Showing posts with label USCCB. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USCCB. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 23, 2021
Monday, June 21, 2021
Saturday, June 19, 2021
Tuesday, June 15, 2021
Tuesday, June 8, 2021
Saturday, June 5, 2021
Saturday, December 1, 2018
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Reflections on Firearm Controversies and the Church
(See: To gun violence, Archbishop Cupich says 'Enough!' - Chicago Tribune, USCCB Testimony before Congress 2013, and Confronting a Culture of Violence: A Catholic Framework for Action)
The Second Amendment is one of these things that people tend to fall into the either-or fallacy. Either one supports their perspective or one supports all sorts of horrible things. For the person who believes more legislation is needed to prevent gun massacres, people who oppose them are seen as callously disregarding suffering in the name of politics. For the person who believes that there are legitimate reasons to own firearms, the calls for legislation and restrictions are seen as a confiscation which punishes the legitimate gun owner. There is no middle ground in this rhetoric.
But what I don’t see in this dualistic debate is taking people on each side and asking them, “What do you think needs to be done to change this?” There is no dialogue to try to find a solution that both sides can work with that protects the innocent and keeps lethal weapons out of the hands of those likely to misuse them. In saying this, I am not saying “Can’t we all get along?” The problem is, neither side strikes me as wanting to compromise. To the person who thinks personal ownership of firearms is the cause of the problem, it appears that they will not be happy with anything less than a model for gun ownership along the lines of European limits. To the person who believes that personal ownership of firearms is necessary for defense against criminals or a government turned dictatorial, they will not hear any proposal for limits.
This is why I do not blame the Obama administration or the NRA—I actually blame both of them for contributing to the problem, demonizing the other side and not willing to achieve a compromise. Indeed, any possibility of compromise is seen as ignoring what one side holds important.
So, people continue to die from violence. Statistically, that number probably will never be reduced to zero, regardless of whether we outlaw every firearm in America or arm every individual in America with firearms. So we need to avoid two types of thinking:
- Thinking that if only we eliminate all firearms, everybody will be safe.
- Thinking that defending the Second Amendment means we can’t have any restrictions.
It is this mindset that the Church has to face when it weighs in on the issue. The American bishops recognize that some restrictions are necessary, but they also speak on how there needs to be more than only restrictions. Now, there is not any official document which teaches “Catholics must support X on pain of sin.” I don’t expect there ever will be either. The Church rarely speaks by saying “support this bit of legislation!” Rather the USCCB sets forth what she sees as important considerations and encourages lawmakers to apply them to their work.
Now, the USCCB does actually make some good points in talking about the culture of violence—it demonstrates that firearms by themselves do not cause the situation we have been in since the 1990s, and that we need to address these core issues. Again, this is not an either-or issue. It’s not a matter of either addressing core issues OR restricting guns. It’s a both-and situation. We need to both address the culture of violence and keep firearms out of the hands of people most likely to use these firearms to harm innocents. I think the weakness with the current approach is that the bishops sometimes are not precise enough in their language, allowing partisans on both sides to either make it sound like the Church endorses their position or to vilify the Church.
For example Archbishop Cupich, wrote today in the Chicago Tribune. He rightly speaks about the issue of the Second Amendment, saying, "Surely there is a middle ground between the original intent of the amendment and the carnage we see today.” That’s very true, and I applaud this. But, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. He speaks about needing “reasonable legislation” and “better gun controls.” But what does that mean? This can span the range from “keep them out of the hands of crazies” to “ban them outright.” That uncertainty leads people assuming things based on their own political beliefs.
The whole problem, as I see it, is the polarized society we have cannot come to an agreement on what is “reasonable” or “better.” As a result we see people acting offended or self-righteous over the Archbishop’s words.
Now, the right of self defense is recognized by the Catholic Church. Indeed, the Catechism says:
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.” (1737)
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: (2196)
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.
So the question is, how does one reconcile the Catholic recognition of self defense as legitimate, the Second Amendment and calls for firearm restrictions? I think we Catholics in America do need to have our own discussion on the issue, guided by the bishops. That means we need to set aside our own political preferences and set aside demonizing people who think differently on the issue. I mean Archbishop Cupich takes a position (but not using his teaching authority as bishop in doing so) that might be more politically “liberal” than what I am comfortable with, but what he has to say is not to be written off as “partisan” and rejected out of hand. He is certainly not heretical or holding a position inimical to Catholic teaching.
Ultimately, I think the problem in America is we have become so polarized that we no longer trust anyone who does not share our position. The result is we no longer have any way of finding a compromise that protects the innocents while keeping lethal weapons out of the hands of those who are dangerous. I think ultimately, we need to understand the scope of our responsibilities in order to stake out an informed position. I think the bishops can indeed help us understand how to do so. They have a lot to say which is worth studying. But to do so more effectively, I think it would help for them to avoid vague terms that can be misinterpreted.
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration
You can find the article HERE.
We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.
This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents. We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.
USCCB Rebuts Obama Administration
You can find the article HERE.
We're in a nasty battle for the freedom to do as we ought to do, with the propagandists for the government seeking to mislead people into thinking we're mindless bigots.
This is the time for all people to do what they can depending on their talents. We're now in a battle over the souls in our nation.
Monday, March 22, 2010
All For The Want of a Horseshoe Nail: The Scapegoating Begins
Source: Bishops Share The Blame | Blogs | NCRegister.com
[Disclosure: This article is an expansion of a response I wrote on another blog]
Let the Blames Begin…
For better or worse, health care has passed. I believe it is for the worse of course. Not because I oppose a reform of the system we have, but because it is a "reform" which makes legal things which must be condemned and opposed as evil. What I find tragic however is to see that instead of a unified front to challenge the evils, we are now seeing infighting among the Christians, pointing fingers. Among Catholics, this is shown as pointing fingers at "The Bishops."
The problem I have with the Register's assessment, in saying…
Again, while the Bishops have acquitted themselves well through this process recently, they cannot ignore the past.
The hard truth is that for years the Bishops have allied themselves with the pro-abort party in matters related to health-care, and now they claim 11th hour betrayal.
When you hang out with thieves, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get robbed.
Moreover, the Bishops silence for years in the face of pro-abortion Catholic politicians has given aid and comfort to those who seek the death of children. The Bishop’s unwillingness, with some obvious exceptions, to effectively address or discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians allowed for the Democrats to portray the Church as divided on the issue. They have also allowed a culture of dissent to flourish for decades that culminated in the shameful last minute endorsement by a group of radical nuns that seriously hurt the cause of life.
The bishops’ decades long collective silence on these issues allowed for this culture to develop and has resulted in the USCCB being understandably criticized as an extension of the Democrat party (the Democrat party at prayer they say). This is the horrible result of that ungodly alliance.
…is that while many bishops may not have saw the danger at the time, they certainly stood strong during this Health Care debate. I was never in any doubt that the USCCB opposed the Senate Bill from the time it was originally created, so I disagree with the "11th hour" claim.
Reflections on the American Bishops
Yes, American bishops had been weak for decades. For that matter, German Bishops prior to 1517 were also weak in enforcing discipline in the Church, leading to the abuses that Luther opposed. Does that mean the bishops after this time were to blame as they sought to repair the damage done? Whatever happened in the past is past. As Catholics, we believe that people can repent and begin working for the truth. Many of those bishops responsible for the silence of the 80s and 90s are retired or deceased. Many of those who remain seem to have been strongly encouraged when Pope Benedict XVI visited America and began speaking out.
Remote Cause vs. Immediate Cause
This is the confusing a remote cause with an immediate cause, like the old poem:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail
Often (mis)interpreted as saying small things lead to big losses. However, one has to assess how far back one can reasonably assign blame. Is it reasonable to say because one nail was missing, the kingdom was lost? Or is it more reasonable to assign blame to a failure to prepare for contingencies?
Did certain bishops back in the 1980s and 1990s often behave ineffectually? Yes. Did they sometimes identify Democratic policies with Catholic teaching? Yes, tragically. Did some bishops think Obama would be a good president? Yes, it sadly seems to be so.
Is it correct to say that because bishops in the past failed to act as they ought, that this is the cause of the situation we face today? I think not. I am inclined to think the direct cause of this is too many placed all their trust in Stupak and failing to consider other contingencies. The bishops who spoke out did not rely on Stupak. They kept speaking out to the members of Congress, seeking to convince as many as they could of their moral duties.
Who Failed to do Their Job Now (As Opposed to the Past)?
Some failed in their duty and some did not. This is why I must disagree with the Register article when it says:
Blame may be cathartic for some but that is not the reason I bring this sorry history up now. Like the Republicans, the Bishops too must learn from their mistakes. If they continue to ally themselves with the Democrat party and continue their cowardly and ineffective “pastoral” approach to pro-death Catholic politicians things will only get worse, and yes they can get worse.
So it is time for all of us to admit our mistakes and learn from them. Lives depend on it. We failed them before, let’s not do it again.
The problem I have is that it is clear from the actions of Bishops being increasingly vocal since the beginning of the Obama administration that they already have learned from their mistakes. Yes, we now need to do more still. Some may still do less than they ought, but this article seems to negate the strong witness bishops have given.
If We Wish to Judge, Let Us Begin With Ourselves
1 † “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
† [Commentary from NAB] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Mat 7:5,6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.
People want someone to blame. If so, perhaps we should begin with ourselves, on our own failure to do enough at our level. Did we do our best to oppose the bill, or did we decide to let Stupak do it for us, failing to consider he might be turned?
I believe that, if we examine our actions, most of us will have to say the latter. Perhaps I should have written more on the subject than I did, for example. I believed the statements of the bishops were quite strong, but perhaps I ought to have made them available on this site to inform the (admittedly small) number of followers of this site. I could have looked for links to put on the site banner. I couldn't have forced people to change their minds, but I could have perhaps let others know of other views. For that, I can only say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Yes it is easy to point fingers. Yes, Archbishop Niederauer (for example) should have imposed discipline on Pelosi long before. Yes other bishops have been lax. Yes, the USCCB can use a better system of vetting when people try to use their name to promote a political agenda. Yes, the visitation of the American nuns should immediately be ratcheted up a few notches in intensity.
Indicting the Whole For the Acts of Some
However, there is a large difference between being disappointed in saying certain bishops should have done more and indicting "the bishops" as a whole.
The USCCB did make their voice known through the proceedings, urging changes and once it became clear that the final senate bill was set, shifted to outright opposition. When the CHA made their 11th hour deceits, when certain nuns misrepresented themselves as speaking for 60,000, when the Stupak compromise was announced, the USCCB made clear that these things were unacceptable, and urged members of Congress to vote against this law.
Certain Catholics in Congress may have used the words of dissenters to justify their wrong actions, but they would be guilty of vincible ignorance in the face of what the Bishops spoke out about.
We cannot control what others do of course. We can control what we do. We can only make our voice be heard and pray.
What If They Opposed Obamacare and Nobody Came?
I believe this comic, from DBD.com makes clear our duty now. If we know this bill will impose injustices on us, it is up to us to fight, and not expect others to. I think Berthold Brecht said it well:
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.
Let's avoid pointless recriminations now. We have this to deal with now, and we need to face it united as Christians, not infighting among ourselves. The infighting, the blame seeking and the scapegoating only aids those we must oppose.
Now, for better or for worse we have this system of Health care. Now, it is our duty to challenge those aspects of it which are contrary to what we believe to be right and just.
Now is not the time to blame and scapegoat.
All For The Want of a Horseshoe Nail: The Scapegoating Begins
Source: Bishops Share The Blame | Blogs | NCRegister.com
[Disclosure: This article is an expansion of a response I wrote on another blog]
Let the Blames Begin…
For better or worse, health care has passed. I believe it is for the worse of course. Not because I oppose a reform of the system we have, but because it is a "reform" which makes legal things which must be condemned and opposed as evil. What I find tragic however is to see that instead of a unified front to challenge the evils, we are now seeing infighting among the Christians, pointing fingers. Among Catholics, this is shown as pointing fingers at "The Bishops."
The problem I have with the Register's assessment, in saying…
Again, while the Bishops have acquitted themselves well through this process recently, they cannot ignore the past.
The hard truth is that for years the Bishops have allied themselves with the pro-abort party in matters related to health-care, and now they claim 11th hour betrayal.
When you hang out with thieves, you shouldn’t be surprised when you get robbed.
Moreover, the Bishops silence for years in the face of pro-abortion Catholic politicians has given aid and comfort to those who seek the death of children. The Bishop’s unwillingness, with some obvious exceptions, to effectively address or discipline pro-abort Catholic politicians allowed for the Democrats to portray the Church as divided on the issue. They have also allowed a culture of dissent to flourish for decades that culminated in the shameful last minute endorsement by a group of radical nuns that seriously hurt the cause of life.
The bishops’ decades long collective silence on these issues allowed for this culture to develop and has resulted in the USCCB being understandably criticized as an extension of the Democrat party (the Democrat party at prayer they say). This is the horrible result of that ungodly alliance.
…is that while many bishops may not have saw the danger at the time, they certainly stood strong during this Health Care debate. I was never in any doubt that the USCCB opposed the Senate Bill from the time it was originally created, so I disagree with the "11th hour" claim.
Reflections on the American Bishops
Yes, American bishops had been weak for decades. For that matter, German Bishops prior to 1517 were also weak in enforcing discipline in the Church, leading to the abuses that Luther opposed. Does that mean the bishops after this time were to blame as they sought to repair the damage done? Whatever happened in the past is past. As Catholics, we believe that people can repent and begin working for the truth. Many of those bishops responsible for the silence of the 80s and 90s are retired or deceased. Many of those who remain seem to have been strongly encouraged when Pope Benedict XVI visited America and began speaking out.
Remote Cause vs. Immediate Cause
This is the confusing a remote cause with an immediate cause, like the old poem:
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail
Often (mis)interpreted as saying small things lead to big losses. However, one has to assess how far back one can reasonably assign blame. Is it reasonable to say because one nail was missing, the kingdom was lost? Or is it more reasonable to assign blame to a failure to prepare for contingencies?
Did certain bishops back in the 1980s and 1990s often behave ineffectually? Yes. Did they sometimes identify Democratic policies with Catholic teaching? Yes, tragically. Did some bishops think Obama would be a good president? Yes, it sadly seems to be so.
Is it correct to say that because bishops in the past failed to act as they ought, that this is the cause of the situation we face today? I think not. I am inclined to think the direct cause of this is too many placed all their trust in Stupak and failing to consider other contingencies. The bishops who spoke out did not rely on Stupak. They kept speaking out to the members of Congress, seeking to convince as many as they could of their moral duties.
Who Failed to do Their Job Now (As Opposed to the Past)?
Some failed in their duty and some did not. This is why I must disagree with the Register article when it says:
Blame may be cathartic for some but that is not the reason I bring this sorry history up now. Like the Republicans, the Bishops too must learn from their mistakes. If they continue to ally themselves with the Democrat party and continue their cowardly and ineffective “pastoral” approach to pro-death Catholic politicians things will only get worse, and yes they can get worse.
So it is time for all of us to admit our mistakes and learn from them. Lives depend on it. We failed them before, let’s not do it again.
The problem I have is that it is clear from the actions of Bishops being increasingly vocal since the beginning of the Obama administration that they already have learned from their mistakes. Yes, we now need to do more still. Some may still do less than they ought, but this article seems to negate the strong witness bishops have given.
If We Wish to Judge, Let Us Begin With Ourselves
1 † “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
† [Commentary from NAB] This is not a prohibition against recognizing the faults of others, which would be hardly compatible with Mat 7:5,6 but against passing judgment in a spirit of arrogance, forgetful of one’s own faults.
People want someone to blame. If so, perhaps we should begin with ourselves, on our own failure to do enough at our level. Did we do our best to oppose the bill, or did we decide to let Stupak do it for us, failing to consider he might be turned?
I believe that, if we examine our actions, most of us will have to say the latter. Perhaps I should have written more on the subject than I did, for example. I believed the statements of the bishops were quite strong, but perhaps I ought to have made them available on this site to inform the (admittedly small) number of followers of this site. I could have looked for links to put on the site banner. I couldn't have forced people to change their minds, but I could have perhaps let others know of other views. For that, I can only say mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
Yes it is easy to point fingers. Yes, Archbishop Niederauer (for example) should have imposed discipline on Pelosi long before. Yes other bishops have been lax. Yes, the USCCB can use a better system of vetting when people try to use their name to promote a political agenda. Yes, the visitation of the American nuns should immediately be ratcheted up a few notches in intensity.
Indicting the Whole For the Acts of Some
However, there is a large difference between being disappointed in saying certain bishops should have done more and indicting "the bishops" as a whole.
The USCCB did make their voice known through the proceedings, urging changes and once it became clear that the final senate bill was set, shifted to outright opposition. When the CHA made their 11th hour deceits, when certain nuns misrepresented themselves as speaking for 60,000, when the Stupak compromise was announced, the USCCB made clear that these things were unacceptable, and urged members of Congress to vote against this law.
Certain Catholics in Congress may have used the words of dissenters to justify their wrong actions, but they would be guilty of vincible ignorance in the face of what the Bishops spoke out about.
We cannot control what others do of course. We can control what we do. We can only make our voice be heard and pray.
What If They Opposed Obamacare and Nobody Came?
I believe this comic, from DBD.com makes clear our duty now. If we know this bill will impose injustices on us, it is up to us to fight, and not expect others to. I think Berthold Brecht said it well:
What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.
Let's avoid pointless recriminations now. We have this to deal with now, and we need to face it united as Christians, not infighting among ourselves. The infighting, the blame seeking and the scapegoating only aids those we must oppose.
Now, for better or for worse we have this system of Health care. Now, it is our duty to challenge those aspects of it which are contrary to what we believe to be right and just.
Now is not the time to blame and scapegoat.
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Importance of Remembering the Sequence of Events
Source: The Catholic Key Blog: USCCB Reaffirms Opposition to Senate Bill, Commends Senator Nelson
I'm sure certain Catholics will treat the actions of Senator Nelson, and the USCCB praising his efforts as a certain cause-effect, in order to paint it as Catholics supporting abortion. However this would be dishonest.
The Catholic document showing Cardinal DiNardo praising Nelson, shows the cardinal's statement, was dated 12/18/09, and seems to be based on facts listed in the Cardinal's 12/14/09 letter. Nelson's sell-out happened late on 12/19/09. So in terms of sequence, the praising of Nelson took place before his unacceptable compromise… a compromise Cardinal DiNardo and the USCCB could not know it happened.
The USCCB has stated that the Health Care bill is unacceptable as it exists now. So both liberals who want to argue that it is ok to be pro-abortion and Catholic, as well as the conservatives who wish to argue the Bishops are "heretical", would be misrepresenting the position of the Church.
One hopes the USCCB does come out with a strong statement now… it is certainly needed. However, let us not blame them for something which they did not do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)