Shootings demonstrate need for gun control, USCCB says

[JonNC]

Ender:

no moral choice involved in determining how best to address the problem of gun violence.

??? 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.

The first way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not do that which causes pregnancy.

 

[Ender]

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.”

Please note that when one person purports to explain what another person means he usually gets it wrong. My use of the word moral is precisely what :LBN says it isn’t: it means right or wrong - good or bad - evil or just.

When I say there is no moral choice involved in determining the best solution for gun violence I mean it is not a question of what is evil and what is just. It is entirely a question of what one believes will be the effect a certain policy will have.

I ask this every time the bishops improperly (in my opinion) involve themselves in a political issue: what is the moral choice involved? The bishops have called for an extension of the assault weapons ban. Is that a moral choice? Do we sin if we believe it is a useless and unworkable solution? That may be what is implied by their pronouncing on the issue, but it is surely not a valid assumption.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

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.”

Please note that when one person purports to explain what another person means he usually gets it wrong. My use of the word moral is precisely what :LBN says it isn’t: it means right or wrong - good or bad - evil or just.

When I say there is no moral choice involved in determining the best solution for gun violence I mean it is not a question of what is evil and what is just. It is entirely a question of what one believes will be the effect a certain policy will have.

I ask this every time the bishops improperly (in my opinion) involve themselves in a political issue: what is the moral choice involved? The bishops have called for an extension of the assault weapons ban. Is that a moral choice? Do we sin if we believe it is a useless and unworkable solution? That may be what is implied by their pronouncing on the issue, but it is surely not a valid assumption.

The moral choice involved is whether to solve the problem of people being killed by guns on not to solve it. It is way too generous an assumption that everyone who considers the question of gun control is equally concerned about victims and not about their ideological fixation with everyone having the right to carry a gun. This is the real question, and when the bishops propose a specific solution to the problem, they are not just saying that they think this is a good solution. They are asking people to care. I don’t think everyone who weighs in on this debate cares equally and simply disagree about the best way to achieve an end that everyone agrees is good.

 

[pnewton]

Your reductionist thinking is wrong. The USCCB’s view on this matter is not the “Church’s view.”

It is not reductionist, not unless you can show which bishop in the United States has stated an alternate view. It never surprises how Catholics can dismiss what it is said by a bishop as being just an opinion with zero support from another bishop with a contradictory statement. So I will wait and see if you can produce something.

I find it far less reductionist to view Church teaching as that which is taught by those with authority to teach, that the reductionism of narrowing Church teaching as to that which is in concert with the Republican Party, or conservatives, or whatever one’s own opinions are.

 

[SuperLuigi]

It never surprises how Catholics can dismiss what it is said by a bishop as being just an opinion with zero support from another bishop with a contradictory statement.

Why not when one understands the issues and encounters ignorance?

I find it far less reductionist to view Church teaching as that which is taught by those with authority to teach, that the reductionism of narrowing Church teaching as to that which is in concert with the Republican Party, or conservatives, or whatever one’s own opinions are.

Has it ever occurred to you even once that Catholics who vote Republican or support some Republican …er I mean conservative…policies do so because they simply work and not because of the R behind their name?

 

[pnewton]

Why not when one understands the issues and encounters ignorance?

Begging the question.

Has it ever occurred to you even once that Catholics who vote Republican or support some Republican …er I mean conservative…policies do so because they simply work

Begging the question.

And of course it might happen. I hate to judge by just here, but it does seem the vast majority fit the model of judging issues more along party lines than Catholic teaching. It could just be coincidence or a sampling issue.

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

The first way to deal with unwanted pregnancy is to not do that which causes pregnancy.

Yes! Use birth control!

Not the same thing. But killing a soon-to-be born human being isn’t the way to solve one’s choice to do that which causes pregnancy

 

[JonNC]

JonNC:

Not the same thing. But killing a soon-to-be born human being isn’t the way to solve one’s choice to do that which causes pregnancy

I would say an AK 47 is a little more lethal than a condom.

I would say an abortion is always lethal because that’s the intent. An rifle is only lethal if used that way.

 

[Ender]

The moral choice involved is whether to solve the problem of people being killed by guns on not to solve it. It is way too generous an assumption that everyone who considers the question of gun control is equally concerned about victims and not about their ideological fixation with everyone having the right to carry a gun.

And there it is: the “moral” argument surrounding this and virtually every other political issue is the uncharitable judgment that people on the “other” side don’t really care about solving the problem. And this is precisely why I oppose the bishops’ involvement in political issues - because it supports just this sort of thinking.

I don’t think everyone who weighs in on this debate cares equally and simply disagree about the best way to achieve an end that everyone agrees is good.

Once again: my side cares, yours doesn’t. Mine are the good people, yours are (enter insulting generalization here).

 

[Ender]

It is not reductionist, not unless you can show which bishop in the United States has stated an alternate view.

It may not be reductionist, but the statement that the USCCB’s view on the matter not being Church teaching is plainly true. If you believe otherwise then reference the doctrine that calls for the extension of the ban on “assault” weapons. For that matter, cite the doctrines that call for the imposition of any of the specific policies called for in the OP document. You claim these are the church’s view, now show us where its taught. Or is it your claim that whatever a bishop says is church doctrine simply because he has said it whether it pertains to faith and morals or not?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

The moral choice involved is whether to solve the problem of people being killed by guns on not to solve it. It is way too generous an assumption that everyone who considers the question of gun control is equally concerned about victims and not about their ideological fixation with everyone having the right to carry a gun.

And there it is: the “moral” argument surrounding this and virtually every other political issue is the uncharitable judgment that people on the “other” side doesn’t really care about solving the problem. And this is precisely why I oppose the bishops’ involvement in political issues - because it supports just this sort of thinking.

I don’t think everyone who weighs in on this debate cares equally and simply disagree about the best way to achieve an end that everyone agrees is good.

Once again: my side cares, yours doesn’t. Mine are the good people, yours are (enter insulting generalization here).

The fact is there are a lot of people who do not care. The bishops are not calling out anyone in particular, so there is nothing uncharitable about it. Do you honestly believe that absolutely everyone is equally committed to justice?

 

[Ender]

The fact is there are a lot of people who do not care. The bishops are not calling out anyone in particular, so there is nothing uncharitable about it. Do you honestly believe that absolutely everyone is equally committed to justice?

I’m sure there are people on both sides who are working to advance agendas that have nothing to do with solving the problem, and frankly I don’t care. I cannot judge a person’s motivation for proposing a particular solution; all I can do is judge the solution he has proposed and the arguments with which he supports it. Whether his motivation is just or unjust is immaterial to whether the proposal is good or bad.

As for the bishops calling out particular people: yes, I think that is just what their statements imply, that their position is not just right, but so transparently right that the only reason to oppose them is if one doesn’t really want to solve the problem.

You have called this a moral issue. Others have claimed the bishops’ statements to be church teaching. What other conclusion can be reasonably drawn about people who are on the wrong side of a moral issue and who dissent from church teaching? It is what you’ve done by claiming there are a lot of people who don’t care (on the side opposing the bishops’ involvement). You are morally judging people, not prudentially judging their proposals.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I disagree with your assertion that I am judging anyone. I only claim that there are some people deserving of judgement. It is like saying there is crime in Chicago without saying that anyone is particular or any group in particular is guilty of it. Therefore it is appropriate to speak out against that crime. Didn’t John the Baptist get very specific with his preaching against Herod? I don’t think John was being excessively uncharitable. And neither are our bishops who are nowhere near as specific as John the Baptist on calling out people.

 

[pnewton]

Since when is “prudential” equate to being worthless, or even just opinion? That is not what the word means. Rejecting prudence makes no more since than rejecting any other virtue. I think on thing that stands out is that the same people constantly reject the prudence of the bishops whenever it has anything to do with something that goes against conservative philosophy, even in pro-life issues, which this is.

Though I wonder if this is truly a conservative issue. James Brady (Reagan’s press secretary) and his wife led the first battle for gun control. Maybe what forms one’s opinion is who closely they can empathize with the victims of gun control, or whether they like going to the local gun range for a pew-pew session.

 

[Ender]

I disagree with your assertion that I am judging anyone. I only claim that there are some people deserving of judgement.

The problem is that you cannot know who those people are. You can know what position a person holds, but you cannot generally know why he holds it. You can only assume he takes a position for immoral reasons, and that is an assumption we are explicitly forbidden to make. It is proper to oppose the position, but it is improper to oppose the person for taking it.

It is like saying there is crime in Chicago without saying that anyone is particular or any group in particular is guilty of it. Therefore it is appropriate to speak out against that crime.

No, it is nothing like this. It would be like saying there is crime in Chicago and that a certain group of people are responsible for it. It implicates the entire group, not merely those who are criminals. In this case everyone who opposes the bishops’ opinions on gun control are labeled as taking an immoral position and rejecting the teaching of the church. It is a judgment of people, and it is wrong.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I disagree with your assertion that I am judging anyone. I only claim that there are some people deserving of judgement.

The problem is that you cannot know who those people are. You can know what position a person holds, but you cannot generally know why he holds it. You can only assume he takes a position for immoral reasons, and that is an assumption we are explicitly forbidden to make. It is proper to oppose the position, but it is improper to oppose the person for taking it.

It is not a problem. We don’t have to know “who these people are,” nor do the bishops claim to know. The fact that they suggested one solution does not imply that they condemn other alternate solutions, even though you may imagine that they do.

It is like saying there is crime in Chicago without saying that anyone is particular or any group in particular is guilty of it. Therefore it is appropriate to speak out against that crime.

No, it is nothing like this. It would be like saying there is crime in Chicago and that a certain group of people are responsible for it. It implicates the entire group, not merely those who are criminals. In this case everyone who opposes the bishops’ opinions on gun control are labeled as taking an immoral position and rejecting the teaching of the church.

As I said, the implication you draw from their statement is fabricated. There is no evidence the bishops are blaming any group or policy position.

 

[Morgan20]

I agree the Catholic Bishops are becoming more and more liberal

 

[jfz178]

There is no evidence the bishops are blaming any group or policy position.

From the USCCB’s “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” November 2000.
“As bishops…we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”
That’s followed by a footnote that states: “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

From the bishops’ 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse: They called for “effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

So clearly the bishops are blaming the policy of allowing handgun ownership and therefore handgun owners, manufacturers and dealers for violent crime, since that is supply chain for handguns in society, even though those groups do not commit, promote or enable violent crime.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

There is no evidence the bishops are blaming any group or policy position.

From the USCCB’s “Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice” November 2000.
“As bishops…we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns.”
That’s followed by a footnote that states: “However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions – i.e. police officers, military use – handguns should be eliminated from our society.”

From the bishops’ 1990 pastoral statement on substance abuse: They called for “effective and courageous action to control handguns, leading to their eventual elimination from our society.”

So clearly the bishops are blaming the policy of allowing handgun ownership and therefore handgun owners, manufacturers and dealers for violent crime, since that is supply chain for handguns in society, even though those groups do not commit, promote or enable violent crime.

The bishops do not conflate criticism of a policy with criticism of the people who hold that policy, and neither should we.

 

[jfz178]

But you admit they are blaming a policy, right? And if someone is effectively defending that policy and keeping it in place…