Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ender]

The USCCB issued a Call to Action In Response to Newton. That letterhead represents all the bishops who are a part of the the USCCB.

This statement is absolutely false and after all of the explanations that have been given as to why this is so it is incomprehensible to me how you can continue to believe something so contrary to the truth. A statement from the USCCB represents the views solely of the bishops who signed it and other bishops who explicitly endorse it.

Ender

 

[SamH]

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.
.

It could be but that would be debatable.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

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.

Does “we” include the NRA?
And what exactly are “we” doing to work for that goal?

 

[TEPO]

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.

My question is this: can the Bishops promise the Church that tighter gun control measures are a direct order from God through the Holy Spirit, and with God being all good -these measures are SURE to decrease homicide rates and that other forms of weaponry such as bombs will not simply replace guns…?

If the USCCB has this knowledge, and these things are all SURE to be true, then I’m on board!

…but something tells me that this is not the case. Something tells me that there has been no such message from God and that the Bishops themselves cannot see into the future to ensure whether these things are true or not. Surely these Bishops do not claim to possess the ability to predict the future as prophets do.

 

[Ender]

The USCCB statement represents all the bishops. It’s on their website, and their letterhead.

For everyone following this thread, regardless of your position on gun control there is one aspect of this discussion that really does have a right and wrong answer: the question of whether a statement from the USCCB “represents all the bishops.”

This is a fairly important question as it will arise in virtually thread containing the statement “Bishop so-and-so said…” or “The USCCB said…”. markomalley has provided citations from church documents - post #408 - (and ridgerunner in #512) that clarify the question but here are comments from Bishop Martino of Scranton that really should end the debate:“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese…The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” (October, 2008)
religionblog.dallasnews.com/2008/10/catholic-bishop-of-scranton-in.html/
Ender

 

[TEPO]

Does “we” include the NRA?
And what exactly are “we” doing to work for that goal?

We, the Holy Catholic Church, are to live out the gospels in our lives… But who here among us can test different methods, and then also be able to see into the future for each one to pick the greatest choice?

 

[markomalley]

For everyone following this thread, regardless of your position on gun control there is one aspect of this discussion that really does have a right and wrong answer: the question of whether a statement from the USCCB “represents all the bishops.”

This is a fairly important question as it will arise in virtually thread containing the statement “Bishop so-and-so said…” or “The USCCB said…”. markomalley has provided citations from church documents - post #408 - (and ridgerunner in #512) that clarify the question but here are comments from Bishop Martino of Scranton that really should end the debate:“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese…The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” (October, 2008)
religionblog.dallasnews.com/2008/10/catholic-bishop-of-scranton-in.html/
Ender

It has already been pointed out, ad nauseum, that per both Motu Proprio Apostolos Suos (for teaching issues) and the Code of Canon Law (*for *decrees) that an episcopal conference, or any sub-entity of an episcopal conference, cannot speak for any bishop.

Some people just don’t want to listen.

I suppose that the people against the Second Amendment on this thread would declare an anathema on the rest of us if we rejected a (hypothetical) decree from Bishop Blaire that it was mandatory to vote for Obama back in 2012…as long as he published that decree on USCCB letterhead.

 

[Ender]

It is certainly not immortal to want to stop a bad bill.

Then I would think we are agreed that there is no moral dimension involved in either supporting or opposing particular legislation, despite what the bishops’ comments would imply.

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.

Since there is no basis for judging why another person takes the position he does on this issue there is no basis for believing that his behavior is more or less moral than those who take the opposite position. More to the point, there is no reason to believe that disagreeing with a bishop regarding his particular solution is any less moral than agreeing with him … and this is because there is no moral choice involved in the issue.

Ender

 

[Ender]

And there’s certainly other variables at play here, which have largely been ignored.

Absolutely there are. I am trying to pin people down to get someone to identify a particular moral choice involved with this issue (which is a bit like trying to put your finger down on a drop of mercury). If no one can identify a specific moral choice then this cannot be a moral question. People don’t adequately distinguish between being wrong and being immoral. It is not generally sinful to make a mistake so while my position on gun control (immigration, health care, the budget …) may be greatly flawed there is no sin involved and if there is no sin involved then we are not debating moral issues.

Ender

 

[Ender]

Does “we” include the NRA?

The charitable answer, especially in the absence of information to the contrary, would be yes.

And what exactly are “we” doing to work for that goal?

Like you, what we think is best.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Having an abortion is a sin. Owning an AR15 is not. Surely you understand the distinction.
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.
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.
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

Having an abortion is a sin. It’s just as sinful to shoot someone with an AR15.

I had thought a good goal would be to require background checks on ALL sales. That, for some odd reason, was to much to sacrifice by some gun rights activists.

Contributes to a culture of death, or life, is guidance from our bishops.

This is not a ‘contest.’ No one wins, unless everyone wins. Everyone includes those who’ve lost their dignity of life, and all secular rights of this country.

The only ones claiming a moral high ground are the ones who have condemned me to ‘sinning,’ ‘being at odds with the Lord’s law,’ ‘being wrong,’ and other insults. I have given my view/opinion, explained it as best as I could, and said, ‘we are all obligated to act on our faith formed conscience, and we can do no more.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

They spoke as one. Not one has spoken differently since then.

 

[TEPO]

Absolutely there are. I am trying to pin people down to get someone to identify a particular moral choice involved with this issue (which is a bit like trying to put your finger down on a drop of mercury). If no one can identify a specific moral choice then this cannot be a moral question. People don’t adequately distinguish between being wrong and being immoral. It is not generally sinful to make a mistake so while my position on gun control (immigration, health care, the budget …) may be greatly flawed there is no sin involved and if there is no sin involved then we are not debating moral issues.

Ender

I see your point Ender. What I’m confused on here is whether or not the Bishops are claiming that they themselves can predict the future as prophets do, or whether they are claiming that God has spoken to them with direct knowledge about the future.

Either they themselves are prophets or God has revealed to them ‘Private Revelation’ through the Holy Spirit. But then private revelation would also have to be declared through the Pope… The Popes have given no instruction…

mariedenazareth.com/12480.0.html?&L=1

…I’m just confused on why the Bishops seem to portray this ‘call to action’ as a kind of prophetic moral decision. Are they truly prophets?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This statement is absolutely false and after all of the explanations that have been given as to why this is so it is incomprehensible to me how you can continue to believe something so contrary to the truth. A statement from the USCCB represents the views solely of the bishops who signed it and other bishops who explicitly endorse it.

Ender

It ignores the committees of bishops within the USCCB. It ignores that this document was issued, and is still on the USCCB website, that represents all our bishops. It also ignores that NOT ONE bishop has separated themselves from the statement.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

For everyone following this thread, regardless of your position on gun control there is one aspect of this discussion that really does have a right and wrong answer: the question of whether a statement from the USCCB “represents all the bishops.”

This is a fairly important question as it will arise in virtually thread containing the statement “Bishop so-and-so said…” or “The USCCB said…”. markomalley has provided citations from church documents - post #408 - (and ridgerunner in #512) that clarify the question but here are comments from Bishop Martino of Scranton that really should end the debate:“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese…The USCCB doesn’t speak for me.” (October, 2008)
religionblog.dallasnews.com/2008/10/catholic-bishop-of-scranton-in.html/
Ender

Please show us a statement of one bishop that has stated he does not agree with the Call to Action…

While you try to limit it to ONE bishop, it has been shown that the one is chairman of 3 committees, the President of the Conference, and specifically lists 2 more bishops by name.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Having an abortion is a sin. It’s just as sinful to shoot someone with an AR15.

It is not sinful to shoot someone with an AR-15 or any other weapon to defend ourselves or another from death or serious bodily harm, or in war.

Why are you saying it is?

 

[Ridgerunner]

They spoke as one. Not one has spoken differently since then.

Possibly as many as three “spoke as one”. No more than that.

The other bishops don’t need to speak about it at all. But when they don’t, according to the requirements of Canon law, they are simply expressing their own opinions. They are not speaking for the bishops as a whole, nor for the Church.

You know that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Please show us a statement of one bishop that has stated he does not agree with the Call to Action…

While you try to limit it to ONE bishop, it has been shown that the one is chairman of 3 committees, the President of the Conference, and specifically lists 2 more bishops by name.

So, this only means that possibly three bishops agree with Bp. Blaire. Oops, possibly two.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is not sinful to shoot someone with an AR-15 or any other weapon to defend ourselves or another from death or serious bodily harm, or in war.

Why are you saying it is?

Was it sinful for the theater shooter, the mall shooter, the shooter that killed the first responders, or the shooter that killed all those children at their school?

I’m surprised you didn’t get what I meant.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Possibly as many as three “spoke as one”. No more than that.

The other bishops don’t need to speak about it at all. But when they don’t, according to the requirements of Canon law, they are simply expressing their own opinions. They are not speaking for the bishops as a whole, nor for the Church.

You know that.

Brother you can discount 40 if that’s what your faith formed conscience calls you to do. There are 454 active, and retired, bishops in the US. I have shown you four different names of those who were identified. Of 454, that are all associated with the USCCB, not one has spoken against the Call to Actions, by committees, their President, or representing them through their website.

I accept what they say as guidance, and in the absence of any dissenting opinions, I believe they are united on the issue.

This is also on their website:

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church, called the Magisterium, lies with all of the bishops who are led by the pope and guided by the Holy Spirit. The pope and bishops are the authoritative teachers in the Church. In this section of our Web site, you can find information about many forms of Catholic teaching.

Do you find they are not unified on this message?