La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[1holycatholic]

What if you feel safe inside the church but don’t feel safe outside the walls of the church. Many such communities exist where the church itself may be safe but the walk to the parking lot or the walk home may be a harrowing experience.

Woman shot in Youngstown church parking lot
…
Angeline Fimognari was shot in the head shortly after leaving St. Dominic’s Parish on Saturday morning in Youngstown’s South Side neighborhood, The Houston Chronicle reports.

Police believe she was the last person to leave Mass that morning. She was found slumped over in the driver’s side of her car in the church parking lot and her purse was missing.

Bishop Murry said the church was upgrading security and encouraged church members “to continue attending the parish.”
…
An eighty year old woman is robbed and shot in the head after mass in the Church parking lot.

There’s a failure to acknowledge that some people willfully commit evil.

 

[JReducation]

And in many states what you say is not true.

In fact in many states the most they can do is ask you to leave and if you do then there is no law broken, no violation.

So that said, it pays to know the laws of your state because your description has greatly exaggerated what they have “the right to” do in many states.

It should not have to come to someone being asked to leave the church, when it’s simpler to obey the rule.

What if you feel safe inside the church but don’t feel safe outside the walls of the church. Many such communities exist where the church itself may be safe but the walk to the parking lot or the walk home may be a harrowing experience.

We run five pregnancy centers. We also work with the dying and the elderly. This takes us to some very dangerous neighborhoods. But we don’t carry a gun, nor do we allow anyone to carry a gun in any of our facilities. At some point one has to place one’s trust in the Lord. The brothers do so and we insist that our volunteers do the same. We pray and we trust that God is with us. If something happens, we pray to be in a state of grace. Our soul is much more important.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Stylites]

The presumption that the member came from home and is going back home is faulty. Many of us go off to work, shopping, to breakfast, etc after mass. Some come from work. While its very likely that that church itself is a reasonably safe place, its not necessarily true that the places we came from or are going to are safe.

Interesting, but pointless to the discussion of honoring the 1st Amendment rights of the Louisiana Bishops. They don’t care where you’re coming from or going to, or where you leave your weapon, just don’t bring it inside the Church and you won’t be charged with criminal trespass. They are not responsible for the safety of your weapon, only you are.

 

[Stylites]

In fact in many states the most they can do is ask you to leave and if you do then there is no law broken, no violation.

So that said, it pays to know the laws of your state because your description has greatly exaggerated what they have “the right to” do in many states.

Ah, a cynical variation of the Clintonian “One Free Grope” rule, or the “I didn’t know - I can’t read the sign” cop-out. Try to use the excuse twice and see what happens.

 

[melensdad]

They don’t care where you’re coming from or going to. . . They are not responsible for the safety of your weapon, only you are.

And as long as the gun is in my holster it is perfectly safe. What is your point? Is it that the inanimate object will jump out of my holster by itself and rob a bank?

Ah, a cynical variation of the Clintonian “One Free Grope” rule, or the “I didn’t know - I can’t read the sign” cop-out. Try to use the excuse twice and see what happens.

Respectfully no. Its not a matter of not knowing. Nor is it a matter of not being able to read. In fact it is a matter of willfully ignoring a sign or request that carries no force of law in many states. If the sign/request carries no force of law then there is no legal consequence for ignoring it.

 

[JReducation]

And as long as the gun is in my holster it is perfectly safe. What is your point? Is it that the inanimate object will jump out of my holster by itself and rob a bank?

Respectfully no. Its not a matter of not knowing. Nor is it a matter of not being able to read. In fact it is a matter of willfully ignoring a sign or request that carries no force of law in many states. If the sign/request carries no force of law then there is no legal consequence for ignoring it.

But there is a moral one, because you’re deliberately disobeying the local bishop on a matter where he has legitimate ecclesial authority. As I always say, his rule can be mistaken. But it does not change the fact that it’s his rule and it must be obeyed, even if it’s a mistake.

To disobey because the bishop’s judgment is mistaken is like telling kids that their parents often make mistakes; therefore, they are free to decide when to obey and when not to obey.

St. Francis of Assisi made this point very clear for the people of his time. He said that even when the authority is wrong, one must obey, because it is obedience that pleases God and neighbor, not the rightness or wrongness of the authority. One can only disobey, when the authority commands against the soul. That has to be proven first.

This is not a case about legal or illegal. It’s a case of people who are looking for a good excuse to disobey their bishop. We must then go back to the beginning. If we have the right to disobey bishops when we disagree with them, then why does the Church invest them with the power to govern in the first place? Shouldn’t t the power to govern be expressed with all of its contingencies and exceptions? If this has never been done, in the history of the Church, then should it not stand to reason that a bishop remains the highest authority in his diocese and there are no contingencies other than moral law that has been clearly defined objectively and subjectively?

Because the law grants the faithful a right, must the Church acknowledge that right, if so, when? Is a Divne institution subordinate to a temporal one? Are men and women who claim to be Catholic still so when they define the boundaries of their allegience and fidelity to Church authority?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[melensdad]

Well in my case there doesn’t appear to be such a rule by my Bishop. Therefore no moral issue either.

But interestingly enough, our past priest was worried about security and wanted to put together some sort of volunteer security detail. He never got the chance, our Bishop shuffled 8 or 9 priests around and he got moved up to a larger parish.

 

[Onyx88]

For god’s sake people ~ guns in churches???

This shouldn’t even be an issue.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Woman shot in Youngstown church parking lot
…
Angeline Fimognari was shot in the head shortly after leaving St. Dominic’s Parish on Saturday morning in Youngstown’s South Side neighborhood, The Houston Chronicle reports.

Police believe she was the last person to leave Mass that morning. She was found slumped over in the driver’s side of her car in the church parking lot and her purse was missing.

Bishop Murry said the church was upgrading security and encouraged church members “to continue attending the parish.”
…
An eighty year old woman is robbed and shot in the head after mass in the Church parking lot.

There’s a failure to acknowledge that some people willfully commit evil.

And your message is that if the elderly lady was armed CCW and if she had her progressive eyeglasses on and had taken her vitamins thar morning and was ready for action she could have shot her assailant before he shot her? Or is your message that the news article is inaccurate and if somone were still in the church and CCW they could have heard the head shot, run out and shot at the escaping felon; or engaged him after the deed in a deadly shoot em up in the parking lot and maybe might have taken him out so that justice was done? Cell phones have become a very good deterent for ad hoc crimes of opportunity since anyone can get a text message off to the police fast.

There is an order of magnitude (at least) higher risk of being hit by a car in the parking lot than getting shot at in 99.9% of all parishes.

How many highly trained armed secret service agents have ever really prevented a determined armed assailant from shooting (e.g. the president or governor etc.) his target once the determined gunman had his gun out and was close enough to shoot? In crimes of passion where the other person is prepared to die anyway - there is almost no chance of stopping a shooting in process. It happens too fast to stop in almost all cases and the concealed weapons has no effect as a deterrent and at best can only stop a mass shooting spree which is atypical of the few cases that really happen in churches.

BF

 

[Aquinas62]

For god’s sake people ~ guns in churches???

This shouldn’t even be an issue.

It wouldn’t be an issue, because you would never know I am packing if I sat next to you in church.

 

[Aquinas62]

A
How many highly trained armed secret service agents have ever really prevented a determined armed assailant from shooting (e.g. the president or governor etc.) his target once the determined gunman had his gun out and was close enough to shoot? In crimes of passion where the other person is prepared to die anyway - there is almost no chance of stopping a shooting in process. It happens too fast to stop in almost all cases and the concealed weapons has no effect as a deterrent and at best can only stop a mass shooting spree which is atypical of the few cases that really happen in churches.

BF

Actually the Secret Service has foiled many assassination plots, President Ford comes to mind, unfortunately they have not been able to foil every one. In answer to your other point, it is true that the hypothetical assailant/mass shooter would probably get off a few shots before a trained ARMED citizen took him out. IOW maybe 3 dead instead of 30.

 

[Aquinas62]

Again, as other posters have mentioned, why are so many people more afraid of a citizen with permit to carry a concealed weapon then they are of criminals who do anyway?

 

[bona_fides_1]

It wouldn’t be an issue, because you would never know I am packing if I sat next to you in church.

You have no way of guaranteeing that. I have a trained eye and there are visual clues both in clothes and how they fall and in projected attitude of some. The point I’d make here though is the lack of concern for your fellow Christian’s sensibilities who you should know would find your carrying in church to be rude, presumptuous and uncharitable to their desires to be at peace and not worry about being around instruments that are designed to kill or maim. Again, I have a permit to carry but would NEVER be so rude to carry in a friend’s house or even at a restaurant with them if I even suspected they would object. If I felt it was in their best interest that I carry due to a location we were going to I’d reveal it to them that I am permitted and feel out their sentiments. The default assumption most Christians will make is that in God’s house people show respect and reverence to both God and others (the definition of charity) and do nothing that might become a source of conflict for others.

I’d find it highly hypocritical and insincere for a person to offer me the sign of peace and say “peace be with you” while carrying a concealed weapon under his coat or in a leg holster - especially if it was against the bishop’s instructions or pastor’s local policy. The default should be no carry unless given explicit permission. When in doubt ASK the pastor rather than assume its OK or sneak around the issue. It just seems ironic to me that in this day and age civility, manners and social protocol are now cloaked in our society where people no longer have the good sense to politely ask permission rather than assume and presume they can do whatever they want in another person’s house or building.

BF

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I have not read every post yet * I have a CHL from the Holy State of Texas and I carry to Mass; have been for years.*

I live in the Holy City of Killeen where we had the Luby’s massacre!!!

I will not sit in a pew and be slaughtered like a sheep from some spree killer!

Texas was like this when CHL’s was first passed but the politicians got a lot of heat over it. So a new law was passed to allow concealed carry in churches. In Texas it’s up to the local minister, if my Priest came to me and said, “I don’t want you to carry on Church property.” I would have to bite the bullet and not carry on Church property because it would now be illegal for me to do so.

However I would find another Parish to go to. If Texas Bishops made a dumb, stupid decision like was done in LA I would convert to Orthodox that allows concealed carry during Mass.

The Apostles carried swords for self-defense our Lord Jesus did not have problem with it—Bishops in LA need to get their heads out of the sand and realize there are evil people out there.

The Texas Constitution
Article 1 – Section 23

Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state; but the legislature shall have the power by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime.

In fact I carried a .357 magnum revolver to Mass today. Am I blood thirsty did I harm anyone—I don’t think so!

NON_CHL holders do the majority of the misuse of firearms in the United States.

As a Texas CHL Holder I must:
Ø HAVE NO FELONY CONVICTIONS—LIFE TIME
Ø NO CLASS A OR B MISDEMEANORS WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS
Ø PASS BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL FINGERPRINT AND BACKGROUND CHECKS
Ø NO DELINQUENT CONDUCT WITHIN THE PAST 10 YEARS
Ø NOT DELINQUENT IN CHILD SUPPORT OR STUDENT LOANS, OR STATE/LOCAL TAXES. [we really don’t care about the feds—Stan]

I’m not going to talk about the 10 to 15 hours of training done by a qualified instructor certified by the Texas Department of Public Safety [State Police] and must pass 70% firing at the pistol range. We are taught the same instruction that DPS law enforcement officers are taught on the use of deadly force.

I carry a firearm everywhere I can legally carry; how is that endangering anyone’s safely?

Usually law enforcement show up after the crime is committed! I refuse to be a casualty; my family will not be victims!

What you gun grabbers forget is that the devil is alive and well on this earth! There are evil people out there that will soon as kill you as a fly—they don’t care a rats butt about human life.

Hello it’s the 21st century to defend yourself you need a firearm that’s just a fact of life man—wake up!

As a Catholic I have a GRAVE DUTY to defend myself and anyone that is in danger from a life threatening situation.

 

[JReducation]

Again, as other posters have mentioned, why are so many people more afraid of a citizen with permit to carry a concealed weapon then they are of criminals who do anyway?

I don’t get the sense that this is the issue. My take is that people are offended by the fact that some people, in this case who carry guns, are looking to justify what they cannot morally justify. You cannot morally justify disobeying the order of a bishop on something where he has not ordered a sin.

Whether the subject is guns or bubble gum, when people say that they’re Catholic, but then set out to set the rules for their obedience and allegience to the bishop of their diocese, that offends those who are faithful to the Church.

I believe that everyone realizes that a criminal will carry a gun, regardless of the rules. Whether this particular rule is practical or not is not the issue. The issue is where does the Catholic get the right to disobey his bishop? This is not a case where we are being asked to commit a sin that has been defined by the Church.

Of course we can argue that our conscience tells us this or that. But the Church does put limits on the conscience too. She is very clear that conscience as to be formed by her. She also has systems in place for those who are truly bothered by their conscience. That’s what the spiritual directors do. That’s why you have a curia in every diocese and one in Rome. You talk to them about issues of conscience, if you’re honest about them.

What we’re not hearing on this thread is anyone saying, “Hey I have a conscience issue here and I really want to solve this. Can someone tell me where to go and to whom I should speak?”

The absence of that question leaves me with the feeling that the person posting does not want to find out more. He or she has decided to oppose the bishop and to inform the world of his opposition by posting it on a public forum.

There is an interesting dynamic here. I believe that those who post such things on public forums, but never write a letter to the chancery or the Vatican are really very afraid of the answer. Posting one’s opposition, anonymously, gives a false sense of power and a false sense of righteousness. The bishop is wrong and I’m right, because I posted it and no one was able to prove me wrong.

It’s not about proving you wrong. It’s about encouraging the person to obey and not stir up so much dust over something that they have no authority to change. If they are caught carrying a gun in that particular diocese it’s going to put several people in a very uncomfortable situation that can be avoided by not carrying the gun.

I don’t have to agree with the a bishop or my religious superior to know that I have to obey, because he is exercising his right. I’ve complied with many commands that I thought were foolish or dead wrong. But the person commanding had the power to do so and I don’t have the authority to challenge. So I did something that I deemed foolish or mistaken, because I have to obey. What I was asked to do was not sinful, just wrong, from my point of view. It’s like being asked to take the garbage out in the rain. It’s a silly request, but it’s not a sin. Therefore, off I go with the garbage and back I come soaking wet.

When you have a thread full of people who put greater value on the US Constitution than on the Apostolic authroity of a bishop, that is just as disturbing as taking the garbage out while it’s raining.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

When you have a thread full of people who put greater value on the US Constitution than on the Apostolic authroity of a bishop, that is just as disturbing as taking the garbage out while it’s raining.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Well Br. over 50% of American Catholics already disobey the Bishops on abortion you can tell that by whom they vote for and I don’t know percentage for those that practice birth control maybe the Bishops should worry more about the taking of human lives than concealed carry?

 

[JReducation]

However I would find another Parish to go to. If Texas Bishops made a dumb, stupid decision like was done in LA I would convert to Orthodox that allows concealed carry during Mass.

Wait a minute Stan, I’ve always admired your common sense, but this time you said something that’s inconsistent with your persona. Do you really mean to tell me that you would be willing to go into schism over a gun rule?

The Apostles carried swords for self-defense our Lord Jesus did not have problem with it—Bishops in LA need to get their heads out of the sand and realize there are evil people out there.

Actually, that’s not what the scriptures are trying to tell us. If you scroll back you will find one of my posts where I explained why the Gospel writer mentions the swords.

It is true that Peter used a sword. It’s also true that Christ told him to put it away and reminded him that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. But the reason for including this detail in the Gospel was to show the parallel between Jesus and Moses. It was not meant to be interpreted as a defense of weapons. If we’re going to be fair, we would have to say that there is neither a defense nor a condemnation of weapons. But there is a moral warning given by Jesus.

We also know that the martyrs did not fight back. They voluntarilly surrendered their lives for their faith. They could have legitimately fought off their attackers. But the very reason that we venerate them is because of their heroic courage.

My community looks to St. Maximilian Kolbe as one of our patrons. Check it out, www.franciscansoflife.org. There is one thing that was so clear about Brother Max. This was his love for those who did harm to him.

There are wonderful journal entries by our brothers who lived with Brother Max when he was the Guardian of the house. It was clear that the Nazis were not all that they had painted themselves to be. Several journals tell of how the superior, Maximilian Kolbe, ordered the brothers to be gentle, kind, loving and obedient to the Nazis in all things but sin. He forbade any retaliation on the part of the brothers, under pain of grave sin. I should add an addendum here, Franciscan superiors have the power to threaten under pain of excommunication if they are not obeyed. That’s a story for another day.

Back to the point of guns and people who do bad things or want to hurt us. The night that the brothers were arrested, Brother Max told the friars to put on street clothes and to run as far and as fast as they could. But as they were leaving, he called out after them, “I order you, under holy obedience, to forget not love.”

Maximilian could have avoided the slaughter of the brothers by taking a more assertive position. But he did not. That night, not only was he arrested, but many brothers with him. He was not the only brother to be killed from that house. There were over 400 brothers in that house and over 100 of them were killed, because Maximillian refused to take an assertive stand or preventative measures. He taught us a great lesson on love and reliance on Divine Providence.

This is not to say that no one should carry a gun. This is my way of saying that we must always place greater trust on God’s love for us than on our love for ourselves. When it comes to obedience, the greater the sacrifice involved in obeying, the more pleasing that we are to God.

Superiors and bishops need not be wise. That is not a requirement. Otherwise, we’d have very few religious superiors and bishops, no disrespect intended to any of them. But like parents, they are to be obeyed. Obedience is something that they have a right to expect from their spiritual sons and daughters. I can’t think of anyone who taught this lesson better, in modern times, than St. Maximilian Kolbe.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[JReducation]

Well Br. over 50% of American Catholics already disobey the Bishops on abortion you can tell that by whom they vote for and I don’t know percentage for those that practice birth control maybe the Bishops should worry more about the taking of human lives than concealed carry?

This is a very sad truth. People are being disobedient and making immoral choices. I believe that our bishops are very concerned about this. But this is not a good reason to disobey on yet one more point of disagreement.

You see my friend, the problem with disobedience is that it always seeks to push the limits. We disobey on one small thing and we don’t experience immediate consequences. We assume that it was OK to do so. Then we disobey on something else. Again, because we cannot see the effects on our soul, we assume there are no negative effects. Therefore, we push the envelop again and again.

As people of faith and people who want to be saints, we have to discipline ourselves. We should not wait for a bishop to tell us how to be a saint. In most cases, the saints were self-taught. They became saints by disciplining themselves to be obedient.

There are cases where the saints did refuse to comply, but that was in cases where compliance itself was a sin. I can’t refuse to comply because if I comply I may commit a sin. That’s too speculative. If I refuse to comply, it has to be because the compliance itself is sinful or it places me in immediate danger of sin. It has to be immediate danger, not possible danger of sin. Everything can lead to sin, even driving.

I believe the problem that we’re facing in modern times is a lack of faith in God’s Providence.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Aquinas62]

You have no way of guaranteeing that. I have a trained eye and there are visual clues both in clothes and how they fall and in projected attitude of some. The point I’d make here though is the lack of concern for your fellow Christian’s sensibilities who you should know would find your carrying in church to be rude, presumptuous and uncharitable to their desires to be at peace and not worry about being around instruments that are designed to kill or maim. Again, I have a permit to carry but would NEVER be so rude to carry in a friend’s house or even at a restaurant with them if I even suspected they would object. If I felt it was in their best interest that I carry due to a location we were going to I’d reveal it to them that I am permitted and feel out their sentiments. The default assumption most Christians will make is that in God’s house people show respect and reverence to both God and others (the definition of charity) and do nothing that might become a source of conflict for others.

I’d find it highly hypocritical and insincere for a person to offer me the sign of peace and say “peace be with you” while carrying a concealed weapon under his coat or in a leg holster - especially if it was against the bishop’s instructions or pastor’s local policy. The default should be no carry unless given explicit permission. When in doubt ASK the pastor rather than assume its OK or sneak around the issue. It just seems ironic to me that in this day and age civility, manners and social protocol are now cloaked in our society where people no longer have the good sense to politely ask permission rather than assume and presume they can do whatever they want in another person’s house or building.

BF

If you are looking at me with the intent on discovering a concealed weapon, it is your problem not mine. I find it highly hypocritical and insincere for a person to claim to know what is in my heart when I offer my hand in friendship, even if I do carry a weapon. Now, if you read any of my other posts, I, personally, do not have a problem with respecting the Bishops request, and I would abide by it, however, I do question the “No Guns/Guns Bad”" knee-jerk reaction by some people.

 

[Aquinas62]

Wait a minute Stan, I’ve always admired your common sense, but this time you said something that’s inconsistent with your persona. Do you really mean to tell me that you would be willing to go into schism over a gun rule?

Actually, that’s not what the scriptures are trying to tell us. If you scroll back you will find one of my posts where I explained why the Gospel writer mentions the swords.

It is true that Peter used a sword. It’s also true that Christ told him to put it away and reminded him that he who lives by the sword dies by the sword. But the reason for including this detail in the Gospel was to show the parallel between Jesus and Moses. It was not meant to be interpreted as a defense of weapons. If we’re going to be fair, we would have to say that there is neither a defense nor a condemnation of weapons. But there is a moral warning given by Jesus.

We also know that the martyrs did not fight back. They voluntarilly surrendered their lives for their faith. They could have legitimately fought off their attackers. But the very reason that we venerate them is because of their heroic courage.

My community looks to St. Maximilian Kolbe as one of our patrons. Check it out, www.franciscansoflife.org. There is one thing that was so clear about Brother Max. This was his love for those who did harm to him.

There are wonderful journal entries by our brothers who lived with Brother Max when he was the Guardian of the house. It was clear that the Nazis were not all that they had painted themselves to be. Several journals tell of how the superior, Maximilian Kolbe, ordered the brothers to be gentle, kind, loving and obedient to the Nazis in all things but sin. He forbade any retaliation on the part of the brothers, under pain of grave sin. I should add an addendum here, Franciscan superiors have the power to threaten under pain of excommunication if they are not obeyed. That’s a story for another day.

Back to the point of guns and people who do bad things or want to hurt us. The night that the brothers were arrested, Brother Max told the friars to put on street clothes and to run as far and as fast as they could. But as they were leaving, he called out after them, “I order you, under holy obedience, to forget not love.”

Maximilian could have avoided the slaughter of the brothers by taking a more assertive position. But he did not. That night, not only was he arrested, but many brothers with him. He was not the only brother to be killed from that house. There were over 400 brothers in that house and over 100 of them were killed, because Maximillian refused to take an assertive stand or preventative measures. He taught us a great lesson on love and reliance on Divine Providence.

This is not to say that no one should carry a gun. This is my way of saying that we must always place greater trust on God’s love for us than on our love for ourselves. When it comes to obedience, the greater the sacrifice involved in obeying, the more pleasing that we are to God.

Superiors and bishops need not be wise. That is not a requirement. Otherwise, we’d have very few religious superiors and bishops, no disrespect intended to any of them. But like parents, they are to be obeyed. Obedience is something that they have a right to expect from their spiritual sons and daughters. I can’t think of anyone who taught this lesson better, in modern times, than St. Maximilian Kolbe.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

Very reasoned response, I would submit, there is a difference between resisting (as in your example) against hopeless odds and In St Maximilan Kolbe case, I fully understand what he meant. My concern is the trend to not allow people to defend themselves against the random act of a deranged person. That would be a one time violent act, vs a resistance movement which would entail years of violence conducted by its members. I think you can see where I am going with this, the former, while tragic, is a one time event, while the other, has a real danger of callousing the soul and forgetting God’s Love.