Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[nitesnake]

I believe Cardinal Dolan holds such views in accord with Catholic teaching and not with respect to left or right political ideology.

Believe what you wish. * All* of the issues I listed are political opinions loudly proclaimed by the USCCB. They are nowhere in church doctrine, canon law or the CCC.
They are nothing more than left wing political ideologies being trotted out into the media and the church under the guise of “pastoral care.”

 

[Bill_Martin]

Ah yes, that invaluable term “law abiding citizen”. Which really means anybody before they commit a murder.

Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” until last December 13.

So?

 

[Schism_hater]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
Ah yes, that invaluable term “law abiding citizen”. Which really means anybody before they commit a murder.

Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” until last December 13.

“Bill Martin”:
So?

I guess I’ll spell it out for you. So the term “law abiding citizen” in these discussions is a canard. There is no way to determine before hand who is a “law abiding citizen” and therefore “entitled” to own a semi with 100 round magazine and who is not.

 

[Lucky7]

I believe Cardinal Dolan holds such views in accord with Catholic teaching and not with respect to left or right political ideology. If anything, from the perspective of liberals, he appears rather conservative but, again, I don’t think he is really aligned with either political party, since neither party is or should be the foundation of Catholic moral doctrine.

On at least one of the issues you list–government-forced health care–there is room for debate regarding his position.

And we have a winner!

There are issues that the Catholic Church better aligns with Democrats and others it better aligns with Republicans. Some issues are hard and fast; for others there is some give and take.

Cardinal Dolan is first and foremost an orthodox Catholic; therefore, I tend to think we should at least listen to his opinion on this matter and not call him names.

 

[Bill_Martin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
Ah yes, that invaluable term “law abiding citizen”. Which really means anybody before they commit a murder.

Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” until last December 13.

“Bill Martin”:
So?

I guess I’ll spell it out for you. So the term “law abiding citizen” in these discussions is a canard. There is no way to determine before hand who is a “law abiding citizen” and therefore “entitled” to own a semi with 100 round magazine and who is not.

Then what are you suggesting? Take away everyone’s rights because they might eventually be a criminal?

Might as well put everyone in jail preemptively too, since they might commit a crime at some point.

 

[Gricken]

I think before anyone even TALKS about banning weapons, we need to better educate those who use them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I believe Cardinal Dolan holds such views in accord with Catholic teaching and not with respect to left or right political ideology. If anything, from the perspective of liberals, he appears rather conservative but, again, I don’t think he is really aligned with either political party, since neither party is or should be the foundation of Catholic moral doctrine.

On at least one of the issues you list–government-forced health care–there is room for debate regarding his position.

Some are very critical of the men of the Church when they express guidance opposite of their own personal view. This criticism lacks endorsement from any other men of the Church to support those personal views, which makes the criticism appear to be against the Church as a whole.

 

[SamH]

I guess I’ll spell it out for you. So the term “law abiding citizen” in these discussions is a canard. There is no way to determine before hand who is a “law abiding citizen” and therefore “entitled” to own a semi with 100 round magazine and who is not.

Agreed. The same arguement can be made that woman is a prostitute, and every man is a rapist.

 

[SamH]

I think before anyone even TALKS about banning weapons, we need to better educate those who use them.

And those that don’t.

 

[Least]

And we have a winner!

There are issues that the Catholic Church better aligns with Democrats and others it better aligns with Republicans. Some issues are hard and fast; for others there is some give and take.

Cardinal Dolan is first and foremost an orthodox Catholic; therefore, I tend to think we should at least listen to his opinion on this matter and not call him names.

• • Lucky7

Like I posted initially, APSOTASY, or else the Cardinal buys the WHOLE O’Bama package, and if you have a “D” after your name you are a MONSTER, due to your support of abortion alone. History has already spoken. JESUS dined with sinners too, he just didn’t do it to be convinced by them. The government is lying when it says it can protect you at the level of the individual, it is a damnable lie when the Church swears to it.

If GOD intends this whole shooting match to be over today, then I would lay down my gun and await my LORD coming for all of us. However, I was instructed to ignore those that said with any certainty the day or the hour of HIS return, so I will do a great many things to aid me and mine reaching the day that HE does come. In the meantime you prevent yourself from causing me to void my Christianity, and I will do likewise, but be forewared that it would be ignorant to assume that my (or anyone’s) Christianiy would not be the first part of our mutuality that is chucked, should our little agreement break-down. I have been shot at several times, and had to fear being shot many many more, never did it cause the 10 Commandments to spring into my immediate consciousness. If that makes me evil, a sinner, un-Christian, then you pray for my Soul.

Further, if the government says it cannot protect you unless it removes your means of protecting yourself, only the first part of that statement is true.

Forgive the quote of a Deist here:
“Common sense will tell us that the power which hath endeavored to subdue us, is of all
others the most improper to defend us. Conquest may be effected under the pretence of
friendship; and ourselves, after a long and brave resistance, be at last cheated into
slavery…. Wherefore, if we must here-after protect ourselves, why not do it for ourselves?
Why do it for another?” (Paine Common Sense pg. 47)” [emphasis mine]

The govenment is We The People (in the US and, if honesty be had, everywhere else as well). You are no more noble a creature than me. Don’t you dare attempt to tell me what the limit is of my means of defending myself and mine.

μολὼν λαβέ
molṑn labé
MOLON LABE

 

[ProVobis]

Might as well put everyone in jail preemptively too, since they might commit a crime at some point.

I heard a statistic that perhaps 25% of the population is capable of pulling a trigger given the right stimulus (fear, anger, hatred, drunkenness, etc.) Most of them could be considered law-abiding and “stable” otherwise. But if we go your way, everyone in jail would want to protect themselves with a gun too. If anyone needs a gun to defend themselves, they sure do.

 

[Ender]

There are issues that the Catholic Church better aligns with Democrats and others it better aligns with Republicans.

This seems to be a fairly common position, nonetheless I believe it is seriously mistaken because for all but a tiny number of issues the church has no position at all. It may well be true that some bishops have taken positions that accord better with one party than with another but it is not at all true that this somehow constitutes an expression of church doctrine. The church has no specific position on gun control. Nor does she have one on immigration, health care, the budget, taxes or any of the other political issues with which governments must deal. On all of those issues, regardless of the opinions expressed by some bishops, the church is mute. It is only on the handful of issues dealing with intrinsic evils where the church can truly be said to have a position.

Cardinal Dolan is first and foremost an orthodox Catholic; therefore, I tend to think we should at least listen to his opinion on this matter and not call him names.

Whatever Cardinal Dolan’s opinion is it is first and foremost an opinion. It is not church doctrine and no one is obliged to accept it. If we are to accept his position it must be because he can providing a convincing argument to support it … which is exactly the same criterion that applies to all of us.

Ender

 

[jay29]

Ah yes, that invaluable term “law abiding citizen”. Which really means anybody before they commit a murder.

Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” until last December 13.

That’s the way it goes in society. There are lines to be crossed.

 

[jay29]

The govenment is We The People (in the US and, if honesty be had, everywhere else as well). You are no more noble a creature than me. Don’t you dare attempt to tell me what the limit is of my means of defending myself and mine.

μολὼν λαβέ
molṑn labé
MOLON LABE

AMEN! The government is not going to dictate to me how I am going to defend myself and household by taking choices away from me.

Those in government are my servants and I am not theirs. This notion has been completely lost in government.

 

[Least]

I heard a statistic that perhaps 25% of the population is capable of pulling a trigger given the right stimulus (fear, anger, hatred, drunkenness, etc.) Most of them could be considered law-abiding and “stable” otherwise. But if we go your way, everyone in jail would want to protect themselves with a gun too. If anyone needs a gun to defend themselves, they sure do.

– W H A T??? You just quoted someone who said that

fear, anger, hatred, drunkenness, etc.

would be the RIGHT STIMULUS?? Someone ought to go take your gun.

Continuing with the remainder of your above quote. . .

People in jail have availed themselves of Society and thereafter, or concurrently, worked against it. They have self-evidently decided that their co-mingling with the rest of us cannot be mutually maintained. Felons have self-evidently decided that such is a PERMANENT condition with them, and yes, by law, they have given over, of themselves, their means of self-protection that can also be determined to be too-readily, also, an Offensive capability (as determined by Society) IN EXCHANGE FOR NOT BEING ERADICATED BY THE REMAINDER OF SOCIETY *.

Base-lined another way, your life is worth nothing to me. Now convince me otherwise without using my Christianity. Now consider that it might take a gun to buy you enough time to make that argument. Now, give me your gun.*

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Now convince me otherwise without using my Christianity.

I don’t think anyone is using anyone’s Christianity. Some find consolation in the guidance offered by the Cardinal, and his references to the Holy See, the Catechism, and the views expressed by the bishops. His ‘common ground’, which is short of full agreement on every issue, is in that something needs to be done.

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.”

The Cardinal was clear on his qualifications, and applications, and those with the responsibility.

…Senators of both parties are working together on tough new laws to prevent anyone from buying guns for resale to criminals…

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.

He is not aligning with a political party, over another, by expressing his views; which Catholics can accept as an example of guidance. While people are free to disagree, there seems to be a lack of respect for the man of the Church, that has dedicated his life to serving God. He is as free to his opinion, without being called an apostate, as those are free to their opinion in disagreement. Some posts have been over the line disrespectful, in my honest opinion. One can disagree respectfully, as is due a man of the Church; especially when they disagree without producing men of the Church in agreement with those who disagree.

The Cardinal has agreed to the need of controls, short of an eradication. This is not an all or nothing as some make it out to be.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
Ah yes, that invaluable term “law abiding citizen”. Which really means anybody before they commit a murder.

Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” until last December 13.

“Bill Martin”:
So?

I guess I’ll spell it out for you. So the term “law abiding citizen” in these discussions is a canard. There is no way to determine before hand who is a “law abiding citizen” and therefore “entitled” to own a semi with 100 round magazine and who is not.

Nor is there any way to quantify statements like “sensible gun controls” since everyone agrees with the term, and very few agree what sensible refers to.

Some see the term to mean limits on cartidge size. Some take it to mean three year olds can’t buy guns.

So when Obama or anyone else refers to “common sense” approaches and “sensible restrictions” what he is really saying is “you only disagree if you are too stupid to get it.”

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schism hater
Ah yes, that invaluable term “law abiding citizen”. Which really means anybody before they commit a murder.

Adam Lanza was a “law abiding citizen” until last December 13.

“Bill Martin”:
So?

I guess I’ll spell it out for you. So the term “law abiding citizen” in these discussions is a canard. There is no way to determine before hand who is a “law abiding citizen” and therefore “entitled” to own a semi with 100 round magazine and who is not.

Nor is there any way to quantify statements like “sensible gun controls” since everyone agrees with the term, and very few agree what sensible refers to.

Some see the term to mean limits on cartidge size. Some take it to mean three year olds can’t buy guns.

So when Obama or anyone else refers to “common sense” approaches and “sensible restrictions” what he is really saying is “you only disagree if you are too stupid to get it.”

This seems to be a fairly common position, nonetheless I believe it is seriously mistaken because for all but a tiny number of issues the church has no position at all. It may well be true that some bishops have taken positions that accord better with one party than with another but it is not at all true that this somehow constitutes an expression of church doctrine. The church has no specific position on gun control. Nor does she have one on immigration, health care, the budget, taxes or any of the other political issues with which governments must deal. On all of those issues, regardless of the opinions expressed by some bishops, the church is mute. It is only on the handful of issues dealing with intrinsic evils where the church can truly be said to have a position.
Whatever Cardinal Dolan’s opinion is it is first and foremost an opinion. It is not church doctrine and no one is obliged to accept it. If we are to accept his position it must be because he can providing a convincing argument to support it … which is exactly the same criterion that applies to all of us.

Ender

Yep. People who make the case that the Church agrees with both sides on some issues really aren’t being honest. It makes them feel better about secretly (or openly) supporting things the Church opposes. The Church takes official stands on intrinsically evil matters or non-negotiables, and little else politically. The rest is guidance we can infer some basics on.

Like you said, we know where she stands without any question on legitimizing gay-“marriage”, abortions, embryionic stem cell research, cloning, and euthanasia. Many if not all are core parts of the Democratic party platform.

The closest you’ll find is the divide over the death penalty, but that is only recently, and since the death penalty is not an instrinsic evil in every case, the brush is simply too broad.

It’s like accusing someone of genocide, and having them say “well, you left your underwear on the floor!”

That’s the way it goes in society. There are lines to be crossed.

True. Take the lower case letter t, for example.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

That’s the way it goes in society. There are lines to be crossed.

True. Take the lower case letter t, for example.

 

[Trader]

We had our own local experience with an assault style weapon last night:

fortwayne.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20130221/NEWS/320134867?mytabsmenu=

The common sense lesson here is: IF YOU ARE A FLEEING FELON, DO NOT POINT YOUR WEAPON AT A POLICE OFFICER. They are not going to debate pending gun control legislation with you. They do not believe that two officers against one criminal constitutes an unfair fight. They are trained to shoot you if you try this.

It is too late for Stephen O’Neal Wattley II to learn this lesson. He lived to be 21 without learning that lesson, but there is hope for everyone else. I highly doubt he obtained this rifle by honestly filling out a form that he intended to use it in an armed robbery of a drug store.