Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[scipio337]

Except I was referring to your comparison between loving bread pudding and gun control.

I think he made the point well, that it is a minor issue, compared to the issues where Cardinal Dolan is in 100% disagreement with the administration.

Giving even the appearance of being on the same side on a minor issue compared to the intrinsically serious issues of no agreement just looks poor, and gives dissident Catholics a chance to say “see, the Cardinal agrees with the president on some things.”

 

[Lucky7]

I think he made the point well, that it is a minor issue, compared to the issues where Cardinal Dolan is in 100% disagreement with the administration.

And like I said, the Cardinal’s agreement in this matter isn’t suddenly making liberal Catholics love him. I really think some of you are making a bigger deal of his agreement with “evil incarnate” here.

And as much as I dislike Obama, I’m not willing to equate him with Hitler.

 

[SamH]

And as much as I dislike Obama, I’m not willing to equate him with Hitler.

Agreed, he’s more a Grigory Yevseevich type.

 

[Least]

Nothing particularly objectionable in Bobby’s words, they should resonate with Americans in many respects.

Yeah, but nothing like the AR variant in the poster, nice. Kinda new old-school.

: )

Thank GOD somebody’s willing to kill for the opportunity to blargue, or some of you would have grown up cowering in a root cellar.

 

[Ender]

I’ll ask you, like I’ve asked others; please show us the bold and strong leaders who are preaching gun rights as you would agree with.

For me it isn’t a question of whether Cardinal Dolan is right in his assumption that stricter gun control laws would be beneficial. What disturbs me is the fact that in speaking out on an issue (about which he himself recognizes he is no expert) he causes Catholics to assume that, because of his position in the Church, he (a) knows what he’s talking about and (b) his is the moral position and those contrary to it by definition are less moral or even immoral.

There are any number of issues about which it is proper for the clergy to speak out on but it seems to me that bishops have gone way too far over the line into areas where their involvement is actually harmful if only because it contributes to a coarsening of the debate. You can see it in discussions like this one when, instead of arguing about why a position is incorrect, someone suggests that the person holding it is a wayward Catholic for not following the opinions of the clergy. It isn’t helpful.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Instead, How about we not debate any further. I tryed and failed. Liberalism blinds THE TRUTH.

It’s been more than declared that the Cardinal is wrong, but without any man of the Church speaking in favor of gun rights as is being conveyed on this thread. Are the men of the Church united on this subject?

 

[jay29]

It’s been more than declared that the Cardinal is wrong, but without any man of the Church speaking in favor of gun rights as is being conveyed on this thread. Are the men of the Church united on this subject?

Silence doesn’t mean united or in agreement.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Silence doesn’t mean united or in agreement.

But it can be taken as an automatic disagreement?

People have stated the Cardinal was not speaking for all bishops, the Church, or even offering a spiritual/moral guidance, even though he references the Holy See’s actions, the Catechism, and actions of the bishops. They said these things without showing there was a different opinion from the Holy See, or any of the bishops. It’s been said that this was not a moral issue that a man of the Church should be speaking on. These challenges come from laypersons; people who put themselves in a position of knowing scriptures better, the Catechism better, or even if it is an issue in which moral guidance was needed from a voice of the Church. There is no comparison of equals in the hierarchy; that is a voice of a different opinion.

 

[Lucky7]

For me it isn’t a question of whether Cardinal Dolan is right in his assumption that stricter gun control laws would be beneficial. What disturbs me is the fact that in speaking out on an issue (about which he himself recognizes he is no expert) he causes Catholics to assume that, because of his position in the Church, he (a) knows what he’s talking about and (b) his is the moral position and those contrary to it by definition are less moral or even immoral.

There are any number of issues about which it is proper for the clergy to speak out on but it seems to me that bishops have gone way too far over the line into areas where their involvement is actually harmful if only because it contributes to a coarsening of the debate. You can see it in discussions like this one when, instead of arguing about why a position is incorrect, someone suggests that the person holding it is a wayward Catholic for not following the opinions of the clergy. It isn’t helpful.

Ender

And I keep coming back to clegymen speaking on whether or not to go to war. If they can do this, they can speak up on gun control.

I would agree, however, that one can disagree with those clergymen in these sorts of things (and should not be seen as wayward Catholics), but in my experience more often than not the clergymen are usually on the right side of the issue. They are much better at, better equipped, have more experience in applying Church teaching, etc to these issues than a lay person. It would behoove us to listen.

 

[Lucky7]

But it can be taken as an automatic disagreement?

People have stated the Cardinal was not speaking for all bishops, the Church, or even offering a spiritual/moral guidance, even though he references the Holy See’s actions, the Catechism, and actions of the bishops. They said these things without showing there was a different opinion from the Holy See, or any of the bishops. It’s been said that this was not a moral issue that a man of the Church should be speaking on. These challenges come from laypersons; people who put themselves in a position of knowing scriptures better, the Catechism better, or even if it is an issue in which moral guidance was needed from a voice of the Church. There is no comparison of equals in the hierarchy; that is a voice of a different opinion.

Agreed.

 

[Ender]

People have stated the Cardinal was not speaking for all bishops…

A bishop’s authority extends only to his own diocese. This comment by Bishop Martino in 2008 laid it out pretty clearly:
“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn’t speak for me. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”
The document he was referencing in that instance was one approved by the full body of bishops.

It’s been said that this was not a moral issue

Identify the moral challenge in determining what actions will work. This is the basis of my position so if you can show what moral question is involved here you will undermine my entire argument.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

A bishop’s authority extends only to his own diocese. This comment by Bishop Martino in 2008 laid it out pretty clearly:
“No USCCB document is relevant in this diocese. The USCCB doesn’t speak for me. There is one teacher in this diocese, and these points are not debatable.”
The document he was referencing in that instance was one approved by the full body of bishops.

Identify the moral challenge in determining what actions will work. This is the basis of my position so if you can show what moral question is involved here you will undermine my entire argument.

Ender

Yet, the Cardinal referenced the Holy See, and the Catechism; in addition to the bishops. Where does those authorities reach?

Now, you showed a bishops declaration of authority over his diocese, but it doesn’t show a direct correlation to the topic of gun control. Was those things being said on this topic, or was Bishop Martino speaking out precisely in favor of gun rights?

 

[Ender]

Yet, the Cardinal referenced the Holy See, and the Catechism; in addition to the bishops. Where does those authorities reach?

He was making a logical argument in favor of his position. The argument wasn’t a very good one and his authority extends no farther than the diocese of New York City. Let me also point out that while he gave his support to the new NY State law and Obama’s comments he never said New Yorkers had to do the same. Even if I lived in the City I would still be just as free to hold my own opinion.

Now, you showed a bishops declaration of authority over his diocese, but it doesn’t show a direct correlation to the topic of gun control. Was those things being said on this topic, or was Bishop Martino speaking out precisely in favor of gun rights?

The comment by Bishop Martino had nothing to do with gun control, he was speaking about the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship” but the point is the same: no one, not even the entire USCCB, speaks for another bishop.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

He was making a logical argument in favor of his position. The argument wasn’t a very good one and his authority extends no farther than the diocese of New York City. Let me also point out that while he gave his support to the new NY State law and Obama’s comments he never said New Yorkers had to do the same. Even if I lived in the City I would still be just as free to hold my own opinion.
The comment by Bishop Martino had nothing to do with gun control, he was speaking about the USCCB document “Faithful Citizenship” but the point is the same: no one, not even the entire USCCB, speaks for another bishop.

Ender

What he said directly addressed the Holy See ‘position’ globally, and his authority reaches the same.

Then please show us the bishop that speaks up for gun rights, as has been conveyed on these forums, for his diocese, or are they in agreement on this issue for their own perspective diocese?

 

[Frank_Drebin]

And I keep coming back to clegymen speaking on whether or not to go to war. If they can do this, they can speak up on gun control.

I would agree, however, that one can disagree with those clergymen in these sorts of things (and should not be seen as wayward Catholics), but in my experience more often than not the clergymen are usually on the right side of the issue. They are much better at, better equipped, have more experience in applying Church teaching, etc to these issues than a lay person. It would behoove us to listen.

Who is not listening? Everyone agrees with the Bishop’s statement to one degree or another. It was intentionally vague enough such that we all can.

Sadly, on the actual non-negotiable issues, he disagrees with Obama and his ilk on every single one, and thus, there can be no disagreement, and they are wrong.

No one is wrong when speaking on negotiable issues in vague terms when admitting the speaker is not qualified to get into “details.”

The only issue Bishops are qualified 100% of the time to get into details as experts on as non-negotiable issues of faith and morals.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

What he said directly addressed the Holy See ‘position’ globally, and his authority reaches the same.

Then please show us the bishop that speaks up for gun rights, as has been conveyed on these forums, for his diocese, or are they in agreement on this issue for their own perspective diocese?

Show us where Bishops have ever been 100% correct on issues that are not related to faith and morals, especially when they admit they are not experts of familiar with details.

If you poll the Bishops (as they do the uninformed voters in this country) and asked them if they favored tightening of current gun laws, they’d almost always ay yes.

Yet when asked what the current laws are that they believe need strengthening, they will not have a clue, because few do know their current localities laws.

And if this is the case, why would ANYONE give any credence to that opinion?

If someone told you that the last Spiderman movie needed work on is screenplay, and you asked them why, and the person said “well, I’ve never seen it” I suspect you wouldn’t give the opinion any credence. People who want to strengthen gun laws without know gun laws are just running their mouth needlessly, and doing so with a lot of hubris as well.

It would do more people well to remain silent on things they really don;t know enough about. Or should we ask for an opinion on wormholes as well, since the Cardinal doesn’t know anything about them either?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Who is not listening? Everyone agrees with the Bishop’s statement to one degree or another. It was intentionally vague enough such that we all can.

Sadly, on the actual non-negotiable issues, he disagrees with Obama and his ilk on every single one, and thus, there can be no disagreement, and they are wrong.

No one is wrong when speaking on negotiable issues in vague terms when admitting the speaker is not qualified to get into “details.”

The only issue Bishops are qualified 100% of the time to get into details as experts on as non-negotiable issues of faith and morals.

It’s not as intentionally vague as some are making it out to be, in my opinion. It seems a vague qualification is being sought so as to maintain a view, the same as fitting a teaching to a view, as opposed to attempting to fit a view to a teaching.

Non-negotiable issues are not the limit of the authoritative men of the Church’s authority in moral guidance This issue has implications on innocent people. We can support legislation, which amounts to sacrifices or inconveniences, on behalf of those innocents.

The argument becomes a secular right verses a spiritual obligation, or that which is Caesar’s and that which is God’s. It’s perspective.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Show us where Bishops have ever been 100% correct on issues that are not related to faith and morals, especially when they admit they are not experts of familiar with details.

If you poll the Bishops (as they do the uninformed voters in this country) and asked them if they favored tightening of current gun laws, they’d almost always ay yes.

Yet when asked what the current laws are that they believe need strengthening, they will not have a clue, because few do know their current localities laws.

And if this is the case, why would ANYONE give any credence to that opinion?

If someone told you that the last Spiderman movie needed work on is screenplay, and you asked them why, and the person said “well, I’ve never seen it” I suspect you wouldn’t give the opinion any credence. People who want to strengthen gun laws without know gun laws are just running their mouth needlessly, and doing so with a lot of hubris as well.

It would do more people well to remain silent on things they really don;t know enough about. Or should we ask for an opinion on wormholes as well, since the Cardinal doesn’t know anything about them either?

Then the Church has no authority because we know what’s better for us than the men of the Church? That’s what all this sounds like. If the Cardinal is wrong, show us the one authoritative man of the Church that is speaking correctly on the subject.

The Cardinal spoke on his lack of ‘expert’ status, and those who have the responsibility to legislate and interpret. He speaks spiritually, and not secular, in the interest of our fellow man. I give him credence and do not believe he is ‘running his mouth needlessly’.

There are 26 people in Newtown who remain silent on the issue. The majority were children, who probably didn’t know much about guns. Should we dismiss their situation? One doesn’t have to be an ‘expert’ to know there is a problem…

 

[jay29]

There are 26 people in Newtown who remain silent on the issue. The majority were children, who probably didn’t know much about guns. Should we dismiss their situation? One doesn’t have to be an ‘expert’ to know there is a problem…

We have a people problem. What don’t you get?

The firearm deaths in this country is very tiny compared to how many are in circulation. It’s the tiny amount of guns used by the tiny amount of criminals that the democrats are using to control the entire mass of people and eviscerate the 2nd amendment hated so much by the left in this country way before any mass shooting occured. It’s very dishonest at best.

I’m 100% correct.

 

[scipio337]

And I keep coming back to clegymen speaking on whether or not to go to war. If they can do this, they can speak up on gun control. …

Only if one is making a moral equivalence of peaceful gun ownership = an act of war.