Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[BroomWagon]

Being pro life extends to all dignity of life from conception until natural death, on ALL issues. The Church does not say, ‘you can only, and must, vote for candidate ___________.’ You know that.

Noted, too that one person would defend some politicians who call themselves pro-life whose very party stands for being a partner of Planned Parenthood, expanding abortion rights, late term abortions and partial birth abortions but while defending some Democrats as being pro-life, then speaks down something someone said many years ago. Yes, that is not partisan at all.

 

[BroomWagon]

Voting 3rd party may not be thrown away but it certainly would not help the pro-life cause at this juncture.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The 2000 statement is quote by Cardinal Dolan, president of the USCCB, and Bishop Blaire, speaking on behalf of a USCCB committee. Both of their statements were made this year. Both quoted the same phrase from the 2000 document, approved by a full body of bishops.

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

We cannot lower the bar to a single bishop any longer, since it is proven to be more. There is no deception in the links provided, and what is said. As you and I both recommend, people should read them for themselves.

I prefer to go by ‘the men of the Church have spoken.’

When the men of the Church speak on a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death, it is moral guidance. My belief it’s moral guidance is affirmed by Bishop Blaire’s letter to the Senate leadership.

As I’ve explained, over and over, the bishop’s speak on a ‘culture of life’ to save people’s lives. Also note, the bishop refers to the failure to support even modest regulations on firearms is a failure in MORAL leadership.

You can interpret these anyway you like. I prefer to submit to the authority, and example, of the men of the Church on this issue. What I have provided is where I get ‘my own merits.’

You’re talking about Bp Blaire here, I take it. Fine. Follow bishop Blaire if you feel so inclined. But he has no authority to bind me in conscience, or even you, since he’s not your bishop.

None of the bishops’ statements contain specific proposals. Cdl Dolan, in fact, said he had none and would leave it to the legislators who have that function. The legislators declined Obama’s proposals. So that’s that for those proposals. Maybe the congress will come up with something else sometime than is more “sensible”.

I’m not interpreting the bishops statements. You are interpreting general statements to mean your specifics and Obama’s. That’s not legitimate. If you want to think of it in that way, do so, even though you’re wrong. But don’t lead others into error.

If you want to submit to the moral authority of any bishop or group thereof to the extent of the most rigorous interpretation possible in one context, then you really should do it in all, which you won’t do since you won’t get rid of your own gun or guns. If you won’t do that, then don’t tell us we should over-interpret anything else they said.

Never have the bishops imposed any particular gun control proposal on Catholics as a matter of moral mandate. Never. You have admitted that yourself, previously, so i don’t know why you keep returning to it and intimating otherwise.

If you want Obama’s program, admit it and defend it. Don’t attribute it to the bishops, who have not adopted it. Defend your own guy. Don’t attribute that defense to bishops, most of whom probably didn’t even vote for him.

 

[BroomWagon]

There can not be a more prolife statement than Representative Paul Ryan saying during the Debate he believes “Life begins at conception”, so let us all be wary of someone who speaks against voting for people who say such things. Like I said, it’s not a pro-life position at all and just seems partisan and to be against Republicans. Yet, this issue is defended fully with supposedly the Church’s blessing.

 

[scipio337]

Easy access? No. Lanza killed his own mother to get that access. He didn’t walk into a store and buy them, and if he had, there is no reason to think he would not have passed a background check, because his psych records would not have been on it…

Connecticut has had a “Criminally Negligent Storage of a Firearm” law since 1997.

8.2-23 Criminally Negligent Storage of a Firearm – § 53a-217a

jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/Part8/8.2-23.htm

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re talking about Bp Blaire here, I take it. Fine. Follow bishop Blaire if you feel so inclined. But he has no authority to bind me in conscience, or even you, since he’s not your bishop.

None of the bishops’ statements contain specific proposals. Cdl Dolan, in fact, said he had none and would leave it to the legislators who have that function. The legislators declined Obama’s proposals. So that’s that for those proposals. Maybe the congress will come up with something else sometime than is more “sensible”.

I’m not interpreting the bishops statements. You are interpreting general statements to mean your specifics and Obama’s. That’s not legitimate. If you want to think of it in that way, do so, even though you’re wrong. But don’t lead others into error.

If you want to submit to the moral authority of any bishop or group thereof to the extent of the most rigorous interpretation possible in one context, then you really should do it in all, which you won’t do since you won’t get rid of your own gun or guns. If you won’t do that, then don’t tell us we should over-interpret anything else they said.

Never have the bishops imposed any particular gun control proposal on Catholics as a matter of moral mandate. Never. You have admitted that yourself, previously, so i don’t know why you keep returning to it and intimating otherwise.

If you want Obama’s program, admit it and defend it. Don’t attribute it to the bishops, who have not adopted it. Defend your own guy. Don’t attribute that defense to bishops, most of whom probably didn’t even vote for him.

The 2000 document is approved by a full body of bishop, and is the document that the Cardinal and bishop referred to. You cannot release what I am bound to, through my faith formed conscience.

“Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms” is a specific statement.

Recommending others read the statements from the bishops, is not leading someone in error. Just as it’s not in error to correct the use of ‘sensible’ as in relation to handguns, or that ‘support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.’ It is not error to point out the position of the men of the Church, within the USCCB, and it’s not error to point out the 2000 document had the approval of a full body of bishops. Neither is it in error to point out that there are NO bishops that have spoken as disagreeing with the 2000 document, or statements from the president of the USCCB, or the chairmen of three of the USCCB’s committees.

Because we disagree, does not make my view wrong.

Again with ridding all guns? The desire for the removal of guns from society was in reference to handguns. It is in error to project it otherwise.

And again with the political insinuations? I support the bishops view, no matter what administration, or group of legislators, enacts their call. While they didn’t vote for him, Cardinal Dolan stated he found common ground on the issue, and the Vatican Chief Spokesman found agreement with the administrations efforts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There can not be a more prolife statement than Representative Paul Ryan saying during the Debate he believes “Life begins at conception”, so let us all be wary of someone who speaks against voting for people who say such things. Like I said, it’s not a pro-life position at all and just seems partisan and to be against Republicans. Yet, this issue is defended fully with supposedly the Church’s blessing.

Ryan was not the presidential candidate.

Yes, this issue is defended with the Church’s teachings. How many bishops have stated that Catholics are not single issue people?

If you want to start another thread to discuss it, please send me a message. I’d be glad to join in, but please stop trying to derail this thread.

 

[Ridgerunner]

There are loopholes in the purchasing of firearms. To say we already have the laws, invalidates the calls from the bishops. Those statement of reiteration were made this year. How long have those all encompassing laws been in affect?

We have laws. We don’t enforce them. So why isn’t Rahm Emanuel’s proposal responsive to “the calls from the bishops”? They had no specific proposals themselves. Why is only Obama’s policy responsive to “the calls from the bishops”?

In calling my giving my daughter a .410 a “loophole”, one misstates the reality. Loophole in what? Is the lack of laws prohibiting all guns also a “loophole”? Is allowing me to burn gasoline in my car a “loophole” to environmental extremists who want to put me afoot?

Is the desire of the executive branch to know every person in the U.S. who has a gun of any kind a “loophole”? It’s not a “loophole” unless one presupposes that’s a legitimate government interest. It’s just Obama’s desire to have congress pass a law which congress has declined to pass.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The 2000 document is approved by a full body of bishop, and is the document that the Cardinal and bishop referred to. You cannot release what I am bound to, through my faith formed conscience.

“Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms” is a specific statement.

Recommending others read the statements from the bishops, is not leading someone in error. Just as it’s not in error to correct the use of ‘sensible’ as in relation to handguns, or that ‘support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.’ It is not error to point out the position of the men of the Church, within the USCCB, and it’s not error to point out the 2000 document had the approval of a full body of bishops. Neither is it in error to point out that there are NO bishops that have spoken as disagreeing with the 2000 document, or statements from the president of the USCCB, or the chairmen of three of the USCCB’s committees.

Because we disagree, does not make my view wrong.

Again with ridding all guns? The desire for the removal of guns from society was in reference to handguns. It is in error to project it otherwise.

And again with the political insinuations? I support the bishops view, no matter what administration, or group of legislators, enacts their call. While they didn’t vote for him, Cardinal Dolan stated he found common ground on the issue, and the Vatican Chief Spokesman found agreement with the administrations efforts.

“Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms” is a specific statement.

Which measures, then, if it’s so specific? Rahm Emanuel’s proposal? Even I could support that. Prohibit the possession of firearms to all but law enforcement perhaps? Is that what they meant? Evidently even you don’t support that, nor does Obama, yet.

You can’t say because they didn’t say.

Cdl Dolan said what he said before Obama’s proposals were even known. Same with the (one of many) Vatican spokesmen. Cdl Dolan left specifics up to the congress. The congress has acted in declining Obama’s proposals. But that’s not satisfactory to you because you want Obama’s will to be done, not that of congress or the bishops who left it up to congress.

You don’t have the bishops as a group proposing anything specific. You just don’t. And most definitely you don’t have them mandating it upon Catholics as provided by Canon Law. Do you think the bishops don’t know what the canon law provides if they are going to mandate a moral position? Or do you think they know and don’t like to follow it? Do you really think they intended to do something they didn’t do? Does your belief about what should be mandatory on Catholics supersede that of the bishops?

When the bishops in 2000 voted on the 2000 communication, evidently a majority supported that very non-specific statement. Many or most of them have been replaced by now, and out of the 500+ bishops, a mere handful have addressed gun legislation at all.

Perhaps the majority will in time, but they haven’t done it yet. For now, it’s just you and Obama.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We have laws. We don’t enforce them. So why isn’t Rahm Emanuel’s proposal responsive to “the calls from the bishops”? They had no specific proposals themselves. Why is only Obama’s policy responsive to “the calls from the bishops”?

In calling my giving my daughter a .410 a “loophole”, one misstates the reality. Loophole in what? Is the lack of laws prohibiting all guns also a “loophole”? Is allowing me to burn gasoline in my car a “loophole” to environmental extremists who want to put me afoot?

Is the desire of the executive branch to know every person in the U.S. who has a gun of any kind a “loophole”? It’s not a “loophole” unless one presupposes that’s a legitimate government interest. It’s just Obama’s desire to have congress pass a law which congress has declined to pass.

Obama’s call initiated the Cardinal, and Vatican Chief Spokesman, to find common ground, and agree. Obama’s call was not in response to the guidance from the men of the Church. The bishop’s suggestions were to the Senate leadership. The bishops seek an end result for the dignity of life for all, and not a partisan alliance.

Back to giving the .410 to a family member, when I have addressed that I didn’t see that as a deadlock on negotiating a suitable closure to the loophole of private sales, where names are not even exchanged? I also see you ignore my clarification of the bishops eradication desires being specifically addressed toward handguns. What does gasoline in your car have to do with the easy access to guns in this country have to do with anything?

Again with politicizing? We’ve gone circular, over and over. The bishop’s calls are not in a political interest.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms” is a specific statement.

Which measures, then, if it’s so specific? Rahm Emanuel’s proposal? Even I could support that. Prohibit the possession of firearms to all but law enforcement perhaps? Is that what they meant? Evidently even you don’t support that, nor does Obama, yet.

You can’t say because they didn’t say.

Cdl Dolan said what he said before Obama’s proposals were even known. Same with the (one of many) Vatican spokesmen. Cdl Dolan left specifics up to the congress. The congress has acted in declining Obama’s proposals. But that’s not satisfactory to you because you want Obama’s will to be done, not that of congress or the bishops who left it up to congress.

You don’t have the bishops as a group proposing anything specific. You just don’t. And most definitely you don’t have them mandating it upon Catholics as provided by Canon Law. Do you think the bishops don’t know what the canon law provides if they are going to mandate a moral position? Or do you think they know and don’t like to follow it? Do you really think they intended to do something they didn’t do? Does your belief about what should be mandatory on Catholics supersede that of the bishops?

When the bishops in 2000 voted on the 2000 communication, evidently a majority supported that very non-specific statement. Many or most of them have been replaced by now, and out of the 500+ bishops, a mere handful have addressed gun legislation at all.

Perhaps the majority will in time, but they haven’t done it yet. For now, it’s just you and Obama.

I have explained the Cardinal’s statement of common ground, in reaction to proposals from this administration. I have also shown the same from the Vatican Chief Spokesman to be in agreement. What did you say about errors?

We only seem to discuss a lack of specifics, but you don’t offer what you believe the bishops to call for? Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms is pretty specific, in my opinion. What kind of support do you think they are asking for?

It’s error to read, and recommend others read, the statements for themselves, but it’s not error for you to speak your interpretation? How does that work exactly?

We’ve gone over binding, and I choose to submit to the bishops on this matter. That’s a part of free will, I am allowed to choose to agree and submit to their calls, and examples.

 

[pnewton]

Gun control laws are not the defacto moral position, there are more risks to consider than simply crime or spree shootings. And again, those areas in the US with strict gun control laws experience both high crime and spree shootings. In fact, every spree shooting but one since ~1950 has occurred in a gun-free zone where the public was prohibited from carrying/having firearms. Gun laws do not equate to greater safety.

Okay. I pretty much agree with all you have said in the last post. No specific law is inherently morally and gun laws do not equate to safety.

I think your point about political reaction is interesting, probably valid and deserves consideration. However, if anything, I believe this reaction underscores the value of examining the long term impact of gun control. I think this is more key to what the bishop said in the OP about the culture of life. This is why I prefer comparing the US to nations with similar government and legal context that have had time to go beyond the reactionary stage.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We only seem to discuss a lack of specifics, but you don’t offer what you believe the bishops to call for? Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms is pretty specific, in my opinion. What kind of support do you think they are asking for?

It’s error to read, and recommend others read, the statements for themselves, but it’s not error for you to speak your interpretation? How does that work exactly?

We’ve gone over binding, and I choose to submit to the bishops on this matter. That’s a part of free will, I am allowed to choose to agree and submit to their calls, and examples.

Submit to what you think the bishops meant, but didn’t say, all you want.

I never did give my interpretation to what the bishops meant by their very general 2000 statement, because I don’t know what they meant specifically, any more than you do. I do not purport to be able to read their minds, and do not dare to assert that they meant something they did not say.

It’s entirely possible that there was variation as to specifics among them. We don’t know. Oftentimes when one sees extremely general statements and no specifics, it means there was no agreement on greater specificity. Sometimes it might mean they were really focusing on something other than specific gun control proposals made 13 years later and about which they knew nothing. Indeed, three nonspecific sentences about gun regulation in a very long document about the causes and punishments for crime might support that speculation. But it’s just a speculation.

Never did I say it’s “error” to read the documents. You may recall that I repeatedly asked that viewers of this thread do exactly that. I even pointed out the footnote number for one of the statements. I entreated viewers to ignore both you and me, but to read it for themselves.

It would have been better to have left it there, and I invited that. But you didn’t want to.

 

[BroomWagon]

Ryan was not the presidential candidate.

Yes, this issue is defended with the Church’s teachings. How many bishops have stated that Catholics are not single issue people?

If you want to start another thread to discuss it, please send me a message. I’d be glad to join in, but please stop trying to derail this thread.

Ryan was on the ticket. Ryan was a Candidate. So in other words, a politician sticks his neck out and says he believes life begins at conception and you would speak against voting for him. So in other words you are not pro-life when it comes down to abortion.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ryan was on the ticket. Ryan was a Candidate. So in other words, a politician sticks his neck out and says he believes life begins at conception and you would speak against voting for him. So in other words you are not pro-life when it comes down to abortion.

You are wrong. Ryan was not the candidate. He would have been more acceptable than Romney, in my honest opinion. As I said, I look forward to seeing Christie run the next election, but fear he fell from grace with the far right when he put the needs of the people above political showmanship during the last election.

I am pro life, in ALL issues, and tire of having to repeat it, against the misrepresentation you insist on repeating.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Submit to what you think the bishops meant, but didn’t say, all you want.

I never did give my interpretation to what the bishops meant by their very general 2000 statement, because I don’t know what they meant specifically, any more than you do. I do not purport to be able to read their minds, and do not dare to assert that they meant something they did not say.

It’s entirely possible that there was variation as to specifics among them. We don’t know. Oftentimes when one sees extremely general statements and no specifics, it means there was no agreement on greater specificity. Sometimes it might mean they were really focusing on something other than specific gun control proposals made 13 years later and about which they knew nothing. Indeed, three nonspecific sentences about gun regulation in a very long document about the causes and punishments for crime might support that speculation. But it’s just a speculation.

Never did I say it’s “error” to read the documents. You may recall that I repeatedly asked that viewers of this thread do exactly that. I even pointed out the footnote number for one of the statements. I entreated viewers to ignore both you and me, but to read it for themselves.

It would have been better to have left it there, and I invited that. But you didn’t want to.

Let’s just invite everyone to read the documents for themselves and leave it at that.

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.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Let’s just invite everyone to read the documents for themselves and leave it at that.

They have been repeatedly invited to do it. Are we done, then?

 

[Gricken]

I read it. I don’t find anything specific mentioned in relation to firearm control.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I read it. I don’t find anything specific mentioned in relation to firearm control.

What do you believe are measures to control the sale and use of firearms?

 

[iamrefreshed]

What do you believe are measures to control the sale and use of firearms?

Oh brother!:doh2: