Concealed Carry in Church?

[Newbie2]

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?

No, but I used to have a Ruger .357 for target shooting. More effective than a sword. Got rid of it when we decided to have kids. Maybe someday I’ll take up target practice again.

 

[Shin]

There’s a contrast in the scriptures that is made clear – people rely too much on material things, and so, that reliance can also transfer to relying too much on military force.

But there is a proper use for it, just like all material things. And that includes swords, guns, and whatnot in defense of the Faith.

Our Lady of Victory – there’s another one to remember. The rosary and the sword.

 

[Brendan]

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?

Probably not the parish as a whole, but he has a duty to defend himself and his family.

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.

Well, how exactly do you define ‘minimal training’?

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

I guess that if you feel secure enough in your parish and in your personal circumstances, then don’t carry a gun.

But others have different security needs, perhaps they are being stalked, we do not know. But they would have a duty to themselves and to those in their charge to be able to defend themselves.

And since what they are doing is not immoral, perhaps it would be best not to judge their actions to an extent greater than the Church itself does. Does that sound agreeable?

Generally speaking, if you encountered such a person, you would probably never even know that they had a firearm. They are, by definition, concealed

So no need to worry.

 

[Oscarthecat]

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.

Well, as has been stated before, the Church teaches that it is not only our right to protect ourselves and others from harm, it is our obligation.

So, whether you are comfortable with it or not, it is for the individual to determine how he or she must rise to meet that obligation.

I should also add, just to shift things around a bit- each church is built on private property- so the legal property owner (the pastor or bishop, canonically speaking) has the final say on what he will allow on his property.

 

[Newbie2]

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

Yep, you did.

Could you please clarify what you meant by that?

What I meant is that it seems that going to mass armed, without the need to do so or without authorization or knowledge of the pastor or ushers seems to me to indicate an attitude of looking for trouble, i.e. itching for a reason to use the firearm.

My position is that there is little to demonstrate the need to carry a concealed weapon for protection to mass.

Check my other posts. I think there are better ways of acheiving security than a non-law enforcement, random parishioner carrying a concealed weapon.

Wouldn’t you agree that a coordinated security plan is best planned and carried out by the parish council rather than independantly by a independant firearm-carrying parishioner with limited firearm training and no training in handling crisis situations?

 

[Newbie2]

Well, as has been stated before, the Church teaches that it is not only our right to protect ourselves and others from harm, it is our obligation.

Agreed, but methinks there are better ways of achieving security in a parish setting.

So, whether you are comfortable with it or not, it is for the individual to determine how he or she must rise to meet that obligation.

At home, I agree. At mass, I think your observation below is a good one. An individual cannot for himself decide that he or she should tote a firearm to protect the parish during mass.

I should also add, just to shift things around a bit- each church is built on private property- so the legal property owner (the pastor or bishop, canonically speaking) has the final say on what he will allow on his property.

 

[Oscarthecat]

What I meant is that it seems that going to mass armed, without the need to do so or without authorization or knowledge of the pastor or ushers seems to me to indicate an attitude of looking for trouble, i.e. itching for a reason to use the firearm.

My position is that there is little to demonstrate the need to carry a concealed weapon for protection to mass.

Check my other posts. I think there are better ways of acheiving security than a non-law enforcement, random parishioner carrying a concealed weapon.

Wouldn’t you agree that a coordinated security plan is best planned and carried out by the parish council rather than independantly by a independant firearm-carrying parishioner with limited firearm training and no training in handling crisis situations?

How can you possibly claim that the above statement is a simple clarification of the following statement?

earlier 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?

There is nothing in common between those two statements.

 

[Newbie2]

Probably not the parish as a whole, but he has a duty to defend himself and his family.

That’s where the rub lies then, if the Parish has a policy for no concealed weapons on church grounds, who is in authority?

Well, how exactly do you define ‘minimal training’?

How many people do you know who’ve ever had a gun pointed in their direction? I know none. My concern is how someone who has a concealed weapon would react if some nut came in brandishing a weapon. They get no mandatory training in crisis management, like what is the job of the police or military. Can they shoot straight under stress? CCW training doesn’t address such circumstances, does it?

I guess that if you feel secure enough in your parish and in your personal circumstances, then don’t carry a gun.

Duh. I really don’t want others carrying a gun into mass either, at least in my parish.

But others have different security needs, perhaps they are being stalked, we do not know. But they would have a duty to themselves and to those in their charge to be able to defend themselves.

And since what they are doing is not immoral, perhaps it would be best not to judge their actions to an extent greater than the Church itself does. Does that sound agreeable?

Sure, as long as someone with a CCW does not put myself or family at risk with an errent shot. That’s mainly my concern, I guess, that some well-meaning pistol-packing Pete who couldn’t hit a barn door under such a stressful condition ends up shooting someone unintentionally. I don’t have a great deal of faith in civilians being able to handle crisis situations in a house of worship with a firearm. That’s my main premise.

Generally speaking, if you encountered such a person, you would probably never even know that they had a firearm. They are, by definition, concealed

So no need to worry.

Well, good point that I’d never know if such were truly concealed.

 

[Newbie2]

How can you possibly claim that the above statement is a simple clarification of the following statement?

There is nothing in common between those two statements.

Well, then I didn’t do a good job of expressing what I mean to say. Forget it.

 

[Oscarthecat]

At home, I agree. At mass, I think your observation below is a good one. An individual cannot for himself decide that he or she should tote a firearm to protect the parish during mass.

No, an individual CAN decide for himself that he or she should carry a weapon to mass.

I was simply pointing out that when an individual ventures out onto someone else’s property, their decision is superseded by owner of that property.

Whereas you doubt your neighbors’ capacity to even MAKE the decision to carry a gun, I am simply respecting the right of a property owner to restrict particular behaviors on his or her own property as he or she sees fit.

In any event, you appear to be frequently shifting your position to support your desired end, which is to restrict individual rights.

First, it was because you questioned whether the use of deadly force was appropriate during the mass…

Now, after a series of incremental shifts, you are now standing on the argument that individuals are not qualified to determine whether they are qualified to carry a firearm.

 

[Brendan]

Wouldn’t you agree that a coordinated security plan is best planned and carried out by the parish council rather than independantly by a independant firearm-carrying parishioner with limited firearm training and no training in handling crisis situations?

Does the parish council know every person’s security situation? Such as, perhaps, a woman who is being stalked, or a man whose daughter just broke up with a violent boyfriend? Or the visitor to the parish who recently testified against a gang member?

Why not let the person prepare themselves as allowed by MI law and Papal instruction?

You mentioned ‘limited firearms training’ and no training in crisis situations. But I have already mentioned that the firearms training is similar to that given to National Guard officers in our own State. What exactly is lacking in MI CPL training?

 

[kdq042007]

When I responded initially to the post it was as a LEO; civillian carry aside, what about law enforcement concealed carry? My sense is that our congregation would expect me to act if I could, should force, deadly or not, be required. For me, carrying a weapon does not indicate a lack of faith; actually it serves to remind me of my mortality daily, and dependance on One that is higher than I. Yes, it gives a sense of empowerment, but any responsible gun owner who carries knows the ramifications of having to use said weapon.
Be well.

 

[DavidHume]

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

I meant it in the American political sense. Unitarian Universalists are not likely to be keen supporters of concealed-carry.

…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.

It was the shooter’s intent all along to commit “suicide by cop,” so obviously deadly force was no deterrent.

Clearly, if they had even an ounce of real faith, they would have simply lined up in an orderly fashion for the shooter.

These are Unitarian Universalists we’re talking about. “We uphold the free search for truth. We will not be bound by a statement of belief. We do not ask anyone to subscribe to a creed. We say ours is a non-creedal religion. Ours is a free faith.”

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think the presumption of carrying a loaded firearm into mass would be the liklihood of using it in Church, no? If a law enforcement official needed, say to be “on call” (I don’t know much about the logistics) i.e. needed to leave mass to respond to an emergency, wouldn’t it be better to leave the firearm in the car and retrieve it on the way to the emergency?

So it can be stolen and placed in the hands of those that have evil intentions.

So the question for me is, if someone brings a loaded weapon to mass, is he or she prepared to shoot someone in Church? If not, they should not bring the weapon into mass.

Anyone who carries a gun needs to accept the possibility that they may be required to shoot someone EVEN IN Church.

The question then becomes, is it legitimate to use deadly force, when necessary to stop a bad guy, during mass?

It is legitimate to use deadly force when someone is in immediate danger of death or serious bodily injury NO MATTER WHERE it is.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I personally forbid any use of weapons, even outside of Church, while you see me state that people should have their guns when outside of Church, I take this in consideration as to a persons free will. I on a personal level condemn weapons, why would anyone want to define themselves as not only a ‘gun carrying person of faith’ but a ‘weapon carrying person of faith’ is beyond me. Weapons and Peace seldom go hand in hand…

That is completely FALSE – Weapons and Peace HAVE TO go hand in hand. Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force or fear of force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that’s it. In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 120-pound policewoman on equal footing with a 300-pound criminal, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gangbanger. Without a gun to level the playing field, force and the fear of force does enter the equation and there is nothing separating us from uncivilized animals where the young and the strong dominate the weak and the old. Is that the kind of society that you want to live in where somebody younger / bigger / stronger can force you to do their bidding?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Nor has the Church approved of it, since it has no stance on the subject.

Actually the church does have a stance on the subject. It teaches that not only do we have a right but a grave DUTY to protect ourselves and others from harm. A “grave” duty needs to be fulfilled by the BEST means available otherwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm. How can the Church tell me that I have a GRAVE duty to do something and then deny me the means by which to perform that duty? It can’t because it would then be contradicting itself.

I just find it wrong to bring a weapon to a Holy place…

The Apostle Peter brought a weapon to the very first mass and nothing was said about it by the Son of God and indepedent of that, which is the greater wrong – to bring a weapon to a holy place or to allow innocent people to die in a holy place because we failed to fulfill a GRAVE DUTY that the church teaches that we have by failing to bring that weapon?

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Such as?

 

[Sir_Knight]

While I can see how a person has the right to CC, I do not see a significant reason why someone (other than an officer on-duty) would feel the need to take their weapon into a church during Mass.!

Our Monsignor carries a Colt Defender when he celebrates mass … says that he has a grave duty to protect the flock that was given to him both spiritually and physically when they are under his care.

 

[pnewton]

Another thing to consider is that there are few situations in any Mass I have attended when the use of a gun would be advisable. In a crowded situation, the likelyhood of hitting a bystander is great. When one discharges a firearm, they are responsible for that bullet up until the time it stops, regardless of their intention.

 

[Newbie2]

No, an individual CAN decide for himself that he or she should carry a weapon to mass.

I was simply pointing out that when an individual ventures out onto someone else’s property, their decision is superseded by owner of that property.

Whereas you doubt your neighbors’ capacity to even MAKE the decision to carry a gun, I am simply respecting the right of a property owner to restrict particular behaviors on his or her own property as he or she sees fit.

In any event, you appear to be frequently shifting your position to support your desired end, which is to restrict individual rights.

First, it was because you questioned whether the use of deadly force was appropriate during the mass…

Now, after a series of incremental shifts, you are now standing on the argument that individuals are not qualified to determine whether they are qualified to carry a firearm.

Forget it means forget it. You seem bent on misrepresenting my POV. Please stop. I’d be happy to continue this discussion with you via PM, but perhaps it’s time to close this thread.