USA Shootings in Texas & Ohio: Can These Massacres Be Prevented? How?

We discussed the subject of gun ownership in the USA back in 2015  here

Watching the news reports over this weekend, of the mass shootings in two American towns, it is unfathomable to many of us that  people of faith support, and even advocate, gun ownership – perhaps because it has never been the culture here in the UK.  However, in America, it is considered a very important constitutional right to bear arms.  Here’s the young American Jewish commentator, Ben Shapiro, debating the issue with Piers Morgan in 2017…

Comment: 

We know that the gun lobby, big guns business (so to speak), makes it very difficult for politicians to propose a ban on gun ownership, never mind the Second Amendment right to bear arms, cherished by the American people.   My own gut feeling is that, with the extent of the killing sprees now taking place almost routinely across the USA, a President – preparing for possible re-election – who boldly proposed doing whatever is reasonably possible to deal with the problem of widespread gun ownership, would be onto a winner.  Surely, the sheer number of deaths caused this weekend alone, in two different parts of the United States, would be sufficient to cause a change in the American mindset about the Second Amendment? 

Personally, I’d like to see a courageous President move to end widespread gun ownership, by whatever constitutional means are available, and if you agree, let’s hear it.  But if you disagree (and I can already see some of our American bloggers bristling with indignation 😀 ) then please suggest your preferred solution – but make it one that would truly make a difference…

Final thought:  I have a young (teenage) relative who says he would dearly love to move to the USA when he’s finished his education.  I keep reminding him of the two things that would be very different if he did so;  one, the gun culture (don’t get impatient – with anyone! If the bus is late, so be it! If that hamburger is cold, smile at the waiter and tip him/her anyway!) And the second – well, that’s irrelevant to the present discussion, so I’ll leave that hanging there for another day 😀 

For the purposes of this conversation, please, simply answer the questions in the headline –  can these massacres be prevented?  And if so, how

Just how Catholic is the Catholic Herald… How Faithless the Bishops?

From Gloria TV…

Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald announced (Twitter, July 4) that “the new owners” and he “do not agree on the future direction of the company.”

The Catholic Herald is owned by the British businessman Rocco Forte, a non-practicing Catholic, and German born Princess Michael of Kent. Both are very much part of the British establishment.

To explain his stance, Thompson pointed to his interview with Raymond Arroyo last week on EWTN [see video below] where he criticised the forthcoming Amazonian Synod and called to “cancel this wretched ‘synod’.“

Thompson will do weekly podcasts for The Spectator, where he is an assistant editor, and be “free to tell you what I really think”.

His “first tweet as a free man” criticized Francis concerning the new Viganò revelations,

“It’s now obvious that Pope Francis is deeply implicated in terrible scandals. My concern isn’t theological: it’s the spectacle of a corrupt pope, something I never expected to see in my lifetime.”

Comment:

The Catholic Herald is often described (to me, at least) as the most orthodox of the current crop of Catholic newspapers.  In the above interview, Damian Thompson slices through the weakness of the UK Bishops in matters of pro-life and he is rightly outspoken about the forthcoming Amazon Synod of Bishops, offering concrete examples of major concern, not least the shocking justification of infanticide on “cultural” grounds by the author of the Synod’s working document, Austrian Bishop Erwin Kräutler.  Damian Thompson calls for the Amazon Synod to be cancelled.  Catholic Truth adds its voice to this call to cancel what is designed to cause huge scandal.  

A major weakness in the interview, however, is Damian Thompson’s analysis of the Bishops of Scotland…  He considers them, despite tending to be left wing… as, nevertheless,  “in many ways, quite strong and fearless”.  Oops!  We’ve missed that!  Must’ve been out for lunch that day!

I’ve emailed Raymond Arroyo to ask him not to seek the views of English commentators on our Bishops, because they do, invariably, think that the Scottish Bishops are sound;  this is mostly because of their occasional pro-life statements. When commentators abroad paint this misleading picture of our Bishops, it undermines our efforts to fight the crisis in the Church here in Scotland. I mean, providing safe spaces for LGBT pupils in Catholic schools can hardly be classed as “strong and fearless” – can it? 

Share your thoughts – are you still buying/reading the Catholic Herald.  If so, when, on this earth, will you learn!  

USA: Legal to Kill Babies But Abuse of Animals Serious Crime – Expect Jail

Virginia Governor Ralph Northam has a clear moral disconnect.

Earlier this year, Governor Northam came under massive national criticism for appearing on a radio show and supporting infanticide. During his interview he advocated for merely keeping babies comfortable as parents leave them to die shortly after birth.

Northam defended a radical pro-abortion bill that would have allowed unborn babies to be aborted up to the point when a woman is about to give birth. The governor not only defended the legislation, but he also said doctors and women could have a discussion about whether to leave a disabled newborn baby to die.

Later, Northam refused to disavow his comments when he endorsed infanticide, saying: “I don’t have any regrets.”

While protecting newborn babies who survive abortions is apparently too much for Northam to support, a law against animal cruelty isn’t. Today he signed a new bill into law that would make animal cruelty a felony in the commonwealth.

Click Like if you are pro-life to like the LifeNews Facebook page and receive the latest pro-life news.

Current law requires the animal to die before someone can face felony charges. Starting July 1, under the bill Northam approved, animal abusers could be found guilty of a Class 6 felony. Here’s more:

Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam (D) on Monday signed a bill that increases the penalty for “cruelly or unnecessarily beating, maiming, mutilating, or killing a dog or cat” to a felony charge.

The bill, which is being referred to as “Tommie’s Law,” alters current stipulations that say an animal must die for someone to be charged with a felony…  Click here to read more…

Comment:

Below, the definition of felony charge from Legal Match

In criminal law, a felony is a category of crimes that are often classified as the most serious types of offenses, and they can be either violent or non-violent. Felonies are typically classified as mala in se crimes. The main characteristic of a felony is that being found guilty of a felony will result in incarceration for at least one year. Also, the imprisonment will be served in a prison facility rather than a county or local jail establishment. Criminal fines may also be imposed for felony charges, often in the amounts of thousands of dollars.  Under traditional common law, felonies were called “true crimes,” and usually included serious offenses such as: homicide, attempted murder, rape, arson, human trafficking, burglary, robbery, failing to inform a sex partner of their HIV-positive status, criminal damage to property, escaping from a prison, interfering with a guardian’s custody rights including interstate interference, and assisting in a felony. Current, state and federal criminal statutes may categorize various other types of crimes as felonies. 

So, you tell me

(1)      Which of the two offences: animal cruelty or infanticide – best fits the definition of a “felony charge” ?  

(2)     Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad – True or False? 

IVF: Legal Gender Selection Looming?

From the Mail Online…

Britain is a global leader in assisted reproduction. Four decades ago, it was a British team that pioneered in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, resulting in the birth of the world’s first test-tube baby, Louise Brown, in July 1978.

Some six million births worldwide later, we continue to be at the forefront of reproductive science.  Source – Mail Online


Comment: 

The Mail Online report goes on to bemoan the fact that this supposed great “new knowledge” can be “harnessed for negative purposes” – citing the scandal of UK doctors caught by undercover reporters illegally providing gender selection. 

However, what’s the bet that what the Mail Online today thinks is “negative” and is rightly illegal,  tomorrow will be advertised as a wonderful advancement which must be allowed in law? 

After all, if couples are permitted to design their own babies in a test-tube, why not allow them to go the whole hog and choose a boy or a girl … or even a “they” from among the 72 or so genders now on offer… 

Gimme strength; that’s my opinion!  What’s yours?  And what about your priest?  Bishop?  They need to preach against this sort of attack on the natural order, to inform Catholics who are as ignorant about the (im)morality of these contemporary scientific “advancements” as everyone else.  

For the record, here is Catholic teaching in a short video presentation…

 

USA: Should Kavanaugh Withdraw? 

Only now is the UK media beginning to cover the reports of sexual misconduct brought against Brett Kavanaugh –  with the predictable unquestioning acceptance of the allegations levelled against the Judge. Well, after all, it’s a woman making the allegations, and the accused is male, so she must be telling the truth… right?  As for what is motivating these women to exert themselves to keep him out of the Supreme Court… Having watched the ferocity of the pro-abortionists here in the UK, desperate to extend abortion “rights” and to decriminalise it completely, I think it’s clear that these “liberal” females will stop at nothing to prevent any “conservative” candidate from tipping the balance a tad more to the “right”.  Nothing these morons do surprises me in the least.  Maybe, though, for the sake of his own peace of mind, not to mention his family’s safety (there have been death threats), he should withdraw his nomination although  The New York Times  reports that he vows to continue  What would YOU advise him to do?  Is it really worth it?  Can anyone really fight this sort of smear campaign – and remain sane? 

Below, a short video clip from the USA media, refreshingly challenging the uncritical media coverage to date…  

Comments invited…

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Monumental Hypocrite or Very Confused Catholic? 

 

Comment:

Jacob Rees-Mogg MP,  widely lauded as a strict, traditional Catholic, fails to make the distinction between ‘judgmentalism’ and making necessary moral judgments… or maybe you agree with him?  Do we really need a lying, adulterous Prime Minister to take us through Brexit?  That’s how I’m reading JRM’s support for Boris – what about you? 

Fixing Families…Fatherhood

 

Part of the Catholic Truth series, Thinking Through Catholic Truth – The Big Questions…Answered.