P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
Actually, I believe all our trust should be in Christ.
Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership
- Status
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Prodigal Son1,
As I read your post, my understanding is that you have placed yourself essentially in a contradictory position.
On one had, the very idea of requesting regulatory intervention (with anything) is a political idea because it is being channeled through a governmenntal agency. In this case, I am guessing it is possibly through the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearams or Department of Justice government group. But, whichever group is identifed for the focus of the Bishops - it is a governmenntal (political) group because the mechanisms for getting any such political action (regulation) mean that the political machienry must be put to work.
On the other hand, we want our religious leaders to be above the yelling and shouting of the political market-place, and be viewed as pious and religious with only the thoughts of the parish at steak.
I don’t think you have it both ways. The rough and tumble world of politics is a game of winners and losers - ‘zero / sum’ is another expression… and getting political action means that political capital has to be spent.
Commenting that the USCCB has misfocused their attention of incrased regulation as though this were going to solve the problem has been my concern. I am unaware that the USCCB has been unable to produce evidence of any real accomplishment in the area of: immigration reform, poor education, gun control - oh, and don’t forget abortion elimination. I do not think it is ‘bashing’ to comment on the ‘focus’ from tangental matters and request a ‘re-focus’ toward those that aim at the root of the problem - the efforts to destroy the sanctity of human life. Matthew 7 tells us that, “By their fruuits you will know them…” but, there have not been that many fruits to really examine.
God bless
As I read your post, my understanding is that you have placed yourself essentially in a contradictory position.
On one had, the very idea of requesting regulatory intervention (with anything) is a political idea because it is being channeled through a governmenntal agency. In this case, I am guessing it is possibly through the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearams or Department of Justice government group. But, whichever group is identifed for the focus of the Bishops - it is a governmenntal (political) group because the mechanisms for getting any such political action (regulation) mean that the political machienry must be put to work.
On the other hand, we want our religious leaders to be above the yelling and shouting of the political market-place, and be viewed as pious and religious with only the thoughts of the parish at steak.
I don’t think you have it both ways. The rough and tumble world of politics is a game of winners and losers - ‘zero / sum’ is another expression… and getting political action means that political capital has to be spent.
Commenting that the USCCB has misfocused their attention of incrased regulation as though this were going to solve the problem has been my concern. I am unaware that the USCCB has been unable to produce evidence of any real accomplishment in the area of: immigration reform, poor education, gun control - oh, and don’t forget abortion elimination. I do not think it is ‘bashing’ to comment on the ‘focus’ from tangental matters and request a ‘re-focus’ toward those that aim at the root of the problem - the efforts to destroy the sanctity of human life. Matthew 7 tells us that, “By their fruuits you will know them…” but, there have not been that many fruits to really examine.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Prodigal Son1
I wholeheartedly agree.
Psalm 145 tells us to trust in God and not to put our trust in princes (veritasbible.com/drb/read/Psalms_145)
God bless
I wholeheartedly agree.
Psalm 145 tells us to trust in God and not to put our trust in princes (veritasbible.com/drb/read/Psalms_145)
God bless
L
lerapt78
Guest
Thank you, InigoMontoya. Do you have a source for this? I ask because I am apparently getting different information, though I acknowledge I’m not familiar with this particular legislation.
For example, this explanation by Colorado attorney James O. Bardwell (which was published in 1997, so could possibly be outdated) says (bolding mine):
and Wikpedia (admittedly not an official source) discusses the mandatory background check, and the permission required to *transfer *such weapons, but says nothing about the allowance of in-home inspection. (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act)
I
InigoMontoya
Guest
I posted from personal knowledge but you can go to the ATF’s website, which enforces the regulations on firearms. From there, goto Laws & Regulations, than Title 27 CFR Chapter II, Part 479 — Machine Guns, Destructive Devices, and Certain Other Firearms.
I should clarify though, I was slightly mistake, the ATF can show up at your door and request to see the paperwork of the item but do not have legal authority to enter ones dwelling or perform a search except dor class 3 licensed dealers.
I should clarify though, I was slightly mistake, the ATF can show up at your door and request to see the paperwork of the item but do not have legal authority to enter ones dwelling or perform a search except dor class 3 licensed dealers.
P
pnewton
Guest
I guess I am just the opposite. I find discussion of voting and abortion to be profoundly off topic. I thought the statement fair, balanced and pastoral. I have a tremendous amount of faith and respect in these men who lead our Church in such trying times.
I am still surprise people object that we are asked to be reasonable or sensible. The Catholic Church and her leaders have come under fire for many reasons. This objection just seems weird and a little forced, but then like I said, I respect these guys.
L
lerapt78
Guest
This was my understanding as well. Thanks. I also did peruse ATF’s website yesterday.
N
nitesnake
Guest
No, you don’t. The Bishops have no authority to speak on gun control as a matter of church doctrine.
I suspect you’re naive (intentionally or not), concerning this. As I’ve said many times, no Bishop, Pope or otherwise, has any authority to tell Catholics that they may or may not own or carry a firearm. It’s simply outside of their authority to do so.
You certainly are. It’s just another political, emotional statement from you concerning gun control; and you really shouldn’t imply that someone who disagrees with the USCCB on this issue is somehow being disrespectful or “bashing” the Bishops.
R
RobbyS
Guest
As I see it, the postures of the USCCB seem to be “political”in that they seem to reflect the political/philosophical biases of the majority of the bishops. Given that the Democratic party has been dominated by secularists --by which I mean liberals with an almost French concept of the roles of church and state-- to get too close to this party is dangerous. To be sire, the other party is almost equally secular-mided, but without the anti-religious animous I see in the other party.
N
nitesnake
Guest
Perhaps true. But the fact remains that the Bishops have no authority to teach on gun control as a matter of faith or morals or doctrine. Yet many folks here who most likely voted to re-elect a pro-abortion president which the Bishops do, and must teach against, will not not admit it.
T
tqualey
Guest
Hi, Pnewton,
My guess is that The Violence Policy Center ( vpc.org/ ) has a more kindred view on ‘reasonable restrictions’ - but the crux of the matter is that this is coming the USCCB and is being discussed on CAF - so, the matter really does go beyond a particular view on restricting guns. The VPC and other such organization are not entrusted with sheperding our souls - the bishops are - and this is what needs to be identifed in any statement coming from them.
While honest people can disagree what constitutes ‘reasonable or sensible’ - this goes beyond specific reactive announcements. About 5 months before the Newton massacre there was the Aurora theater massacre - where a man with legally owned weapons killed multiple people - and I note a difference in the statements made by President Obama and the USCCB then and the statements being made now. And let me put this in focus. This is from the USCCB:
**
“WASHINGTON—In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the chairmen of three committees of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a joint statement to decry violence in society. The bishops repeated the call from Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of USCCB, who expressed on the day of the horrible tragedy, deepest sorrow for all the victims and a call to work for peace in our homes, streets and world. They called on all Americans, especially legislators, to address national policies that will strengthen regulations of firearms and improve access to health care for those with mental health needs**.” usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm (emphasis mine)
And, while you may be surprised, the real issue should be what will reduce the murderous attacks on defenseless people - trying to champion restrictions on gun ownership is simply chasing shadows (I’ll try a new analogy) - nothing will be accomplished whee it counts: saving lives. Shift the focus to the real object casting these shadows - the lack of respect for the scantity of human life and there is a much better chace of success.
When I speak of distraction and dissipation on the part of the USCCB - look no further then the first paragraph of this USCCB written statement - did you notice that somehow they managed to get health care involved in the process? The distractions are under attack from interruptios. There is a disturbing lack of focus - and this is just another example… and maybe it would qualify for the ‘…weird and a little forced…’ award.
Believe it or not, people can disagree yet still respect one another. The Bishops have my respect. The Bishops also have the best insights that I can provide on the public behavior of the USCCB. Either a Catholic works directly at promoting the scantity of human life (and one very specific way is (was) not to vote for those who legislate agaist human life. One would think that the USCCB would have come up with ‘responsible restrictions’ on abortions - rather then any baby (not gender selection via murder is making itself known) at any time (late term abortions [when the baby would be able to live outside the womb - it is OK to crush their skull, suck out their brains and then deliver a corpse] are legal). The USCCB can do much better and act more responsibly to papal teaching then they are doing.
God bless
My guess is that The Violence Policy Center ( vpc.org/ ) has a more kindred view on ‘reasonable restrictions’ - but the crux of the matter is that this is coming the USCCB and is being discussed on CAF - so, the matter really does go beyond a particular view on restricting guns. The VPC and other such organization are not entrusted with sheperding our souls - the bishops are - and this is what needs to be identifed in any statement coming from them.
While honest people can disagree what constitutes ‘reasonable or sensible’ - this goes beyond specific reactive announcements. About 5 months before the Newton massacre there was the Aurora theater massacre - where a man with legally owned weapons killed multiple people - and I note a difference in the statements made by President Obama and the USCCB then and the statements being made now. And let me put this in focus. This is from the USCCB:
**
“WASHINGTON—In the aftermath of the Sandy Hook tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut, the chairmen of three committees of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) issued a joint statement to decry violence in society. The bishops repeated the call from Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, president of USCCB, who expressed on the day of the horrible tragedy, deepest sorrow for all the victims and a call to work for peace in our homes, streets and world. They called on all Americans, especially legislators, to address national policies that will strengthen regulations of firearms and improve access to health care for those with mental health needs**.” usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm (emphasis mine)
And, while you may be surprised, the real issue should be what will reduce the murderous attacks on defenseless people - trying to champion restrictions on gun ownership is simply chasing shadows (I’ll try a new analogy) - nothing will be accomplished whee it counts: saving lives. Shift the focus to the real object casting these shadows - the lack of respect for the scantity of human life and there is a much better chace of success.
When I speak of distraction and dissipation on the part of the USCCB - look no further then the first paragraph of this USCCB written statement - did you notice that somehow they managed to get health care involved in the process? The distractions are under attack from interruptios. There is a disturbing lack of focus - and this is just another example… and maybe it would qualify for the ‘…weird and a little forced…’ award.
Believe it or not, people can disagree yet still respect one another. The Bishops have my respect. The Bishops also have the best insights that I can provide on the public behavior of the USCCB. Either a Catholic works directly at promoting the scantity of human life (and one very specific way is (was) not to vote for those who legislate agaist human life. One would think that the USCCB would have come up with ‘responsible restrictions’ on abortions - rather then any baby (not gender selection via murder is making itself known) at any time (late term abortions [when the baby would be able to live outside the womb - it is OK to crush their skull, suck out their brains and then deliver a corpse] are legal). The USCCB can do much better and act more responsibly to papal teaching then they are doing.
God bless
T
tqualey
Guest
P
Prodigal_Son1
Guest
But now you’ve assumed authority. Is that a rightful thing for you to do?
I’m not implying anything. The evidence of disrespect is clear in this thread.
P
Padre4103
Guest
The Bishops are aware of what the Catechism says and their opinions, which are just that, are not opposed to the Faith, BUT they are also not a de fide teaching of the Church. They are opinions which you can disagree with with no danger to your soul.
Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum (Nov. 1, 1914):
- As regards matters in which without harm to faith or discipline - in the absence of any authoritative intervention of the Apostolic See - there is room for divergent opinions, it is clearly the right of everyone to express and defend his own opinion. But in such discussions no expressions should be used which might constitute serious breaches of charity; let each one freely defend his own opinion, but let it be done with due moderation, so that no one should consider himself entitled to affix on those who merely do not agree with his ideas the stigma of disloyalty to faith or to discipline.
L
liturgyluver
Guest
The same document also says:
*It is not rare for pastors of the Church to find sorrow and contradiction where they had a right to look for comfort and help. Let those who have so unfortunately failed in their duty, recall to their minds again and again, that the authority of those whom “the Holy Spirit hath placed as Bishops to rule the Church of God” (Acts xx. 28) is a divine authority. Let them remember that if, as we have seen, those who resist any legitimate authority, resist God, much more impiously do they act who refuse to obey the Bishop, whom God has consecrated with a special character by the exercise of His power. “Since charity,” wrote St. Ignatius Martyr, “doth not suffer me to be silent concerning you, therefore was I forward to exhort you, that you run in harmony with the mind of God: for Jesus Christ also, our inseparable life, is the mind of the Father, even as the bishops that are settled in the farthest parts of the earth are in the mind of Jesus Christ. So then it becometh you to run in harmony with the mind of the bishop” (Ep. ad Ephes. iii.). These words of the illustrious Martyr are re-echoed throughout the ages by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
- Moreover, bishops have a very heavy burden in consequence of the difficulties of the times; and heavier still is their anxiety for the salvation of the flock committed to their care: “For they watch as being to render an account of your souls” (Heb. xiii. 17). Are not, then, they to be termed cruel who, by the refusal of the obedience which is due, increase that burden and its bitterness? “For this is not expedient for you” (Heb. xiii. 17), the Apostle would say to them, and that, because “the Church is a people united to its bishop, a flock which adheres to its pastor” (St. Cyprian: Ep. 66 [al. 69]), *
F
Filii_Dei
Guest
I know my bishop is focused on responsible restriction of gun ownership - which is no ownership - and I know that I am being obedient to my bishop. 
Of course, it helps that we don’t own guns to begin with.
Of course, it helps that we don’t own guns to begin with.
P
pnewton
Guest
If they disagree with you and consider it a matter of morals, then they can offer a statement. Saying this is not a matter of faith in morals is a circular logic that keeps getting revolved. Your statement assumes what it tries to prove and is circular.
- Again. *
R
RobbyS
Guest
But whoever drafted that statement put in political code words, generally endorsing the approach now being taken by a Democratic administration. There are no lack of gun laws, no lack of laws mandating the provisions of mental health. Where is lacking is an efficient administration of either. Most of the funding goes for salaries and benefits for government employees and/or private agencies who are enjoined to act but do not. As for guns, the bishops come down in the side of those who would disarm the population. They ignore the cause of the proliferation of arms, which is that many American do in fact see a leviathan state, or at least a consolidated state operating along European lines, being created . Whether they are right or not, the bishops should take note of this widespread opinion. Likewise, they should take note of the fact that for thirty years or more, an excessive individualism has made the authorities refuse to provide institutions for the millions of mentally deranged in our society. Many on the streets and in our prisons are just plain crazy. Many more in the schools are identified but too little is done, because incompetent “psychogists” basically don’t know what to do with them.
In short, the bishops have nothing useful to add to the conversation.
P
pnewton
Guest
The Catholic Church does not communicate in code, but in exact words. Perhaps that is why I have a different take on this. This talk of codes and Democrat influence comes across as Republican paranoia.
R
RobbyS
Guest
I said they are using political code words. That means they are using language that the government has coined to serve as shibboleths for the policies its favors. “Gun laws’ and “mental health” may seem neutral terms but they are not, not in the present context. The President is trying to drum up support for sweeping new authority for the federal government. It is the only thing he has done consistently. The Church seems to have been slumbering, somewhat as the disciples did in the garden, but if they listen carefully they should be able to hear the clanking of armour and see the torchlight coming.
- Status