La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[Sir_Knight]

Publicly declaring that a bishop is not in unity with Rome based upon reading a news story and upon one’s own uneducated interpretations of Vatican teachings is in the least a dangerous proposition. I wasn’t aware that you resided in Louisiana, since you publicly stated your opposition to a ‘local bishop,’ as if the Church practices in Louisiana concern you directly.

Perhaps rank and file Knights are allowed to publicly condemn Church leaders while only elected officials aren’t allowed to publicly condemn Church leaders; I thought Catholic honor was a requirement upon all Knights.

You obviously do not understand the concept of a Discussion Board. Somebody posts a topic for DISCUSSION and people express their opinion on that topic citing other references and drawing logical conclusions from what is being said.

From what was presented, I see a contradiction between the position of the Vatican and the position that these local bishops have taken. I have cited both official Church teaching as found in the CCC and comments found on the Vatican’s own website pointing out what those contradictions are. No one has yet to explain how they do not contradict each other. Until that happens, the natural conclusion is that the local bishops are not in line with the Vatican on this particular issue and it is the duty of every CATHOLIC, not just a Knight, to have obedience first to Rome.

 

[Rascalking]

nevermind

I don’t feel like giving a lecture on the fallacy of “hypothesis contrary to fact”

but you can look it up

Just come out and say it than. You’d prefer innocent people to not be able to defend themselves. There. At least your being clear.

 

[Sir_Knight]

And maybe the other person would have shot 50 persons.

You can’t argue hypotheses contrary to fact with any real effectiveness.

Yes, the “other person” MIGHT shoot 50 other people but every time an armed citizen used a firearm to stop an attack, that did NOT happen. In fact, many times it was done without a single shot even having to be fired.

Given the anti-gun position of the media, if an armed citizen shot innocent people while trying to stop an attack, it would have been reported all over the place calling for stricter gun laws. I don’t recall a single one of those stories. Do you? If so, perhaps you can provide the URL to a few of them.

As I said, anything COULD happen but so far, the benefits seem to greatly outweigh the negatives.

 

[Sir_Knight]

nevermind

I don’t feel like giving a lecture on the fallacy of “hypothesis contrary to fact”

but you can look it up

The hypothesis is NOT contrary to facts. As I said in my previous post, every time an armed citizen used a firearm to stop an attack, what you are implying did NOT happen. In fact, many times it was done without a single shot even having to be fired.

It is actually your hypothesis which are contrary to facts.

 

[larkin31]

The hypothesis is NOT contrary to facts. As I said in my previous post, every time an armed citizen used a firearm to stop an attack, what you are implying did NOT happen. In fact, many times it was done without a single shot even having to be fired.

It is actually your hypothesis which are contrary to facts.

you don’t understand

but never mind. Carry a gun under your tux even on your wedding day, if you wish. As long as you have asked permission of the owners of the property. Cuz you never know where a mass killer might break out.

 

[Rascalking]

you don’t understand

.

With all due respect, I think your the one who can’t understand. Most people who are gun owners understand that great responsibility and take it very seriously.

 

[larkin31]

With all due respect, I think your the one who can’t understand. Most people who are gun owners understand that great responsibility and take it very seriously.

I never questioned this, and it was not the point.

This is all about the logic of fear and the limits of gun ownership rights. I assume that everyone here is sincere.

 

[Sir_Knight]

you don’t understand

Then explain it to us as we are attempting to explain our position to you.

but never mind. Carry a gun under your tux even on your wedding day, if you wish.

I did. So did my best man. He also carried a concealed firearm at his wedding as well. I don’t know about now but when I got married, there were a number of reports of couples getting robbed on their wedding night because back them people mostly gave cash in envelopes as gifts and the robbers knew that and targeted places that held weddings.

As long as you have asked permission of the owners of the property. Cuz you never know where a mass killer might break out.

That is 100% correct. One never knows when one’s life will be threatened. It is better to be prepared and never need it then to need it once and not have it.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I never questioned this, and it was not the point.

This is all about the logic of fear and the limits of gun ownership rights. I assume that everyone here is sincere.

Limiting gun owner rights means limiting one’s right to self defense and according to official church teaching, there are no limits on the right to life.

 

[larkin31]

Limiting gun owner rights means limiting one’s right to self defense and according to official church teaching, there are no limits on the right to life.

Now I am questioning your sincerity. You just spoke with a snake’s tongue. The Vatican plainly stated that the right to own and trade in guns is limited and not “absolute.” It plainly recognized limitations on that right and stated so. To change the language to a “right to life” statement is to pull a dirty sleight-of-hand. So now we know what we are dealing with in you.

 

[Sir_Knight]

When gun ownership is used for self defense purposes, it is about defending life. Yes or no? And what limits are there on the right to life?

 

[mlund]

If the Bishop or Pastor does not want something brought onto Church property it isn’t going onto Church property. Our parish’s property is “dry.” There is no alcohol to be consumed or sold at any Church functions save the sacramental offering of wine.

Beyond that, though, human beings have a moral obligation to defend themselves and their neighbors for violent aggressors. Personal distaste for weapons or reservation about taking violent action in never excuse a failure to exercise the obligation of legitimate defense.

CCC 2263 - 2267

• Marty Lund

 

[TMC]

The so-called obligation for legitimate self-defense is being way overplayed by many posters. The catechism says that defense “can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life.” It does not say that each individual has a duty to use deadly force to stave off attackers, and certainly does not proscribe using guns or any other particular means.

The history of our Church is filled with examples of holy individuals refusing to defend themselves against violent aggressors, beginning in Gethsemane and continuing to this day. That is not to say that a right to self-defense does not exist, but its even more ridiculous to suggest that the Christian ethos is to take as many people down with you as possible.

 

[mlund]

It does not say that each individual has a duty to use deadly force to stave off attackers,

No, it specifically says,

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

*If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.*66

and certainly does not proscribe using guns or any other particular means.

Indeed, it does not proscribe (“prohibit”) such.

It does permit the use of deadly force if necessary to legitimate defense. CCC 2263 specifically cites St. Thomas Aquinas: “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

The history of our Church is filled with examples of holy individuals refusing to defend themselves against violent aggressors, beginning in Gethsemane and continuing to this day.

Of course. It is the right of the individual to choose to embrace martyrdom with open arms for the sake of others. There exists no such right to sacrifice one’s neighbor for your own sake. Rather, there is a clear moral obligation to defend the life of your neighbor.

That is not to say that a right to self-defense does not exist, but its even more ridiculous to suggest that the Christian ethos is to take as many people down with you as possible.

It is not ridiculous in the slightest to suggest that it sits within the Christian ethos to stop as many aggressors as possible from killing your neighbors.

• Marty Lund

 

[ilmor]

Not quite so fast, Mr. Byzman…

The law specifically allows owners of private property to have the final say in the matter… and the Bishops have had their “final say,” which is “No guns allowed in church”!

Frankly, with the growing amount of lawlessness in the country, particularly in urban areas, I applaud this decision by the Bishops; when I am in church, I want to be free of concern about anything else besides me, my soul and my Lord. I want to exercise my right to worship as I please, without concern for my safety or the safety of my family (or the rest of the congregation, when I’m on duty as an usher.)

I wonder why the USAToday had to specifically refer to the Catholic Church, and why they chose to make an issue out of it? I would imagine that most other churches would prefer to have their churches free of firearms, as well… http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v313/ponyguy/Shrug.gif

By this action and thinking, once again, only the bad guys will have the guns.

 

[Sir_Knight]

From a purely legal perspective, Ponyguy is correct because the property owner has the final say on this matter as to what is and is not permitted on his property.

Based on the information presented in this thread, it is my OPINION that the local bishops have blundered on this issue and created an unnecessary moral dilemma for the faithful. The faithful now are faced with four choices:

1. 
   *] Continue to carry and be in violation of the law.
   
   *] Comply with the bishops’ instructions but give up one’s right & duty to self defense which is in violation of OFFICIAL Church teaching as found in the CCC.
   
   *] Stop attending mass and be in a state of mortal sin.
   
   *] Move to a different diocese (perhaps out of state) where the bishop does not have such a restriction.
   
   … None of these can be easily undertaken without serious consequences. None of these would even have to be considered if the Bishops followed Christ example who allowed Peter to be presented at the first mass even though he carried a sword.

 

[Stylites]

From a purely legal perspective, Ponyguy is correct because the property owner has the final say on this matter as to what is and is not permitted on his property.

Based on the information presented in this thread, it is my OPINION that the local bishops have blundered on this issue and created an unnecessary moral dilemma for the faithful. The faithful now are faced with four choices:

1. 
   *] Continue to carry and be in violation of the law.
   
   *] Comply with the bishops’ instructions but give up one’s right & duty to self defense which is in violation of OFFICIAL Church teaching as found in the CCC.
   
   *] Stop attending mass and be in a state of mortal sin.
   
   *] Move to a different diocese (perhaps out of state) where the bishop does not have such a restriction.
   
   … None of these can be easily undertaken without serious consequences. None of these would even have to be considered if the Bishops followed Christ example who allowed Peter to be presented at the first mass even though he carried a sword.

1. 
   Even the thought of avoiding Mass over this issue is itself a moral disorder.
   
   The rich man had asked what he needed to do, and Jesus told him to sell all he has and give to the poor, and follow Him. He would gladly have sold off everything except his prized Sicillian stiletto he carried around and treasured, so he slinked away all hurt about his rights being abrogated, supposedly.
   
   Most free men carried swords or daggers in those days. When Peter pulled his out to act in self-defence later that night, our Lord didn’t say: “Yeah, verily, pull it out and use it with relish, O Knight of Judah! Those who live by the sword shall certainly live by the sword!” So the idea that Jesus blesses the use of weapons in self-defence in His presence based on the fact that Peter might have carried one to the Last Supper is a lame argument. But that’s why we have trained theologians to help guide the faithful in their understanding of moral theology.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Even the thought of avoiding Mass over this issue is itself a moral disorder.

So is failing to perform a GRAVE DUTY that the Church teaches that we have.

The rich man had asked what he needed to do, and Jesus told him to sell all he has and give to the poor, and follow Him. He would gladly have sold off everything except his prized Sicillian stiletto he carried around and treasured, so he slinked away all hurt about his rights being abrogated, supposedly.

The Apostles gave up everything that they had for our Lord yet He still commanded them to buy a sword even if they had to sell their cloak to do so.

Most free men carried swords or daggers in those days. When Peter pulled his out to act in self-defence later that night, our Lord didn’t say: “Yeah, verily, pull it out and use it with relish, O Knight of Judah! Those who live by the sword shall certainly live by the sword!” So the idea that Jesus blesses the use of weapons in self-defence in His presence based on the fact that Peter might have carried one to the Last Supper is a lame argument. But that’s why we have trained theologians to help guide the faithful in their understanding of moral theology.

Number 1 … Jesus would not have instructed His followers to buy a sword if He did not intend for them to use it because that would have been a waste of money and could have been better spent on the poor instead on something that was going to be used. Since Jesus instructed them to sell their cloak and use the money from that sale to buy a sword instead of giving it to the poor, the ONLY conclusion is that Jesus intended that sword to be used if needed.

Secondly, Jesus stopped Peter in the garden because Jesus’s primary purpose for coming into this world was to die for our sins. Peter’s was trying to prevent that from happening.

Third, trained theologians will point out that while Jesus used figurative language and the Apostles often misunderstood what He meant, scripture also tells us that Jesus always explained what He meant to His Apostles and we see that explanation. The fact that no explanation follows, indicates that there was no need for one because the Apostles understood correctly and Jesus was commanding them to buy actual swords.

 

[chain]

most of the time this is a fairly empty ban. In Texas, there are very specific methods of notifying someone that it is illegal to licensed carry - 99% of the notification only serve to make unlicensed carry trespassing. Now if the Church finds out that you are carrying, they can ask you to leave at that point (and staying would be a criminal trespass), but until they find out, you are not notified you can not licensed carry there.

I have never seen legal notification in a Catholic Church.

Net effect, the anti-gun crowd feels happy, the licensed gun crowd still carries concealed (without the anti-gun group aware of it). The sheep are happy (they don’t see any canines that might be wolfs), and unaware the sheepdogs are invisibly protecting them .

 

[chain]

a few more thoughts.

Issue of Sin. I am not sure on this one. It is not a moral issue, and their guidance should normally be limited to moral issues. I don’t have a problem with mixing religion and politics for moral issues - ie don’t vote for Bob because he supports Abortion. I have a larger issue with don’t vote for Bob because he is a Lutheran. Not sure if I am bound by later, but do know I am bound by the fist.

Why carry in Church - even if you are afraid of the ensuing firefight. I have seen Church parking lots with signs waring about leaving stuff in vehicles. If I go to church during the course of my day (and don’t have access to secure storage before and after mass), my weapon is far safer on my side than sitting in a car where it can get stolen and used to commit crimes and sins.

Finally, I am sure Sir Knight has mentioned this. But my vocation is that of Husband and Father. My duty is to protect my family - giving my life if necessary. I do not feel it is a sin to live that vocation, but see how it could be if I neglected to.​

just one other note - the word Kill is a very poor translation. Thou shall not murder is more accurate. We kill all the time to live (unless you are vegetarian, and then you still kill plants), murder is something totally different