Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh brother!:doh2:
Abortion is of course, listed as a “non-negotiable” so though we have free will, I would find it difficult to believe I follow church teaching if gun control is of more importance to me and I’m sure life-wise, the two can not even be compared very well. Calling a “non-negotiable”, “one issue voting” seems very questionable as well. If we are following the Bishops and the Holy See, I would hardly dismiss a “non-negotiable” by claiming I’m not a “one-issue voter.” This probably says a lot as to how sincere one is in following Catholic doctrine.
 
Okay. I pretty much agree with all you have said in the last post. No specific law is inherently morally and gun laws do not equate to safety.

I think your point about political reaction is interesting, probably valid and deserves consideration. However, if anything, I believe this reaction underscores the value of examining the long term impact of gun control. I think this is more key to what the bishop said in the OP about the culture of life. This is why I prefer comparing the US to nations with similar government and legal context that have had time to go beyond the reactionary stage.
firearmsandliberty.com/kates.gc.html

Don Kates paper, (a civil rights lawyer) from 1990. Although dated, it is still interesting to read since it was before much of the liberalized state gun laws and well before the Heller and McDonald rulings. The nation has seen a large increase in the number of guns available as well as CCW liberalization at the same time crime has dropped.

Again, correlation vice causation. During this same time we’ve seen an aging population and increases in penalties in many states. So, its hard to say how much of a factor liberalization of gun restrictions was in the drop in crime.

I agree with Kates that gun restrictions were a logical attempt at countering crime in the inner-cities. However, I do think we’ve had enough time to see how they work/don’t work in practise. Couple that with the lack of any legal responsibility for the police to protect any individual without a special relationship (custody, protective custody, witness protection etc.) and I think we must be careful in eliminating a person’s means to self-defense while insisting that the police/government have no legal obligation to protect them either.

From Judge Keating’s dissent in Riss vs City of New York
“What makes the city’s position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self defense. Thus, by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of New York, which now denies all responsibility to her.” [Riss v. City of N.Y., 293 N.Y. 2d 897 (1968)].

So, I think in considering the bishop’s words, we do have to consider all of the effects of gun laws given the other existing conditions. It’s very hard to support generic statements like- stricter gun laws- vice specific proposals. For example the recent ‘Background Check’ proposal which did far more, and would have been even further modified as it went through congress.
 
firearmsandliberty.com/kates.gc.html

Again, correlation vice causation. During this same time we’ve seen an aging population and increases in penalties in many states. So, its hard to say how much of a factor liberalization of gun restrictions was in the drop in crime.
Young males are the perpetrators of the great majority of violent crimes. There is a sharp drop-off in violent crimes of every sort after about age 24. That’s why, for example, it isn’t quite comparing apples to apples to look at Mexico with much tougher gun laws than ours but with a massively higher violent crime rate and a much younger population, or to look at Germany with tougher gun laws than ours and a lower violent crime rate and a substantially older population.

I doubt it’s really possible to compare one nation’s violent crime rates with another’s because there are a lot of variables. Probably it’s possible to compare a place like North Dakota to Canada, which have similar populations and similar cultures.

But even then, North Dakota has had a recent influx of people from other parts of the country, and particularly younger people, due to the oil boom there. Undoubtedly parts of Canada are the same way. Probably the tar sands areas of Alberta are not comparable to the farming areas of Saskatchewan.

Of interest, there is also a massive drop-off of violent crimes among young men who marry.
 
…Of interest, there is also a massive drop-off of violent crimes among young men who marry.
“Men and Marriage” by George Gilder is a good read. Much of it on how marriage is a building block of every society and invests men in having a stable, peaceful environment for their kids to grow up in.

The disintegration of the family is a large contributor to this, the whole no-fault divorce single parent household boom. Truly the family is central to the culture of life.

Sorry, went a bit off topic there.
 
“Men and Marriage” by George Gilder is a good read. Much of it on how marriage is a building block of every society and invests men in having a stable, peaceful environment for their kids to grow up in.

The disintegration of the family is a large contributor to this, the whole no-fault divorce single parent household boom. Truly the family is central to the culture of life.

Sorry, went a bit off topic there.
Following you a bit off topic, but not entirely since it relates to violence, it is also true that the percentage of married people varies in inverse proportion to the utilization of artificial birth control; the trend being exacerbated by the legalization of abortion on demand.

And thank you for the book reference.
 
Another thread pointed to a document Pope Francis commended to the bishops of Argentina. That document contains this paragraph:*Respect for a healthy secularity—including the pluralism of political opinions—is essential in the Christian tradition. If the Church were to start transforming herself into a directly political subject, she would do less, not more, for the poor and for justice, because ** she would lose ** herindependence and **her moral authority, identifying herself *with a single political path and with debatable partisan positions
With luck the same advice will be handed on to the American bishops.

Ender
 
Gun control isn’t a non-negotiable and I’m not a single issue voter.

Non-Issue.
 
Another thread pointed to a document Pope Francis commended to the bishops of Argentina. That document contains this paragraph:*Respect for a healthy secularity—including the pluralism of political opinions—is essential in the Christian tradition. If the Church were to start transforming herself into a directly political subject, she would do less, not more, for the poor and for justice, because ** she would lose *** herindependence and **her moral authority, identifying herself **with a single political path and with debatable partisan positions
With luck the same advice will be handed on to the American bishops.

Ender
All th thing you highlighted as a result of being a directly political subject and you missed that word “directly”. Thus, every thing after is irrelevant to the United States (FYI - Argentina* is *an American country) bishops as the are not a directly political group and are in no danger of becoming one.
 
Couple that with the lack of any legal responsibility for the police to protect any individual without a special relationship (custody, protective custody, witness protection etc.) and I think we must be careful in eliminating a person’s means to self-defense while insisting that the police/government have no legal obligation to protect them either.
I agree, but I do not think anyone is suggesting we do this.
 
All th thing you highlighted as a result of being a directly political subject and you missed that word “directly”. Thus, every thing after is irrelevant to the United States (FYI - Argentina* is *an American country) bishops as the are not a directly political group and are in no danger of becoming one.
I understand the distinction and how “directly” was used, but nothing was said about them becoming a political group. Bishops have become directly involved in political issues, have aligned themselves with partisan policies, and have as a result sacrificed some of their moral authority. It is true that, if for no better reason than size, the US bishops could never become a political organization. That has not stopped the direct involvement of individual bishops.

Ender
 
Bishops have become directly involved in political issues, have aligned themselves with partisan policies,
This is** not** what Pope Francis was addressing. Bishops have the right and sometimes an obligation to speak on issues that are both moral and political .
and have as a result sacrificed some of their moral authority.
For a non-catholic, they did not carry moral authority. For a Catholic, they cannot sacrifice moral authority. Only the cafeteria catholics let the authority of the office wax and wane in accordance with their agreement with them.

I have no doubt which side of this equation I believe is political.
 
I understand the distinction and how “directly” was used, but nothing was said about them becoming a political group. Bishops have become directly involved in political issues, have aligned themselves with partisan policies, and have as a result sacrificed some of their moral authority. It is true that, if for no better reason than size, the US bishops could never become a political organization. That has not stopped the direct involvement of individual bishops.

Ender
Agreed. But I believe the fairly mild infection of many of the U.S. bishops with Liberation Theology Lite (American version) is passing into history. It has seemed to me the appointees of Pope Benedict, in particular, are more spiritual men in a basic way than many of their predecessors, who often felt the state is the answer to far too much.

I welcome that, just as I welcome the fact that so many of the younger priests are more oriented to the spiritual than they are to politics. Lots of the newer orders of sisters seem the same way; more into direct service and prayer than to lobbying or filing lawsuits.

To me, that’s as it should be, not that it makes life easier for Catholics. It makes it harder, really. It’s so much easier to be superficially “on the right side” politically, as one perceives it, than to look into one’s spirituality and actions with a gimlet eye, and ask very hard questions.

As Catholics, I believe we have a lot of soul-searching to do. The “clown masses” were, in a sense, a proper symbol for much of what the Church in the U.S. was about for a long time. I don’t mean that literally, I mean it symbolically. We were, it seems, so long in a self-congratulatory and profoundly superficial parody of what we ought to be. With some of the newer bishops and, I strongly suspect, with Pope Francis, we are now going to be challenged to ask ourselves the harder questions.

I am put to mind in this post of something a very young, highly-educated, very competent and holy nun said to me perhaps two years ago. I made some comment about how her way of life (half contemplative, half in service to unwed mothers-to-be in the worst slums in New York City) surely reflected her personal holiness. “Oh no” she said, “We live the way we do precisely because we are not holy. We need our hours of prayer, and our hours of service.”

I was slack-jawed at such wisdom in a woman who could not have been a day past thirty years old, who radiated joy in everything she did. I knew then why her presence was almost magical to everyone around her, and surely is to the desperate women to whom she brings the counsel of life in a world that counsels death at every turn.

Okay, okay, here’s her order’s website. I love these women with all my heart. See how young they are, and what they do. We can’t all be Sisters of Life, of course. But we can be something like that in our own ways, consistent with our own vocations and stations in life.
www.sistersoflife.org
 
Bishops have the right and sometimes an obligation to speak on issues that are both moral and political.
If the issue has a moral aspect to it then the bishops are indeed called to address it. Most issues, such as the one we are discussing here, don’t face us with any moral choices at all and the involvement of random bishops is unhelpful.
For a Catholic, they cannot sacrifice moral authority.
Well, perhaps not. Still, that is what was in the document the pope cited and apparently helped write. If that document with which the pope was so involved says that the church “would lose her independence and her moral authority” if it becomes too directly political why would we not believe it?

Ender
 
If that document with which the pope was so involved says that the church “would lose her independence and her moral authority” if it becomes too directly political why would we not believe it?

Ender
I do not know. That is the problem with snipets from another time and place. In light of the reference do being a direct political subject it would refer to the moral authority within the hierarchy of a state run catholic church, such as that which China is attempting. It has no bearing here.I know that canon law makes no reference to a surrender of actual authority. I guess Luther saw it differently. Heck, I wouldn’t even begin to think which political party they are more aligned with. In some ways the Catholic Church in the US is Republican and in some ways Democrat.
 
If the issue has a moral aspect to it then the bishops are indeed called to address it. Most issues, such as the one we are discussing here, don’t face us with any moral choices at all and the involvement of random bishops is unhelpful.
Well, perhaps not. Still, that is what was in the document the pope cited and apparently helped write. If that document with which the pope was so involved says that the church “would lose her independence and her moral authority” if it becomes too directly political why would we not believe it?

Ender
Why wouldn’t we believe the bishops, that this issue is a moral one?

If it is a moral issue, then the document does not reference the bishop’s call on this issue. It seems some, not saying which side, are taking selective interpretations of anything they can attribute to their view, whether moral or political.
 
I know that canon law makes no reference to a surrender of actual authority.
The bishops don’t lose any of their actual authority, what they lose is their influence. People, Catholics especially, stop listening to them. I think the sex scandal caused them to lose an enormous amount of credibility making an already bad situation worse. At this point it appears that most Catholics simply tune them out and cannot distinguish between a bishop asserting his moral authority and one forwarding his political agenda.

Ender
 
Why wouldn’t we believe the bishops, that this issue is a moral one?
Because so far no one has identified the moral choices this issue faces us with.
It seems some, not saying which side, are taking selective interpretations of anything they can attribute to their view, whether moral or political.
Stop interpreting people’s intentions. Deal with their arguments, don’t insult their motives.

Ender
 
Why wouldn’t we believe the bishops, that this issue is a moral one?

If it is a moral issue, then the document does not reference the bishop’s call on this issue. It seems some, not saying which side, are taking selective interpretations of anything they can attribute to their view, whether moral or political.
Some seem to judge non-negotiables and then you say some are making selective judgments?? Seems like some people call 'non-negotiables" users being "single issue voters.

As far as I’m concerned, with all the dishonesty we are seeing from one side in Washington, I’d be wary to rule out those kinds of people planning Sandy Hooks to make way for gun control.
 
The bishops don’t lose any of their actual authority, what they lose is their influence. People, Catholics especially, stop listening to them. I think the sex scandal caused them to lose an enormous amount of credibility making an already bad situation worse. At this point it appears that most Catholics simply tune them out and cannot distinguish between a bishop asserting his moral authority and one forwarding his political agenda.

Ender
I think the bishops lost a lot of their moral authority well before the sex scandal, and a good part of it was what you said in your last sentence. I don’t see it with our new bishop, whose main efforts, as expressed in his talks and in the diocesan paper, seem to be in “re-catechizing” the people. Prior to that, we had a bishop of another sort. The diocesan paper seemed to be an endless endorsement of liberal causes and proposals, no matter how pointless they seemed to be. I didn’t even read it for years, because of that. I do now.
 
The Bishops or Vatican need to make this a “non-negotiable” issue. I will follow their word.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top