Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Ridgerunner]

The mounds of evidence seem to be the bishops supporting measures to control the sale and use of firearms, and regulations on handguns. But when the evidence piles up, speak against the posters.

What is missing, is any bishop that denies support for gun controls and actually supports uncontrolled gun rights.

Goodness me, here we are again.

The 2000 text apparently approved by a majority of the bishops can be read here.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

I greatly encourage any readers still left to ignore me and Prodigal Son, but to read the text themselves. I believe you will search in vain for any proposal to require background checks for person-to-person sales, trades or gifts of guns. There is hardly any mention of guns at all, and all it does is call for “sensible regulation” of handguns. But again, don’t take my word for it, read it yourself.

I don’t think any bishop, or any layman either, could be found who “denies support for gun controls and actually supports uncontrolled gun rights.” I haven’t seen anybody on CAF advocate zero controls or uncontrolled gun rights either; certainly not me, and I doubt 1% of the population at large would. That’s not the question. The question is what’s “sensible”. The bishops in that 2000 meeting didn’t go beyond that.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Goodness me, here we are again.

The 2000 text apparently approved by a majority of the bishops can be read here.
usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

I greatly encourage any readers still left to ignore me and Prodigal Son, but to read the text themselves. I believe you will search in vain for any proposal to require background checks for person-to-person sales, trades or gifts of guns. There is hardly any mention of guns at all, and all it does is call for “sensible regulation” of handguns. But again, don’t take my word for it, read it yourself.

I don’t think any bishop, or any layman either, could be found who “denies support for gun controls and actually supports uncontrolled gun rights.” I haven’t seen anybody on CAF advocate zero controls or uncontrolled gun rights either; certainly not me, and I doubt 1% of the population at large would. That’s not the question. The question is what’s “sensible”. The bishops in that 2000 meeting didn’t go beyond that.

I agree, it does not say background checks; however, it does state:

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.

Please note that questionable word ‘sensible’ applies to the regulation of handguns.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The text appears to be copyrighted, so I can’t copy and paste the three sentences the bishops dedicated to guns in this really, really long text.

First statement: They support, in very general language, “sensible” measures to control the sale and use of firearms and to make them safer, and call for sensible regulation of handguns. No actual measures are ever mentioned, and certainly not those of Prodigal Son or Obama. They just say “sensible”; something on which people may differ.

Second Statement: In a footnote to the text, they say that “in the long run” they would like to see elimination of all guns from society. Prodigal, however, has decided against getting rid of his, so he knows these are just advisory opinions, not mandatory moral directives. Binding in conscience it may be to him in ways never mentioned by the bishops, but not in the ways they do mention. The footnote goes on to say that the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons (machine guns) in connection with drug commerce causes them to reiterate their desire to see all guns eventually eliminated.

That’s it folks. The first statement is in the text. The footnote is Number 32. Read them, or at least word search through the very lengthy text, which is actually about causes of crime and remedies for crime.

You won’t find any other reference to guns in it at all.

I have things to do this weekend, and I don’t expect to be back anytime soon. Again, I urge you, don’t take what I say or what prodgal says as the teaching of the Church or even the opinions of various bishops. Read what they actually said.

And be of good cheer!

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree, it does not say background checks; however, it does state: Here Prodigal directly quotes the copyrighted material, which I really can’t do, but you can read his direct quote. I agree that’s in the text.

Okay, so that’s one more point conceded. It does not say background checks.

So, as has always been the case here, it’s really a judgmental issue. What did the bishops in 2000 think was “sensible”? We don’t know because they didn’t say. They are simply calling on this society to do what’s sensible. Well, sure. Nobody could disagree with that. I don’t. Where people disagree is on what’s truly sensible. But “sensible” is not a moral issue, but a practical issue.

A thousand and more posts have been made concerning what the bishops really said or didn’t. I think that’s put to bed now.

Earlier posts did explore what people thought “sensible” in the way of gun control. There are lots of opinions about that. But that whole area of discussion was abandoned many, many posts ago.

Time for this thread to end. I will not be the first to revisit it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The text appears to be copyrighted, so I can’t copy and paste the three sentences the bishops dedicated to guns in this really, really long text.

First statement: They support, in very general language, “sensible” measures to control the sale and use of firearms and to make them safer, and call for sensible regulation of handguns. No actual measures are ever mentioned, and certainly not those of Prodigal Son or Obama. They just say “sensible”; something on which people may differ.

Second Statement: In a footnote to the text, they say that “in the long run” they would like to see elimination of all guns from society. Prodigal, however, has decided against getting rid of his, so he knows these are just advisory opinions, not mandatory moral directives. Binding in conscience it may be to him in ways never mentioned by the bishops, but not in the ways they do mention. The footnote goes on to say that the widespread use of handguns and automatic weapons (machine guns) in connection with drug commerce causes them to reiterate their desire to see all guns eventually eliminated.

That’s it folks. The first statement is in the text. The footnote is Number 32. Read them, or at least word search through the very lengthy text, which is actually about causes of crime and remedies for crime.

You won’t find any other reference to guns in it at all.

I have things to do this weekend, and I don’t expect to be back anytime soon. Again, I urge you, don’t take what I say or what prodgal says as the teaching of the Church or even the opinions of various bishops. Read what they actually said.

And be of good cheer!

When did I become the topic of the thread?

When reading the document, note it does not say sensible measure to controls the sale of firearms, the use the term sensible in reference to the regulation of handguns. In reference to the sale and use of firearms they said they support measure to control the sale and use of firearms.

Also, I believe you misunderstood the ‘footnote.’ It speaks of handguns being eliminated, not a total eradication.

As you said, I believe everyone should read the document for themselves.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Okay, so that’s one more point conceded. It does not say background checks.

So, as has always been the case here, it’s really a judgmental issue. What did the bishops in 2000 think was “sensible”? We don’t know because they didn’t say. They are simply calling on this society to do what’s sensible. Well, sure. Nobody could disagree with that. I don’t. Where people disagree is on what’s truly sensible. But “sensible” is not a moral issue, but a practical issue.

A thousand and more posts have been made concerning what the bishops really said or didn’t. I think that’s put to bed now.

Earlier posts did explore what people thought “sensible” in the way of gun control. There are lots of opinions about that. But that whole area of discussion was abandoned many, many posts ago.

Time for this thread to end. I will not be the first to revisit it.

I have corrected you several times now. That’s the first time I made a concession to your ‘interpretations.’

Sensible regulations of handguns, and the footnote does say they believe handguns should be eliminated from society. The said they support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. That’s what the bishops really said.

 

[Tomdstone]

Sensible regulations of handguns, and the footnote does say they believe handguns should be eliminated from society. The said they support measures to control the sale and use of firearms. That’s what the bishops really said.

This looks like something that Catholics should support wholeheartedly.

 

[Fairwinds]

This looks like something that Catholics should support wholeheartedly.

I like my S&W Model 15 Combat Masterpiece, bishops notwithstanding.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I agree, it does not say background checks; however, it does state:

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

Please note that questionable word ‘sensible’ applies to the regulation of handguns.

So, since we already have in place “measures that control the sale and use of firearms” what are the bishops intending? And I don’t want your version or opinion. I want to see exactly what the bishops propose. Their words, not the ones you seem to always put in their mouth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So, since we already have in place “measures that control the sale and use of firearms” what are the bishops intending? And I don’t want your version or opinion. I want to see exactly what the bishops propose. Their words, not the ones you seem to always put in their mouth.

I don’t put words in the mouths of the bishops. I provide as close to what they actually say as possible, and have invited everyone to read it for themselves. What some find objectionable is what the bishops have actually said. You can see this through the various links I have provided.

As for the intentions, in reference to the measures that control the sale and use of firearms, we don’t have controls over all sales. There are the private sales loopholes, that even occur at gun shows. What we have in place does not cover all sales. Cardinal Dolan, president of the USCCB, explains the intentions, from his view, as posted on his website.

Advocating for Gun Control

I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts. However, there can be no denying that, in the wake of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Tucson, Columbine, and almost countless other horrific and senseless deaths by guns, that something must be done.

So they call for support to measures that control the sale and use of firearms. The exact details of those controls is the responsibility of legislators, with constitutional questions being addressed by the courts.

 

[Ender]

A thousand and more posts have been made concerning what the bishops really said or didn’t.

It is hardly worth debating what a bishop did or did not say since expressions of political preference do not constitute church teaching, moral guidance, or even appropriate commentary.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

It is hardly worth debating what a bishop did or did not say since expressions of political preference do not constitute church teaching, moral guidance, or even appropriate commentary.

Ender

So, a full body of bishops is not guidance for the flock in a secular world? Sorry, I disagree.

 

[Tomdstone]

So, a full body of bishops is not guidance for the flock in a secular world? Sorry, I disagree.

You are right. When a full body of bishops speaks on a moral issue such as gun control, Catholics have a serious obligation to obey their directives.

 

[Ender]

You are right. When a full body of bishops speaks on a moral issue such as gun control, Catholics have a serious obligation to obey their directives.

What moral question is at issue? What moral choice are we faced with in determining what specific legislation will actually achieve our goals? The problem with this issue is that there really are no moral questions involved and therefore the involvement of random bishops does nothing more than encourage one group to claim the (nonexistent) moral high ground and disparage its opponents. It nurtures sanctimony.

Ender

 

[Gricken]

You are right. When a full body of bishops speaks on a moral issue such as gun control, Catholics have a serious obligation to obey their directives.

All the bishops said was “sensible laws” which doesn’t tell us anything. Nobody is saying we shouldn’t listen to them. But we also shouldn’t put our idea of “sensible” into their mouths.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

All the bishops said was “sensible laws” which doesn’t tell us anything. Nobody is saying we shouldn’t listen to them. But we also shouldn’t put our idea of “sensible” into their mouths.

Have you read what the bishops said? They said they support measures to control the sale and use of firearms AND went on to speak on the reiteration of ‘sensible’ handgun regulations. Support measures to control the sale and use of firearms.

Cardinal Dolan deferred the expertise of legislating to the legislators, and interpretation of the 2nd amendment to the courts.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What moral question is at issue? What moral choice are we faced with in determining what specific legislation will actually achieve our goals? The problem with this issue is that there really are no moral questions involved and therefore the involvement of random bishops does nothing more than encourage one group to claim the (nonexistent) moral high ground and disparage its opponents. It nurtures sanctimony.

Ender

The moral aspect is from criminal gun violence, due to the easy access of guns, towards innocent victims.

 

[Ender]

The moral aspect is from criminal gun violence, due to the easy access of guns, towards innocent victims.

That something is harmful or even deadly does not mean there are moral choices involved. You should be able to recognize from your own vagueness that there is a problem in calling this a moral issue. You and I differ on what we see would be the best solutions to the problems of violence. What moral choice are you making that I am rejecting that makes my choice not merely wrong but sinful?

An act is immoral only if it is intrinsically wrong or if my reason for doing it is immoral. We know that owning a gun is not intrinsically wrong so just exactly what makes my choices immoral? Nothing at all. They may be incorrect but they are not immoral and this is why the involvement of the bishop is unhelpful because his very comment implies something that isn’t true: that this is a moral issue.

If it was, then because I disagree with the bishop about which laws should be enacted my position must be immoral. Pick anything the bishop said and explain how believing him to be mistaken is sinful.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

That something is harmful or even deadly does not mean there are moral choices involved. You should be able to recognize from your own vagueness that there is a problem in calling this a moral issue. You and I differ on what we see would be the best solutions to the problems of violence. What moral choice are you making that I am rejecting that makes my choice not merely wrong but sinful?

An act is immoral only if it is intrinsically wrong or if my reason for doing it is immoral. We know that owning a gun is not intrinsically wrong so just exactly what makes my choices immoral? Nothing at all. They may be incorrect but they are not immoral and this is why the involvement of the bishop is unhelpful because his very comment implies something that isn’t true: that this is a moral issue.

If it was, then because I disagree with the bishop about which laws should be enacted my position must be immoral. Pick anything the bishop said and explain how believing him to be mistaken is sinful.

Ender

Then leaving free will to those who would have abortions is not moral for those who would not participate.

The act of sacrifice for others is moral, especially when it might possibly save lives. We’ve seen enough and don’t need to sit around arguing over the ‘best way.’ That seems to be a delay tactic, or an avoidance tactic. While people would not support controls, lives are lost because of, how the bishops say, an easy access to guns.

We’ve been called to love one another, and make sacrifices for one another. These sacrifices are no more than minor inconveniences for the law abiding, and minor sacrifices for the benefit of society.

We have a consensus of men of the Church that speak one way only. One might could make a prudential argument if there was debate among them. That’s not there.

 

[Ender]

Then leaving free will to those who would have abortions is not moral for those who would not participate.

An abortion is intrinsically evil. Owning a gun is not.

The act of sacrifice for others is moral, especially when it might possibly save lives.

An act of sacrifice that is ineffective may make us feel good but it won’t solve the problem. You are still speaking in generic terms; I have asked for specifics which you have so far utterly failed to provide.

We’ve seen enough and don’t need to sit around arguing over the ‘best way.’

I’m more concerned about being effective than ineffectually expressing concern.

That seems to be a delay tactic, or an avoidance tactic.

Now we’re getting down to it: you are judging the motives of others and - surprise! - you find them sinful.

While people would not support controls, lives are lost because of, how the bishops say, an easy access to guns.

We have controls and lives are lost because those controls are ineffective against criminals. The bishops have no idea whatever about whether more controls would be any more effective than the ones already in existence.

We’ve been called to love one another, and make sacrifices for one another. These sacrifices are no more than minor inconveniences for the law abiding, and minor sacrifices for the benefit of society.

You say this as if it was fact instead of merely an opinion. You are upset because your political agenda is being frustrated.

We have a consensus of men of the Church that speak one way only. One might could make a prudential argument if there was debate among them. That’s not there.

I have rarely encountered someone so impervious to facts.

• Consensus is irrelevant, no bishop can speak for another.
• We have no obligation to assent to prudential judgments.
• Most bishops (mine included) have been silent on the issue.

Oh, and you still have not specified a single proposal that we have a moral obligation to support, which is another way of saying this is not a moral issue.

Ender