As I said yesterday on the comments over there, there is no other way to term the desire to plainly disregard the constitutional text in the interest of upholding one's personal religious values as anything other than theocracy. This just happens to be leftist theocracy.
Eh, I guess we're all just Calvinist pigs.
I gave up on that site. Really, it seems to be manned by a bunch of loons (with apologies to the very fine State Bird of Minnesota.)
Great job fisking it, but I must say, it's a very easy job to find errors there.
"Oh, and there's the usual Morning Minion Papal Bull infallibly declaring anyone who disagrees with him Malum Catholicus. Which, for those of you unfamiliar with his style, is a feature, not a bug."
Indeed. This is an individual supporting a 100% NARAL candidate for President and he condemns fellow Catholics who disagree with a policy statement of a committee of the NCBB from 1975! The magisterium MM is not the Democrat party at prayer.
I stopped reading when I saw the word "unpack".
Thanks the for the pleasure of your fisking of that mess at Vox Nova.
It never ceases to astonish me how this discussion so often sidesteps the glaringly obvious natural right of self-defense.
One of the "loons" at Vox Nova actually argued that the common good required tolerating more people being helpless against violence...too bad about the Jones Family being gunned down, but, well, eventually we'll all be better off, when the last gun is finally confiscated, someday...
Oh, and I also enjoyed the back-and-forth about whether it was meaningful that jurisdictions with the tightest gun controls also have higher crime. The response of Morning Minion was to say, well, you have different jurisdictions with different laws, so that explains it.
So, because Virginia has laws allowing more gun ownership, that's why D.C.'s gun ban failed? Then please explain the magical property the Potomac River has--such that criminals buy guns in Virginia, but...mirabile dictu do not attempt to use them in the commission of a crime, until they cross the Potomac?
Hmmm...now what could explain this?
I know--it's because Rand-McNally colors Virginia pink on its maps, and D.C., blue. That's the problem. Yup. But certainly nothing to do with differing laws in the two jurisdictions, oh no, how silly!
I avoid those websites. Hilary White once said something on one of her more memorable blog entries of years past, "I have better things to do than try to civilize barbarians"
I also think you give the bishops way too much credit. They did all the homework they cared to do.
Fr. Fox:
You are a priest. I assume you support the USCCB position on handgun control, which I referenced in my original post. I don't expect much from the sort of lay Catholic who haunts these kinds of blogs and who are quite willing to dismiss any teaching that goes against ideological preconceptions (Iraq war, anyone?), but I expect a priest to show some deference toward the bishops.
"The response of Morning Minion was to say, well, you have different jurisdictions with different laws, so that explains it."
Please don't lie about my position, which is supported by empirical analysis. If you look at the international evidence, you will see a clear relationship between gun ownership gun-related homicide and suicide rates. See here: http://bp3.blogger.com/
_dehtj8kg...43_image001.gif
The reason why it makes sense to use international evidence is that there are border controls. Absent border controls in the US, you cannot compare jurisdictions. As for why some areas are more violent than others, I would recommend you consult what the Church has to say about this some time- including the need to focus on social, economic, and cultural factors, and especially in the US-- the lingering residue of racism. Of course many of the cultural Calvinists on the right don't like to think in these terms. They don't like to think of social sin or the natural unity of the human race, sundered and "individualized" by original sin.
MM,
Your attempt to bully Fr. Fox (who as you point out is a priest, and thus deserves your respect) is disgusting.
How about if you respectfully ask him whether his bishop has informed him of any "Catholic teaching" on handgun control. I bet I know the answer...
Darwin:
Sorry, but the snarky tone, the insult to Vox Nova ("loons"), the clear mispresentation of my position called for a response. His banter on guns sounds like the NRA, sounds very...well, American. To let this pass on the grounds that he is a priest is a degree of clericalism to which I will not submit.
Dale:
While I certainly agree with the sentiment of correcting Morning Minion on his argument, (which clearly misinterprets the bishops' statement as I talk about on my own blog-http://forthegreaterglory.blogspot.com/2008/
06/so-supreme-court-ruled-in-favor-of.html), I think that your argument isn't quite right either. When you say: "But the goal is exceptionally radical, as it advocates the banning and confiscation of private property nationwide, with all that entails for police powers, search and seizure and expansion of the criminal code" I'm not sure you're not putting words into the bishops' mouths. While an immediate elimination of handguns would certainly require such measures, the "eventual" elimination could easily mean only banning the manufacture of handguns, offering cash rewards for turning in handguns, and waiting until the remaining guns rust out. The "eventual" part of the bishops' request gives much more leeway for what they actually want to see, so I think it's proper to not assume.
To everyone:
You all sound like third-graders. One side is denounced as "loons" and the other as whores of an imperialist state. Not everyone at Vox Nova is a loon and not everyone supporting guns would invade the Vatican if Bush asked them to. Presumably you all can read and presumably you have all been to church. I'm sure it would please Christ much more if you acted like it rather prove a rather insignificant point about handguns. Be charitable, assume the best about the ones you're disagreeing with, and remember with humility that you may very well be wrong.
MM:
Heh.
Until I visited your site last night, I had never heard of the document you cited. It remains to be seen what sort of document it is, and what authority it has. For example, if it's a document issued by a committee, but never adopted by the conference, then it has pretty much no authority.
If I recall correctly, the document came out in 1975. They were pretty messy about procedure regarding these documents (recall Art and Environment in Catholic Worship), and the bishops have tightened it up considerably.
Now, if my ordinary has something to say on the subject, I'll certainly bear it in mind. I think I know my ordinary reasonably well. He hasn't given me any directions on this topic.
As to my "lying" about your position, you clearly have no sense of humor, that's too bad. I was clearly mocking your ridiculous argument that the explanation for the failure of D.C.'s strict gun control was differing jurisdictions, and that was clear.
Feel free to answer my question--what is so magical about the Potomac River that ne'er-do-wells get their guns so easily in Virginia, yet curiously wait until they get back to D.C. to unleash mayhem?
Can someone explain what the interest in this judicial opinion might be to various parties within this form, Vox Nova or the U.S. Catholic Conference? Whether the 2d Amendment protects an individual right or is meant to protect the freedom of the states to erect militias is an empirical question to be answered through historical study. The court may answer it badly (they often do), but I cannot see why it would be of more than passing interest unless one was concerned with the underlying policy question. The trouble is, the utility or disutility of restricting gun ownership would seem quite contingent on circumstances and thus derivative of some superordinate principle. Also, ascertaining the utility or disutility is best done with exercises in multiple regression analysis that (it being a social and not an economic phenomenon) is likely to leave a good deal of variation left over and thus unanswered questions. The tools to do that are a good deal better than they were in 1975, and there has been a certain amount of water under the bridge in this country with regard to the evolution of the phenomenon of street crime. Why is it considered necessary or proper for Cathoics-as-Catholics to adhere to a view of the legal text in question or of the policy it might inhibit?
To let this pass on the grounds that he is a priest is a degree of clericalism to which I will not submit.
No, of course not, because Fr. Fox is a Priest with whom you disagree. But when it comes to the US Bishops, suddenly clericalism is fine and dandy.
"Why is it considered necessary or proper for Cathoics-as-Catholics to adhere to a view of the legal text in question or of the policy it might inhibit?"
I don't think it is. In regard to the issue of the second amendment I think Catholicism is basically irrelevant as it is on the issue of gun control. Obviously the Church has a lot to say about when force may be justly used, but I think it has little to say about whether citizens should have a right to possess certain types of weapons. These are issues for citizens to puzzle out for themselves in the political and legal arenas.
Dang, Mr. Deco. Shame to waste that awesome vocabularity on a bunch of text that doesn't seem to say much. You don't work in a chancery office, do you?
"As bishops, we support measures that control the sale and use of firearms and make them safer (especially efforts that prevent their unsupervised use by children or anyone other than the owner), and we reiterate our call for sensible regulation of handguns."
So says the USCCB in Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, issued Nov 15, 2000.
A definite call for "sensible regulation of handguns". That's fine. I support sensible things. This is an actual call to action. "Hey, everyone, we want sensible handgun regulation, and we want it now!"
Footnote 36 of the document says "However, we believe that in the long run and with few exceptions (i.e., police officers, military use), handguns should be eliminated from our society...", and then quotes New Slavery, New Freedom: A Pastoral Message on Substance Abuse from 1990.
An expression of belief that handguns should be eliminated from our society. This is not a call for action. It's "We'd prefer there to be no handguns at all." without going that extra step and saying "we call on all men and women to support a complete and total ban on handguns". Even with the citation of the 1990 message (which includes "leading to their eventual elimination from our society"), there is not a call for the banning of handguns...only regulation or control.
For me, there's a significant difference between these two statements. One seems more binding than the other.
In a comment at Vox Nova, somebody named Nate says "it is our duty to create a world where homicidal weaponry does not exist." I think he's wrong. I'd rather that we lived in a world where homicidal weaponry was not needed. With God's grace, we'll all be there some day...
To put it a different way, I think Nate has things bass-ackwards. Getting rid of handguns won't give us the peace Pope Paul VI spoke of....but peace will reduce the need for handguns.
A link to Responsibility, Rehabilitation, and Restoration: A Catholic Perspective on Crime and Criminal Justice, since I forgot to put it in my post above.
Oh no, Cranky, there's a world of difference. The 21st council, building on the 20th, is very clear that the bishops, in their collegial action, share in the teaching authority of the Church with the pope. Priests enjoy no such privilege.
"Feel free to answer my question--what is so magical about the Potomac River that ne'er-do-wells get their guns so easily in Virginia, yet curiously wait until they get back to D.C. to unleash mayhem?"
The localization of violence in certain areas reflects social, economic and cultural factors that are exacerbated by the presence of guns. The Church teaches quite clearly that the way to overcome violence is to tackle the underlying conditions that breed violence. Of course, the American protestant tradition is more inclined to blame personal failure and ignore the societal dimension.
You don't work in a chancery office, do you?
No.
Morning:
"The localization of violence in certain areas reflects social, economic and cultural factors that are exacerbated by the presence of guns. The Church teaches quite clearly that the way to overcome violence is to tackle the underlying conditions that breed violence."
In other words, we can't let those people have guns.
MM meet Ken Blanchard:
http://kennblanchard.blogspot.co...-
president.html
Interesting. The guy wants the Constitution read in light of what is his view of what is right and proper. Episcopalian of him.
MM, you said:
The localization of violence in certain areas reflects social, economic and cultural factors that are exacerbated by the presence of guns. The Church teaches quite clearly that the way to overcome violence is to tackle the underlying conditions that breed violence.
It seems that you've made a determination that isn't accepted universally. Handgun ownership is not the underlying condition that breeds violence. It would be better to focus on the causes of violence, not the tools used in an act of violence. Reasonable gun controls would help, as would enforcement of existing laws. But an outright ban on handguns doesn't solve the problem of violence....else DC would have been a paradise.
The localization of violence in certain areas reflects social, economic and cultural factors that are exacerbated by the presence of guns.
I'm sorry, MM, but I'm not buying that. The stats in places like the UK - with some of the toughest handgun bans in the world - indicate violence happens no matter what.
Violence is a mentality spread by a sense of entitlement, a loss of the *true* definition of family, and an absence of God from the public sphere.
A criminal who wants to rape and rob and commit violence against another often doesn't do so out of desperation: but of a complete and total hatred of another individual.
So it wouldn't matter if guns were banned or not - criminals would find other ways to victimize their targets. Indeed, in the UK, they've moved on to knives in such a degree that now *knives* are coming up as the next weapon to be banned. Cricket bats and metal pipes will be next.
I believe in peace, and treating my fellow man with dignity and respect, but I also believe I have a right - accorded to me in natural law and outlined in the Catechism (http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2264.htm) - that says I can use even lethal means of self-defense.
How, pray tell, does a woman like me with no military/martial arts training do that if I'm denied the ability to possess a weapon?
Offer it up.
Rifles and shotguns. Feeding the hungry in deer season and keeping 'em off welfare for most of the winter. Also, providing home defense for those not fortunate enough to live in gated communities.
Handguns. Reiterating that God created all men equal.
Knives, swords, arrows, spears, and rocks are of course widely advocated in Scripture. God apparently wanted angels to wrestle with and bust the bones of Jacob; thus one has not only the right to bear arms, but to bear one's entire body as a weapon. Finally, we even have the Savior's example in the matter of braiding weaponry for oneself; so Indiana Jones is a closer Christ figure than most.
I hate to point this out to the USCCB, though, because apparently they haven't noticed that they run around all the time, even during Mass, armed with gigantic metallic blunt weapons of flock-defense. You know, croziers? Crooks? Used for gently directing recalcitrant sheep, and clocking recalcitrant wolves upside the haid?
Or that the Pope wears the red shoes, derived from the red military boots of a Roman military commander?
So I fail to see that any of this bearing of arms is against Catholic teaching. Unless you are inattentive to the general trend of Catholic thought through the ages, of course.
Commenting by HaloScan
