

The gun-control debate in the United States has perhaps never been as heated or as polarizing, with thousands of people marching across the country in recent weeks to protest gun violence while advocates for gun rights warn that the Second Amendment is in danger of being trampled upon.
Many of the nation’s Catholic bishops have lent their voices to the debate, with several expressing their support for the high-school students and young adults who participated in the “March for Our Lives” last month to demand gun control and show solidarity with the victims of the Feb. 14 shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.
“More guns don’t necessarily ensure peace in civil society, whether that is in a school, a place of work or entertainment, or a church,” Bishop Frank Dewane of Venice, Florida, told the Register in a recent phone interview.
Bishop Dewane, the chairman of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development, has joined his fellow bishops in urging the nation’s leaders to come together and address the crisis of gun violence in a comprehensive manner.
Bishop Dewane told the Register that the country needs “commonsense” measures to prevent gun violence and added that it is incumbent upon states to impose strict controls on the sale of firearms.
“The bishops have said on multiple occasions that it’s simply too easy to obtain a firearm if a person wants to harm another, or harm him or herself,” said Bishop Dewane, who argued that the easy availability of guns undermines the common good.
“Safety from violence is a significant part of the common good,” the bishop said.
Bishop Dewane’s comments echo the bishops’ conference’s repeated calls over the last few decades in favor of stronger limits on firearms, such as limiting civilian access to high-capacity weapons and ammunition magazines, and calls for stricter background checks.
In the 1990 USCCB document, “New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse,” the bishops said they hoped for the “eventual elimination” of guns from U.S. society.
In the 2000 document — “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” — the bishops wrote that while they supported the sensible regulation of handguns, they believed “in the long run, and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society.”
Catholic moral tradition holds that police, military and the governing authorities are the entities that are charged with the responsibility to defend society. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2265) says those “who legitimately hold authority” have the right to use arms to repeal aggressors against the civil community.
Framing the gun-control debate as a pro-life issue, Bishop Dewane said that private gun ownership is not an absolute right in Catholic moral teaching.
“It has to give way to higher principles,” the bishop said.
While there is no stated mention of a private right to own firearms, the Catechism affirms (2264) Church teaching that people have a right to defend themselves, even using deadly force if necessary. The Catechism says that legitimate defense is not only a right, but a “grave duty,” for someone who is responsible for another’s life (2265).
Emotional Debate
“There is the principle in Catholic teaching by which you can hunt, defend your family and defend yourself,” said Jesuit Father Mitch Pacwa, a theologian, author and EWTN host who is also an avid hunter and outdoorsman.
Father Pacwa told the Register that he believes the gun debate has been dominated by emotion, with little substance from the advocates for gun control as to what kind of laws and other measures they believe would help stop mass shootings.
Said Father Pacwa, “What proposals are they making that would prevent various acts of violence that they’re trying to prevent? On a logical basis, that’s the most important question: What are you proposing that would prevent this kind of violence from occurring?”
In media interviews and on social media, advocates for gun control have called for stricter controls, if not outright bans, on high-powered so-called “assault rifles” like the AR-15, which was used to kill 17 people in Parkland.
The bishops’ conference supported the 1994 federal assault-weapons ban, which expired in 2004, and bishops have testified on Capitol Hill in favor of banning those types of weapons again.
Bishop Thomas Tobin of Providence, Rhode Island, wrote on Twitter that private citizens “shouldn’t be permitted to own assault rifles any more than then they can own chemical weapons of mass destruction.”
“How about a little common sense in this public debate?” Bishop Tobin wrote.
Gun-control advocates highlight modern weapons like the AR-15 to argue that they do not deserve blanket protection under the Second Amendment, since the amendment was written in a time when soldiers used flintlock muskets.
John Paul Stephens, the retired U.S. Supreme Court justice, went further, arguing in a March 24 op-ed, entitled “Repeal the Second Amendment,” in The New York Times that the amendment’s stated intent of being “necessary to the security of a free state” is now a “relic of the 18th century.”
Constitutional Right
Stevens’ argument does not convince many gun owners who are faithful Catholics and students of history like Lee Reynolds, a retired U.S. Army colonel who is a legal gun owner and lives in northern Virginia.
“The Second Amendment was written to prevent the government from taking away the rights of individuals,” said Reynolds, who serves as a military consultant to the entertainment industry.
Reynolds, who learned to shoot a rifle at a Catholic summer camp when he was a child, told the Register that a disarmed citizenry is more vulnerable to tyranny.
“I have no problem being a Catholic and supporting the Second Amendment because you have to defend yourself personally, and people have a right to defend themselves against a tyrannical government,” Reynolds said.
“Also, if the purpose of the Second Amendment was to defend yourself against a tyrannical government, and yet you’re not allowed to have an equal type of weapon or at least something close to what the government has, then that kind of defeats the purpose,” Reynolds added.
Father Pacwa added that the Southern states in the late 19th century began passing legislation that banned most inexpensive, nonmilitary-grade firearms, which he argued effectively disarmed the region’s black populace and made them more susceptible to being lynched and oppressed under Jim Crow laws.
Chris Pereira, a member of the U.S. Air National Guard and the Knights of Columbus, said “it is not the government’s business” as to whether citizens should have an AR-15. Even if Congress were to ban those weapons, Pereira, a Massachusetts resident, said gun violence would not stop.
“There are already laws on the books,” Pereira said. “This is a very emotional issue. We all want school shootings to stop, but a lot of people are not thinking about our laws and the government’s failures to enforce them. They’re not thinking about what could have prevented the shooting in Florida.”
Parkland High School
According to published reports, an armed sheriff’s deputy at the Parkland high school never confronted the gunman, instead staying outside the school and taking cover behind a wall during the six-minute rampage. Reports also indicate the gunman, who reportedly had a history of behavioral problems, purchased his AR-15 legally.
Though he disagrees with proposals like banning the AR-15, Reynolds said he believes there is some common ground in the gun-control debate. Reynolds added that he has no problem with registering weapons and mandatory background checks for firearm sales.
“I understand both sides of the argument,” Reynolds said. “There have to be some things in place, but when you get as emotional about it as the country is right now, you’re not speaking from a practical or logical standpoint.”
Father Pacwa, who favors curbing bump stocks, which simulate the ability of a fully automatic firearm, said sound legislative ideas, based on facts, logic and the principles of protecting civil society, have largely been missing from the public debate.
“It’s already against the law to commit murder. It’s already against the law to commit assault,” Father Pacwa said. “You’re not allowed to attack other people, so what laws do you want?”
Bishop Dewane told the Register that, from a Catholic perspective, similar principles apply to the gun-control debate as in the bishops’ previous calls for nuclear disarmament and ending the arms race. The bishop said armed deterrence does not ensure peace or value human life, but, rather, increases the risk of further conflict.
“The weapons may be smaller, but the same principles are there,” Bishop Dewane said. “We really have to look at this issue and ask: What does it contribute to peace, and how does it respect the value of human life?”
Brian Fraga writes from
Fall River, Massachusetts.
Guns are not responsible for violence any more than the gas can is responsible or arson.
The Second Amendment is an affirmation that every human has an inherent “right” to self-protection—-and a right to protect those we love who are in our care. Inherent self-protection can be seen in animals who will stand their ground against the biggest and fiercest aggressor—-witnessed in various fowl, birds and animals who lead predators away from nests or lairs. It’s called survival.
People can complain about guns; but in colonial days, ever a pitchfork was a wicked weapon——and those who didn’t have muskets carried them into battle.
So in the right to self-protection—-the weapon is incidental to the right. You have the right to use what happens to be handy—-or what you have purchased to be used in the event it is needed.
This material has been written in my name. Ruth Ruhl-LaMusga
Bob, In case you didn’t notice the military version (M-16) is fully automatic. The AR 15 is NOT the same. It is semi-automatic. I have a Marlin 9 mm camp rifle and a 22 caliber Marlin semi automatic as well as a Mini-14 223 caliber semi automatic. Functionally they are no different than the AR 15. You and your type would have those guns confiscated or registered. I don’t trust you and your Democratic Party counterparts. I have heard pledges to “disarm the US”. I have heard calls for our gun laws to be modeled on Australia’s gun laws. It just so happens that all repeating firearms were banned in Australia and the remainder were to be registered with the government. So why should be trust people like you to stop with the confiscation of semi-automatic weapons. Bob, my mother grew up in Belgium under NAZI occupation. Conditions there were similar to those in NAZI occupied Holland. I’d like you to read the book “Was God on Vacation?” by Jack Vander Geest. It will inform you what life can be like in a nation where all guns are registered because that nation does not believe in 2nd amendment rights. For all the hoo-harah surrounding “assault weapons”, that is semi automatic long guns, a very small percentage of gun deaths can be attributed to those weapons-miniscule really. The vast majority of gun deaths are suicides-and you are not going to end that without confiscating virtually all guns. And having done that you’d have to confiscate ropes and the like. But it seems the Democratic Party wants to solve the problem by legalizing assisted suicide which it has in some states.
Posted by Bob:
“Father Pacwa. The AR-15 is a direct civilian copy of the M-16. It IS an assault weapon. Stop putting quotation marks around the words assault weapon.”
************
The AR-15 though does not have a full-auto setting. It’s a civilian gun. Scary looking, but great for shooting deer at long ranges.
Resembling like a military grade rifle & performing like an automatic military weapon are 2 very different things.
But to be fair, high capacity firearms can present more collateral damage. The more rounds, the more potential victims in the wrong hands.
Father Pacwa. The AR-15 is a direct civilian copy of the M-16. It IS an assault weapon. Stop putting quotation marks around the words assault weapon.
Should we also ban cars? 32,000 people die per year in auto accidents. 10,000 die as a result of drunk drivers.
Should we ban knives and blunt objects? 1,800 people die per year from knives, and 600 from blunt objects. Oh, and by the way, the cars and knives did NOT act on their own. It was through misuse by the users that these tragedies occurred.
450 died from rifles and 18 from military style assault rifles. More lives were SAVED and more crimes prevented as a result of guns.
MorganB ,
I admit I haven’t kept up recently with FL concealed carry laws, but I assumed they were like neighboring states.
GA has had a concealed carry permit for years. I had one & don’t remember any issues.
Most law officers in the South & rural America in general already assume there may be firearms present at a domestic dispute. A carry permit isn’t the issue, the nature of the dispute is . Domestic fights are one of the most volatile & dangerous calls cops get.
I wish the US bishops would listen to Fr. Pacwa instead of the mainstream news outlets.
I also wish we’d address the mental illness & privacy laws issue.
I think it is is unfortunate the children that were being raped by priest over the last 50 years were not packing a firearm.
The same hypocrites that call for gun control should first call for the Vatican to have all the swiss guards protecting the popes life give up all their firearms first to set a good example.If firearms are okay protecting the pope then they are good for protecting a citizens life also.The same politicians and clergy who want gun control do not have any problem with guns protecting themselves but would deny you that right.Hypocrites of the highest order to think that their lives are more important then yours.
I see that we have a right-wing polarizing voice among us. The children were great as they challenged Wayne LaPierre and the NRA stranglehold they have on the 2ND Amendment and the country. They forced mostly right-wing politicians to the forefront to reveal their monetary contributions that drives their allegiance to the NRA. As a polarizing character LaPierre’s dopey call to arms with “it takes a good man with a gun to eliminate a bad man with a gun”. Please!
SCOTUS judge Scalia pointed out that the 2ND Amendment does not state any and all guns will be protected. The amendment was written in 1791 and was designed for militia protection. Notice your picture of the Minute Man holding a rifle. It is not an AR15 or AK47, it is a lock and load musket. The school kids are not seeking to take ALL of our weapons as the NRA would have us believe.
I live in Florida where a law was recently passed to allow concealed weapons in the public square. I often put myself in the position of a new police officer being sent to a domestic dispute. Everyone has a concealed gun, but the scared officer can’t tell the good guys from the bad. How does his chief recruit new cops?
So, our bishops hope for the “eventual elimination” of guns from our society.
Nice.
And how, bishops, do you see that unfolding? Hmmm, by forced confiscation?
By Discrimination against the owners of guns? Perhaps the refusal of sacraments to the owners of guns?
Rest assured, silly P/C priests, the Crypts and Bloods and M13 will never surrender their guns.
And neither will I. Bet on it.
I used to be the building manager and the trade sales manager for a print, Christian ad agency, Liturigical, Publications of St. Louis. I sold quite a few church bulletin ads to Catholic gun dealers and Knight of Columbus hall’s that had turkey and meat shoots and gun raffles. Pay attention to
Tim Staples (founder of Catholic Answers and a former marine) has covered this well. You can find his thoughts on the topic on YouTube or his website. If I post a link, NCR may block this post, so you’ll have to search for it. His site is TimStaples [dot] com. He specifically meantions CCC 2264-2265 where the catechism covers self-defense.
The reality is that most opinions on this topic are based on emotions not fact. They are also fed with bad and biased information from most media outlets. You’ll have to do the research yourself if you want the truth.
Look at the FBI crime statistics and the CDC numbers. Look at crime data from the 1994-2004 assault weapon ban (Columbine happened *during* an assualt weapons ban). Look at the decline in homicide rate over the past twenty years. Look at the trend in mass shootings (hint: not going up). Look at the specific areas where most firearm crime occurs. Look at what types of firearms are used in most firearm crime (“assault rifles” are used in less than 1% of firearm homicides . . . from a statistical perspective, bump stocks are never used). Look at the laws being proposed and see if they will have the desired effect or if other laws would be more appropriate.
Look at crime in countries with a complete firearm ban. This past week, London surpassed the homicide rate of New York City. The criminals are using knives. Take away one tool and they’ll choose another.
Mass school killings still occur in China with knives. Mass shootings are higher than ever in France—which has very strict gun control laws.
Banning guns will give the illusion of making things safer without actually making things safer. Why? Because banning guns has no effect on the source of violence, the human heart.
If you left a pile of fully loaded machine guns in the middle of a monastary, do you think there would a rash of violence? No? Why? Because their hearts are not set on violence and murder. Leave those same guns in the middle of some Chicago neighborhoods and it will be a war zone (at least more so than it already is).
Getting rid of specific tools of violence will not solve the problem. They’ll just use different tools. Banning firearms will ensure that the daily instances of self-defense by people like the elderly and single mothers will turn into assaults, murders, and rapes.
Work on the source of the problem, the human heart
Anyone who believes the marches/protests were organized by kids is dreaming. Left wing Democratic Party supporters provided the money and resources to organize these marches and protests. The message was carefully orchestrated in our schools. Any kid who was not in lock step (including one carrying a sign which said, “guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” Left wing politicians have advocated for Australia’s form of “gun control”. If you read the small print it means the registration of all firearms and confiscation of all repeating firearms from private citizens. In the meantime our courts practice catch and release of dangerous felons. During the past week a former supreme court justice advocated the repeal of the 2nd amendment. That second amendment isn’t about hunting.Is not even about defending oneself against criminals. It is about defense against tyranny.
I agree with Lee Reynolds that “the purpose of the Second Amendment was to defend yourself against a tyrannical government” and if “you’re not allowed to have an equal type of weapon or at least something close to what the government has, then that kind of defeats the purpose”. For that reason, I am against the banning of assault firearms. However, we should ban “bump stocks” which make semi-automatic firearms operate more like machine guns, we should raise the purchasing age to 21 (this is about maturity), and we should prevent the mentally ill and suspected terrorists from having firearms (while making sure they have easy access to the courts if they feel their Second Amendment Rights are being wrongly denied).
@lyle: You mean “Obama” ordered an outrageous amount of arms going to Mexico with his partner in crime AG Eric Holder.
Both have not been held to account for Fast & Furious which resulted in the murder of US Border Patrol Agent.
“The Catechism of the Catholic Church (2265) says those “who legitimately hold authority” have the right to use arms to repeal aggressors against the civil community.”
In the United States, any US citizen who can vote holds legitimate authority to bear arms, presuming they have not committed a crime that prevents it. The US government’s and every other armed agency’s authority flows from the sovereign rights and dignity of each individual. That is the meaning of the “We the People…”
This seems to have been forgotten as has our commitment to the dignity of human life.
How about dealing with all violence? Why only gun violence?
Does anyone care to discuss gun-restricted London? How about that it’s the capital of acid attacks and that death-by-knife has pushed its murder rate past NYC?
Seems there’s an awful lot of death by guns in supposedly gun-restricted Chicago, too.
My point is this: violent people will find a way. Either illegal guns or some other weapon. Disarming law-abiding citizens isn’t the answer if in fact the problem is violence. Which it is.
How about these bishops call on Hollywood and the entertainment industry to stop glamorizing gun violence and sexual promiscuity? Of course there needs to be regulations but as Father Pacwa states this debate has been dominated by emotion and essentially politics. We have a bad opioid crisis in our nation but there has been very strict laws against their possession, sale and distribution for years. Hollywood hero and political monster George Clooney donated a large amount of money to finance students attending the “March for Our Lives”. If Georgie boy is so concerned about human life why doesn’t he call upon his comrades in Hollywood to tone down the gun violence in the movie industry? Yeah, lots of luck. He just wants to get a younger generation to pay homage to him and adopt his politics. And of course, it would not be good for ticket sales.
According to gunowners.org (yes, I know the numbers could be a bit biased, but these numbers are worth considering):
- With a gun, as many as 200,000 women defend themselves against sexual abuse each year
- Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year, most of the time by merely showing their guns, or by firing a shot to scare the bad guys away. (Even anti-gun Bill Clinton researchers admit that the number is at least 1.5 million.)
- Armed citizens kill more bad guys than the police do (1,527 to 606).
I think Father Pacwa’s assessment, “It’s already against the law to commit murder. It’s already against the law to commit assault. You’re not allowed to attack other people, so what laws do you want?” is a pretty good summary because the bad guys will get their weapons illegally. (I’d like to add that heroin is also illegal, but the bad guys don’t care what the law is.)
Law-abiding citizens (even 19-year-old husbands) should have the right to defend their families.
The USA in recent years sent outrageous amounts of small arms to Mexico and Yemen in recent years, having turned both nations into Death zones.
The USA is spending outrageous amounts on military arms to exterminate humans yearly, an insanity, while the USA federal government spends very little on infrastructure, education, or humanitarian benefits.
Arms is now the USA major export to the World, not food, clothing, or humanitarian aid, but arms to murder humans. All an insanity, that a total cease of all USA manufacture of arms should be the real issue and demand.