Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

  • Thread starter Thread starter childinthefaith
  • Start date Start date
Well, you don’t have to carry a firearm or defend yourself. However, one of those legally armed guys or gals may one day just save your or my life. Hopefully we will never have to experience that though.
 
I don’t think you are being irrational. Could have maybe worded it a little different, but I agree with a lot of your points. I am not sure what the policies are in my diocese, but I know quite a few parishioners who conceal carry at our parish. One is even a former LEO. I am in no way telling you what to do, and yeah you should set down and talk with those in authority in your diocese, however the guys I know of who carry you would never know unless they showed you and they don’t do that.
 
I think it is best to trust in God. Could there be a lack of trust because your wife has been hurt in her past, especially in childhood? What about you? Perhaps somewhere deep in her unconscious?
It is highly unlikely that you will come under any harm in Church. However, God in His unfailing providence will allow what He allows. Let’s be reasonable, but know that a devout Catholic, loving and trusting in God, sorrowful for their sins, who dies is not in a bad spot. Just about everyone dies. If you’ve done what is reasonable for protection, then carry no guilt at all.
 
I think folks need to brush up on US statutes. The militia is well defined in them. This is precisely why we still have registration for selective service by all males.

(a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—

(1)

the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2)

the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
Some are, but it doesn’t sound like the OP and his wife are among them.
 
I think the time has come to decide if it’s a sin to carry in the church against the bishop’s will and if so is it grave.
 
No offense, but that’s a stupid question. The OP cared enough that he made this thread. I personally care if someone is that paranoid about the possibility of a shooter that they can’t enjoy Mass unless they have their gun with them. You don’t have to care, but in case you didn’t get this concept in middle school, you aren’t the person who gets to decide what other people care or don’t care about.
 
I mean it isn’t relevant to whether or not he can or should carry into the church. It seems it’s pretty much being used to insult him and his wife.
 
Last edited:
TK421 said:
A person who finds solutions with a gun is also likely to find solutions with forcefully imposed silencing.
Click to expand...
I’m amazed at how “post flagging” is so readily used to eliminate unpopular (but otherwise proper) posts.
 
You might be surprised how many time a day you come into contact with people who are carrying firearms.

Why can’t someone pray with a gun on their person. Can you pray with a phone or a set of car keys on your person? What is the difference? They are objects, nothing more, nothing less.

I put one on every day right after I put on my boots, and while putting on my belt. Not really a big deal.
 
farronwolf said:
I think folks need to brush up on US statutes. The militia is well defined in them.
Click to expand...
Yes I’ve read that before. When 2A was written, did that definition exist already?

[Just in passing - it seems to discriminate between men and women!]
 
The state in which I live has it like this: A business can “be posted” with a no weapons sign. A person legally carrying concealed does not have to abide by that sign. At most, if their gun shows, and the property owner asks them to leave, they leave. No crime has been committed. Crime happens if they refuse to leave the property. The charge is trespassing, not gun related.
In some cases, posting a no guns sign has been used against the property owner. Implication being that the property owner is responsible for the safety of the patrons during their time inside. Not good.
This part will make many uncomfortable. I reside in what is now termed a “Right-to-carry” state. Anyone may conceal a firearm on their person if they are of the minimum age required to do so. No training required. (Unsure how I feel about that part myself. I believe basic training should be used for all who choose to carry.)
I hope with that in mind, a criminal might choose to avoid crime. If they think at all.
Dominus vobiscum
 
Last edited:
There are people who will do stupid things, some involving a firearm. People get drunk, drive cars and kill innocents also. Exponentially more than firearm related issues. We register cars, we have driver training and licensing and such. Laws against the behaviors. Still happens.
I will close with this: What if I told you that there was a weapon anyone could buy. No ID required, no age limit. A 10 year old can walk in, and buy it. No training of any kind, and basically no one will question it’s purchase. To top it off, it is one of, if not most popular and effective weapons used. And, they even make it in a child’s size. Curious? It is,… the baseball bat.
Dominus vobiscum
 
No, it’s not about “insulting” anyone. It’s point out that it is unhealthy for a person to be so afraid of something very unlikely to happen that they are uncomfortable going places they love and doing things they love to do unless they can take a gun. That’s no way to live.
 
It really doesn’t come across as concern so much as concern trolling. Especially when it’s repeated ad nauseam by, almost exclusively, the same people who just happen to be against guns and who generally state it very tactlessly. Perhaps they just aren’t good with people?

If it is genuine concern, those who keep repeating it might note that he isn’t interested in he or his wife being psychoanalyzed by randoms on the internet and that once it’s been stated and addressed it is more likely to be taken as an insult, even if unintentional, to keep saying it over and over, and less likely to be heeded or even considered. It shows an astonishing lack of understanding of human interaction or the ability to read people and communicate effectively.

I guess I’ll be charitable and assume they’re poor communicators with the best of intentions.
 
Last edited:
Allegra said:
No, it’s not about “insulting” anyone. It’s point out that it is unhealthy for a person to be so afraid of something very unlikely to happen that they are uncomfortable going places they love and doing things they love to do unless they can take a gun. That’s no way to live.
Click to expand...
Rather, it’s very unhealthy for a person to be so afraid of something very unlikely to happen that they are uncomfortable going places they love and doing things they love to do unless they can take away the self-defense capabilities of peaceful, law-abiding citizens who won’t do them a lick of harm by being armed, and who will be able to defend them if need arises.
MiserereMeiDei said:
I think the time has come to decide if it’s a sin to carry in the church against the bishop’s will and if so is it grave.
Click to expand...
A Bishop has many legitimate powers, but I don’t see that the ability to rescind a person’s right to posess the tools of self-defense is among them.
 
Last edited:
But he does have the right to say who may enter a church in his diocese and under what conditions provided he does not violate canon law in doing so…[edit: I would suspect].
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top