P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Who do we place our trust in? Seems we look in the wrong places sometimes. The secular government is of this world.
Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life
- Status
J
jay29
Guest
This government is under the Prince of this World
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Read the documents. Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice
We all know the shortcomings of politicians; however, the bishops seem to speak favorably of good, even though they speak on those things they disagree with.
The bishops are not uniformed on moral guidance, and I think that is a terrible thing to say, without any authority. There is not a single bishop to speak against the statement approved by a full body of bishops (see link above).
It all boils down to we place all our trust in.
From the USCCB website:
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Exactly. He is above all things of this world. We place all our trust in Him, and the authoritative Church He gave us.
J
jay29
Guest
Possessing a firearm is not a moral issue. Illegal use of a firearm is a moral issue.
I have owned firearms for over 28 years with no problems and I shouldn’t have to jump through more hoops just to keep or buy more firearms.
J
jay29
Guest
I wasn’t referring to Jesus, but Satan who is the Prince of the World.
L
Lapey
Guest
You are truly beginning to appear limited on understanding how things work in teh Church. Even though it has been illustrated for you in canon law and other ways, these types of statements are not binding; period end of story.
I place my trust in almighty God and His Church; and when my bishop tells me to preach for gun control and/or limiting gun rights or ending gun rights, by promulgated law, I will oblige.
Until then he and I are on the same page on this one, so I agree with you, I will follow my bishop. Have you contacted your bishop???
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
No one has said ‘possessing a firearm is a moral issue, in all instances.’ In fact, I have clarified with a statement that agrees with ‘illegal use of a firearm is a moral issue.’ The bishops call for support because of the easy access to guns in this country, and the contribution they make to the illegal use.
And what major impact would measures to control the sale and use of firearms have on you, a law abiding citizen? I see them as minor inconveniences, and well worth my support in an attempt to prevent more access to those who should not possess a gun.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Show me a bishop other than Blaire who supported Obama’s Senate Bill 649, as Blaire did.Back to limiting? The 3 chairmen of 3 USCCB committees, the president of the USCCB, Cardinal Dolan, and the Vatican Chief Spokesman. They ‘reiterate’ the same calls, and in the absence of any dissenting opinion, stated by another bishop. The reiteration uses, almost verbatim, the call from the 2000 document.
But we can assume that those who do not speak do not agree? Right.
Show me one bishop who disagrees.
Cdl Dolan didn’t. He said what he said before it was introduced, and said this:
“I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts.”
The legislature did act and rejected Obama’s proposal. Case closed with Cdl Dolan.
Cdl. Lombardi’s statement was also before Obama’s proposal, and he’s not THE Vatican spokesman, he’s one of them, a press secretary. He had no specific proposals. He just liked the idea of gun controls generally.
You say three other committee chairmen were with Blaire. Fine.
But that’s not “the bishops as a group”, and certainly does not include mine.
If the provisions of SB 649 were a moral issue of major import, we would be seeing the bishops “as a group”, or at least a large number of them individually, actually address it more recently than the year 2000, and in much more specific terms than they did with their three general sentences in 2000. But they haven’t.
Why would we assume they would let a burning moral issue go if, indeed, they thought it was one?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I understand how things work in the Church. I choose to follow the moral guidance. :I don’t search canon law to seek a way to dismiss the bishops, who are guided by the Holy Spirit.
All they’ve asked for so far is supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms.
Like when you said you were sitting next to him, and he disagreed with me? Have you asked your bishop about his view on this issue?
And to answer your question, I am preparing a letter to my bishop now.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Jesus is over ALL things, including Satan. Who should we place all trust in?
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Moving the bar again? The bishops were clear, so that anyone could understand the call. Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.
I look how to be subject to the bishops, especially when they are united, and not to try and find a way around when I disagree.
You try to exclude your bishop, but has he spoken in disagreement? Have you asked him for his view of gun controls?
D
Daniel_Lysinger
Guest
Somehow, I have a hard time believing what this bishop says. Take Switzerland. Every Swiss has firearms, and assault rifles, and yet there are very few murders committed there. Tighter gun laws, in my opinion, only take weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Now, I know what you are thinking - ok, this guy just randomly stated his opinion, which differs with a Bishops. This guy…
Sorry. Now let me get up some quotes here. Note that all of these are from the Catechism, and it can be trusted. Here we go:
“Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity.” (CCC 2304)
Here, the Catechism states that peace “Cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons.” How can we safeguard the goods of persons if citizens cannot use weapons? Obviously, making laws never stopped the actual criminals, so how can anyone expect that it will stop these same criminals from getting hold of firearms? Somehow, I doubt that the law will make the criminals stop using firearms for murders. Remember - peace is everyone’s goal. Nobody wants war, and I think there is significant evidence that peace cannot be obtained without citizens being able to safeguard the goods of persons.
“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life.” (CCC 2265)
*Here as well the Catechism states that legitimate defense can not only be a right (which of course implies that it should be one) but also that it can be a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Take for example, if I was a guardian of a child. I would be responsible for that child’s life. I would have the duty to defend that child’s life, since I would be his/her guardian. *
Now, I am not at all opposed to the registration of legal guns, and indeed I support the registration of guns as a good practice, and one that is good and well. However, I do not believe that citizens should not have the right to purchase firearms, provided they have proven to be trustworthy, and law-upholding.
Sorry. Now let me get up some quotes here. Note that all of these are from the Catechism, and it can be trusted. Here we go:
“Respect for and development of human life require peace. Peace is not merely the absence of war, and it is not limited to maintaining a balance of powers between adversaries. Peace cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons, free communication among men, respect for the dignity of persons and peoples, and the assiduous practice of fraternity.” (CCC 2304)
Here, the Catechism states that peace “Cannot be attained on earth without safeguarding the goods of persons.” How can we safeguard the goods of persons if citizens cannot use weapons? Obviously, making laws never stopped the actual criminals, so how can anyone expect that it will stop these same criminals from getting hold of firearms? Somehow, I doubt that the law will make the criminals stop using firearms for murders. Remember - peace is everyone’s goal. Nobody wants war, and I think there is significant evidence that peace cannot be obtained without citizens being able to safeguard the goods of persons.
“Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life.” (CCC 2265)
*Here as well the Catechism states that legitimate defense can not only be a right (which of course implies that it should be one) but also that it can be a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life. Take for example, if I was a guardian of a child. I would be responsible for that child’s life. I would have the duty to defend that child’s life, since I would be his/her guardian. *
Now, I am not at all opposed to the registration of legal guns, and indeed I support the registration of guns as a good practice, and one that is good and well. However, I do not believe that citizens should not have the right to purchase firearms, provided they have proven to be trustworthy, and law-upholding.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I trust the bishops know the Scriptures, the Catechism, and Canon law, much better than the greatest majority of laypersons. They have Christ’s promise of Holy Spirit guidance, and I trust Him to be able to accomplish what He said.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
In other words, the only bishop who has spoken out in favor of Obama’s SB649 is Bp. Blaire.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Good. Then you agree that according to Canon Law, Bishop Blaire’s support of SB649, which you want to see made into law, is just his opinion and not binding on Catholics. And in trusting Canon Law, you also agree that even the very nonspecific three sentences in the 2000 bishops’ conference communication about crime is not binding on Catholics, but is also an expression of opinion.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
If you reject that he speaks as a representative of a committee, that represents the USCCB.
You seem to associate it with Obama, for justification to dismiss what was said. Cardinal Dolan stated he found common ground, and the Vatican chief spokesman stated he welcomed the proposals.
I feel the bishops know the Scriptures, the Catechism, and Canon Law better than the greatest majority of laypersons. I trust them, and Christ to guide them with the Holy Spirit.
I’m sorry that upsets you.
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
I agree that the bishops know the Scriptures, the Catechism, and Canon law better than the greatest majority of laypersons. Because of that, I accept their moral guidance. I wouldn’t try and minimize their authority by stating it’s opinion.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
I’m not upset.
SB649 was introduced by Diane Feinstein, but it was “Obama’s bill”. He greatly promoted it and endorsed it. So of course it can be associated with Obama. Even Bishop Blaire did that.
Cdl Dolan did not endorse the bill, though he endorsed the general idea of gun control before the bill was introduced. He did, of course, say he did not consider himself an expert on the subject and would leave it to the legislators. The legislators would not enact it into law, and Cdl Dolan has let it rest there, as he said he would and as he should have.
Are you saying that I have a moral obligation to adopt the political statements of a bishop just because he heads a USCCB committee? You know Canon Law negates that conclusion.
The Vatican press secretary, Lombardi, who I think is the one you’re talking about, spoke in favor of gun controls generally before SB 649 was even presented to the Senate. But neither are we, as Catholics, morally obligated to accept everything a Vatican press secretary says, even if he specifically said “I support everything in Obama’s SB 649”…
“The bishops” of the U.S. as a group, of whom there are some 500+ have said nothing at all about the Obama proposal. Nothing. The Holy Spirit evidently did not move them to do so. None but Blaire has actually proposed anything specific, and he did that indirectly by endorsing what he said were “many of the provisions” of SB 649. Whether he agreed with all the bill’s provisions is unclear from his letter.
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
If more bishops than bishop Blaire saw fit to address Obama’s proposals, one could think more of it. Since they haven’t, and since Canon Law says it’s just human opinion unless it meets the requirements of Canon Law, I am not obliged to regard it as anything more than that, even though you are free to think of it as something greater if you wish. The Blaire endorsement of “many” (his words, without specification) of SB 649’s provisions doesn’t even come close to being mandatory upon Catholics.
- Status