Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

  • Thread starter Thread starter childinthefaith
  • Start date Start date
Defend them… if they know how to aim 😳 . Otherwise, a dozen people shooting inside a Church can get …complicated.
It seems to me , it is more of a habit and attachment in certain cases ,than a realistic need.
But…I don’t mean to argue. Just that one can understand the reasons behind no weapons in a Church or say crowded place.
 
Last edited:
MiserereMeiDei said:
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.
Click to expand...
He doesn’t have the right to require one to give up a fundamental human right as a condition of participating in the Sacramental life of the Church.
 
I’m not confident making such an assertion either for or against. I’m also not confident that the church will agree that, canonically, any parishioner who can legally carry must be allowed to carry in a church in order to be able to defend himself or other parishioners is the only means of protection available. And considering the stance of the USCCB on gun ownership tending toward the hoplophobic, I wouldn’t count on their support or any support from Rome.

The bishop’s conference seems to have chosen sides and it isn’t looking good for the Chisteros…again. Fortunately they have no authority over a bishop in his diocese, so at least people have options.
 
Last edited:
That, I guess, you have to take up with the bishop. I suspect his reasons are a lot more complicated then that though. Maybe he will change his mind, if you explain your reasoning. The point is, there are going to be places you are not allowed to take a gun, such as a school or a plane, and until someone changes the bishop’s mind, the church is one of them.
 
I don’t think possessing as specific kind of weapon on church property is a “fundamental human right.”
 
Allegra said:
The point is, there are going to be places you are not allowed to take a gun, such as a school or a plane, and until someone changes the bishop’s mind, the church is one of them.
Click to expand...
Certainly that’s the law in many states. Ultimately each person has to decide if he’ll abide by an illegitimate law or not.
 
Allegra said:
I don’t think possessing as specific kind of weapon on church property is a “fundamental human right.”
Click to expand...
JulianN said:
Are you actually suggesting that a gun is a fundamental human right?
Click to expand...
The ability to be able to defend oneself, and to own and possess the tools of self defense, is a fundamental human right.
 
Last edited:
I’m not “against guns”. I’m not against people saying “no guns on my property”. You are the one attempting to insult people here. The OPs post expressed that he and his wife are uncomfortable going to church without his gun. There’s no reason to be that worried that they can’t enjoy Mass or feel they must dishonestly sneak in guns when they’ve been asked not to.
 
Allegra said:
The ability to be able to defend oneself, and to own and possess the tools of self defense, is a fundamental human right.
Click to expand...
And those rights cannot be limited? Is it a fundamental human right to own and carry a hand grenade? A nuclear weapon?
 
I can agree that a person has the right to attempt to defend themselves if they are threatened, but I don’t think that it follows that it is their right to keep whatever tool of self-defense they wish posses, even when they are on someone else’s property. That’s a bit of a stretch.
 
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...
It comes down to whether or not one is required to follow instructions or will, on matters that are not Church law of morals.

Otherwise, if the OP carries and is caught, wouldn’t be simply be asked to leave? In other words, he “tresspassed.”
 
JulianN said:
And those rights cannot be limited? Is it a fundamental human right to own and carry a hand grenade? A nuclear weapon?
Click to expand...
We’re not talking about hand grenades or nuclear weapons. We’re taking about small arms.
 
Rau said:
40.png
TK421:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not amazed at all. There is nothing new under the sun.
 
Last edited:
JulianN said:
We’re not talking about hand grenades or nuclear weapons. We’re taking about small arms.
Click to expand...
You said the right to possess the tools to defend oneself was a “fundamental human right.”

Where do those rights end? Are there any limits?
 
Allegra said:
I can agree that a person has the right to attempt to defend themselves if they are threatened, but I don’t think that it follows that it is their right to keep whatever tool of self-defense they wish posses, even when they are on someone else’s property. That’s a bit of a stretch.
Click to expand...
It’s also not what I said. You certainly have the right to refuse me entry to your private property if I’m carrying a gun, just as I have the right to freely not enter if I don’t want to.

And my employer certainly has the right to refuse to allow me to carry when I’m on company property. It’s an irrational policy, but I’m perfectly free to find other employment.

But I am required to participate in the sacramental life of the Church. Under that circumstance, it is not legitimate for the Bishop to require me to have no effective means of self defense, and to provide no effective means of ensuring my defense, as a condition of receiving the sacraments.

There is no good reason to forbid me from carrying my pistol into mass. It would endanger no one, and would provide for protection against a violent intruder. Murderers do not make appointments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top