Church Security & Legally Armed Parishioners

Of course, I see it all the time.

If I lived in fear, then I would carry a gun, but I don’t live in fear; so I don’t need a gun, lots of people do not carry guns.

Yes, personally I have no problem with people carrying guns or not. It varies from society to society, the US is not a paradigm for everywhere else any more than other nations should be a paradigm for it. Even if you relaxed gun restrictions in the UK again most people aren’t hugely interested in the matter, you’d find some would purchase firearms for target shooting etc. but most people even pre-tightening of gun laws had little interest one way or the other in firearms. I imagine even in the US many people don’t either. I’d support loosening them somewhat in fact but after Dunblane and some other tragedies here there was an understandable over-reaction.

Because it demonstrates the principle that the right to protect oneself does not mean a right to own and operate whatever weaponry makes them “feel safe”. One has to admit there is a certain point where it is no longer reasonable and one has to draw the line. The question becomes, “where is it” and “who gets to decide?” In this case, I think it’s reasonable that the bishop gets to decide, since its his property. One can certainly try to persuade him if they think they know better than he does, but ultimately, it’s his say.

1 Like

Sue. The bishop can decide it. And I can decide to not give him a dime.

Ah, yes. The “other golden rule”. He who has the gold, makes the rules. Totally how a Church is supposed to work.

@neophyte

You entirely avoided the main part of my post.

Gun ownership and carrying or conceal carry are not divinely-given rights. They are not inalienable rights. The Church does not condemn countries that restrict gun ownership. I don’t care about a quote by a Supreme Court Justice. He’s just a man in an outfit with a pen. They are the same people that approved the make-believe legitimacy of abortion; not that I consider the two issues to be on the same level.

American values don’t necessarily coincide with Catholic values, which shouldn’t be surprising because historically we’re not a Catholic country (of course historically Catholic countries can be a train wreck as well because of various ideologies).

You are welcome to express your views here or use source material, but they are just that: opinions. From a moral standpoint, a person isn’t guaranteed to carry a gun, especially when the justifications for it are questionable, and that is being generous.

2 Likes

Follow all laws regarding you gun license. Discuss your concerns with your wife and do not force her or pressure her to go to Church. If you both feel comfortable, then go to Church. Do not go armed unless you are legally permitted to do so. I can’t in good conscience tell you to just go to Church and don’t think about your safety. That would be your personal decision. Pray to God for guidance.

God bless and Mary keep you

I suggest that they study the Catechism, 2263 and beyond. To forbid one from being able to use the proportionate force necessary to defend oneself is to deny them the fundamental right of self-defense.

I would agree, provided he has the legitimate authority to make participation in the Sacramental life of the Church contingent on the faithful giving up a fundamental human right. I don’t see that he has such authority.

That certainly makes for smoother legal sailing. But an unjust law is binding on no one, and laws that deprive peaceful people of the ability to defend themselves agains violent aggressors are unjust.

Carrying the weapon of your choice is not a “fundamental human right” as has already been established. You can’t argue that and simultaneously maintain that some weapons (ie hand grenades) are unreasonable. To someone else (a nut) a nuclear warhead may be the only thing that makes them feel safe in public. To others, the moral right to throw a hymnal at a gunman and then hit the door as fast as they can is sufficient. The Church says you have a moral right to protect yourself. So if you have access to a hymnal, gun, or hand grenade and use it to defend yourself and others, you are in the right to do so. That is not the same thing as saying you have an absolute right to access any weapon you want. There is prudential judgement involved in determining what weapons a citizen should have access to in certain circumstances. You are certainly within your right to argue against banning guns from Church if you feel you can argue that it is an unwise decision. However, you’re going to have a hard time arguing that it is an immoral decision, particularly given the fact that the bishop has made the decision with the safety of other parishoners in mind. You disagree that banning guns makes is safer and you may be right in some circumstances, but that doesn’t mean the decision is unjust or immoral.

2 Likes

Take cover is the better option. The point stands - there is no natural right to arm yourself wherever you may be.

Is this a sentiment here ?
The anti-carry people have no fear of an evil shooter entering the church , but they do fear a possible accident by a person that is legally carrying ?

1 Like

You are entitled to use proportionate force if / when the circumstances demand it. That’s all the catechism says on the matter. It does not address the matter of carrying weapons “just in case” you find yourself in danger.

But the Catechism does address the much broader principles of moral theology. Those principles rule out as immoral any action likely to cause more harm than good. Consider that deeply when you act to support the wide and easy availability of weapons - a situation prevalent in the USA.

So your solution to an active shooter is to allow him to roam freely as he seeks out fresh targets? That may work out for the people on the far side of the building, but it leaves those he discovers in a poor position.

To forbid one from being able to use the proportionate force necessary to defend oneself is to deny them the fundamental right of self-defense.

That appears to be the case.

So far everyone seems to agree that the Bishop has no legitimate authority to make participation in the Sacramental life of the Church contigent on giving up a fundamental human right. The squabble seems to be over the extent of one’s right to self-defense, and whether or not one has the right to posess the tools that ensure the effective exercise of that right.

You misunderstand your right to self-defence. The church is not with you on this.

Most seem to agree your error is in the premise… there is not the fundamental right you assert there is - that is to arm yourself as you please “just in case”.

2 Likes

Which means that I am entitled to peacably carry the tools that enable me to do it.

I do consider that deeply, which is why I vigorously defend the right of all peaceable people to carry firearms wherever they see fit. Laws that serve to disarm otherwise law-abiding citizens benefit no one but evildoers.

That does not logically follow at all. You are entitled to take actions when threatened. That implies no right to carry the tools you’d like to the places you’d like when you like “just in case”

The laws serve a broader cause and need to be assessed accordingly.

The Catechism says otherwise, and there is no Church teaching that forbids the possession of deadly weapons or their use when circumstances warrant it. In fact, Church teaching specifically declares that to be licit. I already cited the relevant passage in the Catechism.

There are two premises, and no one seems interested in arguing against the first one.

Don’t make up stories. You’ll find no reference to a right to be armed “just in case”. You personally choose to infer a right to be armed.

Ultimately, you rely on 2A. Bishops exercise authority on their property which runs counter to your preferred position and so you now condemn the Bishops.

The church is not with you on this.

2 Likes

Accidental shooting deaths are by far more frequent in my area that church shootings, though I’m not over concerned of either.

2 Likes

You are mistaken. To deprive one of the means to exercise a right is to deprive them of the right. You may as well argue that we have the right to freedom of the press, but no right to any writing implements or to anything on which to write.

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.