Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[pnewton]

Well, let’s have a full vote by the USCCB and approval by the Holy See … and that will be a long time in coming.

The document would need to be ratified by BOTH the USCCB and by the Holy See … BOTH … in order to be given authority.

Ah, you added something else, and something that is not necessary. Some things, like decrees, mandates, changes to the statutes do have to be reviewed by the Apostolic See. Statements, do not. They are not law. Rather, they are pastoral guidance. For example, “Forminng Consciences for Faithful Citizenship” was passed by two-thirds as required. It was not forwarded to the Holy See for approval because it is not required by canon law to do so.

The Holy Father has been removing bishops at the rate of two-three per month for a very long time.

What in the world does this have to do with anything? Do you mean to equate gun ownership with something like respecting proper liturgy, of upholding orthodoxy?

Canon law clearly states the areas that must be approved by the Vatican and those areas which do not. Your example (by the way, the word is “renovation”) concerns liturgy, not gun ownership or some other political point.

 

[pnewton]

Unless they get an official vote from the USCCB and also by the Holy See … then, yes, they are speaking out only for themselves. Even if a whole committee approves their statement, that is not enough.

It is not enough for what? It is not enough to bind any other bishop. That is canon law. But to think it is not enough for a Catholic to at least give some serious consideration to what the bishops are saying is pure Americanism.

I thought the idea that guns could be idols to be rather ludicrous. Now I am not so sure, though I do not know that it is the guns that are held in such high esteem or one’s personal convenience.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Guns are merely a means of self-defense.

And the best home defense gun is an AR-15 … its low/nil recoil and compact size and large magazine size make it an ideal home defense weapon for women to use against home invaders.

Which is not only permitted by Church teaching, but DEMANDED. We must defend the innocent.

And I have not criticized Bishop Blaire … merely reviewing his various words to help me gain clarity and understanding.

Serious consideration does not mean we have to do what he says.

Serious consideration only means that we have to discuss and debate it and examine what the implications of it are. In this case, the implications are that the words create impediments to self-defense which in turn seem to overrule the niceness of the sentiments of the words.

There is a bishop in Detroit who says a weekly Dignity Mass … what does that imply for the whole Church? Does that mean we all must attend a Dignity Mass out of serious consideration? Or does that mean we all must go along with it? Or does that mean we should bring it to the attention of the Holy Father to stop it?

 

[Monte_RCMS]

It is not enough for what? It is not enough to bind any other bishop. That is canon law. But to think it is not enough for a Catholic to at least give some serious consideration to what the bishops are saying is pure Americanism.

I thought the idea that guns could be idols to be rather ludicrous. Now I am not so sure, though I do not know that it is the guns that are held in such high esteem or one’s personal convenience.

Guns as idols. Interesting word. Idols.

But that is about as extreme language as any I have heard or read from anyone about anything.

[someone did use the idea about “loving” guns … but that is equally extreme.]

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Men of position within the USCCB” HAVE NO AUTHORITY to bind the Church.

This has been an issue for decades … individual men and even committees have issued statements without the authority to do so.

And you know this.

The authoritative Church has authority to guide. If some guidance was at odds with others, we would hear it. We have committees offering guidance with the chairmen speaking on the committee findings. Those words are then posted on the USCCB, representing all the American Bishops. The only rejections being offered are from those without authority, and maintaining their own freedom, and making superior their own thoughts, on an issue.

The Vatican Chief spokesman addressed the issue. Do we think that are Church’s hierarchy is so weak as to operate as individuals without each other knowing what is being said in those instances?

 

[scipio337]

It is in the news that a 5 year old shot and killed a 2 year old with a rifle. If there had been a background check made concerning the age of the person with the gun, and it was prohibited to manufacture guns for 5 year olds, this 2 year old child would be alive today.

I’m not sure if you’re aware how US gun laws work, but 5 year olds can’t purchase firearms.

 

[scipio337]

Not all of us are weighing the government’s interest. As the bishops referenced, this is in the interest of those innocent victims who lost their lives to gun violence.

Enough of the doublespeak. You act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that ANY type of gun laws is going to lower crime, which has NOT been established. When it comes to overruling a Constitutional (or human) right, courts have established what type of scrutiny is warranted.

 

[Lapey]

The authoritative Church has authority to guide. If some guidance was at odds with others, we would hear it. We have committees offering guidance with the chairmen speaking on the committee findings. Those words are then posted on the USCCB, representing all the American Bishops. The only rejections being offered are from those without authority, and maintaining their own freedom, and making superior their own thoughts, on an issue.

The Vatican Chief spokesman addressed the issue. Do we think that are Church’s hierarchy is so weak as to operate as individuals without each other knowing what is being said in those instances?

Just a quick question, you do realize that each individual bishop is not bound by anything the USCCB decides unless he so chooses, right? Cardinal Dolan does not rule the Diocese of Houma Thibodaux which is my home diocese.

Neither is my bishop beholding to the territory of Louisiana’s leader, the archbishop of New Orleans.

My bishop has not made any such statement and I can assure you he won’t. To say that this word of the USCCB represents all bishops as making this statement means there is a misunderstanding of what the conference means.

BTW, each bishop is in many respects very “individual” and not bound by many opinions of groups of their brothers. This in no way means I believe they are not bound by the Pope and Canon Law. But there are many things professed by groups that are not adopted by local bishops.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Enough of the doublespeak. You act as if it’s a foregone conclusion that ANY type of gun laws is going to lower crime, which has NOT been established. When it comes to overruling a Constitutional (or human) right, courts have established what type of scrutiny is warranted.

Do we have to establish something will work without trying anything? If so, no laws would have been enacted.

Constitutional and human rights are not the same thing.

 

[Monte_RCMS]

Do we have to establish something will work without trying anything? If so, no laws would have been enacted.

Constitutional and human rights are not the same thing.

“Doing something” without establishing that it will work may constitute something called “rash judgment” … please check it out.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just a quick question, you do realize that each individual bishop is not bound by anything the USCCB decides unless he so chooses, right? Cardinal Dolan does not rule the Diocese of Houma Thibodaux which is my home diocese.

Neither is my bishop beholding to the territory of Louisiana’s leader, the archbishop of New Orleans.

My bishop has not made any such statement and I can assure you he won’t. To say that this word of the USCCB represents all bishops as making this statement means there is a misunderstanding of what the conference means.

BTW, each bishop is in many respects very “individual” and not bound by many opinions of groups of their brothers. This in no way means I believe they are not bound by the Pope and Canon Law. But there are many things professed by groups that are not adopted by local bishops.

The Vatican Chief Spokesman spoke, and I assume the Vatican is aware of what he said. The same as USCCB committees speak for themselves and when it is documented on the whole’s website, I assume the whole know what is said. Some seem to desire to take silence as opposing. If a clarification, or correction, was necessary, according to an individual bishop, where is that addressed? Wouldn’t it be addressed?

The document references the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace document, "The International Arms Trade (2006), and they reiterate their calls made in their statement “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.”

What is being called for is not something new. It has been outstanding for some time now.

As for bishops being of their own mind, it must be in concert with the whole of the Church, or it’s not we know to be Catholic. Each bishop does not teach different things according to their own judgments.

There is not one statement from a bishop in disagreement with the statement made, and provided on the USCCB website, of which all our American bishops are a part of.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

“Doing something” without establishing that it will work may constitute something called “rash judgment” … please check it out.

What law do we have that was established to work, and actually does work completely, that was proven to work in advance?

 

[Lapey]

The Vatican Chief Spokesman spoke, and I assume the Vatican is aware of what he said. The same as USCCB committees speak for themselves and when it is documented on the whole’s website, I assume the whole know what is said. Some seem to desire to take silence as opposing. If a clarification, or correction, was necessary, according to an individual bishop, where is that addressed? Wouldn’t it be addressed?

The document references the Vatican’s Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace document, "The International Arms Trade (2006), and they reiterate their calls made in their statement “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.”

What is being called for is not something new. It has been outstanding for some time now.

As for bishops being of their own mind, it must be in concert with the whole of the Church, or it’s not we know to be Catholic. Each bishop does not teach different things according to their own judgments.Not what I said. Be nice enough to not add to my words.

There is not one statement from a bishop in disagreement with the statement made, and provided on the USCCB website, of which all our American bishops are a part of.

Silence on an issue like this does say much. To “assume” all know what is said then to infer that all who are part of the body accept and personally promote the same in their own diocese is quite a stretch.

Also, as many of the other posters have pointed out, none of the recent attempts at gun control by this administration would have stopped New Town Connecticut’s tragedy. Only mental health intervention and a more responsible mother as far as controlling her own guns could have stopped this.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Silence on an issue like this does say much. To “assume” all know what is said then to infer that all who are part of the body accept and personally promote the same in their own diocese is quite a stretch.

Also, as many of the other posters have pointed out, none of the recent attempts at gun control by this administration would have stopped New Town Connecticut’s tragedy. Only mental health intervention and a more responsible mother as far as controlling her own guns could have stopped this.

I really don’t think our bishops are so out of touch as to not know the incidents that brought about the statement. With that said, there has not been one bishop that has made a clarification, one way or the other. If one cannot take silence as support, it would be just as wrong to say the silence is in disagreement. We are not guided through silence.

To be fair to the bishop’s statement, mental health issues were a part of the statement. Also, while this was in response of a single tragic incident, the problem has been evident in more than a single incident. As the men of the Church have referenced, the easy access to guns is a contributing factor to the problem.

 

[scipio337]

Do we have to establish something will work without trying anything? If so, no laws would have been enacted.

Constitutional and human rights are not the same thing.

When overturning the Bill of -]Needs/-]…Rights, yes, you do have to prove it will have the desired effect. At least according to SCOTUS.

Self defense is a constitutional, and human right, and supported by the Catechism.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

When overturning the Bill of -]Needs/-]…Rights, yes, you do have to prove it will have the desired effect. At least according to SCOTUS.

Self defense is a constitutional, and human right, and supported by the Catechism.

Self defense is an ‘instinct’ and defined by the Catechism. Self defense is not limited to guns only. Self defense can be enacted through legislation, and public service which the Catechism refers to as the ‘legitimate authority.’

We cannot attribute self defense as constitutional globally, as the Church addresses it. Then we’re back to the government’s right to regulate. It’s not an overturning of a right. The same is true of other rights. We have a right to free speech, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others; e.g. don’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or bomb on an airplane, etc.

The bishop was careful to mention the second amendment, in his call for controls.

 

[scipio337]

Self defense is an ‘instinct’ and defined by the Catechism. Self defense is not limited to guns only. Self defense can be enacted through legislation, and public service which the Catechism refers to as the ‘legitimate authority.’

We cannot attribute self defense as constitutional globally, as the Church addresses it. Then we’re back to the government’s right to regulate. It’s not an overturning of a right. The same is true of other rights. We have a right to free speech, as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others; e.g. don’t yell fire in a crowded theater, or bomb on an airplane, etc.

The bishop was careful to mention the second amendment, in his call for controls.

Right on the free speech, but again, a stricty scrutiny would be called for on how to restrict that right, which is why I would want to see the documentation that the gun laws would lower crime. We can’t restrict rights and then hope it might do “something”.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

These committees that most recently communicated guidance referred to the Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.

Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice

“As bishops, 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.”

Is this the opinions of a few? It is the same language used in “USCCB Committees Call For Action In Response To Newtown Tragedy.” The only differences, I saw, was the inclusion of ‘assault weapons,’ as part of it’s terminology.

In the Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice document, it states:

The text for Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice originated from the Committee on Domestic Policy of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. It was approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their November 2000 General Meeting and has been authorized for publication by the undersigned.

It’s the same guidance, at different times and in the face of different tragedies.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Right on the free speech, but again, a stricty scrutiny would be called for on how to restrict that right, which is why I would want to see the documentation that the gun laws would lower crime. We can’t restrict rights and then hope it might do “something”.

Rights are not being restricted. Regulations are being proposed.

 

[scipio337]

Rights are not being restricted. Regulations are being proposed.

Semantics. Can one “regulate” free speech, without restricting it?