Bishop says tighter gun laws will help build culture of life

[Prodigal_Son1]

Congratulations on your adeptness at using emoticons. Perhaps your skills will extend to the CCC someday.

I’ve quoted the CCC as used by the bishops. Is their understanding binding?

 

[InigoMontoya]

Or, it was designed to show the loopholes exist.

Which is concerning, as it implies their targeted audience which they’re trying to persuade has not even a remote knowledge of the actual laws. It also makes it a bit insidious, as if that is their target audience, that they didn’t put the transaction in the context of a private party sale or emphasize the distinction.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which is concerning, as it implies their targeted audience which they’re trying to persuade has not even a remote knowledge of the actual laws. It also makes it a bit insidious, as if that is their target audience, that they didn’t put the transaction in the context of a private party sale or emphasize the distinction.

So, we say some don’t have knowledge of existing laws, and allow the loopholes to continue. I don’t know. It sounds a bit self serving to me.

 

[Sehnsucht]

You might want to check Catholic commentaries, and the early Church fathers, on interpretations of the scriptures being cited.

You cannot contend that Christ would have proposed an armed state.

No, I’m quite sure he would not a proposed a state at all, but rather preferred a moralistic anarcho-communism with everything freely shared without begrudging. But we are not free from our sins of greed and self-interest, and as such we aren’t able to create a functioning society of that nature yet - therefore capitalism.

The Bible is not an excuse for slavery, and anyone attempting to use it as that sort of justification is committing gross error. You have not justified why the state should regulate firearms. The onus is on you, as the constrictor of liberty to justify it.

 

[InigoMontoya]

So, we say some don’t have knowledge of existing laws, and allow the loopholes to continue. I don’t know. It sounds a bit self serving to me.

Self serving? I’ve stated numerous times in this thread I think it’s reasonable and prudent to close that loophole, although I’m uncomfortable with that description.

Unfortunately, as CNN showed by not placing the transaction in context and as our legislators showed a few months ago. This reasonable action is merely being used as a pretext for further gun laws on law abiding citizens.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ve quoted the CCC as used by the bishops. Is their understanding binding?

Finally! Please define “binding”.

As has been pointed out to you earlier, you have cited the CCC just war terminology as binding on gun control. Keep that in mind lest you become disingenusious.

And please don’t run and hide. Have some backbone.

 

[Lapey]

So, we can pick and choose anything the bishops speak on? I converted to Catholicism in 1985 to get away from that mindset. The Church is authoritative.

It’s funny how some said, ‘one or two bishops,’ that became ‘four or five,’ then ‘a majority’ and it’s still dismissed. My conscience doesn’t allow me to dismiss so easily. Our faith is not so legalistic as it’s made out to be. The Bible, and the early Church fathers, taught to obey the bishops. It was made simple for the sheep to follow.

Still don’t get it I see. Until my bishop, Bishop Sam G. Jacobs, comes to my diocese, The Diocese of Houma/Thibodaux and implements this resolution as binding to my diocese, the conferences’ resolution holds no water. It’s my choice if I decide to agree with the resolution or not, it is no more binding as sin if I do not as many things agreed upon by the conference.

If you remember, I stayed out when you folks were talking numbers; I knew it didn’t matter if it were unanimous. By your persistence in this error, it is obvious that your conscience is malformed. I am not talking out of context with the bible or the ECFs. Please try your best to trust the training I have received and the relationship I have with my bishop when I tell you that you misunderstand what this resolution means. I am trying as respectfully as I can to save you embarrassment. But ultimately it is your choice to accept my words, or prove them wrong; which you cannot because they are right… By the way, I made a promise to be obedient to my bishop and his successor. I hold that promise dear to my heart and I am in compliance now.

 

[Lapey]

[SIGN][/SIGN]
He seeme to work under this idea that every statement the Bishop’s make is morally binding. Curious, isn’t it?

Very curious and very wrong…

 

[Lapey]

Sacrificing to regulations for the law abiding citizen is nothing more than minor inconveniences. Minor inconveniences that some are willing to accept for the safety of others.

Gun rights, or our fellowman? Weigh them against each other in the light of the Gospel messages.

This is a complete and thorough example of a straw man argument. You seem to think it is your way or we are an evil society. I can tell you there are just as many well meaning smart people on the other side of the argument that take offense to your implication that more regulation that will not be followed by crooks is the only way to keep people safe from evil guns.

Furthermore, one way to help save kids would have been to vote against Obama and vote for the only other person with a chance to win who was the lessor of two evils. You have argued against this many many times. Oh and by the way, there is a document written by the same bishops you are insisting make binding statements that we must follow or be morally at fault; yet you have repeatedly argued against what they wrote in Faithful Citizenship and Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings as chair of the committee who deals with these situations. As you did in that argument, you took your ball and went home when Fr. Serpa gave his opinion in support of my interpretation and against yours.

You have already done this in this thread with one poster, I am shocked you haven’t stopped responding to me. Your argument is transparent, you are a liberal who wants more government regulation. You will never agree with a conservative who wants less government regulation and more private citizen responsibility.

 

[Lapey]

He who?

I hope you realize you are treading on very thin ice with this statement about Bishops statements being morally binding?

Actually, I don’t think you do.

He was referring to PS1 assertion that the bishop’s conference’s statements was binding morally. I understand what he is saying and he is right; not all things agreed upon by the conference will be implemented locally. Many items agreed upon by the conference we do not even hear about, how can they be binding?

 

[Lapey]

Universal background checks for the sale of all firearms.

Oh, now the full body of bishops makes political statements? Right.

No but you are trying your best to make them political.

 

[Gricken]

He was referring to PS1 assertion that the bishop’s conference’s statements was binding morally. I understand what he is saying and he is right; not all things agreed upon by the conference will be implemented locally. Many items agreed upon by the conference we do not even hear about, how can they be binding?

Thanks for helping me explain. But we already cleared that up a few posts ago ^^

 

[Lapey]

You might want to check Catholic commentaries, and the early Church fathers, on interpretations of the scriptures being cited.

You cannot contend that Christ would have proposed an armed state.

Let me get this straight now, are you saying Jesus would ask us to lay down all our firearms? Really? Your more leftist than I thought…you do realize that law abiding citizens do not use arms for evil right? It is criminals who do; taking arms from the law biding will make it easy for the same criminals. Jesus would, and Church moral teachings back this up, want and expect us to defend our selves and our loved ones. Now I would admit that some are called to a higher office, the martyrs of the Church. He did ask them to lay their lives down without a fights. This is not the calling for all.

 

[Lapey]

Thanks for helping me explain. But we already cleared that up a few posts ago ^^

Sorry, took me a while to catch up…

 

[Tomdstone]

You are grasping at straws here…you basically called the military personnel baby killers, I called you out and now I am the one at fault. Sad…

People do not want military personnel in our schools with our children armed with military weapons, it is not appropriate and neither is it acceptable.

That there have been children killed (inadvertently as collateral damage) by the USA military in Iraq and Afghanistan is a well known fact. Anyone can check it on the internet by doing a simple search. What is sad is that children are being killed. Why not stop the killing of children by having the American military protect innocent schoolchildren who are fearing for their lives because of the ease with which guns can be purchased in the USA. If you are not going to have gun control and stricter background checks, then what is the plan. Teachers are not trained for this type of security. I don’t see why people are opposed to safety in schools for children.

 

[10gr8kids]

Still don’t get it I see. Until my bishop, Bishop Sam G. Jacobs, comes to my diocese, The Diocese of Houma/Thibodaux and implements this resolution as binding to my diocese, the conferences’ resolution holds no water. It’s my choice if I decide to agree with the resolution or not, it is no more binding as sin if I do not as many things agreed upon by the conference.

How would we know if our Bishop implemented this resolution as binding in our diocese? And if he did what would be expected of those wanting to be obedient to the Bishop, even if they are not in favor of more regulations?

 

[Bill1940]

Read the signs of the times. IRS going after political enemies. Bugging of AP reporters. Gun running by the government. Lies about Benghazi scandal. Muddled foreign policy. Does anyone know what it is? Forcing religious persons to violate their morals(HHS Mandate). Federal agencies acquiring riot guns and related equipment. So why shouldn’t we be skeptical when draconian anti-Second Amendment laws are proposed? A father buys a .22 for his child. Felony! A man loans a shotgun to a friend. Felony! An old man on his way to go duck hunting with family has a shotgun in a soft case, rather than the New Jersey prescribed hard case, in the station wagon. Felony! If anyone can’t see the totalitarian mindset at work here, they are blind. None of the gun control laws proposed would have any appreciable affect on crime. They are rather part of the culture war that’s been ongoing for the past forty years. It would make me angry if I were not so weary of it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Finally! Please define “binding”.

As has been pointed out to you earlier, you have cited the CCC just war terminology as binding on gun control. Keep that in mind lest you become disingenusious.

And please don’t run and hide. Have some backbone.

I cited what Cardinal Dolan used.

There nothing to run and hide over, and discussions in a forum doesn’t require ‘backbone.’ What did you say about disingenuous?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Still don’t get it I see. Until my bishop, Bishop Sam G. Jacobs, comes to my diocese, The Diocese of Houma/Thibodaux and implements this resolution as binding to my diocese, the conferences’ resolution holds no water. It’s my choice if I decide to agree with the resolution or not, it is no more binding as sin if I do not as many things agreed upon by the conference.

If you remember, I stayed out when you folks were talking numbers; I knew it didn’t matter if it were unanimous. By your persistence in this error, it is obvious that your conscience is malformed. I am not talking out of context with the bible or the ECFs. Please try your best to trust the training I have received and the relationship I have with my bishop when I tell you that you misunderstand what this resolution means. I am trying as respectfully as I can to save you embarrassment. But ultimately it is your choice to accept my words, or prove them wrong; which you cannot because they are right… By the way, I made a promise to be obedient to my bishop and his successor. I hold that promise dear to my heart and I am in compliance now.

I get it. And I don’t believe you have the authority to state my conscience is malformed, and really do question the reason I continue to be maligned for a view that most in this thread declare a right to disagree with the bishops. Am I not allowed to agree?

A full body of bishops agrees, with no dissenting voices, but it’s said we have a right to disagree until one bishop comes and speaks directly to us. That’s as if each bishop can determine what’s correct teaching and what is not. That is division.

Anyone can read this thread and see one side speaks of morals, and life, while the other speaks of rights from a secular government. Just looking at that alone, I feel comfortable in the view I hold.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a complete and thorough example of a straw man argument. You seem to think it is your way or we are an evil society. I can tell you there are just as many well meaning smart people on the other side of the argument that take offense to your implication that more regulation that will not be followed by crooks is the only way to keep people safe from evil guns.

Furthermore, one way to help save kids would have been to vote against Obama and vote for the only other person with a chance to win who was the lessor of two evils. You have argued against this many many times. Oh and by the way, there is a document written by the same bishops you are insisting make binding statements that we must follow or be morally at fault; yet you have repeatedly argued against what they wrote in Faithful Citizenship and Cardinal Ratzinger’s writings as chair of the committee who deals with these situations. As you did in that argument, you took your ball and went home when Fr. Serpa gave his opinion in support of my interpretation and against yours.

You have already done this in this thread with one poster, I am shocked you haven’t stopped responding to me. Your argument is transparent, you are a liberal who wants more government regulation. You will never agree with a conservative who wants less government regulation and more private citizen responsibility.

The Gospel is not a straw man.

Oh, now the Church states one has to vote for a politician that has shown to change views with political aspirations, and who will, just by chance, advance other political agendas of those who say this? But you bring up voting, and the bishops did not agree, but on this issue there is no dissenting voice and they can be dismissed.

What’s transparent is how some people place guns before anything else. Guns cannot save us where it counts. The same can be said for all partisans. I have promoted what the bishops documented. Partisans have to make it political so that one party is placed more righteous over another, and that’s not what the bishops are speaking of at all.

The constitution, and the Catechism, speak of a state’s right to regulate.