Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Start another thread, with that as the topic, and I will be glad to join it, if you send me a message. Until then, stop trying to derail this thread.
Click to expand...
Please do not accuse me of things I’m not doing, you brought up abortion. Now, we see you can’t answer that. So again, I say, if we can’t trust the government to not have staged a tragedy, why should we trust them with gun regulations? Cynicism is a two way street.
 
Lapey said:
We already have background checks…

and you are still wrong about theis resolution by the entire group of bishops being binding on me here in my diocese. This is dishonest to continue to repeat; you are flat wrong and I have provided CL to show you but you obstinately reject truth.
Click to expand...
There are loopholes through private sales. Cash only, names not important, much less any important information.

I didn’t print ‘approved by a full body of bishops’ on the 2000 document. Who’s being dishonest, and why am I singled out since I had nothing to do with that language?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There are loopholes where people don’t even have to exchange names. That’s a fact. It also places the bishop in a peculiar position.
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t…we have back ground checks and many regulations, the bishops have stated we should support these regulations. Politicians and you are trying to use the statements of the bishops to do their dirty work for them. The bishops are in the lead in their own respective dioceses and none of them have promulgated this resolution as binding in their dioceses. It’s nice, but not binding to anyone.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Oh that boogeyman government. They might take over. :rolleyes:

We don’t do this for political reasons, the bishops have offered moral guidance. That’s enough for me.
Click to expand...
I wonder why Obama made that “tyrany” speach a few days ago at Ohio State Univ…:eek:

Because possibly he knew that all of these scandals would be comeing out and prove he is a borderline tyrant and would love nothing less than to be in total controll. He or his cronies has stated that if the constitution were not in the way he could do more. Praise God for that man made document!
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Oh that boogeyman government. They might take over. :rolleyes:

We don’t do this for political reasons, the bishops have offered moral guidance. That’s enough for me.
Click to expand...
It is fine for it to be enough for you. But you can NOT tell us that the Bishops made this a moral statement when that isn’t what they did. That’s what everyone has been trying to point out for the last few hundred posts. The Bishop’s did not make a morally binding statement regarding the regulation of firearms. You may think yourself bound to it if you wish, but you can’t tell us that it’s morally binding for everyone.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
That why this is a moral issue. The easy access to guns, as the bishops have said, contributes to a culture of life, by cheapening life. Easy access to guns, think about it.
Click to expand...
Easy access, any access to abortion decreases life. Me holding a gun when a felon comes at me will increase the respect he has for my life.
 
Gricken said:
At this point I have to disagree. It is moral in nature, but when they advocate changing legislation, they are making a political statement, even if that is not their goal.
Click to expand...
We’ll have to agree to disagree here. I can say get your politics out of my religion and my oponant can say get my religion out of his politics. I see it as fighting intrinsic evils called abortion, not politics.
 
Lapey said:
We’ll have to agree to disagree here. I can say get your politics out of my religion and my oponant can say get my religion out of his politics. I see it as fighting intrinsic evils called abortion, not politics.
Click to expand...
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying when they issue a moral statement regarding abortion it is both moral and political. It is moral because it is defending life, and it is political because it advocates changing a specific legislation. That’s the definition of political, when one wants to change laws. That doesn’t mean their intent wasn’t moral.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Ms. Lanza felt her son was safe around guns. How’d that work out? The first responder shooter’s neighbor felt he was safe enough to purchase a gun for, how’d that work out? The law abiding only suffers minor inconveniences, for the sake of preventing as many as possible from doing evil with illegally obtained guns. It’s really that simple.
Click to expand...
I want you to tell me specifically what regulation or bachground check would have forced this lady to be more responsible with her firearms. Be specific, you brought this up for the second time now; what would have stopped this from happening?

If you can come up with something concrete that would stop THIS specific incident, I will consider changing my opinoin.
 
Lapey said:
No it doesn’t…we have back ground checks and many regulations, the bishops have stated we should support these regulations. Politicians and you are trying to use the statements of the bishops to do their dirty work for them. The bishops are in the lead in their own respective dioceses and none of them have promulgated this resolution as binding in their dioceses. It’s nice, but not binding to anyone.
Click to expand...
In light of the regulations you say exist, the bishops still made a call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.

No, I am not using anything for ‘dirty work.’ I am merely reading what the bishops say, and using it to help form a faith based conscience. It’s surprising I have to keep repeating my intentions.

It’s binding on me.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
The bishops work to change abortion legislation. Is that political?
Click to expand...
When they endorse particular legislation, of course it is.

But there is a difference in the nature of the acts.

In opposing abortion, whether through legislation or otherwise, they are opposing an intrinsic evil; something that is evil in every instance, which they have no choice but to oppose. Having no political power of their own, they are calling on Catholics to follow a clear and unequivocal teaching of the Church, and they do make it clear.

In the case of gun legislation a bishop endorsing a particular piece of legislation is making a moral statement about crime; which is the evil in question, not gun ownership as such, since gun ownership is not an intrinsic evil or evil in every instance. If a bishop feels that some aspect of gun ownership is conducive to crime, that is his prudential judgment of means to an end, not an end in itself. It is important that such a bishop make it clear what the moral implications of his proposition are and are not, lest he inadvertently mislead the faithful as to what Church teachings are and are not.

I have long felt that churchmen should be very careful in choosing the political arguments upon which they wish to weigh in. First, of course, they run the risk of stepping over the permissible lines of “political action” set by the government and harming the Church structure by doing it. In Bishop Blaire’s case, his directly supporting legislation was probably harmless because it served the purpose of the administration in power. But as we have seen, in opposing abortion some have been sanctioned for the alleged “political activity” of doing it. We are only now discovering how much of that really went on prior to the last election.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
In light of the regulations you say exist, the bishops still made a call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.

No, I am not using anything for ‘dirty work.’ I am merely reading what the bishops say, and using it to help form a faith based conscience. It’s surprising I have to keep repeating my intentions.

It’s binding on me.
Click to expand...
“A call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms” could mean implementing and enforcing existing laws.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
In light of the regulations you say exist, the bishops still made a call to support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.
Click to expand...
They did in the year 2000. There has been a lot of legislation since then, and they have not addressed the matter as a group since then.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
There are loopholes through private sales. Cash only, names not important, much less any important information.

I didn’t print ‘approved by a full body of bishops’ on the 2000 document. Who’s being dishonest, and why am I singled out since I had nothing to do with that language?
Click to expand...
My bishop could have signed it three times. Unless he came to his diocese and promulgated it here, it is nothing more than a resolution which is nice to read; but not binding in the least.

Private sales that cause a threat to society are between people who will not follow new laws anymore than they follow current laws.
 
Lapey said:
I want you to tell me specifically what regulation or bachground check would have forced this lady to be more responsible with her firearms. Be specific, you brought this up for the second time now; what would have stopped this from happening?

If you can come up with something concrete that would stop THIS specific incident, I will consider changing my opinoin.
Click to expand...
You ask questions, but do not answer any addressed to yourself? Or, maybe I missed it. How would universal background checks for all sales affect you personally?

How many guns in this country? 250,000,000? Yet, we need to maintain loopholes to add to those numbers, possibly in the hands of those who would use them in some type of gun violence. Easy access to guns. The bishops get it.

The bishops also identified other problems that attribute to the problem. No one argues them, but it wouldn’t affect them personally, if they are free of mental illnesses, or don’t desire to view violent programs, or video games. The problem with background checks falls back to personal impact, or so it seems. Please answer the question above.
 
Gricken said:
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying when they issue a moral statement regarding abortion it is both moral and political. It is moral because it is defending life, and it is political because it advocates changing a specific legislation. That’s the definition of political, when one wants to change laws. That doesn’t mean their intent wasn’t moral.
Click to expand...
I gotcha, thanks for the clarification.👍 I agree.
 
Lapey said:
My bishop could have signed it three times. Unless he came to his diocese and promulgated it here, it is nothing more than a resolution which is nice to read; but not binding in the least.

Private sales that cause a threat to society are between people who will not follow new laws anymore than they follow current laws.
Click to expand...
Yet, Jesus didn’t write a thing, nor order anything scribed, but we pay attention to everything He taught, through His Church.
 
Ridgerunner said:
They did in the year 2000. There has been a lot of legislation since then, and they have not addressed the matter as a group since then.
Click to expand...
And the bishops continue the calls for support, and none speak against. I am open to correction if you know of any to speak against supporting controls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top