Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

[neophyte]

In the Founding Fathers’ opinion and/or in your opinion.

You are mistaken. I suggest that you make the same careful study of the source documents that I have, rather than relying on secondary and tertiary sources that misrepresent the words of the Founders and the relevant Supreme Court cases. . . .

I leave you with this quote from Scott v. Sanford, in which the Court placed the right to keep and bear arms squarely within what are universally understood to be fundamental human rights that no government can legitimately do away with:
“For if they were so received, and entitled to the privileges and immunities of citizens, it would exempt them from the operation of the special laws and from the police [60 U.S. 393, 417] regulations which they considered to be necessary for their own safety. It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”

 

[EricPH]

your unreasonable fears do not trump my fundamental right to be able to defend myself

Your unreasonable fears mean you have to carry a gun. We don’t have those fears, so we don’t carry a gun.

 

[neophyte]

It is not ill-mannered to point out that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and that there’s no way to intelligently discuss any issue until you do the simple work of correcting that as I have.

Good day.

 

[neophyte]

Your unreasonable fears…

It’s unreasonable to know that people sometimes do bad things? That gives you even less reason to fear that my being able to defend myself will cause you any harm. And as it is, you have no reason at all to fear it.

Again, I see no point in responding further to irrational comments like the one you just made. Good day.

 

[JulianN]

suggest that you make the same careful study of the source documents that I have, rather than relying on secondary and tertiary sources

I think what you are misunderstanding is that people are not asking about U.S. legal source documents. They’re asking you to provide Church documentation that carrying a gun specifically is a natural or moral right.

 

[EricPH]

It’s unreasonable to know that people sometimes do bad things?

Of course, I see it all the time.

That gives you even less reason to fear that my being able to defend myself will cause you any harm.

If I lived in fear, then I would carry a gun, but I don’t live in fear; so I don’t need a gun, lots of people do not carry guns.

 

[Allegra]

Because it demonstrates the principle that the right to protect oneself does not mean a right to own and operate whatever weaponry makes them “feel safe”. One has to admit there is a certain point where it is no longer reasonable and one has to draw the line. The question becomes, “where is it” and “who gets to decide?” In this case, I think it’s reasonable that the bishop gets to decide, since its his property. One can certainly try to persuade him if they think they know better than he does, but ultimately, it’s his say.

 

[flamingpuppet]

Sue. The bishop can decide it. And I can decide to not give him a dime.

 

[Allegra]

Ah, yes. The “other golden rule”. He who has the gold, makes the rules. Totally how a Church is supposed to work.

 

[TK421]

@neophyte

You entirely avoided the main part of my post.

Gun ownership and carrying or conceal carry are not divinely-given rights. They are not inalienable rights. The Church does not condemn countries that restrict gun ownership. I don’t care about a quote by a Supreme Court Justice. He’s just a man in an outfit with a pen. They are the same people that approved the make-believe legitimacy of abortion; not that I consider the two issues to be on the same level.

American values don’t necessarily coincide with Catholic values, which shouldn’t be surprising because historically we’re not a Catholic country (of course historically Catholic countries can be a train wreck as well because of various ideologies).

You are welcome to express your views here or use source material, but they are just that: opinions. From a moral standpoint, a person isn’t guaranteed to carry a gun, especially when the justifications for it are questionable, and that is being generous.

 

[neophyte]

I think what you are misunderstanding is that people are not asking about U.S. legal source documents. They’re asking you to provide Church documentation that carrying a gun specifically is a natural or moral right.

I suggest that they study the Catechism, 2263 and beyond. To forbid one from being able to use the proportionate force necessary to defend oneself is to deny them the fundamental right of self-defense.

In this case, I think it’s reasonable that the bishop gets to decide, since its his property.

I would agree, provided he has the legitimate authority to make participation in the Sacramental life of the Church contingent on the faithful giving up a fundamental human right. I don’t see that he has such authority.

Follow all laws regarding you gun license.

That certainly makes for smoother legal sailing. But an unjust law is binding on no one, and laws that deprive peaceful people of the ability to defend themselves agains violent aggressors are unjust.

 

[Allegra]

Carrying the weapon of your choice is not a “fundamental human right” as has already been established. You can’t argue that and simultaneously maintain that some weapons (ie hand grenades) are unreasonable. To someone else (a nut) a nuclear warhead may be the only thing that makes them feel safe in public. To others, the moral right to throw a hymnal at a gunman and then hit the door as fast as they can is sufficient. The Church says you have a moral right to protect yourself. So if you have access to a hymnal, gun, or hand grenade and use it to defend yourself and others, you are in the right to do so. That is not the same thing as saying you have an absolute right to access any weapon you want. There is prudential judgement involved in determining what weapons a citizen should have access to in certain circumstances. You are certainly within your right to argue against banning guns from Church if you feel you can argue that it is an unwise decision. However, you’re going to have a hard time arguing that it is an immoral decision, particularly given the fact that the bishop has made the decision with the safety of other parishoners in mind. You disagree that banning guns makes is safer and you may be right in some circumstances, but that doesn’t mean the decision is unjust or immoral.

 

[Rau]

To force me to respond to gunfire with my fists

Take cover is the better option. The point stands - there is no natural right to arm yourself wherever you may be.

 

[littlebird]

Is this a sentiment here ?
The anti-carry people have no fear of an evil shooter entering the church , but they do fear a possible accident by a person that is legally carrying ?

 

[Rau]

To forbid one from being able to use the proportionate force necessary to defend oneself is to deny them the fundamental right of self-defense.

You are entitled to use proportionate force if / when the circumstances demand it. That’s all the catechism says on the matter. It does not address the matter of carrying weapons “just in case” you find yourself in danger.

But the Catechism does address the much broader principles of moral theology. Those principles rule out as immoral any action likely to cause more harm than good. Consider that deeply when you act to support the wide and easy availability of weapons - a situation prevalent in the USA.

 

[neophyte]

Take cover is the better option.

So your solution to an active shooter is to allow him to roam freely as he seeks out fresh targets? That may work out for the people on the far side of the building, but it leaves those he discovers in a poor position.

To forbid one from being able to use the proportionate force necessary to defend oneself is to deny them the fundamental right of self-defense.

Is this a sentiment here ?
The anti-carry people have no fear of an evil shooter entering the church , but they do fear a possible accident by a person that is legally carrying ?

That appears to be the case.

So far everyone seems to agree that the Bishop has no legitimate authority to make participation in the Sacramental life of the Church contigent on giving up a fundamental human right. The squabble seems to be over the extent of one’s right to self-defense, and whether or not one has the right to posess the tools that ensure the effective exercise of that right.

 

[Rau]

To forbid one from being able to use the proportionate force necessary to defend oneself is to deny them the fundamental right of self-defense.

You misunderstand your right to self-defence. The church is not with you on this.

So far everyone seems to agree that the Bishop has no legitimate authority to make participation in the Sacramental life of the Church contigent on giving up a fundamental human right.

Most seem to agree your error is in the premise… there is not the fundamental right you assert there is - that is to arm yourself as you please “just in case”.

 

[neophyte]

You are entitled to use proportionate force if / when the circumstances demand it.

Which means that I am entitled to peacably carry the tools that enable me to do it.

But the Catechism does address the much broader principles of moral theology. Those principles rule out as immoral any action likely to cause more harm than good. Consider that deeply when you act to support the wide and easy availability of weapons - a situation prevalent in the USA.

I do consider that deeply, which is why I vigorously defend the right of all peaceable people to carry firearms wherever they see fit. Laws that serve to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens benefit no one but evildoers.

 

[Rau]

Which means that I am entitled to peacably carry the tools that enable me to do it.

That does not logically follow at all. You are entitled to take actions when threatened. That implies no right to carry the tools you’d like to the places you’d like when you like “just in case”

Laws that serve to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens benefit no one but evildoers.

The laws serve a broader cause and need to be assessed accordingly.

 

[neophyte]

You misunderstand your right to self-defence. The church is not with you on this.

The Catechism says otherwise, and there is no Church teaching that forbids the possession of deadly weapons or their use when circumstances warrant it. In fact, Church teaching specifically declares that to be licit. I already cited the relevant passage in the Catechism.

Most seem to agree your error is in the premise…

There are two premises, and no one seems interested in arguing against the first one.