Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[ProVobis]

When will people stop equating sin with dissent?? Two very different things which require different responses.

When someone wishes removal of Baptism, that is more than dissent. For any Christian, not just Catholic, it implies condemnation to Hell.

 

[Ender]

You seem to think that the clergy has no business speaking about these things at all. YOU ARE WRONG.

There are some things where comments from the clergy are valid and there are also areas where their opinions are not helpful. War may be one of the former but gun control in the US is one of the latter.Let the layman not imagine that his pastors are always such experts, that to every problem which arises, however complicated, they can readily give him a concrete solution, or even that such is their mission. (Gaudium et Spes 43)
There is no reason to believe the bishops in general are any better informed on the issue than Cardinal Dolan, who has admitted that he is no expert on the subject. What, then, is the benefit of his comments? How does “we need to do something” help us decide what that something is that we should do? He can’t tell us (and hasn’t tried to) what laws should be passed and there is no moral question associated with determining what those laws should be so in what way are his comments beneficial?

Ender

 

[Ender]

With guidance, we are guided and not obligated. We have a moral duty to ‘obey our prelates’ and not dissect everything they say as ‘prudential’, or inexperienced.

I’m confused by this: if we are not obligated to obey then how can we have a moral duty to obey? “Obligated” and “moral duty” may be different words but they mean the same thing.

It is a moral issue, or more specifically moral guidance on a ‘secular’ issue. To deny it as moral guidance seems to say, ‘the bishop doesn’t know what is moral and what is not.’

I have asked repeatedly for someone to identify the moral issue here but no one has even made an attempt. What moral guidance is being offered? Bishop Blair said that gun trafficking should be a federal crime. Is there a moral choice involved in making that decision? Of course not. He believes this will “help” but no one can reasonably claim that opposing this suggestion means people don’t want to help. It simply means they don’t believe it is a good idea.

We can’t say a bishop is wrong, or that he doesn’t speak for other bishops, without contrary statements from other bishops.

The whole purpose behind my citing Bishop Martino was to point out that within the church no bishop can in fact speak for any other bishop. That was precisely his point but if you need more here is Lumen Gentium on the subject (#23)The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church. For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church
Ender

 

[Ender]

In reading this thread, I had to take a step back and look at the net outcome of Cardinal Dolan’s “Common ground” with Obama with regard to this issue. It managed to divide us.

This is a significant point. People are naturally divided on political issues anyway but the remarks of Cardinal Dolan, Bishop Blair, et al have resulted in a greater division: between “good” Catholics and “bad” ones. Not so much of the debate on this thread has been about what actions would be helpful and why as it has been about whether we are obligated to obey the suggestions of the clergy and whether disagreeing with them constitutes dissent. Who is a real Catholic and who isn’t?

I have said a couple of times that the comments from the bishops on this issue have been unhelpful and the way this debate has gone shows the damage those comments have caused.

Ender

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I’m confused by this: if we are not obligated to obey then how can we have a moral duty to obey? “Obligated” and “moral duty” may be different words but they mean the same thing.

Free will. We make decisions according to our faith formed conscience, which may, or may not be in error. Also, we cannot force others against their conscience.

I have asked repeatedly for someone to identify the moral issue here but no one has even made an attempt. What moral guidance is being offered? Bishop Blair said that gun trafficking should be a federal crime. Is there a moral choice involved in making that decision? Of course not. He believes this will “help” but no one can reasonably claim that opposing this suggestion means people don’t want to help. It simply means they don’t believe it is a good idea.

It’s been answered. The Cardinal speaks on ‘Culture of Life’ and ‘Culture of Death.’ Those are moral issues.

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.

The whole purpose behind my citing Bishop Martino was to point out that within the church no bishop can in fact speak for any other bishop. That was precisely his point but if you need more here is Lumen Gentium on the subject (#23)The individual bishops, however, are the visible principle and foundation of unity in their particular churches, fashioned after the model of the universal Church, in and from which churches comes into being the one and only Catholic Church. For this reason the individual bishops represent each his own church
Ender

While it maybe so, that a bishop cannot speak for another bishop, we have documents from the USCCB, which does speak for a group of bishops. On this particular issue, I have requested multiple times for sources where a bishop speaks for gun rights as they have been presented in this, and another thread. Nothing has been produced. Is it possible they all agree?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This is a significant point. People are naturally divided on political issues anyway but the remarks of Cardinal Dolan, Bishop Blair, et al have resulted in a greater division: between “good” Catholics and “bad” ones. Not so much of the debate on this thread has been about what actions would be helpful and why as it has been about whether we are obligated to obey the suggestions of the clergy and whether disagreeing with them constitutes dissent. Who is a real Catholic and who isn’t?

I have said a couple of times that the comments from the bishops on this issue have been unhelpful and the way this debate has gone shows the damage those comments have caused.

Ender

I don’t believe it’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Catholics, it’s more Catholics growing, or developing, together, but at different stages.

As some may find the comments ‘unhelpful’ it cannot be denied that they are suggesting an ‘action.’ Even if the comments are truly ‘unhelpful’, there doesn’t seem to be any disagreement on the subject; at least I haven’t seen an opposing view from any bishops.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

I don’t believe it’s ‘good’ and ‘bad’ Catholics, it’s more Catholics growing, or developing, together, but at different stages.

As some may find the comments ‘unhelpful’ it cannot be denied that they are suggesting an ‘action.’ Even if the comments are truly ‘unhelpful’, there doesn’t seem to be any disagreement on the subject; at least I haven’t seen an opposing view from any bishops.

You keep disingenuously asking this. Why would a Bishop seek loosening of restrictions? They generally aren’t involved unless asked on the issue.

It is like asking to a fond a Bishop who supports use of the death penalty. Hard to find explicitly. Even though the Church has made the belief clear in the Catechsim (and I myself oppose), the fact is you’ll likely not find a Bishop say they want it continued. Nonetheless, it is an issue of prudential judgement for Catholics, depending on circumstances.

I’ll re-ask my question as well - do you think the Bishop’s know the laws that pertain to various firearms in their area, or nationally? Do you? Does anyone?

Generally, the only people aware of the gun laws are the gun owners. The people supporting more restrictions can’t tell you what restrictions are in place, which is why no one takes them seriously.

So again, don’t hide behind the Bishops who don;t know what laws are currently in place and who admit they don’t make policy, do you know the specifics of the laws in play and which ones work or don’t work?

 

[Tighty_Whitey]

I only read the OP and I’ll likely get a chance to review some of the posts in due course, however I’d like to ask Cardinal Dolan if the most defenseless among us are routinely killed, killing that is sanctioned by our government, why in the world would he trust government to not abuse limits placed on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

 

[styrgwillidar]

I only read the OP and I’ll likely get a chance to review some of the posts in due course, however I’d like to ask Cardinal Dolan if the most defenseless among us are routinely killed, killing that is sanctioned by our government, why in the world would he trust government to not abuse limits placed on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms?

I would ask the bishops to contemplate the history of the world since 1900 and note the number killed by their own governments. Governments which were pro-gun control- Germany, Russia, Cambodia, Italy, China etc.

They should also contemplate the studies, including the task force commissioned by President Clinton showing guns are used 3-5 times more often in the US for defense than for criminal activity.

There is nothing Catholic about disarming victims.

It reminds me of the game show tag line used by Groucho Marx,

“I could go on talking to you kids forever, but it’s time to play You Bet Your Life”

I request the bishops consider the gamble they are asking all of us to take with our lives by ceding the check and balance on government power the founding fathers considered integral to preserving our freedoms, including freedom of religion. So much so that they included that the colonists existing right to keep and bear arms would continue under the new government of the US.

 

[PastorBonus]

Catholic teachings have nothing to say on gun ownership, so why is the Cardinal’s statement wrong? Maybe to the American sensibility but certainly not in a Catholic perspective. I can see the Cardinal’s point of view. America is saturated in violence. Why should we not restrict gun ownership or at least provide some sort of strict univerval background check? His gun policy maybe liberal, but they are not heretical

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You keep disingenuously asking this. Why would a Bishop seek loosening of restrictions? They generally aren’t involved unless asked on the issue.

It is like asking to a fond a Bishop who supports use of the death penalty. Hard to find explicitly. Even though the Church has made the belief clear in the Catechsim (and I myself oppose), the fact is you’ll likely not find a Bishop say they want it continued. Nonetheless, it is an issue of prudential judgement for Catholics, depending on circumstances.

I’ll re-ask my question as well - do you think the Bishop’s know the laws that pertain to various firearms in their area, or nationally? Do you? Does anyone?

Generally, the only people aware of the gun laws are the gun owners. The people supporting more restrictions can’t tell you what restrictions are in place, which is why no one takes them seriously.

So again, don’t hide behind the Bishops who don;t know what laws are currently in place and who admit they don’t make policy, do you know the specifics of the laws in play and which ones work or don’t work?

No one is ‘hiding’.

Let’s for the sake of argument say it is ‘prudential judgment.’ I would accept their judgments to help me form a correct judgment according to His desires, as I would trust their understanding of scriptures, the Catechism, and each others judgments. I would do this in an effort to fit the secular to my faith, as opposed to fitting my faith to the secular. It is also especially compelling when the bishops are all united. That’s why I’d be very interested to see that voice in the hierarchy that disagrees.

One does not have to be a ‘lawyer’, or legislator, to recognize a problem. One doesn’t have to be a small arms expert to recognize that certain weapons attract the most recent mass shooters.

However it all plays out, I will still be able to hunt, target shoot, and defend my home if, necessary. If I have to go through a background check, and register a weapon, I purchase through even private sales, provide secure storage for my weapons, or am limited to specific guns and ammo, so what? I am a law abiding Christian citizen who is willing to make sacrifices. I, like most posters, don’t think my guns would be a problem; however, there are many people unlike us and they lack proper control, or concerns with legality. It’s not all about me.

 

[jay29]

Why should we not restrict gun ownership or at least provide some sort of strict univerval background check? His gun policy maybe liberal, but they are not heretical

You do realize we can’t own any gun we want already and we do have the NICS background check in place?

People act like we dont have gun laws and background checks.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

Catholic teachings have nothing to say on gun ownership, so why is the Cardinal’s statement wrong? Maybe to the American sensibility but certainly not in a Catholic perspective. I can see the Cardinal’s point of view. America is saturated in violence. Why should we not restrict gun ownership or at least provide some sort of strict univerval background check? His gun policy maybe liberal, but they are not heretical

1. We already have all sorts of restrictions. Unless you have specifics you want that you have reason to believe will save lives (despite massacres rarely occurring with “assault rifles”, mind you), state them.
2. Like you said, Catholic teaching doesn’t address specifics on ownership, which is why one can take either side and be “right.”
3. If you, he or anyone else said “based on all available data, the current laws x,y,z and proven ineffective even when properly enforced. Data also shows that this is what needs to happen.” No one does that though.

Again, it is basically like me saying we need to be tougher on people in Nevada who get caught with LSD. Despite me not know anything about the specific laws thereto, I just think so.

That too would be somewhat useless.

The most effective way to solve these problems is to stop the breakdown of the family, the push for secularism, removal of prayer in schools, the push to legitimize homosexuality, and the glorifying of violence in the media.

When the government starts there, I’ll listen. That’s the real root of the problem.

 

[Frank_Drebin]

No one is ‘hiding’.

Let’s for the sake of argument say it is ‘prudential judgment.’ I would accept their judgments to help me form a correct judgment according to His desires, as I would trust their understanding of scriptures, the Catechism, and each others judgments. I would do this in an effort to fit the secular to my faith, as opposed to fitting my faith to the secular. It is also especially compelling when the bishops are all united. That’s why I’d be very interested to see that voice in the hierarchy that disagrees.

One does not have to be a ‘lawyer’, or legislator, to recognize a problem. One doesn’t have to be a small arms expert to recognize that certain weapons attract the most recent mass shooters.

However it all plays out, I will still be able to hunt, target shoot, and defend my home if, necessary. If I have to go through a background check, and register a weapon, I purchase through even private sales, provide secure storage for my weapons, or am limited to specific guns and ammo, so what? I am a law abiding Christian citizen who is willing to make sacrifices. I, like most posters, don’t think my guns would be a problem; however, there are many people unlike us and they lack proper control, or concerns with legality. It’s not all about me.

And again, unless you have specifics in mind that you can point to that allowed for things to occur, or specific changes that have been shown to have a positive net gain, I am not sure why you think anyone would consider your opinions, no offense. I wouldn;t for the areas I wasn’t well versed in.

 

[Ender]

It’s been answered. The Cardinal speaks on ‘Culture of Life’ and ‘Culture of Death.’ Those are moral issues.

Not at all. The question is straightforward: what laws will improve our security from guns in the wrong hands while allowing guns to be properly used by the overwhelming number of law abiding citizens? Where is the moral question? The cardinal speaking about the cultures of life and death tells us nothing whatever about how best to enhance the former and avoid the latter. These are practical question with no moral component whatever. I mentioned before the opinion by Bishop Blair that gun trafficking should be made a federal crime. Where is the moral aspect involved in deciding whether or not to support the suggestion? Again, there isn’t one.

While it maybe so, that a bishop cannot speak for another bishop, we have documents from the USCCB, which does speak for a group of bishops.

No, this is incorrect. This is no more true than saying 2+2=5. The USCCB speaks for no bishop except for those who explicitly endorse its comments.

On this particular issue, I have requested multiple times for sources where a bishop speaks for gun rights as they have been presented in this, and another thread. Nothing has been produced. Is it possible they all agree?

You have repeatedly asked the question and I have repeatedly pointed out that it is irrelevant. There are any number of topics the bishops have been silent on; their silence cannot be taken to mean anything at all.

Ender

 

[SuperLuigi]

Uh oh…Cardinal Dolan is about to go on the dreaded “liberal” list…

Not quite, but he should do his homework.

Crooks break laws, including ones on gun control.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Seems to me most bishops are not knowledgeable about the issue. They mention nothing about a 2nd amendment right, only to curtail it because of what a small amount of people do.

Failing to examine issues beyond the ho-hum “gee, this makes sense” can mislead the loyal flock, even to the point of scandal.

It’s also terrible leadership.

Frankly, I’m tired of the Bishops not doing their homework, which inevitably leads to liberal celebration on here and pushes for “now only if we could get them to think like that on abortion and so-called ‘gay marriage’”.

 

[AaronsStaff]

The Bishops have enough on their plates with what is going on in the Church, and although we look to them for spiritual guidance, it is the non-clergy that will be occupying political office and making the laws in this country. I am getting the feeling that Cardinal Dolan’s comments, however good intentioned they are, came about as a result of Dolan reacting to mainstream headlines rather than a careful independent study of gun crime. I presume Cardinal Dolan’s comments were spurred about what happened in Newtown, but where were Cardinal Dolan’s comments when Chicago was enduring shooting upon shooting upon shooting for the past several months? I don’t recall hearing anything. 20+ lives in one day with Newtown is arguably less of an issue than several shootings that amount to even more lives lost on the streets of Chicago.

It is important to realize this issue isn’t just about guns, it is about who holds the reigns in this country. This government was once a government of, by and for the people, but today it seems that has gone by the wayside where now the government possesses a people, a people who are of by and for the government. This government uses fear and coercion to govern, rather than charity and cooperation which is what should be utilized in country that claims to value life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

The culture of death is not contained in physical objects such as guns, it is perpetuated by our sins, and when that is brought to the level of a society it should be no surprise that so many people embrace abortion, that so many young people turn to horrific acts of violence, that our country presumes to play world policeman striking fear into the hearts of so many innocent in the third world sowing seed that will grow into resentment and anger directed at this country. There is too much corruption, complacency, coercion, decadence, and propaganda spewing for this government to correct it’s bearings on its own, and it would be dangerous to trust this government with any more power, so tread carefully, and the Bishops must not be naive because they must understand that many political elements on the left do not want to work with them, they want them relegated to irrelevancy.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Not at all. The question is straightforward: what laws will improve our security from guns in the wrong hands while allowing guns to be properly used by the overwhelming number of law abiding citizens? Where is the moral question? The cardinal speaking about the cultures of life and death tells us nothing whatever about how best to enhance the former and avoid the latter. These are practical question with no moral component whatever. I mentioned before the opinion by Bishop Blair that gun trafficking should be made a federal crime. Where is the moral aspect involved in deciding whether or not to support the suggestion? Again, there isn’t one.
No, this is incorrect. This is no more true than saying 2+2=5. The USCCB speaks for no bishop except for those who explicitly endorse its comments.
You have repeatedly asked the question and I have repeatedly pointed out that it is irrelevant. There are any number of topics the bishops have been silent on; their silence cannot be taken to mean anything at all.

Ender

The Cardinal explaining a view of Culture of Life and Culture of Death doesn’t address the issue from a moral perspective, the USCCB does not represent a group of bishops, and showing a bishop in disagreement is irrelevant; not speaking up doesn’t mean anything at all.

We’ll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.

 

[Least]

Originally Posted by Ender
Let’s get war out of the discussion; it is no part of this debate. If you insist that the two issues are somehow connected then take what the church has said about who makes the decision about war and apply it to gun control.
CCC 2309These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Those who have responsibility for the common good (in the context it is used here) do not include the clergy.

Ender

Don’t anyone take gun ownership OUT of the context of war. I’ve posted previously, DON’T let anyone disarm you for the next civil war (or war with China), I meant all of you. I don’t expect you to let me know when you want feel like starting one, and I can only promise you that you will be the last to know if I do. Further, NO ONE can guarantee how long America will last. Therefore, keep and bear arms for the day we need to sweep her back into a tidy pile. Our Founders warned against that day in the birth certificate of this country.

O’Bama has given the freedom loving (albeit loosely used term here) areas of the Middle East over to the muslim brotherhoodlums, and surrendered every gain in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is currently working on Africa and Europe. And, from some of your texts, it sounds like some of you are ready to do his dirty work here.

The point being, gun-ownership [the ownership of weapons] will outlive organized Christianity and even the idea of America, so don’t be so quick to see its eradication.