La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[Neil_Anthony]

I am not saying any of this. I am sorry if I have come off this way to some! I truly believe that the right of the private party comes first. All I am saying is that they, the Bishops, have now established a “criminal protection zone.” In that the criminals now have the upper hand if they were to want to cause harm in a church! The Bishops, by using their rights of private ownership, also in respect to the state not controlling the Church(1st Amendment), are not exercising their freedom in the best judgment!

Hi Byzman,

Please allow me to present a perspective you may not have considered:

You’ll agree with me that Christians are peace-loving. And I agree with you that Christians also believe self-defence and the defence of the innocent is a duty. These ideas aren’t contradictory, but achieving a balance between them requires some subtle consideration and nuance. Let me explain…

Since we are peace-loving, and Christ emphasized loving our neighbour and going the extra mile to forgive, we hate the idea of having to kill someone in self-defence. We long for the conversion of criminals. We long to find ways to keep people from turning to crime. We long to have mercy on these people and use as little force as necessary to protect the innocent. We long to live in a society where violence is no longer necessary, and where peace is so well established that weapons aren’t necessary in normal civil situations. We’ve been blessed with a society full of law and order and safety. There are situations where it would be prudent to have a weapon at mass: during war or civil unrest for example.

But some people are just too anxious to carry a weapon. They perceive enemies all around them that aren’t there, and dream of one day being able to shoot a criminal to protect the innocent. These people have missed the point. Laying down our weapons, when prudent, is an expression of our trust and faith in our fellow man. Christ seems to me like someone who gave people the benefit of the doubt, and took a chance on trusting others. Carrying a weapon when its not that likely its needed doesn’t seem to be in line with that to most of us.

Sure, you can argue that its necessary and prudent. But I’m willing to take a risk if it means we can live in a society based on trust rather than based on firearms. At least when the crime rate is as low as it is. It’s a judgement call, which is hopefully informed by virtue.

 

[Stylites]

It is clear that you did not read my posts #20 and #88. Go back and read them and see for yourself that I beleive the Bishops are not exercising their freedom prudently!

Yes, I read your posts, and re-read them again at your prompting, and think your points are not grounded in reality, (unless you really believe that criminals read the news and use it to ascertain where the easy targets are, as if a robber is going to pull a gun and steal in front of 300 witnesses).

Christians try to see Christ in their neighbor all the time rather than a criminal threat. Christians try to extend love to their neighbor rather than distrust and angst. Anyone who would purposely avoid visiting a state and receiving the Holy Sacrament there because of the gun policy of a parish has their priorities wrong. Our trust first and foremost and solely should be with God, and not with ourselves or our abilities or our weapons.

Wanting to defend yourself or your loved ones is a great thing and most commendable - the pagans and non-believers do likewise. We are called to a higher love based on God and His providence. Try to trust in God alone, even for an hour a week, is all the good Bishops in Louisiana are asking.

 

[Rascalking]

Yes, I have wondered this. I have no trouble admitting that I have doubts about my own positions from time to time and that I am stubborn and wrong about some things.

But in this specific case, am I unaware of significant numbers of violent crimes being perpetrated during Catholic mass? If I am, I would like to know.

Very noble of you. I also have no trouble admitting that I doubt my opinions, etc. Am I wrong sometimes, of course. However, I’m also right sometimes as well.

In this specific case, I am going to dust off an old cliché. I’d rather be safe than sorry. If someone does start a violent assault, I’d rather have a chance at survival and protecting people rather than say, “Well, darn-wish I had a protection here-oh, he just shot someone.”

And yes, I admit it’s rare that someone shoots up a church or a mall (or, sadly, a school) but it does happen. It’s also rare that car accidents happen-but I still wear my seat belt!

 

[Bob_Aliano]

All these posts are interesting but I believe the bottom line is that the Bishops have issued a legal directive, not a religious one. If anyone desires to do so, they can challenge the Bishops’ gun ban in court, likewise, barring a court injunction against the ban, if anyone openly ignores the ban they could be arrested.

I have no idea how many carry concealed weapons to church nor have I heard of any shootings at Catholic churches although, given enough publicity through controversies such as in LA, it’s just a matter of time. Sometimes it’s better to accept the status quo rather than roil the waters as the LA Bishops’ have done. As the saying goes, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it”.

 

[jilly4ski]

All these posts are interesting but I believe the bottom line is that the Bishops have issued a legal directive, not a religious one. If anyone desires to do so, they can challenge the Bishops’ gun ban in court, likewise, barring a court injunction against the ban, if anyone openly ignores the ban they could be arrested.

No, the bishops have every right to ban weapons of any kind on their private property, just like you, businesses, and even governments can ban others from bringing a weapon on their property. The only thing people could challenge would be the state law, which I am not sure why they would since it expands the rights for those carrying and concealing.

 

[Stylites]

No, the bishops have every right to ban weapons of any kind on their private property, just like you, businesses, and even governments can ban others from bringing a weapon on their property. The only thing people could challenge would be the state law, which I am not sure why they would since it expands the rights for those carrying and concealing.

Exactly. People would have to challenge the 1st Amendment Right of free association in order to force private property owners to associate with people they choose not to.

 

[larkin31]

Very noble of you. I also have no trouble admitting that I doubt my opinions, etc. Am I wrong sometimes, of course. However, I’m also right sometimes as well.

In this specific case, I am going to dust off an old cliché. I’d rather be safe than sorry. If someone does start a violent assault, I’d rather have a chance at survival and protecting people rather than say, “Well, darn-wish I had a protection here-oh, he just shot someone.”

I liken this to bringing a Coast-guard liferaft into the bathroom while you sit on the toilet incase you might fall in. There is always, technically, the “chance.”

And yes, I admit it’s rare that someone shoots up a church or a mall (or, sadly, a school) but it does happen. It’s also rare that car accidents happen-but I still wear my seat belt!

Shall we compare car accident rates per capita to church shooting rates per capita? I don’t know them, but I imagine that there would be a significant discrepancy (orders of magnitude, I bet).

 

[Holly3278]

Personally, I agree with the Bishop. Guns don’t belong in church. Now granted, they might come in handy should someone try to assault the priest or someone else but that is rather unlikely I would think. That said, the 2nd amendment argument doesn’t work here. They don’t allow guns in courthouses and other places with extra security so they don’t have to allow guns in church either.

 

[jamanne]

umm, private places can make any rule they want regarding fire arms. My father’s place of business bans all weapons regardless of whether people have a legal permit to carry and conceal. Schools and court houses are government property, and they can legally ban all weapons from the property, even for those legally carrying. There is no constitutional issue in the bishops’ rule. One could argue the practicality of a rule or that it is safer that some people have their guns on them, but you can not make a constitutional issue out of it.

I,m British born and have attended on occasion Churches in Florida and New York.I get the heebie jeebies to think someone is sitting beside me hiding a gun.I had never given it a thought till I read this article.Now how would you know someone has a concealed ,? weapon does everyone get frisked?I am stunned by the very suggestion of having guns in Churches I,m sixty five years old and thought I had heard everything but this blows me away ,never mind someone also states that the priest in their parish also carries one .does everyone think they r,e cowboys or something now my next visit I,(St Andrew,s Cape Coral) I,m going to be in Church distracted by the thought of my neighbors sitting there with guns I can,t believe this

 

[Stylites]

I,m British born and have attended on occasion Churches in Florida and New York.I get the heebie jeebies to think someone is sitting beside me hiding a gun.I had never given it a thought till I read this article.Now how would you know someone has a concealed ,? weapon does everyone get frisked?I am stunned by the very suggestion of having guns in Churches I,m sixty five years old and thought I had heard everything but this blows me away ,never mind someone also states that the priest in their parish also carries one .does everyone think they r,e cowboys or something now my next visit I,(St Andrew,s Cape Coral) I,m going to be in Church distracted by the thought of my neighbors sitting there with guns I can,t believe this

To be fair, only one unnamed person on the Internet claims his unnamed priest allows him to carry a concealed weapon during Mass in his unnamed parish, and the same unnamed person claims that the unnamed priest is an NRA member, not that the unnamed priest himself carries a concealed weapon, unless I missed something.

Edit: Re-reading the post, he claims the unnamed priest ‘carries his, too’ but doesn’t explicitly state that he carries during Mass.

 

[Bob_Aliano]

Exactly. People would have to challenge the 1st Amendment Right of free association in order to force private property owners to associate with people they choose not to.

That doesn’t mean a group such as the ACLU couldn’t or wouldn’t file a lawsuit! Suits are filed against private organizations and industries every day, just look at the recent suit by gays against the BSA. They may not prevail but could cost the Church some serious defense money.

 

[Stylites]

That doesn’t mean a group such as the ACLU couldn’t or wouldn’t file a lawsuit! Suits are filed against private organizations and industries every day, just look at the recent suit by gays against the BSA. They may not prevail but could cost the Church some serious defense money.

True, but only by virtue of immutable characteristics, or religious beliefs. A business is rightly not allowed to discriminate based on race. Glocks or Barettas may try to claim discrimination based on national origin, but seeing them sign a petition would be priceless.

 

[larkin31]

To be fair, only one unnamed person on the Internet claims his unnamed priest allows him to carry a concealed weapon during Mass in his unnamed parish, and the same unnamed person claims that the unnamed priest is an NRA member, not that the unnamed priest himself carries a concealed weapon, unless I missed something.

Edit: Re-reading the post, he claims the unnamed priest ‘carries his, too’ but doesn’t explicitly state that he carries during Mass.

I went back and reread: you are right.

 

[Byzman]

To be fair, only one unnamed person on the Internet claims his unnamed priest allows him to carry a concealed weapon during Mass in his unnamed parish, and the same unnamed person claims that the unnamed priest is an NRA member, not that the unnamed priest himself carries a concealed weapon, unless I missed something.

Edit: Re-reading the post, he claims the unnamed priest ‘carries his, too’ but doesn’t explicitly state that he carries during Mass.

Yes, this is all true. I choose so, to remain unnamed, because I would like to retain some identity to myself only and not let the whole cyber world know everything about me.

Yes, I carry my Beretta to Liturgy every sunday. As for my priest, he carries his also and celebrates Liturgy also with it on his person! Sorry that I have a pro-gun pastor who believes in the same ideology as me!

 

[larkin31]

Yes, this is all true. I choose so, to remain unnamed, because I would like to retain some identity to myself only and not let the whole cyber world know everything about me.

Yes, I carry my Beretta to Liturgy every sunday. As for my priest, he carries his also and celebrates Liturgy also with it on his person! Sorry that I have a pro-gun pastor who believes in the same ideology as me!

So, there would be a cross-fire were you both to utilize these weapons! Sid was right!

 

[Byzman]

So, there would be a cross-fire were you both to utilize these weapons! Sid was right!

What is better? Unarmed men getting killed by an attacker with a gun, because the maniac decides this is what he wants to do for the day? Or this maniac being put down by someone who had a weapon for defense?

I dont want to hear anything about crossfire, innocent children in the way, we are carrying our weapons so we can just pull it out at any moment and start shooting people…blah blah blah!

Again I say, by saying no guns allowed makes the place a target, because criminals know that no one is armed in there! A ban on guns do nothing! Just look at Chicago for the past 30 years! There was an unconstitutional ban in place, and guess who still had guns…, criminals!! Guess who were their victims…defense-less people because they were not allowed to have guns! Gun bans do not work!

 

[larkin31]

What is better? Unarmed men getting killed by an attacker with a gun, because the maniac decides this is what he wants to do for the day? Or this maniac being put down by someone who had a weapon for defense?

I dont want to hear anything about crossfire, innocent children in the way, we are carrying our weapons so we can just pull it out at any moment and start shooting people…blah blah blah!

blah blah blah to you

If you don’t want to hear a reply to you, then don’t post.

 

[Byzman]

blah blah blah to you

If you don’t want to hear a reply to you, then don’t post.

Well, I guess that solved that!

 

[Byzman]

blah blah blah to you

If you don’t want to hear a reply to you, then don’t post.

Oh wait a sec…now this time you never answered my question!

What is better? Unarmed men getting killed by an attacker with a gun, because the maniac decides this is what he wants to do for the day? Or this maniac being put down by someone who had a weapon for defense?

 

[larkin31]

Oh wait a sec…now this time you never answered my question!

What is better? Unarmed men getting killed by an attacker with a gun, because the maniac decides this is what he wants to do for the day? Or this maniac being put down by someone who had a weapon for defense?]

blah blah blah <--------what you hear