ReutersRoman Catholic bishops in Wisconsin are urging their parishioners not to bring weapons to church now that a new law permits state residents to carry concealed firearms.
"Intuitively, we understand that acts of violence, destruction, and murder are antithetical to the message and person of Jesus Christ and have no rightful place in our society, especially sacred places," the bishops said just before the law went into effect on Tuesday.
"We ask that all people seriously consider not carrying weapons into church buildings as a sign of reverence for these sacred spaces," they said.
The statement, issued by Milwaukee Archbishop Jerome Listecki and four other bishops, said a decision on whether to ban weapons was up to individual churches.
Residents with a valid permit are allowed to carry concealed handguns, electric weapons such as stun guns or tasers, knives other than switchblades, and billy clubs.
Machine guns, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns remain prohibited.
An employer may bar an employee from carrying concealed weapons at work, but cannot prohibit an employee from keeping concealed weapons in the employee's vehicle, even if it is parked on employer property.
The law mandates four hours of instructor-led training to carry a concealed weapon, or completion of a hunter safety course through the state.
In other words, if you own a gun, you are a psycho murderer.
Maybe I'm weird for not being afraid of guns. I'm more afraid someone would go up to Communion in the state of mortal sin or that the priest is going to bring in the clowns than I am that someone has a gun on them.
I hate to break it to everybody, but a person could bring in a gun prior to any law passed as well. Bad people usually don't care what the law or the bishops say on the matter.
But I'm sure these ladies will happily oblige.
7 comments:
"Machine guns, short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns remain prohibited."
Awwww...!
Wait a sec...we'll just have those with concealed weapons have their weapons blessed...problem solved!
Haha, I like your solution Father!
While our bishops must be obeyed on matters of faith and morals, they are not always to be followed on matters of prudential judgment.
Our bishops teach us with authority that we may excersize self-defense. But that we MUST use non-violent means to accomplish this whenever such an alternative would work.
Beyond that, it really is the laity that have the authority to make the prudential judgment over how best to defend oneself (and those in our care).
I think the Bishops would serve us better if they would present us with things that we ought to consider when making these prudential judgments.
For example: if you are reasonably confident in your own salvation it can be a noble and heroic act to wave your right to self defense in order to allow the aggressor to survive (since you are less sure of his salvation). This buys the aggressor time to repent and be saved.
I wonder if the bishops or pope have the authority to assure salvation of any souls murdered while in a dedicated church. This would at least lift some concerns that should something terrible happen the need to defend yourself would be mitigated somewhat.
On the Bishops' statement: meh.
I happen to like the CCW law, could obtain a license any time, respect guns (etc.)yadayadayada.
But would I carry into a church? Prolly not, regardless of location.
Would I carry TO a church and leave it in the car? All the time.
My goodness, BC. You read a Reuter's article and came to the conclusion that the bishops were saying that if you own a gun you are a psycho murderer? Try this: http://www.madisoncatholicherald.org/news/around-diocese/2655-bishops-offer-guidance-on-concealed-carry.html, and then go further to the pastoral guidance letter, linked in the box on the right. In the context of the full paragraph, I doubt you would come to the same conclusion -- or if you did, I would acknowledge your statement and would assume you must own a gun, as you've confirmed at least the first half of it.
Is it really so hard to believe that bishops would ask people not to carry weapons in a consecrated space? Dude, it's only the KCs who have permission to bear swords in church. Think about it this way: in the days of royalty, it was an extreme insult that could get you hanged to have brought a weapon into the court of the king without being a member of the chivalry in fealty. Why would we do less for the King?
Kat, I don't disagree with the decision. In fact I'm sure similar rules existed for weapons in churches throughout history. I do disagree with the presumption that law abiding gun owners use these tools for, ahem: "acts of violence, destruction, and murder." My only point is that ... "city folk" seem to think us "crazy hicks" are dangerous with our guns, whereas I think that gun violence in the city is committed by non-law abiding citizens who carry concealed weapons today regardless of whether it is legal or not.
I'm not advocating for violence but the Founders clearly felt that citizens should be armed "being necessary to the security of a free State."
You might know an armed man went into a church in Onalaska and shot and killed a priest in the church along with a few employees. No gun law prevented him from acting this way, but a well trained armed citizen would have. Again, I agree with the ruling but I think it's important we start thinking about the lives that can be saved.
It is good to find a subject to get you riled up enough to comment on though, LOL. :)
BC,
You have to remember that when you are talking about "lives saved" in the context of Catholic Churches, you don't simply mean "postponing earthly deaths." The Church is concerned with "souls saved".
How many souls were lost to Satan in that Church in Onalaska on that awful day?
How many souls would have been saved had the villian been stopped with a fatal blow?
Post a Comment