Clergy shouldn't be armed, I think someone has watched to much Game of thrones.
Now for me to be a hypocrite.
Personally I will always be in my robes (I'm Father Frank) however during times I will bare arms. If you were to speak to me in character I explain that I am the Shephard and the townsmen are my flock. It is my responsibility to guide my flock on the path of makerism however at times I must fend of the wolves.
Specifically asoiaf clergy had armed wings via the poor fellows & the warrior's sons, but that is besides the point, which is we stick to lore.
Lore-wise, here are the only places in which religion and military/weapons intertwine: "With the crowning of Emperor Theodoro Vesta in 403 ACC, he proclaimed his faith in a god unlike any that had been heard of before. For instead of promoting military might and expansion, this god preached kindness and mercy." [Note that this is before the church split, which is dated to 798 ACC From: anomaroleplay.boards.net/thread/482/calradic-empire "Men: Makerist men are expected to be temperate, gentle, and fierce in battle when necessary. They must care for their families and uphold strong moral values. Clean-shaven or neatly groomed, they enter the church unarmed..." From: anomaroleplay.boards.net/thread/387/makerism-faith-maker If I missed any, let me know.
So, there isnt a place in lore that says "priests must be unarmed" but there is no place that says "priests may be armed". What we do have in lore hints towards the latter, but lets take it a step further. We know that Makerism is based on christianity. I believe it is safe to assume that where lore is lacking, we can fill the gap with common christian doctrine, as its impossible for a scenario's lore to cover the full extent of religious doctrine.
So lets take from history. We know (western) christianity had instances of holy wars, the crusades, which showcase the most ironmanned scenario in favour of allowing clergy to be armed. BUT even in the crusades, armed or warrior priests were the EXCEPTION to the rule and UNCOMMON at best. (https://books.google.co.il/books?id=1r3v29Aj57UC&pg=PA133&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false).
Also see: "The form into which Urban cast the crusade, the inclusion of the clergy and other noncombatants, is evidence not only of his dependence upon pilgrim tradition, but of his belief that the Holy Land was not be be won by force of arms alone; that the power of the Word was greater than the power of the Sword; that the righteousness of the crusading army was a sure protection. As the spiritual heir of Gregory VII, how could the pope have thought otherwise? The main strength of the papacy was moral. Whatever the pope undertook, he could not depend upon earthly arms alone; and however disinterested his motives, he could not allow his project to become entirely secularized. Therefore Urban planned the crusade as an essentially Christian undertaking, in which the clergy were to play an important part from start to finish. The formal purpose of the crusade was religious - to free the Eastern Church. The crusaders were called by the clergy to take the cross; they consulted their parish priests before taking the irrevocable vow;13 they looked forward to a spiritual reward, the papal in- dulgence; and they were led, in so far as the crusade had a single leader, by the papal legate, Adhemar, bishop of Puy." From: The Clergy, The Poor, and the Non-Combatants on the First Crusade by Porgers W. www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.sfu.ca/~poitras/spec_first-crusade_46.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwin4brzy_KHAxW8hv0HHXDXCbgQFnoECCkQAQ&usg=AOvVaw03pgoLPSz_CHSIQ6pFVeIk
