Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Fairwinds]

I reject Bishop Richard Williamson’s teachings on holocaust denial. I know some would defer to him because he’s a bishop, but not me.

F/

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I reject Bishop Richard Williamson’s teachings on holocaust denial. I know some would defer to him because he’s a bishop, but not me.

F/

What a poor analogy, or comparison, in my opinion. What group of bishops endorsed his teachings, and isn’t he still suspended from his functions as a bishop?

It’s not the same as “Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” that received approval by a full body of bishops.

 

[SamH]

No. Gun control works very well in Germany today. And giving people more guns in schools only increases the risk of more violence and student deaths.

The US isn’t Germany, the US didn’t murder 6 million unarmed Jews as a matter of national policy.

How many school shootings happened BEFORE the Gun Free Schools Act and how many have happened since? What changed?

 

[pnewton]

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

None of that stuff you posted had a thing to doe with the statement he made or gun control. It was only about him. That is why it is called ad hominem (against the man).

 

[pnewton]

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.

This thread is almost at 1000. I think if we eliminated all of what has not been established, we might have a page or so.

 

[Fairwinds]

This thread is almost at 1000. I think if we eliminated all of what has not been established, we might have a page or so.

we’re discussing policy. the good bishop’s teachings aren’t binding.

 

[pnewton]

No to the first question.

If the bishops issue a moral instruction applicable to all according to canon law; i.e. an instructive resolution approved by all of the bishops or, alternatively, pursuant to Vatican mandate with a 2/3 vote, then it would be obligatory on me.

Even then I think obligatory would be a slippery word, except to the extent that it is obligatory to give serious consideration to the doctrine of social justice (I know that word is hated, but it is a good term) behind the bill. Half of the people here that are speaking against what this bishop said I get. I really do, because the points argued are for reasons that are debatable. It is our motive that is key. That is why we must consider the value of life first, before politics and convenience. We can diverge on details.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Even then I think obligatory would be a slippery word, except to the extent that it is obligatory to give serious consideration to the doctrine of social justice (I know that word is hated, but it is a good term) behind the bill. Half of the people here that are speaking against what this bishop said I get. I really do, because the points argued are for reasons that are debatable. It is our motive that is key. That is why we must consider the value of life first, before politics and convenience. We can diverge on details.

It seems the 2/3 argument changed when I provided the link to the “Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” document, that clearly states it received approval of the full body of bishops. The recent calls from the bishops reiterate that document, while using some of the same language, and expressed the same views.

 

[Lapey]

It seems the 2/3 argument changed when I provided the link to the “Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” document, that clearly states it received approval of the full body of bishops. The recent calls from the bishops reiterate that document, while using some of the same language, and expressed the same views.

My bishop and I remain in the other 1/3…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My bishop and I remain in the other 1/3…

Ok, that made me smile.

The document stated full body, so if there were objections, no one spoke on them.

 

[Mount_Carmel]

No. Gun control works very well in Germany today. And giving people more guns in schools only increases the risk of more violence and student deaths.

I am in agreement with you, the same goes for the UK.

[ps. As a British Army Cadet [my dad was stationed in Herford {between Bielefeld and Minden], I managed to get myself and my rifle lost for a while in the forest around Luneburg Heath! ]

 

[Fairwinds]

The US isn’t Germany, the US didn’t murder 6 million unarmed Jews as a matter of national policy.

How many school shootings happened BEFORE the Gun Free Schools Act and how many have happened since? What changed?

the German analogy is inapposite. even the Germans are afraid of another world tour.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

the German analogy is inapposite. even the Germans are afraid of another world tour.

Twice in one day, I find agreement with you.

 

[Lapey]

Ok, that made me smile.

The document stated full body, so if there were objections, no one spoke on them.

He is sitting next to me right now, he says he objects and PS 1 is wrong!!!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He is sitting next to me right now, he says he objects and PS 1 is wrong!!!

I’d have to have more official objections than that. Is that the same bishop you said was in the 1/3 earlier?

 

[Ridgerunner]

The full body of bishops approved the publication of “Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice.” Blaire, and the other committees chairmen, and the president of the USCCB Cardinal Dolan, reiterated the calls in that document. That document is more defined than the most recent calls, and states the same views. Now, you point out that there are ‘new’ bishops. Wouldn’t rescinding a document on behalf of the full body also require a full body of the bishops?

As you know, that USCCB writing you’re referring to was written in the year 2000. Nowhere does it mention gun registration or background checks for person-to-person sales or gifts you want imposed on the public. It proposes no specific legislative enactments or, for that matter, any kind of specific policies other than “sensible restrictions”. Never do they propose what you propose.

The only kinds of guns mentioned are handguns and fully automatic guns.

Since fully automatic guns are so strongly regulated that few lawful citizens own them, and that was true in 2000 as well. Consequently, it is difficult to imagine that the bishops were, at that time, talking about anything concerning fully automatic guns other than criminal access and use.

As to handguns, there are no specific recommendations at all. As to any kind of rifle other than a fully automatic, there is not even a mention.

The bishops’ letter in 2000 was talking about crime generally, its causes as they saw them, the death penalty, just punishment and reasonable citizen response to the threat of crime.

Its focus wasn’t “gun control”, which is undoubtedly why it says almost nothing about that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

As you know, that USCCB writing you’re referring to was written in the year 2000. Nowhere does it mention gun registration or background checks for person-to-person sales or gifts you want imposed on the public. It proposes no specific legislative enactments or, for that matter, any kind of specific policies other than “sensible restrictions”. Never do they propose what you propose.

The only kinds of guns mentioned are handguns and fully automatic guns.

Since fully automatic guns are so strongly regulated that few lawful citizens own them, and that was true in 2000 as well. Consequently, it is difficult to imagine that the bishops were, at that time, talking about anything concerning fully automatic guns other than criminal access and use.

As to handguns, there are no specific recommendations at all. As to any kind of rifle other than a fully automatic, there is not even a mention.

The bishops’ letter in 2000 was talking about crime generally, its causes as they saw them, the death penalty, just punishment and reasonable citizen response to the threat of crime.

Its focus wasn’t “gun control”, which is undoubtedly why it says almost nothing about that.

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.36

I am in agreement with them, and it still stands and is referred to as a basis for current statements.

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 certainly seems that would stand the test of time, or until the full body reversed itself.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am in agreement with them, and it still stands and is referred to as a basis for current statements.

It certainly seems that would stand the test of time, or until the full body reversed itself.

Be in agreement with them, then. But don’t represent that it relates to anything but handguns on the street or fully automatic weapons in criminal hands, because it doesn’t.

Even then, you have not demonstrated that it is a morally binding mandate on the conscience of Catholics, because you have not demonstrated a) that it was unanimously adopted. Any resolution passed by the “Full body of bishops” doesn’t do that. It just means it got a majority, or b) that it was adopted by 2/3 of the bishops pursuant to a Vatican mandate.

If, as appears to be the case, a majority of bishops present at the meeting approved this communication, it is worthy of respect and deference as far as it goes. But it is still an expression of very general principles, contains none of your proposals, and is really about crime and punishments, not about regulation of ordinary citizens.

Blaire and his three supporters seem not to have presented it to all the bishops for a vote. As I mentioned before, there have been a lot of changes in the bishops since 2000. Maybe Blaire will present your desire to have person-to-person sales or gifts subject to background checks at a full meeting. Maybe he won’t. Maybe the bishops will vote on it and maybe they won’t. Maybe it will get a unanimous vote and maybe it won’t.

Until canon law says your proposal is mandatory on Catholic conscience, it isn’t. It’s just your opinion and that of Obama.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Be in agreement with them, then. But don’t represent that it relates to anything but handguns on the street or fully automatic weapons in criminal hands, because it doesn’t.

Even then, you have not demonstrated that it is a morally binding mandate on the conscience of Catholics, because you have not demonstrated a) that it was unanimously adopted. Any resolution passed by the “Full body of bishops” doesn’t do that. It just means it got a majority, or b) that it was adopted by 2/3 of the bishops pursuant to a Vatican mandate.

If, as appears to be the case, a majority of bishops present at the meeting approved this communication, it is worthy of respect and deference as far as it goes. But it is still an expression of very general principles, contains none of your proposals, and is really about crime and punishments, not about regulation of ordinary citizens.

Blaire and his three supporters seem not to have presented it to all the bishops for a vote. As I mentioned before, there have been a lot of changes in the bishops since 2000. Maybe Blaire will present your desire to have person-to-person sales or gifts subject to background checks at a full meeting. Maybe he won’t. Maybe the bishops will vote on it and maybe they won’t. Maybe it will get a unanimous vote and maybe it won’t.

Until canon law says your proposal is mandatory on Catholic conscience, it isn’t. It’s just your opinion and that of Obama.

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.36

I agree with them.

I’m sorry, but you’ve changed the boundaries too much for me to agree with. Full body, only a majority, or it was adopted by 2/3, not unanimous. Gun control doesn’t mean keep firearms out of the hands of criminals. A lot of changes in the bishops.

As I said, what the bishops document surely does not fail over time, unless the bishops rescind, or reverse. That hasn’t happened, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t see it happening.

We live by our individual consciences, and I feel obligated in light of the evidence presented, and in light of the tragedies I feel the ‘culture of death’ has brought to this country.

 

[pnewton]

Until canon law says your proposal is mandatory on Catholic conscience, it isn’t. It’s just your opinion and that of Obama.

Just like restrictions on international arms trade that the UN proposed last month are only opposed by the NRA and North Korea? Come on. Obama? What does he have to do with any of this other than an askance stab at guilt by association?