You have based your position on what was said in a particular document and have further asserted that the position taken in that document was based on scripture and the catechism. That assertion is not true. You will not find a single reference in that document - in the sections that deal with gun control - to any church doctrine.
The “other quote” addresses church doctrine. The “references from several men of the church today” express prudential opinions. It should be apparent that opinions do not in fact supersede doctrines.
Yes, but when they recommend specific practices they believe will alleviate social ills they are expressing opinions, and political ones at that. There is no moral guidance involved.
It seems prudential because it is in fact prudential. That is the meaning of the term. Once again:“Prudential” has a technical theological meaning… It refers to the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances. (Dulles)
The observation that when they do so they often overstep their bounds has been made before.*Just as we desire lay people not to usurp the rights of clerics, so we ought to wish clerics not to lay claim to the rights of the laity. We therefore forbid every cleric henceforth to extend his jurisdiction, under pretext of ecclesiastical freedom, to the prejudice of secular justice. Rather, let him be satisfied with the written constitutions and customs hitherto approved, so that the things of Caesar may be rendered unto Caesar, and the things of God may be rendered unto God by a right distribution. *(Fourth Lateran Council)
The references are provided through the interpretation, and guidance, of those men of the Church who reference the 2000 document. I will give way to their interpretation of ALL Church documents, in the guidance they offer up in more recent times. When they speak “as bishops” they are not stating they are speaking prudential judgements.
Those calls, in response to the Newtown tragedy, are not statements of satisfactory regulations already in place. Let’s give the men of the Church more credit than to call for something already in place.
There is too much moral guidance in the Cardinal’s words to say this is prudential judgment.
So the Catechism is not doctrinal and we can ignore the parts we don’t like?
They are offering guidance on living in a secular world. The specific practices they speak of are guidance for Christians in this secular world, for the benefit of a dignity of life for all. It is politicized by those who disagree with them. They don’t state they speak “as bishops” to offer opinion.
When we place our secular opinions above the guidance of the bishops, it’s a usurping of their duties. They are not laying claim to one section of laity, but to a dignity of life for all, INCLUDING the victims from an easy access to guns.
Let’s put this in its context: “As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms…” If you somehow think this is an expression of doctrine then words have lost their meaning.
But we do have regulations and the bishops have not said what additional regulations they think would help. More to the point, they have not said - inasmuch as they cannot say - which regulations we have a moral obligation to support because we are not making moral choices but practical ones.
When they speak “as bishops” they are distinguishing themselves as men of the Church. That’s contextual. The doctrine is the reference to the Catechism and scriptures. They teach to us, not us to them. Their authority is spelled out in the Catechism, and they reference calls from the Vatican, that shows support. There is no opposition to what they say from the Pope, or any other man of the Church. There is not one single bishop to speak against gun controls. There is only usurping language used; e.g. ‘prudential judgment,’ or ‘opinion,’ because of self interests, in my opinion.
The moral obligations are being overlooked.
Give the men of the Church credit to be able to communicate that existing regulations are enough, and what they’re calling for. It’s easy to see their calls go beyond the existing, in the above.
You seem to believe that every opinion expressed by a bishop is infallibly true yet clearly that is not the case. It has also been made expressly clear that prudential judgments do not require assent but you don’t seem to accept that either. The only reason I bother to repeat this truism is so you don’t mislead others on this point.
There were no references to either the catechism or scripture. You cited the document; the fact that it references nothing at all is your problem but you don’t get to resolve it by claiming references that do not exist.
This is the language the church uses. How many times must I post Cardinal Dulles’ explanation of “prudential”?
Perhaps you should speak to a priest about your rash and uncharitable judgments.
Here is the point you cannot seem to grasp, and it may be linked to your harsh judgment about me. If you assumed I was a good person perhaps you would understand that I have a different opinion than you because I sincerely believe my solutions will work better than yours.
I will correct your erroneous assumption. The difference here is the unification of the men of the Church. This is not a single opinion, or an opinion of two or three. I am open to correction, if you would be so kind as to provide us with an opposing view from one of the men of our Church today?
You are not the first one to have this argument with PS1, two other gun control threads turned to this exact same argument. With others making these exact same points.It appears he believes that, from what he has said on this matter, everything that any bishop says is morally binding. A falsehood others have tried and failed to get across to him.
Where’s the opposing voice from any man of the Church? It’s a different thing when a full body of bishops agree. It’s only binding on those that will listen.
I’m willing to test this assertion.
This argument is a logical fallacy known as an argumentum ad ignorantium - an argument from ignorance (ignorance meaning lack of information to the contrary). An argument from ignorance is based on an absence of evidence which is precisely what your continual assertions amount to.
Which says nothing specific or specifically useful, which is probably why the document you cite doesn’t reference it.
Here’s the point, though: if the bishops want a document accepted as a “position of the church” it must have the approval of the pope. It is not necessary for the pope to disapprove it or say anything at all about it. Either it has his approval or it doesn’t … and it sounds like this one doesn’t so let’s not pretend that this document is anything more than an expression of local opinion.
Don’t reproach me for “getting around” the faith when you ignore those explanations you find inconvenient … such as the church’s definition of prudential judgments.
They are authoritative only when speaking on faith or morals, that is, about church doctrines. They are prudential when speaking about political issues like gun control.
Based on the comments of the Fifth Lateran Council it seems more like they are usurping the authority of the laity.
There is no authoritative guidance so I will accept the arguments that are most reasonable.
The debate has nothing whatever to do with the dignity of life. The argument is not between those who value life and those who are indifferent to it but between those who think option A will be a better solution to our gun problems than option B. It seems the main difficulty you have in understanding this is your immoderate belief in your own goodness coupled with an uncharitable belief in the moral turpitude of others.
So, there are no men of the Church today that support no further regulations, or gun controls?
This statement is factually incorrect as any number of people have pointed out. You said you were open to correction but that statement appears to be incorrect as well.
Curing cancer involves the “dignity of life” but it is not a moral question and neither are most of the political issues with which the bishops involve themselves. It is not the severity of the issue that determines whether someone’s judgment is prudential - it is the fact that judgment is involved.
Prudential judgment is as Dulles described it. Your unwillingness to accept it is immaterial.
Once again you err by judging my intentions rather than addressing my arguments. I don’t really care what your opinions are or whether or not you express them. I do care about accuracy and the validity of an argument, which is why I’m still debating this with you.
The question isn’t whether the statement is uncharitable but whether it is accurate.
I’m happy for you that you find so much guidance in the generic comments of a number of American bishops. For myself, I am comfortable that I can distinguish a good argument from a bad one and can make informed decisions on most issues. More to the point, I can also distinguish moral issues from political ones
The Bible, the early Church fathers, and the Catechism state the authority of the bishops. In this instance, it cannot be minimized from a full body of bishops. I accept all of that.
The USCCB submitted this comprehensive testimony this February.
It seems oddly truncated. Are there more than two pages? It just ends abruptly. Who authored it? Was it submitted to the whole body of bishops, or was this just one more communication by Bp Blaire? It cites Bp Blaire’s prior suggestions, but doesn’t exactly adopt them.
Binding no, but as with everything a bishop says, it is worthy of consideration.
It’s from the USCCB official site. Go to the Human Life and Dignity section and it gives all the latest releases from the USCCB under the Criminal/Restorative justice section.