Hydra-Shok rounds. The first handgun I ever handled was a Ruger P89, and I certainly have respect for it.
Suzy, explain your logic to my kids when someone breaks down the door and they want more than just my property. Read your local paper. There have been many examples. If I recall there was a family in Conn. where two escaped prisoners drove the wife to an ATM but that wasn’t enough they abused the children and proceeded to burn the house to the ground. As a Father I have a moral obligation to protect those that can not protect themselves. A plea not to harm my family is not gonna do it against a villain that has the element of surprise and will do as they wish. I don’t know their true intent. If someone harms me that is one thing. I will not allow evil to exist in my home against my family. Christ has empowered me with the ability to discern what is right and wrong. My intention is not to go out and murder someone. My intent is to protect my family if ever the need arise. Not sure if that is the same as predetermination in your book. I would gladly give my life for another, that being my children and spouse.
Scott, I think you misunderstood Suzy: she was pointing out that strict gun-control laws help the criminals and hurt the law-abiding citizens, while allowing law-abiding citizens easier access to guns reduces violent crime.
I didn’t get that from this post:
Posted by: Suzy | Apr 8, 2009 11:56:30 AM
Did I miss something? I’ll rescind what I stated if you can tell me where she said what you say she said? I didn’t gather that.
Scott, you are referring, I think, to ukok’s post. Suzy’s post was: I don’t have the stats to back this up, but I remember reading where violent crime is up in places with the toughest gun-control laws and crime is down in areas with freer access to guns. Does anyone know if that’s true?
(the name, date and time are below the commment, not above it)
Scott, are you sure you were looking at Suzy’s comment?
She wrote: “I remember reading where violent crime is up in places with the toughest gun control laws and crime is down in areas with freer access to guns.”
Of course, I should have read Brother C’s response to Scott before I posted. This is what happens when I post before my morning coffee kicks in. Oh, well, a blessed Easter to all.
Happy Easter to you, bill912, and everyone, also!
Gun laws also impact other aspects. For example where I live, through new gun laws, it is illegal to have an air rifle. Now I have to use a Wrist Rocket slingshot to keep the pigeons, squirrels, rats, and occasional raccoons a bay on the properties I manage. Traps and bate are fine until you have to go one on one while getting stuff from storage and the BB gun was a lot easier to use.
Bill,
Your point?
I am on vacation and don’t have the Catechism handy so i looked it up online…take a look at the top of the page and tell me what you read there.
http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/fifth.html
The 5th Commandement: You shall not kill.
I happen to agree with it.
I don’t disagree with legitimate defence, i do however disagree with planning to have a weapon to use in the unlikely incident of personal defence being necessary.
I did not read anywhere in paragraphs 2263-2265 that it said ‘buy a gun or your personal weapon of choice and have it handy just in case of attack’.
My brother is a police inspector over here in England, he has attended many incidents where weapons have been turned on unwitting defenders of their property or person. He has also received a commendation for tackling a knife wielding idiot and thereby ensuring that no injury to the victim or the perpretator occurred.
Another consideration is the ‘reasonable force’ issue. I don’t have the time necessary to go further into that right now (i’m on vacation), but my basic point is that not everyone who in posession of a weapon, would have the wherewithall to think clearly in a moment of panic and frenzy, hence more fatalities ensue…either their own, or the perpetrators (who may otherwise only have been debilitated by non fatal injury).
Hope this helps explain my POV a little better.
UKOK,
The Catechism says: Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. (CCC 2265)
You said: I don’t disagree with legitimate defence, i do however disagree with planning to have a weapon to use in the unlikely incident of personal defence being necessary.
If you are responsible for the lives of others, you have the “grave duty” of planning to defend their lives. Your conscience will have to ultimately be your guide on what constitutes adequate planning to satisfy that grave duty.
Beadgirl asked: “Also, not to say there is no value in owning a gun for defensive purposes, but don’t statistics also show a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?”
No, they don’t show that at all. As I recall, that assertion comes from a study done in Washington state in the ’70’s. It had a number of serious methodological errors, and as a result was utterly worthless. I’ve got a copy of the study somewhere, it’s been a while since I looked at it but the bottom line it’s junk – there’s no truth to that assertion at all.
a gun in the home is more likely to be used against a family member than an intruder?
For some families, that may well be the case. For others, not. But which families?
you have the “grave duty” of planning to defend their lives
For some families, not having a gun in the house may be an integral part of carrying out that “grave duty”.
For some families, not having a gun in the house may be an integral part of carrying out that “grave duty”.
Certainly.
In discerning how to satisfy a grave duty, as with any other moral choice, one must “strive to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.” (CCC, 1788)
If your conscience tells you that in your particular circumstances the people whom you are responsible for defending are safer without a gun in the house, it would be reckless for you to have a gun in the house.
As to the Fifth Commandment, the original Hebrew means: “Thou shalt not *murder*.”
Ukok
You are on a different planet than I and addressed nothing I said from the Bible but spinned the 5th commandment into something the NY Times would say. It’s simple. You either have never seen violent action (I’ve been in many incidents and it started at 16 with knocking out a gang member and then having to live in their territory) or you did see action and are now totally in a secure area….more likely the former. My neighbor two houses away was shot in an attempted murder by NAS fans (“Get Urself a Gun”) last year 100 feet from here and his arm will never be the same. I’m against femininized Catholicism. Someone breaks in my house with a weapon, he is shotgunned with zero hesitation…zero. I’ll use a light load first if there is only one intruder but if he does not drop the gun, he’ll be dead with the second in the face because dead is how you stop the trigger finger of the other man and if you don’t stop that trigger finger, you could be paralzyed for 30 years in a bed…wondering if Ukok will send me some cash to pay for my medical bills…you’ve got my back..right?. Ain’t goin out that way if I can take control of the situation. Watch dog…all windows wired…all doors secure… pistol grip pump…welcome to the NY harbor. You know…Saul failed to kill a man who God ordered him to kill and he was then taken from the kingship and Samuel then did what Saul was supposed to do:
I Samuel 15:33 ” And Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the LORD in Gilgal.”
Feminized Christianity and feminized Catholicism do not like that passage (see section 40 of Evangelium Vitae…lol…John Paul thought such passages were from the Jewish culture…NOT). I love every passage He..God… ever wrote but I would hew no one in pieces since that above phrase was literal but also symbolic of totally fighting the forces of inordinate pity on God’s behalf….and yes…Samuel actually did that before the Lord in Gilgal and was blessed by God for having done so.
bill bannon,
Below is paragraph 40 from Evangelium Vitae. Perhaps you could point out where Pope John Paul II was mistaken in your estimation.
40. The sacredness of life gives rise to its inviolability, written from the beginning in man’s heart, in his conscience. The question: “What have you done?” (Gen 4:10), which God addresses to Cain after he has killed his brother Abel, interprets the experience of every person: in the depths of his conscience, man is always reminded of the inviolability of life-his own life and that of others-as something which does not belong to him, because it is the property and gift of God the Creator and Father.
The commandment regarding the inviolability of human life reverberates at the heart of the “ten words” in the covenant of Sinai (cf. Ex 34:28). In the first place that commandment prohibits murder: “You shall not kill” (Ex 20:13); “do not slay the innocent and righteous” (Ex 23:7). But, as is brought out in Israel’s later legislation, it also prohibits all personal injury inflicted on another (cf. Ex 21:12-27). Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, does not yet reach the refinement found in the Sermon on the Mount. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for severe forms of corporal punishment and even the death penalty. But the overall message, which the New Testament will bring to perfection, is a forceful appeal for respect for the inviolability of physical life and the integrity of the person. It culminates in the positive commandment which obliges us to be responsible for our neighbour as for ourselves: “You shall love your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18).
Brother Cadfael, JPII may argue there against the death penalty as a *punishment*, but he certainly never argued that legitimate self defense would exclude the use of deadly force.
Not to mention which, the Catechism teaches that the state retains the right to capital punishment when necessary for the protection of the public.
bill bannon –
I know ukok, and she doesn’t strike me at all as a “feminizer” of Catholicism. If she is, then so were all the Catholic saints who chose non-violence – who preached “turning the other cheek”, even to the point of martyrdom.
I think there is room in the Church for those with a charism of non-violence, and for those who are moved to protect the innocent through acts of physical resistance and heroism.
We should not be trying to make those choices for one another, so condemnation from either side is unhelpful. I must say, I think men clearly have a natural law duty to physically protect the innocent to a much greater degree than do women. It may be natural, then, for more women to find guns or physical violence in general distasteful and upsetting. Certainly not all women feel that way… Sarah Palin, for instance, or my own mom (who used to handle a 9mm pistol pretty well), or St. Joan of Arc.
Apparently I have to do 2 or 3 posts to get this through:
Brother Cadfael,
As to that one section..40.., it is the below in the capitalized letters:
“Of course we must recognize that in the Old Testament this sense of the value of life, though already quite marked, DOES NOT YET REACH THE REFINEMENT FOUND IN THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT. This is apparent in some aspects of the current penal legislation, which provided for SEVERE FORMS OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT AND EVEN THE DEATH PENALTY.”
______________________________________________
John Paul in St. Louis in 1999 called the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary”. And if it is “cruel” which is a word that goes to making it evil per se, then CCC #2267 has no business even rarely permitting it…and all the OT death penalties were from men and their culture and not from God as the OT text alledges. So we know that John Paul contradicted even the amended words of CCC#2267…when speaking in St. Louis…very much like when he noted that “war solves nothing” at an Easter speech in the early 2000’s…which is implicitly the opposite of the just war theory. And again this is like his theory of their being an OLD way of seeing husband headship that is now mutual headship only which he averred in both Dignity of Women and in Theology of the Body and which is why in both he quoted Ephesians but did not quote the five other passages that spoke only of the husband jurisdiction side of it.
Both are necessary but John Paul managed to exclude the latter by saying that mutuality had to be present now in the NT which it does in most moments of a marriage but there are times when under stress, one person has to have non mutual headship and the other 5 NT passages make that case in terms of the husband (repeated perfectly in sentence one of section 74 of Casti Connubii) but John Paul never quotes them..the other 5 passages… but only refers to the 5 passages without telling the reader what they say…much like he left Romans 13:3-4 out of all discussion of the death penalty in EV. Hence the CCC has nothing on husband headship though it is 6 times explicit in the NT.
Part 2
Keep that in mind when you look at section 40 as to God’s commands getting more refined in the NT as though God was crude in Leviticus and got less crude at the Sermon on the Mount.
The implication is either that God became more refined…or…that the penal death penalties were never from Him in the first place even though the OT says they were. And really that is where John Paul was: the death penalties were never from God even though the text of the OT repeatedly has God note them as coming from Him. Fr. Raymond Brown who on page 349 of Birth of the Messiah stated that Mary never really said the Magnificat literally…was on the Pontifical Biblical Commission during John Paul’s tenure and was not seen as problematic. By the way I think he was a genius with problems around the issue of inspiration and he did great work in “The Community of the Beloved Disciple” but he also did damage to the concept of inspiration in “Birth of the Messiah”.
Christ has no problem with the death penalties as really coming from Him Himself as God here:
Mark 7:9
He went on to say, “How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!10 For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother,’ and ‘Whoever curses father or mother shall die.’11 Yet you say, ‘If a person says to father or mother, “Any support you might have had from me is qorban….13
You nullify the word of God in favor of your tradition…”
Part 3
Note Christ did not say that they were nullifying a previous Jewish tradition (the implication of John Paul II) but that they were nullifying THE WORD OF GOD.
So Christ is not seeing it as the unrefinced violence of the Jewish culture but actually as “the commandment of God”…unless you edit Christ on the second mentioned commandment and hold that He only meant that from “Whoever” to “mother” was from God and “shall die” is from the less refined Jewish OT culture.
This why John Paul could take Cain’s immunity from the death penalty as significant for us now which it is on mercy but which it is not on the death penalty.
John Paul saw the death penalties after that period as not coming from God at all…therefore God was behind the immunity for Cain while God was not behind the death penalty that follows soon after in Genesis 9:5-6 which John Paul quotes repeatedly without the death penalty part in EV. He edits it out as he did in the many places I show him editing above and the non biblical reader would never have known about it or about Romans 13:3-4 if they simply read the encyclical.
John Paul saw the OT death penalties and the OT husband headship as less refined ideas of men really since God is not growing from unrefined to more refined. Rather the OT death penalties for personal sins like adultery were necessary prior to sanctifying grace which when it comes in Christ (Jn1:17)make these particular death penalties unnecessary because after sanctifying grace and after Christ’s general improvement of the world (possessions are now rare after Him even for non Christian cultures), threats of this magnitude are not necessary. This is entirely separate from the issue of Genesis 9:5-6 as to the death penalty for murder which was given both to Jews and Gentiles in that text.
bill bannon,
Thanks for your thorough answer. I have not had time to read it all as carefully as it deserves. Let me offer the following as preliminary thoughts:
John Paul in St. Louis in 1999 called the death penalty “cruel and unnecessary”. And if it is “cruel” which is a word that goes to making it evil per se, then CCC #2267 has no business even rarely permitting it…and all the OT death penalties were from men and their culture and not from God as the OT text alledges. So we know that John Paul contradicted even the amended words of CCC#2267.
I am not aware that John Paul II ever took the position that the death penalty was — or is — evil per se. I do not believe you can equate his description of it as “cruel” with a judgment of “evil per se.” Unless I am misunderstanding you on that point, there is no contradiction between John Paul II’s articulated position on the death penalty and CCC #2267.
“war solves nothing” at an Easter speech in the early 2000’s…which is implicitly the opposite of the just war theory.
Again, I think you are making an unwarranted leap here in construing John Paul II’s words. He never repudiated just war theory, and if that’s how you’re reading “war solves nothing” I think you’re clearly reading it wrong. Try thinking of it this way. Even when war is necessary and just, it leaves multitudes of problems in its wake even if it in some sense “solves” the injustice at which it is legitimately aimed. Without having the context in which he used the terms handy, I suspect he may have been addressing the all-too-present temptation to use war as a “cure-all” before all other options have been exhausted (a requirement of just war theory).
Regarding your comments on husband leadership, I do not have adequate time at the moment to address those, but I will suggest that no one in our generation has spent more time studying the Gospel teaching on marriage than John Paul II.
I share some of your concerns about Raymond Brown, while also sharing your admiration for some aspects of his work. While I personally do not think I would have placed him on the Pontifical Biblical Commission (a somewhat arrogant assertion, I know), I can understand that he may have been placed there in acknowledgment of the good work that he did, without necessarily validating the questionable work.
as to God’s commands getting more refined in the NT as though God was crude in Leviticus and got less crude at the Sermon on the Mount.
It is a fundamental truth of Christianity that God chose to reveal Himself more fully and more clearly in His Son than He had in former times, so I do not necessarily see a problem with the notion that God’s commands are more refined in the NT than they were in the OT.
The implication is either that God became more refined…or…that the penal death penalties were never from Him in the first place even though the OT says they were. And really that is where John Paul was: the death penalties were never from God even though the text of the OT repeatedly has God note them as coming from Him.
I am not aware of John Paul II ever claiming that the use of the death penalty in the OT was ever not legitimate, or from God. Are you claiming that this was (implicitly, I suppose) John Paul II’s position because he advocated against the use of the death penalty in today’s world? If you have some other basis, let me know.
More to follow.
bill bannon,
To sum up, I believe that there is a coherent natural law explanation for the death penalty that would legitimize (and even mandate) its use in former times, yet exclude (or virtually exclude) its use in current times.
Everything that comes from God is good, and can be understood in some sense as having a transcendent purpose. The death penalty is legitimate when (and to the extent) it promotes life, or in other words when it serves a transcendent purpose. Perhaps the clearest (but certainly not the only) example of this is that the value of the innocent life taken by a murderer is affirmed when the ultimate penalty is imposed for that murder. In other words, innocent life is valuable, and we affirm that by placing the ultimate punishment on the person taking innocent life.
The value of any message is lost if the intended recipient of that message is incapable (for whatever reason) of understanding the message. If I do not speak Swahili, it will do very little good for the person on the other end of the phone to give me a message in Swahili, however true or important it might be.
It is my belief that our society today is permeated by a culture of death to such an extent that it is largely incapable of receiving any transcendent message of life from the death penalty. A society that does not understand why it is evil to brutally murder an infant in the womb (or even out of it in some cases) does not understand life, and is not adequately prepared to receive a message of life from the death penalty.
The same natural law that permits (or mandates) a death penalty in some circumstances (ie, when the intended message will be understood), may exclude the death penalty in other circumstances (ie, when the intended message will not be understood).
That is a long-winded (and, I am afraid, poorly articulated) explanation of how I might argue today that the death penalty is “rarely, if ever, appropriate” while defending its use in the past. I’ll have to leave it to others as to whether that’s even in the ballpark of John Paul II’s understanding.
Brother Cadfael,
You wrote: “The value of any message is lost if the intended recipient of that message is incapable (for whatever reason) of understanding the message…….. A society that does not understand why it is evil to brutally murder an infant in the womb (or even out of it in some cases) does not understand life, and is not adequately prepared to receive a message of life from the death penalty.”
______________________________________________
But this is not about teaching according to God in Romans 13:3-4 and it is about the state executing the wrath of God against the criminal. And actually by your parameters, Stoic society…when Romans 13:3-4 was written in the bible…. not only condoned abortion (breathing through the mouth was the standard therein) but some of them like Seneca (whom Jerome praised on sexual issues) condoned infanticide and “pater potestas” which gave fathers of the Roman Republic the right of the death penalty over children until 14 years of age for Stoicism when they were the considered fully rational for the Stoics…. but also over his wife for non Stoics within Rome.
That did not obstruct Romans 13:3-4 from advocating the use of the sword by the state if one did wrong… the state being the minister of God’s wrath according to Romans. So Romans was speaking in the midst of a culture of death like no other…yet it proceeded to give legitimacy to the death penalty.
Dei Verbum did not give Popes the right to ignore selected verses…rather they were to hand down what was handed to them and were to preserve Scripture…barring Jewish judicial and ritual laws that were defunct.
Should I believe you or Romans? So Romans was not seeking to communicate a thing but to allow within a culture of death… a deterrent effect which Acts 5 said the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira had on the early Christians: “the whole community took fear”.
Catholicism has five Catholic countries in the top ten murder rate countries: Honduras 2nd/El Salvador 4th/Venezuela 6th/Guatemala 7th/Columbia 10th (wiki…which in this case seems to have done the most work). Only Guatemala has the death penalty. And we all know the basket case that is now Mexico which has not had the death penalty for a very long time. You can excuse then some leaders and me from not thinking that we are the culture to consult on the death penalty’s effectiveness.
An Avignon Pope sentenced the leaders of the Knights Templar to life sentences so let’s dispense with the myth that life sentences are new. Unforetunatly a King of France reversed the sentence and killed them by burning while they screamed their innocence since their confessions were extracted by torture.
2nd post addressing your first:
Brother Cadfael,
Sorry but I think you are doing a cleaning up and minimizing of John Paul’s intemperate comments both at St. Louis and at the Easter sermon. The man knew his every word counts internationally unlike us. The net result is that all the world’s media now report the Church as being against the death penalty and Benedict does zero to disabuse them of that proclamation since at the personal level, both men became more pacifist on the death penalty personally and in fact if not in the printed word with Benedict congratulating the Philippines president in the Vatican after she reported to him that they had outlawed the death penalty there…which contradicts ccc 2267 also since in “rare” cases, it might serve to protect the Phillipines. Benedict would have saved more lives if he took the time to write a local apostolic letter urging Filipinos to avoid over loading ferries which cause hundreds of deaths periodically unlike their death penalty. Amazing ironies in the world of image making.
You wrote: “I do not believe you can equate his description of it as “cruel” with a judgment of “evil per se.” Sure you can. Words have denotations and connotations and that is all she wrote. “Cruel” has both a negative denotation and a negative connotation. That completes the body of the meaning of the word. As a word, it permits no positive takes on what it means. That means it equates to nothing that is good…or it falls under the category of evil as we call it.
______________________________________________
In 2007, the Intervention by the Holy See at the 62nd Session of the General Assembly of the the United Nations, Msgr. Mamberti said “the abolition of the death penalty should… be seen as a consequence of full respect for the right to life.”
The following year (2008), at the 63rd Session of the General Assembly of the the United Nations, Msgr. Migliore added, “Last year this Committee, for the first time, called for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty. This resolution marks a welcome step towards a fuller respect of the right to life, however, it is only the beginning of the necessary efforts which must be undertaken to create a society in which life is respected at all stages of development.”
In 2003, Pope John Paul II spoke of the “unnecessary recourse to the death penalty”, calling it part of the “model of society [that] bears the stamp of the culture of death, and is therefore in opposition to the Gospel message.”
Previously, in 2001, the Holy See had declared, “The Holy See has consistently sought the abolition of the death penalty… The Pope had most earnestly hoped and prayed that a worldwide moratorium might have been among the spiritual and moral benefits of the Great Jubilee which he proclaimed for the Year Two Thousand, so that dawn of the Third Millennium would have been remembered forever as the pivotal moment in history when the community of nations finally recognised that it now possesses the means to defend itself without recourse to punishments which are ‘cruel and unnecessary’. This hope remains strong but it is unfulfilled, and yet there is encouragement in the growing awareness that ‘it is time to abolish the death penalty’… The universal abolition of the death penalty would be a courageous reaffirmation of the belief that humankind can be successful in dealing with criminality and of our refusal to succumb to despair before such forces, and as such it would regenerate new hope in our very humanity.”
In November of 1999, Abp. Martino warned of the dangers of the death penalty as applied by societies, including dangers to innocent lives: “All too often, in many societies, the carrying out of the death penalty is accompanied by unacceptable public signs of frightening vengeance and revenge. All too often it is persons who are poor or who belong to ethnic minorities who are more likely to incur this penalty. Even young people and people with limited mental capacity are executed. How many innocent people have been wrongly executed?” He went on to question both the effectiveness and appropriateness of the death penalty, and said, “Punishment should be secure and proportionate to the crime, but should also be directed at restoring the criminal, wherever possible, to being a constructive member of society.” Of abolishing the death penalty, he said, “It demands courage to say ‘no’ to killing of any kind, and it requires the generosity to provide perpetrators of even the most heinous crimes the chance to live a renewed life envisioned with healing and forgiveness. In doing so there is sure to be a better humanity.”
And, of course, in St. Louis, in January of 1999, Pope John Paul II said, “The new evangelization calls for followers of Christ who are unconditionally pro-life: who will proclaim, celebrate and serve the Gospel of life in every situation. A sign of hope is the increasing recognition that the dignity of human life must never be taken away, even in the case of someone who has done great evil. Modern society has the means of protecting itself, without definitively denying criminals the chance to reform (cf. Evangelium Vitae, 27). I renew the appeal I made most recently at Christmas for a consensus to end the death penalty, which is both cruel and unnecessary.”
outlawed the death penalty there… which contradicts ccc 2267 also since in “rare” cases, it might serve to protect the Phillipines
A temporal removal of the death penalty from a country’s laws does not contradict CCC#2267. If removal makes it more difficult to execute someone save for that “very rare, if not practically nonexistent” situation, then the benefits of removal can outweigh keeping it in. The law making body does not disappear with the removal of the death penalty. Should a special need arise, a special law can be written in the future.
Angel
That of course all means that from Augustine til Pius XII in 1952, most other Magisterial figures and theologians were dead wrong on the death penalty…lol.
And it means that Genesis 9:5-6 and Romans 13:3-4 from God were wrong….and Protestants say we worship men…some of us seem to worship only current men.
bill bannon,
Lest the point be lost in my (too) lengthy previous posts, I disagree that abolishing the death penalty now, or would in any way suggest that St. Augustine, Pius XII, or any of the Magisterial figures or theologians in between were wrong on the death penalty.
Nor do I think there is any problem reconciling the positions of Augustine with John Paul II, Benedict XVI, or the current Catechism.
And, of course, I do not think there is any problem reconciling Sacred Scripture with any of the teachings of any of the above.
For what my opinion is worth.
Brother
Then contradiction has no raional meaning whatsoever in Catholic parlance. The papal executioner Bugatti executed 516 people for the papal states in the first half of the 19th century which was way more than Texas did at that time….and this fits right in with John Paul II.
You need some spiced Rum from Barbados straight..no water.
Meh,
I suppose that from my point of view, I aught not condemn anyone to death unless there is no alternative. Thankfully, my chances of serving as a juror for a murder trial where the death penalty is an option is highly unlikely. If it were to happen, I must consider both the temporal and eternal consequences of my decision.
While the state has the legitimate authority to end a man’s life according to due process, it has also deferred the final decision of enforcing that authority upon that man’s peers. The state, therefore, has entrusted me, as a juror, to determine the fate of both the man accused and the public. My prudential choice would have great consequence in either case. The matter at hand is which choice is most merciful and to whom? The answer is different every time.
As for the original argument, I live but a couple of blocks away from a wasteland of narcotics and gang violence. Innocents are murdered for fun in this town.
Considering that many of my close neighbors are elderly and/or handicapped, it IS my most grave duty to make sure that I am both capable and competent to defend them, should the event arise. This means that I aught to be both capable of armed and unarmed measures that can incapacitate a given assailant. That includes perforation of said assailant’s chest cavity by means of a handgun.
Excellent point. “Any magisterial figures or theologians in between” was a bit imprecise and altogether indefensible.
I have studied Augustine and see no problem reconciling his teaching on the death penalty with that of John Paul II.
I am not familiar with Pius XII’s thoughts on the death penalty, but would be surprised if his thoughts on it are not reconcilable with John Paul II.
I have seen no official magisterial teachings on the death penalty that I believed could not be reconciled with John Paul II.
I believe you are correct, however, that I cannot (without spiced rum, in any event) reconcile certain practices (including Bugatti’s execution of 7 persons a year for nearly seven decades) with the teaching of John Paul II.
In memory of a certain someone who shared a certain kinship, may I offer just a few words by Avery Cardinal Dulles: “The Pope and the bishops, using their prudential judgment, have concluded that in contemporary society, at least in countries like our own, the death penalty ought not to be invoked, because, on balance, it does more harm than good. I personally support this position.” Those interested to read the rest of his (c) 2001 article Catholicism & Capital Punishment may do so.
And after reading Catholicism & Capital Punishment, consider also, Correspondence by Avery Cardinal Dulles and His Critics: An Exchange on Capital Punishment
.
Angel of Death
I suspect you should ponder the discrepancy between your position on this matter and your web name. I’m sensing deep conflicts aside from your sounding like a Vox Nova special ops person.
Brother Cadfael
You are reconciling all these people of the past with the last two Popes because you are infected with pan-infallibility (the Popes are all wise even when they do not exercise infallibility).
If the level of authority is not that of the infallible, then a Catholic has no need to reconcile disparate voices. Contradictions happen even in morals as Ott will say below. But if one thinks that on morals, the Holy Spirit always guides the Church in morals (He does)but also perfectly (He does not)…then that area is always TO THEM the area of infallibility. Here is a conservative Catholic voice that is saying that such a position is an overstating of the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the area of morals:
Ludwig Ott from the end of section 8 of his Intro to the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:
“With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible.”
Here is a perfect example from Fr. Brian Harrison’s essay on torture:
“Pope Innocent IV, Bull Ad Exstirpanda (May 15, 1252). This fateful document introduced confession-extorting torture into tribunals of the Inquisition.”
“Pope Leo X, Bull Exsurge Domine (June 15, 1520), censuring certain opinions of Martin Luther (as against the Catholic Faith..parentheses mine):
Condemned proposition #33: “Burning heretics is contrary to the will of the Spirit”.
________________________________________________
Contrast those two with section 80 of Splendor of the Truth where torture is held by John Paul II to be “intrinsically evil”…..which means that if John Paul is correct, many Popes were involved with “intrinsic evil”. But John Paul said the identical thing about slavery in section 80 and God contradicts John Paul II in Leviticus 25:45-46… “45 You may also buy them from among the aliens who reside with you and from their children who are born and reared in your land. Such slaves you may own as chattels,46
and leave to your sons as their hereditary property, making them perpetual slaves.”
That is coming from God to the Jews and thus slavery cannot be intrinsically evil but can be evil by context as over drinking can be (permitted in great distress by Proverbs …31something).
The irony is that one Pope told us all that tradition was critical on sexual matters and then he threw tradition right out the window on the death penalty with the bizarre excuse that “modern penology” protects and it clearly does not if one watches the MSNBC series on prisons that seems to be an eternal series. Gang leaders serving life order murders out on the street all the time and this alone refutes the modern penology phrase in 2267 but we are an emperor’s new clothes culture that wants to believe that Popes are infallible even when they are not speaking infallibly.
I’m done. Had I put all this work into advertising my website yesterday to ocean side hotels who have no customers, I and the family would be eating tonight at Charthouse on the Hudson rather than foraging in the dumpster behind Wendy’s for thrown away value meals.
FINIS
I suspect you should ponder the discrepancy between your position on this matter and your web name.
Whatever you believe to be mine is truly yours.
Truly yours,
Angel of Death
I believe you have as yours…. a blue water, 40 foot Hans Christian double ended wood sailboat with all needed rags to cross the pond…or am I dreaming…
Upon awakening, everything belongs to you, and you to Christ, and Christ to God.
All I know…now that you’ve levitated above the material… is that I’ve got an ice cube’s chance on a stove top grill… of getting the sloop.
This banter regarding the death penalty only serves to side track the issue being addressed.
Self Defense is entirely compatible with Catholic teaching.
The purpose of a handgun so used isn’t to kill, but to stop an attacker. Yes it is potentially very deadly force but to a prudent person it’s use is justified to repel deadly force being levelled against one’s family or person, or for that matter any person who is weak and unable to defend themselves against a murderous threat (since they too are our brothers and sisters in Christ.)
The Death Penalty is a completely different matter.
“The Death Penalty is a completely different matter.”
Well it certainly is different, but completely different? While I generally disfavor the death penalty in the US, one must concede that murders not only take place in prison, they are sometimes ordered from prison. Life imprisonment usually will protect society adequately, but it is naive to think that is necessarily always so.