Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
"ProdigalSon1:
Where does the requirement of infallibility come from? Because something is spoken from the Church that is not infallible, are we free to disregard it?
Actually, yes, we are.
No, this is not accurate. We are obligated to assent to the ordinary teachings of the church as well as those that are taught infallibly. We are not obliged to agree with prudential judgments although even there they are due our consideration.891* …When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.*
892* Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.*
Ender
 
No, this is not accurate. We are obligated to assent to the ordinary teachings of the church as well as those that are taught infallibly. We are not obliged to agree with prudential judgments although even there they are due our consideration.
891* …When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.*
892* Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.*
Ender
I’ve considered Cardinal Dolans thoughts and found them faulty, I am now free to disregard them.🤷
 
No, this is not accurate. We are obligated to assent to the ordinary teachings of the church as well as those that are taught infallibly. We are not obliged to agree with prudential judgments although even there they are due our consideration.891* …When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.*
892* Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.*
Ender
This I can assent to …ha ha.

I think the bottom line is that Cardinal Dolan may or may not be right. It behooves us to at least consider what he is saying. We do not HAVE to come to the same conclusions, but we should at least pay attention (and certainly not bad mouth/put down).

And that is all I have to say in this thread…it’s more than run its course.
 
No, this is not accurate. We are obligated to assent to the ordinary teachings of the church as well as those that are taught infallibly. We are not obliged to agree with prudential judgments although even there they are due our consideration.
891* …When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.*
892* Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals*. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
Ender
How does gun control become faith and morals?
 
Here’s Cardinal Dolan’s statement:

“I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts,”

The Good Cardinal has clearly acknowledged that he is unaware of any of the pertinent data that should guide any and all legislation on this issue. I see NO call to ban AR15’s or to designate 7 round clips as “morally acceptable”.

But he did say “However, there can be no denying that, in the wake of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Tucson, Columbine, and almost countless other horrific and senseless deaths by guns, that something must be done.”

Yeah? Like what? How about making schools secure? How about arming teachers? How about allowing more citizens to carry concealed weapons?

Is he even aware that “assault” weapons account for LESS THAN 2% OF ALL GUN CRIMES?

Are we to believe that Newtown is MORE morally unacceptable than the 98% of all other gun crimes?

The cardinal acknowledged that “no law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing.” But, he wrote, “we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns—and, I would add, by increasing funding for programs to treat those who suffer from mental illness, especially those that might lead someone to commit mass murder.”

Ah here we go, “by limiting the easy access to guns”

Easy access? Define “easy”. And define “access” by whom? Law abiding citizens?

What data is he citing to support any of these suppositions? I mean other than what he has obviously read in the Liberal mainstream media?

And where does Cardinal Dolan say (or even imply) that he is speaking from “The Spirit” on this issue?

And where exactly does he say or imply that “The Spirit” will guide this Socialistic power-hungery un-Constitutional Administration in their legislative endeavors on this?

ESPECIALLY in light of the outright blatant deception and betrayal that they foisted on the Church with ObamaCare’s HHS Mandate?

Why on earth should the faithful trust this Congress and Admin with our Constitutional Right to protect ourselves?

“Behold, I am sending you like sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and simple as doves." - Matthew 10:16
 
To Cardinal Dolan: the person in the title.🙂
Does Cardinal Dolan create the Legislation that will effect our personal safety?

Will he be able to stop any Legislation that will put us in more peril?

Is he telling us that we should trust our deceptive Caesar on this? Especially in light of the ObamaCare HHS Mandate Betrayal?
 
Prodigal Son 1

May I ask this again?

Were you this vocal in your support of the USCCB when they called for the faithful to protest Obama’s HHS Mandate?

If not, why?
 
Why should this surprise anyone? Dolan has always been notoriously chummy with leftists.
 
Perhaps if you listened to him, you would learn what he is in fact telling us.😉
By all means North, tell us what exactly Cardinal Dolan IS telling us?

Give us the specifics.

Do tell.

Remember: The Devil is in the details. And this Administration definitely has an ear for the Devil. No?
 
Well, I’ve listened/read the Cardinal’s comments and find them markedly deficient, but then they seemed to have been made in haste, under the urge to do/say something. And he even admits they were made by a man lacking the background to make a fully informed opinion.

When he elaborates and addresses modern history, and how modern history has validated the concerns of the framers of the constitution which resulted in the 2nd Amendment guarentee; when he makes a statement after researching the issues and becoming familiar with the facts he admits he lacks- I’ll listen to those as well.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/02/holocaust-researchers-catalogue-nazi-ghettos_n_2797031.html?ir=World

reformed-theology.org/html/issue06/governments.htm

Governments have killed far more people than criminals. This is the fundamental issue between Prodigal Son and myself, whether there is always a risk of the abuse of the power of government or not.
 
The Cardinals call for limiting gun related crimes is noble. And the advice of the bishops is always worth considering, even if it isn’t infalliable. That said, Dolan did admit that he does not have much experience with guns or gun related crimes. I think it is important to take his comments in context: A man who is dismayed by the increasing amount of deaths and wishes for legislatures to do SOMETHING. The thing we must remember is that while he called for legal action, he did not say what it was. That could mean anything from banning all guns, or adding armed guards to public places.

That said, I do not think banning assualt rifles (I refuse to use the term “assualt weapon” anymore) is the correct answer. If you wanted to ban any fireamrs based on danger, it makes far more sense to start with small handguns, which are used far more often in gun related crimes.

Note: I don’t think banning any guns is the correct answer, just pointing out what I think makes more sense.
 
I’ve considered Cardinal Dolans thoughts and found them faulty, I am now free to disregard them.
No argument from me. His comments are not doctrinal (ordinary or infallible); they are prudential and we are free to disagree with them. I agree with Cardinal Dulles when he said:“By issuing policy statements on matters that lie beyond their specific competence, and that pertain rather to experts in secular disciplines, the bishops diminish their own credibility in speaking about matters with which they are specially charged as spiritual leaders of the church.”
I think Cardinal Dolan’s comments were not at all helpful and it would have been better had he not made them.

Ender
 
Well, I’ve listened/read the Cardinal’s comments and find them markedly deficient, but then they seemed to have been made in haste, under the urge to do/say something. And he even admits they were made by a man lacking the background to make a fully informed opinion.
I really think you’ve just nailed the heart of the problem here styrgwillidar.

Cardinal Dolan was almost morally obliged to make a statement on Newtown. His silence could have easily been interpreted as a lack of moral leadership in the shadow of such a media feeding frenzy.

And to that end, the good Cardinal did his best to present Catholic moral teaching on this matter out of a good faith effort to law makers. And the time-line probably didn’t afford him the luxury to consult with dissenting views based on factual analysis of the pertinent data. He was, for the most part, hampered by the distorted “facts” presented by the predominantly Left-wing media.

The ultimate problem here, is that the USCCB are forced to rely on a morally corrupt and ruthlessly political Caesar to actually implement any “practical” measures in this matter.

In other words, the Bishops have a nearly impossible task on there hands.

I feel for them. I truly do.
 
By all means North, tell us what exactly Cardinal Dolan IS telling us?
Did you read his words?
Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments »
Advocating for Gun Control
February 15th, 2013
It’s been an extremely full week in terms of news, with Monday’s surprising announcement from Pope Benedict, and Wednesday’s start of Lent. But I wanted to be sure to take a moment to highlight the President’s call for sensible steps on gun control in his State of the Union address Tuesday night, as well as similar actions by Governor Cuomo here in New York State, and Mayor Bloomberg in New York City.

Gun control has been much on my mind since the Newtown killings, and, in particular, seeing the devastating effects that gun violence can bring when I celebrated the funeral Mass at Saint Mary of the Assumption parish in Katonah for Anne Marie Murphy, a brave teacher who died in that horrible tragedy, protecting her little student.

Advocating for gun control is not something new for the Church. The Holy See has continuously been a strong voice in opposition to international arms trading, the world’s version of gun control; it’s even in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official teaching of the Catholic faith (see numbers 2315-2316 in particular) . Here in the United States, the bishops have for decades supported measures to get handguns off the streets, and to ban assault weapons. To cite but one instance, in Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration, released in 2000, the bishops reiterated their support for legislative efforts that seek to protect society from the violence associated with easy access to deadly weapons. “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children and anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”

That’s why I found myself nodding in agreement when the President said, “I know this is not the first time this country has debated how to reduce gun violence. But this time is different. Overwhelming majorities of Americans — Americans who believe in the Second Amendment — have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun. Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals. Police chiefs are asking our help to get weapons of war and massive ammunition magazines off our streets, because these police chiefs, they’re tired of seeing their guys and gals being outgunned.” It’s also why I was very much in favor a month ago when our own New York State legislature, heeding the call of Governor Cuomo, passed NY Safe, (New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act) the most comprehensive gun control bill in the country.

Whenever I mention my support for gun control, the calls and emails come in, telling me that I’m naïve, reminding me of the Second Amendment to our Constitution, and arguing that the only thing gun control measures will accomplish is to keep guns out of the hands of honest, law-abiding people.

I don’t pretend to be an expert on what should be in each specific bill, and I will never be an authority on the number of bullets that should be in an ammo clip, or the proper way to conduct background checks before selling someone a firearm. That’s the proper responsibility of our legislators, and, should constitutional questions arise, of our courts. However, there can be no denying that, in the wake of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Tucson, Columbine, and almost countless other horrific and senseless deaths by guns, that something must be done.

For me, regulating and controlling guns is part of building a Culture of Life, of doing what we can to protect and defend human life. The easy access to guns, including assault weapons, that exists in our nation has contributed towards a Culture of Death, where human life and dignity are cheapened by the threat of violence. No law, no piece of legislation, will ever be able to protect us from every act of aggression, or from the harm that can come from an individual bent on killing. But, we must do what we can to minimize the opportunities for such acts, by limiting the easy access to guns – and, I would add, by increasing funding for programs to treat those who suffer from mental illness, especially those that might lead someone to commit mass murder.

I have a long list of things to pray for this Lent. Asking God’s help that our elected representatives in Washington and in state houses across the country have the courage and the wisdom to pass meaningful and effective gun control bills, will certainly have a prominent place in those prayers.
blog.archny.org/

His blog. His words.

And, in my humble opinion, very wise ones.
 
No, this is not accurate. We are obligated to assent to the ordinary teachings of the church as well as those that are taught infallibly. We are not obliged to agree with prudential judgments although even there they are due our consideration.891* …When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.*
892* Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.*
Ender
Are we allowed to disregard everything that not infallible? If yes, should we?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top