Bishops remain focused on 'responsible restrictions' on gun ownership

[meme1961]

Instead of jumping to conclusions, provide where I said it was ‘one incident only and ever.’

Your insistence on being given every single example of a gun ever being used for good.

I wasn’t jumping to conclusions, I watched you claim that one example didn’t outweigh the many examples of evil. It was then I invited you to do the work you should have already done: look for counter examples to your position.

No jumping necessary. But, if you are prepared now to admit guns in the hands of citizens are used to achieve a morally positive outcome many, many times a year, please go ahead.

 

[meme1961]

Where do you get this from. There were no “orders” in this statement. There was a call to reason and responsibility. They also gave no specific proposals. I think the bishops are well aware of their role and the limits thereof. I just hope lay Catholic understand their role as student, aka. disciple.

Have you forgotten the context of this thread? The whole thing started out with the assertion that to be a Good Catholic you must support the latest push for yet more gun control.

This was followed by the assertion that one must obey the Bishops statement.

Seriously, did you come in late? If so, I suggest reviewing the very beginning of the thread.

 

[meme1961]

Ok, I’m done. I have presented my opinions, with sources to support that opinion. Nothing was falsified, which is the same as lying. Nothing so far as changed my view, and I don’t see that happening from the repeated points being raised.

You also presented conclusions, not just opinions.

Some of your conclusions were not reasonable, and I pointed out the error (I falsified) one of your arguments.

Falsifying is NOT the same thing as saying that some one lied. It simply indicates that an argument has been shown to be based on one or more fallacies (the most egregious being the concept that a gun is somehow a moral agent, and thus the problem of mass murder can be fixed by handicapping those agents who can prevent such events).

This is how philosophy works. If you are not familiar with the process, I invite you to read some of the more accessible philosophical arguments posed by both sides of the marriage argument. A secular but pro-traditional marriage argument can be found at:

Check Your Blind Spot

In this posting, a philosopher falsifies a colleagues arguments, but there is no implication that the colleague was lying.

If reason doesn’t sway you, then by all means, no need to continue, as my intent was to argue towards a reasoned conclusion.

 

[meme1961]

I base what I think on what was said in a group of people for who every word is weighed. I am still amazed there is so much backlash to a non-specific call to reason, safety and awareness.

You are right to be amazed, as there is no such backlash. Nobody is arguing against reason, safety or awareness.

Our love of guns runs counter to the culture of life the our Catholic faith attempts to honor.

No, it doesn’t. As has already been proven, guns are not moral agents. This is the entire heart of the argument: that the culture of life is, at times, best supported by the use of a gun.

To clarify: Are police officers counter to the culture of life? When they defend life using a gun, are they truly acting counter to the Catholic culture of life?

As a Catholic, the last thing I will ever do is assume, add, and spin statements from God’s shepherd in an attempt to find implications and impressions that are contrary to my politics.

Neither will I. Glad to see we are on the same page.

So I will have to take the position of the Church that teaching morality is the role of the bishops.

As do I.

I will take the position of the bishops that something that results in mass murder is a moral issue.

Since you seem to be so misunderstood so often: what is this “Something” that results in mass murder? It isn’t a gun, ownership of guns, nor love of guns, nor owning a gun that has a 30 round magazine, as by now we know that guns are just tools. It is the agent that is the mass murderer, not the gun.

I might be more understanding to this idea that these men have no business saying anything if even once and a while they were no opposed in every statement that is a cross purposes with Republicans.

Sorry, couldn’t parse that.

If I were to use Occam’s Razor and seek the most likely reason, it seems to me politics trumps faith. At least most liberal dissenters just flat out embrace their dissent.

Yes, there do seem to be some liberals who are liberal first, Catholic second. Many of them left the Church when the Holy Father took the seat, but I regularly listen to one at my Parish. She has taught repeatedly about the principle of solidarity (but only with the poor, never with all human persons), but never about subsidiarity. I took to heart her teaching, but when I pointed out that her teaching on Catholic Social Justice was incomplete, I was accused of being “political” first, a Catholic second.

Is this what you are trying to imply? That my argument is political, not in keeping with Church teaching? If so, then how is defending life in opposition to Church teaching? That is, after all, the heart of my argument and, I suspect, the others who have engaged with you.

 

[meme1961]

I do not find this to be in evidence at all. I see people reacting to what they perceive as a threat to their alleged rights, not using reason.

Now, this is interesting. “Alleged”. Are you claiming that there is no right to life?

 

[meme1961]

I said nothing about any of that. The right to bear arms is in the Second Amendment, not the First. In light of this error, I have not answer for you, or even the slightest idea what you are getting at.

Actually, the right to bear arms is a God given right, not a government granted right. Thus, the 2nd Amendment can only espouse support of that right (thus, the right isn’t “in” the 2nd Amendment).

Redundantly, as it turns out. Since the Federal Government was never granted the power to infringe on this right, adding this Amendment was redundant, and possibly even detrimental to that right, as its existence creates a colorable excuse to try to find loopholes to wiggle through.

Like, say, imposing punitive taxes on the sale of ammunition, or trying to legislate a limit on magazine size.

 

[pnewton]

Have you forgotten the context of this thread? The whole thing started out with the assertion that to be a Good Catholic you must support the latest push for yet more gun control.

Seriously, did you come in late? If so, I suggest reviewing the very beginning of the thread.

I have been here all along. I do not assert that one must support anything specific. You make a strange point jumping in after ten days of silence. But I posted first here December 21. You jumped in January 10. You might want to review the facts before you accuse someone of not reviewing the facts.

You are right to be amazed, as there is no such backlash. Nobody is arguing against reason, safety or awareness.

Really? If you check back you will find many people not only disagreeing with the statement but even saying they have no business making any statement.

Now, this is interesting. “Alleged”. Are you claiming that there is no right to life?

Uh, no. Did you post this question on the wrong thread, by any chance?

Actually, the right to bear arms is a God given right, not a government granted right.

Do you really think so? Interestingsly enough, I never saw that in the Catechism. I can not find this in Scripture. I do not think any of the Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights corresponds to what God wrote on Sinai. I do not know if this opinion of yours can be justified. It might be reasoned, if one wants to make this an issue of divine mandate, but I do not think this is Catholic doctrine.

Our love of guns runs counter to the culture of life the our Catholic faith attempts to honor

To clarify: Are police officers counter to the culture of life? When they defend life using a gun, are they truly acting counter to the Catholic culture of life?

To clarify, I said “love of guns.” Police use guns to defend life. Police do not like using guns, as a rule. Those that enjoy that part then do not contribute to the culture of life. More precisely, to the extent even the police are willing to take a life, or through inaction allow life to be taken, to that extent, they contribute to the culture of death.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You also presented conclusions, not just opinions.

Some of your conclusions were not reasonable, and I pointed out the error (I falsified) one of your arguments.

Falsifying is NOT the same thing as saying that some one lied. It simply indicates that an argument has been shown to be based on one or more fallacies (the most egregious being the concept that a gun is somehow a moral agent, and thus the problem of mass murder can be fixed by handicapping those agents who can prevent such events).

This is how philosophy works. If you are not familiar with the process, I invite you to read some of the more accessible philosophical arguments posed by both sides of the marriage argument. A secular but pro-traditional marriage argument can be found at:

Check Your Blind Spot

In this posting, a philosopher falsifies a colleagues arguments, but there is no implication that the colleague was lying.

If reason doesn’t sway you, then by all means, no need to continue, as my intent was to argue towards a reasoned conclusion.

I feel my view is reasoned. I also try to reason through theology and not so much philosophy. Because we have different opinions doesn’t mean you ‘falsified’ my view.

I said I was done because I detect what seems to be condescension in the tone of some posts. I feel if that’s present, the emphasis lacks the theological view. I feel the bishops guidance is theological, and not necessarily philosophical.

Also, as I mentioned, I don’t see either of us changing the other person’s view and I don’t participate in discussions for the sake of arguing, especially repeated points, over and over. Please read back through the thread and if you raise new points I will address them, if I have anything to add to what’s already been said.

 

[meme1961]

I have been here all along. I do not assert that one must support anything specific. You make a strange point jumping in after ten days of silence.

I was observing for a while, considering the arguments on both sides. I try to think before I jump in. Not always to good result, I admit, but I make the effort.

If you have nothing specific to say, then I apologize. It seemed clear that you were posting in support of a position, and that position seemed quite clear to me. It seems clear to me that you are posting in support of a position NOW, and it seems clear that you are supporting a position so I’m left with little other choice than to work with what you have given me.

Really? If you check back you will find many people not only disagreeing with the statement but even saying they have no business making any statement.

As I said, I observed. The people in question were not disagreeing with the moral teaching of the statement, only with the interpretation of the statement, and the assertion that we are required to obey the political policy prescriptions of the Bishops.

On obedience to moral teaching, there was near perfect unanimity. It was in two points that most of the disagreement was based:

1. That the Bishops have the authority to direct Catholics to vote in a given way, absent a clear and direct relationship between law or politician, and an immediate moral evil.
2. That the interpretation of the statement required us to vote for NEW or additional gun control laws.

I trust, however, that you voted either a straight Republican ticket in the last election, or failing that, that the only Democrats you voted for were publicly anti-abortion, etc? If you truly believe that the Bishops have that kind of authority, then their very clear statements on this issue bound you, by your statements, to vote for Republicans.

Even I agree that the Bishops can tell us that to be in coherence with Catholic teaching that we must not support politicians who support abortion, euthanasia, and a variety of bio-sciences based evils.

When I converted, I changed my position on the death penalty. I did so not because I was ordered to by the Bishops (though they are against it), but because their policy prescriptions in this matter are fully and completely coherent with their moral teaching authority, and because they made an assert-able (the opposite of falsify-able), reasoned argument for eliminating the death penalty.

So you see, I’m not blindly dogmatic in this regard. My position is that lacking such coherence (which would be signaled by the Bishops insistence on total disarmament of all governmental employees and officials as well as citizens), I am not required to obey their policy prescriptions.

Please understand, this is not because I believe the Bishops to have or not have this authority over me, but because the Truth itself has absolute authority. The truth of a well reasoned argument that is fully coherent with a prescribed course of action is thus absolutely authoritative, and absent a prescribed course of action that is superior in effecting the same goal, I am bound to obey the truth.

The “pro gun control” argument is at best just asinine, at worst it is anti-life.

Uh, no. Did you post this question on the wrong thread, by any chance?

Wrong thread, or wrong discussion? Absent anything more than a screen name, it is always possible to reply to the wrong person in a discussion, but no, I posted to the right discussion.

Do you really think so? Interestingsly enough, I never saw that in the Catechism. I can not find this in Scripture. I do not think any of the Ten Amendments in the Bill of Rights corresponds to what God wrote on Sinai. I do not know if this opinion of yours can be justified. It might be reasoned, if one wants to make this an issue of divine mandate, but I do not think this is Catholic doctrine.

Which comment specifically do you refer to?

To clarify, I said “love of guns.” Police use guns to defend life. Police do not like using guns, as a rule. Those that enjoy that part then do not contribute to the culture of life.

One can love guns without loving killing. I think you’ve exposed the misunderstanding here. One can love guns and love life, as well. Using a gun to defend life does not require you to kill, nor does it require you to love the necessity of killing.

To be truly good at anything, however, love is a prerequisite. (Mind you, the use of the word “love” here is similar to that of a ballerina loving her art).

If you are defending life, it is appropriate that you love it, and that you be good at it. While not a requirement for being hired, many police officers (obviously not all) enjoy shooting, are good at it, and practice it on a regular basis.

I doubt that they would use the word love, and it is politically incorrect to admit to it now-a-days even if they do (plus there is the whole cultural thing), but I’ve lived with police officers who clearly loved their guns, and could repeatedly shoot very tight groupings at the range.

More precisely, to the extent even the police are willing to take a life, or through inaction allow life to be taken, to that extent, they contribute to the culture of death.

So the police should never respond to another mass murder? If “to the extent even the police are willing to take a life they contribute to the culture of death” is what you truly believe, then it follows logically that killing a mass murder in mid-spree is un-Catholic, so the police should be disarmed as well, and until they are, they should never use their weapons to kill offenders to protect life.

Is that truly your belief?

 

[meme1961]

I feel my view is reasoned. I also try to reason through theology and not so much philosophy. Because we have different opinions doesn’t mean you ‘falsified’ my view.

You are right in that opinions have no weight on truth or falsehood. However, my falsification of your argument was not a matter of “opinion.”

Nor are feelings relevant, so if you “feel” that what you believe is true, then you are off track. Many of my Protestant brethren “feel” that their reasoning that proves that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon is correct, and they mourn my conversion (and thus my eternal damnation). I suspect you can see that “feelings” are not relevant to the truth, as powerful as they may be.

Some truths are axioms (they can’t be proven, they must be taken on faith). This argument about gun control is not about an axiom, and thus is susceptible to a reasoned argument.

And your statement about reasoning “through” theology not philosophy explains why your points were falsified. The two are not independent, and a theological argument must be reasoned, thus shifting to a “theological” argument does not relieve your argument of the burden to be a reasoned argument.

Finally, theological arguments are only applicable when dealing with matters of axiom (of dogma, to use theological equivalent term), and thus this subject is (again) not a matter for purely theological argument after we have already disposed of the theological points (which we did when we agreed that the Bishops have the authority to engage in moral teaching, and that we both support the sanctity of life).

Finally: condescension is a behavior or attitude. Neither of which is detectable with a great deal of accuracy through this medium. But it can be painful when you are first learning the basics of something like philosophy, and it can make you feel condescended to.

I made many mistakes, had many arguments falsified before I had learned enough to begin to grasp the necessary disciplines. At first I was resentful and angry. Then resigned to the outcome (but I studied harder, too). Then I began to see that when my arguments were falsified, I was being given a gift. I was seeking the truth (otherwise, why argue?), so to resent those who helped me find it was irrational.

This path lead me out of the darkness, to the Catholic Church. Were I unable to listen and accept reasoned arguments, then try to live my life according to the truth revealed by those arguments, I would not be Catholic today.

An appropriate response to me would include pointing out the fallacies in my reasoning (as per the example I gave you of the arguments for and against the traditional definition of marriage). Simply stating that I did not falsify your reasoning is not, itself, a reasoned argument.

In short: Where did I go wrong in my proof that guns are not moral agents?

 

[pnewton]

So the police should never respond to another mass murder? If “to the extent even the police are willing to take a life they contribute to the culture of death” is what you truly believe, then it follows logically that killing a mass murder in mid-spree is un-Catholic, so the police should be disarmed as well, and until they are, they should never use their weapons to kill offenders to protect life.

Is that truly your belief?

You responded to part of my first post. I spoke of the extent of the** willingness** to kill, but also addressed that inaction can also devalue life, so of course your summary is not even close to my belief. I would fear both the police that would refuse to kill to protect innocent life and the one overly willing to do so. The Catholic Church teaches that whenver possible, less than lethal means are to be used to stop criminals.

 

[pnewton]

I
Please understand, this is not because I believe the Bishops to have or not have this authority over me, but because the Truth itself has absolute authority. The truth of a well reasoned argument that is fully coherent with a prescribed course of action is thus absolutely authoritative, and absent a prescribed course of action that is superior in effecting the same goal, I am bound to obey the truth.

The “pro gun control” argument is at best just asinine, at worst it is anti-life.

We that adhere to Catholic teaching do not consider ourselves to be the arbiter of Truth. That is why I am still amazed that some who claim to be Catholic elevate their contrary opinions as truth and the opinions of our bishops as asinine. Is there any bishop that you could reference given an opinion on this that you do not, in your** opinion**, consider to be asinine?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You are right in that opinions have no weight on truth or falsehood. However, my falsification of your argument was not a matter of “opinion.”

Nor are feelings relevant, so if you “feel” that what you believe is true, then you are off track. Many of my Protestant brethren “feel” that their reasoning that proves that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon is correct, and they mourn my conversion (and thus my eternal damnation). I suspect you can see that “feelings” are not relevant to the truth, as powerful as they may be.

Some truths are axioms (they can’t be proven, they must be taken on faith). This argument about gun control is not about an axiom, and thus is susceptible to a reasoned argument.

And your statement about reasoning “through” theology not philosophy explains why your points were falsified. The two are not independent, and a theological argument must be reasoned, thus shifting to a “theological” argument does not relieve your argument of the burden to be a reasoned argument.

Finally, theological arguments are only applicable when dealing with matters of axiom (of dogma, to use theological equivalent term), and thus this subject is (again) not a matter for purely theological argument after we have already disposed of the theological points (which we did when we agreed that the Bishops have the authority to engage in moral teaching, and that we both support the sanctity of life).

Finally: condescension is a behavior or attitude. Neither of which is detectable with a great deal of accuracy through this medium. But it can be painful when you are first learning the basics of something like philosophy, and it can make you feel condescended to.

I made many mistakes, had many arguments falsified before I had learned enough to begin to grasp the necessary disciplines. At first I was resentful and angry. Then resigned to the outcome (but I studied harder, too). Then I began to see that when my arguments were falsified, I was being given a gift. I was seeking the truth (otherwise, why argue?), so to resent those who helped me find it was irrational.

This path lead me out of the darkness, to the Catholic Church. Were I unable to listen and accept reasoned arguments, then try to live my life according to the truth revealed by those arguments, I would not be Catholic today.

An appropriate response to me would include pointing out the fallacies in my reasoning (as per the example I gave you of the arguments for and against the traditional definition of marriage). Simply stating that I did not falsify your reasoning is not, itself, a reasoned argument.

In short: Where did I go wrong in my proof that guns are not moral agents?

I never said guns were moral agents themselves. People kill people, as most gun right activists say; however, those committed to mass murder have a propensity to pickup a GUN to commit the intrinsic evil, as I’ve said before.

Semantics doesn’t make an argument, or a ‘falsification’, as you like to say. Whatever Protestants ‘feel’ has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion, or the topic of this thread, and I question the choice of that analogy.

As I’ve had to repeat myself, yet again, I won’t be responding to this thread anymore.

 

[Ender]

We that adhere to Catholic teaching do not consider ourselves to be the arbiter of Truth. That is why I am still amazed that some who claim to be Catholic elevate their contrary opinions as truth and the opinions of our bishops as asinine. Is there any bishop that you could reference given an opinion on this that you do not, in your** opinion**, consider to be asinine?

Opinions on topics such as this are expressions of what one believes to be true and facts are no more the property of bishops than of butchers. It seems that the position of some bishops is that more gun controls would help prevent crime, especially mass murders, but where is the argument to support that perception? There is no more reason to believe that bishops know the effects various gun control legislation would have than to believe they know how to alleviate global warming. There is no reason to believe - on subjects such as this which have nothing whatever to do with faith, morals, or even the prudential application of doctrine - that the opinions of bishops carry any of the weight of their office.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Opinions on topics such as this are expressions of what one believes to be true and facts are no more the property of bishops than of butchers.

You follow your butcher. I will follow my bishop. At least you are claiming gun ownershipship is a matter of divine Truth or that the bishops are asinine.

 

[Ender]

You follow your butcher. I will follow my bishop.

I’ll follow whoever makes the most reasonable argument.

At least you are claiming gun ownership is a matter of divine Truth or that the bishops are asinine.

Not at all. The church has no objection to a person owning or even carrying a weapon with the intention of defending himself and to say that I disagree with someone is not to call that person asinine. I disagree with you but I don’t think you are asinine. I just think you are mistaken.

Ender

 

[jay29]

In general, I don’t think Bishops completely understand this issue. They look at guns and not people are the problem.

 

[Anthony_Joseph]

Jay 29 is absolutely right. The Bishops cannot separate the gun from the crime. Guns are not responsible for crimes people are.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jay 29 is absolutely right. The Bishops cannot separate the gun from the crime. Guns are not responsible for crimes people are.

Others cannot make the connection. It is people committing the crime and guns are the tools they use the majority of the time.

 

[Ender]

Others cannot make the connection. It is people committing the crime and guns are the tools they use the majority of the time.

This is not the issue raised by this thread. Even if we correctly understood the problem that wouldn’t mean we knew how to resolve it (although it would certainly be a good start.) The point in all this is that there is no reason to believe one or two bishops know any more about how to resolve this problem than anyone else. I think they recognize this fact themselves given that they didn’t suggest any specific solutions. Essentially what they said was “Something needs to be done and we think tighter controls would help.” It is reasonable to differ on that assumption. It is not reasonable to claim that the church has spoken on this point and is opposed to the private ownership of hand guns and assault rifles.

Ender