Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

I love in the Mass where we ask God to protect us from all anxiety/distress/unnecessary worry…

Can you/your wife watch the Mass on tv or online? That’s what those in my family who are practicing Catholics do when we don’t go, and imo it is an extraordinary service to our Lord, as it is using what He has allowed us to create - in this case technology - to give glory to Him. Which of course is what all His creation SHOULD be doing at all times, anyway. :+1::heartbeat::latin_cross::dove:

Know that watching Mass on television doesn’t actually fulfill one’s Sunday obligation or Holy Day of Obligation obligations.

But if you are unable to attend for reasons that a priest would agree are reasonable for dispensation, then watching the Mass on television would certainly be good to do.

By that logic, whenever technology ups the ante with regard to weapons, people could increasingly take along whatever kind of weapon they think can match a weapon that they may encounter.

So, again, people could argue for waltzing into places carrying bombs, grenades, chainsaws, etc., on the grounds that they feel that those things are the only means of protection that would be adequate for self defence in the modern world.

So are those who would like to simply go to Mass and not feel threatened because someone is toting around a firearm within the Church.

Your say-so is not worth much to those who (rightly) feel threatened by the presence of weapons in a place of worship.

But apparently some people insist upon playing Lone Ranger, and refuse to not go around waltzing into places of worship with firearms.

That is totally different. Because:

A. A retired police officer is someone who has earned the trust and respect of the community.

and

B. He is in the parking lot, not inside of the church. He would (presumably) only run in if there were a serious problem.

So, again: totally different.

The sword was the modern weapon for the time. No different than a gun is today. The idea that you pull a trigger and someone dies instantly is a result of watching too many hollywood movies.

If I plunge a sword through your body, the result will be the same as if I shoot you. It all depends on where on your person you are struck.

A gun is a tool of life just as much as it is a tool of death. It really depends on which end of the gun you are looking at it from.

BTW, guns are not designed to kill. They are designed to expel a projectile down a barrel at a high velocity with reliability and accuracy so the event can be repeated. The object which the barrel is pointed at is not necessarily a living thing. I have fired hundreds of thousands of rounds in my life and have yet to kill anyone.

I disagreed with the OP’s thoughts laid out in the post, but some of the stuff on this thread seems to come from some seriously uninformed people when it relates to firearms.

1 Like

…which you have to be in a closer vicinity to do.

Swords and guns are significantly different, for many reasons.

Hokum. The blasted thing was designed to take away lives. That was the very purpose it was first created for.

The thing was called a death stick by populations that had not encountered it before, and for good reason! The thing is a terrible tool of death that only ought to be in the hands of police officers, deployed soldiers, and thoroughly-vetted hunters. Vetted farmers might also have a fair argument to make for carrying them too, if they were thoroughly vetted and lived in areas where dangerous animal tended to prey upon livestock (or something similar)

The same can be said about [fill in the name of nearly any other tool of death in the world].

TNT might destroy a compound that was filled solely with serial killers who were about to murder everyone in a small village. That TNT is still by no means a tool of life.

Tell that to the people who invented them long ago. I’m sure that they would laugh.

Any other uses of a gun are secondary to its original purpose. That’s not debateable, it’s a matter of history.

When compared to other weapons, “pull trigger and target dies” is quite an apt description. Guns are extremely, extremely lethal.

1 Like

Here you go: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/jels.12219

1 Like

I live in Europe.

I have never seen a shooting, but I have seen situations where people got really angry about something. So angry in fact that they could well have killed the other person if they had the means. I’m happy that those people didn’t have guns.

4 Likes

Thank you. The link is to a pay site, but I found the article for free from the Stanford U. law school site.
If anything, the increase in violent crime that resulted from liberalized gun laws proves that we need more guns to protect ourselves from violent crime. :crazy_face:

I know an old lady who swallowed a horse. . .

2 Likes

And you have those crazy socialist healthcare programs that would’ve provided care for the victims, too. Man, Europe is such a messed up place to live.

No guns and universal healthcare. . . . :wink: :blush:

2 Likes

It’s the usual knee jerk hysteria.

2 Likes

Pure, unsubstantiated opinion, not to mention hystrionic hyperbole.

2 Likes

A televised mass doesn’t meet ones Sunday obligation though.

2 Likes

Sure. I never claimed otherwise on that comment. I personally believe that possession of firearms must be limited to certain kinds of individuals. The workaday everyman mustn’t be waltzing around with a gun.

I have made it quite clear previously that that is my opinion on this subject.

How are those descriptors applicable in any way to that comment by me? My opinion on that matter is my opinion, and is based upon both my judgement as to who is trustworthy enough to carry such weapons, and what would lead to a lower likelihood of violence amongst two average citizens coming in contact with one another.

How, pray tell, is that much different from how the opinions of others on this subject are formed? Are you actually going to argue that there is some “objective, informed” view on this subject that us ignorant folk are unaware of?

Amen!

I agree with this. I have been around guns my whole life. I always chuckle inside when people explain to me how they are so prepared for self-defense or defense if others with a gun because if their extensive training. I think the military knows how to train people for hostile situations, police academies to a lessor extent, but I am skeptical if all others.

Look at the number of questionable police shootings. And these guys are always well trained.

People who carry around guns and believe they can deal with a real situation are deluding themselves most of the time. It’s probably a 50-50 chance that they could stay calm and handle an active shooter situation.

2 Likes

Is the current consensus of this thread that more Catholics would prefer to not have any Catholics carry a gun to church ?

I think the consensus may be that people should follow the policies of their bishops.

4 Likes

Ok. So then if the bishop says that it is ok to carry your guns then all of to the parishioners will be ok with it ?

I have no idea if people would be ok with it, in the sense of approving it.
But it wouldn’t be a crime, unlike carrying a gun where the bishop has prohibited that.

1 Like

Ok with it? I doubt it. Nor do they need to be “ok with it”. At best, they might accept it. Some might choose to visit a different parish :man_shrugging:

Self justification is a great tool for all gun owners.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.