#morethanredandblue: Part 5

Here is Part 5 of my Theology on Tap talk, More Than Red and Blue.

You can read the explanation and Part 1 of the talk here, Part 2 here, Part 3 here, and Part 4 here.

* * *

Let’s look at one last major issue as we continue: gun control and violence. I often like to start this discussion by asking people if they think the problem of violence is solved by having more guns or fewer guns. Often, more liberal people will support having fewer guns, wanting to keep guns out of civilians’ hands and to generally stem the flow of guns onto our streets in order to reduce gun violence. On the other hand, more conservative people will often support having more guns in the hands of private citizens so as to create a deterrent toward violent criminals and better enable citizens to protect themselves and one another against gun violence. If we take a step back and engage the issue from Catholic Social Teaching, we can ask, what are our rights? What are our responsibilities? What’s the best route to fostering community and participation? How can uphold a consistent ethic of life?

When it comes to Church teaching, the bishops in the US have become increasingly more vocal on the issue of gun control and gun violence. Here are a few highlights from the bishops’ written statements following the Newtown shooting in 2012:

It is time for our nation to renew a culture of life in our society… With regard to the regulation of firearms, first, the intent to protect one's loved ones is an honorable one, but simply put, guns are too easily accessible. 

Our entertainers, especially film producers and video game creators, need to realize how their profit motives have allowed the proliferation of movies, television programs, video games and other entertainment that glorify violence and prey on the insecurities and immaturity of our young people. Such portrayals of violence have desensitized all of us.

In their remarks, the bishops have also publicly supported and called for sales controls, gun use safety legislation, handgun regulations, assault weapons restrictions, and addiction and mental health emphases in our approach. As we review the bishops’ stance, it is important to reaffirm here that legitimate defense is an integral principle of our moral theology; we understand lethal force to be a morally acceptable response when one is faced with an imminent, aggressive threat. On the whole, the bishops’ teaching and remarks on gun control have made this pursuit part of the holistic pro-life emphasis. During his visit to the US, Pope Francis even talked about gun violence to our Congress:

Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society? Sadly, the answer, as we all know, is simply for money - money that is drenched in blood, often innocent blood. In the face of this shameful and culpable silence, it is our duty to confront the problem and to stop the arms trade.

Jumping forward to last month, our bishops continued to advocate for gun control, with fresh calls in the wake of the Orlando shooting: Bishop Lynch of St. Petersburg affirmed the second amendment while insisting that reasonable gun control is part of being pro-life, starting with assault weapons bans for civilians; he also admitted the shortcomings of Catholicism and other faiths that somehow manage to breed hatred and violence in some of their adherents, even if these people are distant or radicalized members. Archbishop Cupich of Chicago has also done a tremendous job preaching our social values while addressing hate crimes and gun violence. Speaking directly to the Archdiocesan Gay-Lesbian Outreach, he said,

The Archdiocese of Chicago stands with you; I stand with you… We come together in this time of sorrow, this time of darkness. Yet we walk in the light of solidarity and peace.

He later added, while speaking on a radio program, a plea for us to look at root causes:

In the gunman, Omar Mateen, the archbishop sees “a very lethal combination of an unstable personality,” psychic conflict and homophobia, the incitement to violence offered by ISIS internet propaganda and “finally, the idealization of guns as the best means to take out one’s rage on others.” But it was “easy access to guns” that made possible the horrific attack.

As we think about our rights, the bishops have never really denounced the second amendment completely, but they are clearly for controls to shape our second-amendment rights. Our leaders have repeatedly called for stricter access to guns and a ban on extreme weapons while also commenting on the wrongful ease with which guns can be acquired and used for evil.

This teaching can fit squarely with our call to Rights and Responsibilities: we may have a right to own and operate a gun, but we have a responsibility to foster a culture that exercises gun safety, gun control, and reasonable gun limits. We can then extend this to the Call to Family, Community, and Participation: if we want to further a society in which participation and active involvement create an atmosphere of belonging, the gun rights culture must evolve such that it cannot be a foundation for terrorism or fear-mongering toward marginalized people, whether religious minorities, LGBT people, or otherwise. Access to guns that contributes to hate and terrorism is a sure sign that our current system is broken and needs reform. Finally, if we want to have a fuller respect for life, we certainly must honor one’s right to defend oneself but need to attempt to widen that cultural perspective beyond seeing gun ownership and use as the only way to do so.

Consider the chicken-and-egg here – do we need guns to defend ourselves because others are threats or are others threats because our need to defend ourselves proliferates guns? I think it’s a bit tougher to square a “more guns” solution with the social teachings here than it is to align a “less guns” solution with these teachings. Guns aren’t inherently evil, but the ease with which they become tools for evil is dangerous. I prefer a “less guns” solution, and here’s how I understand and apply our social teaching. Disarmament has to start with someone, and nothing is more powerful than humble, peaceful actions that are done freely. If a culture can begin to disarm itself and entrust protection and security to specifically designated authorities, the need that private citizens feel to carry guns could reduce. I think back to my time living in Ireland: there, their policemen are called Guardians of the Peace, and they do not even carry guns. They carry a nightstick but no firearm because the culture doesn’t necessitate such significant measures. So to be true to our call to Rights and Responsibilities, to uphold Solidarity and the Call to Family, Community, and Participation, and to strengthen the Dignity and Value of Human Life, I will choose continue to not own a gun, while supporting others’ rights to do so, but also to support measures that more actively restrict the types of guns sold, the screening of gun-buyers, and other sensible ways to put our rights in the context of our responsibilities.

Coming up next in Part 6: concluding with summary of these positions and a challenge for voting conscientiously.