Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy

I assume you’re not suggesting that these bishops took liberties by including all. As I said, none have spoken to separate themselves from the statement. There is not even one dissenting voice among them.

All our American bishops are members of the USCCB.

Personally, I am not looking for a ‘legalistic’ way around what they have spoken. I will accept it, and accept it as unified until I see that they are not unified in this call to action.
Click to expand...
Provide us with the roll call vote showing 100% approval (on the one hand) or the mandate from the Holy See and the 2/3 vote. (on the other hand)

If neither, it’s not binding, according to Canon Law, no matter what Bp Blaire said.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Then you are taking silence as opposition to that response?
Click to expand...
No. I’m taking his not voting for it as his not voting for it. I’m taking his not endorsing it as his not endorsing it.

Are you requiring of him that he make a public statement repudiating Blaire’s opinion?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Then you are taking silence as opposition to that response?
Click to expand...
As has been explained, the Bishop is entitled to their opinions in this matter. The Bishop is making a statement that is in line with Church teaching. It is in no means binding.
 
Ridgerunner said:
Provide us with the roll call vote showing 100% approval (on the one hand) or the mandate from the Holy See and the 2/3 vote. (on the other hand)

If neither, it’s not binding, according to Canon Law, no matter what Bp Blaire said.
Click to expand...
Aren’t you the one that said I was ‘stacking a deck?’

We can accept or not. It’s up to each of us to act on our faith formed consciences. I trust the bishops are united through the USCCB, and there has not been one bishop that has spoken a disagreement with that Call To Action. Not one. I am open to correction, but will not take the silence of some to mean they oppose something.

**
Heb 13:17 Obey your prelates and be subject to them. For they watch as being to render an account of your souls: that they may do this with joy and not with grief. For this is not expedient for you.
Click to expand...
**
 
Ender said:
Beyond that, however, his support of a very flawed bill goes to the point of the moral question involved. How is it more moral to support bad legislation than to oppose it?
Click to expand...
It is certainly not immortal to want to stop a bad bill. Take for example the Defense of Marriage Act. It covers an issue on which the Church has spoken and is clear on. Yet one could possible oppose this bill based on a legally technical reason a opposed wanting to promote homosexuality. What I can not see as Catholic though, is discounting everything in this statement and the moral principles in promotes based on a legal objection to this bill. “Bad legislation” is not the same as wanting to keep stockpiles of guns or wanting access to guns by anyone who wants them.

If we opposed the bill for a moral reason, like legitimate self-defense (which it doesn’t prohibit, btw) or some technical reason, then that is different than opposing it because we really do view any other person as a low-life, somehow not possessing human dignity.
 
Ridgerunner said:
No. I’m taking his not voting for it as his not voting for it. I’m taking his not endorsing it as his not endorsing it.

Are you requiring of him that he make a public statement repudiating Blaire’s opinion?
Click to expand...
Then you have a statement that he did not vote for it?

If the bishops were divided, I would assume one would want to offer a correction for the masses, so they are not led wrongly.
 
Fairwinds said:
the bishop is correct to call for creating a culture of life. aligning himself with the gun grabbers (“assault weapon” is gun grabberspeak) is wrong.
Click to expand...
“Assault weapon” sure beats “gun grabber” if we are going to speak of rhetoric.
 
HansTrappist said:
Yes, gun control is an issue of politics not an issue of faith and morals.
Click to expand...
Guns are not intrinsically evil, but murder is certainly a matter of faith and morals. Anyone who contributes to making murder happen directly commits a serious sin. Gun control, while a remote issue, is a matter of morals, in that in it we can see whether we truly value human life. Only when confronted with those whom it is hardest to have mercy towards, to we see ourselves compared to Jesus. Now we can surely disagree with any legislation, but our motive know to God alone is a matter of morals.
 
Fairwinds said:
is the Call to Action a teaching on faith and morals that the faithful are obligated to believe on the banning of “assault weapons”?

that would be, “no”.
Click to expand...
Your are absolutely correct, but disagreement needs to be thoughtful and considered. Our desire should be in line with that of the Savior, not our own convenience and interests, and most especially, not a visceral reaction to our political alignment.
 
pnewton said:
Your are absolutely correct, but disagreement needs to be thoughtful and considered. Our desire should be in line with that of the Savior, not our own convenience and interests, and most especially, not a visceral reaction to our political alignment.
Click to expand...
I think that is a more appropriate an urgent message to those Catholics who vote for pro abortion politicians because of their own visceral and partisan beliefs. If partisan political beliefs lead you to oppose gun control then oh well. If partisan beliefs lead you to support candidates who support Planned Parenthood and slaughter of the unborn daily then that is a much graver situation. The latter is crying out for guidance and instruction from our bishops but its not always forthcoming. In fact, pro-abortion politicians are sometimes given a platform to speak on archdiocesan grounds as if there is no issue with their stand on the unborn. The bishops allow that and then expect people to listen to them on guns? I think sometimes they are their own worst enemy with their mixed messages.

Ishii
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
What’s the moral implication to leave abortion up to individuals? It will kill innocent babies.
Click to expand...
Having an abortion is a sin. Owning an AR15 is not. Surely you understand the distinction.
Gun accessibility has contributed to the death innocent people.
Click to expand...
No one argues that it’s a good thing for innocent people to die but there is no moral choice presented to us in determining whether to make the private ownership of AR15’s illegal.
We work for life through all means possible, including influencing legislative efforts, but we are not obligated to work towards the same goal for others?
Click to expand...
Assuming the goal is the reduction of gun violence we are all working for that same goal. We differ on the means of achieving it, not the goal itself.
Supporting background checks, or not, has impact on some of the accessibility of guns to criminals. I can definitely see the implications of a culture of life and a culture of death, as the men of the Church speak of on this issue.
Click to expand...
What you see is a problem with serious consequences and you assume that because of that it has moral implications. The vague phrase “contributes to a culture of life” is a slogan, not an argument. It is in fact an effort to avoid a debate over the facts, to claim the moral high ground, announce “I win” and go home.

Ender
 
Ender said:
No one argues that it’s a good thing for innocent people to die but there is no moral choice presented to us in determining whether to make the private ownership of AR15’s illegal.
Click to expand...
And there’s certainly other variables at play here, which have largely been ignored.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Aren’t you the one that said I was ‘stacking a deck?’

We can accept or not. It’s up to each of us to act on our faith formed consciences. I trust the bishops are united through the USCCB, and there has not been one bishop that has spoken a disagreement with that Call To Action. Not one. I am open to correction, but will not take the silence of some to mean they oppose something.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We can accept it or not. My point exactly.

The bishops are not united “through the USCCB” just because one bishop wants to write a letter or otherwise express a personal opinion. The various bishops need not formally dissent. This simply is not an act of any bishops of the U.S. other than the signatories to it, whether it’s one or three. (I have not yet seen the actual letter posted here, or missed it if it was posted).

You cannot take the statement of one or three (whichever it is) bishops to mean anything more than that they think what they said. They do not speak for all the bishops or the Church.
 
pnewton said:
Your are absolutely correct, but disagreement needs to be thoughtful and considered. Our desire should be in line with that of the Savior, not our own convenience and interests, and most especially, not a visceral reaction to our political alignment.
Click to expand...
the problem is this: to join issues and have a thoughtful and considered discussion on gun control and the second amendment, one can’t rely on hot button talk like “assault weapon” to make a point. this is a cheap debate tactic that’s guaranteed to bring out the worst in the opposition with the result that we have a fully de-evolved thread.

I’m a second amendment proponent who thinks that there’s a good balance now between private rights and public interests, and I’d love to have a thoughtful and considered discussion on second amendment limits. its not going to happen here.

F/
 
Ridgerunner said:
Exactly. We can accept it or not. My point exactly.

The bishops are not united “through the USCCB” just because one bishop wants to write a letter or otherwise express a personal opinion. The various bishops need not formally dissent. This simply is not an act of any bishops of the U.S. other than the signatories to it, whether it’s one or three. (I have not yet seen the actual letter posted here, or missed it if it was posted).

You cannot take the statement of one or three (whichever it is) bishops to mean anything more than that they think what they said. They do not speak for all the bishops or the Church.
Click to expand...
And it could be argued that since the one Bishop’s stance was in line with church teaching, no one else needed to correct him.

Certainly, there are other, unexpressed viewpoints within the USCCB.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top