J
JackVk
Guest
Exactly. If guns are outlawed, then only outlaws will have guns.
- Status
S
Stylites
Guest
I was pointing out the OP’s contradictory statements that the Bishops of Louisiana should have quietly banned guns in parishes lest they advertise to criminals to come prey upon the faithful, and later claiming that even having no guns in churches will alone result in crime.
If the good Bishops say that CCW laws are fine for outside their churches then that should be the end of the discussion, especially for those not even close to Louisiana.
R
Rascalking
Guest
That’s an interesting point, but it’s irrelevant. In the (I admit) rare case there IS a church shooting (God forbid) now, innocent people who follow the rule of the bishops will be, pardon me for using this cliché, sitting ducks.
B
Byzman
Guest
Nothing contradictory in what I said, I say the same thing now as I always stated from the beginning…the Bishops should not ban guns in their churches!..and they should not have made it public,…if they were to choose not to ban guns…to me they showed no humility by going public!
L
larkin31
Guest
“sitting ducks” is a relative condition: we are all one form of “sitting duck” or another. If carrying a weapon makes you feel safer and get you through a Catholic mass without a problematic level of fear and/or anxiety, then fine (as long as you are not breaking the law or breaking house rules). But you are still a “sitting duck,” just of a slightly different color of feather.
S
Stylites
Guest
Ah, we understand that Bishops show no humility. Who can instruct and catechise them properly if not the gun-toting, eh?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Interesting that the Bishops have taken this position in direct contradiction to the position of the Vatican which states on their website that people not only have a right but an actual duty to defense with firearms. Aren’t local bishops suppose to be in complete unity with the teachings of Rome?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I’m coming late to this little party so let me throw this out to all who feel that a church should be free of weapons and they couldn’t think of a better time to die than during mass and stuff like that.
Official Church teaching states that we have not only a right but a DUTY to protect ourselves from harm. Church teaching goes so far as to say that we have a GRAVE duty to do so. A ‘grave’ duty requires the BEST means possible to address it; otherwise it can not be called a “grave” DUTY.
If you are having a heart attack and call an ambulance, they have a grave duty to get medical attention to you as quickly as possible. That means they don’t go to the hospital by taking s scenic drive through the country if a faster route is possible.
If we have a grave duty to defend ourselves, how can the Church remove from us the means to do so? By doing so, how can it still be considered a GRAVE duty? It can’t!
This move on the part of the Bishop is clearly in contradiction to official church teaching and any innocent blood that is spilled as a result will be on their heads.
Official Church teaching states that we have not only a right but a DUTY to protect ourselves from harm. Church teaching goes so far as to say that we have a GRAVE duty to do so. A ‘grave’ duty requires the BEST means possible to address it; otherwise it can not be called a “grave” DUTY.
If you are having a heart attack and call an ambulance, they have a grave duty to get medical attention to you as quickly as possible. That means they don’t go to the hospital by taking s scenic drive through the country if a faster route is possible.
If we have a grave duty to defend ourselves, how can the Church remove from us the means to do so? By doing so, how can it still be considered a GRAVE duty? It can’t!
This move on the part of the Bishop is clearly in contradiction to official church teaching and any innocent blood that is spilled as a result will be on their heads.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
I’m sorry, but I’m having trouble following what you are saying.
The Vatican says that we have a right to defense with arms. The Bill of Rights says that we have a right to keep and bear arms and most recently the US Supreme Court ruled that that was an individual right. Seems to me that the Vatican and the Constitution of the United States of America are on the same page on this issue.
Or am I missing something?
The Vatican says that we have a right to defense with arms. The Bill of Rights says that we have a right to keep and bear arms and most recently the US Supreme Court ruled that that was an individual right. Seems to me that the Vatican and the Constitution of the United States of America are on the same page on this issue.
Or am I missing something?
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Defending someone else from harm with a firearm may actually be one of the greatest examples of human love. Christ Himself said, *“Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends” *(John 15:14). When protecting one’s family or neighbor, a Christian is unselfishly risking his or her life for the sake of others.
“*let the one who has no sword sell his **cloak and buy one” – *Luke 22:36.
S
Stylites
Guest
Please don’t confuse a general good with an absolute good. The church is a little bit different from your bedroom or Main Street or the pancake restaurant across town.
Claiming that bishops are not in full union with the Vatican is bit like . . . shooting from the hip . . . and Knights are supposed to have a bit more prudence than that. Try unceremonially wearing your sword to Mass around your diocese, and see how many priests are also supposedly “not in full unity with Rome.”
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
You mean our DUTY to protect ourselves and others does not extend to a church? I must have miss that passage in the CCC. Can you provide the paragraphs?
Does or does not the Vatican own website specifically mention firearms and say that we have a right and even a duty to own firearms for defensive purposes? Yes. Are the bishops denying those from attending Chuch this right? Yes. So kindly explain to me how they are in union with each other on this point?
Every knight. In fact, every Catholic, has to be in union with Rome. If a local priest is doing something in contradiction to Church teaching are we obligated to obey? If a bishop is doing something in contradiction to Church teaching, where is our loyality to the bishop or to the Vatican?
Nice try but we are talking about CONCEALED weapons. You know, like the concealed sword that Peter brought with him to the very first mass and Jesus, being God, knew that Peter had it but didn’t rebuke him for it indicating that Jesus was fine with it.
L
larkin31
Guest
Really? Even the bolded part? I don’t believe it.
S
Stylites
Guest
The prudence I was referring to was the preferred practice of the Knights to not speak ill of any Church ordinary, although the bigger point would be in needing the humility to accept the Magisterium and not be second-guessing the Bishop’s statements and practices. Perhaps there are some self-appointed Doctrine of the Faith Grand Poobahs out there who can make ex cathedra judgments upon bishops and priests with the blessings of the Supreme Grand Knight. If so, then I look forward to hearing more black lists being pronounced.
T
TMC
Guest
Neither do I. I would appreciate a link to the specific language so we can judge for ourselves.
Q
Quatsch
Guest
When guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns.
B
Byzman
Guest
Glad to see another person on our side!
R
Rascalking
Guest
Someone needs to tell criminals about “trusting your fellow man”.
S
Stylites
Guest
Thieves are always worried that someoene will steal from them.
- Status