Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ridgerunner]

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!

Not a rant. Well said!

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

The USCCB are the American bishops. Those bishops are authoritative. The bishops work to unify and do not represent the same thing as Protestantism, with different teachings in each diocese. That would open the door to the pick and choose type theology.

I think a comparable example would be on the Catholic voting guide. There was not the same unity as there is with this issue. Now, those who claimed the authority in those they could claim as sharing a view, are denying the authority of the full body of bishops. Whether it was a simple majority, 2/3, or unanimous, the full body consented to the decision to approve the document. It was not 4, 5, or 6, as some try to minimize it to. No matter the number, it seems some are going to claim prudential judgment to justify a worldly view.

Now, it’s not binding, but does disagreeing with them make an individual right? Not for me. There’s enough evidence to support the call, especially when I weigh this issue in the light of life from the Gospels, and the Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

You continue to make it about Obama and some connection you feel you can make towards me for some odd reason. I have explained, the bishops and the spokesman for the Vatican spoke those direct agreements. It is them I find agreement with. What is beyond belief is that you think that you take the liberties to make it political on my part, when I have produced much to show I accept he guidance of the bishops.

Any teaching of the Church is up to us on how to make it applicable to our lives. It’s called free will.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

So, they call for support for gun controls, but it’s too vague and we don’t have to do anything because of that? That’s an excuse to ignore, in my opinion. It’s just another argument to dismiss the full body of bishops. We’ve gone from 4 or 5 bishops, to 2/3 bishops, to ‘majority’ bishops, to unanimous bishops. I fear the Pope would speak on the matter, because it would sadden me to see how even he would be dismissed to maintain a secular ‘right.’

I don’t dig into Canon law for my faith. I look to the men of the Church and accept that they are Holy Spirit guided. I discern and weigh, and when they are unified, or there are NO differing ‘opinions’ offered, it’s much easier to accept, and myself subject to.

As you say this is prudential, or ‘opinion’, you can’t produce one bishop to offer a different opinion, that agrees with no controls. That says a lot in my opinion.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You continue to make it about Obama and some connection you feel you can make towards me for some odd reason. I have explained, the bishops and the spokesman for the Vatican spoke those direct agreements. It is them I find agreement with. What is beyond belief is that you think that you take the liberties to make it political on my part, when I have produced much to show I accept he guidance of the bishops.

Any teaching of the Church is up to us on how to make it applicable to our lives. It’s called free will.

Of course this has political aspects. Read the title of the thread. It purports to say some number of bishops are supporting tighter gun laws. “Laws” are exactly political.

Who is proposing these “tighter gun laws”? Why, Barack Obama, of course. My goodness! Even a child could see that connection.

Once again, the 2000 communication said nothing at all about Obama’s proposals which appear the same as yours. That’s the only one upon which any (unknown) number of bishops voted.

The present “bishop” of whom you speak, is one man; who seems to have the agreement of three others. That’s not “the bishops”. It is not me who keeps shifting the ground. It’s you. You started out with Blaire and his three supporters, then shifted to the 2000 meeting of bishops, then to Cdl Dolan and one of the many Vatican spokes persons, all of whom were simply stating their personal opinions. As has been pointed out many, many times on here, and by many besides me, is that NONE of those communications is binding on Catholics in the U.S. Not one.

If you want more gun control, make your appeal to “prudential judgment”. Don’t falsely try to claim the Church teaches what you want politically enacted. It doesn’t.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course this has political aspects. Read the title of the thread. It purports to say some number of bishops are supporting tighter gun laws. “Laws” are exactly political.

Who is proposing these “tighter gun laws”? Why, Barack Obama, of course. My goodness! Even a child could see that connection.

Once again, the 2000 communication said nothing at all about Obama’s proposals which appear the same as yours. That’s the only one upon which any (unknown) number of bishops voted.

The present “bishop” of whom you speak, is one man; who seems to have the agreement of three others. That’s not “the bishops”. It is not me who keeps shifting the ground. It’s you. You started out with Blaire and his three supporters, then shifted to the 2000 meeting of bishops, then to Cdl Dolan and one of the many Vatican spokes persons, all of whom were simply stating their personal opinions. As has been pointed out many, many times on here, and by many besides me, is that NONE of those communications is binding on Catholics in the U.S. Not one.

If you want more gun control, make your appeal to “prudential judgment”. Don’t falsely try to claim the Church teaches what you want politically enacted. It doesn’t.

The ‘few’ that you minimize this too, reiterated, and referred, to the 2000 document, that the current calls took an exact language from. It’s very much relevant. What seems to be difficult for some is the language that states a full body of bishops approved that document.

Where is a differing opinion?

It’s political only? I don’t think so. If we are a people of life, we work for a dignity of life for all, in all instances, from conception until natural death. Some argument for ‘defense’ are using a threat of violence for life. That adds to the culture of death, as Cardinal Dolan explained.

What some are trying to make prudential judgments only need to read those documents and see the moral implications raised by the men of God. It’s only prudential to consider the self interest of no gun controls, and ignore the moral implications altogether. The call for gun controls is for the dignity of life for others, as the bishops, in all documents have stated.

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, they call for support for gun controls, but it’s too vague and we don’t have to do anything because of that? That’s an excuse to ignore, in my opinion. It’s just another argument to dismiss the full body of bishops. We’ve gone from 4 or 5 bishops, to 2/3 bishops, to ‘majority’ bishops, to unanimous bishops. I fear the Pope would speak on the matter, because it would sadden me to see how even he would be dismissed to maintain a secular ‘right.’

I don’t dig into Canon law for my faith. I look to the men of the Church and accept that they are Holy Spirit guided. I discern and weigh, and when they are unified, or there are NO differing ‘opinions’ offered, it’s much easier to accept, and myself subject to.

As you say this is prudential, or ‘opinion’, you can’t produce one bishop to offer a different opinion, that agrees with no controls. That says a lot in my opinion.

The fact that only three bishops out of 500 support Blaire’s opinion, or even commented on this supposedly important issue, tells a lot as well.

You certainly ought to look to Canon Law to know what bishops’ opinions are morally binding and which are not. You’re required to obey the former, but not the latter. I would think any Catholic would want to know that. Follow your own conscience if you want, but you have no business telling Catholics something is morally binding on them when it isn’t.

But you do know that because it has been repeated here a hundred times if once. You just don’t want to accept it because you want to make it appear your gun control proposals are taught by the Church. They’re not.

And while I am inclined to think you’re a lot smarter than to have become confused about what Canon Law requires when it comes to what utterances of bishops’ organizations are morally binding, your first paragraph mixes up what it does and doesn’t. So I have to wonder, at least, whether you have become confused or whether you have a purpose to confuse.

And your last suggestion that I, or any other Catholic who disagrees with you, would ignore a direct moral teaching of the Pope is utterly uncharitable, without foundation, and entirely uncalled for.

 

[Lapey]

Any teaching of the Church is up to us on how to make it applicable to our lives. It’s called free will.

So with this statement you are saying I am in sin if I don’t support any further measures of gun control? If this is what you are saying you have no idea how Church teaching and obligations or “universal” law as opposed to “particular law”, directives laid out at the local ordinary’s level.

No where in there is a “conference of bishop’s law”. A conference directive would have to be approved by and then communicated authoritatively for that conference from the Vatican level. In this particular case, with these documents and statements, what you in fact have is a “resolution” which the entire conference has, in your words, not objected to.

In this we do have agreement, but again it is not binding on the conscience and/or soul of American Catholics in good standing with Mother Church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The fact that only three bishops out of 500 support Blaire’s opinion, or even commented on this supposedly important issue, tells a lot as well.

You certainly ought to look to Canon Law to know what bishops’ opinions are morally binding and which are not. You’re required to obey the former, but not the latter. I would think any Catholic would want to know that. Follow your own conscience if you want, but you have no business telling Catholics something is morally binding on them when it isn’t.

But you do know that because it has been repeated here a hundred times if once. You just don’t want to accept it because you want to make it appear your gun control proposals are taught by the Church. They’re not.

And while I am inclined to think you’re a lot smarter than to have become confused about what Canon Law requires when it comes to what utterances of bishops’ organizations are morally binding, your first paragraph mixes up what it does and doesn’t. So I have to wonder, at least, whether you have become confused or whether you have a purpose to confuse.

And your last suggestion that I, or any other Catholic who disagrees with you, would ignore a direct moral teaching of the Pope is utterly uncharitable, without foundation, and entirely uncalled for.

The fact is 3 USCCB committees chairmen representing their committees, the president of the USCCB, and the Vatican Chief spokesperson, support the 2000 full body of bishops, and the document that full body approved. That is something you seem to be avoiding, as you continue try to make it only about the most recent statements.

I don’t think it necessary, and find it questionable, to search Canon law to circumvent that group of men from the Church. There are enough men of the Church that have publicly endorsed the call for controls, for me.

I speak for myself, and have not ‘suggested’ that you, or any other Catholic who disagrees with me. You’ve turned it political on me several times, and attempted to draw connection directly to the president and exclude every connection I’ve drawn to the men of the Church, and now I have ‘suggested’ something? Are we not explaining how we view issues from our faith formed consciences?

We can end the discussion brother. I am not trying to be uncharitable, but I am not going to agree that there is not an agreement from the American bishops on this issue. As I’ve repeated over and over, where is a statement from any bishop that states gun controls are wrong? I have shown documentation on the issue, you have speculated on the silence to be of support of your view.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So with this statement you are saying I am in sin if I don’t support any further measures of gun control? If this is what you are saying you have no idea how Church teaching and obligations or “universal” law as opposed to “particular law”, directives laid out at the local ordinary’s level.

No where in there is a “conference of bishop’s law”. A conference directive would have to be approved by and then communicated authoritatively for that conference from the Vatican level. In this particular case, with these documents and statements, what you in fact have is a “resolution” which the entire conference has, in your words, not objected to.

In this we do have agreement, but again it is not binding on the conscience and/or soul of American Catholics in good standing with Mother Church.

You know better brother. We all have to form a faith based conscience and act on it. That we are obligated to do. We form those consciences on free will. On this issue, we have two sides. That would seem to say, one side is incorrect, but does it say responsible? No. We know all people are not equal in intellect, knowledge, wisdom, guidance, piety, strength of faith, or even fear of the Lord. There can be extenuating circumstances that frees one from responsibility. As we journey, we learn and grow. As that happens our responsibilities can add an accountability.

The Vatican has called for certain measures, that each document refers to. The Vatican Chief Spokesperson has spoken in agreement. If this requires more, everything else requires the same. We can’t say, this isn’t binding, but this is, even though it hasn’t been approved as I say another issue requires. That’s what seems to be going on.

 

[JMJSHJ]

The USCCB are the American bishops. Those bishops are authoritative. The bishops work to unify and do not represent the same thing as Protestantism, with different teachings in each diocese. That would open the door to the pick and choose type theology.

I think a comparable example would be on the Catholic voting guide. There was not the same unity as there is with this issue. Now, those who claimed the authority in those they could claim as sharing a view, are denying the authority of the full body of bishops. Whether it was a simple majority, 2/3, or unanimous, the full body consented to the decision to approve the document. It was not 4, 5, or 6, as some try to minimize it to. No matter the number, it seems some are going to claim prudential judgment to justify a worldly view.

Now, it’s not binding, but does disagreeing with them make an individual right? Not for me. There’s enough evidence to support the call, especially when I weigh this issue in the light of life from the Gospels, and the Church.

Again to reiterate the USCCB has no real authority, individual Bishop for their respective dioceses do.

Can. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.

§2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.

§3. The conference of bishops itself determines the manner of promulgation and the time when the decrees take effect.

§4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.

 

[Lapey]

You know better brother. We all have to form a faith based conscience and act on it. That we are obligated to do. We form those consciences on free will. On this issue, we have two sides. That would seem to say, one side is incorrect, but does it say responsible? No. We know all people are not equal in intellect, knowledge, wisdom, guidance, piety, strength of faith, or even fear of the Lord. There can be extenuating circumstances that frees one from responsibility. As we journey, we learn and grow. As that happens our responsibilities can add an accountability.

The Vatican has called for certain measures, that each document refers to. The Vatican Chief Spokesperson has spoken in agreement. If this requires more, everything else requires the same. We can’t say, this isn’t binding, but this is, even though it hasn’t been approved as I say another issue requires. That’s what seems to be going on.

There is absolutely no responsibility on the part of Catholics in these united sates to support any further gun laws or restrictions on guns then what is incorporated in Church Law and teaching. These statements do not reach that level. Where as the action of voting for pro-abort candidates does carry this responsibility.

The democrat party has no credibility for anything pro-life. Are there dems of the pro-life movement? YES, but they are few.

No, you can continue your argument that we are responsible to oblige these statements as authoritative, but you will continue to be wrong.

 

[Ridgerunner]

We can end the discussion brother.

Undoubtedly the best suggestion in the last third or more of this thread.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Again to reiterate the USCCB has no real authority, individual Bishop for their respective dioceses do.

Can. 455 §1. A conference of bishops can only issue general decrees in cases where universal law has prescribed it or a special mandate of the Apostolic See has established it either motu proprio or at the request of the conference itself.

§2. The decrees mentioned in §1, in order to be enacted validly in a plenary meeting, must be passed by at least a two thirds vote of the prelates who belong to the conference and possess a deliberative vote. They do not obtain binding force unless they have been legitimately promulgated after having been reviewed by the Apostolic See.

§3. The conference of bishops itself determines the manner of promulgation and the time when the decrees take effect.

§4. In cases in which neither universal law nor a special mandate of the Apostolic See has granted the power mentioned in §1 to a conference of bishops, the competence of each diocesan bishop remains intact, nor is a conference or its president able to act in the name of all the bishops unless each and every bishop has given consent.

So, when bishops have a meeting of the mind in their conference, it holds no authority? That’s what we have. Individual bishops, united through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, approved a document that states, several times, ‘we bishops.’ Then their view is affirmed by the Vatican Chief Spokesman. Again, I am not interested in searching Church documents to find some wording that might release me from the moral guidance, even if I don’t like it. But that’s my own obligation to my own conscience.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is absolutely no responsibility on the part of Catholics in these united sates to support any further gun laws or restrictions on guns then what is incorporated in Church Law and teaching. These statements do not reach that level. Where as the action of voting for pro-abort candidates does carry this responsibility.

The democrat party has no credibility for anything pro-life. Are there dems of the pro-life movement? YES, but they are few.

No, you can continue your argument that we are responsible to oblige these statements as authoritative, but you will continue to be wrong.

I am responsible for my race, and at this point find the documents authoritative, and I’m a gun owner, always have been. To claim the need for self defense with only a gun is a violent interpretation and a part of the Culture of death Cardinal Dolan spoke of. Guns are material things of this world. They have no spiritual value in my opinion. I’d rather place all trust in Him, through the authoritative Church He gave us, which is a spiritual thing btw.

I’m done’ arguing the same point. I would only be interested in seeing a statement from those bishops who argue against any gun controls, as most have done in this thread,

 

[Ridgerunner]

So, when bishops have a meeting of the mind in their conference, it holds no authority? That’s what we have. Individual bishops, united through the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, approved a document that states, several times, ‘we bishops.’ Then their view is affirmed by the Vatican Chief Spokesman. Again, I am not interested in searching Church documents to find some wording that might release me from the moral guidance, even if I don’t like it. But that’s my own obligation to my own conscience.

Thought you were going to lay it down, but I guess not. Once more.

In 2000 at a meeting of bishops, some number, but presumably a majority, passed on a communication about crime, not mandated by the Vatican. Two kinds of guns were mentioned in that communication, and only two: handguns and machine guns (automatic weapons). No specific proposals were made or endorsed. The communication called only for 'sensible regulation of handguns", obviously leaving whatever that means to the prudential judgment of the laity and the government.

That’s not the same thing as Bp. Blair endorsing obama’s calls for gun control in 2012, in which he and perhaps three other bishops out of more than 500 joined. There was no meeting of the “full body of bishops” for that. It was Blaire saying what he, himself, thought.

Neither binds the conscience of American Catholics (or those of anywhere else for that matter). Both are expressions of opinion.

And there are lots of “Vatican chief spokesmen”, and their individual opinions are not binding on individual Catholics either.

Follow your own conscience if you wish. But don’t tell other Catholics that they’re morally bound to endorse your proposals or Obama’s, because we’re not.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I am responsible for my race, and at this point find the documents authoritative, and I’m a gun owner, always have been. To claim the need for self defense with only a gun is a violent interpretation and a part of the Culture of death Cardinal Dolan spoke of. Guns are material things of this world. They have no spiritual value in my opinion. I’d rather place all trust in Him, through the authoritative Church He gave us, which is a spiritual thing btw.

I’m done’ arguing the same point. I would only be interested in seeing a statement from those bishops who argue against any gun controls, as most have done in this thread,

Well, in the 2000 communication, it expresses the wish that all guns would disapper from this society. So when are you going to give yours up? That was way back in 2000 and you say you still have some. Or doesn’t your conscience require you to follow their opinions on that?

 

[BroomWagon]

Gun violence has dramatically decreaesed.

washingtonpost.com/politics/report-sharp-drop-in-gun-violence-but-most-killings-still-involve-firearms/2013/05/07/28f96904-b694-11e2-92f3-f291801936b8_story.html

Maybe how the media covers this that makes it sound like it’s a bigger problem.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thought you were going to lay it down, but I guess not. Once more.

In 2000 at a meeting of bishops, some number, but presumably a majority, passed on a communication about crime, not mandated by the Vatican. Two kinds of guns were mentioned in that communication, and only two: handguns and machine guns (automatic weapons). No specific proposals were made or endorsed. The communication called only for 'sensible regulation of handguns", obviously leaving whatever that means to the prudential judgment of the laity and the government.

That’s not the same thing as Bp. Blair endorsing obama’s calls for gun control in 2012, in which he and perhaps three other bishops out of more than 500 joined. There was no meeting of the “full body of bishops” for that. It was Blaire saying what he, himself, thought.

Neither binds the conscience of American Catholics (or those of anywhere else for that matter). Both are expressions of opinion.

And there are lots of “Vatican chief spokesmen”, and their individual opinions are not binding on individual Catholics either.

Follow your own conscience if you wish. But don’t tell other Catholics that they’re morally bound to endorse your proposals or Obama’s, because we’re not.

Again you mistake what I said. I said we could end our discussion, because it has become a circular argument of the same points being argued. All the men of the Church, produced in this thread, have spoken in favor of gun controls. As I’ve said, that’s binding enough for me to act on.

I look forward to someone producing the bishop to speak against any gun controls.

 

[Ender]

I look forward to someone producing the bishop to speak against any gun controls.

We have gun controls, and until the bishops specify the particulars of what they consider necessary - and make it clear that we have a moral obligation to vote as they direct us - we are quite free to form our own opinions on the matter. I’m not holding my breath on this one because the bishops are well aware that such an obligation does not exist.

Ender