Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[Least]

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.

He started his statement by “agreeing” with the President, he could just have taken his OWN stance, and we could have taken him at that with a “thanks but we didn’t ask.” The truth is never disrespectful. It is apostasy to side with the President ON ANYTHING, OR it is to say that you agree with him WHOLLY. With the President’s (and all other Democrat’s) stance on abortion being abhorrent to the Holy Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Church, I would think that the Cardinal would have avoided the unnecessary citation.

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.

Christians are hunted around the globe, the Cardinal is hoping to avoid that in the US by giving up before the season opens?

 

[ProVobis]

– W H A T??? You just quoted someone who said that would be the RIGHT STIMULUS??

Not morally right. But “right” in the sense of “enough.”

Now, give me your gun.

Now we’re getting somewhere. How much is it worth to you?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

He started his statement by “agreeing” with the President, he could just have taken his OWN stance, and we could have taken him at that with a “thanks but we didn’t ask.” The truth is never disrespectful. It is apostasy to side with the President ON ANYTHING, OR it is to say that you agree with him WHOLLY. With the President’s (and all other Democrat’s) stance on abortion being abhorrent to the Holy Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Church, I would think that the Cardinal would have avoided the unnecessary citation.

Kind of like saying “Robert Mugabe and I share common ground on this issue.” Common sense and perception generally make prominent religious figures, whose comments and actions are used to attack and wound their own Church, much more sly when it comes to this sort of thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He started his statement by “agreeing” with the President, he could just have taken his OWN stance, and we could have taken him at that with a “thanks but we didn’t ask.” The truth is never disrespectful. It is apostasy to side with the President ON ANYTHING, OR it is to say that you agree with him WHOLLY. With the President’s (and all other Democrat’s) stance on abortion being abhorrent to the Holy Catholic Church, and Roman Catholic Church, I would think that the Cardinal would have avoided the unnecessary citation.

Christians are hunted around the globe, the Cardinal is hoping to avoid that in the US by giving up before the season opens?

No, it’s not apostasy, and he doesn’t agree with the president ‘wholly’. Where are the men of the Church that agree with your view on the subject, showing the Cardinal is outside of Church teaching, and in this apostasy you keep claiming?

The early Church began with Christ and the Apostles. Through 300 years of direct persecution, under penalty of death, the Church, not only survived, it thrived to what it is today.

 

[Lucky7]

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 you go back to my post you will see that I have not told anyone to accept his opinion, but to listen to it and not call him names.

I once thought a Cardinal (and Pope) was dead wrong in his opinion of going to war with Iraq. I learned from that lesson. I learned that even though we aren’t obligated to agree with the heirarchy when it comes to certain things, it might behoove us if we did.

 

[Lucky7]

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.

Are you insinuating (or not so insinuating but actually saying) that I am being dishonest? I get that there are certian non-negotiables, but there are a decent #of other social issues where the Church’s philosophy leans towards the Dem side. I am not a Democrat (which is what I think you and Least seem to think), so I’m not arguing for the D side. I’m just pointing out that you can find Catholic on both sides…to some degree. When it comes to the issue of gun control, I happen to think that the Church leans towards the D side. I wasn’t trying to make this political…I was responding to someone else’s post.

And, if you are so sure that the Church doesn’t make official stands on these other issues perhaps you should take a gander at the USCCB website.

 

[Lucky7]

Ditto.

Def of Apostasy: total repudiation of Christianity.

Um, no.

 

[Geist]

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,’” the cardinal said.

Who are these people? Surely not the same old and new gun owners causing weapons and ammo being backordered up to two years? I don’t know a single one gun owner clamoring for more laws. In fact its been entirely the opposite.

This is a media driven meme with no basis in reality, these mythical gun owners eager to have their rights eroded even more. Nonsense.

20,000+ gun laws are 20,000+ too many as it is.

 

[jay29]

I think demonizing an in animate object that holds no moral value is ludicrous. That’s like trying to hold the scalpal and vacuum cleaner responsible for abortion instead of the actual people involved. Absolutely no logic in the gun control laws. They have no effect on the criminals. Then again the whole gun control lobby is not about controlling the criminal who only represents a small part of the population and only has a small percentage of guns. Gun control is about controlling 300+ million guns and millions of law abiding people that have them instead of the actual criminals. Yes, guns are meant for killing, but that isn’t the actual problem. It depends on what the person is killing. I see no logic on the gun control side of things.

 

[Least]

The idea that the Cardinal is apostate due to his stance on this issue is inherently ludicrous.

My comment was not directly in relation to the Cardinal’s gun-control issue/stance.

I defer, to nearly all of my own faith, in matters of my own faith. I mean the Cardinal no ill-will, my comment on Apostasy is based upon my own understanding of the term. It means basically ‘go-along to get-along, so as to not be forced into a position where you would be forced to suffer for outwardly upholding your faith.’ So my statement was that, either, the Cardinal was going-along to get-long (Apostasy), OR the Cardinal was wholly in agreement with the President, a Democrat, including the President’s stance on abortion, or he would not have claimed “agreement.”

I do not believe it should be that any representative of my faith should hold-out as being in agreement with persons/movements/groups/positions that are opposite of Church teachings whatsoever. Like I stated or inferred, with the Church’s stance on abortion being that it is absolutely abhorrent, I would think that the Cardinal would avoid concurrence on any matter with any Democrat to avoid being “lumped” with them in 'belief."

If the Cardinal felt strongly enough about gun-control HE NEEDED NO OTHER SUPPORT OR SOURCE OF COALITION, he could have exercised his opinion of office, and it would have been received slightly differently but his position would still have left him (and the Church if not refuted) as the third-man in the fight, and to several here, an obviously un-welcome one.

However, I speak only for myself, and mine.

I personally, and fervently believe that the Catholic Church exists today because Christianity has been so widely accepted in the United States. MEANING ONLY THAT, apart from the absolute DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF GOD, the United States could wage war on the Vatican by merely claiming that it would stand idly-by should anyone care to take action against Rome. I further believe that there are earthly forces already mustered against the church both here and abroad, that would welcome that day.

I further believe that the United States solely through the DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF GOD, continues to exist, because of equal internal-pressure from its citizenry EACH AS INDIVIDUALS, to prevent those seeking power to subdue those individuals, or attempt to diminish the importance of DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF GOD in America’s continuance.

Those people protect themselves with arms. History has too many examples within a previous generation or two, where this argument has played out negatively, and Society was restored to the people without arms, by armed-people. There is not a nation in the history of mankind that has not undergone upheval, but that upheval has not been caused by those opposing absolute (earthly) authority. I stand forever with the Cardinal in matters of faith, but America is not his to give-away. He doesn’t have to agree with how America got to this still-early point in its history, but it is wrong to say that American’s possession of arms, has not been one of its bulwarks. Further the type of security that the Cardinal affirms that he is seeking, cannot be had, much less in the manner suggested, and history has so proven.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My comment was not directly in relation to the Cardinal’s gun-control issue/stance.

I defer, to nearly all of my own faith, in matters of my own faith. I mean the Cardinal no ill-will, my comment on Apostasy is based upon my own understanding of the term. It means basically ‘go-along to get-along, so as to not be forced into a position where you would be forced to suffer for outwardly upholding your faith.’ So my statement was that, either, the Cardinal was going-along to get-long (Apostasy), OR the Cardinal was wholly in agreement with the President, a Democrat, including the President’s stance on abortion, or he would not have claimed “agreement.”

I do not believe it should be that any representative of my faith should hold-out as being in agreement with persons/movements/groups/positions that are opposite of Church teachings whatsoever. Like I stated or inferred, with the Church’s stance on abortion being that it is absolutely abhorrent, I would think that the Cardinal would avoid concurrence on any matter with any Democrat to avoid being “lumped” with them in 'belief."

If the Cardinal felt strongly enough about gun-control HE NEEDED NO OTHER SUPPORT OR SOURCE OF COALITION, he could have exercised his opinion of office, and it would have been received slightly differently but his position would still have left him (and the Church if not refuted) as the third-man in the fight, and to several here, an obviously un-welcome one.

However, I speak only for myself, and mine.

I personally, and fervently believe that the Catholic Church exists today because Christianity has been so widely accepted in the United States. MEANING ONLY THAT, apart from the absolute DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF GOD, the United States could wage war on the Vatican by merely claiming that it would stand idly-by should anyone care to take action against Rome. I further believe that there are earthly forces already mustered against the church both here and abroad, that would welcome that day.

I further believe that the United States solely through the DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF GOD, continues to exist, because of equal internal-pressure from its citizenry EACH AS INDIVIDUALS, to prevent those seeking power to subdue those individuals, or attempt to diminish the importance of DIVINE PROVIDENCE OF GOD in America’s continuance.

Those people protect themselves with arms. History has too many examples within a previous generation or two, where this argument has played out negatively, and Society was restored to the people without arms, by armed-people. There is not a nation in the history of mankind that has not undergone upheval, but that upheval has not been caused by those opposing absolute (earthly) authority. I stand forever with the Cardinal in matters of faith, but America is not his to give-away. He doesn’t have to agree with how America got to this still-early point in its history, but it is wrong to say that American’s possession of arms, has not been one of its bulwarks. Further the type of security that the Cardinal affirms that he is seeking, cannot be had, much less in the manner suggested, and history has so proven.

a·pos·ta·sy
[uh-pos-tuh-see] Show IPA
noun, plural a·pos·ta·sies.
a total desertion of or departure from one’s religion, principles, party, cause, etc.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English apostasye (< Anglo-French ) < Late Latin apostasia < Greek: a standing away, withdrawing, equivalent to apóstas ( is ) ( apo- apo- + sta- stand + -sis -sis) + -ia -ia

Now, I kindly ask that you provide statements from the men of the Church, along with the sources, that agree with your view.

The United States is of this world; or it can be called secular. It does not come before the Church, which is a part of the Kingdom of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Christians are hunted around the globe, the Cardinal is hoping to avoid that in the US by giving up before the season opens?

Read the blog I provided a link to. The Cardinal explains his reasons.

 

[BigBlueCane]

I think demonizing an in animate object that holds no moral value is ludicrous. That’s like trying to hold the scalpal and vacuum cleaner responsible for abortion instead of the actual people involved. Absolutely no logic in the gun control laws. They have no effect on the criminals. Then again the whole gun control lobby is not about controlling the criminal who only represents a small part of the population and only has a small percentage of guns. Gun control is about controlling 300+ million guns and millions of law abiding people that have them instead of the actual criminals. Yes, guns are meant for killing, but that isn’t the actual problem. It depends on what the person is killing. I see no logic on the gun control side of things.

Assault weapons are made to kill a large amount of people in a very short amount of time. The Supreme Court has recently said that the 2nd amendment does protect the individual right to own a gun but it ALSO said that the government has the right to regulate that. Background checks, magazine clip limits, and assault weapons ban does NOTHING to violate the second amendment. It is the act of selfish people who would rather see more people get massacred than losing ANY KIND OF obstacle to them playing with their toys.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Assault weapons are made to kill a large amount of people in a very short amount of time. The Supreme Court has recently said that the 2nd amendment does protect the individual right to own a gun but it ALSO said that the government has the right to regulate that. Background checks, magazine clip limits, and assault weapons ban does NOTHING to violate the second amendment. It is the act of selfish people who would rather see more people get massacred than losing ANY KIND OF obstacle to them playing with their toys.

Yes, I am sure they’d rather see people massacred…

Anyway, how many massacres occur using assault weapons? Also, what is an assault weapon, IYO?

It is funny, both the right to bear arms and the right to vote are constitutionally protected, and when the issue of a simple voter ID comes up, opponents (on here) are quick to bring up issue of disenfranchisement and how it isn’t right to abridge a constitutionally protected right.

Not that I agree, but why isn’t that same argument extended to the right to bear arms? The argument in question isn’t an issue of safety with regards to voting, but simply that you can’t disenfranchise people of a constitutionally protected right.

It seems the same people who oppose voter IDs believe you can actually limit constitutionally protected rights.

 

[BigBlueCane]

It is funny, both the right to bear arms and the right to vote are constitutionally protected, and when the issue of a simple voter ID comes up, opponents (on here) are quick to bring up issue of disenfranchisement and how it isn’t right to abridge a constitutionally protected right.

Because the Supreme Court has said its ok to regulate guns. So it wouldn’t be infringing on anything.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, I am sure they’d rather see people massacred…

Anyway, how many massacres occur using assault weapons? Also, what is an assault weapon, IYO?

It is funny, both the right to bear arms and the right to vote are constitutionally protected, and when the issue of a simple voter ID comes up, opponents (on here) are quick to bring up issue of disenfranchisement and how it isn’t right to abridge a constitutionally protected right.

Not that I agree, but why isn’t that same argument extended to the right to bear arms? The argument in question isn’t an issue of safety with regards to voting, but simply that you can’t disenfranchise people of a constitutionally protected right.

It seems the same people who oppose voter IDs believe you can actually limit constitutionally protected rights.

I don’t think anyone wants to see massacres; however, it seems some minimize the mass shootings we’ve seen by asking for a precise definition of an ‘assault weapon.’ The media, politicians, and the majority of the public have a recognition of the AR15 as an assault weapon. Denying it isn’t going to change the subject. Would it be better if they stopped saying assault weapon and specifically identified the AR15, or whatever civilian replica of a military weapon it happens to be? What was used in the theater, the mall, the school, and against first responders? That weapon is identified as an assault weapon and no amount of semantics is going to change that.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Because the Supreme Court has said its ok to regulate guns. So it wouldn’t be infringing on anything.

Said the same thing about voter IDs, see the case in the state of Indiana.

 

[BigBlueCane]

Said the same thing about voter IDs, see the case in the state of Indiana.

Which is fine. But most of the cases that went to court in other states were overturned so that does say something. On the right to own guns, which is a federal issue, the highest court in the land said its ok to regulate.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I don’t think anyone wants to see massacres; however, it seems some minimize the mass shootings we’ve seen by asking for a precise definition of an ‘assault weapon.’ The media, politicians, and the majority of the public have a recognition of the AR15 as an assault weapon. Denying it isn’t going to change the subject. Would it be better if they stopped saying assault weapon and specifically identified the AR15, or whatever civilian replica of a military weapon it happens to be? What was used in the theater, the mall, the school, and against first responders? That weapon is identified as an assault weapon and no amount of semantics is going to change that.

The problem is without a precise definition in this sort of thing, you won’t get the results you want per se. Banning guns “just because I see no real need” is not the goal, so we are told.

I am far from an expert, so generally I stay out, but the whole genesis of the discussion is :what is the root cause of these mass killings, and what can we do to most effectively prevent mass killings?"

Somehow, and quite disingenuosly I believe, we went from those questions, which are noble on their face, to deciding on banning assault weapons, whatever they are.

Did anyone take the time to study and answer the first question, and then the second, before deciding that gun bans (whil not being effective in the past) are the answer to both, and specifically, assualt weapons (which presumes these are the weapons most responsible).

It just seems again, disingenuous, to claim to want to solve a serious problem we all recognize, but insert a predetrmined solution someone’s been dying to find an excuse for that may or may not have any real impact on the problem we are trying to solve.

And shouldn’t it be a muti-tiered approach? As Catholics, we should all recognize that the most effective way to eliminate all sin is to turn our hearts and minds back to God.Living our lives the way we are meant - serving Him, which would entail whole families raising children properly, not glorifying violence but glorifying Christ, spending time in prayer, and promoting a Good Samaritan approach.

But if that message is heard, it is maybe for a brief second, and then it is onto other issues that are not even close to the root cause of the problem.

I just find it hard to take people seriously who claim to want to solve a serious problem, but don;t want to do address the hard work and tough issues in order to solve that problem. To me, that implies the people in question may not really want to truly solve the problem.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Which is fine. But most of the cases that went to court in other states were overturned so that does say something. On the right to own guns, which is a federal issue, the highest court in the land said its ok to regulate.

Actually, no. Both voter IDs and some gun restrictions are legal. No challenge has said otherwise.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawford_v._Marion_County_Election_Board