Concealed Carry in Church?

[Oscarthecat]

Possessing a lethal weapon no different than fiddling with a cell phone. I fail to see the similarity.

That might be because you aren’t responding to something I actually said.
Possessing and brandishing are two different things-I’m sure that distinction means little to you, but I’m OK with that as I was stating my opinion, and not yours.

So…why then would a person, besides the very limited situation where a law enforcement officer might not have a secure place to keep a personal firearm during mass, carry a firearm if he or she thinks he or she might not be using it?

You’ve muddled together a lot of assumptions in that run-on sentence…let’s break it down…

1. Using a weapon does not necessarily mean using it with intent to kill.
2. As any law enforcement office can tell you, they consider the holster on their person to be a secure place to keep a firearm. This location offers the added benefit of keeping the firearm close at hand in times of need, rather than in a lockbox in their trunk out in the parking lot.
3. The simple act of carrying a weapon does not mean that a person expects to use it. Quite the opposite- many law enforcement personnel carry their sidearm for an entire career without using it. Here’s another example…My niece carries an epi-pen with her everywhere because she must be prepared to use it if she eats something with peanuts in it. She doesn’t expect to have to use it every time she goes out of the house, however, because she has been properly trained to avoid foods containing peanuts. Just to be clear, I am not claiming that guns are the same as peanuts, or epi-pens, or whatever twist you may take. I am demonstrating, by use of an example, that one can be prepared without being expectant.

Good firearm safety dictates that if you point a firearm at someone, be prepared to kill them. When one carries a loaded firearm, one must assume that responsibility at all times.

As I said earlier, being prepared to do something is not the same as being intent on doing it.

Going to mass with the distinct possibility of killing someone else, even in self-defense, defies the self-sacrifice of Christ.

The previous post responds to this nonsense better than I, but I would like to add that the simple act of driving to mass carries the possibility of causing a life threatening car accident. Based on your logic, we must all stop driving to mass if we are to be more Christ-like.

So why bring a firearm to mass? You gonna stop a bad guy by shooting up the place? Recall a certain incident when Christ had Peter put away his sword?

Again, the previous poster hit this nail on the head.
But I am amused by your “tough guy” slang…although you should have said "shootin’ " instead of “shooting.”

How can we, on one hand, unite ourselves to our Lord who gave himself selflessly and at the same time “be prepared to defend ourselves” from a bad guy with deadly force? Seems hypocritical to me, for lack of a better term.

Yes, it may seem that way to you. And I respect your decision by not demanding that you carry a gun, don’t I?

However, the bigger point is that we ought not be so bold as to take that decision away from someone else who may not be as eager to permit a “bad guy” (or gal?) to kill them or those around them.

Are some that attached to their earthly life that they wouldn’t risk giving it up during the very time when we’re closest to our Lord?

Yes, some people are so attached to their earthly life that they would actually engage in self-preservation. You can count our Pontiff among these people- unless you think the security guards who travel with him are just there to open doors for him.

 

[Newbie2]

All sarcasm aside, I would simply respond by saying that I’ve yet to see a situation here in the USA where parishioners should feel a need to arm themselves to feel safe at mass. If conditions were such that such people would need protection, security personel or law enforcement would be a much better and safer choice than John Q. Public taking on the responsibility of protection of the parish.

 

[DavidHume]

We could theoretically have a church shooter like happened in TN, or was it TX. The CC permit people might someday save your life.

That shooter was disarmed and incapacitated by unarmed persons immediately after he opened fire.

Jamie Parkey crawled under the pews with his daughter and mother when the second and third shots were fired. He saw several men rush the suspect.

“I jumped up to join them,” he told AP Television News. “When I got there, they were already wrestling with him. The gun was in the air. Somebody grabbed the gun and we just kind of dog-piled him to the floor. I knew a police suppression hold, and I sat on him until police came.”

 

[Newbie2]

That shooter was disarmed and incapacitated by unarmed persons immediately after he opened fire.

Guess that shoots a hole in that assertion.

 

[Shin]

Nothing wrong with having a weapon in church. Some parish priests keep them because they have to deal with a lot of visitors with criminal backgrounds.

Statues of Peter and Paul have often had swords alongside them.

The first priests chosen by the Lord were chosen because they:

A. Picked Beautiful Flowers
B. Cooked Great Meals
C. Preached a Good Sermon
D. Slaughtered All Their Idolatrous Relatives & Family

Guess which one.

 

[DavidHume]

Guess that shoots a hole in that assertion.

Indeed – perhaps in a less “progressive” congregation, the shooter would have been able to do more damage, as people would have been depending on the concealed-carriers to protect them, and the concealed-carriers would have been depending on some other concealed-carrier to take the risk.

Just an alternate theory, though one with as much justification as the first.

 

[Newbie2]

Nothing wrong with having a weapon in church. Some parish priests keep them because they have to deal with a lot of visitors with criminal backgrounds.

Statues of Peter and Paul have often had swords alongside them.

The first priests chosen by the Lord were chosen because they:

A. Picked Beautiful Flowers
B. Cooked Great Meals
C. Preached a Good Sermon
D. Slaughtered All Their Idolatrous Relatives & Family

Guess which one.

Um…statues of Peter and Paul have swords by them to indicate that they were martyred by the sword, not that they carried one for personal protection.

 

[pnewton]

Originally Posted by puzzleannie forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I do ask our parents and sponsors who are in uniform not to carry when they come in to accompany their children to first confession, as it might give the wrong message.

What message does it send?

Maybe make them wonder what kind of penance they may receive?

 

[Oscarthecat]

Indeed – perhaps in a less “progressive” congregation, the shooter would have been able to do more damage, as people would have been depending on the concealed-carriers to protect them, and the concealed-carriers would have been depending on some other concealed-carrier to take the risk.

Just an alternate theory, though one with as much justification as the first.

I’m confused by your use of the word “progressive.”

That being said, since we are now venturing into the hypothetical arena…

…perhaps the shooter would have been more reluctant to attempt his assault on a church if it did not have the “none of us are armed” sign over the door.
or perhaps, as newbie2 suggested, we ought to chastise the members of that congregation for forsaking their faith by engaging in acts of self-preservation. Clearly, if they had even an ounce of real faith, they would have simply lined up in an orderly fashion for the shooter.

 

[pnewton]

“We sleep soundly in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm.” - Winston Churchill

I do not go to Mass armed, but I would be more than willing to use violence even during Mass to protect others, up to and including deadly force. Without such willingness on the part of some, there would be no civilization. It is one of the pragmatic realities of our fallen world.

I am wondering if there are any reasons why people do not like it. Those that support this give practical reasons and can quote Church teaching on reasonable self-defense. Those that do not haven’r really said any reason except the holiness of the Mass, but there has not been an explaination as to why this supercedes Church teaching on legitimate self-defense.

 

[Brendan]

Stopping an attacker is not in anyway contrary to Christian teaching.

I agree, using the least amount of force possible. But going to mass with a firearm is at issue here. That’s deadly force. And I presume we’re talking for the most part here about non-law enforcement people with less than ideal training (do you think that Joe Blow average has adequate firearm training? I don’t.)

I agree that the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack should be used. But what if unarmed means are insufficent? What then.

Just because a person is armed, it does not mean that the arms are required to be used. And even if they are drawn, often time that alone is sufficent to stop the attack.

And, at least here in Michigan, there is are training requirements to obtain a CPL. I’m a former Army officer (rated Expert with the 1911 and Beretta 92FS) and also went through the CPL training. Both were pretty similar. So yes, I AM comfortable with the training MI CPL holders have.

Police officers have more training, but the additional training is in regards to when they are use their weapons. Unlike civilians, police can, under certain conditions, use their weapons on those who are fleeing. With the military and civilain use, it’s a lot easier. Military has issued rules of engagement that vary by situation, but are usually spelled out clearly. And a commander can engage when their troops are in danger.

That is precisely when civilians can use their weapons, when they, or someone they are responsible for is threatend with loss of life, grave physical harm that could lead to loss of life and in Michigan, they also add threat of ‘forceable sexual penetration’ to the list.

So weapons (handgun) training is on par with what I got in the Army, and the ‘rules of engagement’ for civilians are substantially simpler that police.

 

[pnewton]

Um…statues of Peter and Paul have swords by them to indicate that they were martyred by the sword, not that they carried one for personal protection.

St. Paul was beheaded, but Peter was crucified.

 

[Brendan]

My guess is statistically and otherwise, one of the least likely places one would find a need to use deadly force to defend one’s self is during mass. Perhaps in a few areas of the world, situations are different, but here in the USA, I think we need not worry about being attacked while we worship.

In any case, I think if someone feels a need to carry during mass, their mind is in the wrong place. My Humble opinion.

Insurance companies define “Risk” as the potential of loss x the value of the loss.

I agree, the potential is small, but if one is talking about their family, what exactly is the value there? Darn near infinite .

And, as posted earlier, Pope John Paul II noted that, for those who are reponsible for families, defense is not just a right but a “grave duty”. Is Mass a place to shirk something that the Church itself defines as being a 'grave duty"?

 

[Newbie2]

or perhaps, as newbie2 suggested, we ought to chastise the members of that congregation for forsaking their faith by engaging in acts of self-preservation. Clearly, if they had even an ounce of real faith, they would have simply lined up in an orderly fashion for the shooter.

Back up the truck. I never suggested that. Please do not mischaracterize my statements. Your sarcasm is unappreciated.

St. Paul was beheaded, but Peter was crucified.

Quite correct, I should have pointed that out. In either case, the sword does not indicate that they carried one for personal protection.

 

[Shin]

Well… instead of arguing it I’ll leave it be.

But frankly, it has been known.

 

[Newbie2]

I agree that the least amount of force necessary to stop the attack should be used. But what if unarmed means are insufficent? What then.

Just because a person is armed, it does not mean that the arms are required to be used. And even if they are drawn, often time that alone is sufficent to stop the attack.

And, at least here in Michigan, there is are training requirements to obtain a CPL. I’m a former Army officer (rated Expert with the 1911 and Beretta 92FS) and also went through the CPL training. Both were pretty similar. So yes, I AM comfortable with the training MI CPL holders have.

Police officers have more training, but the additional training is in regards to when they are use their weapons. Unlike civilians, police can, under certain conditions, use their weapons on those who are fleeing. With the military and civilain use, it’s a lot easier. Military has issued rules of engagement that vary by situation, but are usually spelled out clearly. And a commander can engage when their troops are in danger.

That is precisely when civilians can use their weapons, when they, or someone they are responsible for is threatend with loss of life, grave physical harm that could lead to loss of life and in Michigan, they also add threat of ‘forceable sexual penetration’ to the list.

So weapons (handgun) training is on par with what I got in the Army, and the ‘rules of engagement’ for civilians are substantially simpler that police.

That begs the question, who is responsible for the safety of those in an “at risk” parish? Does Joe Blow have the right to take on that responsibility on himself for the entire parish?

I don’t disagree with anything in your post, except that I’m not comfortable having Joe civilian with minimal training (and no ongoing training) taking that responsibility on themself. Especially in my parish in Novi, the “hotbed of crime” that it is.

I think perhaps there is a much better way of handling security in a parish where the need is felt for such protection.

 

[Oscarthecat]

Back up the truck. I never suggested that. Please do not mischaracterize my statements. Your sarcasm is unappreciated.

I guess I must have completely misunderstood what you meant in the following statement…

quote from Newbie2
How can we, on one hand, unite ourselves to our Lord who gave himself selflessly and at the same time “be prepared to defend ourselves” from a bad guy with deadly force? Seems hypocritical to me, for lack of a better term.

Are some that attached to their earthly life that they wouldn’t risk giving it up during the very time when we’re closest to our Lord?

Could you please clarify what you meant by that?

 

[Newbie2]

When I sent you without purse and scrip and shoes, did you want anything? But they said: Nothing. Then said he unto them: But now he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise a scrip: and he that hath not, let him sell his coat and buy a sword. For I say to you that this that is written must yet be fulfilled in me. And with the wicked was he reckoned. For the things concerning me have an end.

Luke 22:34-36

Oh, truly?

You think this is an endorsement to going to mass armed?

 

[Brendan]

You think this is an endorsement to going to mass armed?

Well, this was Christ telling the Apostles exactly how to prepare to go out and preach the Gosple.

And one of those requirements was that having a sword to deal with the wicked was more important than having a cloak.

Have you sold your cloak to buy a sword?

 

[Shin]

You think this is an endorsement to going to mass armed?

My you were faster than my quick edit.

Perhaps not!

St. Nuno and St. Gabriel Possenti might though. I could dig up some sermons preached to the crusaders by a saint too, very invigorating.