Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

Given that no bishop can speak for another, Bishop Blair’s comments are relevant only within his own diocese as well those dioceses where the controlling bishop has explicitly endorsed them. I’m not aware of other bishops stepping up to endorse those comments and without that his opinion is pretty much a dead letter. (I would say that’s true even within his own diocese since his political opinions are not significant even there, but that’s not the point I’m making here.) I would say that the other bishops have behaved rather well in this instance in altogether ignoring this comment.

Ender

The head of a committee most certainly can speak, and normally does, representing committee findings. We’ve had Cardinal Dolan speak, and there was a response to the Newtown massacre, naming several bishops. Still, not one bishop speaks concerns of correction, or in favor of gun rights as they are conveyed on these forums. We can politicize their words, for our own interests, or we can accept the words as guidance on a culture of life in a secular world, in my opinion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Straw purchases are already illegal as is knowingly selling a gun to someone that can’t pass a background check.

Oh, but it’s not against the law for private sales, including at gun shows, with not even names exchanged, much less a background check.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

These controls may not stop one’s right or instinct to self defense. That’s true, but neither do they stop people who shouldn’t own guns from acquiring guns in the first place. In other words these gun control laws are ineffective.

That’s a cop out excuse in my opinion. We have private sales going on, even at gun shows, but we shouldn’t require universal background checks because laws are ineffective. Has any crime stopped? We have laws against many things, murder, rape, robbery, drugs, etc. We don’t just say, those laws are ineffective, so let’s not restructure, or legislate new laws.

 

[markomalley]

So, there are no men of the Church that speak in favor of gun rights today? That’s really telling, for me.

While you take time to parse the Cardinal’s words, you overlook the USCCB response to the Newtown massacre. Now, we have the head of a bishop committee speaking, and I believe it’s safe to assume, for the committee. There is not silence when it comes to controls, but we have no bishops speaking for gun rights, as they are conveyed on these forums.

I had to remove some of your post to make room for a response.

It’s rather frustrating discussing this with you, to be honest.

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the Magisterial documents that I have excerpted.

You have not been able to cite anything with Magisterial authority to show me (or any of the other posters who have argued with you) where the Church has officially supported a position on this bill…with the Church’s teaching authority.

In specific answer to your question, no, there is no one person (Clergy or Lay) who can speak for the US Bishops on the matter except for under very, very limited circumstances:

1. Per Canon 455 §1, the episcopal conference can issue a “decree” where explicitly authorized to do so by the Code of Canon Law or a special mandate of the Holy See. Neither has happened in this case. Further, such a “decree” must be passed by a 2/3 majority of all the bishops (not just those present) in plenary session. Then those decrees must be approved by the Apostolic See.
2. Can 455 §4.Quote: *In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.

1. Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos (which I extracted upthread) directs the same parameters for teaching statements issued by an episcopal conference.

So the bottom lineL unless 2/3 of all the bishops approve the statement and it receives a *recognitio *from the Apostolic See…or if each and every bishop has consented to the statement, then it has no authority.

Period.

For any other statement, you or I may agree with the statement…you or I may disagree with the statement. It is up to your prudential judgment or my prudential judgment But it isn’t appropriate to cite such a statement as authoritative (like you have tried to do), unless it has meet the criteria I listed above. And those criteria are not from my imagination. I have given you the authoritative sources for those criteria.

So if you think I’m wrong, I would appreciate you showing me where. Rather than this implied: “ooooooooh…you disagree with Bishop Blaire…you are a cafeteria Catholic…you are no better than a Protestant…” type of meme that you are pushing.

Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s rather frustrating discussing this with you, to be honest.

You continue to refuse to acknowledge the Magisterial documents that I have excerpted.

You have not been able to cite anything with Magisterial authority to show me (or any of the other posters who have argued with you) where the Church has officially supported a position on this bill…with the Church’s teaching authority.

In specific answer to your question, no, there is no one person (Clergy or Lay) who can speak for the US Bishops on the matter except for under very, very limited circumstances:

1. Per Canon 455 §1, the episcopal conference can issue a “decree” where explicitly authorized to do so by the Code of Canon Law or a special mandate of the Holy See. Neither has happened in this case. Further, such a “decree” must be passed by a 2/3 majority of all the bishops (not just those present) in plenary session. Then those decrees must be approved by the Apostolic See.
2. Can 455 §4.Quote: In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.
3. Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos (which I extracted upthread) directs the same parameters for teaching statements issued by an episcopal conference.

So the bottom lineL unless 2/3 of all the bishops approve the statement and it receives a *recognitio *from the Apostolic See…or if each and every bishop has consented to the statement, then it has no authority.

Period.

For any other statement, you or I may agree with the statement…you or I may disagree with the statement. It is up to your prudential judgment or my prudential judgment But it isn’t appropriate to cite such a statement as authoritative (like you have tried to do), unless it has meet the criteria I listed above. And those criteria are not from my imagination. I have given you the authoritative sources for those criteria.

So if you think I’m wrong, I would appreciate you showing me where. Rather than this implied: “ooooooooh…you disagree with Bishop Blaire…you are a cafeteria Catholic…you are no better than a Protestant…” type of meme that you are pushing.

Thank you.

I prefer to listen, and discern, what the men say. There is a hierarchy to our Church. The men of the Church are authoritative. Nothing you provided removes that authority from over the layperson. Our faith is not intended to be legalistic, in my opinion.

What you have provided does not address the gun issue whatsoever. It seems to be used to justify a view only, while it circumvents the authority, whether intentional or not.

Now I’m supposed to dig through Church documents to show you where you’re wrong, while I still wait for someone to produce a bishop that speaks in favor of gun rights? Right and wrong is written upon our hearts, I feel it wrong to place guns before God. That’s what this is essentially, for me anyways. Do we trust God, or need guns to trust ourselves?

Follow your conscience and act on it. I will do the same.

Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter 9. Honour the bishop

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto Him.

 

[George_Stegmeir]

For Prodigal Son1
I have slogged through all of your responses in this and other pro-con firearms threads and find you to be a “true believer” with respect to anti gun rhetoric. I know you are on this site because you like to argue, but I seriously doubt that any position on this subjuct other than your own will satisfy you.
Therefore any debate with you on this subject is futile. Our Founding Fathers forsaw people like you, that is why the right to own and bear arms is incorporated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. And our Supreme Court recently has found that that right is an individual one and is not based on membership in a militia.
You may have unlimited faith in the Federal Government, but most of us don’t…and history has prooved in other parts of the world that gun registration is the first step towards confiscation. If you are one of those that says “It can’t happen here”, it already has-a few years ago in California! Their Attorney General proscribed a certain type of firearm, then changed his mind and informed everyone they could own such an arm if they registered it. So, all the legitimate people registered these firearms, and shortly thereafter the Attorney General turned those registrations to the State Police so they could confiscate the weapons without compensating the owners!
So much for The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

 

[ProVobis]

Do we trust God, or need guns to trust ourselves?

This is a good question for any Christian. Of course, some will counter that with something like “God helps those who helps themselves” which I hear is not from the Bible.

 

[buffalo]

I do not agree with the Bishop here. As God is removed from society more weapons are needed. The culture of life is built first by removing violence in the womb and restoring respect for human life.

Many now feel that we need to defend ourselves as law enforcement is normally not there when the crime is taking place.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

For Prodigal Son1
I have slogged through all of your responses in this and other pro-con firearms threads and find you to be a “true believer” with respect to anti gun rhetoric. I know you are on this site because you like to argue, but I seriously doubt that any position on this subjuct other than your own will satisfy you.
Therefore any debate with you on this subject is futile. Our Founding Fathers forsaw people like you, that is why the right to own and bear arms is incorporated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. And our Supreme Court recently has found that that right is an individual one and is not based on membership in a militia.
You may have unlimited faith in the Federal Government, but most of us don’t…and history has prooved in other parts of the world that gun registration is the first step towards confiscation. If you are one of those that says “It can’t happen here”, it already has-a few years ago in California! Their Attorney General proscribed a certain type of firearm, then changed his mind and informed everyone they could own such an arm if they registered it. So, all the legitimate people registered these firearms, and shortly thereafter the Attorney General turned those registrations to the State Police so they could confiscate the weapons without compensating the owners!
So much for The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

If one looks at history, tyrannical regimes generally have disarmed the public and taken away freedom of speech and religion

 

[LilyM]

For Prodigal Son1
I have slogged through all of your responses in this and other pro-con firearms threads and find you to be a “true believer” with respect to anti gun rhetoric. I know you are on this site because you like to argue, but I seriously doubt that any position on this subjuct other than your own will satisfy you.
Therefore any debate with you on this subject is futile. Our Founding Fathers forsaw people like you, that is why the right to own and bear arms is incorporated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. And our Supreme Court recently has found that that right is an individual one and is not based on membership in a militia.
You may have unlimited faith in the Federal Government, but most of us don’t…and history has prooved in other parts of the world that gun registration is the first step towards confiscation. If you are one of those that says “It can’t happen here”, it already has-a few years ago in California! Their Attorney General proscribed a certain type of firearm, then changed his mind and informed everyone they could own such an arm if they registered it. So, all the legitimate people registered these firearms, and shortly thereafter the Attorney General turned those registrations to the State Police so they could confiscate the weapons without compensating the owners!
So much for The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

You don’t have unlimited faith in the government, but you do apparently have more faith in guns than in God to right whatever the government’s ills are.

Yours is a particularly Christian viewpoint, as evidenced by the multitude of saints and martyrs who reacted to crime and to government oppression (say in Ancient Rome) by engaging in armed resistance against their persecutors … oh wait …

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For Prodigal Son1
I have slogged through all of your responses in this and other pro-con firearms threads and find you to be a “true believer” with respect to anti gun rhetoric. I know you are on this site because you like to argue, but I seriously doubt that any position on this subjuct other than your own will satisfy you.
Therefore any debate with you on this subject is futile. Our Founding Fathers forsaw people like you, that is why the right to own and bear arms is incorporated in the Bill of Rights of our Constitution. And our Supreme Court recently has found that that right is an individual one and is not based on membership in a militia.
You may have unlimited faith in the Federal Government, but most of us don’t…and history has prooved in other parts of the world that gun registration is the first step towards confiscation. If you are one of those that says “It can’t happen here”, it already has-a few years ago in California! Their Attorney General proscribed a certain type of firearm, then changed his mind and informed everyone they could own such an arm if they registered it. So, all the legitimate people registered these firearms, and shortly thereafter the Attorney General turned those registrations to the State Police so they could confiscate the weapons without compensating the owners!
So much for The Peoples Republik of Kalifornia.

My faith is in God. I have quoted scriptures, and men of the Church. I have promoted that which is in my faith formed conscience. It’s a difficult discussion, using spiritual against secular.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do not agree with the Bishop here. As God is removed from society more weapons are needed. The culture of life is built first by removing violence in the womb and restoring respect for human life.

Many now feel that we need to defend ourselves as law enforcement is normally not there when the crime is taking place.

As God is removed from society? Will the Church be undone? Christ never spoke of a need to defend one’s self.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If one looks at history, tyrannical regimes generally have disarmed the public and taken away freedom of speech and religion

If one looks at history, one can see God delivered those who had faith.

 

[ProVobis]

You don’t have unlimited faith in the government, but you do apparently have more faith in guns than in God to right whatever the government’s ills are.

I’m surprised there isn’t a push to print “In Guns We Trust” (to replace “In God We Trust”) across the paper currency.

I’m being sarcastic, guys.

 

[Sporkbeard]

Weak as usual. Pull your head out… they are trying to take the gun rights away. You lost… move on.

I’m surprised there isn’t a push to print “In Guns We Trust” (to replace “In God We Trust”) across the paper currency.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Weak as usual. Pull your head out… they are trying to take the gun rights away. You lost… move on.

That’s an exaggeration. They were considering banning specific types of guns, and establishing stricter requirements for background checks. There’s no winning, or losing. It’s not a game.

 

[ProVobis]

Weak as usual. Pull your head out… they are trying to take the gun rights away. You lost… move on.

And you lost…to bombs. Check out Boston.

 

[buffalo]

As God is removed from society? Will the Church be undone? Christ never spoke of a need to defend one’s self.

Th Catholic Church teaches legitimate defense.

Is you claim America is more God fearing now?

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not (CCC 2263). However, the Fifth Commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death without grave reason (see CCC 2269).
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so (CCC 2269).
Legitimate defense cannot only be a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life (CCC 2265). Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm (CCC. 2266)

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Th Catholic Church teaches legitimate defense.

Is you claim America is more God fearing now?

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor…The one is intended, the other is not (CCC 2263). However, the Fifth Commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death without grave reason (see CCC 2269).
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so (CCC 2269).
Legitimate defense cannot only be a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life (CCC 2265). Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm (CCC. 2266)

Where does the Church limit defense to guns only? Who is the legitimate authority with the civil community entrusted to their responsibility? Can that authority be assumed by just anyone, or is it part of the ‘efforts of the state’?

You have to take the whole passage to see the correct context. It shouldn’t be parsed. :tsktsk:

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

No, I’m claiming more need to place all faith in God, and not what they can do of themselves when armed with a gun.

 

[buffalo]

Where does the Church limit defense to guns only? Who is the legitimate authority with the civil community entrusted to their responsibility? Can that authority be assumed by just anyone, or is it part of the ‘efforts of the state’?

You have to take the whole passage to see the correct context. It shouldn’t be parsed. :tsktsk:

No, I’m claiming more need to place all faith in God, and not what they can do of themselves when armed with a gun.

Self defense is legal. If someone enters your house and is in the process of killing your child do you just pray? or do you make a free will decision to protect her?

In general, more faith is needed. That was my point - as we remove God we need more weapons. Why? Because the threats are greater and more severe.