La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[1holycatholic]

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

No. My message was that an old woman was robbed and shot in her parish parking lot after mass by someone intent on evil and that security was improved after the fact. I didn’t say or imply anything you attributed to me.

It was a forum Rorschach test.

 

[JReducation]

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.

This is probably the greatest danger of all.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bona_fides_1]

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.

I am not talking about investigative plots but actual shootings where the person was in close and personal with a gun. I could be wrong but I don’t think that there are more than one or two cases (e.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt February 15, 1933) where any where really prevented by armed security agents actualy shooting an attacker. The secret service just physically block the path to the protected person when he is not speaking so its hard or impossible to get a clear shot off when moving them to the next location or car etc.

In the case of Ford people forget there were 2 attempts within months of each other - the first was Manson’s nut-case disciple “Squeaky” Fromme and the 2nd was another crazy female idealog named Sara Jane Moore. In the first case Squeaky had a gun but had no round chambered and never fired. She was subdued/tackled by a security agent who was near her. Had she actually fired at that range with a chambered round it is doubtful that agents could have stopped her. In the second case Ms. Moore was disrupted by an unarmed Vietnam Vet just as she fired; causing her to miss her target. Again - no concealed weapon stopped anyone and the reason the attacks failed was due to incompetence and by physical non-lethal restraint by the persons closest to the attacker.

Vivid examples of failed protection measures by armed security are seen in:
Abraham Lincoln - attempted assassination in front of Pinkerton guards on February 23, 1861 - blew a hole in Abe’s hat (but the assassins shot missed). I don’t think Lincoln had a security detail when he was later shot by Booth though.

Theodore Roosevelt was shot by a bartender – only his papers and eye glass case prevented it from being a lethal shot but he went to the grave with the slug in his chest.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was shot a month before he was sworn in – I presume but can’t confirm he had security protection.

Ronald Reagan March 30, 1981 was shot in front of dozens of armed security agents.

The point is that I think the evidence supports my argument that its virtually impossible to stop an armed and determined attacker who manages to get close enough to shoot even in the presence of trained and armed security. At best the only way to stop it is to discover the plot ahead of time and preempt it by arrest or changing venue. It is ridiculous to think CCW members in the church congregation could prevent a shooting if it was a pre-planned and determined attack and the attacker was competent with a firearm. At best they would be serving only to be the instrumental trigger for a murder-suicide attempt or stop a planned mass-esculation (not a likely scenario in already ultra rare church attacks).

BF

 

[Aquinas62]

actually my point was not prevention, but mitigation 3 dead vs 25-30 dead…

 

[bona_fides_1]

No. My message was that an old woman was robbed and shot in her parish parking lot after mass by someone intent on evil and that security was improved after the fact. I didn’t say or imply anything you attributed to me.

It was a forum Rorschach test.

Did you use concealed ink? I attributed nothing to you but only asked for clarification. Consider my comments in kind as a sort of paranoia and rationality test to probe if you might be suitable to arm with a concealed weapon and make rational decisions under stress.

Do you think its save to presume that that the improvements to parish security were likely just improvements in parking lot lighting and maybe the hiring of a rent-a-cop security after mass and not actually arming the congregatiom; nor providing a house-gun from Peter’s Pence for the last person to turn off the lights and leave church?

BF

 

[1holycatholic]

Did you use concealed ink? I attributed nothing to you but only asked for clarification. Consider my comments in kind as a sort of paranoia and rationality test to probe if you might be suitable to arm with a concealed weapon and make rational decisions under stress.

Do you think its save to presume that that the improvements to parish security were likely just improvements in parking lot lighting and maybe the hiring of a rent-a-cop security after mass and not actually arming the congregatiom; nor providing a house-gun from Peter’s Pence for the last person to turn off the lights and leave church?

BF

I find your post uncharitable and offensive.

 

[bona_fides_1]

actually my point was not prevention, but mitigation 3 dead vs 25-30 dead…

It’s all highly hypothetical and highly unlikely anyway.

I really don’t imagine anyone would sit idly by in a church watching someone shoot people after the first 2-3 people started dropping. Natural mitigation is built into the human flee-or-fight survival instinct. There would be an initial panic run to the doors which would make it impossible for the gunman to control the situation by threat of fear (he would then panic himself). That would entrap those nearest the gunmen and leave them only one option - fight/swarm the attacker or do nothing and likely die. I suspect most men and even the more agile/athletic women nearest the gunman would immediately swarm charge right into the gunman and tackle.

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

I find your post uncharitable and offensive.

You are easily provocable. You failed the test. My advice - don’t carry a concealed weapon or you will only get yourself and others hurt. And if you insist - please don’t sit near me.

BF

 

[1holycatholic]

You are easily provocable. You failed the test. My advice - don’t carry a concealed weapon or you will only get yourself and others hurt. And if you insist - please don’t sit near me.

BF

I find your post uncharitable and offensive.

 

[k0bklJohn]

I think that people are misinterpeting the 2nd amendment. I believe that it only gives states the right to have a militia, not an individual right to go heavily armed everywhere!

Some even think that it gives individuals the right to overthrow the government if it does not suit them! This is extreme! I believe we need a constitutional convention to finally define things and end this nonsense!

 

[Aquinas62]

I think that people are misinterpeting the 2nd amendment. I believe that it only gives states the right to have a militia, not an individual right to go heavily armed everywhere!

Some even think that it gives individuals the right to overthrow the government if it does not suit them! This is extreme! I believe we need a constitutional convention to finally define things and end this nonsense!

no, you misinterpret the constitution. 5 Supreme court justices say so.

 

[JReducation]

no, you misinterpret the constitution. 5 Supreme court justices say so.

You had me on your side until you mentioned the Supreme Court Justices. He’s is where I’m going. Supreme Court Justices also upheld the right to abortion. Supreme Court Justices have also been known to legislate from the bench, which is not their job. Supreme Court Justices have also been known to circumvent morality in making rulings. Their credibility as to what is constitutional and ethical is floundering. The last Supreme Court nominee actually changed the words on a ruling to say that partial-birth abortion can be a medically necessary procedure, when the actual statement made by the professional witnesses was that it is never a medically necessary procedure.

While it may be true that the previous poster may have misunderstood the Constitution, let’s not use the judgment of the Supreme Court Justices to support that position. They have not struck a home run in over 30 years. I would suggest that you use constitutional lawyers and scholars as your references. These people are much more honest, because they have no partisan ties or financial investment in the issue.

Let’s always remember that the Constitution and the courts have limited jurisdiction over the Church and over us who are Catholic. John Paul II made this very clear in Evangelium Vitae and scolded those Catholics around the world who place their governments and legal systems over the laws and rights of the Church. He goes on this topic for several pages and uses very good philosophy to show how our thinking regarding the authority and rights of the state and civil law can be very faulty, if we insist on defending democracy as a end rather than as a means to a great moral good.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bona_fides_1]

I think that people are misinterpeting the 2nd amendment. I believe that it only gives states the right to have a militia, not an individual right to go heavily armed everywhere!

Some even think that it gives individuals the right to overthrow the government if it does not suit them! This is extreme! I believe we need a constitutional convention to finally define things and end this nonsense!

This is off-topic but let me say this:
The people do in fact have not only the authority but the natural God given moral obligation to overthrow government if it become tyrannical and does not hold up the constitution and treat people with dignity and respect. How else do you imagine the original founding fathers of the USA ever got the moral authority to rebel in the first place?

*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. – Lincoln 1848 (US Representative)

–

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. – Lincoln Inaugural Address of 1861
*

BF

 

[JReducation]

This is off-topic but let me say this:
The people do in fact have not only the authority but the natural God given moral obligation to overthrow government if it become tyrannical and does not hold up the constitution and treat people with dignity and respect. How else do you imagine the original founding fathers of the USA ever got the moral authority to rebel in the first place?

*Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up, and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government, may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own, of so much territory as they inhabit. – Lincoln 1848 (US Representative)

–

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. – Lincoln Inaugural Address of 1861
*

BF

Actually, this is not a moral right. There is a moral right, but it has nothing to do with the Constitution. The Catholic Church would slam us for that one.

A government looses its right to govern when it no longer provides for the welfare of its citizens, when it violates the rights of its citizens, when it violates moral law upon which all civil power is built, when it is too week to protect its citizens or when it no longer serves its intended purpose. That’s what moral philosophy teaches.

As Catholics we cannot say that a government has to be overthrown when it does not protect the Constitution for two reasons:

1. There are times when the constitution is morally wrong and it should be not upheld. This happens in many countries, not just our own.
2. The constitution of a nation is not a good in itself. To build a government to protect the constitution turns the means to a good into a desired good. A constitution must always be a means to a good, not the good itself. There are times when you have to protect the means in order to achieve the good. For example, you have to protect religious freedom, in order to practice your faith. But you do not protect religious freedom so that you can legally slack off on your faith. See the difference?

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[KathleenElsie]

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?

+1

 

[Stylites]

no, you misinterpret the constitution. 5 Supreme court justices say so.

Me thinks k0bklJohn was being facetious.

 

[Stylites]

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?

A few people may have expressed such a fear, but most of the responses on this thread against CCW during Mass have been either reasoned theological arguments, common sense or simple law.

 

[Stylites]

A weapon (any weapon) left in a car or truck is more dangerous then one that is on the person sitting next to you. Cars and trucks are stolen and/or broken into alot (no I don’t have the stats) just read your newspaper and watch the news.

It’s not the responsibility of the Bishops to ensure the safety of anyone’s weapon. If anyone is concerned about the theft of their weapon then leave it at home and then lawfully and morally attend Mass.

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

I don’t know how the conservatives on this forum can back a pastor setting a dress code for Mass but seem to think that a bishop has no place in stating that no one should come ‘strapped’ to Mass.

Guns at religious ceremonies are just out of place.

Gracious! 453 posts – this issue must have stricken a nerve.

 

[KathleenElsie]

I am not talking about investigative plots but actual shootings where the person was in close and personal with a gun. I could be wrong but I don’t think that there are more than one or two cases (e.g. Franklin D. Roosevelt February 15, 1933) where any where really prevented by armed security agents actualy shooting an attacker. The secret service just physically block the path to the protected person when he is not speaking so its hard or impossible to get a clear shot off when moving them to the next location or car etc.

In the case of Ford people forget there were 2 attempts within months of each other - the first was Manson’s nut-case disciple “Squeaky” Fromme and the 2nd was another crazy female idealog named Sara Jane Moore. In the first case Squeaky had a gun but had no round chambered and never fired. She was subdued/tackled by a security agent who was near her. Had she actually fired at that range with a chambered round it is doubtful that agents could have stopped her. In the second case Ms. Moore was disrupted by an unarmed Vietnam Vet just as she fired; causing her to miss her target. Again - no concealed weapon stopped anyone and the reason the attacks failed was due to incompetence and by physical non-lethal restraint by the persons closest to the attacker.

Vivid examples of failed protection measures by armed security are seen in:
Abraham Lincoln - attempted assassination in front of Pinkerton guards on February 23, 1861 - blew a hole in Abe’s hat (but the assassins shot missed). I don’t think Lincoln had a security detail when he was later shot by Booth though.

Theodore Roosevelt was shot by a bartender – only his papers and eye glass case prevented it from being a lethal shot but he went to the grave with the slug in his chest.

Franklin D. Roosevelt was shot a month before he was sworn in – I presume but can’t confirm he had security protection.

Ronald Reagan March 30, 1981 was shot in front of dozens of armed security agents.

The point is that I think the evidence supports my argument that its virtually impossible to stop an armed and determined attacker who manages to get close enough to shoot even in the presence of trained and armed security. At best the only way to stop it is to discover the plot ahead of time and preempt it by arrest or changing venue. It is ridiculous to think CCW members in the church congregation could prevent a shooting if it was a pre-planned and determined attack and the attacker was competent with a firearm. At best they would be serving only to be the instrumental trigger for a murder-suicide attempt or stop a planned mass-esculation (not a likely scenario in already ultra rare church attacks).

BF

So is the logic behind this that you just don’t even provide protection because it is not 100%. We truly have no way to say how few or how many attacks on others are prevented by the “fear” of there being someone in the home, church or store being armed. We do know that (and yes it is observation no stats) common sense and obsrevation of the places generally picked to rob or kill that they were not places known for having a policy that allows self-defense.
My family has been trained to hit the floor, look like a ball, stay out of sight, try not to make noise in case of an attack. Attack does not necessarly mean “gun” it could be from an animal while on a hike or camping. So should I do any less for the possibility of a problem in the part of town where our parish is?