Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

  • Thread starter Thread starter TK421
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jfz178 said:
Actually, in the case of pedophile priests, there have been lots of judges for them, and continue to be. How much of a beacon of truth have they been on that score? I think their moral authority has become suspect over that. What is possible in one case is possible for all cases.
Click to expand...
The US Bishop’s moral authority has been greatly damaged by the pedophilia/homosexual teen rape scandal. Their collective moral authority will continue to remain suspect for generations to come, sad to say.

They don’t help themselves when they trot-out now retired prelates who were deeply involved in the scandal at big liturgies. Allowing at least one cardinal to vote in the last papal election sent a very strong and negative message to millions of people worldwide.
 
The key is doing your own homework on such issues and not reflexively attacking those who disagree with the USCCB on such matters.
 
Last edited:
This is true.

But whenever the USCCB plays into the mainstream media they garner support. The USCCB ought not to contribute their opinions on gun control.
 
Duesenberg said:
The US Bishop’s moral authority has been greatly damaged by the pedophilia/homosexual teen rape scandal. Their collective moral authority will continue to remain suspect for generations to come, sad to say
Click to expand...
Let’s not forget: It was the American left and secularists who pounced on that.
 
LoyalViews said:
This is true.

But whenever the USCCB plays into the mainstream media they garner support. The USCCB ought not to contribute their opinions on gun control.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure if they do overall or not? There was a lot of space for them to comment on gun control – although I agree they should not have. The problem is they parroted a ridiculous position from the extreme left that made them look foolish.
 
Duesenberg said:
The problem is they parroted a ridiculous position from the extreme left that made them look foolish.
Click to expand...
I am sure you are familiar with the problem of circular logic. This is a prime example. The sentence is only true if one accepts that they are parroting the left and that their position is ridiculous, in other words, if you are right and the Church is wrong. I do not think there is value in circular reasoning while criticizing the reasoning of one’s authority.
 
Cath13 said:
I never follow their stands on birth control, gay marriage and, most importantly of all, on abortion.
Click to expand...
do you follow the catechism on birth control, gay marriage and, most importantly of all, on abortion?
 
pnewton said:
I am sure you are familiar with the problem of circular logic. This is a prime example. The sentence is only true if one accepts that they are parroting the left and that their position is ridiculous, in other words, if you are right and the Church is wrong. I do not think there is value in circular reasoning while criticizing the reasoning of one’s authority.
Click to expand...
Your reductionist thinking is wrong. The USCCB’s view on this matter is not the “Church’s view.” That’s the problem – the rest is noise.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle said:
I agree, but that was not the question. The question was which is the more reasonable position - to believe the bishops or believe Duesenberg?
Click to expand...
It is more reasonable to believe the person with the better argument, and if that’s an anonymous poster on a public forum then that’s who to go with. The bishop’s get no extra credit for being bishops when it comes to political issues. Their arguments stand or fall on their own, and in this case they don’t stand very tall.
 
Ender said:
40.png
LeafByNiggle:
I agree, but that was not the question. The question was which is the more reasonable position - to believe the bishops or believe Duesenberg?
Click to expand...
It is more reasonable to believe the person with the better argument, and if that’s an anonymous poster on a public forum then that’s who to go with. The bishop’s get no extra credit for being bishops when it comes to political issues. Their arguments stand or fall on their own, and in this case they don’t stand very tall.
Click to expand...
Well, in that case, on that basis I go with bishops on this one too, as the opposing argument is especially lacking, in my opinion.
 
Cath13 said:
do you follow the catechism on welcoming the stranger, catholic social teaching, the death penalty and all the other things you see as a bunch of liberal crap?
Click to expand...
Gun control, immigration, and the vague “Catholic social teaching” are defined by their objectives, not their doctrines. That is, there is no church doctrine that either demands or forbids the building of a wall, that says whether illegals should or should not be granted citizenship, that sets the minimum wage, that specifies how health care should be provided. All of these specific concerns are entirely prudential; there is no church teaching on any of them.

The death penalty, abortion, euthanasia, and a few others are moral issues that have a political aspect to them, but since there is a moral component it is appropriate for the clergy to address them. The reason it is not appropriate for them to make specific proposals on gun control is that there is no moral choice involved in determining how best to address the problem of gun violence.
 
Last edited:
Cath13 said:
do you follow the catechism
Click to expand...
i follow the bible
on welcoming the stranger, catholic social teaching,
Click to expand...
"The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat."2 Thessalonians 3:10
the death penalty
Click to expand...
For he is God’s minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God’s minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil. Romans 13:4
and all the other things you see as a bunch of liberal crap
Click to expand...
not liberal crap but the crappy way the liberals have tried to fix the issues. the left social agenda isn’t working and hasn’t worked for decades. a new approach is needed.

the subjective morality of the left is not christian!
 
Cath13 said:
??? Really? So, using your logic, I could say there is no moral choice involved in determining how best to address the problem of an unwanted pregnancy.
Click to expand...
Very few practical choices involve moral choices. We are expected to act within a broad set of guidelines - don’t steal, don’t cheat, help the needy - but within those boundaries the church provides no guidance at all beyond “try to do what is right.” The point I’m making is that determining what is the best action in a particular circumstance is not a moral one. There is, for example, no church doctrine that tells us what specific policies to implement with regard to the US issue with guns.

Since that is obviously true, why is it proper for bishops to suggest their own policies when such suggestions come with the (false) implication that their proposals are moral choices?
 
Cath13 said:
And what about the subjective morality of the right,
Click to expand...
depends on what faction of the right you are addressing, some do have a subjective morality no different than the left.
the subjective morality of the bible, or the subjective morality of Christianity?
Click to expand...
the morality of the bible and most christians is an objective morality. it doesn’t matter how they feel.
 
Please note that Ender’s use of the word “moral” is not the common use, meaning right or wrong - good or bad - evil or just. When Ender uses “moral” it means “pertaining to an infallible Church doctrine.”
 
Last edited:
Which is why we need to avoid appeal to authority fallacies.
For those who keep on making the talking point that the Church is a valid authority, the appeal to authority fallacy does not question the authority but the substance of the argument.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Which is why we need to avoid appeal to authority fallacies.
For those who keep on making the talking point that the Church is a valid authority, the appeal to authority fallacy does not question the authority but the substance of the argument.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should also avoid the appeal to authority fallacies when discussing the second amendment and the founding fathers. Instead of quoting them as authorities on what is right and proper as to the right to bear arms, we should consider the matter for ourselves. If we decide that the second amendment has outlived its usefulness, we should just go ahead and repeal it. What makes those men, dead now for 200 years, an authority we should listen to when we can just think for ourselves and decide what to do about guns. I think you may have a point there, SL.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top