Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[pnewton]

…and for the record, I don’t own any guns nor do I have any plans on getting any. Just say’in.

Ironically, I do, a handgun.

 

[Geist]

So your objection is that it is inconvenient? Or is it that there is nothing that can be done to more effectively safeguard life?

Both. I resent treated as a criminal when actual criminals will never deal with the yoke being put on me in the name of inconveniencing them.

 

[SamH]

Both. I resent treated as a criminal when actual criminals will never deal with the yoke being put on me in the name of inconveniencing them.

While your attempt to safeguard life is being fustrated.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, the efforts of the Obama/Democrat party/liberals to exploit tragedies to further their political goals of transforming our country and “modernizing our constitution” have awakened a sleeping giant of gun owners and constitutionalists. Obama does not like our constitution because it gets in the way of his efforts to re-shape our country. Its inconvenient. Passing gun control may make liberal Catholics feel better and self-righteous, but it won’t prevent future massacres. Meanwhile, there is a trial of the Planned Parenthood slaughterer but liberals don’t care because of who got slaughtered (the unborn) and who was doing the slaughtering (a minority “doctor” at Planned Parenthood).

Ishii

But it’s acceptable if a partisan group exploits a tragedy to further a political view on the gun control issue?

'Gun owners and constitutionalists, where does God fit in with what you’re identifying?

Nothing will prevent future massacres, murders, theft, rape, etc. Meanwhile, there are other issues. So let’s quit trying to stop anything else. Even if abortion was made illegal, right this minute, would all abortions cease? Women would still get abortions, either illegally or, by traveling to where it is legal.

We don’t give up on any of it. The only way to stop it is by mass inclusion of God, not ‘politics.’ Political is easy to see, especially when it’s repeated over, and over. Repeating it in such a fashion is as political, if not more, than the partisan group being called out repeatedly.

I doubt we’ll see the bishops call for controls on ‘pressure cookers,’ or even bombs. A pressure cooker was a part of a bomb, and all bombs are illegal. They have identified, as has a major part of the population, a deadly problem with items that are legal, and all they have asked for is ‘controls.’

Some think that exploiting a part of the bomb is an intelligent way to argue keeping other instruments designed specifically to kill. Propane tanks, a bottle of gas, even air tanks can be built into an explosive device. The exploitation seems to say, ‘they’re going to kill, so there’s no need to control our guns.’

You continue to bring up abortion, and we know the goal is, not only to stop it but, to limit it in anyway possible. But, when it comes to our guns, we can’t stop those murders, so there’s no need to try and control it. This is why people see some gun rights arguments as self serving, and even placing them above all things.

What the bishops have spoke on is not political. Spend some time on the USCCB website. ‘Surf’ around and do some reading. There’s enough there to place either political party at odds with what they say. That’s the problem. People read the issues on the bishops website through the political lens, instead of the spiritual lens. Spiritual messages cannot be seen through a political lens.

 

[SamH]

But it’s acceptable if a partisan group exploits a tragedy to further a political view on the gun control issue?.

You mean like Obama did with those children in Sandy Hook?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You mean like Obama did with those children in Sandy Hook?

Is it any different than what some gun right advocates are doing with the bombing in Boston? Two wrongs don’t make a right.

The president is in a bad position. He would have been criticized if he had not said anything. The only thing that would have made speaking out for the children acceptable to some partisans would have been if another political party controlled the white house, or if the political leaders jumped on the gun rights band wagon calling for a greater armament among citizens.

There’s a great hypocrisy to politics, and how it’s played against the common good. The greatest irony is how the people fall right in line with partisanship over the common good. The same people would accept the advocacy of a person without legitimate gun rights, as long as they spoke in favor of gun rights for them.

 

[Ender]

I had thought a good goal would be to require background checks on ALL sales. That, for some odd reason, was to much to sacrifice by some gun rights activists.

This is not an unreasonable position to hold. The point being made, however, has nothing to do with whether that is a good or bad idea but whether it is a moral choice. Obviously, it isn’t.

Contributes to a culture of death, or life, is guidance from our bishops.

No, it is merely an assertion from one bishop without fact or argument to support it.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What I’m confused on here is whether or not the Bishops are claiming that they themselves can predict the future as prophets do, or whether they are claiming that God has spoken to them with direct knowledge about the future.

There are a number of things about the bishops’ involvement in this issue that I object to and near the top of the list is the fact that they imply much more than they say, which I find extremely troubling. I think the bishops realize that on prudential matters such as this one they cannot claim we have a moral obligation to accept their opinions and that were they to be too specific in their recommendations this would be obvious. What they have done here is to make vague and generic statements which serve as starting points for others to argue specifics in their name. What we end up with are any number of people (as we have seen on this thread) who believe we have a moral obligation to implement specific proposals even though nothing specific was proposed by the bishops. I consider it disingenuous but it has been going on for so many decades the approach has become an accepted part of the political landscape.

Ender

 

[Ender]

You have received several answers. You just argue that they are wrong, false, or some other way not an actual answer. I tend to quit answering such questions once they have been back an forth enough. My answers remain on this thread.

I’m sorry, I have obviously missed the relevant posts. If you wouldn’t mind either identifying the posts you refer to or just giving the answer again I would appreciate it. Just so there is no confusion about what I am asking for I will clarify the point: what specific proposal presents us with a moral choice so that taking one side or the other is sinful?

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is not an unreasonable position to hold. The point being made, however, has nothing to do with whether that is a good or bad idea but whether it is a moral choice. Obviously, it isn’t.

No, it is merely an assertion from one bishop without fact or argument to support it.

Ender

To determine whether it’s a moral choice, we have to look within ourselves, and our intentions. If our intentions are sacrifices for others, that they may avoid harm; then our intention was a moral choice. It is also a moral choice to say individual defense is more important than an attempt to safeguard others through controls.

Visit the USCCB website and read their mission goal. They are a governing body, within the hierarchy of the Church. They do not all have to speak, if they have processes to allow committee chairmen speak for them. The one bishop some continue make this out to be, specifically lists the names of 4, 3 chairmen, and the president of the conference. .The USCCB has 454 active and retired members. There are none who have disagreed, or even made qualifications to the statement, made for the total body, as according to their mission statement.

 

[Ender]

To determine whether it’s a moral choice, we have to look within ourselves, and our intentions.

A bad intention will make any action sinful, but we’re not speaking of intentions but of specific proposals regarding gun control and there are no proposals being made that oblige us to support them because to do otherwise would be sinful.

It is also a moral choice to say individual defense is more important than an attempt to safeguard others through controls.

No one has suggested that this is the choice before us. That you reduce your opponents position to selfishness on their part is an uncharitable judgment that says something about you but nothing about them.

Ender

 

[Ender]

What specifically is that?

I might like to jump on board.

You’ve missed my point. Whether any specific proposal will be useful is not the issue I’ve been addressing. I’ve not suggested that any particular idea is good or bad. What I have said is that the alternative proposals are all morally neutral; there is no moral justification for preferring one position over another. There may well be much stronger arguments that this law should be enacted rather than that law but that is entirely different than saying there is an argument that one law is more moral than another. There is no moral distinction between the laws proposed by Obama and the liberals in the Senate and those put forth by the NRA. The reasons the sides may be pushing one set of laws may be immoral, but that doesn’t affect the morality of the proposals themselves. Proposals are wise or unwise; they are not moral or immoral.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A bad intention will make any action sinful, but we’re not speaking of intentions but of specific proposals regarding gun control and there are no proposals being made that oblige us to support them because to do otherwise would be sinful.

No one has suggested that this is the choice before us. That you reduce your opponents position to selfishness on their part is an uncharitable judgment that says something about you but nothing about them.

Ender

Our intentions towards simple guidance from the bishops is, in itself, moral, in my opinion.

No, I am not judging anyone, and certainly have no intentions of being uncharitable. Multiple times I have qualified my statements to be an explanation of how I arrive at my view/opinion, through my faith formed conscience. I apologize if you missed that.

 

[TEPO]

But it’s acceptable if a partisan group exploits a tragedy to further a political view on the gun control issue?

'Gun owners and constitutionalists, where does God fit in with what you’re identifying?

Nothing will prevent future massacres, murders, theft, rape, etc. Meanwhile, there are other issues. So let’s quit trying to stop anything else. Even if abortion was made illegal, right this minute, would all abortions cease? Women would still get abortions, either illegally or, by traveling to where it is legal.

We don’t give up on any of it. The only way to stop it is by mass inclusion of God, not ‘politics.’ Political is easy to see, especially when it’s repeated over, and over. Repeating it in such a fashion is as political, if not more, than the partisan group being called out repeatedly.

I doubt we’ll see the bishops call for controls on ‘pressure cookers,’ or even bombs. A pressure cooker was a part of a bomb, and all bombs are illegal. They have identified, as has a major part of the population, a deadly problem with items that are legal, and all they have asked for is ‘controls.’

Some think that exploiting a part of the bomb is an intelligent way to argue keeping other instruments designed specifically to kill. Propane tanks, a bottle of gas, even air tanks can be built into an explosive device. The exploitation seems to say, ‘they’re going to kill, so there’s no need to control our guns.’

You continue to bring up abortion, and we know the goal is, not only to stop it but, to limit it in anyway possible. But, when it comes to our guns, we can’t stop those murders, so there’s no need to try and control it. This is why people see some gun rights arguments as self serving, and even placing them above all things.

What the bishops have spoke on is not political. Spend some time on the USCCB website. ‘Surf’ around and do some reading. There’s enough there to place either political party at odds with what they say. That’s the problem. People read the issues on the bishops website through the political lens, instead of the spiritual lens. Spiritual messages cannot be seen through a political lens.

Additionally, since the Bishops have no direct solution and are not able to write law, our support for policy change equals support for ‘anything different’ from what we currently have. Therefore, we’re depending on chance… Which is a gamble… Which is uncertain… Which cannot be considered a faith-based moral decision.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Additionally, since the Bishops have no direct solution and are not able to write law, our support for policy change equals support for ‘anything different’ from what we currently have. Therefore, we’re depending on chance… Which is a gamble… Which is uncertain… Which cannot be considered a faith-based moral decision.

It seems you ignore the intent, that I have qualified, of our actions.

The bishops refer to:

In their memory and for the sake of our nation, we reiterate our call made in 2000, in our statement, Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, for all Americans, especially legislators, to:

1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms

2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)

3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns

4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons

5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.

My intent would be to accept those minor inconveniences, as a law abiding citizen, for the sake of our nation, as the bishops refer to above. That is a moral choice, based on the guidance of the US bishops, in my opinion.

 

[TEPO]

It seems you ignore the intent, that I have qualified, of our actions.

The bishops refer to:

My intent would be to accept those minor inconveniences, as a law abiding citizen, for the sake of our nation, as the bishops refer to above. That is a moral choice, based on the guidance of the US bishops, in my opinion.

I don’t think so… I think it could only be a moral choice if you know for a FACT that by following these measures that good will result -and the only way to know for sure is if God Himself has revealed that truth.

We believe that the gospels are fact because we believe that they were inspired directly through the Holy Spirit. If the Bishops were to say that their message on this issue was directly inspired through the H.S. as a revealed truth, then I would accept the message as a fact. I would be morally obligated to support it.

Point being, personal intentions are only moral if conducted for the sake of following God Himself. Following the suggestions of clergymen can never be considered more than suggestive guidance. If the Bishops were to advise me to support them on a mission to advocate a certain ‘Americanized’ diet for the populace, I might deny that too unless it was through the direct guidance of God… It needs to be Private Revelation in other words.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No good. You can’t assume that. If the bishops did not vote on it as required for a binding instruction, it’s just an opinion of those three or four who expressed or endorsed it.

You know that.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It seems you ignore the intent, that I have qualified, of our actions.

The bishops refer to:

My intent would be to accept those minor inconveniences, as a law abiding citizen, for the sake of our nation, as the bishops refer to above. That is a moral choice, based on the guidance of the US bishops, in my opinion.

The 2000 statement says not a word about semi automatic rifles. It’s about handguns only, and particularly about “cheap handguns”, the “Saturday night specials” that were decried in the news a decade and more ago. You can’t bolster your specifically anti-rifle position with a statement about handguns.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t think so… I think it could only be a moral choice if you know for a FACT that by following these measures that good will result -and the only way to know for sure is if God Himself has revealed that truth.

We believe that the gospels are fact because we believe that they were inspired directly through the Holy Spirit. If the Bishops were to say that their message on this issue was directly inspired through the H.S. as a revealed truth, then I would accept the message as a fact. I would be morally obligated to support it.

Point being, personal intentions are only moral if conducted for the sake of following God Himself. Following the suggestions of clergymen can never be considered more than suggestive guidance. If the Bishops were to advise me to support them on a mission to advocate a certain ‘Americanized’ diet for the populace, I might deny that too unless it was through the direct guidance of God… It needs to be Private Revelation in other words.

For me, it’s moral. While it may not be moral for you, I have to accept it as moral according to my belief, and my faith formed conscience. That, I am bound to.

Here’s an excerpt from the USCCB:

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church, called the Magisterium, lies with all of the bishops who are led by the pope and guided by the Holy Spirit. The pope and bishops are the authoritative teachers in the Church. In this section of our Web site, you can find information about many forms of Catholic teaching.

Following the authoritative, and apostolic, men of the Church, is following God, in my opinion. I accept it as such. They are speaking about a culture of life, and a culture of death; not about some diet.

Did private revelation choose our new Pope, or was it the work of the Holy Spirit acting through the men of the Church?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No good. You can’t assume that. If the bishops did not vote on it as required for a binding instruction, it’s just an opinion of those three or four who expressed or endorsed it.

You know that.

I provided the information from the USCCB mission, and how it demonstrates a ‘governing’ body within the hierarchy of the Church. I accept it as such, and understand you don’t. I can’t reconcile silence in the face of most public statements, stating it represents the US bishops, as opposing, or not endorsing, especially in the absence of any dissenting opinions being offered by any bishop.

We’ve covered that as far as we can and I don’t see a need to address it again.