Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

  • Thread starter Thread starter liturgyluver
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Geist said:
I’ll melt my guns down when everyone else does it first.
Click to expand...
And that is exactly the point the Vatican’s position makes on that “political” article above.

“The Vatican’s justice and peace council’s 1994 document said, “In a world marked by evil and sin, the right of legitimate defense by armed means exists,” but, Di Ruzza said, it wasn’t lauding the potential of weaponry as much as it was lamenting the existence of arms in an imperfect world.”
 
ProVobis said:
An individual bishop’s opinions are his own, yes. OTOH, a conference of bishops in unity with the Pope is authoritative, whether in morals or policy.
Click to expand...
Since there is no authoritative teaching on gun control this is not an issue.
If they determine that eating meat on Friday is a sin in that country, then it’s binding. And so forth.
Click to expand...
No, this is not at all true. Morality is not determined by the opinions of the bishops (including the Bishop of Rome). Their obligation is to discover what the moral principles are, it is not to decide what they think they should be. They are bound by sacred Tradition and Scripture and they don’t get to make this stuff up as they choose … unlike whatever comments they may make on gun control.

Any statement that begins with “we believe” something “should” be done is not a statement of doctrine but is merely the expression of an opinion. It is certainly not an authoritative teaching and no one is bound to consent to it.

Ender
 
Ender said:
First, the bishops and Vatican have not made any specific policy proposals. They have not, in fact, called for a ban on the private ownership of guns, and I am content that the generalities they expressed have been satisfied. For example I believe that we already have reasonable controls on access to guns - they want reasonable restrictions and that is what I think we have - check that one off.
Click to expand...
That is what I have been saying. Even the idea that you think your opinion is better than theirs is really meaningless when they have expressed no specifics.

I disagree that it is prudent to allow anyone, including felons fugitives to purchase firearms, as they can with the current restrictions.
 
pnewton said:
Perhaps they do not agree with you on what issues involve moral choices. I know I don’t. Guns are used to commit mortal sin. I find it hard to ignore the moral component here.
Click to expand...
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
 
Ender said:
Since there is no authoritative teaching on gun control this is not an issue.
No, this is not at all true.
Click to expand...
So where or when do you think a group of bishops has authority? Could you provide some examples?
 
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.
Click to expand...
No. I will stand by my point. I think reduction to the absurd does not apply, except to highlight absurdity. Not everything has the same potential for evil use. The Catholic Church opposes nuclear arsenals because of their destructive potential. Private ownership of a nuclear weapon is not the same as owning a butter knife, or as owning a gun. Private ownership of heroin can be seen as a moral evil best discourage by law because of the potential for evil.

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. This also applies to liquor. It has the potential to lift the spirit in small quantities, yet surely no one thinks it should be available for children.
 
pnewton said:
I find your misrepresentation of their position to be unfair.
Click to expand...
There’s no misrepresentation at all. I have said repeatedly that the Bishop’s* political* statements have no more theological weight than mine do. How is that a “misrepresentation?”
pnewton said:
You were wrong in your assumptions on me.
Click to expand...
True. I was wrong about that; and, for the third time I’m admitting it, and for the third time apologizing for it… I’m now done apologizing to you for that.
pnewton said:
I see no reason why anyone should trust your judgment on these people that use the English language with precision.
Click to expand...
No one has to trust my judgement on anything. Just read canon law or the catechism. Neither the Bishops, nor The Holy Father, has any authority to dictate to me, or any other catholic in the U.S.A. what rights we have or do not have regarding gun ownership. Even the USCCB will admit that.
 
nitesnake said:
There’s no misrepresentation at all. I have said repeatedly that the Bishop’s* political* statements have no more theological weight than mine do. How is that a “misrepresentation?”…, nor The Holy Father, has any authority to dictate to me, or any other catholic in the U.S.A. what rights we have or do not have regarding gun ownership. Even the USCCB will admit that.
Click to expand...
Uh, they haven’t. That is yet another straw man.

You have called them liberals. You have said they were political statements. As none of their statements contain these words, they stand as your imbellishments (additions).
 
pnewton said:
Uh, they haven’t. That is yet another straw man.
Click to expand...
Huh? They haven’t because they can’t and they know it. They have no authority to do so.
pnewton said:
You have called them liberals.
Click to expand...
Because most of their formal statements reflect that fact.
pnewton said:
You have said they were political statements.
Click to expand...
Concerning gun control, that is true . I’ve already posted it at least five times. Most everyone here has read it. I’m fairly certain you have too. If you don’t get it by now, I can’t help you.
 
:twocents: I think that their statement is so generalized/ambiguous that it could mean just about anything. To me, that is extremely spineless and irresponsible, and unfortunately, unsurprising. Lots of prayer and mortification is needed from and for us all!

:blessyou:❤️:angel1:
 
Valentine_Angel said:
:twocents: I think that their statement is so generalized/ambiguous that it could mean just about anything.
:
Click to expand...
To me the real question is one of authority. It doesn’t matter what statements the Bishops did or did not make concerning gun control. They are simply opinions. Since the USCCB has no Church authority to decree if or if not U.S. catholics can have guns, we are free to agree or disagree with their statements.
 
7armyrugrats said:
It is virtually impossible to legally own a gun in Mexico. The government there has very strict laws governing all types of firearms. Is that country safer than the US?

The stricter we regulate guns, the less armed responsible citizens will be. However, it isn’t going to disarm the criminals, especially the most violent among them.
Click to expand...
👍👍👍
 
7armyrugrats said:
It is virtually impossible to legally own a gun in Mexico. The government there has very strict laws governing all types of firearms. Is that country safer than the US?
Click to expand...
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.
 
7armyrugrats said:
Is that country safer than the US?
Click to expand...
The whole American continent seems to be violent, but if it makes it harder for trigger-happy to find a gun, at least you made him work for it.

The mother of the killer in Connecticut had all sorts of guns and what good did they do her? And the killer didn’t have to go outside his town or even house to get what he needed.

It’s really tough to say what would happen without the restrictions we have in place. Is saying we don’t need them, however, is that enough? Would we say the same about the drug laws we have in the U.S.? Should we allow everyone to get drugs on the free market so that would end the drug violence in the black market?
 
ProVobis said:
The whole American continent seems to be violent, but if it makes it harder for trigger-happy to find a gun, at least you made him work for it.

The mother of the killer in Connecticut had all sorts of guns and what good did they do her? And the killer didn’t have to go outside his town or even house to get what he needed.

It’s really tough to say what would happen without the restrictions we have in place.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Geist said:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=10178892&postcount=517

Theres more, but that was a recent one.

Last I checked heroin was banned in Scotland, yet they can’t get enough over there.

Speaks volumes about how well banning things works no?
Click to expand...
Perhaps the poster above was influenced by Scotland’s low homicide rate - 88 homicides in 2011 (cf. USA 12,996). The total number of firearms offences was 514 a year - less than the USA in 1 week.
 
7armyrugrats said:
Is that country safer than the US?
Click to expand...
The whole American continent seems to be violent, but if it makes it harder for trigger-happy to find a gun, at least you made him work for it.

The mother of the killer in Connecticut had all sorts of guns and what good did they do her? And the killer didn’t have to go outside his town or even house to get what he needed.

It’s really tough to say what would happen without the restrictions we have in place. Is saying we don’t need them, however, is that enough? Would we say the same about the drug laws we have in the U.S.? Should we allow everyone to get drugs on the free market so that would end the drug violence in the black market?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top