Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns

[Prodigal_Son1]

So by that rationale - infallibility of the Magisterium lies solely in the unified agreement of Bishops on prudential judgements.

No?

Yes?

The Cardinal speaks under the authority of the Holy See, as he referred to in his article.

I disagree with those who say, ‘that’s non-negotiable, but everything else is prudential and I am at liberty to disagree.’ That list of disagreements can be quite large, if you read through the various topics on these forums. There comes a point when it appears one is fitting the Church, and guidance from the men of the Church, around their personal views. We should all strive to fit our views around the Church, and the guidance from the men of the Church.

When I see those ‘prudential’ arguments raised, it amazes me that very few can admit the men of the Church might actually be right once in a while.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

… You want a quote of a bishop staying silent? It defeats the purpose of “staying silent” this is why I said we should just agree that (for the sake of this debate) the silent bishops are neutral on this subject, that way we can’t try and appeal to a “silent majority”

Where is the one statement from a bishops stating anything to the affect of, ‘I can’t speak on that matter, because I don’t understand it?’ The silence is in the face of statements from the USCCB, and public statements provided from men like Cardinal Dolan, who refers to the Holy See, the Catechism, and the Bishops.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

The Cardinal speaks under the authority of the Holy See, as he referred to in his article.

I disagree with those who say, ‘that’s non-negotiable, but everything else is prudential and I am at liberty to disagree.’ That list of disagreements can be quite large, if you read through the various topics on these forums. There comes a point when it appears one is fitting the Church, and guidance from the men of the Church, around their personal views. We should all strive to fit our views around the Church, and the guidance from the men of the Church.

When I see those ‘prudential’ arguments raised, it amazes me that very few can admit the men of the Church might actually be right once in a while.

How is this topic NOT a prudential judgement?

HOWEVER: Intrinsic Evils (for instance) are always evil. EVEN when rouge Bishops openly disagree.

So, do you think it is okay to allow intrinsic evils as long as the Bishops lack any unified agreement on them?

 

[brierpatch1974]

Sadly crime isn’t what’s driving the gun control issue. Fear is what’s driving the issue. And that fear comes from members of the government and seeing their approval raiting the lowest it’s ever been. They are not concerned about random shootings no matter how horrible they are. Thy are concerned with their own safety. Especially when states and local law enforcement agencies are refusing to enforce any law they pass. The weapons they want to ban are used in less than one percent of all gun related crimes but they know those weapons keep states and citizens on equal ground with their own security details.

I may be crazy and pray I am wrong but I see this country dividing into two or more nations in the future. Like all great empires of the past thy have became to big for one government to govern the many different diverse cultures and ideologies contained within its borders. That ugly little map showing red states and blue states prove that. People who share ideas and beliefs tend to gather together. A big federal government can not govern what is best left to small local governments. Demand for control is what’s destroying it all. It’s a sad and scary time.

 

[scipio337]

Here is what the Cardinal posted in reference to the Catechism:

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) .

I wonder why the Cardinal used this example, as they clearly have the underlying current of international war, as opposed to legitimate defense:

2315 The accumulation of arms strikes many as a paradoxically suitable way of deterring potential adversaries from war. They see it as the most effective means of ensuring peace among nations. This method of deterrence gives rise to strong moral reservations. The arms race does not ensure peace. Far from eliminating the causes of war, it risks aggravating them. Spending enormous sums to produce ever new types of weapons impedes efforts to aid needy populations;111 it thwarts the development of peoples. Over-armament multiplies reasons for conflict and increases the danger of escalation.

2316 The production and the sale of arms affect the common good of nations and of the international community. Hence public authorities have the right and duty to regulate them. The short-term pursuit of private or collective interests cannot legitimate undertakings that promote violence and conflict among nations and compromise the international juridical order.

As opposed to…

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

I find it a little ironic that we just had a “Fortnight for Freedom”, only to be followed by a position restricting freedom.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Where is the one statement from a bishops stating anything to the affect of, ‘I can’t speak on that matter, because I don’t understand it?’ The silence is in the face of statements from the USCCB, and public statements provided from men like Cardinal Dolan, who refers to the Holy See, the Catechism, and the Bishops.

So the Infallibility of Truth rests solely in the spoken (and silent) unity of the Bishops - in all matters.

Is that right?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

How is this topic NOT a prudential judgement?

HOWEVER: Intrinsic Evils (for instance) are always evil. EVEN when rouge Bishops openly disagree.

So, do you think it is okay to allow intrinsic evils as long as the Bishops lack any unified agreement on them?

Again, you seem to attempt to put words in my mouth. Let me clarify, ‘Non negotiables are not negotiable and must me adhered to.’ Prudential judgements are to be weighed through one’s faith formed conscience and one must follow their faith form conscience. When the bishops speak on prudential judgements, they are not wrong in every instance. I find it especially compelling when the bishops are united.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

When the bishops speak on prudential judgements, they are not wrong in every instance.

But they are not right in every instant are they?

Even when they are seemingly “unified” - no?

So what significance does supposed “unification” truly play in and of itself?

However, you say:

I find it especially compelling when the bishops are united.

Why?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But they are not right in every instant are they?

Even when they are seemingly “unified” - no?

So what significance does supposed “unification” truly play in and of itself?

However, you say:

Why?

Repeatedly answered. I apologize that I cannot word it to your satisfaction and understanding. Also, off topic.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Again, you seem to attempt to put words in my mouth. Let me clarify, ‘Non negotiables are not negotiable and must me adhered to.’ Prudential judgements are to be weighed through one’s faith formed conscience and one must follow their faith form conscience. When the bishops speak on prudential judgements, they are not wrong in every instance. I find it especially compelling when the bishops are united.

And again, you’re not actually answering MY question, but rather, you’re restructuring your response to fit YOUR own question.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Repeatedly answered. I apologize that I cannot word it to your satisfaction and understanding. Also, off topic.

My understanding is fine - thank you.

Allow me to assist you:

Start by answering each of my questions with a pointed “yes” or “no” and then clarify each with a following statement.

It cuts down on all the obfuscation you seem to relish.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And again, you’re not actually answering MY question, but rather, you’re restructuring your response to fit YOUR own question.

I answered the question. It’s off topic. Start another thread and send me a pm. I’d be glad to join.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I answered the question. It’s off topic. Start another thread and send me a pm. I’d be glad to join.

How exactly is it “off topic”.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I answered the question.

No actually, you didn’t.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

WASHINGTON (CNS) — As momentum builds to implement new limits on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips, the Catholic bishops of the United States remain focused on seeking “reasonable restrictions” on gun ownership without infringing upon Second Amendment rights.

“The bishops continue to support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and continue to call for sensible regulations on handguns,” Kathy Saile, the bishops’ director of domestic social development, told Catholic News Service.

Actually - we already have “reasonable restrictions”.

And we already have “measures that control the sale and use of firearms”

And we already have “sensible regulations on handguns”

“In addition to that, we need to make a serious commitment to address the pervasive role that addiction and mental illness have in crime,” she said in the wake of the horrendous events of Dec. 14 at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., that left 20 children, six educators and the heavily armed gunman who attacked the school dead."

Ah, now there is where the Liberal-Progressive Secularist-dominated mental health profession has failed miserably.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I don’t believe the Cardinal’s words are, or are meant to be, political. I understand his words on how guns contribute to the cheapening of life and how it applies to the culture of death. A cheapening of life is present when one states, or insinuates, they would do more than ‘wound’ an aggressor, which defies the definitions of self defense in the Catechism.

I would defend against an aggressor, and I believe to the extreme degree if necessary; however, I don’t think it’s appropriate, and in line with the culture of life, to speak arrogantly on that possibility. For me that lacks humility and compassion, that Christ and the Church teaches us to have towards one another. Speaking in such a way also seems, at times, to appear as if some desire the opportunity, something I cannot do. My faith in Him is supposed to be greater than my faith in myself, or any tool I hold in my hands. Speaking like that reminds me of Peter speaking out and saying he wouldn’t let those things come to pass that Christ revealed would happen.

Christ said whatever we do for the least of His, we have done to Him. I see the inconveniences of controls as giving to the least of His. It’s that view that causes ‘frustration’, for the lack of a better word, in these discussions where some portray any sacrifices as extreme, or useless. It seems, to me anyway, that we would be constructively approaching the subject with what can we ‘give’ on our hearts. We can give through actions, and decisions, as well as physically giving.

To argue that ‘we’ need to keep government in check, seems to speak of ‘me’ and not others. When people argue they are looking out to protect others, the statement falls short when it comes with humiliation, belittling, and condescending tones towards those trying to discuss solutions, or even aimed at men of the Church, who have as much right to an opinion as anyone else if their message is truly no more than an opinion as opposed to the guidance some view their statements as.

I believe there is a separation between secular and the spiritual we are called to. Constitutional given rights are secular, given by men. Through the constitution the government is allowed to legislate. Do we, as Christians, agree with all that the government legislates? No, and not because we expect something personally, but because we believe in life for all.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I don’t believe the Cardinal’s words are, or are meant to be, political. I understand his words on how guns contribute to the cheapening of life and how it applies to the culture of death. A cheapening of life is present when one states, or insinuates, they would do more than ‘wound’ an aggressor, which defies the definitions of self defense in the Catechism.

The good Cardinal (and the entire USCCB) need to understand, that Prudential judgments such as these ARE political by their very nature. It is naive to a dangerous degree to assume otherwise.

With all due respect PS1, Dolan is advocating political legislation. You don’t get anymore political than that.

The problem here is that the USCCB (just a couple of short years ago) endorsed this Administration’s political quest for Universal Health Care.

And the end results (thanks to this Administration’s blatant dishonesty) were nothing short of disastrous, were they not? Even the USCCB admits that. It’s almost as if the USCCB is suffering from The Peter Principle. No pun intended. They seem to think (because of the highly charged emotional nature of these recent shootings) that they must, MUST endorse something. Anything. But why not simply call for better mental health screening and improved school security? And why not consult with professionals over the factual data first? And if anything, why not identify and emphasize the moral decay of this atheistic secular society’s narcissistic nihilism that is actually creating much of this problem? Especially in the public education and mental health spheres?

And again, as a practical matter, none of the proposed new gun regulations would prevent an Adam Lanza or a James Holmes or the shooters at Columbine from repeating their overall nightmarish goals in the future.

And the fact that the Left is relentlessly attacking and maligning the politically defined “assault weapons” which account FOR LESS THAN 2% OF ALL FIRE ARM CRIMES, is in and of itself proof positive that this legislative maneuvering has little to do with solving any of these problems. What makes these mass shootings anymore relevant than the 98% of the other deaths?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

I would defend against an aggressor, and I believe to the extreme degree if necessary; however, I don’t think it’s appropriate, and in line with the culture of life, to speak arrogantly on that possibility. For me that lacks humility and compassion, that Christ and the Church teaches us to have towards one another. Speaking in such a way also seems, at times, to appear as if some desire the opportunity, something I cannot do. My faith in Him is supposed to be greater than my faith in myself, or any tool I hold in my hands. Speaking like that reminds me of Peter speaking out and saying he wouldn’t let those things come to pass that Christ revealed would happen.

Christ said whatever we do for the least of His, we have done to Him. I see the inconveniences of controls as giving to the least of His. It’s that view that causes ‘frustration’, for the lack of a better word, in these discussions where some portray any sacrifices as extreme, or useless. It seems, to me anyway, that we would be constructively approaching the subject with what can we ‘give’ on our hearts. We can give through actions, and decisions, as well as physically giving.

To argue that ‘we’ need to keep government in check, seems to speak of ‘me’ and not others. When people argue they are looking out to protect others, the statement falls short when it comes with humiliation, belittling, and condescending tones towards those trying to discuss solutions, or even aimed at men of the Church, who have as much right to an opinion as anyone else if their message is truly no more than an opinion as opposed to the guidance some view their statements as.

I believe there is a separation between secular and the spiritual we are called to. Constitutional given rights are secular, given by men. Through the constitution the government is allowed to legislate. Do we, as Christians, agree with all that the government legislates? No, and not because we expect something personally, but because we believe in life for all.

With all due respect PS1 (and I sincerely mean that) do you not realize how spiritually judgmental and self-righteous those thoughts sound to the rest of us?

With the exception of course about tone. I readily admit my tone towards you was childish and hurtful. And for that I apologize. I am truly sorry.

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Isn’t it amazing how the Liberal-Progressive dominated mental health institutions and the Liberal-Progressive dominated Education institutions are escaping the brunt of criticism from the Liberal-Progressive Media and this Liberal-Progressive Administration and this Liberal-Progressive dominated Congress?

Isn’t that just amazing?

 

[Cor_Cordis]

Christ said whatever we do for the least of His, we have done to Him. I see the inconveniences of controls as giving to the least of His. It’s that view that causes ‘frustration’, for the lack of a better word, in these discussions where some portray any sacrifices as extreme, or useless. It seems, to me anyway, that we would be constructively approaching the subject with what can we ‘give’ on our hearts. We can give through actions, and decisions, as well as physically giving.

To argue that ‘we’ need to keep government in check, seems to speak of ‘me’ and not others. When people argue they are looking out to protect others, the statement falls short when it comes with humiliation, belittling, and condescending tones towards those trying to discuss solutions, or even aimed at men of the Church, who have as much right to an opinion as anyone else if their message is truly no more than an opinion as opposed to the guidance some view their statements as.

I believe there is a separation between secular and the spiritual we are called to. Constitutional given rights are secular, given by men. Through the constitution the government is allowed to legislate. Do we, as Christians, agree with all that the government legislates? No, and not because we expect something personally, but because we believe in life for all.

It’s one thing for you to sacrifice by your own will and accord - but it is a different matter all together to advocate that a power-hungry anti-Christian secular Caesar should force your neighbor to be “charitable” by your definition.

The problem in your thinking, is that you assume secular anti-Christian Caesar is somehow the ultimate source and summit of all morality in a Constitutional Republic.

And yet, the very source and summit of ALL our Rights comes first and foremost from The Creator.

Some of the Founders may have been Deists, but they in no way imposed their flawed personal philosophy of a ridiculously and irrelevantly detached “God” into the founding Creed of this great nation. In fact, it wasn’t Jefferson’s idea to cite The Creator in the first place. However he put aside his own broken and conflicting beliefs and did so as a matter of pragmatic principle. Jefferson was a man of contradicting and hypocritical personal beliefs. And much to his credit - he knew it. One does not lay the foundation of abolition while sleeping with his slaves without realizing his conflicting theological and moral limitations. Oh and BTW, there’s a reason Deism fell out of popularity even faster than it arose in it’s day.

Jesus answered [Pilate], “You would have no power over me if it had not been given to you from above. For this reason the one who handed me over to you has the greater sin.” - John 19:11