Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[nitesnake]

And what was it exactly that caused Cardinal Dulles to make such a statement, and was it specifically to separate what the Church teaches on defense and gun control?

It’s far to easy to pull out a single statement and ‘make it’ apply to any subject; it seems often to support a personal view.

It’s even easier to pretend that he didn’t mean exactly what he implied: If you’re a Bishop, or a conference of Bishops, and you choose to make political statements, then be prepared to own those statements; and all of the criticism that comes along with them.

 

[pnewton]

I’m fairly certain I know what they are concerning guns, but perhaps I’m wrong. I’m more than willing to admit that if I am. I’ll give you a couple questions concerning firearms, I’m betting you’ll answer no to #1 and yes to #2. I’ll even give you my answers first.

1. Should any U.S citizen, after passing a background check (including screening for serious mental illness) and some basic firearms training, be allowed to carry a concealed weapon (handgun)?
   My answer is yes.
2. Should the congress pass an “assault weapons” ban based on how a weapon “looks” or what they deem to be “unnecessary”. An AR-15 for example. (The so-called civilian equivalent) to the military M-16?
   My answer is no.

The first answer is emphatically yes, as it is a constitutional right. This does not contradict the bishop’s statement.

The second is also no, because of the way the question is worded. Again, this does not contradict the bishop’s statement. Any restriction needs to be responsible and reasonable. I do not think looks has ever been on the table. A restriction is not a ban. I would consider a ban on anything, if proper evidence existed that such an act was needed for public safety. I firmly believe that restrictions need to be in place and that it never hurts to weigh whether restrictions need changing.

 

[pnewton]

In other words, even after reading their obvious political bias concerning this issue, you’re still going to pretend that their statement has no political overtones.

I detected no political bias. This issue is of bipartisan concern. Even the NRA has weighed in. The Catholic Church in Sandy Hook held nine funerals last week. I would have been shocked if the bishops had stayed silent. What they said was general guidance with no suggestions.

The one question you did not ask, what could be changed would be holding gun owners responsible for the weapons they own. All privilege should come with responsibility. I do not care if a man has twenty guns. I do care when he goes to gun shows so he can sell them to felons and avoid background checks. A gun owner that reckless provides a gun that is used in commission of a crime should be held as an accomplice.

 

[Ender]

The Bishops teachings on a culture of life are acceptable.

What teachings? They have made no specific recommendations so the problem with what they have said is not that they are calling for the abolition of gun rights but that they have implied that those who are calling for more restrictions are on the side of the angels. There is no doctrinal way to go from “let’s build a culture of life” to “let’s ban hand guns and assault rifles.”

More acceptable than people fighting for gun rights, in my opinion.

Again, you create a false division. This is not a contest between those who celebrate joy, peace, and love on the one hand and those who want to own guns on the other. The disagreement is over what specific legislation will have the most beneficial effect.

They spoke of spiritual solutions in their statement.

If that’s all you think they said then there is no basis for anyone to make a specific recommendation about what laws ought to be implemented.

Ender

 

[TEPO]

I am not aware if this has happened. I do not know why they are being attacked so much. I think people tend to get too defensive and start throwing around names without substance. It used to be if a thread goes on long enough, someone will be called a Nazi. Now, if a thread goes on long enough, some one will be called a liberal.

Guess what folks, we will be having this debate, like it or not. It would be irresponsible to not examine such a tragedy and see if such things can be avoided in the future. Those who do not learn from history…, and all.

Could it be that the Bishops have offered their position, based on a spiritual understanding, while less pious people use that for their own personal political gain?

Maybe we shouldn’t be discussing the Bishops stance here at all in such a secularized atmosphere. Clearly there are many Catholics who believe that there is a legitimate reason for seperation of Church and State.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What teachings? They have made no specific recommendations so the problem with what they have said is not that they are calling for the abolition of gun rights but that they have implied that those who are calling for more restrictions are on the side of the angels. There is no doctrinal way to go from “let’s build a culture of life” to “let’s ban hand guns and assault rifles.”
Again, you create a false division. This is not a contest between those who celebrate joy, peace, and love on the one hand and those who want to own guns on the other. The disagreement is over what specific legislation will have the most beneficial effect.
If that’s all you think they said then there is no basis for anyone to make a specific recommendation about what laws ought to be implemented.

Ender

Men of God, speaking from scriptures and in light of Church teachings, about the secular world we live in. Some recognize the spiritual message, and others concentrate on the secular, or so it seems.

 

[pnewton]

…, while less pious people use that for their own personal political gain?

I think you are right. It sure seems about half the time the bishops, or the Holy Father, try to pass on any moral guidance it gets twisted into a “stand” by the media (and here), often against both intentions of the Church and the actual words that were used. It is really hard to argue with this statement, which offered no specifics, unless one believed in irresponsible gun ownerships and believed their should be no restrictions on any gun trafficking.

Yet it seems too often it is people who say they are Catholic, both here and in the media, that like to castigate them for an opinion that is not even theirs.

 

[Ender]

Could it be that the Bishops have offered their position, based on a spiritual understanding …

What is the bishops’ position? What specifically have they recommended? Did they say that Church doctrine calls for more restrictive gun laws?“The bishops continue to support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and continue to call for sensible regulations on handguns”
We have measures that control the sale and use of firearms today. We also have what I consider to be sensible regulations on handguns. To my mind we have satisfied their objectives. Beyond that it’s all guesswork and assumption and while one might be correct in assuming they would like handguns banned from personal ownership, that is not what they called for and for the very good reason is that there is no way to tie such a request to any Church doctrine.

… while less pious people use that for their own personal political gain?

Ah, another, “we’re good, you’re bad argument.” I think if you could make a strong argument in support of your opinions you wouldn’t find it necessary to resort to insults. This really is pretty weak … not to mention uncharitable.

Ender

 

[Yerusalyim]

What the Bishops said does not conflict with the Catechism. Bishops are not objecting to the right to own a gun but they are in favour of gun control laws. That is their choice, but it is an issue that Catholics can have differing views on

I am one of those Catholics that would prefer the Bishops not address issues like this…too political. If they want to address the issue of a culture of violence that’s one thing…but guns and gun ownership is NOT the problem.

 

[RobbyS]

I don’t particularly care for the quote, even if it an accurate quote. First, it doesn’t apply here, as there has been not policy statement. Second, bishops do not exercise authority based on “credibility” whatever that means. Credibility is not something inherent in a bishop, or anyone. Rather it lies in the mind of the reader, or listener. Bishops exercise authority. This is something the seculare world can not diminish.

He says simply that bishops have no special competence in politics, except to remind the laity of the moral principles that Catholics must follow as they make their way in politics. In politics there are no absolutes. The bishops can have an opinion about, say, social security, but depend too heavily on staff who are biased in favor of one party or another. Or they may fail to see change in the situation that requires them to change their minds.

 

[nitesnake]

The first answer is emphatically yes, as it is a constitutional right. This does not contradict the bishop’s statement.

The second is also no, because of the way the question is worded.

Fair enough. I stand humbly corrected.

 

[TEPO]

What is the bishops’ position? What specifically have they recommended? Did they say that Church doctrine calls for more restrictive gun laws?“The bishops continue to support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and continue to call for sensible regulations on handguns”
We have measures that control the sale and use of firearms today. We also have what I consider to be sensible regulations on handguns. To my mind we have satisfied their objectives. Beyond that it’s all guesswork and assumption and while one might be correct in assuming they would like handguns banned from personal ownership, that is not what they called for and for the very good reason is that there is no way to tie such a request to any Church doctrine.
Ah, another, “we’re good, you’re bad argument.” I think if you could make a strong argument in support of your opinions you wouldn’t find it necessary to resort to insults. This really is pretty weak … not to mention uncharitable.

Ender

Ender, let me explain.

When the Bishops make statements on this issue, they’re only using spiritual guidance on what would be ideal as far as what they know involving the gospels and spirituality… They don’t take into account the way their decisions might be taken advantage of by the non-religious public or even politicians. Therefore, these statements can only be taken as advice, as the Church’s point of view, within our secularized world…

…Also, on a seperate note, I said “less pious people use That for their own personal political gain”, because we’re all a little less pious than the Bishops and some eager people, including Catholics, try to make the Bishops ‘appear’ as though they’re liberal or conservative -when really they’re just on a whole other level. I’d even say they’re completely of a non-political mindset.

So what it boils down to is less pious people trying to twist their words to support their own political agenda -even if they haven’t really stated anything of the sort in their favor or otherwise.

That’s all I was saying.

 

[nitesnake]

Men of God, speaking from scriptures and in light of Church teachings, about the secular world we live in. Some recognize the spiritual message, and others concentrate on the secular, or so it seems.

C’mon. They, (The USCCB) made obvious political statements concerning this issue. I (and others) have brought that to your attention several times, yet you’re unwilling to deal with it. Why?

 

[TEPO]

Ah, another, “we’re good, you’re bad argument.” I think if you could make a strong argument in support of your opinions you wouldn’t find it necessary to resort to insults. This really is pretty weak … not to mention uncharitable.

Ender

I was not insinuating that youve charged the Bishops as being “liberal” -I hope that’s not the way it sounded. I was actually saying something of the opposite, if you know what I mean.

 

[epan]

C’mon. They, (The USCCB) made obvious political statements concerning this issue. I (and others) have brought that to your attention several times, yet you’re unwilling to deal with it. Why?

I imagine that it is hard to be a bishop these days. So much ground has been lost on sexual issues, condoms vs HIV, child molestation, masturbation, etc… Once credibility and authority is lost in one important area, I think that t is hard to be taken seriously otherwise.

I know that this observation will evoke a response, but that is not my intent. My observation is that there appears to be a crisis in the Catholic Church. The bishops advise in one way, and the majority of Catholics act in another way. Is the Catholic Church evolving toward a model similar to Protestentism?

 

[TEPO]

I imagine that it is hard to be a bishop these days. So much ground has been lost on sexual issues, condoms vs HIV, child molestation, masturbation, etc… Once credibility and authority is lost in one important area, I think that t is hard to be taken seriously otherwise

knowledgeable Catholics wouldn’t see any loss in credibility.

 

[epan]

knowledgeable Catholics wouldn’t see any loss in credibility.

So, your claim is that the minority is knowledgable? How do you support that claim?

 

[nitesnake]

When the Bishops make statements on this issue, they’re only using spiritual guidance on what would be ideal as far as what they know involving the gospels and spirituality… They don’t take into account the way their decisions might be taken advantage of by the non-religious public or even politicians.

You don’t really think that such a highly educated group of men, religious or otherwise, could ever be that naive, do you?

…Also, on a seperate note, I said “less pious people use That for their own personal political gain”, because we’re all a little less pious than the Bishops and some eager people, including Catholics, try to make the Bishops ‘appear’ as though they’re liberal or conservative -when really they’re just on a whole other level.

So when they make blatant political statements, they’re not really aware of what they’re
saying? They’re on a “whole other level?” They just simply cannot comprehend the difference between theological and political statements?

I’d even say they’re completely of a non-political mindset.

You don’t really believe that either do you? They all sit down, craft an international public statement, yet none of them can see the political possibilities of such statements?

 

[TEPO]

So, your claim is that the minority is knowledgable? How do you support that claim?

I wouldn’t know if they’re a minority for sure since most of the Catholics I talk to about the faith are here on CAF -who are generally knowledgeable, but I can assume that the majority are uneducated in the faith as a whole.

…most, from what I’ve heard, know surprisingly little about the faith. Many are CINO.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Given that Politics (big P) is an integral part of our society and is the main tool by which we shape and maintain our society their statement is going to be Political (big P) if is going to be effective or meaningful. What the good Bishops did not do was present a political (little p; as in lib vs. cons, this party over that party) statement.