Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[iamrefreshed]

No offense, but I won’t be responding to you anymore. God Bless.

No offense taken. I find that often, when people have been thoroughly debunked, they resort to the “I’m done” defense.

Crawl away to your hidey hole.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It’s not my choice, it is my bishop’s choice.

Can you read??? No bishops have made this document binding to the faithful in their respective dioceses.

The USCCB cannot by majority or unanimously on its own authority restrict any of the faithful to a restriction or a punishment. Even when the conference goes the other direction, as in communion in the hand, the Vatican had to issue an indult at the request of the conference. The conference on its own could not lessen the requirements; more so than that are the limited authority of a conference of bishops where it comes to some issue binding the faithful to a moral obligation to the faithful.

In other words, you theory is all wet, this is in no way binding on the faithful. Again I challenge you to find one bishop who has instituted this mandate in his diocese; there are none.

So, we can pick and choose anything the bishops speak on? I converted to Catholicism in 1985 to get away from that mindset. The Church is authoritative.

It’s funny how some said, ‘one or two bishops,’ that became ‘four or five,’ then ‘a majority’ and it’s still dismissed. My conscience doesn’t allow me to dismiss so easily. Our faith is not so legalistic as it’s made out to be. The Bible, and the early Church fathers, taught to obey the bishops. It was made simple for the sheep to follow.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The languge of the bishops is clear. They say “support measures to control firearms” what they do not say is WHAT KIND OF MEASURMENTS THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT. This has been pointed out over and over again. If you feel that they meant increased background checks then YOU may support that. It isn’t wrong too. But you can not claim that all the Bishops had the same idea of “sensible measurements” nor can you claim that they all agreed with YOUR idea of “sensible measurements” You are free to support them, but you CAN NOT claim that your opinion is the opinon of all the bishops. Nor can you claim that they issued a moral statement on firearm control. You can feel it’s a moral issue. But you can not say all the bishops feel the same.

It really isn’t that hard to understand.

Cardinal Dolan, president of the USCCB, stated that the exact legislation, and interpretations, was up to legislators, and the courts. The arguments of ‘what kind of measurements,’ are no more than delays, detraction, and appears as justifications of delaying, in my honest opinion. The bishops certainly called for more than ‘doing nothing.’

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No offense taken. I find that often, when people have been thoroughly debunked, they resort to the “I’m done” defense.

Crawl away to your hidey hole.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Gricken]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

No offense taken. I find that often, when people have been thoroughly debunked, they resort to the “I’m done” defense.

Crawl away to your hidey hole.

He seeme to work under this idea that every statement the Bishop’s make is morally binding. Curious, isn’t it?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do find it to be sensationalist and useless. As it doesn’t bring anything shocking, surprising, or new to the table. It’s just designed to draw emotions, in light of recent tragedies.

I’ve posted that I believe all transactions should have background checks, and that I feel it’s easily implemented.

The resistance comes from the mockery (IMO) that certain segments bring about by the issue. As the importance of changing that “loophole” is cast aside with attempts to package legislation which goes far and above what many gun owners or advocates consider reasonable.

Or, it was designed to show the loopholes exist.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
He seeme to work under this idea that every statement the Bishop’s make is morally binding. Curious, isn’t it?

We all have free will.

 

[iamrefreshed]

So, we can pick and choose anything the bishops speak on? I converted to Catholicism in 1985 to get away from that mindset. The Church is authoritative.

It’s funny how some said, ‘one or two bishops,’ that became ‘four or five,’ then ‘a majority’ and it’s still dismissed. My conscience doesn’t allow me to dismiss so easily. Our faith is not so legalistic as it’s made out to be. The Bible, and the early Church fathers, taught to obey the bishops. It was made simple for the sheep to follow.

Our faith is actually legalistic. I’m saddened you don’t understand that.

Perhaps you should do as suggested earlier and take another read of the CCC so you can understand what we are obligated to believe and what we are not.

For example do you understand what we are obligated to accept regarding the death penalty?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This pope did not give any statement about our gun laws. How am I not living for others? Why do you try to switch attention constantly? You have no evidence that law biding citizens have sold to outlaws who then turned and killed with those legally obtained guns. Here is a common sense idea, outlaws will continue to be outlaws no matter what law you put in place.

Sacrificing to regulations for the law abiding citizen is nothing more than minor inconveniences. Minor inconveniences that some are willing to accept for the safety of others.

Gun rights, or our fellowman? Weigh them against each other in the light of the Gospel messages.

 

[Gricken]

Called for more than doing nothing, yes. But there are other “sensible” measuremeńs than just what YOU believe to be sensible. You seem to think that if we don’t agree with YOUR idea of what legistation to follow, we are doing nothing, which simply isn’t true.

Anothee thing worth pointing out, again. Is that not everything that the Bishop’s say is morally binding to all catholics. You are free to follow what they say. But the chrch does NOT require us to agree to every vauge political statement made by a large body of bishops.

 

[iamrefreshed]

He seeme to work under this idea that every statement the Bishop’s make is morally binding. Curious, isn’t it?

He who?

I hope you realize you are treading on very thin ice with this statement about Bishops statements being morally binding?

Actually, I don’t think you do.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Our faith is actually legalistic. I’m saddened you don’t understand that.

Perhaps you should do as suggested earlier and take another read of the CCC so you can understand what we are obligated to believe and what we are not.

For example do you understand what we are obligated to accept regarding the death penalty?

One day, we will get the chance to explain our choices to Him.

Perhaps you should quit making assumptions about others you know nothing about.

 

[Sehnsucht]

And the people paid their taxes…and rendered unto God, the things that are God’s.

And I would contend that firearms surely belong to Caesar, not to God.

But of course, that’s an aside.

Caesar is not God, and only a fool tries to turn him into God. Similarly, the state is not a creation of God, it’s a creation of men and we employ it in our interactions with one another. The secular state is the preferable state because at the end of the day we are each given the choice to *choose *God or not to choose God.

If Christians were to employ the state to enforce religion we’d be committing a great wrong - not only because of the suffering it would inflict on those that disagree with whatever orthodoxy the state chose, but because we’re depriving those people of that essential and fundamental choice that Christianity is all about.

Liberty is an essential condition for the healthy presence of Christianity. ""For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. - Galatians 5:1.

You cannot contend that Jesus would have proposed a state that would go about confiscating firearms. You could contend that he might preach against their use and possession of them, but it’s not square with what we know in the Bible to suggest that the establishment of an all-powerful state apparatus to enforce bondage is kosher.

We will come freely to God, giving ourselves, or not at all.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Called for more than doing nothing, yes. But there are other “sensible” measuremeńs than just what YOU believe to be sensible. You seem to think that if we don’t agree with YOUR idea of what legistation to follow, we are doing nothing, which simply isn’t true.

Anothee thing worth pointing out, again. Is that not everything that the Bishop’s say is morally binding to all catholics. You are free to follow what they say. But the chrch does NOT require us to agree to every vauge political statement made by a large body of bishops.

Universal background checks for the sale of all firearms.

Oh, now the full body of bishops makes political statements? Right.

 

[Gricken]

He who?

I hope you realize you are treading on very thin ice with this statement about Bishops statements being morally binding?

Actually, I don’t think you do.

My apologies. I did not mean to sound as though I thought the Bishop did not have morally binding authority. Merely that not everything they say is meant to be a morally binding statement. I probably could have phrased that better.

 

[iamrefreshed]

One day, we will get the chance to explain our choices to Him.

Perhaps you should quit making assumptions about others you know nothing about.

So much for being done.

I made no assumptions, I simply read your posts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And I would contend that firearms surely belong to Caesar, not to God.

But of course, that’s an aside.

Caesar is not God, and only a fool tries to turn him into God. Similarly, the state is not a creation of God, it’s a creation of men and we employ it in our interactions with one another. The secular state is the preferable state because at the end of the day we are each given the choice to *choose *God or not to choose God.

If Christians were to employ the state to enforce religion we’d be committing a great wrong - not only because of the suffering it would inflict on those that disagree with whatever orthodoxy the state chose, but because we’re depriving those people of that essential and fundamental choice that Christianity is all about.

Liberty is an essential condition for the healthy presence of Christianity. ""For freedom did Christ set us free: stand fast therefore, and be not entangled again in a yoke of bondage. - Galatians 5:1.

You cannot contend that Jesus would have proposed a state that would go about confiscating firearms. You could contend that he might preach against their use and possession of them, but it’s not square with what we know in the Bible to suggest that the establishment of an all-powerful state apparatus to enforce bondage is kosher.

We will come freely to God, giving ourselves, or not at all.

You might want to check Catholic commentaries, and the early Church fathers, on interpretations of the scriptures being cited.

Gal 5:1-26 [V:1a]. A variant reading gives the sense: ‘Christ freed us in order that we should be free, not slaves’. V:1 [V:1b]. Having escaped the slavery of paganism, they are exhorted not to fall again into slavery—of Judaism this time. /par/par2. The Judaizers must have told the Galatians that circumcision was necessary for salvation (cf.Act_15:1).

Ver. 1.—Be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. You once served idols and devils: why do you now wish to serve the shadows and burdensome ceremonies of the Mosaic law? The Greek for entangled is rendered by the Vulgate contained, by Vatablus implicated, by Erasmus ensnared. The Judaisers, says S. Paul, are enticing you to their law as into a net, in which, if you are once entangled, you will be unable to escape from its legal windings and toils

You cannot contend that Christ would have proposed an armed state.

 

[iamrefreshed]

My apologies. I did not mean to sound as though I thought the Bishop did not have morally binding authority. Merely that not everything they say is meant to be a morally binding statement. I probably could have phrased that better.

I was responding to the comment you responded to from ProdigalSon.

My apologies, you were quite clear about morally binding statements.

Sometimes quoting responses to responses gets muddied.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Sometimes quoting responses to responses gets muddied.

 

[iamrefreshed]

Congratulations on your adeptness at using emoticons. Perhaps your skills will extend to the CCC someday.