Skip to comments.Catholic Bishops support new gun control bill for Massachusetts
Posted on 05/29/2014 10:38:28 AM PDT by aimhigh
Bishop Timothy A. McDonnell, leader of the Roman Catholic Diocese of Springfield, has joined with the three other bishops in Massachusetts to support a new comprehensive state bill aimed at combating gun violence in the state.
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference released a statement on behalf of the four Roman Catholic bishops in the state in reaction to the Houses new bill unveiled Tuesday. The other three leaders who signed the statement are Cardinal Sean OMalley, archbishop of Boston; Rev. Robert J. McManus, bishop of Worcester and Rev. George W. Coleman, bishop of Fall River, according to Mark E. Dupont, spokesman for the Springfield diocese.
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
What “gun violence” is in Mass. that this legislation will prevent?
Now if they could just expend 1/5th of that energy releasing statements (actions would be better but we have to start somewhere) about pro-abortion, so-called Catholic politicians...
Take them on a tour of the towns of Lexington and Concord...
The sooner we get a crop of bishops that care more about the Faith transmitted to the Apostles and not the faxes transmitted by the DNC the better off we will all be.
Of course, by that point we’ll probably be fed to the lions, but hey, it won’t be the first time.
"L'eglise, c'est moi."
The Catholic church favors gun control, illegals and meets with and provides communion to abortion-loving politicians.
What’s not to like?
I hear you. I am on another thread getting flack for calling the Obama’s trash. WTH?
Gun violence against Catholic Bishops?
When to comes to combat, I know of one Catholic priest getting a Silver Star.
They are not in compliance with the Catechism on this.
And they would certainly be better off signing statements on antiabortion concerns.
from the Catechism:
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.
If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity “are very rare, if not practically nonexistent.”68
2268 The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.69
Infanticide,70 fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.71
Unintentional killing is not morally imputable. But one is not exonerated from grave offense if, without proportionate reasons, he has acted in a way that brings about someone’s death, even without the intention to do so.
2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72
It’s not true. The Church, the Catechism states, the right to self defense is vital. It also states that to allow a foreign invasion depletes a nation’s resources and renders it unable to provide for its own poor and the immigrants themselves.
When men act against the rules of the Church, and when the clergy does so, they are acting as outside the Church as they did when they molested kids.
Seems pretty clear to me but Pope Francis is no John Paul II.
While I disagree with the Bishops on this vehemently, it only took 14 posts for you to throw that totally irrelevant statement in.
They are outside the Catechism on this; which is to say, outside of their ecclesial competence. Sheer clericalism.
How do you explain to people that this is not representative of the Church?
I watched O’Mally speak at an anti gay marriage rally after Don Fedder on the Common. I was not impressed.