Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

As I have said over and over again, I don’t have a problem with what a majority of bishops said in 2000, and certainly not the portion you quoted (which I will not do myself because the document says it’s

If you would please read the quote used you will see it is from the article in the OP.

In no way do I oppose all regulation of firearms, making them safer, and certainly not requiring “sensible” regulation of handguns. That isn’t the question.

One issue is whether the bishops who voted on the 2000 communication had obama’s and your proposals in mind. They didn’t know about them, so obviously they didn’t. So when trying to argue that Obama’s proposals and yours are “sensible” or not, that is where reasonable minds can differ. You refuse to defend your position on its own merits, which leads to the second issue.

You persist in representing that “the bishops” support your proposal and Obama’s, when they don’t. Their communication was very non-specific. Additionally, you suggest that somehow the 2000 communication and Bp Blaire’s are morally binding on Catholics when they are not. Canon Law says they’re not, and you know it, as it has been quoted to you several times.

In doing that, you are misrepresenting the teachings of the Church. But for that, I might argue with you whether your proposals and Obamas are “sensible” or not, and might not. But I cannot simply allow you to say the Church somehow teaches something it does not teach without opposing that proposition.

No, you continue to argue the point referring to Obama’s proposals. I have used the bishops calls, which were prior to his administration. It was his actions that drew comments of ‘common ground’ and ‘agreement’ from the men of the Church; Cardinal Dolan, and the Vatican Chief Spokesman. The bishops call was not political.

What you are called to produce is any bishop that disagrees with the 2000 document, or any statements from the committee chairmen, the president of the USCCB, or the Vatican Chief Spokesman.

I truly hate it that this post has been allowed to go as long as it has. It just keeps going around and around. You keep trying to persuade people, quite wrongly, that the Church teaches something it does not teach. You keep trying to persuade people, quite wrongly, that the bishops support Obama’s proposals and yours, which they do not.

This thread is a big waste of time except that when somebody misrepresents his political beliefs as morally binding teachings of the Church, I can’t let it go, and neither should any of the other posters who keep addressing this misrepresentation.

You know what you’re doing, and so do I and some others on here.

As I’m sure you have learned by now, I do other things on weekends, so i won’t be back for awhile. But I will be back later if you keep this up. You can count on it. I will never quit correcting your false assertion that the bishops of the U.S. support Obama’s gun policies even if this thread runs to 10,000 posts. Neither I nor any other person who knows better will stand by and allow you to deceive readers of this thread without opposition.

You have, at least three times now, said you would not return to that assertion, but you keep doing it. Time to let it go, but I doubt you will. I believed you before when you said you would, but I don’t anymore.

It only seems to be a waste of time for those who ‘disagree’ with the bishops calls.

Again, you are the one to tie this to this administrations proposals. I have not, and only referenced the calls from the bishops. Because you disagree, does not make the evidence I have produced false. I invite everyone to read the documents for themselves, and to note the committees, and specific men of the Church listed, as well as the full body of bishops approval of the 2000 document. Keep coming back, and I will continue recommending people read that for themselves. I feel compelled to do that amid the allegations of deception, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A new low.

Are you now asserting that Christ has declared that I can’t give a gun to my child without running a background check on him?

No, I will correct you once again. There was a poster who stated something to the affect of, 'when it becomes a non negotiable, they will listen. Not everything the Church speaks on is listed as a non negotiable. There are other ‘issues’ that Christ addressed, as do our men of the Church today.

Please feel free to ask what I mean, or my intentions in the future, as opposed to making assumptions.

 

[Ender]

The moral choice is to accept sacrifices, that are minor inconveniences to the law abiding citizen, in an effort to prevent the easy access of guns.

This appears to be a moral choice to you because you believe your solutions will work, therefore the choice is about accepting or rejecting a valid solution. You seem oblivious to the fact that others don’t in fact agree that your solutions will improve things. You see this as people being unwilling to make minor sacrifices are but they see it as rejecting something that will have no beneficial outcome. It is astonishing to me that you don’t even realize that people disagree with you not because they are selfish but because they believe you are wrong.

If we knew what would be helpful then being opposed to doing it probably would be a moral failure but that’s the whole point: we don’t know. You have your opinion and I have a different one and it is no more immoral for me to reject your position that for you to reject mine. Well, there is one difference: I am judging your proposal; you are judging me.

Ender

 

[nitesnake]

In my opinion, supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms is specific. How much more do you require to recognize the point being made?

So the USCCB chose to make a political statement concerning guns. So what? I have no obligation to agree with it.

Your “majority” has been shown. A full body of bishops approved the 2000 document.

Again, so what?

The early Church fathers distinguished the authority of the bishops. Everything does not have to be identified as ‘non negotiable’ to be binding.

Yes it does. Other than church doctrine, bishops have no authority to tell me what to do.

Christ covered much more than what is known today as ‘non negotiable.’ Are some of His teaching non binding?

Wrong again. All of the Lord’s teachings are non-negotiable. You need to study the catechism.

 

[Tigg]

Ender;10761387:

This appears to be a moral choice to you because you believe your solutions will work, therefore the choice is about accepting or rejecting a valid solution. You seem oblivious to the fact that others don’t in fact agree that your solutions will improve things. You see this as people being unwilling to make minor sacrifices are but they see it as rejecting something that will have no beneficial outcome. It is astonishing to me that you don’t even realize that people disagree with you not because they are selfish but because they believe you are wrong.
If we knew what would be helpful then being opposed to doing it probably would be a moral failure but that’s the whole point: we don’t know. You have your opinion and I have a different one and it is no more immoral for me to reject your position that for you to reject mine. Well, there is one difference: I am judging your proposal; you are judging me.

Ender

We are called to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, give shelter to the poor, care for the sick, and visit the imprisoned, but we’re not called to take actions to prevent people from losing their dignity of life from gun violence, due to an easy access to guns?

:banghead:

What is so hard to understand about Ender’s post? If I stand on a street corner and pass out sandwiches to the indigent does that better satisfy the gospel mandate to feed the hungry than putting a check in the mail to my local food bank?

What is so hard in understanding many believe that more gun regulations will not prevent the loss of dignity of life because those intent on harm will follow no such law and it will only suppress a constitutional liberty for those who have no such intent!

In your utopia, the use of guns would be controlled, and we’d all be happy that no one could meet their end by such means, but we live in real life and being a person of faith, I rationally believe God has given me right judgment and prudence to exercise the right to defend my own life (even with a firearm) if necessary.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This appears to be a moral choice to you because you believe your solutions will work, therefore the choice is about accepting or rejecting a valid solution. You seem oblivious to the fact that others don’t in fact agree that your solutions will improve things. You see this as people being unwilling to make minor sacrifices are but they see it as rejecting something that will have no beneficial outcome. It is astonishing to me that you don’t even realize that people disagree with you not because they are selfish but because they believe you are wrong.

If we knew what would be helpful then being opposed to doing it probably would be a moral failure but that’s the whole point: we don’t know. You have your opinion and I have a different one and it is no more immoral for me to reject your position that for you to reject mine. Well, there is one difference: I am judging your proposal; you are judging me.

Ender

This is a moral choice for me, because the outspoken bishops have stated it as such. I also believe that measures to control the sale and use of guns will provide some solution to the problem.

Roe vs. Wade as been enforce for over 40 years now. We don’t question any solution, but seek to limit it in anyway possible. The same should be for all issues the men of the Church give guidance on.

On the issue of gun controls, we’ve seen the arguments presented in this thread, to save money, or avoid inconveniences, more than we’ve seen disputes over what might work, or not work. It adds up to what affects us, and not what supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms might do for society as a whole. We are all aware of the loopholes through private sales, where not even names are exchanged. That just adds to an easy access to guns, that the bishops have spoken about.

I am not judging anyone, but relaying the call of the bishops as I understand it. The accusations of judging, being disobedient, not understanding Church teachings, etc. seem to be to belittle the view I share. I really don’t understand what the motive is behind those type points continually raised against me personally.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So the USCCB chose to make a political statement concerning guns. So what? I have no obligation to agree with it.

Again, so what?

Yes it does. Other than church doctrine, bishops have no authority to tell me what to do.

Wrong again. All of the Lord’s teachings are non-negotiable. You need to study the catechism.

Please read through the thread and you will see the multiple explanations of how I see it as a moral issue. Because you simply deny it’s moral, does not make me wrong.

I need to study the Catechism? Really. If all the Lord’s teachings are non-negotiable, why is it different for the authoritative men over His Church, that He said would be led by the Holy Spirit?

Don’t tell me I don’t understand the Catechism. It doesn’t relate to the topic of the discussion; I am not the topic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

:banghead:

What is so hard to understand about Ender’s post? If I stand on a street corner and pass out sandwiches to the indigent does that better satisfy the gospel mandate to feed the hungry than putting a check in the mail to my local food bank?

What is so hard in understanding many believe that more gun regulations will not prevent the loss of dignity of life because those intent on harm will follow no such law and it will only suppress a constitutional liberty for those who have no such intent!

In your utopia, the use of guns would be controlled, and we’d all be happy that no one could meet their end by such means, but we live in real life and being a person of faith, I rationally believe God has given me right judgment and prudence to exercise the right to defend my own life (even with a firearm) if necessary.

What is so hard to understand we have well known, and documented, loopholes through private sales? The measures to control the sale and use of firearms puts a shared responsibility on law abiding citizens to help enforce by participating in gun control measures once the loop hole has closed. That participation of law abiding sellers would force compliance of those who cannot buy guns through licensed dealers.

I am in agreement with the bishops. Is this their utopia, or just mine, in what seems to be an effort to quiet the view?

The bishops speak on moral grounds, using the Gospels, and Church teachings. The objections you list are rights from the secular government. Your ‘right’ to defend would not be affected through measures to control the sale and use of firearms, if you are a law abiding citizen. Even in the worse case scenario of certain guns possibly being banned, your ‘right’ to defend would not be affected. It’s not a total eradication of guns being proposed.

The ‘prudence’ you claim, through your ‘rights’, argues for everyone the same, even incompetent people who may not be as proficient as the majority of gun owners. That places your, and those incompetent people’s, rights above the rights of others in society who have lost a dignity of life through gun violence.

 

[lcburgundy]

Roe vs. Wade as been enforce for over 40 years now. We don’t question any solution, but seek to limit it in anyway possible. The same should be for all issues the men of the Church give guidance on.

Abortion is a grave evil. Guns are not. The fact that you brought up abortion in a thread about guns says a lot about you.

On the issue of gun controls, we’ve seen the arguments presented in this thread, to save money, or avoid inconveniences, more than we’ve seen disputes over what might work, or not work. It adds up to what affects us, and not what supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms might do for society as a whole. We are all aware of the loopholes through private sales, where not even names are exchanged. That just adds to an easy access to guns, that the bishops have spoken about.

No, we’ve explained repeatedly that these measures to criminalize the peaceful simply will not work. You refuse to acknowledge that, portraying others on this thread to be amoral cheapskates that don’t care about saving lives.

I am not judging anyone, but relaying the call of the bishops as I understand it. The accusations of judging, being disobedient, not understanding Church teachings, etc. seem to be to belittle the view I share. I really don’t understand what the motive is behind those type points continually raised against me personally.

Because you dissemble, feign victimhood and retreat to nonexistent authority when substantially challenged on your claims, and seem unable to actually listen to people, trotting out the same old talking points ad nauseum. You’re like some sort of gun control automaton, and it’s very tiring to try to talk to you, because you are so obstinate and set in your beliefs. This will be my last post on this thread. I’ll let others bear that cross.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Abortion is a grave evil. Guns are not. The fact that you brought up abortion in a thread about guns says a lot about you.

No, we’ve explained repeatedly that these measures to criminalize the peaceful simply will not work. You refuse to acknowledge that, portraying others on this thread to be amoral cheapskates that don’t care about saving lives.

Because you dissemble, feign victimhood and retreat to nonexistent authority when substantially challenged on your claims, and seem unable to actually listen to people, trotting out the same old talking points ad nauseum. You’re like some sort of gun control automaton, and it’s very tiring to try to talk to you, because you are so obstinate and set in your beliefs. This will be my last post on this thread. I’ll let others bear that cross.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[BroomWagon]

The Democrats overreach scaring the common man with their stronged-arm government elite workers looks to be the worse thing to ever happen for the gun grabbers. The Democrats refuse to condemn Dr. Kermit Gosnell, well, what’s the difference with that and Sandy Hook? No consistency.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Democrats overreach scaring the common man with their stronged-arm government elite workers looks to be the worse thing to ever happen for the gun grabbers. The Democrats refuse to condemn Dr. Kermit Gosnell, well, what’s the difference with that and Sandy Hook? No consistency.

It seems to go both ways. Some ignore one and use the other, and normally to make some type political point. In the end, either is a travesty and shouldn’t be overlooked.

 

[BroomWagon]

It seems to go both ways. Some ignore one and use the other, and normally to make some type political point. In the end, either is a travesty and shouldn’t be overlooked.

True but if one is against both, abortion probably kills a 1,000,000 (and that figure is general, not sure of the exact amount) lives a year, Those murdered by firearms every year is a small percentage of that total.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

True but if one is against both, abortion probably kills a 1,000,000 lives a year, Those murdered by firearms every year is a small percentage of that total.

Does that make one acceptable?

 

[BroomWagon]

Does that make one acceptable?

People also kill by cars and pressure cookers, are those deaths acceptable?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

People also kill by cars and pressure cookers, are those deaths acceptable?

The cars are not intentional. The pressure cooker was one instance being used to justify maintaining what the bishops call an easy access to guns. Abortion, and mass shootings, are both intentional. Do we accept the smaller number as acceptable?

 

[BroomWagon]

The cars are not intentional. The pressure cooker was one instance being used to justify maintaining what the bishops call an easy access to guns. Abortion, and mass shootings, are both intentional. Do we accept the smaller number as acceptable?

Not sure if intention matters.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not sure if intention matters.

A car accident is not always intrinsic. Abortion and mass murder is. Intention matters.

 

[BroomWagon]

A car accident is not always intrinsic. Abortion and mass murder is. Intention matters.

True, but a good share of gun deaths could be chalked up to ineptitude. People need to be educated.

We only allow people experienced to drive, we don’t allow 5 year olds to drive city buses.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

True, but a good share of gun deaths could be chalked up to ineptitude. People need to be educated.

We only allow people experienced to drive, we don’t allow 5 year olds to drive city buses.

But some allow 5 year olds to own guns.

Gun rights covers everyone, without a criminal history, to own a gun, including the inept.

Then we come back to the center of these debates. Intentional murder, and gun violence, from an easy access to guns.