Open Letter to Msgr. Swetland about Gun Control from a Just Defender

Dear Msgr. Swetland,

As a practicing Catholic (and yes I need more practice) I am deeply concerned over your latest support of taking guns away from law abiding citizens.  I am not schismatic over it as I am aware that your support of a political person's errant proposal does not constitute religious assent on my part; and the position is vague enough - as most are - to allow from some 'controls' while still allowing the faithful to obey Catholic teaching, both explicitly and Ordinary Magisterium.  Yes I typed that correctly.

First, a bit about myself:  I am a police officer.  I am not the most experienced officer nor am I the least.  I have taught the police response to Active Shooters for years.  I am also a student of Catholicism, not just a pew sitter - of which only 25% of our members do, which means 75% of our members are killing their souls each Sunday / Holy Day of obligation.  I am also a revert, having realized, through study, that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, after years away in both the religion of Apathy and then in Protestantism.

My concern comes from a lack, in the last 60 years or so, of recognition of Catholic teaching on Righteous Defense and Just War, except to keep saying a certain conflict is not a Just War.   Righteous Defense is brought up just about as often as Humane Vitae, from the pulpit, which means virtually never.  The support of certain gun restrictions is a symptom of this and needs to be adjusted.

The gun control desired by the politician you have supported, is to eventually take all guns from all law-abiding citizens.  This puts his desires at serious odds with the ability of Catholics to faithfully fulfill a "grave duty" according to the Catechism.

First a bit of Catholic History that, at least from lack of exhortations, lack of recognition of martyr status, does not seem to be remembered: The Christians who faithfully served in the Roman army, performed their duties to the full without being told 'no'.  The Crusaders were granted a plenary indulgence for their participation in the DEFENSIVE series of wars that occurred between the 11th Centuries and the 16th Centuries - technically they were armed pilgrimages, not wars but that distinction does not play into this discussion. 

We celebrate "The Feast of the Rosary" to commemorate "Our Lady of Victory" for the military success of a hastily thrown together fleet over the Muslims in the battle of Lepanto.  During that time we also have the Poor Knights of Solomon's Temple  (The Templar) who were monks who took up arms to protect the pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem.  It is a tragedy that the Templar and the Knights of St. John who were captured and executed by the Muslims for being Catholic, have never been recognized as martyrs, though they meet the criteria.

We have the Cristeros Army of the 1920's made up non-military, just plain faithful Catholic laity - most of the priests having been kicked out or martyred.  We even have St. Gabriel Possenti who, as part of the reason he was declared a Saint, disarmed a member of a violent gang and faced down the rest of the gang with a handgun:  http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/GABPOSS.htm He is the patron Saint of handgun owners.

The point is: Catholicism is NOT a pacifistic religion; but you wouldn't know it to hear Catholics talk these days.  Modern day, we have groups killing thousands of Christians.  Thousands of girls are being sold into sexual slavery where they are raped multiple times a day.  So bad are the conditions that children under the age of 10 are choosing suicide rather than continual rape.  We have (a very few) bishops calling for a Just War against this evil, but the call to take up the Cross is silenced.  Christ had ample chance to preach pacifism, but never once told any soldier or Centurion to stop practicing their trade and on the contrary  Christ orders the purchase of weapons in certain circumstances.  When Peter strikes with the sword, Christ doesn't tell him he was wrong, he just tells Peter to stop and put it away - not down.  Yet exegetes refuse to acknowledge the literal sense and implications of these words, skipping right to the 'spiritual' sense.

Catholics have suppressed some defenders (using lies and unjust methods as excuse) others voluntarily put down their swords.  Catholics today mostly shun legitimate defenders and try to take away the tools necessary for the vocation.  Today, because of an over emphasis on pacifism, we are in effect telling our brothers and sisters in the Middle-east, Africa and else where, "Be warm and eat well!"  and, "Pick up your cross..." (many are LITTERALY forced to).

But what does Catholicism teach?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2265 states, "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others."  I have never heard any priest preach on this paragraph. 

Let me break it down through the eyes of a Catholic Cop.  It is the right of anyone who has responsibility to protect the lives of others to protect those lives.

It is also "grave duty."  The term grave here must refer to "grave matter" otherwise why would the Catechism use the term 'grave'?  Unless, suddenly, we have a different definition of the word for just this paragraph akin to what most Protestants do to the word "Justified" just for James 2:14-24.

The paragraph does not say by what means this protection takes its form.  Now let the trained Police Officer take over.  In order for protection to be considered effective the means of protection must reasonable to overcome the likely threats.  So, for example, if the likely threats only rise to a 'slap' across the hand - if that is the most severe threat anyone would likely face - then simply standing in the way would be all the means necessary.

However, given that evil has no intent on obeying any politicians laws - let alone ecclesial or moral law - they will get whatever they can to get an advantage with weaponry.  Given, also, that guns are very easily illegally obtained; a highly-likely threat is from a person with a gun.  (Please note, the gun alone is not the threat and cannot be; only a PERSON with a gun can be a threat.)

Now, what means are legitimate defense against a person threatening with a gun?  "Legitimate" is a two-edged sword - pun intended.  If someone were to put a small pebble in their pocket knowing that wouldn't protect anyone but saying "I am providing Legitimate defense" they are not obeying Catholic teaching.  That is not, objectively, Legitimate.  The means MUST be reasonably effective.  Just as we would not "just pray" over a child who is gravely ill, when a hospital is nearby, we should not force ourselves to eliminate legitimate effective means of defense.

At this point some may object and say that this paragraph of the Catechism refers only to government agencies like the Police.  However, the context says nothing about that.  It merely says, "one who is responsible for the lives of others."  The related paragraphs do nothing to support that this only applies to government.  Are parents responsible for the lives of their children?  Are school teachers responsible for the lives of their students?  Are police officers responsible for the lives of the people in their jurisdiction?  I think a moral theologian would see a sliding scale of more responsibility to remote responsibility in the examples I provided, YET no one would doubt that the police need guns to fulfill their responsibility to this Catholic teaching, as well as their civil duties.

Let me add another wrinkle: are we our brother's keeper?  Are our persecuted brothers and sisters in need of Legitimate Defense?  It now becomes our 'grave duty' as the Church to provide it. 

Another objection may be "we should not meet violence with violence but with love."  It might shock you that I wholeheartedly agree.  Now, playing the theologian let me make distinctions:  As telling the Nazi that you are not hiding Jews in your house (when you are) is not 'lying'; Legitimate Defense (and Just War) is not violence.  Violence is action intended to take peace away from the innocent.  Legitimate Defense makes peace by stopping violence.  Love, as we know from Christ Himself, is not always doing what makes others comfortable.  Sometimes love means telling someone they're wrong.  Same with Legitimate Defense.  Sometime the most loving thing that can be done, given the fallen nature of man and the world, is use Legitimate Defense up to and including the "lethal blow".

The final objection to address here is: if all guns were eliminated, wouldn't that reduce violence and restricting guns is in the realm of taking steps in the right direction, isn't it?

But just who are we restricting the guns from?  Bad guys are exactly that: they have given themselves over to evil.  Yes, the ultimate goal is to get them to convert, however, by their free will, they sometimes give up all their chances for conversion.

Bad guys do not care if there is a law preventing them from obtaining a gun.  They will have someone else buy it, or they'll steal it, or they will go to another country to get one - or many.  So, in effect, the only ones who would be restricted are the good and innocent.

For example, the end of the Cristero Wars was negotiated by the Vatican.  Both the atheistic government forces and the Cristeros agreed they would lay down their guns (gun restriction?).  The Cristeros obeyed their bishops, but the evil men of the atheistic government did not.  The result was violence: 6,000 innocent people were slaughtered because their bishops told them to lay down their guns.  The Cristeros knew it.  I'm pretty sure the negotiators knew it at well.  This is NOT 'Peacemaking', this was allowing evil to succeed because good men were restricted from adequately providing Legitimate Defense.

Would we restrict good people, charged with the grave duty of protecting themselves, their family and their neighborhood, to literally "bringing a knife to a gun fight?"

Even if all guns were eliminated, evil will use knives (the most deadly weapon in history - even in modern day - not the gun).  Japan, China, Israel, Iraq, and other places have all had horrible incidents, in the modern era - where an evil person used a knife to attack numerous people in crowded areas.  Would the same position then support "knife control"?  Should a chef suffer be limited to a knife under 4 inches?  Do not forget that the first murder in Scripture was committed by a rock or club, yet no where are these items forbidden - or restricted - by Moses, the Judges, Scripture, the Kings, or Christ.

I invite you to read the following essay by ret. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.  http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

After you are finished ask yourself: if the Catechism allows for Legitimate Defense, is a holy vocation "Legitimate Defender" and if so, what tools do they need to perform their vocation?  If the Catechism allows Just War, is "Just Warrior" a holy vocation?  Is the only place for a Holy Defender or Holy Warrior in a government position?  Do we restrict pens from lawyers because "the pen is mightier than the sword?"  (I'd be in favor of that - St. Thomas More excepted).

Thank you for your consideration.
God Bless,
The Blue Crucifix aka "Fidei Defensor"