Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

  • Thread starter Thread starter liturgyluver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
Yes, we’ve been hearing about those potential “Wild West Shootouts” since concealed carry has become popular.

Without the gun restrictions we have in place (22,000 gun laws and counting, nationally) the crime rate would probably be the same. A vast majority of gun owners are responsible and law abiding.

There’s 80 million of them in the US.
Click to expand...
So what’s the problem with the vast majority agreeing to controls to make it harder on the minority, who are not law abiding?
 
pnewton said:
In the middle, we have private ownership of guns, which the Catholic Church supports because of the potential for good, but thinks should be restricted with reason, because of the potential for evil.
Click to expand...
This is simply not true. There is no Church doctrine that spells out a position on the private ownership of guns nor is the question at issue whether or not a particular device has the capacity to be used for good or evil. Words can be used for great evil but it is the evil that is condemned, not the fact that words can hurt us and therefore need to be controlled. As I said before, Church doctrine will not be discovered in the footnotes of obscure documents.

The other point that should be obvious here is that if the Church supports the private ownership of guns then where is the argument? We may (and surely will) disagree over what constitutes “restrictions with reason” but there is no doctrine that tells us whose position is more reasonable. I am as free to believe that my stance satisfies the Church’s requirements as you or anyone else and no one can legitimately claim his position is more doctrinal than any other.

Ender
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
So what’s the problem with the vast majority agreeing to controls to make it harder on the minority, who are not law abiding?
Click to expand...
Much like “responsible spending cuts”, I don’t believe anyone has put forward any “responsible restrictions”. Like I said, there are 22,000 gun laws in this country, already.
 
what i can pick up from this gun thing in the U S A,is that im starting to believe its more about gun worship, than gun ownership.
 
Ender said:
You need to form your arguments more carefully. What is the moral issue to be resolved regarding the private ownership of guns? It is certainly not the question of whether they may be sinfully used because that applies to virtually everything. The question is what restrictions ought to be placed on private ownership that is best for all concerned and that is not a moral question but a prudential one. Does banning guns increase or decrease the level of violence and crime? Again, this is not a moral question but a matter of careful (and difficult) statistical analysis.

If this is a moral question then we should be able to find direction from e.g. Aquinas or Augustine. Moral questions don’t depend on the extent of the technology involved, they are eternal and generic. The nature of slander doesn’t change simply because it can now be done over the internet, and I’m quite sure there is nothing in Church history that provides support for the idea that the private citizen should be disarmed.

Ender
Click to expand...
While not about gun control, I think this quote is relevant.

*I insist on the moral and theological relevance of prudential considerations. Kevin Doyle fears that people who use their own prudence will be imprudent; but I would hold that they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:25). Since prudence is a moral virtue, I cannot accept the dichotomy implied in George Blair’s statement, “Arguments against the death penalty are prudential, not moral.” The decision whether and when to apply the death penalty cannot be properly made on the basis of abstract dogmatic considerations alone. Christian moral reasoning calls for a high degree of prudence.

Avery Cardinal Dulles
Just replace “death penalty” with “gun control”. 🙂
 
What if, now this is just a *what-if *:my parish priest told me to sell my guns as penance? Would I have to? Do they have the ‘authority’?

Is there any significance between this scenario and the ‘authority’ that the Bishops have displayed through the Conference of CB’s…?
 
Personally, I strongly agree with what the Bishops are saying. One thing I am unsure about, though, is whether or not they are calling for a ban on all assault weapons. Personally, I support such a ban. I am all for stricter gun control but I am definitely not for abolishing the 2nd Amendment.
 
doormouse73 said:
what i can pick up from this gun thing in the U S A,is that im starting to believe its more about gun worship, than gun ownership.
Click to expand...
Precisely. And that’s a violation against the First Commandment. Definitely a moral issue.
 
Swiss_Guy said:
While not about gun control, I think this quote is relevant.

I insist on the moral and theological relevance of prudential considerations. Kevin Doyle fears that people who use their own prudence will be imprudent; but I would hold that they are morally accountable if they disregard the prudential judgment of the hierarchical leaders, who speak with authority even when they are not handing on the word of the Lord (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:25). Since prudence is a moral virtue, I cannot accept the dichotomy implied in George Blair’s statement, “Arguments against the death penalty are prudential, not moral.” The decision whether and when to apply the death penalty cannot be properly made on the basis of abstract dogmatic considerations alone. Christian moral reasoning calls for a high degree of prudence.

Avery Cardinal Dulles
Click to expand...
This is a reasonable consideration … and anything that Dulles said needs to be taken very seriously. I accept that simply because a decision is prudential does not mean that it has no moral aspect, and there are surely cases where the prudential opinions of bishops need to be listened to very carefully. I don’t, however, think that this discussion about gun control is one of them.

There is no clear line that allows us to identify which issues and which statements on those issues are morally-prudential and which are, for lack of a better term, politically-prudential. I don’t know what the moral question is with regard to gun laws that requires theological analysis and if there is no moral question involved then what is the justification for the bishops’ involvement?

It is surely true that not all political issues contain moral components, so while Dulles’ comment may be true for one issue (in this specific case, capital punishment) it cannot be extended to the degree that it applies to everything. To make a case that it applies to gun control someone needs to identify what is the central moral issue that needs resolving.

Ender
 
pnewton said:
Questioning is one thing. Disrespect is another. Misrepresentation is another. Animosity from those claiming to be Catholic is another.
Click to expand...
A bishop, like anyone else, can err. That his authority,except by the pope, cannot be challenged is axiomatic. For the sake of the community, it ought not be. But he can indeed weaken his credibility by his words and actions. Worse than that, he can bring the whole Church into disrepute t if he says foolish things and does foolish things. The worse thing he can do is to confuse his own opinions with those of the Church. If he does not have a strong confessor, he will do this.
 
doormouse73 said:
what i can pick up from this gun thing in the U S A,is that im starting to believe its more about gun worship, than gun ownership.
Click to expand...
But that’s the whole problem. You’re just making an emotional statement that I’m betting you would be more than willing to back up with “new” gun control laws, laws that have been tried over and over again and have failed to do *anything * to reduce gun crimes.

If what I’m speculating about you is true, the flaw in your argument is that they simply don’t work.
 
doormouse73 said:
what i can pick up from this gun thing in the U S A,is that im starting to believe its more about gun worship, than gun ownership.
Click to expand...
The more we talk about it, the more I believe that too. I believe we’re delving into FIRST COMMANDMENT issues, forget the Second Amendment rights.
 
nitesnake said:
… laws that have been tried over and over again and have failed to do *anything * to reduce gun crimes.
Click to expand...
Invalid assumption. As long as the Second Amendment is in effect, by definition there can be no real gun control laws. Duh!
 
nitesnake said:
You might also want ask all the gun control folks in the U.S. if they would care to spend a single night on the streets of Juarez unarmed.
Click to expand...
Why would anyone want to go to Juarez at all, armed or unarmed? Or to some of the gang neighborhoods in Chicago, for that matter? Is travelling and seeing the world that important to everyone?
 
Ender said:
This is a reasonable consideration … and anything that Dulles said needs to be taken very seriously. I accept that simply because a decision is prudential does not mean that it has no moral aspect, and there are surely cases where the prudential opinions of bishops need to be listened to very carefully. I don’t, however, think that this discussion about gun control is one of them.

There is no clear line that allows us to identify which issues and which statements on those issues are morally-prudential and which are, for lack of a better term, politically-prudential. I don’t know what the moral question is with regard to gun laws that requires theological analysis and if there is no moral question involved then what is the justification for the bishops’ involvement?

It is surely true that not all political issues contain moral components, so while Dulles’ comment may be true for one issue (in this specific case, capital punishment) it cannot be extended to the degree that it applies to everything. To make a case that it applies to gun control someone needs to identify what is the central moral issue that needs resolving.

Ender
Click to expand...
Personally, I see gun control as a moral issue, at least at the moment, because it involves the protection of human life.

IMHO whether it is a moral issue depends on the circumstances. It requires discernment, and at the very least I think it is safe to err on the side of the bishops. :twocents:
 
Swiss_Guy said:
Personally, I see gun control as a moral issue, at least at the moment, because it involves the protection of human life.
Click to expand...
Something is a moral issue if it involves a moral choice. What moral choice is involved with gun control? An operation “involves the protection of human life” but I don’t think anyone believes the doctors are making moral choices; they may be making life or death decisions but those decisions don’t involve moral calculations. I don’t see what moral choices are involved in making gun control decisions.

Ender
 
Swiss_Guy said:
Personally, I see gun control as a moral issue, at least at the moment, because it involves the protection of human life.

IMHO whether it is a moral issue depends on the circumstances. It requires discernment, and at the very least I think it is safe to err on the side of the bishops. :twocents:
Click to expand...
I guess you have a point. If we’re not sure where the ‘err’ is, its better to follow the Bishops.

With that said, Im buying two AK’s next week. 🙂
 
Ender said:
Something is a moral issue if it involves a moral choice. What moral choice is involved with gun control? An operation “involves the protection of human life” but I don’t think anyone believes the doctors are making moral choices; they may be making life or death decisions but those decisions don’t involve moral calculations. I don’t see what moral choices are involved in making gun control decisions.

Ender
Click to expand...
Guns are ending up in the hands of people without morals, or mental deficiencies. Gun controls can be a moral judgement, to prevent guns being so accessible and more lives being lost. It’s the same as Catholics challenging Roe vs. Wade. We seek legislation, because of our moral choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top