La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[Stylites]

. . . because I don’t agree with your OPINION on this matter.

It’s not my opinion that matters, but only the wishes and directions of the good Bishops of Louisiana. The problem comes when anyone takes their opinion over the wishes and directions of the good Bishops.

 

[Stylites]

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.

Question the moral right of Bishops?! Heaven forbid!

 

[Earl_Nunn]

I just looked up the specific laws in Louisana on carrying conceadl handguns in the State of Louisana anw the law is quite specefic about places where concealed hand guns are prohibited by law and a church or place of worship along with a largew list of other places are considered gun free zones. Our Bishops are wise in theis stance and are simply compling with state law. Christ said "RENDER UNTO CESEAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CEASERS AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GODS. iF YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LOOK TO YOUR CHURCH LEADERS AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. One thing you must remember tha if you discharge a fire arm you are responsible for the round from the time it leaves the barrel of the weapon untill it stops. So if you shoot a bad guy in self ptotection and the bullet travels through the bad guy and strikes an innocent person you willl be facing felony charges. For all who carry concealed hand guns think before you act Pray for our B ishops

 

[Sir_Knight]

It’s not my opinion that matters, but only the wishes and directions of the good Bishops of Louisiana. The problem comes when anyone takes their opinion over the wishes and directions of the good Bishops.

Question the moral right of Bishops?! Heaven forbid!

What does the Vatican say? What does the CCC say? The OFFICIAL position of the Catholic Church is that we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves and our loved ones with ARMS. Additionally, IF we are responsible for others, that RIGHT can turn into a DUTY.

How are the bishops not going AGAINST the OFFICIAL position of the Church with this decision? I see it as a conflict and until somebody explains how it is not a conflict, I will side with Rome on this matter over the local bishops.

 

[jilly4ski]

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

I cannot answer this as I am not the Bishops of Louisiana. But they might have valid pastoral reason to do so. Maybe they have ushers who are off duty police officers, or door guards who act like security guards and would stop anyone with a weapon from entering the church. Perhaps people in LA were not very discrete about concealing and carrying and the bishops/priests were getting lots of concerned mail from parishioners about the people with guns in the churches. We don’t really know why they issued this directive, we only know that they don’t want people to carry guns (or perhaps any weapon) onto church property.

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.

We have a duty to self defense, but we do not have a duty nor an absolute right to self defense by arms. (as the statement that you quoted stated so eloquently, it clearly used CAN). We can have a duty to self defense by arms, but the document clearly states that the right to possess and trade arms is not absolute. Therefore secular entities may (legallly, by church law) restrict your right to arms and church authorities may also (legally, by church law) restrict this right.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I just looked up the specific laws in Louisana on carrying conceadl handguns in the State of Louisana anw the law is quite specefic about places where concealed hand guns are prohibited by law and a church or place of worship along with a largew list of other places are considered gun free zones. Our Bishops are wise in theis stance and are simply compling with state law. Christ said "RENDER UNTO CESEAR THE THINGS THAT ARE CEASERS AND UNTO GOD THE THINGS THAT ARE GODS. iF YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS LOOK TO YOUR CHURCH LEADERS AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. One thing you must remember tha if you discharge a fire arm you are responsible for the round from the time it leaves the barrel of the weapon untill it stops. So if you shoot a bad guy in self ptotection and the bullet travels through the bad guy and strikes an innocent person you willl be facing felony charges. For all who carry concealed hand guns think before you act Pray for our B ishops

The bishops were wise in leaving their flock unprotected? The bishops were wise in establishing a policy which removes the right to self defense that the Vatican says that we have? I always thought that even bishops were subject to the teachings and official positions established by Rome.

 

[Stylites]

How are the bishops not going AGAINST the OFFICIAL position of the Church with this decision? I see it as a conflict and until somebody explains how it is not a conflict, I will side with Rome on this matter over the local bishops.

Perhaps you need to write to Rome and let them know that these Church leaders have (in your opinion) no moral right to forbid concealed weapons in their diocese, and do let us all know what they say!

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

The problem is that our Church leaders are suppose to defend life from conception to natural death and they are removing from people the ability to protect themselves.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Perhaps you need to write to Rome and let them know that these Church leaders have (in your opinion) no moral right to forbid concealed weapons in their diocese, and do let us all know what they say!

If this was happening in my diocese, I most definitely would.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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

The CCC assumes some common sense from the reader. If something is grave, then it must be accomplished by the BEST means possible. Otherwise it can not be considered grave. That is common sense. If you are having a heart attack, I as an ambulance driver would have the grave duty to get you to the hospital as quickly as possible. If my supervisor told me to take the scenic route or to stop for ice cream along the way, then getting you to the hospital as quickly was possible would no longer be grave.

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.

Yes, they have to CIVIL right to do so but by exercising that civil right, it places them in conflict with Vatican teaching that life is to be protected because they removing from the people the ability to protect their lives.

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

I’m not judging. I’m expressing an opinion that I see a conflict with what Rome teaches and the position that these bishops have taken. I have yet to see anyone explain how this is not a conflict.

 

[Sir_Knight]

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.

And what is that condition? If we are responsible for another’s life – as would be the case of a father or husband. Then it is not only a right but an actual duty. By this action, the bishops are telling people to neglect the duty that the Church teaches that we have.

 

[JReducation]

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

First, they’re not contradicting the Vatican. The position that you mention is speaking very objectively. The bishops are speaking subjectively. They are two levels of language.

Second, Canon Law gives the bishops rights over their property. The local parish is not the property of the Vatican. It is the property of the bishop. He is the legal owner, as far as the Church is concerned.

Third, this particular point in the CCC does not mean that the bishop cannot interpret it. He has that right as shepherd of the local Church. He may not teach against the faith. He may interpret the application of a moral law in his diocese. As long as he does not violate the moral law, he is fine. The CCC is saying that men have the right to defend themselves. This is true. This is a natural right and at times a moral imperative when innocents are involved.

However, it falls within the competency of legitimate authority to decide when and how the law applies. A bishop is legitimate authority. We may disagree with him, but we cannot deny his authority. If the Ordinary of the diocese says that to carry a weapon into the parish church is disproportionate, this is a prudential judgment that he is allowed to make and it binds the faithful in his diocese until such time as it is overruled by a higher authority.

This is the same case that I explained before about the religious superior who has told police officers that they may not enter the chapel of his religious house with the guns. He has had confrontations with a few and won. The General supported the superior. The chapel belongs to the order, not the public. The parishes belong to the bishop. We must respond on communion with the bishop, that’s our greatest moral duty.

He may be making a mistake, but it’s his right to make this call. As I always say, go back to chapter one. Before we discuss whether or not this is a fair rule, let’s determine if the person making the rule has the authority to do so. Canon law says that the bishops do have this authority, because we the faithful do not own the parish. Parishes are given to us in trust for the Church. The legal owner is always the bishop, regardless of what the local civil law may say. The Church supports and observes civil laws that do not contradict Church laws. Church law says that everyone has a right to defend himself, but it also says that a diocesan bishop is the Ordinary of every parish in his diocese and is the final the highest ranking catechist.

If he interprets the CCC one way and we disagree, we’re allowed to disagree. We’re not allowed to disobey. We do not have the authority to overrule him.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Sir_Knight]

As long as he does not violate the moral law, he is fine. The CCC is saying that men have the right to defend themselves. This is true. This is a natural right and at times a moral imperative when innocents are involved.

This is the part that I am having trouble with. If, as you state, we have the moral right and even the moral duty when other innocent individual are involved, to defend ourselves and others – how is the bishop not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves?

 

[Aramis]

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

The Papal knighthoods often do so, and so do the swiss guards. But Italy has no common right to bear arms.

 

[bona_fides_1]

The problem is that our Church leaders are suppose to defend life from conception to natural death and they are removing from people the ability to protect themselves.

This is specious and disordered logic. You have established a-priori HOW others should defend and protect. What makes your judgement as to HOW to defend and protect superior to the established legal and moral ecclesial authority? This is just another version of private interpretation of scripture and Church teaching - a thing only for the Magisterium (i.e. the bishops in communion with Rome). You are not a bishop and have no jurisdiction in this matter. The bishops have clearly ascertained that there is too high a risk-reward to private untrained and unapproved individuals carrying concealed weapons in church. There are thousands of innocent people (families, children, elderly) in church who could be at GREATER risk of some well meaning but incompetent self-styled rambo protector-hero pulling out with guns blazing as some mentally unstable teen runs into church sporting a water pistol or a BB-gun demanding to talk to Jesus. Come on - use some common sense. There is more danger of people dieing of a heart attack by a sudden outburst of noise and the display of a gun than anyone dieing from being accosted with lethal force by a “bad guy”.

As I said before I support fully the constitutional right to bear arms (at home and in approved venues and places) to be at the ready in times of civil unrest and war. But I do not want to go to a church and worry about Johhny-Sixpack sporting his 44 Magnum under his overcoat is looking to vicariously “protect me” through his own need to feel relevant and manly by escalating minor things into deadly confrontation. It is an established fact that firearms ALWAYS risk escalating any conflict to a deadly confrontation. I admit that even as a concealed weapons holder. To carry a concealed weapon is a grave responsibility since one must be prepared to take punches and insults and aggression that are not lethal for the very reason one is carrying and NOT pull out the gun and become the catalyst for a deadly confrontation. There are not too many men in these times who have the personal discipline to contain their tempers and take the bloody nose and wrestle someone to the ground and defuse a relatively minor confrontation while deliberately hiding a concealed weapon and not pulling it just to avoid getting hit (not generally a lethal encounter). In fact to be armed and to get onto a fisticuffs or grappling match is extremely risky since if the gun is exposed and falls to the ground it can go off or be taken and used against you (high probability) and other innocents.

Bottom line: Don’t come into my church sporting a fanny pack ostensibly to protect me and my family - since I will call you on it and have the pastor give you a lecture on it as well. Really, given the tens of thousands of masses said in the US daily how many armed confrontations can you recall in say the last 100 years??? Yeah, lightening can strike and it might be noble to walk around carrying a lighting rod to let everyone know you are there to protect them but I think getting a sense of scale and reality in your arguments would lend greater credibility to your position. I don’t even think the little old defenseless ladies in church are worried and fearful about being accosted in church - so why should you think they need you to protect them?

BF

 

[Stylites]

I’m not judging. I’m expressing an opinion that I see a conflict . . .

These statements seem more judgmental than merely opinionated:

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?

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.

I always thought that even bishops were subject to the teachings and official positions established by Rome.

The problem is that our Church leaders are suppose to defend life from conception to natural death and they are removing from people the ability to protect themselves.

Catholics should leave the idols and the magic talismans at home when they approach God in Church.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

This is the part that I am having trouble with. If, as you state, we have the moral right and even the moral duty when other innocent individual are involved, to defend ourselves and others – how is the bishop not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves?

According to your reasoning, how is the FAA not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we fly?

How is a saloonkeeper not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we stop in for a beer?

How is a bank not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we go to make a deposit?

How is a courthouse not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we have to appear in court?

How am I not violating moral law by removing from you the ability to defend yourself if I were ever to let you come to my home and told you that you can’t bring your cache of weapons into my house?

You choose to interpret Church law according to your own lights and not to obey our bishops. How is that attitude of self-interpretation any different from that of Protestantism? I see no difference.

 

[bona_fides_1]

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.

BTW - your logic again is over simplified and now you are again trying to set yourself up as the infallable magesterum inappropriately. Just because you say this is the only conclusion does not mean it is the case at all; nor does it mean that the words you reference in scripture have anything at all to do with the topic here. As an interesting aside recall the FULL text of your reference which Jesus spoke concerning swords:

*Luke 22:36-38 36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’b; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied. *

Two swords - not every man with a sword.

Do you know the actual historical teaching of the church concerning this verse? The history is fascinating actually. Two swords was taken as a symbolic sharing of Christian power and authority between the ecclesial offices (i.e. the pope and bishops) and the secular/civil offices (the King and his armies and responsibilities to the Church/people).

At the height of the Holy Roman Empire the King’s sword was subservient to the Pope’s ecclesial authority. But the central concept was that the ecclesial authority used the cutting two-edged blade of God’s Word to rule and lead whereas the King in service to the Pope and the Church used his authority (the 2nd sword) to defend the Church and Christendom from hedonistic and pagan forces of evil who wanted to harm and subject the Church.

And by the way - just how does one carry a sword and wield it when one takes up and carries their cross and follows Christ as He commanded?

So until the pope dubs “Sir Knight” with his own pallium I’d recommend you bow out of the business of the magisterim and not try to bully others into sophomoric views of scripture with your “ONLY conclusions” my friend. Swinging a blunt and rusty intellectual sword around your own head and shoulders as if self-knighting oneself is not as impressive as you imagine and really just makes people nervous that you’re gonna brain yourself, make a mess of simple matters and end up disgracing yourself…

BF

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is specious and disordered logic. You have established a-priori HOW others should defend and protect. What makes your judgement as to HOW to defend and protect superior to the established legal and moral ecclesial authority?

First off, a handgun IS the BEST means of personal defense. This is not an opinion. It is a fact. Police have access to mace, tasers, etc.; but they have not given up carrying firearms. There are armed guard during mass protecting the Pope proving that there is nothing morally wrong with having weapons present in Church. The shepard, who is suppose to lay down his life for his sheep, is protected by firearms. Why are the sheep denied this same level of protection?

This is just another version of private interpretation of scripture and Church teaching - a thing only for the Magisterium (i.e. the bishops in communion with Rome).

First off, Church teaching does not need interpretation. Church teaching IS the interpretation of moral law found in scripture.

You are not a bishop and have no jurisdiction in this matter. The bishops have clearly ascertained that there is too high a risk-reward to private untrained and unapproved individuals carrying concealed weapons in church. There are thousands of innocent people (families, children, elderly) in church who could be at GREATER risk of some well meaning but incompetent self-styled rambo protector-hero pulling out with guns blazing as some mentally unstable teen runs into church sporting a water pistol or a BB-gun demanding to talk to Jesus. Come on - use some common sense. There is more danger of people dieing of a heart attack by a sudden outburst of noise and the display of a gun than anyone dieing from being accosted with lethal force by a “bad guy”.

First off, what you have described is not based in reality. Trained police officers have a higher reported rate of having accidents with their firearms than private citizens.

Secondly, just because something is unlikely to happen does not mean that one should not prepare for it. Just because I never had a car accident, does that mean that I should drive without car insurance? Just because your house was never robbed, does not mean that you should not lock the doors AND advertize (as the public statement from the bishops are doing) that your foors are unlocked?

As I said before I support fully the constitutional right to bear arms (at home and in approved venues and places) to be at the ready in times of civil unrest and war. But I do not want to go to a church and worry about Johhny-Sixpack sporting his 44 Magnum under his overcoat is looking to vicariously “protect me” through his own need to feel relevant and manly by escalating minor things into deadly confrontation. It is an established fact that firearms ALWAYS risk escalating any conflict to a deadly confrontation. I admit that even as a concealed weapons holder. To carry a concealed weapon is a grave responsibility since one must be prepared to take punches and insults and aggression that are not lethal for the very reason one is carrying and NOT pull out the gun and become the catalyst for a deadly confrontation. There are not too many men in these times who have the personal discipline to contain their tempers and take the bloody nose and wrestle someone to the ground and defuse a relatively minor confrontation while deliberately hiding a concealed weapon and not pulling it just to avoid getting hit (not generally a lethal encounter). In fact to be armed and to get onto a fisticuffs or grappling match is extremely risky since if the gun is exposed and falls to the ground it can go off or be taken and used against you (high probability) and other innocents.

I don’t know what kind of Church you attend but if people are losing their tempers and wrestling with each other and giving each other bloody noses and engaging in fisticuffs during mass, I would look for a different parish to join. If, on the other hand, none of these things are happening, why bring them up as they are not related to the topic?

Bottom line: Don’t come into my church sporting a fanny pack ostensibly to protect me and my family - since I will call you on it and have the pastor give you a lecture on it as well.

Fortunately, my pastor has a different perspective. He carries a firearm while saying mass and knows that I carry and has no issue with it.

Really, given the tens of thousands of masses said in the US daily how many armed confrontations can you recall in say the last 100 years??? Yeah, lightening can strike and it might be noble to walk around carrying a lighting rod to let everyone know you are there to protect them but I think getting a sense of scale and reality in your arguments would lend greater credibility to your position. I don’t even think the little old defenseless ladies in church are worried and fearful about being accosted in church - so why should you think they need you to protect them?

As I explained above, just because something is unlikely to happen, does not mean that one should not prepare for it. Just because you never had a fire in your house, does that mean that you should not have a fire extinguisher or have fire insurance?

 

[Sir_Knight]

According to your reasoning, how is the FAA not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we fly?

How is a saloonkeeper not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we stop in for a beer?

How is a bank not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we go to make a deposit?

How is a courthouse not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we have to appear in court?

How am I not violating moral law by removing from you the ability to defend yourself if I were ever to let you come to my home and told you that you can’t bring your cache of weapons into my house?

If one removes from someone the ability to defend themselves, than they take on upon themselves they duty to protect them. If they do not assume this responsibility, then, yes, they are violating MORAL law.

I can accept this from a bank, saloonkeeper. etc. They will not receive my business. I can accept this from “friends” whose friendship I will re-evaluate. I can accept this from our government who I do not look to to be my moral compass but I have great difficulty in accepting this from our bishops who are suppose to be our moral compass.

Again, to be be clear, I am not challenging their civil authority or right to do this but I am questioning their moral position in light of other Church teachings and the message of scripture.

You choose to interpret Church law according to your own lights and not to obey our bishops. How is that attitude of self-interpretation any different from that of Protestantism? I see no difference.

Church law is not interpreted. Scripture is interpreted by the Church and that interpretation is given to us in the CCC and even commented upon on the Vatican’s website.

Are you saying that the interpretation needs to also be interpreted?