A bishop's questionable expertise on gun-control legislation

By Phil Lawler ( bio - articles - email ) | Apr 22, 2013

While Bishop Blaire laments the failure of the US Senate to approve new gun-control regulations, could we inject a dash of political reality into the discussion?

The Senate did not vote against gun-control legislation. On the contrary, a majority voted in favor. So why didn’t the measure pass? Because this was a procedural vote. Under Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to close off debate, and only 54 Senators voted for cloture. That vote was a setback for proponents of the gun-control legislation, who wanted to rush the measure through the Senate without debate or amendment. But the cloture vote did not, by itself, kill the bill. The campaign for gun control petered out because proponents were not willing to proceed under ordinary parliamentary rules, allowing the possibility of amendments to their legislation.

As he withdrew the bill, Senate majority leader Harry Reid complained that 90% of all Americans would support the background checks that the legislation would have required for gun purchases. That may be so (although a 90% approval rate for anything seems impossibly high), and quite likely the Senate would have approved background checks. But the ordinary legislative process would have allowed for amendments to ease the concerns of gun owners: for instances, a proviso allowing fathers to transfer gun ownership to their children, or a clause forbidding a national registry of firearms. Those measures might have been popular with the public as well. The gun-control bill died because the White House and the Senate leadership would not entertain any such amendments.

So what should we make of the statement by Bishop Blaire, expressing “deep disappointment” with the Senate? His statement does not assign blame for the failure of the gun-control bill, but he does allow that the US bishops’ conference has been urging Congress to support such legislation, and he announces that the Senate bill included provisions that “were a positive step in the right direction.” Thus he implies that Catholic bishops and/or their representatives have the expertise to determine which measures would effectively reduce gun violence. Needless to say, there is nothing in Church teaching to support that assumption. Political judgments are the province of the laity, and the Catholic laity in America is—like the American population in general—deeply split on gun control.

But the problem with Bishop Blaire’s statement goes deeper, because actually there was no Senate “failure” to support gun-control regulations. The bill was not defeated; it was withdrawn—by its supporters. Now is Bishop Blaire criticizing Democratic Party leaders for an untimely retreat? Or is he criticizing Republicans for declining to give the Democratic leaders exactly what they wanted? Or is he saying that the bill should have been approved as it stood? Is he suggesting that no amendment could possibly have improved the legislation? Bishop Blaire might have his own personal opinions on any or all of those questions. Since they would only be personal opinions—they certainly aren’t issues on which bishops speak authoritatively—it would be best if he kept them to himself.