Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[styrgwillidar]

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.

Ok, no problem with any of these. However, what are the details and if the proposed laws actually make things worse instead of better in terms of deaths of innocents, what is the correct moral position?

1. We already have plenty of laws controling weapon sales. Done.
2. Pretty generic statement I can support, but–what are the details of specific laws and will they make things worse instead of better overall?
3. Your and my definition of ‘sensible’ regulations are far different. The stricter regulations in Chicago are directly related to the higher death rates of innocents then more lenient regulations elsewhere. So, which are sensible-- the ones passed based on good intentions which actually have worse results? No.
4. I’ll support legislation elimating gun-free zones as the most effective means of protecting society from violence. Far more effective and less impact in making the law abiding more vulnerable than weapon bans. Again, ‘assualt weapons’ whatever legal definition you apply are statistcially miniscule contributor to the problem.

Unless, those assault weapons are in the hands of the government. Than, recent history has shown, the slaughter can be so huge that crime pales into roundoff error. The best protection for society against that far more lethal threat is a well armed populace.

1. Agreed.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Ok, no problem with any of these. However, what are the details and if the proposed laws actually make things worse instead of better in terms of deaths of innocents, what is the correct moral position?

1. We already have plenty of laws controling weapon sales. Done.
2. Pretty generic statement I can support, but–what are the details of specific laws and will they make things worse instead of better overall?
3. Your and my definition of ‘sensible’ regulations are far different. The stricter regulations in Chicago are directly related to the higher death rates of innocents then more lenient regulations elsewhere. So, which are sensible-- the ones passed based on good intentions which actually have worse results? No.
4. I’ll support legislation elimating gun-free zones as the most effective means of protecting society from violence. Far more effective and less impact in making the law abiding more vulnerable than weapon bans. Again, ‘assualt weapons’ whatever legal definition you apply are statistcially miniscule contributor to the problem.

Unless, those assault weapons are in the hands of the government. Than, recent history has shown, the slaughter can be so huge that crime pales into roundoff error. The best protection for society against that far more lethal threat is a well armed populace.

1. Agreed.

Do loopholes still exist that have no control over the sale of firearms, i.e. background checks? If so, not enough done.

I have posted, with emphasis, on the bishops statements for all Americans, especially legislators… That seems to cover concerns over the next two.

The differences of opinion on the assault weapon is something the bishops suggested, and I accept. I don’t know how to reconcile that for you. From the definition of assault weapons from some gun rights activists on these forums, the government already has, and has had, them. I assume they are the legitimate authority the Catechism refers to.

I have fairly well covered this topic as far as I can, especially in my most recent posts. If I see something new, that I feel I should respond to, I will.

 

[TEPO]

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:

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?

How I understand it is as follows. The Pope alone has been given the authority to either bind or loosen law here on earth, which means for example, if the Vatican drew a draft stating that Priests could marry, and the Pope approved it -it would become law… The Pope would have then just bound or loosened something. Under the direction of the Pope, the Bishops might then, using their own authority that was given to them, teach their parish priests the do’s and do nots about the new law.

But this is all only in regards to Canon Law… The law of the Church here on earth. The Bishops have their own authority in regards to the law though -they can set the rules in their diocese in regards to say Baptism for example. For instance, perhaps one Bishop asks his priests to extend or shorten the waiting period for infant baptisms. Or perhaps another Bishop might leave it up to the parish priests to decide. All of this of course is authority that they have been granted through the Holy Spirit. Also, Cardinals who elect a new Pope do so through the law, which was established by a previous pope, who bound that rule through his authority that was granted by the Holy Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit works through the cardinals in conjunction with the contract that was made in law between the previous pope and God.

…But neither the Pope nor Bishops can declare that either this, that or the other is now a new sin or is not because that authority is reserved to God. What CAN be done is the clarification of sin, such as a papal letter signed by the Pope saying for example that becoming a Freemason is a sin… Even though it has always been a sin, the clarification had been made and that was done through Private Revelation. The call for Vatican 2 was Private revelation… A “call to action” — I cannot see being private revelation because it was not addressed as such. I cannot see it as binding or loosening either because its not involved with canon law.

I seethe call to action as something ‘different’. it’s more like a personal statement shared by people with common goals. It’s worldly -not supernatural at all… Not having anything to do with faith or morals.

 

[pnewton]

t. 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?

Then for for that, there is no answer. There is no sin, at least objectively, in this political issue. What I responded to is that idea that the lack of objective sin means that this is not a moral issue. There remains a moral issue, subjectively, namely, do we value life over politics, convenience or sports. If our position on a specific legislation is made with proper moral priorities, we will still disagree with others.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How I understand it is as follows. The Pope alone has been given the authority to either bind or loosen law here on earth, which means for example, if the Vatican drew a draft stating that Priests could marry, and the Pope approved it -it would become law… The Pope would have then just bound or loosened something. Under the direction of the Pope, the Bishops might then, using their own authority that was given to them, teach their parish priests the do’s and do nots about the new law.

But this is all only in regards to Canon Law… The law of the Church here on earth. The Bishops have their own authority in regards to the law though -they can set the rules in their diocese in regards to say Baptism for example. For instance, perhaps one Bishop asks his priests to extend or shorten the waiting period for infant baptisms. Or perhaps another Bishop might leave it up to the parish priests to decide. All of this of course is authority that they have been granted through the Holy Spirit. Also, Cardinals who elect a new Pope do so through the law, which was established by a previous pope, who bound that rule through his authority that was granted by the Holy Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit works through the cardinals in conjunction with the contract that was made in law between the previous pope and God.

…But neither the Pope nor Bishops can declare that either this, that or the other is now a new sin or is not because that authority is reserved to God. What CAN be done is the clarification of sin, such as a papal letter signed by the Pope saying for example that becoming a Freemason is a sin… Even though it has always been a sin, the clarification had been made and that was done through Private Revelation. The call for Vatican 2 was Private revelation… A “call to action” — I cannot see being private revelation because it was not addressed as such. I cannot see it as binding or loosening either because its not involved with canon law.

I seethe call to action as something ‘different’. it’s more like a personal statement shared by people with common goals. It’s worldly -not supernatural at all… Not having anything to do with faith or morals.

I cannot speak on behalf of something I did not say. I have not said it was binding, or law. I said it was ‘guidance.’ I have said that I can see the moral implications. I have not bound anyone else to my perceptions. I have explained this is my view/opinion, which comes from my faith formed conscience, and that we are all obligated to act on our faith formed conscience. I even qualified that the Catechism states we can be in err in our conscience. I did not say this ‘call to action’ was private revelation. I have provided scriptures, and statements from our bishops, some referring to Pontifical councils on the subject. I have stated I don’t know of any bishop that has spoken a disagreement of the statements. I have said those people with common goals are authoritative men of the Church and I feel the necessity to follow their united call, in the absence of any dissenting voice.

We are Catholics. We don’t receive something from one, and seek out a different opinion that fits well with out view. To weigh this as people with common goals, or guidance from the authoritative men of the Church, I have asked for any statements from fellow bishops that do not agree. In the absence of that, I have said I believe this is a unified statement. I believe that because I give the bishops credit for knowing what is being spoken in their name, through their conference, and I believe the bishops would have spoken out clarifications, corrections, or disagreements.

They have spoken spiritually on the matter, in my opinion. They have not relied on ‘constitution,’ ‘bill of rights,’ ‘need to prevent a government takeover,’ or even ‘rights to self defense.’ I have weighed the issue, as a Catholic, and a gun owner. I am obligated to act on my faith formed conscience, as we all are. It is possible to be in err through our faith formed conscience, but I must act on mine. That’s not to say those with a different opinion truly have not done these things, or that others are wrong. Why others insist on making those type statements towards me is not only confusing, it draws me closer to what I believe about the bishops, and their statements being guidance.

 

[HansTrappist]

Gun control, while a remote issue, is a matter of morals, in that in it we can see whether we truly value human life. Only when confronted with those whom it is hardest to have mercy towards, to we see ourselves compared to Jesus. Now we can surely disagree with any legislation, but our motive know to God alone is a matter of morals.

Nope, gun control is not an issue of faith or morals. It is an issue of public policy. In this instance, the good Bishop is not speaking for the Magisterium but is rather giving his own personal political opinion - which is fine - but let’s not pretend that he is speaking authoritatively on an issue of faith and morals. Even the Popes have been wrong in the past on issues of public policy.

Self-Defense is a fundamental human right, independent of written constitutions.

Guns are not intrinsically evil.

Gun control is a matter of public policy. It is an amoral issue.

In contrast, murder is intrinsically evil and therefore an issue of faith and morals.

 

[pnewton]

Nope, gun control is not an issue of faith or morals. It is an issue of public policy. In this instance, the good Bishop is not speaking for the Magisterium but is rather giving his own personal political opinion - which is fine - but let’s not pretend that he is speaking authoritatively on an issue of faith and morals. .

I am not pretending anything. I just do not agree with your “nope.”

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Don’t then.

Canon law says that the private opinions of bishops do not represent the bishops as a whole unless 2/3 vote in favor of the proposition and it is approved by the Holy See, or is adopted by 100% of the bishops.

You choose to accept the private opinions of from 1-4 bishops. They are in no way binding on any Catholics, including you.

Why do you suppose the bishops whose opinions you share due to your political proclivities are not approved by any of the other bishops? It’s because they are simply private opinions, not binding on Catholics. Had they thought so, they and the Holy See would have so declared.

It’s just wrong to try to persuade people that private opinions, even of a bishop, somehow represent the teachings of the Church when they just plain don’t.

 

[HansTrappist]

I am not pretending anything. I just do not agree with your “nope.”

So, is or is not gun control an issue of faith and morals?

If you say that it is, then please cite the relevant portion of the Catechism and/or Church document.

And just a refresher: infallible teachings of the Church (of which gun control is not), are doctrines created in one of three ways: by an ex cathedra proclamation of the Pope; by an proclamation made by the Council of Bishops in union with the Pope; or by the ordinary Magisterium.

In order for a doctrine to be eligible for infallible status it must be: an issue of faith and morals; an issue that** applies to the universal Church**, intended to be infallible when it is defined and proclaimed - the legislator being either the Pope speaking ex cathedra or the Council of Bishops making an infallible proclamation. In the case of infallibility by the ordinary magisterium, the doctrine must have been taught from the beginning and affirmed through the ages** as a part of the deposit of faith**.

“Gun control” does not even come close to meeting any of those criteria and therefore the good Bishop is giving his personal opinion on an issue of public policy, and** is speaking for himself not for the Bishops in Union with the Holy Father**.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Don’t then.

Canon law says that the private opinions of bishops do not represent the bishops as a whole unless 2/3 vote in favor of the proposition and it is approved by the Holy See, or is adopted by 100% of the bishops.

You choose to accept the private opinions of from 1-4 bishops. They are in no way binding on any Catholics, including you.

Why do you suppose the bishops whose opinions you share due to your political proclivities are not approved by any of the other bishops? It’s because they are simply private opinions, not binding on Catholics. Had they thought so, they and the Holy See would have so declared.

It’s just wrong to try to persuade people that private opinions, even of a bishop, somehow represent the teachings of the Church when they just plain don’t.

The problem is, you can no more produce a ‘vote count’ than I can, which means you are speculating as well. Right? I will stay with their president, and 3 chairmen. They represent groups, at the very least, and without any dissenting voices to oppose gun controls.

 

[Ridgerunner]

. I have asked for any statements from fellow bishops that do not agree. In the absence of that, I have said I believe this is a unified statement. I believe that because I give the bishops credit for knowing what is being spoken in their name, through their conference, and I believe the bishops would have spoken out clarifications, corrections, or disagreements.

I am obligated to act on my faith formed conscience, as we all are.

The bishops almost never challenge what any other bishop says. You know that. That’s part of what bishops are supposed to do. On the other hand, the ones you cite as moral authorities did not even bring the issue before the whole body of bishops which, in itself, is telling.

We are not obligated to act on “faith formed conscience”. Every protestant thinks the same thing about it. We are obliged to follow the teachings of the Church and democrat political programs are NOT coextensive with the teachings of the Church. Not on banning weapons that look scary to some. Not on abortion. Not on anything.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The bishops almost never challenge what any other bishop says. You know that. That’s part of what bishops are supposed to do. On the other hand, the ones you cite as moral authorities did not even bring the issue before the whole body of bishops which, in itself, is telling.

We are not obligated to act on “faith formed conscience”. Every protestant thinks the same thing about it. We are obliged to follow the teachings of the Church and democrat political programs are NOT coextensive with the teachings of the Church. Not on banning weapons that look scary to some. Not on abortion. Not on anything.

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

Worded differently, but essentially the same. I apologize for summarizing.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The problem is, you can no more produce a ‘vote count’ than I can, which means you are speculating as well. Right? I will stay with their president, and 3 chairmen. They represent groups, at the very least, and without any dissenting voices to oppose gun controls.

They represent themselves only, and Canon Law confirms it.

The mere fact that these four or so bishops didn’t bring it before the whole body of bishops tells me they knew they would never get the votes, and certainly not the approval of the Holy See for it.

Neither the majority of the bishops nor the Holy See are in agreement with everything the democrat party wants to promote as a political program. So, four bishops agree with Obama and you in this one thing. It means nothing at all more than that.

And you know it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

They represent themselves only, and Canon Law confirms it.

The mere fact that these four or so bishops didn’t bring it before the whole body of bishops tells me they knew they would never get the votes, and certainly not the approval of the Holy See for it.

Neither the majority of the bishops nor the Holy See are in agreement with everything the democrat party wants to promote as a political program. So, four bishops agree with Obama and you in this one thing. It means nothing at all more than that.

And you know it.

I don’t know it, and find your accusatory tone offensive.

How do you know they didn’t bring it before the whole body?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Worded differently, but essentially the same. I apologize for summarizing.

Here’s your quote:

"1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. "

I wouldn’t disagree with that. But one is obliged to follow the teachings of the Church all the same, not just whatever his own conscience tells him.

Now, since you know the opinion of these 1-4 bishops is just their opinion, and does not represent Church teaching, then you ought to refrain from suggestions that it does. To do so poses a hazard that “moral conscience (will) remain in ignorance and make erroneous judgments…”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here’s your quote:

"1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed. "

I wouldn’t disagree with that. But one is obliged to follow the teachings of the Church all the same, not just whatever his own conscience tells him.

Now, since you know the opinion of these 1-4 bishops is just their opinion, and does not represent Church teaching, then you ought to refrain from suggestions that it does. To do so poses a hazard that “moral conscience (will) remain in ignorance and make erroneous judgments…”

I don’t believe it to be opinion. So, please don’t assume what I believe. If I am in err, I am comfortable erring on their side, for the sake my fellow man.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I don’t know it, and find your accusatory tone offensive.

How do you know they didn’t bring it before the whole body?

Show me where they did. You can’t, because they didn’t. Or if they did, only four agreed.

One should not take offense at the truth. You do know what the Canon Law provides. It has been quoted above.

You are saying you choose to agree with Bp. Blaire and these other three. Fine. Agree with them. But do not represent that they somehow represent all of the bishops of the U.S. or the teachings of the Church, because they don’t.

Perhaps you didn’t mean to say that. Perhaps it only seemed so. I’m willing to stipulate that the former is the case.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Show me where they did. You can’t, because they didn’t. Or if they did, only four agreed.

One should not take offense at the truth. You do know what the Canon Law provides. It has been quoted above.

You are saying you choose to agree with Bp. Blaire and these other three. Fine. Agree with them. But do not represent that they somehow represent all of the bishops of the U.S. or the teachings of the Church, because they don’t.

Perhaps you didn’t mean to say that. Perhaps it only seemed so. I’m willing to stipulate that the former is the case.

I said you could no more give a vote count than I could and therefore were speculating. But you assert a vote did not happen. So you can assert based on what? I provided documents, on their website and gave excerpts from the their mission, that indicates they represent the whole. Then, there’s always that troubling no voice stating otherwise.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I said you could no more give a vote count than I could and therefore were speculating. But you assert a vote did not happen. So you can assert based on what? I provided documents, on their website and gave excerpts from the their mission, that indicates they represent the whole. Then, there’s always that troubling no voice stating otherwise.

When you have something besides a ‘feeling’ please let me know.

It isn’t a matter of “feeling” on my part.

I didn’t assert either that a vote happened or that it did not. I only cited the two possibilities in the absence of proof that the Canon Law was followed, making it binding on Catholics. I challenged you to demonstrate that either 100% of the bishops approved this opinion of the four, or that 2/3 did and that it was approved by the Holy See as required by Canon Law. You did neither.

And unless you demonstrate those things, you are simply citing an opinion of from one to four bishops that you happen to share for your own reasons. Nothing more.

I have other things to do now. But I’ll see your response sometime or other if you do respond.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It isn’t a matter of “feeling” on my part.

I didn’t assert either that a vote happened or that it did not. I only cited the two possibilities in the absence of proof that the Canon Law was followed, making it binding on Catholics. I challenged you to demonstrate that either 100% of the bishops approved this opinion of the four, or that 2/3 did and that it was approved by the Holy See as required by Canon Law. You did neither.

And unless you demonstrate those things, you are simply citing an opinion of from one to four bishops that you happen to share for your own reasons. Nothing more.

I have other things to do now. But I’ll see your response sometime or other if you do respond.

I provided the excerpt from the USSCB MISSION that stated:

**

1. Through Conference Committees and Staff

In carrying out their respective mandates, committees and work groups strive to respond to the mission of the Conference as a total body.

**

It would seem safe to think that since those committees strive to respond to the mission of the Conference as a total body, some expectation would be reasonable that members of the conference know what is being said, especially in communications seeking legislation that affect all American Catholics.

I also provided a statement, from their How We Teach section that stated:

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.

They give their authority, as led by the Pope, and guidance by the Holy Spirit. Again, it would seem safe to assume they are acting under the approval of the Pope, especially on such public communications as to be conveyed to the federal government.

I asked for corrections, and am not perfect, and can make mistakes. But I am not refusing this as moral guidance until someone can show me it is something otherwise. My goals are for the next life, not this one.