Comments for Thinking about Aurora at http://www.thecatholicthing.org , comment 1 to 31 out of 20 comments http://www.thecatholicthing.org Fri, 24 May 2013 09:14:30 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12705 Oops! A typo crept in: "conscience" should be in the plural. Also, I should clarify that the phrase "the full body of bishops" often is used by the USCCB to simply indicate that whatever occurred, took place at one of its General Assemblies. If a decision about some important doctrinal or pastoral matter was unanimous, at least in many cases, it is explicitly announced (for example, see the recent announcement concerning the unanimous adoption of the ‘United For Religious Freedom’ Statement on the USCCB website). Since I cannot find any such announcement about RRR in any USCCB materials (including the website), it is a matter of doubt. And in such cases the principle "lex dubia non obligat" applies. - G.K. Thursday Thu, 02 Aug 2012 09:52:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12703 @Louise, thank you for your comment. However it still leaves us in a state of doubt, since neither you nor I know if the approval was unanimous or not. The phrase "the full body of bishops" is used in several ways by the USCCB on their own website and in a variety of documents. Origins (the USCCB's weekly publication on its own activities, etc.) often writes of "the full body of bishops" hearing speakers, approving administrative requests, scheduling meetings, etc., without ever implying that there was a unanimous agreement about the speaker, the admin requests or the scheduled meeting dates. "The full body of bishops" does not imply unanimity in these cases, so it really is unclear whether being "approved for publication by the full body of bishops" (what the RRR literally states at its end) implies unanimity. It might, but it might not. If it does then it really does not allow much dissent from its positions, since the "'religious respect' that we each owe to the magisterium of our individual bishops" is binding on the conscience of faithful Catholics. Needless to say this would discomfit our author and almost all of the people commenting on this post. Fortunately, until the state of doubt is removed, we are free to simply respect RRR as an opinion of the USCCB. - G.K. Thursday Thu, 02 Aug 2012 06:54:22 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12681 @GKThursday, I've looked at a few other docs and they say approved by the "full body" so I think that means unanimous. Which means, as you point out, it merits the "religious respect" that we each owe to the magisterium of our individual bishops. Now, I'm quite surprised to find a statement such as the handgun elimination statement in it and hope that someone has a bishop they can easily ask if this is to be presumed a merely prudential statement by the bishops with which we can disagree or meant to be considered a moral norm they are asking us to adopt. - Louise Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:49:19 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12680 Brian English, So the Supreme Court judged itself useless!. The Citizens can not politically combat State tyranny but ultimately need recourse of arms!. A complete negation of republican principles, I must say. Perhaps you misunderstand Supremes and Madison? - Gian Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:40:41 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12679 "The thing is, it creeps up on you." In 1973, The Supreme Couirt found that a mother had a right to kill her own flesh and blood in utero. Read Hadley Arkes column of July 31st. That right has now been extended to ex utero. In a few years the government's right to annihilate will extend to YOU. Militias begin as citizens armed individually and then collectively. Read up on the Cristeros in Mexico 1926 to 1929. Are you aware that the U.S. lent aircraft to the Mexican Gov't to fight the Mexican Catholics? Are you aware that the KKK offered to send an "army" to assist the Mexican Gov't? They were refused. Think of the predator priests and the bishops who moved them from parish to parish. People cannot be trusted!!! - Manfred Tue, 31 Jul 2012 18:17:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12678 Wow. This is a great discussion. I have often wondered what the rest of the Body thought about guns, but never enough to start turning over rocks. You see, I've been a gun enthusiast all my life. I collect them, I thoroughly enjoy playing with them (target shooting) and I have used them to responsibly put food on the table. I taught my sons to respect firearms and to use them responsibility, just as my father taught me. However that part of my life and my spiritual life never really mixed much. (Except that is, that I almost always, eventually find myself in unconscious prayer whenever I sit in the woods, with my gun, and become totally immersed in awe of God’s creation). I suppose I did not want to cross two things that I love only to find that one cannot countenance the other. I certainly had no desire to have to argue with people over it. They will not change my opinion and I really don’t care much to hear theirs. But here we sit. I’m sorry to disagree with some of you, but Manfred is correct. You may think it silly that he or anyone else is out there thinking that the possibility of that knock at the door is real. I mean, this is the United States of America. That kind of thing could never happen here! A ridiculous premise? Tell me. 13 months ago, did you find the idea that the 1st amendment could be so cavalierly discarded to be similarly ridiculous? I know I did. “ Why, this is the USA” I would have said.” That kind of thing could never happen here”. History is rife with examples of despotism where once there was none. The thing is, it creeps up on you. It never starts out as a knock on the door. We live in tremulous times. Not unlike those with which the founders were well familiar. I agree with BE. James Madison would be well stocked with hundred round clips. Cheers, - Layman Tom Tue, 31 Jul 2012 13:17:32 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12675 "It is an entire misinterpretation of the plain text of 2nd Amendment to read it as allowing private gun ownership to combat State tyranny." James Madison would disagree with you, and the Supreme Court just ruled a few years ago that you are wrong. - Brian English Tue, 31 Jul 2012 06:40:04 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12671 The unfortunate necessity of gun ownership to safeguard oneself from crime is an imperfection in the Republic. Men living in a State of Law do not need guns; since they have 'rights' and a 'right' is in a nature of argument. It is an entire misinterpretation of the plain text of 2nd Amendment to read it as allowing private gun ownership to combat State tyranny. In fact, the second amendment is intended for the defense of State through an armed citizenry, a standing army not being envisaged. Thus a Catholic needs to view gun ownership as an unfortunate necessity, a blemish on the State of Law and should not take pride in the guns and must not show-off them, by carrying them about when there is no apprehension of violence. - Gian Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:27:44 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12670 Out of all the discussion here, the most pertinent comment is Louise's investigation into the authority of the "Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice" document (RRR). What is its relation to the ordinary magisterium? Louise thinks it must be of a piece with magisterial teaching since "it was ordered published by the full body of bishops, one of the two ways it can be considered an authoritative statement of the bishops conference since JPII published 'Apostolos Suos'." But "approved for publication by the full body of bishops at their November 2000 General Meeting" (what the document literally says), does not say how the approval was given. This is significant because 'Apostolos Suos' (AS) holds that "Taking into account that the authentic magisterium of the Bishops, namely what they teach insofar as they are invested with the authority of Christ, must always be in communion with the Head of the College and its members,(83) when the doctrinal declarations of Episcopal Conferences are approved unanimously, they may certainly be issued in the name of the Conferences themselves, and the faithful are obliged to adhere with a sense of religious respect to that authentic magisterium of their own Bishops. However, if this unanimity is lacking, a majority alone of the Bishops of a Conference cannot issue a declaration as authentic teaching of the Conference to which all the faithful of the territory would have to adhere, unless it obtains the recognitio of the Apostolic See, which will not give it if the majority requesting it is not substantial" (AS n22). So AS requires a unanimous agreement from the Episcopal Conference for a document to be part of the "authentic magisterium of their own Bishops." Was RRR approved unanimously? The document never claims that (indeed it says that it "originated from the Committee on Domestic Policy"; but AS n22 clearly states that "smaller bodies —the permanent council, a commission or other offices—do not have the authority to carry out acts of authentic magisterium either in their own name or in the name of the Conference, and not even as a task assigned to them by the Conference"). On the other hand it might have been unanimously approved. So we are left in a state of doubt. In that case the principle "lex dubia non obligat," that a law which is doubtful in its application to the case in hand does not bind, must be observed. So until we can ascertain the magisterial status of RRR, it need NOT be held as anything but an opinion of the Episcopal Conference. Does anyone in the Catholic Thing blogoshpere know if RRR was approved UNANIMOUSLY by the USCCB? - G.K. Thursday Mon, 30 Jul 2012 18:08:06 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12669 Brad: Point taken. Let me address the bishops and handguns.A few years ago, it was noted that tourists to Florida were being robbed and often murdered by armed criminals while other citizens were not (at the same rate). The investigations determined that the tourists were driving rented cars with the rental company's name displayed on the rear. As parts of Florida have a Right to Carry law, it was soon realized that the criminals preyed on the tourists because they knew they WERE NOT ARMED. Solution? remove the rental company's identification from the vehicle. Robberies and deaths went down. I have a weapon in my home (not to carry) and its purpose is this: if a knock should come at my door and a voice says "N.K.V.D.", "Stasi", "Geheime Stadts Polizei" (Gestapo)or "Shining Path", I will not have to submit and go along. That was always the purpose of the militias-to keep the Federal Government in check. The Fathers of this Country, whether they knew it or not, were believers in the effects of Original Sin. - Manfred Mon, 30 Jul 2012 15:24:47 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12668 My wife was leery about guns in the home until some schmuck tried walking into ours one day while she watched from down the street. He didn't get in, but the better half called 911 to have him apprehended. Nobody ever showed up. When we pulled the string on that one it turned out the 911 operator had judged it to be a "confused senior citizen wandering the neighborhood" rather than a real criminal. The justification for this was my wife's calm demeanor during the call. The bride is an RN, trained to control her emotions in time of crisis. DUH!! The local cops were no help, the police chief played "company man" and said the call could have been taken either as one for a confused citizen or an actual criminal. He ended the conversation when the wife opined the worst of the two options should always be assumed. Since then we've gotten some firepower in the house. On her first day at the range, the better half filled the center of the target with her shots. When I noted the good shooting she just looked at me and stated, "Honey, I'll be protecting my family if I have to use this pup." The Lord has given me a good wife. - Subvet Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:27:14 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12667 @Bill M.: Of course, my comment concerning the fragility and future of rights is prospective, but the portents are dark. As to the USCCB, I don't wish the bishops would come out in favor of the Second Amendment; as you suggest, it's not really their place to enter into the political debate over gun ownership. But I do wish their pronouncements were in sync with the Catechism, which in the matter of gun ownership is not the case. @Manfred: You didn't offer a note of balance; you changed the subject. - Brad Miner Mon, 30 Jul 2012 14:25:48 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12666 I normally keep my posts to one per subject. One point forgotten and I forgot it when I posted earlier this morning is that we focus on criminals and forget that through recorded history and particularly in the 20th Century, more people have died at the hands of a government (their own or another) than have died at the hands of criminals. Why we extend carte blanche virtuous behavior to government is a mystery to me. We also forget that at the time of the American Revolution, the technical advantage to weaponry in the context of hand held firearms was with private citizens; frontiersmen in particular. Their possession of the rifle i.e. a rifling twist in the barrel made their weapons far superior to infantry with smooth bore muskets. Many a British soldier was the unfortunate recipient of ball in the head from 300 yards out...the Pennsylvania Flintlock was not something one wanted to be on the receiving end. And we don't need tanks, aircraft or other military stuff the other side always argues we think we need. First off, they're too expensive to maintain and second there's not enough of them when compared to the number of American in private possession of firearms. But I do want parity or greater when it comes to firearms and that includes assault rifles with high capacity magazines. Like I said, the Second Amendment is not about hunting and swords, knives, spears and bows in the time of Jesus are just as lethal. Self defense is like I stated earlier, the first human right. - Frank Mon, 30 Jul 2012 13:49:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12665 @DS, You write [emphasis added]: "The distinction is not a fraud. I am using the legal definition of "assault" weapon (admittedly not a favorite with gun advocates) which includes both semi-automatic and automatic weapons." It is incorrect. The original definition of an "assault weapon" (from the German Sturmgewehr, lit. "assault rifle," [1944]) was what designed the breed. The legal definition is irrelevant, given the propensity of modern governments, not in any way excluding our own to use nomenclature to generate acceptance/revulsion depending upon the regnant political issues of the day (cf. the use of choice as opposed to abortion to describe the willful taking of an innocent unborn human). Turning the generic name of an object into a term of demonization and then redefining it so as to include previously excluded categories of object is fundamental dishonesty and ergo rank demagoguery. The breed is characterized by: • the use of either full-automatic or selective fire, the latter allowing the operator to choose between continuous firing as long as the trigger is depressed, or firing one, and only one, round for one depression of the trigger. • the use of a smaller projectile than standard battle rifles (M-1 and M-14, to cite two examples), • loaded into a smaller cartridge case, both of the above attributes chosen, despite limiting effective weapon range, in an increase in the number of rounds that assault troops can carry on their person without requiring resupply, which typically has the added advantage of tending to make • the rifle more compact and lighter in weight than a conventional battle rifle, adding still further to available combat load of the assault infantry. The legal definition of any object does not make the object the named thing. If it did, the legislature could pass, and the executive could sign into law a piece of legislation that classifies an ice cream cone containing some minimum weight of ice cream as an "assault weapon," and it would be so, despite the absence of any of the defining characteristics. Pax et bonum, Keith Töpfer - Martial Artist Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:39:17 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12664 Luke 11:21 "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe." - Grump Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:32:38 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12663 This is throughout an engaging article, but I could wish that Mr Miner had amplified his first great claim: "Simply stated: the loss of one essential liberty threatens the loss of others. As goes the Second Amendment, so goes the First." I do not deny that the implications of USCCB statements on guns are questionable. But is the suggestion that they should say something else, or say nothing? From the way the article began, I tend to think that Mr Miner would like for them to come out in favor of the Second Amendment. Many of us would like to see the USCCB step back from policy pronouncements and focus on being good shepherds. That is because most of the things they address concern prudential decisions about which reasonable people can disagree. What is interesting about this article, then, is that defending the free exercise of religion in the First Amendment would seem to require that the bishops defend all rights, even though this would seem to be the job primarily of the laity, and would entangle the bishops in countless policy battles for which they have no competence and probably no interest. I would be curious, then, how these distinct arguments connect in this article, and if Mr Miner is not pointing for the need - yet again - to step back from "rights language." - Bill M. Mon, 30 Jul 2012 12:16:51 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12662 Keith, I entirely agree and note some others, some of which are posted at my local shooting range: 1) Wear ear and eye protection. 2) Don't crossfire. 3) Point guns downrange during loading and sight adjustment. 4) Paper targets only. and, of course, never drink and shoot. By the way, Keith, I am ex-Navy, honorably discharged 1963. Ol' sparky. My brother works at a gun shop in Albuquerque and has quite a collection. - Grump Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:47:05 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12661 "The distinction is not a fraud. I am using the legal definition of "assault" weapon (admittedly not a favorite with gun advocates)" " It is not a favorite with gun advocates because it is a fraud. Politicians throw around "assault weapon" so they can make people think they are protecting them from something scary. A semi-automatic rifle, even one called an assualt rifle, actually shoots only one bullet for each pull of the trigger. - Brian English Mon, 30 Jul 2012 11:32:18 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12660 To Brian - The distinction is not a fraud. I am using the legal definition of "assault" weapon (admittedly not a favorite with gun advocates) which includes both semi-automatic and automatic weapons. The latter are indeed heavily regulated. The former can include normal hunting rifles if they are outfitted with certain features, including large capacity ammunition feeding. If guns had existed at the time of Christ, I wonder if his directive to the Twelve (Luke 9:3, "Take nothing for the journey....") would have carved out an exemption for carrying a sidearm. - DS Mon, 30 Jul 2012 10:14:00 +0100 http://www.thecatholicthing.org/columns/2012/thinking-about-aurora.html#comment-12659 USCCB, per wikipedia, was started in 1966. It has a budget of US$180 million, and a staff of 300, with 16 main committees. There is a new ad hoc committee on Religious Liberty, which will need to be made permanent (thanks to the malignant new edition of anti-Catholicism unleashed by the current administration). The committee on Doctrine is showing some real guts these days, and is to be applauded. I’m sure others try to do good things and deserve support. Of the 16 committees, there are 2 that carry political names indicating vintage from 1960s-70s, and tend to "sacralize" pet political projects, resulting in the sort of destructive political meddling reported by Mr. Miner: Domestic Justice and Human Development; and International Justice and Peace. A relatively new committee, Protection of Children and Young, is a more recent concoction, but seems to be serving a politically-correct agenda. The 16th standing committee, called National Collections, reportedly functions to distribute funds flowing from diocesan collections across the other committee programs, including those spawned by the committees named above. That’s how money from the collection basket goes to the tangled network of non-Catholic (The Campaign for Human Development), sometimes anti-Catholic (pro-abortion, pro-contraception, etc), and sometimes outright political organizations (e.g., ACORN). There'a also a "Cultural Diversity" committee, whose name alone sounds like political mischief. The bishops should cancel the money flowing to some of these committees, and send it instead to the committee dealing with Catholic Education, which seems to be failing at its mission (assuming it actually has one consonant with its name). - Chris in Maryland Mon, 30 Jul 2012 09:35:22 +0100