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.
Ridgerunner said:
Your post contained this from the article:

“But the problem with Bishop Blaire’s statement goes deeper, because actually there was no Senate “failure” to support gun-control regulations. The bill was not defeated; it was withdrawn—by its supporters. Now is Bishop Blaire criticizing Democratic Party leaders for an untimely retreat? Or is he criticizing Republicans for declining to give the Democratic leaders exactly what they wanted? Or is he saying that the bill should have been approved as it stood? Is he suggesting that no amendment could possibly have improved the legislation? Bishop Blaire might have his own personal opinions on any or all of those questions. Since they would only be personal opinions—they certainly aren’t issues on which bishops speak authoritatively—it would be best if he kept them to himself.”

I agree with this assessment. If a bishop wants to deliver his personal opinions about something, he ought to avoid causing moral confusion among the laity. In utilizing communication modes that could mislead the laity into thinking his personal opinions are somehow the teachings of the Church, he is doing the Church a disservice.

That is precisely what most of this thread is all about. The argument is whether Bp Blaire and perhaps three others are giving moral instruction to the Church in the U.S. as a whole. Canon Law says they’re not, yet the argument drones on and on that somehow they are.

Since they obviously caused moral confusion, they should not have done what they did in this manner.
Click to expand...
A Bishops duty is to teach, according to what I understand. If there is confusion on what is being taught, then that Bishop owes his flock a deeper and more detailed explanation. THAT I do believe is a moral obligation.
 
ishii said:
I don’t even remember who you supported. But I am sure that who you supported was vastly better than the eventual election winner. There are other issues of course, but building a culture of life is part of the thread title. It is totally appropriate for abortion to enter into a discussion of life issues. People complain about how often the abortion issue comes up in threads that are seemingly not about abortion. But how we treat the most vulnerable among us - the unborn - has implications for so many other issues. Remember that the right to life is the springboard to all other rights. Abortion is really the issue of our time, I think. How we treat the most vulnerable among us defines who we are as a country. There are those who might think the abortion issue to be most inconvenient - and get upset when its brought up. But it should make people give pause and be a cause for some unease among all of us: what are we doing to stop it? If one is only giving lipservice on internet forums to the pro-life cause then that is not enough. If one is ignoring the duty as Catholic citizens to help shape our laws to reflect the sanctity of life then they are clearly turning a blind eye. If one engages in pro-life activities on the ground (donating to crisis pregancy center or helping unwed mothers, etc.) but then they turn around and vote for Nancy Pelosi, then they are being inconsistent, or worse.

Ishii
Click to expand...
Abortion is evil, and Catholics are obligated, forbidden even, to participate. It is a life issue. When a madman picks up a gun and takes the lives of a group of innocent people, it is equally evil. Our duties for life are the same for all people, from conception until natural death. We don’t limit ourselves to a single issue. We speak out on all.
 
TEPO said:
A Bishops duty is to teach, according to what I understand. If there is confusion on what is being taught, then that Bishop owes his flock a deeper and more detailed explanation. THAT I do believe is a moral obligation.
Click to expand...
That obligation extends to any bishop that has knowledge of a cause of confusion that is represented as a statement for them all in this country. That’s why I say, ‘a bishop is obligated beyond silence if something is presented on behalf of the governing body in the Church, which they are members of, and would speak any concerns, corrections, or opposition.’
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Abortion is evil, and Catholics are obligated, forbidden even, to participate. It is a life issue. When a madman picks up a gun and takes the lives of a group of innocent people, it is equally evil. Our duties for life are the same for all people, from conception until natural death. We don’t limit ourselves to a single issue. We speak out on all.
Click to expand...
So, we should outlaw pressure cookers and fertilizer as well as guns?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Abortion is evil, and Catholics are obligated, forbidden even, to participate. It is a life issue. When a madman picks up a gun and takes the lives of a group of innocent people, it is equally evil. Our duties for life are the same for all people, from conception until natural death. We don’t limit ourselves to a single issue. We speak out on all.
Click to expand...
Yes, they are both equally evil. The difference is abortion is legal, picking up a gun and killing a bunch of innocent people is not.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
So, we should outlaw pressure cookers and fertilizer as well as guns?
Click to expand...
Isn’t it also our duty to protect life by stopping the madman with a gun?

The police in Watertown had two criminals surrounded by several (20+) officers and fired over 250 rounds from various weapons ranging from 13 round 40 caliber Glocks to 30 round AR15 rifles and only succeeded in stopping one of them. I’m supposed to be sufficiently armed with a 7 round handgun when an intruder breaks into my home?
:rolleyes:
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
So, we should outlaw pressure cookers and fertilizer as well as guns?
Click to expand...
Were they all designed for the same purpose? I’m sorry, I don’t agree with that comparison being made and only see it as an attempt to downgrade and detract from the gun issue. If you believe they are sincerely a danger, do something about it instead of throwing it out as justification of no regulations on tools designed to kill.
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Were they all designed for the same purpose? I’m sorry, I don’t agree with that comparison being made and only see it as an attempt to downgrade and detract from the gun issue. If you believe they are sincerely a danger, do something about it instead of throwing it out as justification of no regulations on tools designed to kill.
Click to expand...
A gun isn’t designed to kill. It’s designed to fire a projectile. You’ve heard the “guns don’t kill people” adage?

I’m still trying to grasp the logic how universal background checks (80%+ of guns purchased illegally or through straw purchase) or magazine limits (already in place in many areas (that continue to have high crime, a majority of crimes are committed with revolvers), or “assault weapons” bans (already in place in many high crime areas, 2.6% of crimes committed with a rifle, even less with “assault rifle”) are supposed to have any measurable effect on crime.
 
scipio337 said:
I’m still trying to grasp the logic how universal background checks (80%+ of guns purchased illegally or through straw purchase) or magazine limits (already in place in many areas (that continue to have high crime, a majority of crimes are committed with revolvers), or “assault weapons” bans (already in place in many high crime areas, 2.6% of crimes committed with a rifle, even less with “assault rifle”) are supposed to have any measurable effect on crime.
Click to expand...
I don’t think a single person has addressed those topics specifically - unless you count those that admit this would simply be the “first step”.
 
pnewton said:
Then for for that, there is no answer. There is no sin, at least objectively, in this political issue.
Click to expand...
Good, then we are agreed that all positions on implementing or rejecting this or that piece of legislation are morally neutral (the positions themselves if not the intent behind them).
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.
Click to expand...
Individuals can act morally or immorally but this doesn’t mean that the problem they are addressing is a moral issue. If my car battery dies I can always steal someone else’s battery but that doesn’t mean that fixing my car is a moral issue. Calling gun control (and most other political issues) a moral concern is nothing more than claiming the right to impugn the motives of ones political adversaries. The issues contain no moral choices and we are in fact forbidden to judge the motivations of others because it is something we cannot know. If someone says he values convenience over life you may properly chastise him but you may not condemn a person because you imagine his motivation to be impure.
If our position on a specific legislation is made with proper moral priorities, we will still disagree with others.
Click to expand...
Yes - and this is exactly why this is not a moral issue … and why, given that it contains no moral calculation, the (few) bishops who spoke out should have been silent on the issue.

Ender
 
Ender said:
Good, then we are agreed that all positions on implementing or rejecting this or that piece of legislation are morally neutral (the positions themselves if not the intent behind them).

Individuals can act morally or immorally but this doesn’t mean that the problem they are addressing is a moral issue. If my car battery dies I can always steal someone else’s battery but that doesn’t mean that fixing my car is a moral issue. Calling gun control (and most other political issues) a moral concern is nothing more than claiming the right to impugn the motives of ones political adversaries. The issues contain no moral choices and we are in fact forbidden to judge the motivations of others because it is something we cannot know. If someone says he values convenience over life you may properly chastise him but you may not condemn a person because you imagine his motivation to be impure.

Yes - and this is exactly why this is not a moral issue … and why, given that it contains no moral calculation, the (few) bishops who spoke out should have been silent on the issue.

Ender
Click to expand...
Quite simply, I am for gun controls of some sort, but I did not support this current bill. I can also see why some Bishops support extensive gun control. However, they have not made any binding statements as to what level of gun control is good. I take that to mean that lay people have some latitude in determining the best course of action.
 
ComputerGeek25 said:
Quite simply, I am for gun controls of some sort, but I did not support this current bill. I can also see why some Bishops support extensive gun control. However, they have not made any binding statements as to what level of gun control is good. I take that to mean that lay people have some latitude in determining the best course of action.
Click to expand...
There are no binding statements a bishop could make on this issue. Church teaching is clear: owning a weapon is not sinful. Rather than accepting that the bishops have allowed you some room to form your own opinion on the matter it would be better to recognize that this is in fact a lay issue and there is little room for the involvement of the bishops.

I think the laity has become much too unwilling to assert their own rights. The clergy have their obligations and duties but the laity have theirs as well and the bishops are no more justified in encroaching on our roles than we are of encroaching on theirs.

Ender
 
Ender said:
…Calling gun control (and most other political issues) a moral concern is nothing more than claiming the right to impugn the motives of ones political adversaries…

Ender
Click to expand...
Nailed it!

:clapping:
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
That obligation extends to any bishop that has knowledge of a cause of confusion that is represented as a statement for them all in this country. That’s why I say, ‘a bishop is obligated beyond silence if something is presented on behalf of the governing body in the Church, which they are members of, and would speak any concerns, corrections, or opposition.’
Click to expand...
That would depend, of course, on the issues they feel are of significant moral importance. If some bishop or other states a personal opinion about something or other, the various bishops (to the extent they are aware of the various statements of the various others) rarely address it.

To some of us, reducing the number of guns or eliminating them entirely is a very big issue. To some, it isn’t. But if virtually no bishops address it at all, it strongly suggests to me, at least, that it doesn’t loom large in the range of potential moral issues. The bishops have a lot on their plates, and even I as a layman can see that they’re a lot bigger things than how the government tweaks gun ownership by citizens, which is more a matter of the philosophy of governance and constitutional principles than it is of moral import.
 
scipio337 said:
A gun isn’t designed to kill. It’s designed to fire a projectile. You’ve heard the “guns don’t kill people” adage?

I’m still trying to grasp the logic how universal background checks (80%+ of guns purchased illegally or through straw purchase) or magazine limits (already in place in many areas (that continue to have high crime, a majority of crimes are committed with revolvers), or “assault weapons” bans (already in place in many high crime areas, 2.6% of crimes committed with a rifle, even less with “assault rifle”) are supposed to have any measurable effect on crime.
Click to expand...
Why was the gun invented?
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Why was the gun invented?
Click to expand...
As I pointed out before, to fire a projectile.

Now, perhaps you could explain how how universal background checks (80%+ of guns used in crimes are purchased illegally or through straw purchases) or magazine limits (already in place in many areas that continue to have high crime, a majority of crimes are committed with revolvers), or “assault weapons” bans (already in place in many high crime areas, 2.6% of crimes committed with a rifle, even less with “assault rifle”) are supposed to have any measurable effect on crime.

It’s been previously posted that the 1994 bans had no measurable effect.
 
scipio337 said:
As I pointed out before, to fire a projectile.

Now, perhaps you could explain how how universal background checks (80%+ of guns used in crimes are purchased illegally or through straw purchases) or magazine limits (already in place in many areas that continue to have high crime, a majority of crimes are committed with revolvers), or “assault weapons” bans (already in place in many high crime areas, 2.6% of crimes committed with a rifle, even less with “assault rifle”) are supposed to have any measurable effect on crime.

It’s been previously posted that the 1994 bans had no measurable effect.
Click to expand...
Until this can be answered, we will go round and round
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top