La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byzman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
jilly4ski said:
Umm, morally we own the bishops obedience, and I do believe you are not reading that official statement correctly. The statement only said that there can be a duty to defend with arms. Can = may not shall or must, there is no absolute duty or right, as the statement also points out. Therefore since their order does not violate or overstep their authority, morally we owe them are obedience.
Click to expand...
GEddie said:
There is no formal church teaching that everybody should be armed at all times.
Click to expand...
While it is not specifically stated, it is strongly implied. Official teaching as found in the CCC tells us that we have a GRAVE DUTY to protect ourselves and others. A “grave” duty implies that the BEST means possible should be used to address that duty. If the best means possible are not offered, then it can not be considered a “grave” duty.

The best means of personal self defense in most cases is with a firearm. You connect the dots. What is the obvious conclusion?
 
Stylites said:
And in any case, we should always defer to the wants of the bishops.
Click to expand...
True, as it IS their property.

But that simply demonstrates that it is not contrary to Church teaching to be armed at Mass. If fact, sometimes it is even pastorally necessary.
 
Byzman said:
Wow! That is a pretty cool picture! I betcha that there are many people in those churches who feel safer knowing that there are armed men on site!
Click to expand...
And I have little doubt that some came to Mass armed. This was in Tanzania near the Rwanda border.

This parish has a significant number of Rwandan refugees that have settled in Tanzania. But there are still raids from some tribal factions occasionally looking for rival tribe members they missed the first time around.

Not all that different from gang warfare in the states really.

Such raids are very rare, especially in recent years, but why should one take the chance?
 
BTW,

Before I left on the mission, I borrowed an AK from a fellow parishioner and spend the day at the range with it.

My wife was a bit perplexed as to why. I emailed her that pic.
 
Stylites said:
And in any case, we should always defer to the wants of the bishops.
Click to expand...
In this matter. Bishops can want lots of things, but if they are not theologically or canonically correct things to do, then we have no obligation.

Aquinas defined obedience as conforming one’s will to that of the one who has authority in the matter.

Bishops have legal, (canonical and secular) rights to regulate the property. No one here is denying that, and we have a legal (again canonical and secular) duty to obey.

But that does not translate into the fulfillment of every bishops individual wants.
 
Brendan said:
Bishops have legal, (canonical and secular) rights to regulate the property. No one here is denying that, and we have a legal (again canonical and secular) duty to obey.

But that does not translate into the fulfillment of every bishops individual wants.
Click to expand...
Right. If my bishop wants a Mercedes, we don’t have to buy him one. We don’t have to supply him with his wants. He might even want everyone to go to confession and receive every Sunday, but we don’t have to do that.

But, this has nothing to do with wants. It has all to do with obeying his right to regulate the use of his property. If the bishop says that none shall enter his churches armed, then the one disobeying that rightful command can be charged criminally.

Some might want to protect themselves with a sidearm while on a commercial airliner, but the restriction against doing so is not just something Obama “wants,” but a legitimate right of the Administration in regulating the conditions of air travel.
 
Byzman said:
usatoday.com/news/religion/2010-07-21-guns20_ST_N.htm

This is a constitutional right of the 2nd Amendment, and by the State, that the Bishops are not allowing in the Catholic Church in Louisiana. Bishops once again get it wrong here!
Click to expand...
I applaud the bishops for taking this measure and think the pope should make it a cannon law for the entire Church to disallow weapons on Catholic Church property. We could except only the vatican and assemblies of large numbers of cardinals and bishops that may subject to terrorist acts or when having large fairs and events that need special security on the grounds. We certainly want the Swiss guards to still be able to carry their ceremonial pikes as well as their concealed weapons since the pope and the cardinals are a target of anti-Catholic forces and there are regular death threats from various hate groups and religions.

It was and is getting ridiculous. The big mega churches have all hired armed ushers and security guards who carry automatic weapons under their coats. I know of cases where 'ushers" (who are really body guards) have forcibly removed individuals from “church” due to verbal disagreements about the preacher’s interpretation of scripture. These mixed theology bible-church are ripe for conflict due to their lack of a common orthodox teaching - and they know it. But I think we Catholics have no need for firearms whatsoever since we are one faith and have a real ecclesial authority - not just secular motivational speakers with divinity degrees pulling in 10’s of thousands of paying audience.

I am not one for big government or intrusion but quite frankly I’d like to see a federal law that requires owners of private facilities such as churches to boldly place signs on any facility that employs armed security agents. Families and congregation have a right to know if they are in an establishment where an esculation of any sort could lead to the use of deadly force. This way, the implication of no signage is that firearms are prohibited - even those carrying permitted concealed weapons.

But what is a crazy idea it is to think the state has any right to “permit” a person to carry a weapon in my house or your house or my church!!! If any person was so bold and rude to walk into my house with a concealed weapon (“permitted” or not) I’d personally and physically throw him out and off the property and call the police at the first sign of defiance. Owners of private property have an absolute right to set their own policies and to have a right of free association. The state can only permit use of public facilities and even at that it restricts by permit certain places - i.e. courthouses, schools, sports stadiums etc.

All this said I do have a concealed weapons permit but never use it except for cases where I am going to be in a bad or dangerous area. But I would never disrespect my church by even putting it in the car in the parking lot - much less carrying inside in the presence of the Eucharist and God’s Holy people.

BF
 
Sir_Knight said:
Legally, yes; because the property owners have that right but morally we should not defer to the wants of bishops if those wants conflict with official church teaching and that clearly seems to be the case here.
Click to expand...
It should be noted that not all dioceses own the individual parishes; some parishes are in fact separate corporations, and thus the parish owns the building, not the diocese.

This has been done to limit liability.
 
Aramis said:
It should be noted that not all dioceses own the individual parishes; some parishes are in fact separate corporations, and thus the parish owns the building, not the diocese.

This has been done to limit liability.
Click to expand...
Yes, but the bishop usually (if not always) is listed as the President of the cooperation.
 
For those who say its a Church right to go armed to Mass, try it at the Vatican…
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Right. If my bishop wants a Mercedes, we don’t have to buy him one. We don’t have to supply him with his wants. He might even want everyone to go to confession and receive every Sunday, but we don’t have to do that.

But, this has nothing to do with wants. It has all to do with obeying his right to regulate the use of his property. If the bishop says that none shall enter his churches armed, then the one disobeying that rightful command can be charged criminally.

Some might want to protect themselves with a sidearm while on a commercial airliner, but the restriction against doing so is not just something Obama “wants,” but a legitimate right of the Administration in regulating the conditions of air travel.
Click to expand...
Agreed. There’s little semantic difference between what a bishop “wants” to do with his own property, and his wanting to exercise his own 1st Amendment right of free association on his own property.
 
Doesn’t your father want for the good bishops in Louisiana to enjoy their 1st Amendment right of free association? (Equating the Constitution with the Catholic deposit of faith implies that Barney Frank can save souls and walk on water.)
 
It has nothing to do with the Constitution being equal to Church teaching. It has to do with church teaching ALONE – the Church specifically says that we have a GRAVE DUTY to protect our selves and others from harm. As I explained earlier, a grave duty must to addressed with the BEST means possible – otheerwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. Additionally, the Vatican’s own website spcifically says that we have a right to defense with arms.

Church teaching and the US Constitution and in complete agreement with each other on this point.
 
Sir_Knight said:
It has nothing to do with the Constitution being equal to Church teaching. It has to do with church teaching ALONE – the Church specifically says that we have a GRAVE DUTY to protect our selves and others from harm. As I explained earlier, a grave duty must to addressed with the BEST means possible – otheerwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. Additionally, the Vatican’s own website spcifically says that we have a right to defense with arms.

Church teaching and the US Constitution and in complete agreement with each other on this point.
Click to expand...
You keep mentioning GRAVE DUTY. Now I understand how you apply it to this case but I wonder how far one can go with this. This GRAVE DUTY is incumbent for all people not just fathers or mothers. So does a Catholic high school student have the MORAL right to carry a gun to school or does the school have the MORAL right to say no?
 
canadianguy1143 said:
You keep mentioning GRAVE DUTY. Now I understand how you apply it to this case but I wonder how far one can go with this. This GRAVE DUTY is incumbent for all people not just fathers or mothers. So does a Catholic high school student have the MORAL right to carry a gun to school or does the school have the MORAL right to say no?
Click to expand...
More important, if someone chooses NOT to carry a firearm, are they then according to Church teaching failing in a grave duty?
 
1holycatholic said:
Weapons: Vatican State

They don’t carry just guns, they have big nasty sharp pointy sticks!

http://www.aviewoncities.com/img/rome/kveit0402s.jpg
Click to expand...
Yep - and in the day the Swiss mercenaries were the most feared and respected on the battlefield since they were highly trained on just how to use those halberds/pikes to open up a knight’s armor and run him through with the narrow and sharp business end of the thing. It’s an interesting history. The Swiss used to have a reputation for exporting mercenaries all over Europe and they eventually self-outlawed the practice for various political, practical and ethical reasons. They made a special honorary exception to the Vatican that exists to this day due to their long standing tradtion of honor and devotion to The Church.

Any would be bad-guy who makes the mistake of thinking the Switzers are ceremonial are in for a rude awakening - these guys are as tough, disciplined and proficient as they come and the positions are extremely competitive and sought by many young Swiss men. They’d all give their life in an instant to protect the Holy Father.

BF
 
Sir_Knight said:
It has nothing to do with the Constitution being equal to Church teaching. It has to do with church teaching ALONE – the Church specifically says that we have a GRAVE DUTY to protect our selves and others from harm. As I explained earlier, a grave duty must to addressed with the BEST means possible – otheerwise it can not be considered to be a “grave” duty. Additionally, the Vatican’s own website spcifically says that we have a right to defense with arms.

Church teaching and the US Constitution and in complete agreement with each other on this point.
Click to expand...
The church also says that we should not use excessive force in our self-defense or defense of others.🤷 I believe you are misinterpreting the “official statement” you quoted earlier. It says we CAN have a duty to uses arms in defense of self and others. This does not mean that at all times and places we have a duty to protect others. Indeed, it would be the bishops’ duty to protect us while we attend mass (see the guys in Africa with AK47s that the bishop sent along). It is not the random people in the pews duty to protect the rest of us or the priest during mass. Just like it is my grave duty to protect my child, not your grave duty to protect my child.

It is not only the bishops legal right, but also their pastoral right given to them by the office of bishop.

The critics of the bishops keep saying how safe we should feel because there are people armed in our churches, but if I notice someone in the pews with a gun in a shoulder holster under their suit coat, I do not know you have a permit to conceal and carry, neither do I know you have permission from the priest or bishop to bring it into church, and I have no way of identifying you from the actual crazies that might come in and shoot up the church. 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top