Posted on 04/22/2013 9:24:06 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
By Phil Lawler
04/22/13
While Bishop Blaire laments the failure of the US Senate to approve new gun-control regulations, could we inject a dash of political reality into the discussion?
The Senate did not vote against gun-control legislation. On the contrary, a majority voted in favor. So why didn’t the measure pass? Because this was a procedural vote. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to close off debate, and only 54 Senators voted for cloture. That vote was a setback for proponents of the gun-control legislation, who wanted to rush the measure through the Senate without debate or amendment. But the cloture vote did not, by itself, kill the bill. The campaign for gun control petered out because proponents were not willing to proceed under ordinary parliamentary rules, allowing the possibility of amendments to their legislation.
As he withdrew the bill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid complained that 90% of all Americans would support the background checks that the legislation would have required for gun purchases. That may be so (although a 90% approval rate for anything seems impossibly high), and quite likely the Senate would have approved background checks. But the ordinary legislative process would have allowed for amendments to ease the concerns of gun owners: for instances, a proviso allowing fathers to transfer gun ownership to their children, or a clause forbidding a national registry of firearms. Those measures might have been popular with the public as well. The gun-control bill died because the White House and the Senate leadership would not entertain any such amendments.
So what should we make of the statement by Bishop Blaire, expressing “deep disappointment” with the Senate? His statement does not assign blame for the failure of the gun-control bill, but he does allow that the US bishops’ conference has been urging Congress to support such legislation, and he announces that the Senate bill included provisions that “were a positive step in the right direction.” Thus he implies that Catholic bishops and/or their representatives have the expertise to determine which measures would effectively reduce gun violence. Needless to say, there is nothing in Church teaching to support that assumption. Political judgments are the province of the laity, and the Catholic laity in America is—like the American population in general—deeply split on gun control.
But the problem with Bishop Blaire’s statement goes deeper, because actually there was no Senate “failure” to support gun-control regulations. The bill was not defeated; it was withdrawn—by its supporters. Now is Bishop Blaire criticizing Democratic Party leaders for an untimely retreat? Or is he criticizing Republicans for declining to give the Democratic leaders exactly what they wanted? Or is he saying that the bill should have been approved as it stood? Is he suggesting that no amendment could possibly have improved the legislation? Bishop Blaire might have his own personal opinions on any or all of those questions. Since they would only be personal opinions—they certainly aren’t issues on which bishops speak authoritatively—it would be best if he kept them to himself.
So what about this guy? Is he infallibly inspired of God? He has the robes and headgear and everything.
What if he advances to the bonus round and helps elect the next Pope?
Importantly, the bishop needs an education about the value of guns to society. While the church deplores violence as a whole, it is clear that all violence is not equal.
The church stands on firm moral ground when it condemns people for criminally attacking the innocent with violence; but it has no such resolve with the innocent defending themselves from violent criminals.
Importantly, having a gun to defend yourself and others is not the same as using a gun to do so. Surely the church must agree that stopping violence with *just* the threat of violence is not immoral.
Likewise the church is free to hate the crime but love the criminal, wanting to help him find redemption. But redemption can only be found if he is prevented from his crime. If he forfeits his life while intent on violating others, and does not find redemption before death, that is no fault of others.
Yet one final thing is certain. That is, that gun control is exclusively the tool of tyrants. To invite it is to invite tyranny; and such tyranny rarely appreciates the morality of the church.
Protest as you will, bishop, against others defending themselves, and all too soon, you may find yourself powerless to defend yourself and your faith from oppression.
An ignorant post is a terrible thing.
" Father Lombardi does not set policy for the Vatican, or make authoritative statements for the Catholic Church. "
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2980739/posts
Vatican welcomes Obama gun control proposal
AP/cnsnews ^ | January 19, 2013 | Staff
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2979898/posts
Apologia for Church in Vatican Radio gun rights attack rings hollow - (rebuttal to Lawler)
Eaminer.com ^ | January 22, 2013 | David Codrea
Catholic Culture has weighed in on Vatican Radio's editorial endorsing President Obama's "gun control" agenda. Inevitably [the] editorial will be portrayed by careless reporters as an official statement of the Vatican’s position," Catholic World News editor Phil Lawler writes. "It is not; Father Lombardi does not set policy for the Vatican, or make authoritative statements for the Catholic Church."
Oh [papal] bull, and "careless" my eye -- how insulting. The buck stops at the top. The captain is responsible for what the crew does under his command. Especially if it involves his senior officers acting in his and its name.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2981061/posts
Cardinal Dolan finds common ground with Obama on guns
Catholic News Agency ^ | Feb 20, 2013 / 02:00 am | CNS
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2990320/posts
DC Cardinal McCarrick: Church Will Push for Immigration, Gun Safety
Newsmax ^ | Thursday, 28 Mar 2013 07:56 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3001669/posts
Gun control: Church firmly, quietly opposes firearms for civilians
VATICAN CITY – The Catholic Church’s position on gun control is not easy to find; there are dozens of speeches and talks and a few documents that call for much tighter regulation of the global arms trade, but what about private gun ownership?
The answer is resoundingly clear: Firearms in the hands of civilians should be strictly limited and eventually completely eliminated.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2979898/posts?page=118#118
Hence we can safely say that Bp. Stephen Blaire is speaking outside of his competence.
Good post. I wish they would quit spouting off about economis too. Another topic where they are just as fallible as the next guy
Tagline applies, not just to the USCCB, but to the analogous Vatican clerical bureaucracies.
Amen. And I always make a point to teaching my RCIA students that there’s a big difference between an apostolic hierarchy and a clerical bureaucracy.
The Chruch’s teachings on self defense are crystal clear, and recent bishops’ opinions do not trump the magisterial teachings of Popes and the Catechism.
In his Encyclical Letter from 1995, EVANGELIUM VITAE, Pope John Paul II writes:
“......Christian reflection has sought a fuller and deeper understanding of what God’s commandment prohibits and prescribes. There are in fact situations in which values proposed by God’s Law seem to involve a genuine paradox. This happens for example in the case of legitimate defense, in which the right to protect one’s own life and the duty not to harm someone else’s life are difficult to reconcile in practice. Certainly, the intrinsic value of life and the duty to love oneself no less than others are the basis of a true right to self-defense.”
He goes on to say:
“...legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason.”
Pope John Paul II knew exactly what happens when innocents are disarmed, having lived under both Nazism and communism. He did not believe in disarming citizens and neither does the Catholic Church, this spokesperson’s personal opinion notwithstanding.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is crystal clear on self defense:
Legitimate defense
2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”65
2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:
If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66
2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67
2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.
When you look at these statements from both Pope John Paul II and the Catechism, it is crystal clear that the Church teaches that the family has the right to defend itself, including the use of small arms/deadly force.
The Chruch’s teachings on self defense are crystal clear, and recent bishops’ opinions do not trump the magisterial teachings of Popes and the Catechism.
Maybe you should make Cardinal McCarrick (appt. by JPII) and Cardinal Dolan (appt. by PEBXVI) aware of their faulty understanding of the Catechism?
You are manipulating the "teachings on self defense" as justification for gun ownership.
There are no "crystal clear", clearly worded, definitive statements on the private ownership of "small arms" or guns either way, and is left vaguely open to interpretation. If there are, please produce them (you would already have).
I refer you again to the evidence I presented. You don't have to agree with those people, they don't agree with you.
Their actions speak louder than "teachings".
.
Moreover, acting "outside of their competence" is what the public policy departments f the USCCB do "all de live-long day."
What we all object to, strongly ---- and rightly --- is that these prominent Catholics are not Catholic enough.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.