La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[Rich_Olszewski]

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

I fail to see the problem. If I say no guests in my home who come armed, then that’s the end of it. If the FAA says no guns on airplanes, then that’s the end of it. If a saloon keeper says no guns in his bar, then that’s the end of it. If the bishop says no guns in the churches, then no guns in the churches. The gun lovers have no right to override the legal right of a property owner or one entrusted with safety at property to exclude guns from that property.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

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.

Just so. CC 2265 directly states, “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life.” It is conditional.

 

[jilly4ski]

I fail to see the problem. If I say no guests in my home who come armed, then that’s the end of it. If the FAA says no guns on airplanes, then that’s the end of it. If a saloon keeper says no guns in his bar, then that’s the end of it. If the bishop says no guns in the churches, then no guns in the churches. The gun lovers have no right to override the legal right of a property owner or one entrusted with safety at property to exclude guns from that property.

I think we are agreeing, I am just adding that it is also their right as bishops and shepherds of the Church, regardless of their legal right.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Just so. CC 2265 directly states, “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life.” It is conditional.

St. Peter demonstrated this in spades but was overridden by the head of the Church:

John 18:10-11 10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) 11Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me.

BF

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

Actually, according to the CCC, “grave duty” applies to those who are “responsible for the lives of others”.

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?

“Grave duty” means utilizing the best means AVAILABLE to that person. In most cases, a high school student would be disqualified from owning a gun due to age reasons and bringing it to school due to civil law.

The issue is that the Bishops are the ones who are making the best means of defense unavailable to the people – which conflicts with official church teaching.

 

[Sir_Knight]

St. Peter demonstrated this in spades but was overridden by the head of the Church:
*John 18:10-11 10Then Simon Peter, who had a sword, drew it and struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear. (The servant’s name was Malchus.) 11Jesus commanded Peter, “Put your sword away! Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me.*BF

As I explained earlier, 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. 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.

 

[jilly4ski]

Actually, according to the CCC, “grave duty” applies to those who are “responsible for the lives of others”.

Umm, exactly. You and others with carry and conceal permits are NOT responsible for the lives of people in church. The Bishops are, and the LA bishops have decided that not allowing guns in church is one way to keep their parishioners safe.

“Grave duty” means utilizing the best means AVAILABLE to that person. In most cases, a high school student would be disqualified from owning a gun due to age reasons and bringing it to school due to civil law.

The issue is that the Bishops are the ones who are making the best means of defense unavailable to the people – which conflicts with official church teaching.

No, the bishops are not contravening either church law or teaching by issuing a ban on guns in their churches. As had been explained above, and in previous posts, the right to use arms in self defense is not absolute, the documents clearly use the word “can” not “must” or “shall.”

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

“Grave duty” means utilizing the best means AVAILABLE to that person.

Not at all. Please cite the CC section that includes the phrase “best means available.”

The issue is that the Bishops are the ones who are making the best means of defense unavailable to the people – which conflicts with official church teaching.

You misread the Catechism and the law. The Catechism nowhere speaks of the “best means possible.” Furthermore, the Catechism says “can be,” not “is.” Finally, the bishops or storeowners or airport security personnel or bankers or courthouses or private citizens have a civil right to exclude anyone from their property whether or not those persons are armed or not. Failure to honor their right of exclusion is called Trespass.

BTW, Since when have you been the one who judges the hierarchy to be in accord or conflict with Church teaching??

 

[Stylites]

BTW, Since when have you been the one who judges the hierarchy to be in accord or conflict with Church teaching??

I asked him that question earlier, and didn’t get a rational answer. “Shooting from the hip” in condemning Church leaders, out of hand or otherwise, seems imprudent for Knights.

 

[Sir_Knight]

More important, if someone chooses NOT to carry a firearm, are they then according to Church teaching failing in a grave duty?

Having a duty to do something, means being ready, willing and able to address the task at hand. We have a duty to attend Church on Sunday. That means that if I am on vacation, I have a responsibility to find out before hand when and where masses are being held in relationship to where I am and make my best effort to attend one of them.

If I woke up Sunday morning and discovered that based on where I was and where and when mass was, I wouldn’t be able to get there in time, I would have failed in my responsibility to attend mass because I didn’t take the proper steps before hand.

Same with our duty to protect ourselves. If we are found wanting because we did not take the proper steps before hand, then we have indeed failed in our duty.

 

[JReducation]

I realize that I’m coming in late in this discussion, but I can’t understand how this is a problem for some people. Let’s break this down into baby steps.

• The Catholic Church is not a democracy. It is run by bishops who have the authority to make rules for the faithful living within their boundaries.
• Parishes are not the property of the general public. They are the property of the diocese. They are as public as a bank. In other words, they are not the property of the faithful. They’re not even the property of the religious orders that staff many of them.
• Bishops have the authority to run their dioceses any way that they see fit, as long as it does not violate canon law.
• The Church binds bishops only to those civil laws that are consistent with her moral laws.
• This is not the only place where buns are banned and it’s legal to do so. On an airplane they are banned for safety reasons and in a Church they may be banned for that and for moral reasons as well.
• Canon law is very clear that the bishop is the Ordinary of the diocese.

I know that those who attend mass at Catholic colleges or at Catholic religious houses are not allowed to bring guns. In many states, a gun on campus is illegal. In every religious house in which I’ve been, guns are not allowed in the chapel. The superior of the house can throw you out and ban you from ever entering again. I know a religious house, not one of my community, where the superior of the house does not allow police officers to attend mass with their weapons. Our chapel is within the enclosure; therefore we don’t have lay people attend mass at our house. But the point is that this is that this is the property of the diocese. The diocese has a canonical right to make laws for its institutions.

Many years ago, I was stabbed in a church run by our community. The result was a punctured lung. But I would not want anyone in the congregation to jump out with a gun in my defense. The attacker turned out to be a very disturbed young man who later became a very close friend of the community. God has his own way of taking care of us.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sir_Knight]

I asked him that question earlier, and didn’t get a rational answer. “Shooting from the hip” in condemning Church leaders, out of hand or otherwise, seems imprudent for Knights.

Seems “imprudent” for our church leaders to tell us that we have a right and a duty to defend ourselves and then remove from us the means by which to do so.

 

[Stylites]

Seems “imprudent” for our church leaders to tell us that we have a right and a duty to defend ourselves and then remove from us the means by which to do so.

No, the imprudence I referred to is in judging and condemning members of the Church leadership. People expect better of real Knights.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Umm, exactly. You and others with carry and conceal permits are NOT responsible for the lives of people in church. The Bishops are, and the LA bishops have decided that not allowing guns in church is one way to keep their parishioners safe.

Exactly how are bishops hoping to keep their parishioners safe by removing from them the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones?

No, the bishops are not contravening either church law or teaching by issuing a ban on guns in their churches. As had been explained above, and in previous posts, the right to use arms in self defense is not absolute, the documents clearly use the word “can” not “must” or “shall.”

That is where you are wrong. The Vatican says that the right to defense with arms exist. Not that it “can” exist. It DOES exist. The DUTY to protect oneself and other CAN exist but the RIGHT does exist.

 

[Earl_Nunn]

I am not sure about other states regarding concealed hand guns at Mass but in the State of Texas any church, school, Federal property any government buildings hospital , nursing homes and several others are mandated by law as no carry areas. I suggest that before a comment on this is made that all should check state laws. As a retired public serrvant and concealed hand gun carrrier with a liscense I have noticed that even on duty peace officers leave their weapons in the car in Mass. Also any location can prohibit the carring of weapons in their establishments. I feeel that tyhe USCCB is right and proper in this matter but they are backed by Texas law, but am unsure of other states so all be aware of this fact.

 

[Sir_Knight]

No, the imprudence I referred to is in judging and condemning members of the Church leadership. People expect better of real Knights.

I’m not condemning anyone. I’m expressing an opinion on how I see their actions to conflict with official Church position as stated in the CCC and on the Vatican’s own website.

You, on the other hand, haven’t stop taking jabs at me because I don’t agree with your OPINION on this matter. If you expect more from Knights, then become one and do better. Until then, stop judging me for disagreeing with your incorrect opinions.

 

[Sir_Knight]

For those who say its a Church right to go armed to Mass, try it at the Vatican…

As other post’ers have pointed out, the Vatican offers security. Most churches do not.

 

[Stylites]

In our zeal to be the superheroes to thwart crime, let’s not become criminal trespassers in the process.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think we are agreeing, I am just adding that it is also their right as bishops and shepherds of the Church, regardless of their legal right.

Actually, they do not have the moral right to contradict the Vatican which says that we have a RIGHT to defense with arms.

 

[Sir_Knight]

In our zeal to be the superheroes to thwart crime, let’s not become criminal trespassers in the process.

I completely agree. The bishops have the LEGAL right to make this decision. I am merely questions their MORAL right to do it but I am by no means saying that their LEGAL right should be challenged or disobeyed.

With regards to your comment about being “superheroes to thwart crime” … let’s not forget that 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.