La. bishops: No guns in Catholic churches

[Sir_Knight]

These statements seem more judgmental than merely opinionated:

…

Catholics should leave the idols and the magic talismans at home when they approach God in Church.

Our right and, in certain cases, our duty, to self defense does not stop at the doors of the Church. When Jesus was with His followers, He protected them but when He was getting ready to physically leave them, He knew that they had to fend for themselves – having money to purchases what they needed and being able to defend themselves … [bibledrb]Luke 22:35-36[/bibledrb]… Jesus, who was a strong supporter of the poor, would not have commanded His followers to purchase something that He did not intend them to be used.

That is the teaching of scripture. That is the teaching of Jesus and that is the teaching of the Catholic Church. Anyone who disagrees, even if they be bishops, are in disagreement with all three (Jesus, the Bible and the Catholic Church).

 

[tjm190]

This does not infringe upon anyone’s freedoms anymore than the FAA, banks, or schools do.

In certain environments, guns are undesirable. Most people would probably prefer to worship in a gun-free environment.

 

[jilly4ski]

Fortunately, my pastor has a different perspective. He carries a firearm while saying mass and knows that I carry and has no issue with it.

OK, I asked this once before and didn’t get any answers. Why in the world would a priest carry a gun while he is saying mass? It would be impossible for him to draw a properly concealed weapon from under his vestments, and therefore it is pointless for him to carry. It seems pretty illogical to me.

 

[GEddie]

According to your reasoning, how is the FAA not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we fly?

How is a saloonkeeper not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we stop in for a beer?

How is a bank not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we go to make a deposit?

How is a courthouse not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves when we have to appear in court?

How am I not violating moral law by removing from you the ability to defend yourself if I were ever to let you come to my home and told you that you can’t bring your cache of weapons into my house?

Great points, and I’d like to add some more:

How does the owner of an industrial plant not violate moral law by removing the abiltiy of employees to defend themself when they enter the plant?

How do universities not violate moral law by removing from one the ability to defend themself when they enter the campus?

How does State government not violate moral law when it removes the ability to defend yourself when you go into a convenience store that sells alcohol? (Such being the law in TX).

There are 2 factors at work: the right of individuals to self-defend and the obligation of legitimate authority (such as the FAA, an amployer, a university administration, etc) to provide a basic level of safety to those under its supervision. Often the factors conflict, and the presence of firearms is itself a danger; such as in the air, or amid industrial processes, or via deadly altercation when alcohol is in use.

Catholic Bishops likewise have the right of jurisdiction over physical premises and the human life therein. No doubt they have “counted the cost” and decided that deadly force where hundreds of people come together, creates danger more than it protects; and in their GOD–given authority, have acted on behalf of those they are responsible for.

We are called to be subject to the governing authorities. Case closed.

If that is offensive to anybody’s sense of manliness, perhaps they should count it toward their penance.

You choose to interpret Church law according to your own lights and not to obey our bishops. How is that attitude of self-interpretation any different from that of Protestantism? I see no difference.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Sir_Knight]

BTW - your logic again is over simplified and now you are again trying to set yourself up as the infallable magesterum inappropriately. Just because you say this is the only conclusion does not mean it is the case at all; nor does it mean that the words you reference in scripture have anything at all to do with the topic here. As an interesting aside recall the FULL text of your reference which Jesus spoke concerning swords:
Luke 22:36-38 36He said to them, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. 37It is written: ‘And he was numbered with the transgressors’b; and I tell you that this must be fulfilled in me. Yes, what is written about me is reaching its fulfillment.” 38The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That is enough,” he replied.
Two swords - not every man with a sword.

Two swords among twelve able-bodied men would have been sufficient to fight off a wild animal or a small band of robbers that they might encounter along the backroads. Nobody is saying that EVERYone should be armed.

Do you know the actual historical teaching of the church concerning this verse? The history is fascinating actually. Two swords was taken as a symbolic sharing of Christian power and authority between the ecclesial offices (i.e. the pope and bishops) and the secular/civil offices (the King and his armies and responsibilities to the Church/people).

At the height of the Holy Roman Empire the King’s sword was subservient to the Pope’s ecclesial authority. But the central concept was that the ecclesial authority used the cutting two-edged blade of God’s Word to rule and lead whereas the King in service to the Pope and the Church used his authority (the 2nd sword) to defend the Church and Christendom from hedonistic and pagan forces of evil who wanted to harm and subject the Church.

And by the way - just how does one carry a sword and wield it when one takes up and carries their cross and follows Christ as He commanded?

You claim that the swords are symbolic has a number of problems with it – we are to sell our cloak and BUY the authority between the ecclesial offices and the secular/civil offices? Does that mean that we are to bribe them? how are we to buy this authority with the proceeds from the cloak that we sell?

Why would Jesus use “sword” symbolicly and “purse” & “bag” literally? And not explain it to the Apostles when they misunderstood? He was preparing them to bring His message to the rest of the world. If they misunderstood, they would pass on that misunderstanding to those that they taught. Is this an action that one would expect from the great teacher?

Furthermore, the gospel accounts were written many years later AFTER their minds were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit. Seeing, that they themselves understood Jesus to mean actual swords, why would they not clarify this point to ensure that there would be no misunderstanding on the part of others as was on their part?

Finally, scripture tells us that while Jesus often spoke symbolically and the Apostles often misunderstood Him, it also says that He always explained His teaching to them privately and we always see that explanation in the passage. Why is no such explanation offered here?

If one assumes that Jesus did not mean physical swords, then there are many questions that remain unanswered. All of these questions disappear if one concludes that Jesus meant what He said and referred to actual swords.

So until the pope dubs “Sir Knight” with his own pallium I’d recommend you bow out of the business of the magisterim and not try to bully others into sophomoric views of scripture with your “ONLY conclusions” my friend. Swinging a blunt and rusty intellectual sword around your own head and shoulders as if self-knighting oneself is not as impressive as you imagine and really just makes people nervous that you’re gonna brain yourself, make a mess of simple matters and end up disgracing yourself…

And you were given a special title by the Pope with your own pallium when and where? I suggest that you follow your own advise and stop trying to bully others into your sophomoric views of scripture.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Great points, and I’d like to add some more:

How does the owner of an industrial plant not violate moral law by removing the abiltiy of employees to defend themself when they enter the plant?

How do universities not violate moral law by removing from one the ability to defend themself when they enter the campus?

How does State government not violate moral law when it removes the ability to defend yourself when you go into a convenience store that sells alcohol? (Such being the law in TX).

There are 2 factors at work: the right of individuals to self-defend and the obligation of legitimate authority (such as the FAA, an amployer, a university administration, etc) to provide a basic level of safety to those under its supervision. Often the factors conflict, and the presence of firearms is itself a danger; such as in the air, or amid industrial processes, or via deadly altercation when alcohol is in use.

Catholic Bishops likewise have the right of jurisdiction over physical premises and the human life therein. No doubt they have “counted the cost” and decided that deadly force where hundreds of people come together, creates danger more than it protects; and in their GOD–given authority, have acted on behalf of those they are responsible for.

We are called to be subject to the governing authorities. Case closed.

If that is offensive to anybody’s sense of manliness, perhaps they should count it toward their penance.

ICXC NIKA.

With this decision, they have denied people a right that the Church official teaches in the CCC that people have.

 

[Sir_Knight]

OK, I asked this once before and didn’t get any answers. Why in the world would a priest carry a gun while he is saying mass?

Because he is responsible for their spiritual, and while they are under his roof, their physical well-being.

It would be impossible for him to draw a properly concealed weapon from under his vestments, and therefore it is pointless for him to carry. It seems pretty illogical to me.

Actually, it’s very possible.

 

[Stylites]

Fortunately, my pastor has a different perspective. He carries a firearm while saying mass and knows that I carry and has no issue with it.

Since your logo purporting to be in solidarity with the Church is from a website associated with St. Joseph the Worker Church in Pennsylvania, is your priest who purportedly carries a gun while officiating at Mass a resident there?

Odd that Byzman claims the same thing of his priest but conveniently refuses to identify the priest for independent verification (which also negates his argument that announcing a gun ban somehow invites criminals to come prey - one would think he would be happy to annouce which priest carries a weapon to main or kill).

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Fortunately, my pastor has a different perspective. He carries a firearm while saying mass and knows that I carry and has no issue with it.

What diocese approves of its priests carrying guns at Mass? That statement confirms what I’ve been thinking about throughout this thread - you are just trying to pull our chains with your outlandish statements to see how many Catholics, who are obedient to their bishops, rise to your bait.

You’ve succeeded. I was one of them.

Bottom line - I think that you don’t even own a handgun.

 

[bona_fides_1]

First off, a handgun IS the BEST means of personal defense.

You are just being argumentative for the sake of argument. This is more a personal agenda than it is a thing that serves Church or God.

I challenge your assertions - the best means ot personal defense is situational awareness followed by cool heads, reason and persuasion (i.e. the tongue ) . It is always best to try to defuse a situation than to let is escalate into lethal force. At close quarters the profi ient man with the knife almost always beats a man with a gun. And this is the problem with firearms - the damage has usually already been done before anyone can get one out even if they are present.

Violence in a Catholic Church would be very rare. And of the few that do happen out of hundreds of thousands of masses a year (we are down in the .001% incidence statistic) these are generally crimes of passion with a specific target in mind. These often commit murder-suicide. There is a much higher chance of someone accidentally shooting somone coming to the defense of such a crime than there is a chance of them ever being able to be fast enough to prevent it.

The pope as I have said before is in a different situation - he is a head of state and has 10’s of thousands if not millions world wide who would attempt to kill him if they thought they could get to him. Given that he is exposed to 10’s of thousands of the public when he gives addresses it is prudent to have high security since the threats are real and credible. This is not the case in most of the Church however. If we get into a period of persecution where we are being arrested and attacked for holding mass then its a different situation - a time of war and persecution. Historically though the church has gone underground in such times.

First off, Church teaching does not need interpretation. Church teaching IS the interpretation of moral law found in scripture.

You might do well to research Feeneyism since this Catholic priest made the same mistake you are making - thinking to interpret magisterium teaching different from what it intended. The Church INTERPRETS its OWN TEACHINGS when somone disputes them in the manner you are doing.

First off, what you have described is not based in reality. Trained police officers have a higher reported rate of having accidents with their firearms than private citizens.

Well now could that be because police are required to report all incidents as a condition of employment and that your average Joe is not about to call up the authorities and tell them “gosh - i just about blew a hole in my head cleaning my firearm but fortunately I ducked just in time”. I can recall at least 2 incidents where I as a hunter almost got me or my friend killed while hunting - 1 caused by rain water on the trigger causing my finger to slip off the trigger as I tried to decock and the other because our two targets crossed path in mid air and we cross fired right next to each other’s heads! Think that kind of thing gets reported?

So you mean that the requirement to take a gun safety course before being issue a concealed weapon permit is meant to lower everyone’s competence levels to that of trained police? Please - you are getting ridiculous now…

Secondly, just because something is unlikely to happen does not mean that one should not prepare for it.

Oversimplification - car accidents are one of the leading causes of accidental death in the country. Death by shootings in church are extremely rare - especially in a Catholic Churches. One can take out insurance by going to confession regularly and die honorable and in grace for God and Church and go straight to heaven. What’s to be afraid of? There is a higher chance of dieing in church from some old geezer backing over you in the parking lot (or from a bad sermon haha) than there are in getting shot. Do you prepare for falling meteors crashing down through the church roof?

This comes to mind here:
[sign]The Sky is Falling - Chicken Little[/sign]

I don’t know what kind of Church you attend but if people are losing their tempers and wrestling with each other and giving each other bloody noses and engaging in fisticuffs during mass, I would look for a different parish to join. If, on the other hand, none of these things are happening, why bring them up as they are not related to the topic?

You can’t have it both ways my friend. Either there are real risks of being in a deadly altercation in church or there are not. My point is that non-lethal encounters are at least an order of magnitude more great than lethal ones - somone gets in a shouting match or is upset over the liberal choir member singing a Protestant song and mouthing off and not wanting to leave. Having a firearm in such cases makes a very minor incident potentially into a deadly one IF it did get into a scuffle since one could drop a hidden weapon in the scuffle (the person who’s probably come forward to get involved) and then that becomes a deadly confrontation since the weapon could be picked up by the other in the passion of the argument and used to kill you.

But please elaborate on why you would care to go to a parish with a concealed weapon if you thought that parish might have violent people who could become lethal? You seem to prefer to be in parishes based on gun carry friendliness where there might be another gun carrying bad person than you are inclined to parishes with no gun carrying members. That’s not even rational unless you want to have a chance at legally shooting somone. Do you?

BF

 

[bona_fides_1]

As I explained above, just because something is unlikely to happen, does not mean that one should not prepare for it. Just because you never had a fire in your house, does that mean that you should not have a fire extinguisher or have fire insurance?

Again - you are creating a false and highly selective dichotomy. You are just being selective on what you want to prepare for and seem to like the idea of having the authority to use your firearm and be a protector (even if no one has asked you to be). If you are that altruistic then please come sit in the balcony of my church with a lightening rod to protect me from any chance lightening storms that might cause lightening to come through the windows and strike somone dead. Or better yet - come be the crossing guard in front of the front drive wearing your safety badge and orange outfit so prevent the feeble old men in their Cadillacs from accidentally hitting pedestrians running late through the parking lot trying to get a seat before mass starts. That would stop more deaths or accidents than anything you will prevent with your silly firearm in church.

BF

 

[DOShea]

The solution to this is very simple, Sir Knight. Put your interpretation to the test and see what results. Go to Mass in that diocese and carry your gun against the specific guidance of the Bishop, then accept the consequences of your actions. Those will most likely be your arrest for a felony and subsequent loss of all your guns and the civil right to carry one. Please explain how doing that would enhance your ability to protect yourself and any other grave duties you might have to protect innocents?

Suppose you have, as my neighbor does, a trained attack dog (former military police dog) and this dog is specifically trained to respond to an armed attack. So far, no one including local deputies who have tried can draw a weapon within 19 feet of the dog and bring it to a firing position without the dog having them by the shooting arm, the throat, or the genitals, all of these tested using protective padding of course. Maybe you would favor my neighbor having a right to bring his dog to Mass on the grounds that he’s doing his best to live up to your interpretation of the CCC? Where do you stop? Machine guns okay for FFL holders?

The point of it is, as Br. Jay has so pointed out, that the Bishop has the authority to decide the question. The Bishop has spoken, and he says no. He doesn’t have to explain why he says no, but it could possibly be the extremely low incidence of churches being attacked by rogue gunman. History shows us these rare occurrences are generally related to motives of robbery or personal beefs with one or more individuals. Some nut who has it in for the pastor is not likely to randomly open fire indiscriminately in a Mass. More likely he’s going to target the person or person he’s got the beef with. Last year when a pastor was gunned down, it was done when the person knew the pastor would likely be there, but NOT a church full of the faithful. In the cases of robbery, they are interested in the money, not in adding 25-to-life or more to their sentence if caught.

These instances are real data, and as such deserve consideration. We have had far more school shootings than church shootings, yet no state has deemed the problem so severe that it has decided to lift the ban on guns in schools. Interestingly, no legal challenge has ever survived that attempted to hold the schools responsible for a bad safety decision in banning guns. So it isn’t just the schools that see it that way, but the courts have reiterated their right to enforce the ban without meaning they fall into the jeopardy of being reckless or negligent by denying immediate means that could possibly counter such an attack.

Some people are simply put off by the presence of a gun, period. They don’t care if the person is well-trained, legal to carry, or not. They simply don’t want to be around them. They have rights, too.

I believe the Bishop and his staff have likely considered all these angles and with all things considered, do not feel the ends justifies the means. You say this makes them “targets,” and maybe so, but they are still only one of many other targets out there. If and when these “targets” do in fact draw the attacks you assert they could, then possibly the Bishop would rethink it. More than likely, they would pay to have a uniformed police presence then to open the door to personal concealed carry.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Since your logo purporting to be in solidarity with the Church is from a website associated with St. Joseph the Worker Church in Pennsylvania, is your priest who purportedly carries a gun while officiating at Mass a resident there?

Just because I am pulling something off of a website does not mean that I am associated with that website. Go to thehighroad.org and sooner or later you’ll run into my pastor. He posts over there often.

Odd that Byzman claims the same thing of his priest but conveniently refuses to identify the priest for independent verification (which also negates his argument that announcing a gun ban somehow invites criminals to come prey - one would think he would be happy to annouce which priest carries a weapon to main or kill).

Odd that people with to maintain their anonymity in this age of crazed stalkers? I don’t think so.

 

[GEddie]

Again - you are creating a false and highly selective dichotomy. You are just being selective on what you want to prepare for and seem to like the idea of having the authority to use your firearm and be a protector (even if no one has asked you to be). If you are that altruistic then please come sit in the balcony of my church with a lightening rod to protect me from any chance lightening storms that might cause lightening to come through the windows and strike somone dead. Or better yet - come be the crossing guard in front of the front drive wearing your safety badge and orange outfit so prevent the feeble old men in their Cadillacs from accidentally hitting pedestrians running late through the parking lot trying to get a seat before mass starts. That would stop more deaths or accidents than anything you will prevent with your silly firearm in church.

BF

If only our fellow sinners were as zealous in securing their eternal being as they claim to be in preparing for minor threats to their mortal one!

One day, each and evry one of us is going to fail to physically survive, and then your heirs will probably sell off the guns you are so proud of!

By all means, be prepared, but be even more certain that your eternal fire insurance is paid up!!!

God Bless and ICXC NIKA!

 

[JReducation]

This is the part that I am having trouble with. If, as you state, we have the moral right and even the moral duty when other innocent individual are involved, to defend ourselves and others – how is the bishop not violating moral law by removing from us the ability to defend ourselves?

As bishop one of his rights and duties is to interpret and apply the law. That’s what he’s doing. As I said, we can disagree with his interpretation and application, but we cannot disobey.

Here is the problem that many have. We forget that the bishop is the highest teacher of any diocese. Until a higher authority says that he is wrong, his interpretation is binding. In this case it’s binding civilly and canonically.

Only the Holy Father or curia, speaking for the Holy Father, can trump; the bishop on any issue of law. You and I are not up there on the chain of command.

In philosophy there are objective and subjective discourse. It is precisely to use these correctly that we (religious, deacons, priests, bishops, and theologians) study so much philosophy.

One can make an objective case for this issue and it has been made in the CCC. But the CCC has left the subjective case to be made by the local bishop. The CCC has said “may be”. When law says that something “may be” done it is up to the proper authority to decide when that “may be” is. In a parish belonging to the diocese that authority is the bishop. In any place belonging to a religious community, that authority is the religious superior.

When you speak about your specific situation, you’re speaking subjectively. That’s what the bishop is doing. This is philosophically correct. The questions that arise are two: 1) Does the person speaking about a subjective situation have the authority to do so? In the case, yes. The Ordinary of a diocese is the highest authority in that diocese. 2) Does his application of a law to the local situation violate a dogma or moral teaching? The answer here is no, it does not, because the bishop is not saying that one does not have a right to protect himself. He’s saying that this right can be exercised in a church without the use of guns. He’s speaking about the means, not about the right. The means are not binding on Catholics. Therefore, the bishop can take that away. He cannot take away the right. You can use your shoes, your fists, your missal, but you cannot use a gun in a church. That’s all that he’s saying.

As a theologian, the bishop has an obligation to defend the highest truth. While sef-defense is a truth. The dignity of life and the teaching against killing is an even higher truth… The Church has only authorized killing in very specific cases. These are not blanket statements. Certain conditions must be met to justify the use of a weapon against another person. If the bishop feels tha the conditions prescribed by philosophy and ethics are not met, then he can prohibit the guns in churches. That’s what he’s doing.

He has the authority of the apostles to do this. You don’t need to be right to have apostolic authority. You don’t even need to be right to be obeyed. A bishop can be wrong and must still be obeyed, as long as he is not asking you to do something that the Church has defined as a sin. Here is the catch. It has to defined as a sin by the Church, not by my conscience or your conscience. In that case the bishop has the right to apply the rule of malformed conscience. This means that he can continue to demand that you and I comply, because our consciences are not properly formed.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[bona_fides_1]

Two swords among twelve able-bodied men would have been sufficient to fight off a wild animal or a small band of robbers that they might encounter along the backroads. Nobody is saying that EVERYone should be armed.

Small problem here bro - the apostles did not travel together after the Great Commission. They occasionally worked in groups of two or three but in general set off on their own paths to evangelize. If you want to be literal and stay consistent - which two got the swords that were “enough”? Do you have one of those?

You claim that the swords are symbolic has a number of problems with it – we are to sell our cloak and BUY the authority between the ecclesial offices and the secular/civil offices? Does that mean that we are to bribe them? how are we to buy this authority with the proceeds from the cloak that we sell?

Why would Jesus use “sword” symbolicly and “purse” & “bag” literally? And not explain it to the Apostles when they misunderstood? He was preparing them to bring His message to the rest of the world. If they misunderstood, they would pass on that misunderstanding to those that they taught. Is this an action that one would expect from the great teacher?

Furthermore, the gospel accounts were written many years later AFTER their minds were opened to the truth by the Holy Spirit. Seeing, that they themselves understood Jesus to mean actual swords, why would they not clarify this point to ensure that there would be no misunderstanding on the part of others as was on their part?

Finally, scripture tells us that while Jesus often spoke symbolically and the Apostles often misunderstood Him, it also says that He always explained His teaching to them privately and we always see that explanation in the passage. Why is no such explanation offered here?

If one assumes that Jesus did not mean physical swords, then there are many questions that remain unanswered. All of these questions disappear if one concludes that Jesus meant what He said and referred to actual swords.

Are you coming from a fundamentalist background before becoming Catholic? What part of “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” don’t you understand about paying tax to the secular authorities? Even the persecuting Romans while not always friendly to Christians protected the law and order of the land through tax of military and police so that the entire territory was not lawless and over run with vandals and thieves. Why must it be “bribery”? Christendom was a cooperative and at times very precarious balance of state vs church rights over the centuries after Constantine outlawed persecution of Christians for sport.

The words Jesus spoke where not to be taken literally for all times. If two swords were enough then we have only two literal swords. Point them out to us please and stop being ridiculous.

And you were given a special title by the Pope with your own pallium when and where? I suggest that you follow your own advise and stop trying to bully others into your sophomoric views of scripture.

But I am not the one here challenging the bishop’s authority and decisions - YOU are.
Which apostle used a sword to defend himself against being martyred? Hint: NOT a single one. Christians let themselves be cut, mutilated, burned & boiled alive, imprisoned, fed to the lions etc. and did not resort to weapons of war or violence.

BF

 

[Sir_Knight]

What diocese approves of its priests carrying guns at Mass? That statement confirms what I’ve been thinking about throughout this thread - you are just trying to pull our chains with your outlandish statements to see how many Catholics, who are obedient to their bishops, rise to your bait.

You’ve succeeded. I was one of them.

Bottom line - I think that you don’t even own a handgun.

Believe what you wish. I am not going to start posting photos to prove my point.

 

[Stylites]

Just because I am pulling something off of a website does not mean that I am associated with that website. Go to thehighroad.org and sooner or later you’ll run into my pastor. He posts over there often.

Rather than play 20 questions, why not just name the priest in Pennsylvania who purports to carry a weapon during Mass?

 

[Sir_Knight]

Are you coming from a fundamentalist background before becoming Catholic? What part of “render to Caesar that which is Caesar’s” don’t you understand about paying tax to the secular authorities? Even the persecuting Romans while not always friendly to Christians protected the law and order of the land through tax of military and police so that the entire territory was not lawless and over run with vandals and thieves. Why must it be “bribery”? Christendom was a cooperative and at times very precarious balance of state vs church rights over the centuries after Constantine outlawed persecution of Christians for sport.

The words Jesus spoke where not to be taken literally for all times. If two swords were enough then we have only two literal swords. Point them out to us please and stop being ridiculous.

Explain why scripture tells us that Jesus explained all of His symbolic teachings to the Apostles privately when they misunderstood but no such explanation is found in this passage? Either scripture is wrong and Jesus did not explain everything to them privately when they misunderstood or they understood correctly and no further explanation was needed?

Additionally, why would the great teacher not explain something that they did not understand especially when He was entrusting them to carry forth this message to the ends of the earth? Wouldn’t this ensure that they would preach the wrong message?

Once their minds were open by the Holy Spirit and seeing how they themselves misunderstood, why would they not clarify this matter to ensure that others did not misunderstand the way that they misunderstood?

 

[JReducation]

Sir Knight,

If I may make a suggestion, you should follow the motto of the K of C, “In solidarity with our priests.”

The intensity and time that you’re putting into this makes it seem as though you have nothing better to do, which I can’t believe, because we all have things to do OR you are trying to get the hierarchy to be in solidarity with you. That would be wrong, because you and I do not have apostolic succession. We cannot ask the apostles to in solidarity with us. It goes the other way around.

My suggestion, for your peace of mind, your spiritual well being and the salvation of your soul, follow your spiritual father, Fr. McGivney. I believe that he would be rolling over in his grave just about now, if he saw one of his Knights unwilling to yield to the bishops when he’s not being asked to sin. He’s just being asked to leave his gun at home when he goes to mass.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF