E
Ender
Guest
Then does this mean you don’t consider this to be a moral issue?
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
Since I never suggested that prudential was synonymous with worthless I guess the “when” is never. As for being an opinion, that is precisely what this is about. Since we can never know for sure how our proposals will actually turn out, they are guesses. They may well be educated guesses, but in the end they are all opinions.
Really? This strikes you as a reasonable argument? That I disagree with someone about the best way to resolve a problem constitutes a rejection of prudence?
And yet again you refuse to address the actual issue. Either my position is correct or it is incorrect, and you do nothing to show that it is invalid by insisting that I have chosen my politics over my faith.
If this is a pro-life issue, then identify the specific pro-life position on extending the ban on assault weapons.
It is a political issue. It is neither a moral nor a pro-life issue. The question is “what solution works best”, not “who wants to solve the problem?”
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
What you call the actual issue is not in fact the issue over which pnewton (and I) disagree with you. No one is claiming that you don’t have the right to hold the position that there are better ways to address gun violence than to enact more restrictions on guns. The real issue and point of disagreement is over your insistence that it is inappropriate for bishops of the Chuch to publicly offer any concrete proposal as part of a larger message to the faithful. True, it is their prudential judgement and not doctrine that gun control in some form is a solution that should be pursued. But that prudential judgement is over what they think is right, correct, and moral. And therefore is an appropriate subject upon which they may comment. You should support their right to speak their minds even if you disagree with some of what they say. By calling it all “political” and “amoral” you are rejecting prudence as a meaningful concept of our faith.
G
godisgood77
Guest
Thank you USCCB…
E
Ender
Guest
How can I hold the right to a different opinion on the matter if the question is in fact moral? You surely don’t accept that one may legitimately hold an immoral position. The right to disagree can only exist if the matter is not in fact moral.
Yes, this is my position - so long as the issue is political, and has no moral component the bishops should take no position. Along with that is my claim that only a handful of political issues actually have a moral component…
I accept that they believe their suggestions are right and correct, my objection is to the moral part, and I don’t find your comment here consistent with what you said above. How can you claim that I have a right to a different position than the bishops if their position is the moral one? If their proposals represent the moral solution then does not my rejection of those proposals mean that my position is immoral?
Your arguments continue to focus not on the reasonableness of the actual proposals, but on what you allege to be my moral failures. That is, you continue to judge me. To suggest that my rejection of a particular policy on gun control represents a rejection of the virtue of prudence simply because a bishop thinks his plan is a good idea is ludicrous. It is also totally inconsistent with your earlier claim - which you made and have essentially disavowed twice - that I am free to hold my own opinion on the matter. So, I have the right to hold a different position than a bishop, but if I do I am “rejecting prudence as a meaningful concept of our faith”?
I’ll point out (yet again) that your approach of judging people instead of policies is the inevitable consequence of a bishop expressing his opinion on a political issue. The bishops do us a grave disservice by evoking just such responses.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
You see the difficulty we have in understanding you when you continue to use your private definition of “moral?” At one point you did admit that “moral” means right and wrong. And of course one may legitimately hold a position on a question of right and wrong. For example, it is wrong (i.e. immoral) to skip mass on Sunday without a good excuse. If I think I am too sick to go to mass and you think I’m not too sick, we can legitimately disagree and have different opinions on whether I am too sick to go. We can have a discussion. Another example is when a rich man makes a small donation to charity. He may think he has done enough, and others may think he has not done enough. Then can have a discussion. They have the right to hold different opinions on whether the rich man gave enough. There are lots of examples of questions of right and wrong coming down to a matter of degree. On these questions it is unavoidable that people will have different opinions. You aren’t going to find anything in Catholic doctrine that settles the questions one way or the other. Yet they are discussions about right and wrong - about morals.
How convenient those are the very issues on which you and the bishops agree.
U
upant
Guest
Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas
more guns equal more deaths or more guns equal less deaths, which is right?
statistics can be had to support both. so whose reason is actually right?
what if more guns do equal less deaths are the bishops guilty of supporting an immoral action?
U
upant
Guest
these are judgement calls. by saying the one is not sick enough to stay home is in fact claiming he has committed a sin by skipping mass for an unworthy reason. it goes beyond opinion. same with the tithe, there is no set amount but the amount God puts on your heart. by judging the amount was not enough is to say the rich man is disobeying God and therefore guilty of a sin. these are matters between the individual and God the rest should keep out of the situation. the same goes for gun control and the usccb. they should stay out of it because there is no right answer in every situation. for something to be moral the action must be right in every situation.
E
Ender
Guest
I didn’t need to “admit” it since I have never held that “moral” means anything other than right and wrong.
We may legitimately disagree about whether something satisfies specific criteria such that an act can be declared right or wrong, but we may not legitimately disagree over the criteria as the church has specified them. We may disagree over an application of the law; we may not question the law itself.
Disagreeing over whether an illness is sufficient to justify missing mass is not a question of morality. It is about making a practical judgment, not a moral one. A moral discussion would be about whether or not illness constituted a valid exemption.
Moral guidelines do not exist in shades of gray. Whether or not guidelines have been met may be very debatable, and we should recognize that errors of judgment are seldom sins. Gun control is a matter of judgment, discernment; it is not a dispute over moral doctrine, even though the latter is what is implied by the bishops’ comments.
This innuendo is yet another personal affront. It is astonishing to me that someone who sees virtually every issue through the lens of morality should be so indifferent when it comes to applying it in the real world. Simple charity obliges you to interpret my words in the best possible way. If you did that it would go a long way in helping you at least understand the points I’m trying to make.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Both of those things are discussions having to do with morality.
You are trying to draw a qualitative distinction where there is only a quantitative one.
Maybe not the guidelines, but the valid discussions about morality certainly are in shades of gray. If the bishops had been claiming hard moral rule about gun control, you might have a point. But they didn’t.
An implication which I don’t think is there, and certainly not intended.
P
pnewton
Guest
Easy. Because there are many areas in which there is more than one moral option, even if there are also immoral options. The existence of valid diversity does not mean there are not also many things that are not allowed.
U
upant
Guest
someone on your side defined morals as right versus wrong. so how is there more than one moral options if it is either right or wrong?
unless you believe in subjective morality.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
The operative word here is scandal.
P
pnewton
Guest
There is that big “what if”, and you use the word “scandal?” Didn’t you just ask me a question on another thread about something that hasn’t yet happened?upant:
The operative word here is scandal.
There is a real dearth of critical thinking. Instead of trying to tell bishops what is and is not their area of expertise, a little time in the student’s chair is in order. I already answered why this is not a reasonable question.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
P
pnewton
Guest
“Good grief, Charlie Brown” (as you said, but with punctuation.)
Allowing people to keep one firearm for their protection and for the protection of their family is a moral option. Allowing them to keep two firearms, and registering the ballistics so their use can be tracked, is a moral option. Allowing them only chrome or nickel finish firearms is a moral option, albeit a weird one. Allowing only firearms that shoot in even numbers would be another moral option, albeit a weird one. Allowing them to keep a smart firearm that only owner can use is a moral opinion.
Allowing one’s hobby to be more important than the life of others is immoral.
Allowing people to keep one firearm for their protection and for the protection of their family is a moral option. Allowing them to keep two firearms, and registering the ballistics so their use can be tracked, is a moral option. Allowing them only chrome or nickel finish firearms is a moral option, albeit a weird one. Allowing only firearms that shoot in even numbers would be another moral option, albeit a weird one. Allowing them to keep a smart firearm that only owner can use is a moral opinion.
Allowing one’s hobby to be more important than the life of others is immoral.
Last edited:
J
jfz178
Guest
The vast majority of violent gun crime is caused by ethnic drug gangs and much of it by repeat violent offenders. Take them off the street and keep them off the street and you reduce violent crime because they will not be on the street to commit those crimes. Not doing that is immoral. Also know that current gun laws are rarely enforced and there is no reason to believe new gun laws would be any different.
P
pnewton
Guest
This is why I hate answering question. Few really want answers. So, if someone wants to know how moral theology works, and does not care what any bishop thinks, then as a priest you trust. I guess that is where American Catholics are today.
What I wrote was not “irrelevant”. They were examples of option that could be considered immoral, which was what was asked.
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
Last edited:
U
upant
Guest
not right or wrong decisions
smart firearm? ever try to use an iphone thumb reader with a wet hand?
how is the hobby of a law abiding citizen endangering another persons life?
- Status