Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

Let me get this straight now, are you saying Jesus would ask us to lay down all our firearms? Really? Your more leftist than I thought…you do realize that law abiding citizens do not use arms for evil right? It is criminals who do; taking arms from the law biding will make it easy for the same criminals. Jesus would, and Church moral teachings back this up, want and expect us to defend our selves and our loved ones. Now I would admit that some are called to a higher office, the martyrs of the Church. He did ask them to lay their lives down without a fights. This is not the calling for all.

Hey, let’s speak on the topic. I am not the topic and am taking offense at the ad hominems thrown so easily around.

Where did Christ teach an ‘armed society?’ Where does the Church teach it? The Church speaks of a state regulating guns.

Some law abiding citizens place their own rights above the rights of all. Law abiding should have no problem participating in measures to control the sale and use of firearms. It doesn’t inhibit them at all.

 

[Lapey]

That there have been children killed (inadvertently as collateral damage) by the USA military in Iraq and Afghanistan is a well known fact. Anyone can check it on the internet by doing a simple search. What is sad is that children are being killed. Why not stop the killing of children by having the American military protect innocent schoolchildren who are fearing for their lives because of the ease with which guns can be purchased in the USA. If you are not going to have gun control and stricter background checks, then what is the plan. Teachers are not trained for this type of security. I don’t see why people are opposed to safety in schools for children.

I never disputed the fact that military strikes have killed civilians. The way you wrote it implied our military personnel were to blame.

It’s called a military state, that’s why I do not want military personnel in schools. Teachers are trained to teach, are you telling me they cannot be trained to properly handle a hand gun in stressful situation? That’s just silly, try to think this through before you just make these type statements.

Your last statement is so telling of the political atmosphere in America right now thanks to our current administration. Because several of us have stated that we do not want military personnel in the schools, you see and state that we do not care about the safety of kids. Why do you think so little of me???

 

[iamrefreshed]

Some law abiding citizens place their own rights above the rights of all. .

Pray tell, how?

What rights are they putting above the rights of all?

And please, -]when/-] if you answer, be sure to point to the proper admendment in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Lapey]

How would we know if our Bishop implemented this resolution as binding in our diocese? And if he did what would be expected of those wanting to be obedient to the Bishop, even if they are not in favor of more regulations?

You would have heard about it in your parish. If the bishop of your diocese would have done this in your diocese, remember, that he still cannot randomly apply new laws and requirements on your soul. He is the shepherd of the flock of your diocese, but there are limits to what he can do as far as these type of initiatives.

Can. 7 A law is established when it is promulgated.

If a law is promulgated it will be established as law and binding in the diocese, “territory” as you will see it referred to later.

Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio).

These laws are for the entire Church and are binding to all Latin Rite Catholics who fall within the age ranges prescribed.

§2. Particular laws are promulgated in the manner determined by the legislator and begin to oblige a month after the day of promulgation unless the law itself establishes another time period.

Particular law is that which a diocesan bishop can impose in his diocese. A bishop or group of bishops from a general location cannot impose particular law on a single diocese and the faithful who reside there, only the “legislator” can; the local ordinary or the bishop of that diocese.

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.

§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.

Laws binding the entire Church.

Can. 13 §1. Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial unless it is otherwise evident.

§2. Travelers are not bound:

1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;

2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.

§3. Transients are bound by both universal and particular laws which are in force in the place where they are present.

These are laws called particular and promulgated by the bishop of a diocese for his diocese. A signature on a resolution by the USCCB does not automatically state that the bishop has promulgated the resolution into particular law in his diocese. In a broad case as being discussed here this would not happen because half of the population doesn’t agree with more gun laws being the answer; therefore, since this is not a matter of faith and morals it is not made into Universal Law or Particular Law and therefore not binding. It may be nice to read and have discourse about and hopefully improvements can be made but to say we as Catholics of the USA are bound to agree and support this is just not true.

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

This one truly needs to be prayed about. Why? Because the law will always error on the side of the faithful. The Code of canon Law is a code of law meant to safeguard the Church, who is the Body? We are the faithful. Anytime there is any law promulgated, it must be subject to “strict interpretation”. It is much like our Bill of Rights, the B of R does not limit the rights of the people, it limits the rights of government to inflict laws on the people. It governs the government.

hope this helps…

 

[Lapey]

I get it. And I don’t believe you have the authority to state my conscience is malformed, and really do question the reason I continue to be maligned for a view that most in this thread declare a right to disagree with the bishops. Am I not allowed to agree?

A full body of bishops agrees, with no dissenting voices, but it’s said we have a right to disagree until one bishop comes and speaks directly to us. That’s as if each bishop can determine what’s correct teaching and what is not. That is division.

Anyone can read this thread and see one side speaks of morals, and life, while the other speaks of rights from a secular government. Just looking at that alone, I feel comfortable in the view I hold.

PS 1, you are not being maligned, you are being corrected; but you refuse to hear us. Thus the conscience statement. It’s not unusual to have been misled, we all have. This is what I meant by that.

As far as having the right to agree, sure you do; but you do not have the right to say I am obliged to agree with this and work towards this result of more gun regulations, that is simply wrong.

Your last paragraph is a perfect example of our problem in society. I do not agree with you so I am only a secularist and I am immoral or at best amoral. What gives you the right to judge me and to think that you are so right and I am so wrong? What part of church law, ECF writings, or Scripture will I find the passage that tells me that I can judge another as being of the side that doesn’t speak morally?

You do not know my soul. I would have thought through all the conversations we have had over the years that you know I am a person who leads a moral life and cares about the safety of kids. But yet you decide because we disagree here that I am less than you. Hummm, very telling.

It’s time for you to do some souls searching and realize there are very caring people on both sides of this argument, not just yours.

 

[10gr8kids]

You would have heard about it in your parish. If the bishop of your diocese would have done this in your diocese, remember, that he still cannot randomly apply new laws and requirements on your soul. He is the shepherd of the flock of your diocese, but there are limits to what he can do as far as these type of initiatives.

Can. 7 A law is established when it is promulgated.

If a law is promulgated it will be established as law and binding in the diocese, “territory” as you will see it referred to later.

Can. 8 §1. Universal ecclesiastical laws are promulgated by publication in the official commentary, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, unless another manner of promulgation has been prescribed in particular cases. They take force only after three months have elapsed from the date of that issue of the Acta unless they bind immediately from the very nature of the matter, or the law itself has specifically and expressly established a shorter or longer suspensive period (vacatio).

These laws are for the entire Church and are binding to all Latin Rite Catholics who fall within the age ranges prescribed.

§2. Particular laws are promulgated in the manner determined by the legislator and begin to oblige a month after the day of promulgation unless the law itself establishes another time period.

Particular law is that which a diocesan bishop can impose in his diocese. A bishop or group of bishops from a general location cannot impose particular law on a single diocese and the faithful who reside there, only the “legislator” can; the local ordinary or the bishop of that diocese.

Can. 12 §1. Universal laws bind everywhere all those for whom they were issued.

§2. All who are actually present in a certain territory, however, are exempted from universal laws which are not in force in that territory.

Laws binding the entire Church.

Can. 13 §1. Particular laws are not presumed to be personal but territorial unless it is otherwise evident.

§2. Travelers are not bound:

1/ by the particular laws of their own territory as long as they are absent from it unless either the transgression of those laws causes harm in their own territory or the laws are personal;

2/ by the laws of the territory in which they are present, with the exception of those laws which provide for public order, which determine the formalities of acts, or which regard immovable goods located in the territory.

§3. Transients are bound by both universal and particular laws which are in force in the place where they are present.

These are laws called particular and promulgated by the bishop of a diocese for his diocese. A signature on a resolution by the USCCB does not automatically state that the bishop has promulgated the resolution into particular law in his diocese. In a broad case as being discussed here this would not happen because half of the population doesn’t agree with more gun laws being the answer; therefore, since this is not a matter of faith and morals it is not made into Universal Law or Particular Law and therefore not binding. It may be nice to read and have discourse about and hopefully improvements can be made but to say we as Catholics of the USA are bound to agree and support this is just not true.

Can. 18 Laws which establish a penalty, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception from the law are subject to strict interpretation.

This one truly needs to be prayed about. Why? Because the law will always error on the side of the faithful. The Code of canon Law is a code of law meant to safeguard the Church, who is the Body? We are the faithful. Anytime there is any law promulgated, it must be subject to “strict interpretation”. It is much like our Bill of Rights, the B of R does not limit the rights of the people, it limits the rights of government to inflict laws on the people. It governs the government.

hope this helps…

Thanks

 

[iamrefreshed]

PS 1, you are not being maligned, you are being corrected; but you refuse to hear us. Thus the conscience statement. It’s not unusual to have been misled, we all have. This is what I meant by that.

As far as having the right to agree, sure you do; but you do not have the right to say I am obliged to agree with this and work towards this result of more gun regulations, that is simply wrong.

Your last paragraph is a perfect example of our problem in society. I do not agree with you so I am only a secularist and I am immoral or at best amoral. What gives you the right to judge me and to think that you are so right and I am so wrong? What part of church law, ECF writings, or Scripture will I find the passage that tells me that I can judge another as being of the side that doesn’t speak morally?

You do not know my soul. I would have thought through all the conversations we have had over the years that you know I am a person who leads a moral life and cares about the safety of kids. But yet you decide because we disagree here that I am less than you. Hummm, very telling.

It’s time for you to do some souls searching and realize there are very caring people on both sides of this argument, not just yours.

Some just thrive on assuming they stand on some sort of moral high ground.

 

[Lapey]

The Gospel is not a straw man.

Oh, now the Church states one has to vote for a politician that has shown to change views with political aspirations, and who will, just by chance, advance other political agendas of those who say this? But you bring up voting, and the bishops did not agree, but on this issue there is no dissenting voice and they can be dismissed.

What’s transparent is how some people place guns before anything else. Guns cannot save us where it counts. The same can be said for all partisans. I have promoted what the bishops documented. Partisans have to make it political so that one party is placed more righteous over another, and that’s not what the bishops are speaking of at all.

The constitution, and the Catechism, speak of a state’s right to regulate.

And the state has regulated, and continues to regulate. Please try to be truthful, if you want all individual ownership of guns banned please say so. Guns are a right protected by the constitution, the government has no right to take that away unless an amendment is passed and adopted by the states. The CCC does not say what kind of regulation or control can or should be placed on gun ownership.

Why is it that legal gun owners and dealers are always the one maligned in this argument. Its the criminals who use these guns illegally. This is where we need to begin; here and mental illness. But we have spent so much energy with political arguments about gun control that this has been lost. The bodies were still oozing blood when liberals in government were talking more gun control.

I love Dennis Kucinich, he is super liberal but he is honest. There are not many in politics that can be honest about what they truly believe, he can and he is. I disagree with most of what he says, but he has my utmost respect. On the other end of the spectrum are the rest of the democrat party. Republicans are not much better.

 

[Lapey]

Hey, let’s speak on the topic. I am not the topic and am taking offense at the ad hominems thrown so easily around.

Where did Christ teach an ‘armed society?’ Where does the Church teach it? The Church speaks of a state regulating guns.

Some law abiding citizens place their own rights above the rights of all. Law abiding should have no problem participating in measures to control the sale and use of firearms. It doesn’t inhibit them at all.

So then say what you really feel then, at least appear honest about your argument. Say that you want to strip the Bill of Rights of the second amendment and be done with it.

The Church requires us to follow just law of our secular governments, there is nothing unkust about our current laws.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Pray tell, how?

What rights are they putting above the rights of all?

And please, -]when/-] if you answer, be sure to point to the proper admendment in the Bill of Rights.

The right not to have measures to control the sale and use of all guns, over the right to a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.

I, unlike some posters, do not consider the secular document known as the bill of rights to be divine. We have a higher calling, through the Gospels. One is of man, the other is of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

PS 1, you are not being maligned, you are being corrected; but you refuse to hear us. Thus the conscience statement. It’s not unusual to have been misled, we all have. This is what I meant by that.

As far as having the right to agree, sure you do; but you do not have the right to say I am obliged to agree with this and work towards this result of more gun regulations, that is simply wrong.

Your last paragraph is a perfect example of our problem in society. I do not agree with you so I am only a secularist and I am immoral or at best amoral. What gives you the right to judge me and to think that you are so right and I am so wrong? What part of church law, ECF writings, or Scripture will I find the passage that tells me that I can judge another as being of the side that doesn’t speak morally?

You do not know my soul. I would have thought through all the conversations we have had over the years that you know I am a person who leads a moral life and cares about the safety of kids. But yet you decide because we disagree here that I am less than you. Hummm, very telling.

It’s time for you to do some souls searching and realize there are very caring people on both sides of this argument, not just yours.

That “correction” has more than crossed the line, several times by multiple posters. It speaks to how views are shared. When some feel the need to attack, or belittle, another, it speaks to where the message is from, in my honest opinion.

I speak on the morals raised by the bishops, and how I see it’s applicable to the Gospel message. I am challenged with man made rights, and the effect of material items, also of this world.

Check the thread, I have made every attempt to explain how I see the calls as moral guidance, for myself. I have stated several times that we are all bound by our conscience, and obligated to act on them according to Church teaching. I have repeatedly said that we all have free will to choose to follow or not.

The last paragraph separates the two views, in my opinion. You claim a right to “correct,” but want opposing views quiet.

We don’t know each person’s intent, but those who oppose my view are allowed to use ad hominems, condemn, and belittle me personally, without any objections to those that agree with those who do that. That is definitely judging, through speculation, but as I said, it’s acceptable because my view is not popular for those who continue to weigh a bill of rights, or just gun rights, on par or above, the guidance from our bishops.

They give a clear message. There’s no way to make applicable that it means to do nothing, and blame partisans as an excuse to do nothing. There’s no way to make it applicable to ‘we don’t know what will work best,’ or ‘we don’t know how many violent crimes are committed due to the loopholes that make an easy access to guns." Easy access to guns is something clearly spoken of. It’s not time to say, ‘wait a minute, that might affect me personally, so it’s time to dig throughout the Church’s history and find something that will allow me to dismiss the moral guidance as merely opinion.’ The early Church has a rich history of martyrs, who gladly gave their lives instead of preparing a defense, or arming all society to keep governments in check.’

This is my view, and nothing outside the Gospel message will sway me otherwise.

As I said, how these views are shared speaks for what a message represents.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And the state has regulated, and continues to regulate. Please try to be truthful, if you want all individual ownership of guns banned please say so. Guns are a right protected by the constitution, the government has no right to take that away unless an amendment is passed and adopted by the states. The CCC does not say what kind of regulation or control can or should be placed on gun ownership.

Why is it that legal gun owners and dealers are always the one maligned in this argument. Its the criminals who use these guns illegally. This is where we need to begin; here and mental illness. But we have spent so much energy with political arguments about gun control that this has been lost. The bodies were still oozing blood when liberals in government were talking more gun control.

I love Dennis Kucinich, he is super liberal but he is honest. There are not many in politics that can be honest about what they truly believe, he can and he is. I disagree with most of what he says, but he has my utmost respect. On the other end of the spectrum are the rest of the democrat party. Republicans are not much better.

Oh look, now we can insinuate he is calling for an eradication of guns. That should help invalidate the view.

I own and use guns. I have used them as a duty, and I use them now for hunting, and, God forbid, consider them as ‘home protection.’ I am a law abiding citizen proud of what this country stands for, without looking at partisanship to maintain a divide. We are the UNITED States. I have no qualms about background checks, or paying for those checks, but then I know my intent, and responsibilities as a gun owner. I recognize that all covered by those secular rights are not as proficient in their responsibilities and will not argue for blanket rights for all. The bottom line is the easy access to guns this nation offers. It contributes to the culture of death, as Cardinal Dolan spoke of it.

Having rights does not automatically make all gun owners proficient.

As you mention criminals, remember the loopholes that make easy access for guns for all. Their victims are still oozing blood, as people deny closing loopholes will have any impact at all on some prevention. All criminals are not destitute. Paying whatever to obtain a gun is a cost of doing business for them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So then say what you really feel then, at least appear honest about your argument. Say that you want to strip the Bill of Rights of the second amendment and be done with it.

The Church requires us to follow just law of our secular governments, there is nothing unkust about our current laws.

Regulating is not stripping. Now what did you say about being honest?

Now measures to control the sale and use of guns might not be just laws? Really?

 

[iamrefreshed]

The right not to have measures to control the sale and use of all guns, over the right to a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.

I, unlike some posters, do not consider the secular document known as the bill of rights to be divine. We have a higher calling, through the Gospels. One is of man, the other is of God.

Please point out which posters stated that the Bill of Rights was divine.

When you can’t will you at least admit to your own hyperboyle?

 

[scipio337]

Please point out which posters stated that the Bill of Rights was divine.

When you can’t will you at least admit to your own hyperboyle?

The Bill of Rights isn’t divine, but per the Declaration of Independents, the rights they protect are divinely ordained (“that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”)

It’s a huge gap in our understanding between those two political philosophies. I see the Constitution (and government’s) sole purpose is to protect citizen’s rights. It tells Caesar what he CAN do. The Constitution limits government power, on behalf of the indivudual, in the name of protecting these rights that come God.

Self defense is one of those rights.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Please point out which posters stated that the Bill of Rights was divine.

When you can’t will you at least admit to your own hyperboyle?

I find the Constitution divine, I said “Constructionist” views, the Court has made up decisions out of whole cloth, they did not follow the Constitution per abortion rights. You can have whatever opinion you want. There were activist judges who according to most constitutional scholars did not follow what our founders laid out.

Yes, we are Catholics, I have followed Catholic teachings.

 

[styrgwillidar]

The right not to have measures to control the sale and use of all guns, over the right to a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.

I, unlike some posters, do not consider the secular document known as the bill of rights to be divine. We have a higher calling, through the Gospels. One is of man, the other is of God.

Well, sorry I see the argument as some insisting they have a right to have measures to control the sale and use of all guns over the right to a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.

I see the insistence that the government can strip the public of the effective means for both group and individual defense as contrary to the culture of life.

I see the history of the world, and view the wisdom of the catechism in its teaching of self-defense (both group and individual) is consistent with the culture of respect for life.

The founding documents of the US are not divine, but they are consistent with those Catholic teachings.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Well, sorry I see the argument as some insisting they have a right to have measures to control the sale and use of all guns over the right to a dignity of life for all, from conception until natural death.

I see the insistence that the government can strip the public of the effective means for both group and individual defense as contrary to the culture of life.

I see the history of the world, and view the wisdom of the catechism in its teaching of self-defense (both group and individual) is consistent with the culture of respect for life.

The founding documents of the US are not divine, but they are consistent with those Catholic teachings.

Regulating is not stripping. Universal background checks does not impact the law abiding citizens, with anymore than minor inconveniences. They would not take away a person’s right, or ability, of self defense.

The Catechism defines self defense, and does not limit it to an armed society.

 

[Chipper]

Now measures to control the sale and use of guns might not be just laws? Really?

It might not be very just at all. In fact I consider “Arming” yourself to be Eucharistic.

Luke 22:36-37…"…and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. For I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in me,…"

Note: Arming yourself was commanded to you by Jesus himself and it was done at the “Last Supper”, otherwise known as the institution of the Eucharist.

No where in this discourse did he say to fill out a bunch of forms and to get permission from the corrupted government?

He gave the apostles Holy Communion, and then told them to arm themselves - period.

 

[styrgwillidar]

Regulating is not stripping. Universal background checks does not impact the law abiding citizens, with anymore than minor inconveniences. They would not take away a person’s right, or ability, of self defense.

The Catechism defines self defense, and does not limit it to an armed society.

Well, the problem comes back to what the bishop meant by tighter gun laws. You’ve advocated banning certain types of weapons, which I’m against since they are the most effective for certain situations of group and individual defense.

Many times the background check, registration laws and fees are not designed to simply collect information in an efficient manner but to be so onerous that they discourage or preclude gun ownership. So, until I see concrete proposals vice broad statements, I can’t make an assessment.

And---- they provide no benefit in terms of lower crime rates, or reduced spree shootings, unless they’re enforced and are directed at the mentally ill. In practise in the US that hasn’t happened. I oppose implementing restrictions with no benefits.

Again, you and I differ over the likelihood and risk (probability and consequences) of a government becoming corrupt over time. Who defends the people when the ‘legitimate’ authority becomes illegitimate?

So, taking either side in this debate is moral. It is a judgement call. It requires an assessment and consideration of all possibilities in terms of consequences. My position is no more or less moral than yours. I think mine is more reasonable based on human history and church teachings-- but I would never assert that your goal is immoral as I believe you are sincere in what you assess your proposals will achieve. I disagree.