La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[Sir_Knight]

The solution to this is very simple, Sir Knight. Put your interpretation to the test and see what results. Go to Mass in that diocese and carry your gun against the specific guidance of the Bishop, then accept the consequences of your actions. Those will most likely be your arrest for a felony and subsequent loss of all your guns and the civil right to carry one. Please explain how doing that would enhance your ability to protect yourself and any other grave duties you might have to protect innocents?

Have been listening to what I have been saying? I am not challenging their CIVIL authority in this matter. As property owners they have an absolute right to make this decision. I am questioning how someone who is suppose to defend life can deprive people of their ability to defend their lives. I see that as a moral conflict.

Suppose you have, as my neighbor does, a trained attack dog (former military police dog) and this dog is specifically trained to respond to an armed attack. So far, no one including local deputies who have tried can draw a weapon within 19 feet of the dog and bring it to a firing position without the dog having them by the shooting arm, the throat, or the genitals, all of these tested using protective padding of course. Maybe you would favor my neighbor having a right to bring his dog to Mass on the grounds that he’s doing his best to live up to your interpretation of the CCC? Where do you stop? Machine guns okay for FFL holders?

If he can conceal his dog and nobody knows that the dog is present (no barking, no panting, etc), what is the problem?

The point of it is, as Br. Jay has so pointed out, that the Bishop has the authority to decide the question. The Bishop has spoken, and he says no. He doesn’t have to explain why he says no, but it could possibly be the extremely low incidence of churches being attacked by rogue gunman. History shows us these rare occurrences are generally related to motives of robbery or personal beefs with one or more individuals. Some nut who has it in for the pastor is not likely to randomly open fire indiscriminately in a Mass. More likely he’s going to target the person or person he’s got the beef with. Last year when a pastor was gunned down, it was done when the person knew the pastor would likely be there, but NOT a church full of the faithful. In the cases of robbery, they are interested in the money, not in adding 25-to-life or more to their sentence if caught.

These instances are real data, and as such deserve consideration. We have had far more school shootings than church shootings, yet no state has deemed the problem so severe that it has decided to lift the ban on guns in schools. Interestingly, no legal challenge has ever survived that attempted to hold the schools responsible for a bad safety decision in banning guns. So it isn’t just the schools that see it that way, but the courts have reiterated their right to enforce the ban without meaning they fall into the jeopardy of being reckless or negligent by denying immediate means that could possibly counter such an attack.

Because schools are extensions of the government and the government can not be sued for laws that they make. Again, this discussion isn’t about the civil aspect of this but about how those who are suppose to protect life are denying people the ability to protect their own lives.

Some people are simply put off by the presence of a gun, period. They don’t care if the person is well-trained, legal to carry, or not. They simply don’t want to be around them. They have rights, too.

So because of their irrational fear of in-animated objects, people should give up their right to self defense?

I believe the Bishop and his staff have likely considered all these angles and with all things considered, do not feel the ends justifies the means. You say this makes them “targets,” and maybe so, but they are still only one of many other targets out there. If and when these “targets” do in fact draw the attacks you assert they could, then possibly the Bishop would rethink it. More than likely, they would pay to have a uniformed police presence then to open the door to personal concealed carry.

And what about if people lose their lives because of this? Will they provide the lost income to a family that lost a husband and father?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Sir Knight,

If I may make a suggestion, you should follow the motto of the K of C, “In solidarity with our priests.”

Our alliance is first to Rome before the local Bishops.

The intensity and time that you’re putting into this makes it seem as though you have nothing better to do, which I can’t believe, because we all have things to do

You’re right. I’m bowing out of this discussion.

 

[JReducation]

Our alliance is first to Rome before the local Bishops.

If you know anything about Canon Law, Church history and scripture, you know that this does not work in the Catholic Church. We have never used this rule or allowed anyone to use it. The Church’s law is quite clear, “Where there is the bishop, there is the Church.”

Rome would be the first to tell you that you cannot go over the head of any bishop to comply with them. You and I do not have such rights in the Church and we better not start to mislead people by making them believe that they have the righ to jump over rungs on the ladder.

You’re right. I’m bowing out of this discussion.

Good and do what Fr. McGiveney would tell you, obey the bishop. He has the moral authority to make this rule. The rule is not contrary to moral law. No Moral Theologian will fight this one. There is no rule in philosophy that supports such a fight. Moral law is always based on revelation and stated using philosophical methods.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Stylites]

Our alliance is first to Rome before the local Bishops.

Unity is another motto of the Knights; again as Brother JR pointed out, you have no lawful authority to make a call on who is obedient to Rome and who isn’t.

Once an ant went to a hill of sugar. One grain filled its stomach. Taking another grain in its mouth it started homeward. On its way it thought, ‘Next time I shall carry home the whole hill.’

 

[bona_fides_1]

Explain why scripture tells us that Jesus explained all of His symbolic teachings to the Apostles privately when they misunderstood but no such explanation is found in this passage? Either scripture is wrong and Jesus did not explain everything to them privately when they misunderstood or they understood correctly and no further explanation was needed?

Additionally, why would the great teacher not explain something that they did not understand especially when He was entrusting them to carry forth this message to the ends of the earth? Wouldn’t this ensure that they would preach the wrong message?

Once their minds were open by the Holy Spirit and seeing how they themselves misunderstood, why would they not clarify this matter to ensure that others did not misunderstand the way that they misunderstood?

This is really off topic and runs the risk of taking us down an unnecessary rabbit hole.
Why do you think that this witnessing of what Jesus said concerning two swords being enough was meant to be a universal teaching for all time? Jesus gave the apostles authority to loose and bind and to judge what is best for the Church and His people. The bishops of the particular churches in LA have used their apostolic authority to declare that firearms are not appropriate in church. Would you also buck the bishops for setting the mass times and the local devotions to saints and holy days?

To answer your question its clear that Jesus meant just what he said - two swords are enough. But it was situational instruction for that moment to the apostles and not given as a literal universal instruction for all time obviously. If you really believe that it should be taken literally then you should be arguing that some two of us should be wearing swords in church since automatic weapons were not mentioned in Jesus’ statement. Who decides which two should wear the swords?

BF

 

[JReducation]

The whole passage about the two swords is being taken out of context. It has nothing to do with bearing arms. The writer tries to draw our attention to the fact that Jesus is the new Moses. Just as the Jews were dressed and ready to go the night before Moses led them out of Egypt, so too are the Apostles being called to get ready for the new Exodus. Once again, the Lord will lead his people across the Red Sea, this time led by the New Moses, who is Jesus himself.

The writer of the passage draws all of the parallels to drive home a great theological truth, Jesus is the new Moses who leads his people to freedom.

The swords are necessary to help the reader understand that connection between Moses and Jesus.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bethndanny]

People are scared of law abiding citizens carrying guns? They are actually concerned about law abiding citizens randomly pulling out their guns and shooting people? I think I am confused. I mean, the people upset about this are law abiding citizens, those same law abiding citizens will not be just randomly shooting people. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would oppose those with concealed weapons permits carrying their weapon. Unless, are those fearing people carrying weapons legally, afraid of guns in general? I used to be rather afraid of them, I was sure the gun would just go off and kill me. I chose to learn more about them, and I’m no longer afraid. I’m just saying if the person went to the trouble of getting their permit, they are not the people you need to fear with a gun. Criminals are likely not going to be legally carrying their weapons, and certainly would not stop carrying them based on what some Bishops have said.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Some on this thread have said that guns don’t belong in church, others have said that it is the church’s right(which I believe) to not allow guns, and others have said the Church is not infringing upon the 2nd Amendment, but I say that the 2nd Amendment is implicitly about defense.

What has now happened is the Louisiana Bishops have now established their churches as “gun free zones”(no guns allowed), or rather, better called “criminal protection zones.” Criminals really don’t care about laws or care about where guns can or cannot be carried. They still will carry away into these places, all the while leaving the good guys, the law-abiding citizens, in this case, the worshipping Catholics, leaving them defenseless.

Sadly to say, when something like this happens, the passing of laws allowing the right to carry, the right of the private party simply responds by placing a ban of guns on their property, thinking it is in the best interest of everyone, but in actuality they create “defense free zones.”

Sometimes the best thing to do is do nothing or say nothing. Keep those that might want to cause trouble guessing if there is someone that would protect others.
There are probably many people that you would never suspect of CCing. It could be the man next to you, the lady in the grocery store or any other place.
CC means just that concealed carry of a weapon. So when you prohibit something that is legal publicly you are making a statement to those that might want to harm you that this is a good place to do so.
Remember there have been shooting in churches and they have not been done by the law abiding gun owners sitting in the pew. The murders have been done by those that purposely went into the church and murdered someone.

 

[1holycatholic]

usccb.org:8765/query.html?col=catechis&qt=gun&charset=iso-8859-1

 

[KathleenElsie]

So any and all disobedience to a Bishop is a mortal sin! I rather doubt that.

Only in matters of Faith.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

People are scared of law abiding citizens carrying guns? They are actually concerned about law abiding citizens randomly pulling out their guns and shooting people

This thread is not about fear of guns nor about the right to bear arms nor about the, to me dubious, right to carry a concealed weapon. It is about obedience to one’s bishop. Those Louisiana bishops said that one may not carry a weapon into their churches. One either obeys his or her bishop, or makes oneself a disobedient Catholic. There is no interpreting the Catechism to suit one’s preferences, nor misreading Canon Law for the same reason, nor thinking that one can go over the bishop’s head to Rome on such a matter.

On a bright note, those Catholics who do put the 2nd Amendment above the valid instructions of their bishops will certainly find welcome in any number of “non-denominational” churches who actually encourage their members to carry weapons.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Sometimes the best thing to do is do nothing or say nothing. Keep those that might want to cause trouble

Those “causing trouble”? That would be the bishops who forbid carrying weapons into church, of course.

if there is someone that would protect others.

There’s a cop who attends early morning Mass in my parish daily. But, I don’t think he comes to Mass to act as protector.

Remember there have been shooting in churches and they have not been done by the law abiding gun owners sitting in the pew. The murders have been done by those that purposely went into the church and murdered someone.

Statistics, please, to substantiate your claim.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Since the CCC does not say othewise, I suppose that the right & duty to self defense does not stop at the Church doors. As I said earlier, Peter had a sword with him during the first mass. Jesus, being God, knew this but did not rebuke Peter for his carrying one and if you read the Gospel accounts, Jesus was not shy about saying what was on His mind.

Agreed. The CCC nor anything I have ever read has listed places where you are to protect yourself and others and some places that you must allow others to harm you.

 

[bona_fides_1]

People are scared of law abiding citizens carrying guns? They are actually concerned about law abiding citizens randomly pulling out their guns and shooting people? I think I am confused. I mean, the people upset about this are law abiding citizens, those same law abiding citizens will not be just randomly shooting people. I cannot for the life of me understand why anyone would oppose those with concealed weapons permits carrying their weapon. Unless, are those fearing people carrying weapons legally, afraid of guns in general? I used to be rather afraid of them, I was sure the gun would just go off and kill me. I chose to learn more about them, and I’m no longer afraid. I’m just saying if the person went to the trouble of getting their permit, they are not the people you need to fear with a gun. Criminals are likely not going to be legally carrying their weapons, and certainly would not stop carrying them based on what some Bishops have said.

Beth I have had a CW permit for over 15 years. Trust me - ANYONE except a prior felon can get one. The background checks are minimal and there is no real test for mental stability/suitability/maturity. The argument I am about to make is focused on women but can apply more generically to both sexes of course. I only use it to italicize my point. If men knew just how many emotionally damaged women who hate or are afraid of men (due to a prior rape or being beat up or imagined hurt/harm/wrong) who carry these in their purse (from all walks of life from biker-women to waitresses to doctors and lawyers) they would be very careful to not so much as give a dirty look in traffic for driving like a nut-job or giving them any reason to take notice of you. There are some people who are so neurotic and emotionally frail that they would/could easily overreact and pull a gun on somone at the first instant of real or imagined trouble. Such would either shoot somone or harm someone else or scare everyone to death. I am amazed we don’t have more reported inwarranted shooting incidents.

I have seen women pull mace or taser out of their purses and threaten men at bars just because of a slightly off colored statement or fairly benign comment as they pass by etc. Sure these are all “law abiding” citizens carrying with legal permits but only God knows how close some people have gotten to being shot or tasered over minor misunderstandings.

Case in point - a car is essentially a slow moving kinetic bullet with more energy than any high powered rifle that can take out storefronts and people and property. Most are licensed to drive one and some do without a license of course. That does not mean that just because they have a license that they are responsible and trustworthy. There is no mental stability check issued for a drivers license and some of these will drink and drive too or get in emotional states where they are less in control then they should be.

All I wanted to point out here is don’t misequate legality with morally proper or desirable. Again I am a believer in the right to bear arms - but not everyone should be given that right and not all should have that right indefinitely and independently of their mental, moral, emotional state of being. Let’s face it some people are walking time bombs with hair trigger personalities…

BF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Agreed. The CCC nor anything I have ever read has listed places where you are to protect yourself and others and some places that you must allow others to harm you.

“Places that you must allow others to harm you”??? That is a silly statement. Nothing ever written says that there are such places!

This matter is about obedience to one’s bishop. One either accepts the bishop and his direction as our Shepherd, or one walks down the street to the local Fellowship Bible Church.

 

[bethndanny]

Rich, I’d agree with you that it is not about the right to bear arms. However, I am not sure that it isn’t about the fear of guns. I mean what difference does it make to me if Joe Law Abiding Citizen has his gun in church, unless I’m afraid of it? KWIM?

Wanted to add, I think that it is uncharitable to suggest that those who would like to carry a gun into Church should leave the Church. Reasonable people can disagree on the issue at hand and still be Catholic. I am not advocating people ignoring the rule set by the Bishops, I am suggesting that the Bishops have made an unnecessary decision.

Bona Fides, I have no idea how strict things are to carry a concealed weapon in most states. My point is not that it is easy/difficult to get one, my point is that criminals are likely not concerned with getting one. Criminals will carry wherever they would like. It is only law abiding citizens, who aren’t likely going to harm you, that will follow the rule. I’m not disagreeing with what you’re saying about some people losing their minds and making bad choices, but really I am not concerned with your every day average person in Church doing so. I think it is highly unlikely that anyone here will ever NEED their gun to protect themselves or others in Church. But I do not care if people bring their guns to Church because it makes no difference to me. I just do not see what benefits come from banning them. KWIM? IMO it serves no actual purpose.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Rich, I’d agree with you that it is not about the right to bear arms. However, I am not sure that it isn’t about the fear of guns. I mean what difference does it make to me if Joe Law Abiding Citizen has his gun in church, unless I’m afraid of it? KWIM?

It may mean nothing to you, but it does mean something to those bishops, and the people of those dioceses are bound to give heed to what the bishops says.

We certainly give heed to the courts and the banks and the airports and the saloons, etc. who deny a right to carry a concealed weapon onto their premises. Why are the bishops to be given less obedience? Heck, if I tell my guests that I don’t want them to come into my home armed, am I to be told to shut up because I am overridden by the 2nd Amendment?

 

[KathleenElsie]

LOL, Big difference, ya know.

Our human limbs are not designed for killing. We can use them for that, but for most of us it would require a great deal of strengthening and training. our limbs are made for moving around, stomping, clapping, waving, leaping, running, etc.

A gun is designed for one thing only; to tear a deep killing hole in a human being with chunks of hot lead.

Again, big difference.

A gun was designed to stop what it was shot at. Each has a purpose. There is a difference between self-defense and lethal force. When it is just you and you deside not to protect yourself that is your decision. When you have your famly with you and you deside not to protect them you put everyone in danger and make life and death choices for others.

Out in the country where I live the bad guys have robbed homes known to be occupied by those that don’t hunt or shoot. They stay away from those homes and businesses where they know there are gun owners and hunters. How do they know what house is what you ask. Maybe the NRA stickers or other visual clues let them know where they get rob and steal without being at risk. Or maybe it is the sign on the doors that say “gun free zone” or some other notice of “no way to protect yourself” that tell them to come on in. Ask yourself why the vast majority of violence in nice areas are in “no weapons” zones (schools, stores, parks etc).

 

[Aquinas62]

As more and more NRA vigilantes carry loaded guns to Church, I suspect that fewer and fewer people are going to go to Church out of fear for their lives and fear of being shot to death in Church.

that is such a moronic argument.I am much more afraid of the random psycho who refuses to take their meds, yet is allowed to roam the streets, and then getting hold of a weapon, than I am about a responsible citizen who carries a weapon who may be in the pew next to me. If there are so many cowards amongst catholics, especially against inanimate objects, maybe they should stay home, because its a “dangerous world” out there.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Out in the country where I live the bad guys have robbed homes known to be occupied by those that don’t hunt or shoot. They stay away from those homes and businesses where they know there are gun owners and hunters. How do they know what house is what you ask. Maybe the NRA stickers or other visual clues let them know where they get rob and steal without being at risk. Or maybe it is the sign on the doors that say “gun free zone” or some other notice of “no way to protect yourself” that tell them to come on in. Ask yourself why the vast majority of violence in nice areas are in “no weapons” zones (schools, stores, parks etc).

Statistics to back up your claims or is this just your gut feeling? When you make claims based on facts, you need to provide some of those facts as evidence of those claims if they are to be believed.