La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[stanmaxkolbe]

I didn’t want to mention this case since its a different scenario entirely. A church has many people all together - often thousands. The VT massacre was in small groups of people and the gunman ran around shooting individuals and there was no way for anyone to assess the situational awareness to ascertain how many shooters were involved or for a group dynamic to form to overpower him. The groups were segregated in small class rooms and assembly areas and detached from each other.

In church there would be an immediate realization of the severity of an attack as well as sufficient numbers to swarm him.

Fort Worth** Church**** Shooting**

Larry Ashbrook interrupted a teen prayer rally at the Wedgwood Baptist Church spouting anti-Baptist rhetoric before opening fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun and a .380-caliber handgun. He reloaded several times during the shooting; three empty magazines were found at the scene. Seven people were killed, four of whom were teenagers (a 14 year old boy, two 14 year old girls and a 17 year old boy). Three people sustained major injuries while four others received relatively minor injuries. He then committed suicide.

The point of my post; just think if one person was allowed to be armed how many lives would have been saved just like in this shooting. Most peole were shocked and just sat there.

The killer reloaded quickly if just one armed person was there he/she could have taken the scumbag out saving lives.

The same thing happened to Pastor John Hagee in San Antonio people just sat in the pews as a guy walked up to the altar and started shooting at him.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Alaska is, per capita, the most heavily armed state in the nation with an average of three firearms per person. Furthermore in Alaska, one does not need special training or permit to carry a a concealed firearm, any state resident who can legally posses a firearm can carry a concealed firearm. Most people in Alaska do indeed carry a firearm with them much of the time. This is not because of rampant crime (Alaska has a one of the lowest rates of violent crime in the nation) but rather as protection from wildlife. For example, it is believed that more than 30 grizzly bears make their home inside the city limits of Anchorage and people are mauled by bears there every year.

Yet with all those firearms, your predicted increase of odds does not actually occur. Perhaps there may be a problem with your premise.

So there have been no statistical increases in accidental shooting-deaths of grizzlies in Alaska over the accidental death rate for grizzlies in say Hawaii or Florida?

Thanks I needed that irrelevant morning humor.

You make an assertion and attempt to present a preemptive conclusion but give no data to back your opinion. I will however extend the notion that Alaskans are in general living in a frontier environment where there is high incidence of firearm competency since it is a necessary condition of existence there. I would expect the those who are known to be more hardy and self sufficient than your average GQ/metro-man and overly domesticated city-slicker to have a materially higher statistical rate of gun safety discipline/proficiency.

I don’t want to really get off on a tangent here but I stand my my assertions until proven otherwise. I must also state that statistically speaking one can not compare crude death rates per capita between states because of differing age, sex, and race distributions. END OF STATISTIC - since one can’t compare apples to oranges and draw meaningful inferences without a specific analysis that normalizes the differences in demographics.

But here are some “fun” and interesting statistics. Maybe this is because there are just so many well armed & handgun deadly-proficient Alaskans ?

• While the rate of homicide in the nation as a whole has remained fairly constant since 1975, in Alaska the rate per 100,000 people has fluctuated dramatically. At times it has been much higher than the overall national rate, but in recent years it has tended to be lower (perhaps more of the bad guys shot dead and taken off the streets?).
• In Alaska, handguns or other firearms were the most common murder weapons over the period from 1986 through 1995. In 1986, firearms totaled 69.4 per cent of murder weapons; in 1987, 61 per cent; in 1988, 62 per cent; in 1989, 61 per cent; in 1990, 51 per cent; in 1991, 44.5 per cent; in 1992, 61.3 per cent; in 1993, 48.3 per cent; in 1994, 64.9 per cent; and in 1995, 56 per cent.
• In 2004 Alaska was #2 in the nation in per capita firearms death rates - 17.79 per 100,000.
• Total Number of Grizzly attacks in National Parks resulting in injuries or death in decade 1970-1979 - 50 (over a 10 year period).

The Score:
Grizzlies: 5 average per year injuries/deaths
People: 117 shooting deaths.

Hmm, seems like Alaskans are shooting themselves worse than in the foot trying to protect each other from Grizzlies. At this attrition rate the Grizzlies can just go into sustained hibernation and let Alaskans kill each other then come in and take over the place in a few hundred years…

You have better stats that actualy address what you claim?

BF

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

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

No sir you are wrong about that—the law has been changed you can carry into places of worship it is up the local head of the place of worship to allow it or not.

If my Priest doesn’t want guns in his Church he has to place a 30-06 sign at the entrance or he can just go and tell a CHL holder I do not want guns on Church property.

You are allowed to carry everywhere on Parish property except in a school.

You also can carry in a hospital or nursing home, amusement park, established place of religious worship, or meeting of a governmental entity where a 30-06 sign is not posted!

The LA Bishops are not backed by Texas law and they made the wrong decision they need to stop listening to George Soros type people.

Here is a link where you can carry in the Holy State of Texas:
http://www.txchia.org/txcarry.htm

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

When you say rent-a-cops I think of private security firms, not actual police. The parishes with armed guards have off duty police officers.

I did specify guards with arrest powers. Here, the rent-a-cops are usually off-duty Sheriff’s deputies.

I live in the midwest. Cities like Indianapolis, Columbus etc. have these sort of problems in urban areas. They also have thieves stealing the gutters and downspouts, stealing parish commercial size air-conditioning units etc…

For which there is no need for armed parishioners. You call the cops via 911 while the thieves are dismantling the A/C.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Your ad-hominems aren’t bolstering your argument. They only illustrate your argument’s weakness and your lack of charity.

Do you even know what an ad homonym is? It is a personal attack against the individual rather than his argument. YOU are the one specifically attacking me personally rather than my argument. The post you replied to was not directed at any specific person but to a category of persons who are unfit to be permitted but ironically “the system” will permit if they pay their fee and do not have any felonies. Your name was not even addressed in that post nor was it your post I was responding to. So why would you dare put words in my mouth I never spoke that I automatically think a person who does not agree with me is a nut-case? That’s just hypocritical, uncharitable, slanderous, irrational and in this case well – nutty?

You are real close to being perma-concealed - fingers twitching on the old “ignore trigger”… go ahead, slap leather and draw sucka…

You make my point in spades…

BF

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

No sir you are wrong about that—the law has been changed you can carry into places of worship it is up the local head of the place of worship to allow it or not.

If my Priest doesn’t want guns in his Church he has to place a 30-06 sign at the entrance or he can just go and tell a CHL holder I do not want guns on Church property.

In Arkansas, no sign is needed at places designated in the statute, such as churches. No guns in churches, period.

At locations not specified, a sign saying that guns are not allowed needs to be posted. I’ve seen such signs even at paint stores!

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I did specify guards with arrest powers. Here, the rent-a-cops are usually off-duty Sheriff’s deputies.

For which there is no need for armed parishioners. You call the cops via 911 while the thieves are dismantling the A/C.

Rich you mentioned rent-a-cops a couple of time some Parishes can’t afford them. Ours for example we are building new things all the time and really can’t waste monies on hiring off duty law enforcement officers.

Of course half our Parishioners are retired military and a lot of us carry so somebody would have to be a complete nut to try some thing-in a way we are saving our Parish money.

However calling 911 in most cases law enforcement arrives to take a report after the fact and also a bio team to clean up the blood.

 

[bona_fides_1]

Fort Worth** Church**** Shooting**

Larry Ashbrook interrupted a teen prayer rally at the Wedgwood Baptist Church spouting anti-Baptist rhetoric before opening fire with a 9mm semiautomatic handgun and a .380-caliber handgun. He reloaded several times during the shooting; three empty magazines were found at the scene. Seven people were killed, four of whom were teenagers (a 14 year old boy, two 14 year old girls and a 17 year old boy). Three people sustained major injuries while four others received relatively minor injuries. He then committed suicide.

The point of my post; just think if one person was allowed to be armed how many lives would have been saved just like in this shooting. Most peole were shocked and just sat there.

The killer reloaded quickly if just one armed person was there he/she could have taken the scumbag out saving lives.

The same thing happened to Pastor John Hagee in San Antonio people just sat in the pews as a guy walked up to the altar and started shooting at him.

I appreciate your perspective stanmaxkolbe - I really do. But there have only been a few such cases in the last 100 years of our country. Statistically that means one has a higher chance of being hit by lightening than one has of being shot in church. It’s really not a real threat at this particular point in time - though I expect it will become more so as Christians are persecuted more often as the hedonists/secularists start flexing more political muscle. When that time comes - I will be right there in church (with the Bishops’ permission and request) defending my brethren.

In this sad case you mention we really don’t know if anyone would really draw a gun and fire back at all or if he could actually hit the target under the panic and under the rush of adrenaline. Even trained police marksman can miss a target 10 feet away under stress and intense pressure. It’s the person with the cool head and in charge of his emotions who prevails in these situations. This is in fact a classic case of murder-suicide - the hardest of all to stop since there is no value on life or outcome.

I put myself in this situation and I honestly do not know if I would draw my weapon if armed since its always a hard call to know if one is going to escalate it or cause greater loss of life by doing so (deadly cross fire of others in the pews). Let’s face it, the person who draws a gun in defense makes himself an immediate target and I bet few people think of this till they are put in one of these scenarios or think it through in mental vignettes.

BF

 

[1holycatholic]

For which there is no need for armed parishioners. You call the cops via 911 while the thieves are dismantling the A/C.

Did I ever call for armed parishioners? Where there is a need for armed security the bishops are obligated to provide it - just like at the Vatican.

Criminals don’t care that mass is being celebrated. I’ve already mentioned the armed robbery of parishioners during mass as well as other crimes against parishioners attending mass in another post. My wife and I have been accosted at the Cathedral downtown.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Rich you mentioned rent-a-cops a couple of time some Parishes can’t afford them. Ours for example we are building new things all the time and really can’t waste monies on hiring off duty law enforcement officers.

I wouldn’t suggest that for every parish, just for those who are potentially located in harm’s way.

Also, it depends on the jurisdiction. In Arkansas, non-law enforcement parishioners could not be armed in church. I mentioned Church Carnivals. Even on the grounds of the church, a certified law enforcement officer has to be hired to provide security - but more correctly to handle the inevitable drunks.

 

[GEddie]

able bodied men in most Catholic parishes (ushers, Knights of Columbus, ex vets etc.) who instinctively are “situationaly aware” of their environment and are quietly observing and looking for and anticipating problems…We anticipate trouble and pre-play “what if” scenarios if somone were to accost a priest or defile the eucharist

As unspeakably hideous as defilement of the Blessed Sacrament is, do you really think our LORD wants to see violence and killing over it? Especially since HE did not allow such a response when it was HIS living, breathing Body being defiled?

 

[bona_fides_1]

As unspeakably hideous as defilement of the Blessed Sacrament is, do you really think our LORD wants to see violence and killing over it? Especially since HE did not allow such a response when it was HIS living, breathing Body being defiled?

Here I take St. Peter’s lead - pull out the sword & take ear lobes - at least that way the person might now have an excuse for not hearing the word of God.

In all seriousness - who invented this silly modernish notion that Christians are supposed to be passive and docile sheep who sit idly by as we permit others to trample our most sacred beliefs and defile the most revered sacred signs of God’s presence? Christ permitted himself to be taken prisoner and crucified only because that was the Father’s will to fulfill scripture. That is not precedence for not defending our solemn faith and each other from those who would just as readily defile the Eucharist as they would try to destroy the image of Christ in each other’s Christian dignity (through slander, persecution and abusive denigration). Some people I think take the “turn the other cheek” thing wrongly and too far. Turning the other cheek is a show of strength and defiance in the face of an enemy that infuriates him ( ref: John 18:22-24 ).

God’s people are not a bunch of wussified sheep meant to be slaughtered without a fight as some of our enemies and liberal theologians would want us to beleive. We in the Church Militant are here to boldly overcome the world (sin) and inspire others to that same calling. We are sheep only in how we obediently follow our shepherd. Christ was meek but he did not cower behind meekness - he is afterall the Lion of Judah.

Revelation 5:5; “And one of the elders saith unto me, Weep not: behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, hath prevailed to open the book, and to loose the seven seals thereof.”

Would you really see a problem with a parishioner running up and seizing a person to stop them from grabbing the Ciborium from the Tabernacle and flinging the consecrated hosts all over the floor and stomping on them or chewing them then spitting them all over?

BF

 

[Beau_Ouiville]

Strapped? What does that mean? Is that some sort of crude street slang?

Crudity is in the eye of the beholder.

You never saw the movie?

imdb.com/title/tt0108230/

 

[JReducation]

“Obedience to the Church is required in those things which pertain to our salvation”

Actually, obedience to any legitimate authority is required in all matters where that authority has the power and the right to demand obedience. The bishops have the power and authority, given to them by God, tradition and Canon Law to demand obedience from their faithful in ordinary things.

For example, purchasing this piece of land and selling that other one has nothing to do with our salvation. But the bishop has the power to do just that with Church property.

Whether or not a wear a habit has nothing to do with my salvation. But I was told by one diocese that I was to wear a Roman collar when I visited the chancery and not the Franciscan habit, which is the habit of my order. I was bound to obey or not visit the chancery. It’s his chancery. Therefore, I dress as the bishop wants.

In this case, these are his parishes. You do what he wants. As long as he is the legitimate Ordinary of the diocese, he has ordinary authority that must be obeyed by all the faithful: clergy, religiuos and laity. Agreement is not required, any more than a parent requires that his children agree with their bedtime or their curfew. Neither of these is necessary for their salvation. But the parent deems them necessary for the good order of his home and the well-being of his children. The same applies to a bishop, a mayor, a cop or any other legitimate authority.

Authority that is exercised legitimately must be obeyed, whether it is civil or ecclesial. What constitutes legitimacy? It may not contradict natural law or ecclesial law.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[GEddie]

Would you really see a problem with a parishioner running up and seizing a person to stop them from grabbing the Ciborium from the Tabernacle and flinging the consecrated hosts all over the floor and stomping on them or chewing them then spitting them all over?

BF

No, but I would have a serious problem with anybody being shot in this situation; the issue after all was guns, not “body altercation.” And where everybody is armed, body-altercations have a way of progressing to deadly force.

 

[bona_fides_1]

No, but I would have a serious problem with anybody being shot in this situation; the issue after all was guns, not “body altercation.” And where everybody is armed, body-altercations have a way of progressing to deadly force.

Then you sir and I are in perfect agreement. Since if you are reading my posts you should see that I am very passionate about NOT permitting guns in Church both by cannon law and by default social convention and mores. If a time comes where the church is once again openly persecuted I will support a temporary adaptation.

But I agree - the church has always been a place of safety and refuge - not a Masada or weapons cache and reinforced fortress like the Muslims in the middle east use their mosques for. If we permit it to become that then it will only invite irrational civil unrest and persecution as incidents happen and we lose centuries of established tradition as God’s House - a place protected by God, goodwill toward all men and as a place of peace, solemnity and refuge. Churches have more often been used for hospitals and care centers even in times of war rather than as places for harboring armed individuals. This respect is recognized world wide and is exactly why beautiful churches and cathedrals were completely left unscathed from being bombed or shelled in the world wars and military campaigns.

BF

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

I appreciate your perspective stanmaxkolbe - I really do. But there have only been a few such cases in the last 100 years of our country. Statistically that means one has a higher chance of being hit by lightening than one has of being shot in church. It’s really not a real threat at this particular point in time - though I expect it will become more so as Christians are persecuted more often as the hedonists/secularists start flexing more political muscle. When that time comes - I will be right there in church (with the Bishops’ permission and request) defending my brethren.

In this sad case you mention we really don’t know if anyone would really draw a gun and fire back at all or if he could actually hit the target under the panic and under the rush of adrenaline. Even trained police marksman can miss a target 10 feet away under stress and intense pressure. It’s the person with the cool head and in charge of his emotions who prevails in these situations. This is in fact a classic case of murder-suicide - the hardest of all to stop since there is no value on life or outcome.

I put myself in this situation and I honestly do not know if I would draw my weapon if armed since its always a hard call to know if one is going to escalate it or cause greater loss of life by doing so (deadly cross fire of others in the pews). Let’s face it, the person who draws a gun in defense makes himself an immediate target and I bet few people think of this till they are put in one of these scenarios or think it through in mental vignettes.

BF

I understand what you’re saying and agree with most of it I’m not afraid of being shot during Mass it’s outside of Church that I think about, like a lot of Parishes in cities some are not in the best neighborhoods mine included there have been people mugged in our parking lot cars broken into etc.

Please note the some of the worst shots with a handgun is law enforcement officers most departments only require officers to qualify once or twice a year. I go to range every month to keep my firing skills up. Of course I do not include law enforcement personnel that are in special ops like SWAT.

I do agree you must look beyond your target so you do not cause collateral damage think before you shoot; that was one of the reasons I purchased a 45/410 derringer that I keep loaded with shotgun shells because I would not want a round from my .357 mag going through my walls and hitting my neighbors house.

The way I look at it these Bishops are denying people the right to defend themselves after they leave Church property it’s like they’re saying well it’s outside the Church so I really don’t care.

What if someone gets into an auto accident and some guy with road rage came over and started attacking that person? That person cannot defend his/herself because had to leave the firearm at home because they cannot take it on Church property.

Br. Jr ask me if I would go into schism over this gun rule? Yes I would because IMHO these Bishops are getting advice from people like the George Soros’s of this world that want to strip all gun ownership from American citizens.

They are taking advice from people with psychological problems with fear of weapons and I’m not going to put myself or my family in danger because these Bishops are getting bad advice.

When our Lord Jesus tells you to sell you coat and buy a weapon I believe Jesus has a problem with this anti-gun rule. This rule has nothing to with salvation.

 

[JReducation]

I understand what you’re saying and agree with most of it I’m not afraid of being shot during Mass it’s outside of Church that I think about, like a lot of Parishes in cities some are not in the best neighborhoods mine included there have been people mugged in our parking lot cars broken into etc.

Please note the some of the worst shots with a handgun is law enforcement officers most departments only require officers to qualify once or twice a year. I go to range every month to keep my firing skills up. Of course I do not include law enforcement personnel that are in special ops like SWAT.

I do agree you must look beyond your target so you do not cause collateral damage think before you shoot; that was one of the reasons I purchased a 45/410 derringer that I keep loaded with shotgun shells because I would not want a round from my .357 mag going through my walls and hitting my neighbors house.

The way I look at it these Bishops are denying people the right to defend themselves after they leave Church property it’s like they’re saying well it’s outside the Church so I really don’t care.

What if someone gets into an auto accident and some guy with road rage came over and started attacking that person? That person cannot defend his/herself because had to leave the firearm at home because they cannot take it on Church property.

Br. Jr ask me if I would go into schism over this gun rule? Yes I would because IMHO these Bishops are getting advice from people like the George Soros’s of this world that want to strip all gun ownership from American citizens.

They are taking advice from people with psychological problems with fear of weapons and I’m not going to put myself or my family in danger because these Bishops are getting bad advice.

When our Lord Jesus tells you to sell you coat and buy a weapon I believe Jesus has a problem with this anti-gun rule. This rule has nothing to with salvation.

But remembe this my friend, to go into schism puts your soul and that of your family in more serious danger.

It is one thing to be born an Orthodox. They are not schismatic. They never left the Church. They were born into the Orthodox Church. It is another thing for a Catholic to say that he will leave the Church because of this.

If you hold on to this position, there is nothing that the Church can do for your salvation. It is schism on your part.

You can disagree with the bishop. You can ask to meet with him and discuss your disagreement. You can appeal to his superiors. All of this the Church can help you with. But if you say that you will abandon the faith because of this, the Church cannot guarrantee your salvation. Instead of comming into closer communion with the bishops and with Peter, you would be opting to go further away from communion.

The fact is that the Orthodox themselves realize the need for a closer communion between them and the Catholic bishops and Rome, not a movement in the other direction. But that’s another topic.

I worry for your soul when you make this kind of statement. Please rethink this position. Your soul and that of your family are worth much more than anything else.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bona_fides_1]

I understand what you’re saying and agree with most of it I’m not afraid of being shot during Mass it’s outside of Church that I think about, like a lot of Parishes in cities some are not in the best neighborhoods mine included there have been people mugged in our parking lot cars broken into etc.

Please note the some of the worst shots with a handgun is law enforcement officers most departments only require officers to qualify once or twice a year. I go to range every month to keep my firing skills up. Of course I do not include law enforcement personnel that are in special ops like SWAT.

I do agree you must look beyond your target so you do not cause collateral damage think before you shoot; that was one of the reasons I purchased a 45/410 derringer that I keep loaded with shotgun shells because I would not want a round from my .357 mag going through my walls and hitting my neighbors house.

The way I look at it these Bishops are denying people the right to defend themselves after they leave Church property it’s like they’re saying well it’s outside the Church so I really don’t care.

What if someone gets into an auto accident and some guy with road rage came over and started attacking that person? That person cannot defend his/herself because had to leave the firearm at home because they cannot take it on Church property.

Br. Jr ask me if I would go into schism over this gun rule? Yes I would because IMHO these Bishops are getting advice from people like the George Soros’s of this world that want to strip all gun ownership from American citizens.

They are taking advice from people with psychological problems with fear of weapons and I’m not going to put myself or my family in danger because these Bishops are getting bad advice.

When our Lord Jesus tells you to sell you coat and buy a weapon I believe Jesus has a problem with this anti-gun rule. This rule has nothing to with salvation.

I don’t think anyone would object to you having a gun in the car if you were permitted to have it and if it was in a secured location that requires 2 motions to get to. There are very secure but fast-open security boxes that scan your hand print that the gun can be kept in. This could be secured in the car in a way that was hard for a thief to quickly remove (if he could quickly find it to begin with) much less use against anyone yet you could get to in an emergency in a few seconds.

I note that due to incidents of disgruntled employees shooting fellow workers and bosses most corporations have written policies banning guns from autos - but none that I know of police the policy even though technically they may have a right to search the car as a condition of employment. I doubt any Bishop would ever take it this far either unless there was an incident where somone was killed or the diocese was sued as a result of not having policy. Frankly, the legality and liability of guns on church property makes me wonder why bishops have not ALL issues explicit policies against it just to cover themselves legally.

BF

 

[stanmaxkolbe]

In Arkansas, no sign is needed at places designated in the statute, such as churches. No guns in churches, period.

At locations not specified, a sign saying that guns are not allowed needs to be posted. I’ve seen such signs even at paint stores!

When CHL’s was first passed in Texas we had a dumb law like that and believe or not a lot of clergy was upset with it, the law was restricting freedom who in the heck is the State to say who can come on and what equipment they can bring on Church property.

I’m glad we got rid of it.

So now it’s left up to the property owner which is the right thing to do as far as I know the majority Churches allow it.

When I see a 30-06 sign at a place of business I have a business card that states no guns no money, your business will be placed on the Internet it will be boycotted members of the NRA, TSRA, and CHIA. It also has this Statement on the back of the card:

As a Texas CHL holder I must:

• Have no felony convictions – lifetime
• No class A or B misdemeanors within the last five years
• Passed both State and Federal fingerprint and background checks
• No delinquent conduct within the past 10 years
• Not delinquent in child support, student loans, or State/Local Taxes
• Qualify on a State approved firing range from a State approved instructor
• Tested on the use of deadly force, this the same test our State Police take

What to you know about your other customers?