Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[po18guy]

No but if a person that commits gun crimes is going to break the law why should anyone believe that one more law will be the one they’ll obey?

Is it reasonable to assume that the thief that breaks into my home and steals my handgun will show up at a FFL dealer so he can fill out a 4473 and conduct a “legal” transfer on the handgun he has just stolen?

Courts have ruled that convicted felons do not have to register illegally possessed firearms - it constitutes a violation of their right against self-incrimination under the 5th amendment.

All courtrooms have a sign posted just outside with the red slash through a handgun. OK, I think to myself: Here’s a guy going through a horrible divorce. He wants to shoot his wife; wants to shoot her attorney and wants to shoot the judge who is awarding everything to the ex. He gets a gun, stomps into the courthouse and then, in frustration, tosses it in the trash, since he sees that guns are outlawed in court. Right. Pass another law.

 

[po18guy]

I could easily see a churchman wanting there to be no guns anywhere on earth. No tanks, no war planes, no bombs, no starving people.

But there really is an underlying assumption that there are no uses for guns other than to kill people, which is not true.

All inanimate objects are morally neutral. The passions, even anger, are morally neutral. Our Lord declared that it is what comes out of the heart that defiles a man.

 

[po18guy]

How does the bishop propose people defend themselves against home invaders?

I recall attending a huge pro-life Mass at St. Agnes Church in New York City … in Manhattan. The celebrant was Cardinal O’Connor. There were 30 priests distributing Holy Communion.

There were large numbers of pro-abortion protesters outside.

AND there were plain clothes police circulating and they were armed with conceal carry pistols. [It was pretty obvious.]

Hmm… has he read CCC 2265? (underlining mine)

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Hmm… has he read CCC 2265? (underlining mine)

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The responsible person is a husband, wife, parent, homeowner, babysitter.

It has already been decided by the courts that the police do NOT have a responsibility to protect YOU.

The police are there to write up the “after-action” report.

And to look for the killer.

 

[Lucky7]

Again, this is one of those topics that can be seen from both sides and still be Catholic.

 

[Rand_Al_Thor]

They can defend themselves against home invaders with a gun. As long as they pass a background check and it’s not a type of gun that is banned.

And if they come into my house with guns or other weapons, I want my AR to defend my family with. Higher round count, much more accurate than a handgun, rounds that will not penetrate through walls like handgun rounds will. How is my owning an AR making it less safe for our society, when I will NEVER use it to harm an innocent person?

 

[po18guy]

Again, this is one of those topics that can be seen from both sides and still be Catholic.

With one caveat: No one in favor of freedom is advocating violence. Those who seek a new law for each problem are advocating for control only of the law abiding. Huge difference. Law punishes - it does not prevent. Every conceivable manner of physical violence is already outlawed. As Catholics - even as rational human beings - we are called to use prudential judgment in selecting the manner in which we deal with unacceptable individual behavior. Do we allow the lowest social common denominator to control the highest?

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Yeah, with all due respect to the good Bishop, strict gun control laws in, say, England have led to an explosion of conversions to the Faith and the Church winning all the cultural battles (gay so called marriage, abortion, etc).

Oh, wait…

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

I honestly did not know who the Bishop was when I posted the above.
My bishop. Not surprised, at all. I will leave it there.

 

[markomalley]

Hmm… has he read CCC 2265? (underlining mine)

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Or try this:

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church:

**401. *The Church’s social doctrine indicates the criteria for exercising the right to resistance: “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave and prolonged violation of fundamental rights, 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted, 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders, 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution”.[824] Recourse to arms is seen as an extreme remedy for putting an end to a “manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country”.[825] The gravity of the danger that recourse to violence entails today makes it preferable in any case that passive resistance *be practised, which is “a way more conformable to moral principles and having no less prospects for success”.[826]
Now how in the world could a population exercise the right to armed resistance (as a last resort) if they have been utterly disarmed?

 

[po18guy]

Or try this:

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church:

**401. *The Church’s social doctrine indicates the criteria for exercising the right to resistance: “Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave and prolonged violation of fundamental rights, 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted, 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders, 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution”.[824] Recourse to arms is seen as an extreme remedy for putting an end to a “manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country”.[825] The gravity of the danger that recourse to violence entails today makes it preferable in any case that passive resistance *be practised, which is “a way more conformable to moral principles and having no less prospects for success”.[826]
Now how in the world could a population exercise the right to armed resistance (as a last resort) if they have been utterly disarmed?

They politely request “dialog” with the Obama administration.

 

[markomalley]

They can defend themselves against home invaders with a gun. As long as they pass a background check and it’s not a type of gun that is banned.

So I assume then that you support background checks for those who wish to speak (provided, of course, that the government hasn’t banned that speech)?

Or, perhaps, you would prefer that all churches have a license to operate? And that those churches can only use government-approved speech?

Or, perhaps a background check should be required before a person can complain of discrimination due to race?

I know that left-wingers are opposed utterly to Constitutional rights. They only believe in rights when the cause is one to which they are sympathetic.

So why should KABA rights be any different than speech rights, rights against discrimination, rights to integrity of property, rights to prohibit compelling self-incrimination, or any other right?

(Oh, yeah, leftists don’t favor any of those…except when they do)

 

[markomalley]

And let us not forget Bl. John Paul II’s Apostolos Suos:

1. The very nature of the teaching office of Bishops requires that, when they exercise it jointly through the Episcopal Conference, this be done in the plenary assembly. Smaller bodies —the permanent council, a commission or other offices—do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference.
   As well as the Complementary Norms issued in the above Motu Proprio:

Art. 1. – In order that the doctrinal declarations of the Conference of Bishops referred to in No. 22 of the present Letter may constitute authentic magisterium and be published in the name of the Conference itself, they must be unanimously approved by the Bishops who are members, or receive the * recognitio* of the Apostolic See if approved in plenary assembly by at least two thirds of the Bishops belonging to the Conference and having a deliberative vote.

      Art. 2. – No body of the Episcopal Conference, outside of the plenary  	assembly, has the power to carry out acts of authentic magisterium. The  	Episcopal Conference cannot grant such power to its Commissions or other  	bodies set up by it.

Bottom line, with due respect to his status as the Bishop of Stockton, +Blaire’s comments are just that: comments. An opinion. They do not have any Magisterial force. (Oh, by the way, the document he referenced has no recognito by the Holy See, so it, too, is merely an opinion)

 

[Luigi_Daniele]

Bottom line, with due respect to his status as the Bishop of Stockton, +Blaire’s comments are just that: comments. An opinion. They do not have any Magisterial force. (Oh, by the way, the document he referenced has no recognito by the Holy See, so it, too, is merely an opinion)

Amen.

And, I might add, a bad one.

 

[Ender]

Bottom line, with due respect to his status as the Bishop of Stockton, +Blaire’s comments are just that: comments. An opinion. They do not have any Magisterial force. (Oh, by the way, the document he referenced has no recognito by the Holy See, so it, too, is merely an opinion)

I can think of few comments better calculated to diminish the authority of the office of bishop than this latest effusion from Bishop Blair. His opinion may be popular with any number of people but it is in fact nothing more than a political perspective dressed up in the language of morality, and although it was surely not his intent he has also seriously damaged the argument about building a culture of life. One could as easily argue that setting the speed limit to 55 helped build a culture of life. The persistent involvement of bishops with the political issue de jour has nothing whatever to recommend it.

Ender

 

[Geist]

Our own Bishop has been lobbying way too hard to punish law abiding citizens with onerous gun laws, several gun owning Catholics are refusing to contribute to the annual Diocese appeal as a result, myself included.

Actions have consequences.

 

[WildeKurt]

A ‘culture of life’ has nothing to do with gun laws. When will folks realize it’s the people committing the mayhem. Guns (or knives as happened recently) are just the tools. Mass (seemingly random) killings by individuals is a symptom of a problem. It’s a little sad to see a Bishop who would publicly jump on the Obama/secularist bandwagon and say things like this. Has he learned nothing of the trustworthyness of these folks?

The ‘culture of death’ is part and parcel with a host of other problems that currently beset western civilization. All the laws in the world will not stop the evil that year after year casts it’s shadow over up more and more… The Church and it’s leaders are at it’s best when it speaks to mens souls and says out of politics. I think the Pharasees like to dable in that stuff and cow-tow to the Romans. It didn’t work out so well for them either. The Romans had their own agenda and it didn’t include them. The ruling elite that currently make up the US federal government has thiers and it doesn’t include the Bishops.

 

[jay29]

He would have a point IF guns were only used for crimes and wasn’t a right protected by law.

If my guns never were used to commit a crime, would they still be part of the culture of death?

 

[pnewton]

Bad people will always be able to get guns.

We are all “bad people”. * “For there is no difference. All has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.”* The term you use, “bad people” assumes a category that does not practically exist. If we really want to be practical, we must recognize not only that some will always have access to illegal guns, but also that most people (who are bad) still choose to follow the law out of desire to avoid punishment. “Bad people can always get guns” makes no more sense that saying we should not outlaw theft because bad people will steal anyway, or drugs, murder, etc. The fact that criminals have guns and can get guns is, however, a sound argument for making weapons available to the citizenry, even if they are controlled.

 

[pnewton]

“We support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns,” Bishop Blaire wrote, quoting the document.

I for the life of me can not find why this would be objectionable to anyone. While I agree with the bishop, I can understand why some here might not agree with his position on certain weapons.