Does the Catholic Church have a position on gun control?

[Ridgerunner]

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.

The Universal Church is unified with regarding the promotion of the dignity of human life. Gun control and abolishing the death penalty are forerunners of the coming universal assault on abortion, euthanasia, genocide and the suicide mentality. Its really exciting to see these ingrained false ‘institutions’ crumble under truth!

Are you seriously maintaining that gun control is a “forerunner” of the “assault” on abortion? In what way is it necessary to, for example, limit the size of magazines before one can oppose abortion?

 

[Ridgerunner]

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.

The Universal Church is unified with regarding the promotion of the dignity of human life. Gun control and abolishing the death penalty are forerunners of the coming universal assault on abortion, euthanasia, genocide and the suicide mentality. Its really exciting to see these ingrained false ‘institutions’ crumble under truth!

I see. There are more pages. It’s all from three bishops. It generally reiterates the 2000 statement. In no way does it promote Obama’s gun control proposal.

Again, we’re obliged to follow what the Church teaches, not what Obama teaches. The Church is silent on the subject of magazine volume, AR-15s, my making a gift of a gun to my son or daughter or inheriting a gun. That’s all Obama Doctrine, not Church doctrine.

Possibly some do not see a distinction, but the distinction is there.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see. There are more pages. It’s all from three bishops. It generally reiterates the 2000 statement. In no way does it promote Obama’s gun control proposal.

Again, we’re obliged to follow what the Church teaches, not what Obama teaches. The Church is silent on the subject of magazine volume, AR-15s, my making a gift of a gun to my son or daughter or inheriting a gun. That’s all Obama Doctrine, not Church doctrine.

Possibly some do not see a distinction, but the distinction is there.

You are spinning guidance from the men of the Church, specifically a full body of bishops in the US, into a political view to quell opposing views it seems from the ‘distinctions’ made. The call has existed through administrations of both political parties, and some have just expressed an agreement, or common ground, with this administration’s proposals, and would have done the same with similar actions of either party. The doctrinal part of what the Church teaches, is the authority of those men of the Church have to guide the flock. Of course we all recognize that fact, but here’s where we normally see ‘prudential opinion.’ It seems the topic has to be politicized, or determined to be ‘prudential opinion,’ to maintain, and justify, disagreement with the men of the Church, over a purely material possession that has proven to be a danger to the innocents of society, through easy access. There are no ‘spiritual’ teachings to owning guns without necessary controls to prevent easy access, just as there are no men of the Church to speak an opposing view to the calls of those who speak for committees of the US bishops, a full body of bishops, or even as a spokesman for the Vatican. The opposing view comes from outside the authority of those charged with guiding the flock.

 

[LongingSoul]

I see. There are more pages. It’s all from three bishops. It generally reiterates the 2000 statement. In no way does it promote Obama’s gun control proposal.

Again, we’re obliged to follow what the Church teaches, not what Obama teaches. The Church is silent on the subject of magazine volume, AR-15s, my making a gift of a gun to my son or daughter or inheriting a gun. That’s all Obama Doctrine, not Church doctrine.

Possibly some do not see a distinction, but the distinction is there.

The documents sentiments aren’t ambiguous. They represent a unified testament from the US Bishops. The Church is silent on the specifics and even the statistics, but as is always her mission, she speaks for the heart and conscience in addressing the practicalities of policy and law. St Ignatius in his rules for thinking with the Church, urges us to a brotherly faith in the Church’s position rather than a hostile rejection of it in our efforts to make peace of our difficulties with this or that teachings.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You are spinning guidance from the men of the Church, specifically a full body of bishops in the US, into a political view to quell opposing views it seems from the ‘distinctions’ made. The call has existed through administrations of both political parties, and some have just expressed an agreement, or common ground, with this administration’s proposals, and would have done the same with similar actions of either party. The doctrinal part of what the Church teaches, is the authority of those men of the Church have to guide the flock. Of course we all recognize that fact, but here’s where we normally see ‘prudential opinion.’ It seems the topic has to be politicized, or determined to be ‘prudential opinion,’ to maintain, and justify, disagreement with the men of the Church, over a purely material possession that has proven to be a danger to the innocents of society, through easy access. There are no ‘spiritual’ teachings to owning guns without necessary controls to prevent easy access, just as there are no men of the Church to speak an opposing view to the calls of those who speak for committees of the US bishops, a full body of bishops, or even as a spokesman for the Vatican. The opposing view comes from outside the authority of those charged with guiding the flock.

Wrong in all respects. You know all of the following because you were in the interminably long thread the Moderators eventually closed down previously.

The bishops, in 2000, issued a general call for gun control without naming a single one other than a general opposition to the proliferation of cheap pistols on the street. According to Canon Law, even that minimal position was not binding on Catholics.

Since 2000, a lot of gun laws and bishops have changed. Since 2000 a total of three bishops have spoken in favor of Obama’s gun proposals. Well, one also say Cdl Dolan supported additional gun legislation, but said he would let it rest with the legislature. The Obama proposals died in the Senate, and one assumes that’s that with Cdl Dolan. Perhaps also Bp Blaire and the other two.

500+ bishops have said nothing at all about additional gun control since 2000. The Church has no specific position.

The “Vatican spokesman”, of course, must be laid aside, because he spoke in support of gun control generally, but certainly not specifically, before the Obama proposals were even made.

Having been around and around with you in that superlong previous thread, I doubt you will back away from claiming “the bishops of the U.S.” support what is, in effect, the Obama plan that died in the senate.

But hope springs eternal.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Wrong in all respects. You know all of the following because you were in the interminably long thread the Moderators eventually closed down previously.

The bishops, in 2000, issued a general call for gun control without naming a single one other than a general opposition to the proliferation of cheap pistols on the street. According to Canon Law, even that minimal position was not binding on Catholics.

Since 2000, a lot of gun laws and bishops have changed. Since 2000 a total of three bishops have spoken in favor of Obama’s gun proposals. Well, one also say Cdl Dolan supported additional gun legislation, but said he would let it rest with the legislature. The Obama proposals died in the Senate, and one assumes that’s that with Cdl Dolan. Perhaps also Bp Blaire and the other two.

500+ bishops have said nothing at all about additional gun control since 2000. The Church has no specific position.

The “Vatican spokesman”, of course, must be laid aside, because he spoke in support of gun control generally, but certainly not specifically, before the Obama proposals were even made.

Having been around and around with you in that superlong previous thread, I doubt you will back away from claiming “the bishops of the U.S.” support what is, in effect, the Obama plan that died in the senate.

But hope springs eternal.

A total of three bishops, all heads of USCCB committees, Cardinal Dolan, president of the USCCB, and a chief Vatican spokesman. Of those, only two mentioned this administration’s proposals, Cardainl Dolan and the spokesman for the Vatican. All reiterated the 2000 document where a full body of bishops approved the document.

500 bishops, none of who spoke against the proposals or made clarifications to the statements from their fellow bishops who headed committees on the USCCB’s behalf, or the president representing their organization, or the spokesman for the Vatican. Other issues have drawn opposing statements, and clarifications, but not this one. This one is only parsed politically by people, outside the circle of authority within the Church, that seem to have a personal interest in things remaining the same, or controls decreasing even. The calls from those representing others, or even all, the American bishops are minimized by the same political drive.

You politicize it by drawing connection to this administration specifically. Their calls have existed through other administrations, of both major political parties.

Hope in material items designed to take life is not hope, as I understand it through the Gospels and the Church.

 

[Holly3278]

I see. There are more pages. It’s all from three bishops. It generally reiterates the 2000 statement. In no way does it promote Obama’s gun control proposal.

Again, we’re obliged to follow what the Church teaches, not what Obama teaches. The Church is silent on the subject of magazine volume, AR-15s, my making a gift of a gun to my son or daughter or inheriting a gun. That’s all Obama Doctrine, not Church doctrine.

Possibly some do not see a distinction, but the distinction is there.

Hello Ridgerunner, I know you were not addressing me but I did want to reply to what you say here.

Anyway, just because the Church doesn’t teach the specifics on gun control like what Obama is wanting doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama’s proposals for gun control are wrong or immoral, right? I mean, personally I like his proposals for gun control although admittedly that’s about the only thing I agree with him on. But if it can be shown that his proposals are somehow immoral or harmful to society then I will be happy to change my views.

 

[Ridgerunner]

A total of three bishops, all heads of USCCB committees, Cardinal Dolan, president of the USCCB, and a chief Vatican spokesman. Of those, only two mentioned this administration’s proposals, Cardainl Dolan and the spokesman for the Vatican. All reiterated the 2000 document where a full body of bishops approved the document.

500 bishops, none of who spoke against the proposals or made clarifications to the statements from their fellow bishops who headed committees on the USCCB’s behalf, or the president representing their organization, or the spokesman for the Vatican. Other issues have drawn opposing statements, and clarifications, but not this one. This one is only parsed politically by people, outside the circle of authority within the Church, that seem to have a personal interest in things remaining the same, or controls decreasing even. The calls from those representing others, or even all, the American bishops are minimized by the same political drive.

You politicize it by drawing connection to this administration specifically. Their calls have existed through other administrations, of both major political parties.

Hope in material items designed to take life is not hope, as I understand it through the Gospels and the Church.

Possibly you are speaking of a different “Vatican spokesman”, of whom there are a number. The one spoken of in the previous, tedious thread on the same subject, stated his position before Obama’s were known. Possibly you could give your source.

The hope I spoke of is the hope that you would in the future refrain from identifying Obama’s failed legislation with the teachings of the Church. You didn’t quit doing it before, so there’s no particular reason to believe you’ll quit it in this thread either. But, as I said, one could hope.

The 2000 statement did not, in any way, endorse the specifics of Obama’s proposal. You know that.

Cardinal Dolan left it up to the Congress and said he would accept their action. The Senate tabled it, and unless you know something I don’t, Cdl Dolan has not addressed the subject since. Nor, to my knowledge, has Blaire. Likely they all realize specific controls are a secular issue for secular authorities to resolve.

So, really, at this point, you have no bishops at all currently supporting the Obama proposals and 500+ who never thought it sufficiently important to address.

As I have said many times before. If you believe Obama’s proposal had merit, you ought to defend it on its merits. Apparently you don’t find yourself able to do it, and resort to pretending that “the bishops” of the U.S. support it when they don’t.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Hello Ridgerunner, I know you were not addressing me but I did want to reply to what you say here.

Anyway, just because the Church doesn’t teach the specifics on gun control like what Obama is wanting doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama’s proposals for gun control are wrong or immoral, right? I mean, personally I like his proposals for gun control although admittedly that’s about the only thing I agree with him on. But if it can be shown that his proposals are somehow immoral or harmful to society then I will be happy to change my views.

Probably the question is better stated the other way. What persuasive evidence is there that Obama’s proposals would have benefitted society? If one is going to impinge on the acknowledged rights of citizens at all, one should be able to show there is a strongly persuasive case that it will significantly benefit society to do it.

Obama didn’t do that and seemingly couldn’t do it, and even his own party members rejected his proposed bill.

 

[Ender]

The doctrinal part of what the Church teaches, is the authority of those men of the Church have to guide the flock.

The question is not whether their authority to teach is doctrinal but whether or not what they teach is, and on issues like this it is not. The bishops themselves have pointed this out:*The judgments and recommendations that we make as bishops on specific issues do not carry the same moral authority as statements of universal moral teachings. *(Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, 2007)
Ender

 

[Ender]

Anyway, just because the Church doesn’t teach the specifics on gun control like what Obama is wanting doesn’t necessarily mean that Obama’s proposals for gun control are wrong or immoral, right?

There are two points being discussed in this thread: what does the church teach about gun control and what gun control measures should we implement? The answer to the first point is rather simple: the church has no doctrine forbidding the private ownership of guns. In arguing the second point the claim is frequently made that “the bishops support policy X”, with the implication that we have a moral obligation to do likewise. Neither part of that statement is correct. You (and all of us) are free to support or oppose whatever policies we believe are in everyone’s best interest.

Ender

 

[LongingSoul]

There are two points being discussed in this thread: what does the church teach about gun control and what gun control measures should we implement? The answer to the first point is rather simple: the church has no doctrine forbidding the private ownership of guns. In arguing the second point the claim is frequently made that “the bishops support policy X”, with the implication that we have a moral obligation to do likewise. Neither part of that statement is correct. You (and all of us) are free to support or oppose whatever policies we believe are in everyone’s best interest.

Ender

The first point is not really what the church teaches about gun control … but what is the Church’s position on gun control. The Church offers us an alternative way of looking at the world that is fundamentally rooted in the dignity of man. It’s not accurate to say that by doing this, the Church is supporting so and so’s policy. This was the way John Paul II and the Church got into the foundations of Communism in the Eastern block as well. The Church is fairly qualified and obliged to speak where the dignity of man and the salvations of souls are endangered by false ‘saviors’, be it Communism, armed civilians whatever.

 

[Ridgerunner]

The first point is not really what the church teaches about gun control … but what is the Church’s position on gun control. The Church offers us an alternative way of looking at the world that is fundamentally rooted in the dignity of man. It’s not accurate to say that by doing this, the Church is supporting so and so’s policy. This was the way John Paul II and the Church got into the foundations of Communism in the Eastern block as well. The Church is fairly qualified and obliged to speak where the dignity of man and the salvations of souls are endangered by false ‘saviors’, be it Communism, armed civilians whatever.

Actually, it could be said, and probably accurately, that the Church’s position is that there should be no weapons of any kind, anywhere in the world, forever. But of course, that’s an unrealistic expectation for a lot of reasons, and I don’t think the Church teaches that no particular Catholic or nation should have any weapon of any kind, even though it would be ideal if none existed. Now, the Church has never, to my knowledge, opposed hunting, either for food, sport or self-defense. Weapons that will kill a large animal will also kill a human. So, “no weapons at all” is, I think, more an expression against war than anything else.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Possibly you are speaking of a different “Vatican spokesman”, of whom there are a number. The one spoken of in the previous, tedious thread on the same subject, stated his position before Obama’s were known. Possibly you could give your source.

The hope I spoke of is the hope that you would in the future refrain from identifying Obama’s failed legislation with the teachings of the Church. You didn’t quit doing it before, so there’s no particular reason to believe you’ll quit it in this thread either. But, as I said, one could hope.

The 2000 statement did not, in any way, endorse the specifics of Obama’s proposal. You know that.

Cardinal Dolan left it up to the Congress and said he would accept their action. The Senate tabled it, and unless you know something I don’t, Cdl Dolan has not addressed the subject since. Nor, to my knowledge, has Blaire. Likely they all realize specific controls are a secular issue for secular authorities to resolve.

So, really, at this point, you have no bishops at all currently supporting the Obama proposals and 500+ who never thought it sufficiently important to address.

As I have said many times before. If you believe Obama’s proposal had merit, you ought to defend it on its merits. Apparently you don’t find yourself able to do it, and resort to pretending that “the bishops” of the U.S. support it when they don’t.

Here’s one source:

Vatican gives blessing to Obama gun control proposal

Vatican’s chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress “to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths.”

“I am with them,” Lombardi said, in an editorial carried on carried on Vatican Radio, lining up the Vatican’s moral support in favor of firearm limits.

''The initiatives announced by the American administration for limiting and controlling the spread and use of weapons are certainly a step in the right direction," Lombardi said.

Obama is trying to rally support for reinstating a ban on assault weapons and requiring background checks on all gun sales. He faces stiff opposition in the U.S. Congress and from powerful gun lobbies.

Considering that Americans possess `'about 300 million firearms," Lombardi said, “people cannot fool themselves that it is enough to limit the number and use (of guns) to impede in the future horrendous massacres like that of Newtown that shook the conscience of America and world, as well as that of children and adults.”

You are free to do a search. You will find page, after page, of sources referencing the chief Vatican spokesman’s support. Realize, there were no corrections, or clarifications, from any other man of the Church, including the Holy Father himself.

I see you prefer to continue the politicization of the issue by confusing it as this administration’s legislative efforts as a part of the teaching of the Church. I have clearly stated, in this thread, that the men of the Church’s calls have existed through several administrations, under both of the major political parties of this country. It was the action of this administration that brought about support from those men.

No one said the 2000 document endorsed a particular politician. You know that and appear to be spinning political into the calls from the men of the Church, to somehow minimize the calls from the men of the Church.

The bishops called on all Americans, especially lawmakers, to support gun controls. The legislation failed, from lack of support; however, there has been no readdressing the issue to be something else. Referencing the silence since then seems hypocritical in my mind, as it seems the argument has been ‘500 bishops’ who did not speak out, even though it’s clear they were represented by committees from within their ranks, as well as comments from the president of the USCCB. Those comments were public, yet no man of the Church spoke out in opposition, or with clarification, as they have on other issues.

It’s a mockery of their guidance to spin this to somehow say they have changed their view.

It’s not a political responsibility to support gun controls, it’s a moral answer to the moral guidance of the men of the Church. The calls from the bishops were stated and approved by a full body of bishops. You know that, and still want to minimize it as a ‘few.’ Anyone can read the documents for themselves.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Another source:

Vatican welcomes Obama gun control proposal

VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican praised President Barack Obama’s proposals for curbing gun violence, saying they are a “step in a right direction.”

The Vatican’s chief spokesman the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said Saturday that 47 religious leaders have appealed to members of the U.S. Congress “to limit firearms that are making society pay an unacceptable price in terms of massacres and senseless deaths.”

“I am with them,” Lombardi said, in an editorial carried on Vatican Radio, lining up the Vatican’s moral support in favor of firearm limits.

“The initiatives announced by the American administration for limiting and controlling the spread and use of weapons are certainly a step in the right direction,” Lombardi said.

Obama is trying to rally support for reinstating a ban on assault weapons and requiring background checks on all gun sales. He faces stiff opposition in the U.S. Congress and from powerful gun lobbies.

Considering that Americans possess “about 300 million firearms,” Lombardi said, "people cannot fool themselves that it is enough to limit the number and use (of guns) to impede in the future horrendous massacres like that of Newtown that shook the conscience of America and world, as well as that of children and adults. "

This went without any man of the Church stating opposition, or clarification, as they have on other issues. There has not been an issue where every man of the Church felt it necessary to speak favor, when committees representing their ranks, or their president, has spoken on their behalf; especially when they were in agreement.

 

[Ridgerunner]

Here’s one source:

Vatican gives blessing to Obama gun control proposal

You are free to do a search. You will find page, after page, of sources referencing the chief Vatican spokesman’s support. Realize, there were no corrections, or clarifications, from any other man of the Church, including the Holy Father himself.

I see you prefer to continue the politicization of the issue by confusing it as this administration’s legislative efforts as a part of the teaching of the Church. I have clearly stated, in this thread, that the men of the Church’s calls have existed through several administrations, under both of the major political parties of this country. It was the action of this administration that brought about support from those men.

No one said the 2000 document endorsed a particular politician. You know that and appear to be spinning political into the calls from the men of the Church, to somehow minimize the calls from the men of the Church.

The bishops called on all Americans, especially lawmakers, to support gun controls. The legislation failed, from lack of support; however, there has been no readdressing the issue to be something else. Referencing the silence since then seems hypocritical in my mind, as it seems the argument has been ‘500 bishops’ who did not speak out, even though it’s clear they were represented by committees from within their ranks, as well as comments from the president of the USCCB. Those comments were public, yet no man of the Church spoke out in opposition, or with clarification, as they have on other issues.

It’s a mockery of their guidance to spin this to somehow say they have changed their view.

It’s not a political responsibility to support gun controls, it’s a moral answer to the moral guidance of the men of the Church. The calls from the bishops were stated and approved by a full body of bishops. You know that, and still want to minimize it as a ‘few.’ Anyone can read the documents for themselves.

Everybody believes there should be gun controls of some sort, but you will not find any but a tiny handful of churchmen who back your proposal and Obama’s. And you haven’t.

One man who works (however long now) for the Vatican does not establish the doctrine of the Church. Recall the “Vatican spokesman” who contradicted Pope Francis recently regarding whether atheists can go to heaven? There are lots of “Vatican spokesmen”, and being one does not make his statements authoritative.

It is not me who “politicizes” this. The very articles you cited reference Obama’s proposals…some even before Obama presented his proposed bill to Congress. Your “Vatican spokesman” endorsed Obama’s bill before it was even presented, and before he knew what was going to be in it. As you know, his own party tabled it.

As you know, Cdl Dolan said he would let it rest with the legislature’s judgment, and that’s exactly what happened. Congress let it die. Cdl Dolan has not retracted that statement or second-guessed the Senate. He stood by his word.

Again, in 2000, the bishops’ conference spoke of gun controls in the context of a much longer discussion about street crime, specifically mentioning only cheap handguns. That cannot be equated with Obama’s proposed legislation which was not about that.

In any event, many or most of those bishops are now retired and replaced. But in any case, their statement did not meet the Canon Law requirements for being mandatory on Catholic conscience. You know that as well as you know your own nom de plume, and have been reminded of it countless times. You just ignore it. But I’ll quote it here so others will know it:

"Can. 455 §1 The (Bishops’) Conference can make general decrees only in cases where the universal law has so prescribed, or by special mandate of the Apostolic See, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Conference itself.

§2 For the decrees mentioned in §1 validly to be enacted at a plenary meeting, they must receive two thirds of the votes of those who belong to the Conference with a deliberative vote. These decrees do not oblige until they have been reviewed by the Apostolic See and lawfully promulgated."

Even the 2000 statement didn’t meet those criteria. Certainly Bp Blaire’s statements don’t. Now, keep in mind that the bishops meet EVERY YEAR, and since 2000 they have never endorsed the restrictive proposals Obama made and that you support.

As Ender demonstrated previously, the statement of one or more bishops that does not meet the requirements of Canon Law are mandatory on nobody. They’re just opinions.

Again, if it was such a morally important issue, more than three bishops would think it worth speaking about. Most bishops publish an article at least weekly about some moral issue or other, and the Obama program just isn’t one they care to write about. My own bishop never has. Not once. If it had the moral importance you give it, they would.

I’m leaving in a few minutes for the holiday. You might have the good grace not to shoot me in the back knowing I won’t be around for awhile to correct you. But I’ll be back in a few days to see if you did.

To those others who might look at this thread, don’t take my word for any of this or Prodigal’s. Read the 2000 bishops’ statements yourselves. Read what Cdl Dolan actually said. Read Bp. Blaire if you want.

But I’m going to tell you now that you can search for months if you want, and you will never find the U.S. bishops as a body supporting Obama’s now-dead gun legislation in detail.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Everybody believes there should be gun controls of some sort, but you will not find any but a tiny handful of churchmen who back your proposal and Obama’s. And you haven’t.

One man who works (however long now) for the Vatican does not establish the doctrine of the Church. Recall the “Vatican spokesman” who contradicted Pope Francis recently regarding whether atheists can go to heaven? There are lots of “Vatican spokesmen”, and being one does not make his statements authoritative.

You will find none who speak against gun controls and regulations. Your counter is only to minimize a full body of bishops for some reason.

Where is the correction, or clarification, for the spokesman that endorsed gun controls and regulations? It seems to be changing the subject, and it only supports the gun control view when you can produce one instance corrected with absolutely no correction or clarifications on the topic at hand.

It is not me who “politicizes” this. The very articles you cited reference Obama’s proposals…some even before Obama presented his proposed bill to Congress. Your “Vatican spokesman” endorsed Obama’s bill before it was even presented, and before he knew what was going to be in it. As you know, his own party tabled it.

As you know, Cdl Dolan said he would let it rest with the legislature’s judgment, and that’s exactly what happened. Congress let it die. Cdl Dolan has not retracted that statement or second-guessed the Senate. He stood by his word.

Spinning does not remove the facts. The men of the Church only found common ground with this administration because it acted on something they have called ALL politicians to do, with all Americans supporting such.

Cardinal Dolan left the particulars of actually legislating gun controls to lawmakers. Their failure is not what he called for and he has not changed his view to support no gun controls. You know that. It seems to be creative interpretation to fit a view to me.

Again, in 2000, the bishops’ conference spoke of gun controls in the context of a much longer discussion about street crime, specifically mentioning only cheap handguns. That cannot be equated with Obama’s proposed legislation which was not about that.

You continue to make a connection to Obama, yet it’s been made clear so anyone could understand that the calls from the men of the Church was not for one administration, or party even.

In any event, many or most of those bishops are now retired and replaced. But in any case, their statement did not meet the Canon Law requirements for being mandatory on Catholic conscience. You know that as well as you know your own nom de plume, and have been reminded of it countless times. You just ignore it. But I’ll quote it here so others will know it:

"Can. 455 §1 The (Bishops’) Conference can make general decrees only in cases where the universal law has so prescribed, or by special mandate of the Apostolic See, either on its own initiative or at the request of the Conference itself.

§2 For the decrees mentioned in §1 validly to be enacted at a plenary meeting, they must receive two thirds of the votes of those who belong to the Conference with a deliberative vote. These decrees do not oblige until they have been reviewed by the Apostolic See and lawfully promulgated."

Even the 2000 statement didn’t meet those criteria. Certainly Bp Blaire’s statements don’t. Now, keep in mind that the bishops meet EVERY YEAR, and since 2000 they have never endorsed the restrictive proposals Obama made and that you support.

What an argument! So the good men of the Church, all Holy Spirit appointed, have mostly retired, so we can dismiss their guidance???

We had a full body of bishops make a very public statement, with no objections listed by the Holy Father. The catechism states an authority behind that type action.

Guns appear to be idols for some people. They are a material item of this world, and cannot grant eternal life. They have been placed above concern over other people and their dignity of life. Gun advocates seem to place an obligation to own them for everyone. That’s not in line with anything in the Gospels, or taught through the Church.

 

[Ridgerunner]

You will find none who speak against gun controls and regulations. Your counter is only to minimize a full body of bishops for some reason.

Where is the correction, or clarification, for the spokesman that endorsed gun controls and regulations? It seems to be changing the subject, and it only supports the gun control view when you can produce one instance corrected with absolutely no correction or clarifications on the topic at hand.

Spinning does not remove the facts. The men of the Church only found common ground with this administration because it acted on something they have called ALL politicians to do, with all Americans supporting such.

Cardinal Dolan left the particulars of actually legislating gun controls to lawmakers. Their failure is not what he called for and he has not changed his view to support no gun controls. You know that. It seems to be creative interpretation to fit a view to me.

You continue to make a connection to Obama, yet it’s been made clear so anyone could understand that the calls from the men of the Church was not for one administration, or party even.

What an argument! So the good men of the Church, all Holy Spirit appointed, have mostly retired, so we can dismiss their guidance???

We had a full body of bishops make a very public statement, with no objections listed by the Holy Father. The catechism states an authority behind that type action.

Guns appear to be idols for some people. They are a material item of this world, and cannot grant eternal life. They have been placed above concern over other people and their dignity of life. Gun advocates seem to place an obligation to own them for everyone. That’s not in line with anything in the Gospels, or taught through the Church.

I knew you would do this, so I came back. I really will leave in a minute, so you can do it some more, knowing you won’t be answered for a long time.

You keep saying the “body of bishops” or “the bishops” have supported your particular views, when they haven’t.

People, read for yourselves Here’s the 2000 bishops’ statement. It’s a long read, and almost doesn’t mention guns at all, and then in a very limited way. But see for yourselves. Again, please read the Canon Laws I cited before. Even the 2000 statement, which is very limited and does NOT coincide with Obama’s or Prodigal’s program (they’re the same) is not binding on conscience. usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

Again, the “Vatican spokesman” (one of many who said nothing) endorsed Obama’s proposals before Obama even made them. That’s no authority at all.

Dolan accepted the Congress’ action in tabling the Obama proposal.

Other than that, only three bishops Prodigal can find, have even spoken on the subject.

In endorsing Obama’s proposals and those who support them, Prodigal, it is you, not me, who is making it political.

And in asserting, absolutely wrongly, that the body of American bishops support your/Obama’s proposals, you’re asserting a falsehood. Perhaps you don’t know it’s false, but you should have learned it by now, after hundreds of posts, both here and in prior threads, have established absolutely that the U.S. bishops do not bless Obama’s proposals with moral authority.

There might be good ideas concerning gun control. But trying to say the bishops support Obama’s proposals when they don’t is not an idea at all. It’s just a political misrepresentation of Church teachings.

Now, shoot me in the back, Prodigal. Repeat the gospel according to Obama while I’m gone and falsely attribute it to the bishops. I doubt anyone will believe in it now, but some might.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I knew you would do this, so I came back. I really will leave in a minute, so you can do it some more, knowing you won’t be answered for a long time.

You keep saying the “body of bishops” or “the bishops” have supported your particular views, when they haven’t.

People, read for yourselves Here’s the 2000 bishops’ statement. It’s a long read, and almost doesn’t mention guns at all, and then in a very limited way. But see for yourselves. Again, please read the Canon Laws I cited before. Even the 2000 statement, which is very limited and does NOT coincide with Obama’s or Prodigal’s program (they’re the same) is not binding on conscience. usccb.org/issues-and-action/human-life-and-dignity/criminal-justice-restorative-justice/crime-and-criminal-justice.cfm

Again, the “Vatican spokesman” (one of many who said nothing) endorsed Obama’s proposals before Obama even made them. That’s no authority at all.

Dolan accepted the Congress’ action in tabling the Obama proposal.

Other than that, only three bishops Prodigal can find, have even spoken on the subject.

In endorsing Obama’s proposals and those who support them, Prodigal, it is you, not me, who is making it political.

And in asserting, absolutely wrongly, that the body of American bishops support your/Obama’s proposals, you’re asserting a falsehood. Perhaps you don’t know it’s false, but you should have learned it by now, after hundreds of posts, both here and in prior threads, have established absolutely that the U.S. bishops do not bless Obama’s proposals with moral authority.

There might be good ideas concerning gun control. But trying to say the bishops support Obama’s proposals when they don’t is not an idea at all. It’s just a political misrepresentation of Church teachings.

Now, shoot me in the back, Prodigal. Repeat the gospel according to Obama while I’m gone and falsely attribute it to the bishops. I doubt anyone will believe in it now, but some might.

The full body of bishops, which fulfills the section of the canon you refer to, approved a document promoting gun controls. USCCB committee chairmen promoted gun controls, and referenced the document approved by a full body of bishops. The president of the USCCB promoted gun controls and also referenced the document approved by a full body of bishops.

There has not been one instance of a single bishop to speak out opposing gun controls, or making clarifications of the men who have publicly spoke out, stating representation of the the bishops of the USCCB.

Go a step further in your recommendation. People read all the documents listed on the USCCB referencing gun controls. The statements are more than public, and I give credit to the men of the Church to speak truth, if they believe the representations are less than truth. That challenge goes unanswered, because no bishop has disagreed with the call for gun controls.

Show us where Cardinal Dolan has said, ‘oh well,’ to his call for gun controls. He did not turn it over to completion as it is being made out to be.

I asked you to show where the chief Vatican spokesman was challenged by other men of the Church, instead you go to another instance where one was corrected. But, we both know you will not find that on this issue, because we both know the calls of the men of the Church are united.

Then you resort to the ad hominem connection to Obama. I have clearly addressed the topic of the thread and referred to the men of the Church. You have brought partisanship into the discussion, and made it personal with the association that I believe is purely an ad hominem. It speaks volumes to those who are objective.

Scriptures teach us that Christ taught the people to listen and do whatsoever those that sit on Moses seat says to you. He did not teach them to listen and then challenge those things you do not like. Scriptures teaches us to obey our prelates. No where is it taught to approach the Church legalistically and decide for yourselves what guidance you will follow and which you will not. Even in those documents being used to minimize the guidance from the bishops do not teach usurping the authority to choose what to follow and what not to follow.

We have to decide if we’re going to serve politics, or Him through His authoritative Church. Our faith is not legalistic, in that we can search 2000 years of documents to make an argument against the guidance from the authoritative men of the Church. They are accountable for our souls…those that will listen.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The men of the Church teach through guidance. We cannot assume that they don’t understand the Church laws, Catechism, or Scriptures, as well as we do ourselves. They guide with knowledge of those things. If one actually did have a better understanding, it is still limited by rightful authority to teach, or guide the flock. That authority makes their guidance superior to ours.

The men of the Church don’t guide on political, but how to live in a political, secular, world, as Christians.

In direct response to the title question of this thread, there is a spoken and publicized guidance, which is a position of the Church, from the men of the Church. To deny a position, we should show differences within the living protected guidance of the Church, which would indicate a lack of a position. On this issue, there are no differing opinions, or even clarifications offered. The differing opinions offered are from people who voice a vested interest on the issue, for themselves. We are not called to live life for ourselves alone.

I hope that explains my view well enough. I won’t be responding to repeated arguments.