Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Please provide where you get authority over the Church, to know what is slumbering and what is teaching?

The president is trying to take over the country? Wake up, he’s got control, as will the next one, and the ones before him.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, RobbyS,

This is really a tricky area - and one where the presence of genuine black and white colors are rare and far apart. While there really are real ‘political code words’ - used by both Democrats and Republicans saying that any official Church teaching would be using these to communicate dual messages would really need to be documented. As usual, terms and name-calling like ‘paranoid’ accomplish little in the interest of genuine dialogue.

And, while I think there are multiple areas where the serious and public beliefs of Catholics has been attacked by government - the real focus here is on how the Bishops are respond to the reality of this country as they articulate their beliefs on Church doctrine.

I believe that the Bishops throughout the worlds have an obligation to lead their faithful - and to do so withing the context of time and cultural patterns. Ultimately the real gudance comes from the Bishop of Rome - the Pope - and it is this Bishop thee Vicar of Christ that sets both direction and effort that his fellow Bishops are to follow. We’ve seen a lot of real but unfortunately misplaced dissent from certain Bishops dealing with issues that they did not agree with e.g,. dissent on Church teaching on contraception (Winnipeg Statement of 1968 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement) or with individual Bishops failing to do with they should be doing in the management of their diocese (foxnews.com/world/2012/07/02/pope-fires-slovak-bishop-in-rare-show-authority/ ) So, as I see it, we need to clearly identify just is the Bishop of Rome pointing for the Church on Earth to follow.

As I have shown, it possible for individual Bishops to make mistakes on pronouncements and in areas where they should be expected to show positive leadership. This could be cast in terms of, “Who appoointed you to judge the Bishops?” but, I think the real focus is just look at what is going on that some feel in out of step. We are all expected to use our God given brains to evaluate everything (1Cor 2:15 usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/2 ) and, in a spirit of humility to discuss issues. In my judgment, the Bishops have presented a thoughtful document that appears to be reactive rather then pro-active concering one minor aspect on the scantity of life.

At a time when millions of unborn babies are mercilessly butchered within their mother’s wombs - we are presented with a document that seems to be a response to the recent mass murder of innocent children - and the document is a focus on the tool used to kill these young people (automatic or semi-authmoatic firearmas). From a sheer numbers persepctive (and yes, every life is infinitely precious) we are referring to the difference between a handful of sand vs a beach.

So, do the bishops have the authority to provide a statement encouraging the protection of human life by in some way limiting firearms? I think so. Is it binding as a matter of faith or morals? I do not think so. I do think the Bishops having missed an excellent moment by standing up against abortion and this President’s beginning persecution of those who resist abortion and which to live by their conscience by promoting the scantity of life as articularted by the popes. No pope has written on the need for gun control. And, I think this is an important distinction to make.

God bless

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.

 

[pnewton]

As usual, terms and name-calling like ‘paranoid’ accomplish little in the interest of genuine dialogue.

I softened it for this reason. Note I did not call anyone paranoid. I said this sort of thinking comes across (to me) as paranoia, that is, looking for a secret bad thing where none exists. I could have also used conspiritorial. When one takes the words of the Church and tries to read between the lines something that is not there, I do question the motive* and the mind* of someone who lists themselves as Catholic and still looks so hard to discredit the Church. At least I am using the actual words written and not trying to look for codes and agendas.

So the bishops can be subjected to this sort of dissection, but CAF posters should get a pass? I hope this will clarify my literal use of one word which you cared so much about. I deemed a little more context than the one word quote you used in order.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Thanks for the clarification.

While you are free to queston anyone’s motives - this usually just turns into an unproductive exercise. May I suggest to question what was actually posted - and possibly offer some references to help establish the questions you have?

Maybe you would like to comment of the rest of what I wrote?

God bless

I softened it for this reason. Note I did not call anyone paranoid. I said this sort of thinking comes across (to me) as paranoia, that is, looking for a secret bad thing where none exists. I could have also used conspiritorial. When one takes the words of the Church and tries to read between the lines something that is not there, I do question the motive* and the mind* of someone who lists themselves as Catholic and still looks so hard to discredit the Church. At least I am using the actual words written and not trying to look for codes and agendas.

So the bishops can be subjected to this sort of dissection, but CAF posters should get a pass? I hope this will clarify my literal use of one word which you cared so much about. I deemed a little more context than the one word quote you used in order.

 

[pnewton]

Maybe you would like to comment of the rest of what I wrote?

God bless

As to abortion, I have already said I have nothing to say on this thread. Do Bishops make mistakes in their statements? I do not think such a question has meaning. Technically, the answer is no, they do not, in that their statements contain no heresy. As to whether it still might be wrong in some sense, that only begs the question and really has no meaning that I can see. It is “wrong” to you if you do not like it, in other words.

I think it worth revisiting their requests (note they do not overstep and offere specifics)
usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm

1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms
2.Support measures that make guns safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner)
3.Call for sensible regulations of handguns
4.Support legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons including assault weapons
5.Make a serious commitment to confront the pervasive role of addiction and mental illness in crime.

I can not see on thing here that should be objectionable to anyone, even die-hard NRA members, unless they read into this more than is there.

Is this statement reactive? Of course. How could it not be? They even put in the title their reaction. That is what pastors do. They react to tragedy.

If one reads the body, we find that they do address the culture of violence also.

Secondly, our entertainers, especially film producers and video game creators, need to realize how their profit motives have allowed the proliferation of movies, television programs, video games and other entertainment that glorify violence and prey on the insecurities and immaturity of our young people. Such portrayals of violence have desensitized all of us. The massacre of twenty little children and seven adults causes each of us to reflect on our own understanding of the value of human life. We must improve our resources for parents, guardians and young people, so that they can evaluate entertainment products intelligently. We need to admit that the viewing and use of these products has negative emotional, psychological and spiritual effects on people

Finally, as to:

I believe that the Bishops throughout the worlds have an obligation to lead their faithful - and to do so withing the context of time and cultural patterns. Ultimately the real gudance comes from the Bishop of Rome - the Pope - and it is this Bishop thee Vicar of Christ that sets both direction and effort that his fellow Bishops are to follow

It is the specific assignment of national conferences to comment on specific matters. I note in the letter they do in fact reference the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Yet it is the bishop that acts as pastor. I like the letter because I see if for what it claims in the title, not a political statement:

United in prayer for families, communities mourning the loss of loved ones
Need to return to values that foster a culture of life
Need to improve resources to help the mentally-ill, their families, caregivers

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Bishops don’t make mistakes, eh? Actually, Bishops going off in the wrong direction is almost as old as the Catholic Church itself. Here is a link to some of the heresies suffered by the early Catholic Church catholic.com/tracts/the-great-heresies 4 bishops were involved in starting some of these nd this says nothing of those who joined them in their error. Then for the more recent history we have the heresies of Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop de Castro Mayer catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/defense/sdavies.htm And, of course I had previously cited the multiple bishops who wrote the Winnipeg Statement in opposition to the Vatican. So, ‘technically’ you are in error because I have given you multiple references on multiple errors.

Don’t misunderstand me, Pnewton, I am not saying tht the ‘responsible restrictions’ is such a document - only that bishops are certainly not infallible. And concerning correction of error, here is a quote I found quite intersting from the above link:

“Paul who was Peter’s subject, rebuked him in public on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning the faith, and , as the gloss of St. Augustine says: “Peter gave an example to superiors that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path they should not disdain to be rebuked by their subjects.””

Please note, no question has been begged - but there has been some apparent difficulty in just reading what was written and the supporting citations.

Concerning the reactivity of statements, there will always be reactions as a response to evil actions. But, I submit that to look at the ‘poisoned fruit’ (another of my analogies while ignoring the poisonous tree to is waste a lot of time and attention. The ‘tree’ here is the uniform rejection of the scantity of life by our elected leaders and confirmed judges. And, while you wish to dismiss this a type of ‘political statement’, please note - it is 100% factual and not an opinion. And, I think pastors comfort the surviving victims and the survivors rather then produce reactive statements.

Disagreement here is obvious - in my opinion, the USCCB has move from one tragic experience while diluting their effectiveness to address one major item consistently promoted by the Vatican: the scantity of human life. My vision here is that the USCCB will continue to bounce from topic to topic - almost like a reactive news report. Converesly, you seem to say that the USCCB is using their time both wisely and prudently.

My idea is that gun violence (along with a lot of other forms of violence) will be reduced as we focus on the poisonous tree as it continues to grwo unabated in our society.

God bless

As to abortion, I have already said I have nothing to say on this thread. Do Bishops make mistakes in their statements? I do not think such a question has meaning. Technically, the answer is no, they do not, in that their statements contain no heresy. As to whether it still might be wrong in some sense, that only begs the question and really has no meaning that I can see. It is “wrong” to you if you do not like it, in other words.

I think it worth revisiting their requests (note they do not overstep and offere specifics)
usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm
I can not see on thing here that should be objectionable to anyone, even die-hard NRA members, unless they read into this more than is there.

Is this statement reactive? Of course. How could it not be? They even put in the title their reaction. That is what pastors do. They react to tragedy.

If one reads the body, we find that they do address the culture of violence also.

Finally, as to:

It is the specific assignment of national conferences to comment on specific matters. I note in the letter they do in fact reference the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Yet it is the bishop that acts as pastor. I like the letter because I see if for what it claims in the title, not a political statement:

United in prayer for families, communities mourning the loss of loved ones
Need to return to values that foster a culture of life
Need to improve resources to help the mentally-ill, their families, caregivers

 

[RobbyS]

Please provide where you get authority over the Church, to know what is slumbering and what is teaching?

The president is trying to take over the country? Wake up, he’s got control, as will the next one, and the ones before him.

I am not claiming any authority;I am commenting on what amounts to a political statement. and when I say “the bishops” I am of course really talking about those who draft these letters that the bishops sign. This President reminds me of a less articulate Woodrow Wilson. He wrote something called “Congressional Government” when he was a political science professor. When he became president, he took upon himself the role of leader of the Democratic Majority in the Congress and began the
process of relegating Congress to Second Place in the scheme of federal government. Obama was a far less effective leader of the 111th, Democratic Congress. After he lost the House, he managed to use the Democratic Senate to frustrate the Republican House, and more than any President before him has ruled by executive orders based not on statute but his general executive authority. He seems to be one of those who think that the Constitution/constitutional law is an impediment to good government.

 

[nitesnake]

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.

You are simply being “obedient” to his opinion on a political issue, it has nothing at all to do with church doctrine or his authority as a bishop.

 

[nitesnake]

But now you’ve assumed authority. Is that a rightful thing for you to do?
Prodigal Son1;10209556:

I’ve assumed authority over what? Authority over who? The USCCB? The Church? The Holy Father? Please point me to this breach of authority.

 

[nitesnake]

But now you’ve assumed authority. Is that a rightful thing for you to do?

I’ve assumed authority over what? Or who? The USCCB? The Church? The Holy Father? Please point me to this breach of authority.

 

[RobbyS]

A highly motivated and well trained individual won’t be stopped by any gun controls. There are plenty of pistols with 10 or more round clips, which are instantly changed out when spent. I don’t really see the point of assault weapons being widely available.

Assault rifle is a political red Herring. ` Either massacre could have been achieved. with a well placed bomb. But it is easier to make laws regulating rifles than bombs. Oklahoma City, anyone?

 

[pnewton]

Hi, Pnewton,

Bishops don’t make mistakes, eh? Actually, Bishops going off in the wrong direction is almost as old as the Catholic Church itself. Here is a link …

I do not care to argue that particular strawman. You misquoted me and misrepresented what I said. I did not say bishops do not make mistakes. I said

Do Bishops make mistakes in their statements? I do not think such a question has meaning. Technically, the answer is no, they do not,** in that their statements** contain no heresy

Not only should the context of this thread and topic have given you a clue phone. I also twice said “in their statements”, referring specifically to the type of statements under discussion. It is surely in the realm of possibility that someday one of these statements will come out that is doctrinally unsound, but I have not seen one yet that is in direct conflict with Church teaching. That is why the present tense is used above.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Filii Dei;10210062:

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.

You are simply being “obedient” to his opinion on a political issue, it has nothing at all to do with church doctrine or his authority as a bishop.

This is disappointing.

I note that you omitted my next paragraph:

Of course, it helps that we don’t own guns to begin with.

I was making a joke. You have failed to note that I am from a different country, and I was giving my perspective that it is easy to talk about banning public ownership of guns, but in reality, it is difficult to take away guns when they are already so widespread, and it might not itself solve gun crime. If anything, it was an argument in your favour.

Yet you used this to make two separate attacks - on me and my bishop. I’m glad to hear that God gave you the gift to judge my obedience as worthless, and to dismiss my bishop’s pastoral authority as “personal opinion”. I’ll accept your criticism of me, but I’ll not have you insulting my ordinary and diminishing his authority just because he does not conform to your world view and personal ideology.

What is the Catholic Church coming to? Does respect for the Church’s authority not mean anything now? The fruits of Protestantism are truly ripe.

 

[Filii_Dei]

Filii Dei;10210062:

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.

You are simply being “obedient” to his opinion on a political issue, it has nothing at all to do with church doctrine or his authority as a bishop.

This is disappointing.

I note that you omitted my next paragraph:

Of course, it helps that we don’t own guns to begin with.

I was making a joke. You have failed to note that I am from a different country, and I was giving my perspective that it is easy to talk about banning public ownership of guns, but the reality is that many people already own guns, and in such a situation, taking away guns might not itself solve gun crime. If anything, it was an argument in your favour.

Yet you used this to make two separate attacks - on me and my bishop. I’m glad to hear that God gave you the gift to judge my obedience as worthless, and to dismiss my bishop’s pastoral authority as “personal opinion”. I’ll accept your criticism of me, but I’ll not have you insulting my ordinary and diminishing his authority just because he does not conform to your world view and personal ideology.

What is the Catholic Church coming to? Does respect for the Church’s authority not mean anything now? The fruits of Protestantism are truly ripe.

 

[Ender]

Do Bishops make mistakes in their statements? I do not think such a question has meaning. Technically, the answer is no, they do not, in that their statements contain no heresy. As to whether it still might be wrong in some sense, that only begs the question and really has no meaning that I can see. It is “wrong” to you if you do not like it, in other words.

Regardless of our individual choices regarding gun control, the issue this thread raises is about what some bishops have said, so this comment needs to be resolved. First of all, given that individual bishops are neither more nor less human and fallible than the rest of us it should be apparent that they can, have, and do make mistakes. The assertion that they are not wrong since their statement contains no heresy kind of misses the point: their statement contains no heresy because it is in no way tied to any Church teaching and the only way it can be held that it makes no sense to say they are wrong is by admitting that the charge is inapplicable to opinions. No one would say it is wrong to prefer vanilla over chocolate.

I think it worth revisiting their requests (note they do not overstep and offere specifics) usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm

They overstep their bounds by opining on a subject with which they have no expertise and offer their personal opinions as if they were somehow moral obligations. Nor have they suggested anything specific at all:

1.Support measures that control the sale and use of firearms.

I support measures that control the sale and use of firearms. We already have such measures in place. Check off number one.

It is the specific assignment of national conferences to comment on specific matters.

Actually I would have thought it was the place of a conference of bishops to comment on specific matters relating to faith and morals. The national debate on gun control is neither.

I like the letter because I see if for what it claims in the title, not a political statement:

If they don’t want to be seen as making political statements then they shouldn’t comment on political issues.

Ender

 

[Ender]

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.

Your bishop may believe that individuals should not own guns but you cannot for a moment believe this is Church doctrine, and his personal opinion on the issue is no more relevant yours, mine, or that of the local butcher. We are quite free to support or oppose the personal ownership of guns. Nor is it a question of being obedient to your bishop to agree with him any more than it is being disobedient to disagree with him since there is no obligation of obedience in the first place.

Ender

 

[SamH]

As to abortion, I have already said I have nothing to say on this thread. Do Bishops make mistakes in their statements? I do not think such a question has meaning. Technically, the answer is no, they do not, in that their statements contain no heresy. As to whether it still might be wrong in some sense, that only begs the question and really has no meaning that I can see. It is “wrong” to you if you do not like it, in other words.

I think it worth revisiting their requests (note they do not overstep and offere specifics)
usccb.org/news/2012/12-219.cfm
I can not see on thing here that should be objectionable to anyone, even die-hard NRA members, unless they read into this more than is there.

Is this statement reactive? Of course. How could it not be? They even put in the title their reaction. That is what pastors do. They react to tragedy.

If one reads the body, we find that they do address the culture of violence also.

Finally, as to:

It is the specific assignment of national conferences to comment on specific matters. I note in the letter they do in fact reference the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Yet it is the bishop that acts as pastor. I like the letter because I see if for what it claims in the title, not a political statement:

United in prayer for families, communities mourning the loss of loved ones
Need to return to values that foster a culture of life
Need to improve resources to help the mentally-ill, their families, caregivers

Just curious - how would any of those measures helped at Sandy Hook or the Aurora Colorado shootings?

I believe the Sandy Hook shooter broke 41 laws, do you honestly think he cared if he broke 42 or 55 laws?

 

[RobbyS]

Hi, RobbyS,

This is really a tricky area - and one where the presence of genuine black and white colors are rare and far apart. While there really are real ‘political code words’ - used by both Democrats and Republicans saying that any official Church teaching would be using these to communicate dual messages would really need to be documented. As usual, terms and name-calling like ‘paranoid’ accomplish little in the interest of genuine dialogue.

And, while I think there are multiple areas where the serious and public beliefs of Catholics has been attacked by government - the real focus here is on how the Bishops are respond to the reality of this country as they articulate their beliefs on Church doctrine.

I believe that the Bishops throughout the worlds have an obligation to lead their faithful - and to do so withing the context of time and cultural patterns. Ultimately the real gudance comes from the Bishop of Rome - the Pope - and it is this Bishop thee Vicar of Christ that sets both direction and effort that his fellow Bishops are to follow. We’ve seen a lot of real but unfortunately misplaced dissent from certain Bishops dealing with issues that they did not agree with e.g,. dissent on Church teaching on contraception (Winnipeg Statement of 1968 (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winnipeg_Statement) or with individual Bishops failing to do with they should be doing in the management of their diocese (foxnews.com/world/2012/07/02/pope-fires-slovak-bishop-in-rare-show-authority/ ) So, as I see it, we need to clearly identify just is the Bishop of Rome pointing for the Church on Earth to follow.

As I have shown, it possible for individual Bishops to make mistakes on pronouncements and in areas where they should be expected to show positive leadership. This could be cast in terms of, “Who appoointed you to judge the Bishops?” but, I think the real focus is just look at what is going on that some feel in out of step. We are all expected to use our God given brains to evaluate everything (1Cor 2:15 usccb.org/bible/1corinthians/2 ) and, in a spirit of humility to discuss issues. In my judgment, the Bishops have presented a thoughtful document that appears to be reactive rather then pro-active concering one minor aspect on the scantity of life.

At a time when millions of unborn babies are mercilessly butchered within their mother’s wombs - we are presented with a document that seems to be a response to the recent mass murder of innocent children - and the document is a focus on the tool used to kill these young people (automatic or semi-authmoatic firearmas). From a sheer numbers persepctive (and yes, every life is infinitely precious) we are referring to the difference between a handful of sand vs a beach.

So, do the bishops have the authority to provide a statement encouraging the protection of human life by in some way limiting firearms? I think so. Is it binding as a matter of faith or morals? I do not think so. I do think the Bishops having missed an excellent moment by standing up against abortion and this President’s beginning persecution of those who resist abortion and which to live by their conscience by promoting the scantity of life as articularted by the popes. No pope has written on the need for gun control. And, I think this is an important distinction to make.

God bless

I doubt many bishops own handguns, but I am sure many of their flock do. Before stepping out on such issues, where their concrete knowledge is lacking, they need to consult the members of their flock as well as lower clergy This would have helped them avoid many missteps in the ‘60s and ‘70s, where they seem to have been blindsided by the events of 1968. Someday, someone is going to write a meaningful book about 1968, which --IMHO–begins to loom as large as 1848 did in the late 19th Century.

 

[Brendan]

I doubt many bishops own handguns, .

If you are talking about the US bishops, you are probably correct. There are bishops worldwide who have pretty impressive gun collections

This is a picture of me in Tanzania, near the Rwanda border. The local bishop send these guys with me. They were my bodyguards and are Catholics who were former members of the Tanzanian army.

The guns themselves belong to the bishop, along with a number of shotguns. When I mentioned that I was a former US Army officer, they had no problems letting me look at the firearms. They are full auto AK’s, Egyptian make. The guys each had two spare mags.

Tanzania is pretty safe, but occasionally the bishop, or someone like me, needs to go near the border, where there is the potential of unrest.

Before I left on my first trip there, I met up with a guy at my gun club who has a Federal Class-III FFL to do a re familiarization with the AK. I figured that if something went wrong over there, I could probably get my hands on an AK. Little did I know that all I needed to do in an emergency was to ask Fr. Joseph to open up the gun locker for me

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pnewton,

Ah, there you go again … with your name calling… I presented no ‘strawman’ argument. One of the really nice items of the CAF posts is that they are all in print - and stays that way. No one needs to either misquote or misrepresent anything. You made the general statement that, in essence, because the bishops wrote it, then it must be correct. This was an inaccurate generalization and I provided references when bishops made major mistakes - some heresies and some just wrong.

You are 100% correct about context. And, the context is that the USCCB issued a statement of their opinion. It isn’t this subjective, It is “wrong” to you if you do not like it, in other words", but rather - as you will recall - another wasted opportunity to address the problem - following the papal teaching on the scantity of life by actively supporting pro-life activities and opposing those who support pro-death. This is objective because we can look at papal teaching on these matters - as the main road to follow. Those who follow the side-roads by reacting to tragic developments are not heretical - or ‘…doctrinally unsound…’ just wasting time when there really are bigger issues to address on a consistent basis. Addressing the tangents is just a distraction and dilutes focus.

SamH brought up an interesting and right-on-point observation about the Sandy Hook vilating numerous laws (though I have not seen anything about a precise number like 41 … SamH - do you have a reference on that? ) Maybe I missed your answer to the question (unless, of course that too was a strawman). So let me try my hand…

“if the USCCB statement had been in effect prior to 12/14/2012 (when Adam Lanza, age 20, fatally shot twenty children and six adult staff members and wounded two and killed his mother) so that the request for ‘responsible restrictions’ had been enacted by government, do you think this massacre would have been avoided?” Admittedly this is a speculative area - but, and to keep it in context - the USCCB is speculating that if their request had been in force then such a sad event would probably not have taken place.

Now, it would not ususally be conisdered a ‘strawman’ to point out that the driving force for weapons restrictions (and this includes bombs like McVeigh used on 4/19/95) was gangland murders using automatic weapons and silencers. Yet, these laws appear to have had no effect specific to the murder of President Kennedy (11/22/63) or his brother Bobby (6/6/68). Laws placing ‘reasonable restrictions’ after 1968 did not prevent the shooting(s) in Aurora or Newton. So, let me encourage you to provide some references to bolster your position.

God bless

I do not care to argue that particular strawman. You misquoted me and misrepresented what I said. I did not say bishops do not make mistakes. I said

Not only should the context of this thread and topic have given you a clue phone. I also twice said “in their statements”, referring specifically to the type of statements under discussion. It is surely in the realm of possibility that someday one of these statements will come out that is doctrinally unsound, but I have not seen one yet that is in direct conflict with Church teaching. That is why the present tense is used above.