Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ridgerunner]

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.

Agree with them, then. I can’t really say that I don’t, because there is nothing specific about what they are saying. Never do they propose what you propose. As you well know if you read it, the “sensible regulation” part does not contain any concrete proposals and is a tiny part of a substantial writing about crime, causes of criminality, penalties and so on, and said in the context of preventing criminal behavior.

Bottom line, and as is usual, you are using your own conscience as the guideline for your position. That’s fine, as long as you identify it as such. Persuade who you can. But as you know, my objection isn’t that. My problem with some of your posts is that you represent general statements and personal opinions of some number of bishops as being mandatory on conscience of all Catholics. And that just isn’t the case when it comes to any particular gun control measures. But no matter what, none of them has ever supported your argument in favor of mandatory background checks on person to person sales or gifts.

Nor is it likely any of them will, precisely because even the government doesn’t know how many people, if any, are killed by such weapons.

 

[Ridgerunner]

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?

Well, Obama’s proposals are what we have been talking about all along. But for his trying to get gun control measures through congress, we wouldn’t even be talking about it.

Probably it’s as dead as a hammer now because of Boston and the reflection people have likely done on the realization that Tsarnaev was scampering through their neighborhoods with murder in his heart. I’ll grant that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Agree with them, then. I can’t really say that I don’t, because there is nothing specific about what they are saying. Never do they propose what you propose. As you well know if you read it, the “sensible regulation” part does not contain any concrete proposals and is a tiny part of a substantial writing about crime, causes of criminality, penalties and so on, and said in the context of preventing criminal behavior.

Bottom line, and as is usual, you are using your own conscience as the guideline for your position. That’s fine, as long as you identify it as such. Persuade who you can. But as you know, my objection isn’t that. My problem with some of your posts is that you represent general statements and personal opinions of some number of bishops as being mandatory on conscience of all Catholics. And that just isn’t the case when it comes to any particular gun control measures. But no matter what, none of them has ever supported your argument in favor of mandatory background checks on person to person sales or gifts.

Nor is it likely any of them will, precisely because even the government doesn’t know how many people, if any, are killed by such weapons.

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

The sensible regulation refers to handguns. They refer to measures to control the sale and use of firearms. Sounds a lot like background checks to me. What other measures can control the sale of firearms?

It has gone beyond the 4, or 5, you continue to try and limit this call to. It was approved by a full body of bishops. Irregardless of the exact number, as you say, it was a majority, or 2/3, at the very least. It can no longer be minimized as a ‘few’.

We very well know how many were killed in the theater, the mall, the school, and those first responders. We also know that they all used the same type gun. Sometimes statistics are only to cloud, and not to clarify.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The sensible regulation refers to handguns. They refer to measures to control the sale and use of firearms. Sounds a lot like background checks to me. What other measures can control the sale of firearms?

It has gone beyond the 4, or 5, you continue to try and limit this call to. It was approved by a full body of bishops. Irregardless of the exact number, as you say, it was a majority, or 2/3, at the very least. It can no longer be minimized as a ‘few’.

We very well know how many were killed in the theater, the mall, the school, and those first responders. We also know that they all used the same type gun. Sometimes statistics are only to cloud, and not to clarify.

You’re comparing apples to oranges here.

Your initial claim that “the bishops” support Obama’s version of gun control was the expression of one bishop who, it appears, might have had the full approval of three or four others. You attempted to parlay that into a declaration binding on Catholics.

It was pointed out repeatedly that only a resolution of 100% of the bishops, actually voting for it, is binding on Catholics in the U.S. Alternatively, canon law provides, a resolution actually voted on by 2/3 of the bishops pursuant to a Vatican mandate.

The foundation for your initial claim, and this entire thread, failed both.

Then, much later, you shifted to a 2000 communication emanating from an actual meeting of the bishops at which the communication was “approved”. It said almost nothing about gun control, was primarily about something else, and to the extent it spoke of it at all, spoke only of “sensible” regulation. “Sensible” is not self-defining and does not have a specific meaning. Plainly, then, those bishops were expressing a general concept only, leaving whatever implementation the polity desired to secular authorities and the prudential judgment of those who empower them.

There is nothing in anything you have posted indicating either that the communication was approved by 100% of the bishops or that 2/3 supported it pursuant to a Vatican mandate.

Nevertheless, the 2000 communication is worthy of respect, and I said that. If you read that communication over, I am not sure I would disagree with it myself, and I said that too. Never have I claimed this country should not have “sensible” regulation of guns. Indeed, our attempts at “sensible” regulation might do well to start with actual and strong prosecution of those who use guns in crimes and those who knowingly sell arms to known criminals. We might start enforcing laws against felons having guns at all. We might at least look at preventing homicidally insane people from acquiring guns by allowing their institutionalization. (people like the Aurora and Newtown shooters) We might enact and enforce “stop and frisk” laws in those places where most of the gun crimes happen, particularly among 18-25 year olds who commit most of the gun crimes. We might even go so far as to actually screen people like the Tsarnaevs who (clearly falsely) obtained admission to this country as “refugees”. We might even think of ejecting people like those who covered for Tsarnaev who were here illegally.

“Sensible”

Instead, you and others want to make it difficult for entirely law-abiding citizens to own guns; an absolutely irrelelevant measure.

And faced with the Supreme Court’s reluctance to declare the Second Amendment void, you want to make Catholics believe that somehow the Church supports Obama’s gun control desires and your own, when it simply does not.

And, of course, at present you have four or five bishops who have declared what might be construed as support for Obama’s measures (but not your own). You most definitely do not have a majority; perhaps as many as five out of 500+.

Your own opinion is your own opinion, just as Bishop Blaire’s is his own opinion. Defend your position on its own merits if you want to, but do not claim the Church teaches something it does not. If your own personal convictions are not sufficiently persuasive, do not falsely claim that the Church backs them when it doesn’t.

 

[Lapey]

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

Yes, but I was joking he wasn’t with me. I kind of fibbed…

Sorry bout dat!

 

[Ridgerunner]

Leaving it with you all.

Probably this thread will end before I return to it, which will probably be in a day or two.

I do trust that if someone chooses to further argue in my absence, others viewing this thread (and probably most have given it up) will carefully examine prior statements made by me and others, and not simply buy into the last post. That includes my own if it’s the last.

Oh yes, and be of good cheer!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You’re comparing apples to oranges here.

Your initial claim that “the bishops” support Obama’s version of gun control was the expression of one bishop who, it appears, might have had the full approval of three or four others. You attempted to parlay that into a declaration binding on Catholics.

It was pointed out repeatedly that only a resolution of 100% of the bishops, actually voting for it, is binding on Catholics in the U.S. Alternatively, canon law provides, a resolution actually voted on by 2/3 of the bishops pursuant to a Vatican mandate.

The foundation for your initial claim, and this entire thread, failed both.

Then, much later, you shifted to a 2000 communication emanating from an actual meeting of the bishops at which the communication was “approved”. It said almost nothing about gun control, was primarily about something else, and to the extent it spoke of it at all, spoke only of “sensible” regulation. “Sensible” is not self-defining and does not have a specific meaning. Plainly, then, those bishops were expressing a general concept only, leaving whatever implementation the polity desired to secular authorities and the prudential judgment of those who empower them.

There is nothing in anything you have posted indicating either that the communication was approved by 100% of the bishops or that 2/3 supported it pursuant to a Vatican mandate.

Nevertheless, the 2000 communication is worthy of respect, and I said that. If you read that communication over, I am not sure I would disagree with it myself, and I said that too. Never have I claimed this country should not have “sensible” regulation of guns. Indeed, our attempts at “sensible” regulation might do well to start with actual and strong prosecution of those who use guns in crimes and those who knowingly sell arms to known criminals. We might start enforcing laws against felons having guns at all. We might at least look at preventing homicidally insane people from acquiring guns by allowing their institutionalization. (people like the Aurora and Newtown shooters) We might enact and enforce “stop and frisk” laws in those places where most of the gun crimes happen, particularly among 18-25 year olds who commit most of the gun crimes. We might even go so far as to actually screen people like the Tsarnaevs who (clearly falsely) obtained admission to this country as “refugees”. We might even think of ejecting people like those who covered for Tsarnaev who were here illegally.

“Sensible”

Instead, you and others want to make it difficult for entirely law-abiding citizens to own guns; an absolutely irrelelevant measure.

And faced with the Supreme Court’s reluctance to declare the Second Amendment void, you want to make Catholics believe that somehow the Church supports Obama’s gun control desires and your own, when it simply does not.

And, of course, at present you have four or five bishops who have declared what might be construed as support for Obama’s measures (but not your own). You most definitely do not have a majority; perhaps as many as five out of 500+.

Your own opinion is your own opinion, just as Bishop Blaire’s is his own opinion. Defend your position on its own merits if you want to, but do not claim the Church teaches something it does not. If your own personal convictions are not sufficiently persuasive, do not falsely claim that the Church backs them when it doesn’t.

No, my initial claim spoke nothing of Obama. I spoke solely on what the guidance the bishops offered. I searched this thread and found I only typed Obama’s name once, in a link that was the title of the article about the Vatican welcoming Obama’s gun proposal, in post #920. The only other references are in this paragraph.

You now make it 100%, since it is very well possible that 2/3 supported the document with a full body of bishops. No matter how you change it, there is not ONE bishop that has spoken against gun control. So, it’s more than the 3 committee chairmen, representing their committees, who represented the USCCB, and the president of the USCCB, and even the Vatican Chief Spokesman, it’s a full body of bishops.

Now there’s objections to the 2000 documents, that those men all referenced. The bishops have changed, you say. Where is the full body of bishops reversing what was said. It doesn’t exist, and I sincerely doubt we’ll see such a reversal.

If one cannot see the above, I don’t expect them to see ‘sensible’ or ‘common sense’ as described by the bishops. They have their minds, and priorities, already determined.

You are also wrong on what I spoke primarily in favor of. I support background checks and that’s the majority of what you’ll find I said, if you want to look back through.

Anyone can go to the links I provided and read the texts for themselves. Some won’t like what they find, from what I’ve seen in this thread alone.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, but I was joking he wasn’t with me. I kind of fibbed…

Sorry bout dat!

So he was with the 2/3 while you were with the 1/3?

J/K.

 

[pnewton]

Leaving it with you all.

Probably this thread will end before I return to it, which will probably be in a day or two.

I do trust that if someone chooses to further argue in my absence, others viewing this thread (and probably most have given it up) will carefully examine prior statements made by me and others, and not simply buy into the last post. That includes my own if it’s the last.

It’s not…yet.

Oh, and peace be with you and all here as well.

 

[JMJSHJ]

Just to clarify so that no confusion exists: Any statements made by any Bishop(s) regarding gun laws do fall under prudential judgment. Anybody telling you otherwise is incorrect.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just to clarify so that no confusion exists: Any statements made by any Bishop(s) regarding gun laws do fall under prudential judgment. Anybody telling you otherwise is incorrect.

It’s would seem to be moral guidance when a full body of bishops agree. Even if it’s not, prudential judgments can be guidance to ‘flock,’ especially in lack of any disagreeing statements from other bishops.

In the most recent statements from chairmen of USCCB committees, and the president of the USCCB, all refer to, and reiterate, the 2000 document approved by a full body of bishops. Their views are supported by the Vatican Chief Spokesman.

 

[Ridgerunner]

No, my initial claim spoke nothing of Obama. I spoke solely on what the guidance the bishops offered. I searched this thread and found I only typed Obama’s name once, in a link that was the title of the article about the Vatican welcoming Obama’s gun proposal, in post #920. The only other references are in this paragraph.

You now make it 100%, since it is very well possible that 2/3 supported the document with a full body of bishops. No matter how you change it, there is not ONE bishop that has spoken against gun control. So, it’s more than the 3 committee chairmen, representing their committees, who represented the USCCB, and the president of the USCCB, and even the Vatican Chief Spokesman, it’s a full body of bishops.

Now there’s objections to the 2000 documents, that those men all referenced. The bishops have changed, you say. Where is the full body of bishops reversing what was said. It doesn’t exist, and I sincerely doubt we’ll see such a reversal.

If one cannot see the above, I don’t expect them to see ‘sensible’ or ‘common sense’ as described by the bishops. They have their minds, and priorities, already determined.

You are also wrong on what I spoke primarily in favor of. I support background checks and that’s the majority of what you’ll find I said, if you want to look back through.

Anyone can go to the links I provided and read the texts for themselves. Some won’t like what they find, from what I’ve seen in this thread alone.

If, indeed, the 2000 USCCB communication was voted by a majority of the bishops at the meeting, then, as I said, it deserves respect and attention. But, since it appears it was NOT unanimously passed by all of the bishops or approved by 2/3 of the bishops pursuant to a Vatican mandate as Canon law requires, then it is NOT binding on the conscience of Catholics. In any event, it is a communication chiefly about crime, punishment, the causes of crime, etc, and as to gun control, it has no specific recommendations, speaks of handguns and machine guns (fully automatic) only, and recommends “sensible regulation” only. That’s a far, far cry from supporting your position that person-to-person sales, trades or gifts ought to be subject to mandatory background checks.

The 2012 Blaire letter apparently was voted on by Blaire alone, and seconded by perhaps three others. As such, it is just Blaire’s opinion, which has no more weight than mine.
It is not binding on Catholics either. Quite possibly Blaire did not present it to the other bishops because he knew it wouldn’t be supported by even a majority. But for whatever reason, he didn’t present it to a meeting of all the bishops.

Once again, I have no problem with your presenting your opinions and defending them if you can as prudential judgments. What I do have a problem with is your representing that they are Church teaching when they aren’t.

And you don’t really have to mention Obama even once when espousing his positions. It’s just that your positions and his are remarkably similar, which invites mention.

 

[Ridgerunner]

It’s would seem to be moral guidance when a full body of bishops agree. Even if it’s not, prudential judgments can be guidance to ‘flock,’ especially in lack of any disagreeing statements from other bishops.

In the most recent statements from chairmen of USCCB committees, and the president of the USCCB, all refer to, and reiterate, the 2000 document approved by a full body of bishops. Their views are supported by the Vatican Chief Spokesman.

But as you know, and presumably everybody on this thread knows, they are NOT binding on Catholics. No matter how you dance around it, you can’t make either one of those communications fit the requirements of Canon Law. They’re just opinions, very general in nature, and the 2000 communication doesn’t even address your chief objective, which is requiring background checks for person-to-person sales, trades or gifts of guns.

You have been repeatedly asked to justify your position with persuasive arguments based on facts and prudential judgment. But you never do. You can’t make a case for a truly binding resolution of the bishops according to Canon Law either.

Why not give it a rest? You have either persuaded people based on other reasons or you haven’t.

 

[iamrefreshed]

. What I do have a problem with is your representing that they are Church teaching when they aren’t.

And if true would be a grevious sin. Millstones come to mind.

 

[Tomdstone]

If, indeed, the 2000 USCCB communication was voted by a majority of the bishops at the meeting, then, as I said, it deserves respect and attention. But, since it appears it was NOT unanimously passed by all of the bishops or approved by 2/3 of the bishops pursuant to a Vatican mandate as Canon law requires, then it is NOT binding on the conscience of Catholics…

At Vatican I, there were bishops who voted against the infallibility declaration. It was not unanimous.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

If, indeed, the 2000 USCCB communication was voted by a majority of the bishops at the meeting, then, as I said, it deserves respect and attention. But, since it appears it was NOT unanimously passed by all of the bishops or approved by 2/3 of the bishops pursuant to a Vatican mandate as Canon law requires, then it is NOT binding on the conscience of Catholics. In any event, it is a communication chiefly about crime, punishment, the causes of crime, etc, and as to gun control, it has no specific recommendations, speaks of handguns and machine guns (fully automatic) only, and recommends “sensible regulation” only. That’s a far, far cry from supporting your position that person-to-person sales, trades or gifts ought to be subject to mandatory background checks.

The 2012 Blaire letter apparently was voted on by Blaire alone, and seconded by perhaps three others. As such, it is just Blaire’s opinion, which has no more weight than mine.
It is not binding on Catholics either. Quite possibly Blaire did not present it to the other bishops because he knew it wouldn’t be supported by even a majority. But for whatever reason, he didn’t present it to a meeting of all the bishops.

Once again, I have no problem with your presenting your opinions and defending them if you can as prudential judgments. What I do have a problem with is your representing that they are Church teaching when they aren’t.

And you don’t really have to mention Obama even once when espousing his positions. It’s just that your positions and his are remarkably similar, which invites mention.

You are changing the boundaries, as you misstated what I have said. The bishops are our governing body of authoritative men. They decided by majority to approve the document provided, and there are not objections from any of them. I am open to correction if you will please provide objections. I don’t believe you will find any.

You can explain it anyway you want, it’s clear that you disagree with any of the suggestions made by the bishops, or so it seems.

I have a problem of others presenting it takes more than what is necessary to give moral guidance. I will agree with the bishops, and other men of the Church that have spoken on the issue.

Invites mention? As Cardinal Dolan stated he found common ground, or the Vatican Chief Spokesman agreeing with the president’s view on controls? I’m in good company, in my opinion. When someone does good, it is wrong not to recognize that good, just as we recognize the wrongs they might do. You find what you want about my statements and then for some reason associate it with the president, when I have agreed with what the full body of bishops has approved to be published, and posted on their website.

 

[JMJSHJ]

You are changing the boundaries, as you misstated what I have said. ** The bishops are our governing body of authoritative men.** They decided by majority to approve the document provided, and there are not objections from any of them. I am open to correction if you will please provide objections. I don’t believe you will find any.

You can explain it anyway you want, it’s clear that you disagree with any of the suggestions made by the bishops, or so it seems.

I have a problem of others presenting it takes more than what is necessary to give moral guidance. I will agree with the bishops, and other men of the Church that have spoken on the issue.

Invites mention? As Cardinal Dolan stated he found common ground, or the Vatican Chief Spokesman agreeing with the president’s view on controls? I’m in good company, in my opinion. When someone does good, it is wrong not to recognize that good, just as we recognize the wrongs they might do. You find what you want about my statements and then for some reason associate it with the president, when I have agreed with what the full body of bishops has approved to be published, and posted on their website.

Bolding mine.

If by the Bishops you mean the USCCB, then you are misstaken. The USCCB has no authority as an organization over the laity. Of course individual Bishops have authority over the laity in their respective diocese where it is binding on the laity.

I think a comparable example would be the death penalty. The catechism mentions it. The 2 previous Popes have spoken out against it but Pope Emeritus Benedict is quoted as saying that there can a legitimate diversity of opinion on this.

 

[Lapey]

Bolding mine.

If by the Bishops you mean the USCCB, then you are misstaken. The USCCB has no authority as an organization over the laity. Of course individual Bishops have authority over the laity in their respective diocese where it is binding on the laity.

I think a comparable example would be the death penalty. The catechism mentions it. The 2 previous Popes have spoken out against it but Pope Emeritus Benedict is quoted as saying that there can a legitimate diversity of opinion on this.

This is exactly the point I made several pages back and was simply dismissed because of the 2000 document and the current statement.

The Conference of bishops agreeing as a group to this statement holds absolutely no water in the local diocese as binding Catholics unless the local ordinary has made it such at the local level.

PS1, I would challenge you to find any bishop who has done that; make it binding in their home diocese to support gun control or face sanctions from the Church.

I can assure you that you will not find one. As my attempt at humor a few pages back tried to illustrate, this is a non issue in the dioceses across the country and to make such a case that all of the bishops have spoken so this is how it is that all Catholics are required to get behind the ludicrous idea that more laws will stop gun violence….well is ludicrous in itself.

 

[Lapey]

Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

Another bishop connects a ‘culture of life’ to more restrictive gun laws. The article states the bishop represents a bishop’s Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

I have to ask this question at the risk of totally derailing this thread. In the past year or so we have gotten into many really passionate discussions here about the most recent election and the issues of the election. Myself and others brought up many issues mentioned by individual bishops and some simply dismissed them as not binding on the conscience of Catholics. We also brought up documents written by Cardinal Ratzinger as the committee chair in '04, Faithful Citizenship from our entire conference of bishops, and repeatedly these documents and bishops were misrepresented and ignored for some strange reason.

Now this topic, gun control; this has been a pet project of the democrat party for quite some time. In this case what the bishops have given us amounts to a resolution passed by Congress and holds no water on the local level as a law would. On the other hand, the Magisterium plainly spoke and their writings and directives are still misused and ignored mostly because of political affiliations or loyalties. Even when the CAF apologists agreed with and backed up the argument it was simply dismissed and the conversation ended. But now, when a “left” issue comes up it matters what the bishops have said.

If we would truly care about a culture of life rather than death we would not have re-elected this man who is the most pro-death president we have ever seen. He has absolutely no credibility where it comes to creating a culture of life. As far as this discussion goes, when Cardinal Dolan and other bishops of the conference appear to be 100% for creating a culture of life then I will cheer them on. Up until now they are mostly silent where it comes to life issues like abortion. Oh they may make a statement or two, but do you see them in the headlines defending life? No, but they have put themselves in the headlines for gun control and the HHS mandate; there wasn’t much choice on the latter. Also they invite BO to have dinner, like the Al Smith dinner; that made headlines!

Until then I listen to the people who have earned a reputation for truly being pro-life; and I especially listen to Mother Church. We cannot pick and choose which topics we want to get behind to appear as being pro-life. I am constantly getting emails from Catholic Charities on homily hints about fighting the death penalty, never have I received one for the sanctity of life by apposing abortion. This is very problematic for me.

This is why your arguments mean very little to me. It all comes back to what are you willing to accept in a compromise. Some compromised by not voting for a man who was not 100% pro-life in favor of a man who has proven he will fight for every woman’s right to kill her child, as we know now even after birth and as young as 15 (morning after pill). Or others who voted for a candidate, who had no chance of winning, thus took votes away from the only one who could defeat this pro-death president.

Obama has absolutely no credibility when it comes to any pro-life conversation…NONE. He has more blood of the innocents on his hands than any gun manufacturer, salesman, gun owner, gun show dealer, etc.

This whole thread is filled with hypocrisy; this is why I was avoiding getting involved in it. When people are ready to get involved with the true pro-life fight and not toe the party line for democrats or republicans, then I will respect other’s opinions on this subject, until then these words are like a resounding cymbal, just a lot of noise.

Sorry for the rant…wow, I feel better!

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are changing the boundaries, as you misstated what I have said. The bishops are our governing body of authoritative men. They decided by majority to approve the document provided, and there are not objections from any of them. I am open to correction if you will please provide objections. I don’t believe you will find any.

You can explain it anyway you want, it’s clear that you disagree with any of the suggestions made by the bishops, or so it seems.

I have a problem of others presenting it takes more than what is necessary to give moral guidance. I will agree with the bishops, and other men of the Church that have spoken on the issue.

Invites mention? As Cardinal Dolan stated he found common ground, or the Vatican Chief Spokesman agreeing with the president’s view on controls? I’m in good company, in my opinion. When someone does good, it is wrong not to recognize that good, just as we recognize the wrongs they might do. You find what you want about my statements and then for some reason associate it with the president, when I have agreed with what the full body of bishops has approved to be published, and posted on their website.

Second paragraph: I clearly stated that I didn’t find much to argue with in the 2000 communication, quite possibly because it’s so general and vague. As a document, I find it without specific gun policy proposals because it has none. It’s the sort of document churchmen would have written in 2000 about crime generally. Almost none of it has anything to do with guns. The only guns mentioned are handguns and fully automatic guns (machine guns that only criminals have in any number)

But even then, as a document seemingly voted on by what one assumes is a majority of the bishops in 2000, it does not pass muster as a document binding on Catholics under the provisions of Canon Law. It’s an expression of opinion only. Worthy of consideration and respect, but that’s all.

The 2012 Blaire letter is just Blaire’s opinion which, according to you, perhaps three others share. Again, not binding on Catholics.

Let’s not misrepresent Dolan or a sometime Vatican spokesman (of whom there are a number). Neither propounded that Obama’s specific proposals ought to be morally binding on Catholics nationwide or worldwide. Generally, they expressed support for gun control, no question about it. But those are opinions as well.

What do you expect Churchmen to say about guns? Do you expect any to endorse them, seeing as how they are absolutely forbidden by the Church to shed blood? Do you not expect them to speak in favor of even doing away with all lethal instrumentalities on earth? It may be noted that the 2000 communication vaguely recommended doing away with all handguns; an opinion even you don’t share. But what does this mean? One certainly could make an argument for the proposition that all handguns should be done away with if no criminals could possibly have access to them. But one cannot imagine such a scenario in today’s world, anywhere. All the same, it is not odd to see churchmen propound an ideal sort of world where there are no lethal instruments, where no one is hungry, where no one is oppressed in any manner, where there is no need for national armaments. Churchmen are what they are in order to propound moral principles to the rest of us. But it is up to us to determine how to implement them wisely and practically.

It is disingenous almost beyond belief that in your ending sentence you conflate Obama’s policies with Catholic doctrine; something to which you seem to be given. That last sentence is profoundly misleading, though perhaps unintentionally, and you ought to retract it. The bishops in 2000, which is what you’re referring to as the “full body of bishops” knew nothing about Obama’s proposals and spoke nothing of them or yours either.