We have many historical examples of what happens to bishops who go into politics and lose their spiritual balance, for instance Richelieu. I claim no insight, but only “outsight", so to speak, when commenting on American bishops. Some cardinals, especially the Irish ones, seem to have followed the wrong calling, because that nation has produced so many sons who are adepts at electoral politics.
Then what was the connection to bishops that speak in a way that you deem to be political and them having a good confessor?
That would not be a new control.
I guess you missed the part about, when your gun is not in use. When you get home, and have a direct hands on control of your gun, you wouldn’t have it locked in the safe.
Do you realize how absurd it would be to allow you to own a gun in a residence where two of your roommates were convicted criminals, or had histories of mental illness. It would affect your own safety, as well as the public.
There are semi automatic pistols. Also, if 4 bad guys rushed your front door and you dropped the first one, you might be shooting at backsides of the other three. A shotgun would be more effective, in the worst case scenario you describe.
If a child picked up your gun, or it was stolen, that’s when some accountability would come into play.Didn’t see your thread before I posted mine.I agree, this is a good point - guns can quickly become useless should they not be readily at hand at certain times (especially at night). Though I do also agree it is wise that they be locked (in most circumstances) if there are children in the home and the adults are out. But again, how could this possibly be regulated?
This really is the central point of this thread. Either the bishops’ comments on gun control represent Church doctrine or they are their prudential opinions and it should be clear to everyone that there is no doctrine involved here. With regard to their opinions, they should be given due consideration … although in this case I think what they are due is quite minimal. I think they have rather grandly overstepped their bounds on this topic and have done so in a not especially commendable way.
It isn’t as if someone was arguing for the killing of innocents. The debate is not about whether to allow it or not but how to restrict it; it is entirely about finding the best practical means for limiting occasions such as occurred at Newtown. This is about solving a problem and has no more moral implications than figuring out why your car won’t start.
As far as we know, Jesus never carried a sword, yet He told Peter to put his away and said, ‘those that take the sword, perish by the sword.’ Did He overstep His bounds?
There will be no more knee-jerk reaction from the victims of these mass shootings. Do we keep things the same, and see more tragedies take place?It couldn’t. Governmental agencies have no right to enter a residence without a warrant.
You hit the nail on the head with your second sentence - gun control debates are emotional responses to tragedies (Well, on the part of the population, at least - I fully believe the politicians have underlying motives which have nothing to do with the welfare of the people).
The danger lies in believing the government can protect us, and willfully surrendering our control over to them because of this knee-jerk fear.
Your mental health check only works if medical records are considered public. They aren’t. Criminal records are. Try again. Also, why no mention of restricting gun ownership for people with illegal and legal substance abuse problems or for people who live with individuals who have such problems?
Medical records are not considered public. How are you going to know people who have a legal, or illegal, substance abuse unless they committed a crime?
Wait, the Church rationalizes self defense? You need to explain this since my definition of rationalization is to justify a conclusion in the absence of knowledge of what is True or to justify a conclusion I know to be in contradiction to what is True.
Christ didn’t teach self defense. He built an authoritative Church who gave us a teaching on the subject. Now they have more (name removed by moderator)ut on the methods of self defense.
The list is acceptable, and very much similar to some of the suggestions I’ve made. There is no single suggestion that is a solve all problems solution. It’s going to take a mix
I’m not the one who brought into question the origins or source of the Church’s teachings on self defense. I’m also not the one who put forth the idea that the Church would teach something that Christ did not teach or would teach something contrary to what Christ taught.
I was giving example of how I see the Bishop’s statements to apply. It does not conflict with self defense, and causes no teachings to be in error.
We might look at the apostasy of the Church in New England, where the most nominally Catholic part of the country pays so little attention to the moral teaching of the Church, or to the north where something similar happened in Quebec, only earlier. Thomas More smuggled a letter out of the Tower, comparing the Bishops of England to the disciples slumbering in the Garden while our Lord prayed in agony. Not the first nor the last. The bishops are not alone. How many of us were thrilled by the Council, only to discover that things did not work out as well as we hoped. It was like a honeymoon where the groom discovers the bride is addicted to lackatives.
BTAIM, in actuality, the USCCB is a political institution that is, to an uncomfortable degree, the captive of its staff, like many another lobby group in the national capital. Like the faculty at Georgetown, this staff is very, very liberal in its religious ,philosophical, as well as its political orientations. Since they prepare the agenda of the bishops, they have, until rather recently, made it hard for the bishops to control their own organization. I think many of the bishops have begin to wake to the present political reality, but bipartisanship will not cut it. They must be willing to see that both parties are equally secular in their character, but the Democrats are hard secularist.
He didn’t specify one way or another on the subject. However the Catholic Church clearly teaches the right to self-defense, and in the case of people sworn to public defense, the duty of self-defense.
It is overstepping their bounds to suggest that we be sensible in examining laws? Well, I will commend them on their well thought and balanced statement even if others do not.
