Archdiocese of Chicago

[Jeffrey]

I'd like to hear Mary Sheppard's response to this.

[Hazborgufen]

I'd like to hear Mary Sheppard's response to this.

 

The Catholic church probably doesn't care what a Baptist has to say about their policies.

[Nanook]

Don't worry, the church will replace any who left with illegal immigrants.

 

Of course, pretty soon they're going to run out of the people who pay for most of what they do. Oh, oh.

[GarandCollector]

Our pastor just sent out an email to the entire parish announcing the signs. I suspect that other parishes in the archdiocese will do the same today.

[Jeffrey]

 

I'd like to hear Mary Sheppard's response to this.

 

The Catholic church probably doesn't care what a Baptist has to say about their policies.

 

You're probably right. As someone mentioned earlier, the best way to get this noticed is to hit them in the checkbook. I go to church every sunday with 3 things in my pocket: a gun, my permit to carry it, and a donation. Either all three come with or none come with. I will gladly be very vocal to my church about it too.

[Hazborgufen]

I'm not religious, but I understand that saying "go to a different church or denomination" isn't really reasonable advice for people who are faithful. I will say that I was raised in the Ukrainian Catholic Church and that there are lots of churches are still Catholic that simply aren't Roman Catholic. These non-Roman Catholic churches don't fall under the auspices of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Chicago. The church I was raised in is part of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Chicago. No doubt there are dioceses for other Catholic rites in the area as well.

 

The mass may be different and certain times might not be in English, but they're still Catholic and are very interesting. I can't speak to whether they are posted, but I highly suspect that they aren't.

 

For what little it's worth.

[ChicagoZman]

I've had several Catholic priests take the class and get their CCL as they recognize their parish is a possible target, particularly when conducting funerals for the knuckleheads. I can now encourage them to follow the lead of that monk in 1517.

[chibooey]

In the future, when a Catholic church gets shot up because a crazy knows it safe for him to do so, the Archdiocese will then use that incident to call for gun control.

 

I will also bet my entire 401K that the Archdiocese doesn't know who Mary Shepard is or that she was attacked, brutalized and left for dead while working in her church.

 

He doesn't care about Mary Shepherd. He came to Chicago from Spokane Washington where he was liked. That alone says a lot. He is ultra left wing and hates the second amendment.

[mauserme]

He doesn't care about Mary Shepherd. He came to Chicago from Spokane Washington where he was liked. That alone says a lot. He is ultra left wing and hates the second amendment.

The fact that we know his politics at all says a lot about the Chicago Archdiocese, or maybe the church more broadly.

[chibooey]

So, is father "Snuffy" Phlager the ArchBishop of Chicago now?

 

Might as well be. Blase Cupich appears to be following Snuffys lead. The Pope is a lefty and his assigning Cupich was very intentional. Glad I am out of there but feel bad for my kids and grandkids.

[soylentgreen]

Every time I think about maybe going back to the Catholic Church, something like this happens.

Last year a Catholic priest was beheaded in the in the sanctuary of his own church during a mass by a jihadi with a knife. My guess is a knife ban would not have saved him.

[Jeffrey]

 

In the future, when a Catholic church gets shot up because a crazy knows it safe for him to do so, the Archdiocese will then use that incident to call for gun control.

 

I will also bet my entire 401K that the Archdiocese doesn't know who Mary Shepard is or that she was attacked, brutalized and left for dead while working in her church.

 

He doesn't care about Mary Shepherd. He came to Chicago from Spokane Washington where he was liked. That alone says a lot. He is ultra left wing and hates the second amendment.

 

Did you read the letter? He said he respects the 2A and hunting and all that..

[GarandCollector]

My Catholic Church had a physical attack on it in 2012. In the Spring, we rejected posting the "no guns sign" partially for the deterrent effect. Now we will have to post the signs and be disarmed.

[lockman]

Start dropping no guns no money cards in the basket.

[tkroenlein]

 

He doesn't care about Mary Shepherd. He came to Chicago from Spokane Washington where he was liked. That alone says a lot. He is ultra left wing and hates the second amendment.

The fact that we know his politics at all says a lot about the Chicago Archdiocese, or maybe the church more broadly.

 

Indeed.

[mauserme]

 

 

In the future, when a Catholic church gets shot up because a crazy knows it safe for him to do so, the Archdiocese will then use that incident to call for gun control.

 

I will also bet my entire 401K that the Archdiocese doesn't know who Mary Shepard is or that she was attacked, brutalized and left for dead while working in her church.

He doesn't care about Mary Shepherd. He came to Chicago from Spokane Washington where he was liked. That alone says a lot. He is ultra left wing and hates the second amendment.

 

Did you read the letter? He said he respects the 2A and hunting and all that..

 

And they bend their tongues like their bow ...

[Milhouse86]

Start dropping no guns no money cards in the basket.

 

Best comment in thread. I would love to see the persons face that collects and counts every Sunday!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[BobPistol]

Response to churches that declare themselves “gun free zones”

 

Luke 22:36

Jesus 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.

 

Luke 22:38

The disciples said, “See, Lord, here are two swords.” “That’s enough!” he replied.

 

Nehemiah 4:9

We prayed to our God and posted a guard…”

 

CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

 

CCC 2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

 

CCC 2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

 

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.

 

Unfortunately, Cupich is a LWW and doesn't care about the Church's teachings or the teachings of Christ in this area.

 

I miss Pope Benedict. He was replacing lefties with decent bishops. (Look at San Francisco's Archbishop Cordeleone, awesome guy!)

[quackersmacker]

 

Start dropping no guns no money cards in the basket.

Best comment in thread. I would love to see the persons face that collects and counts every Sunday!!

 

 

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Absolutely the thread winner!

[Tango7]

So I posted this at the ABC link:

 

So they're posting a sign that only applies to parishioners and visitors who:

-paid the 2nd highest application fee in the country;

-will pay the highest renewal fee in the country;

-underwent five separate background checks;

-undergo a daily check of the National Instant Check System and a more thorough monthly "review";

-passed the scrutiny of the police department of every town they've lived in for the past ten years;

-attended the nation's longest statutorily required training period.

He obviously is unaware of the fact that the "red circle Beretta" sign with the "pursuant to ILCS" language only bears the force of law to the people above - NOT the gang bangers, drug dealers and other criminals committing the violence on the streets. They can actually carry under that sign with impunity - a fact that has shocked many who posted it thinking it would ban all firearms, both lawfully concealed and those carried under permit.

I would also suggest that this action reflects ignorance on many levels. The first is that the plaintiff of the first case that won this right was attacked while inside the church that she worked at by a drug-addled much younger and larger assailant (who used his fists in his attempted murder, not a gun).

Secondly his Eminence appears to have forgotten The Catechism of the Catholic Church, Part three, Section Two, Chapter Two, Article Five – “The Fifth Commandment”, which reads in part: "Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow.

St. Thomas Aquinas wrote: 'If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's'.

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm."

To quote an associate of mine, it seems his Eminence has become better acquainted with statute than scripture, which certainly seems to show his focus on this plane. If this was not in fact done from ignorance of recent history and Catechism, it was done as an intentional act to oppose them and to set his rules above those of the Church and the rights we have as law abiding human beings.

There's a title for that sort of person, and it's not Cardinal.

 

Reminds me a lot of the article in the online Catholic magazine America Repeal the Second Amendment where the editorial board made similar noises to a much greater degree.

 

After the online backlash they tried to backpedal, and I nailed them to the cross - so to speak:

 

 

Matthew Malone

4 years 5 months ago

FROM THE EDITORS: Many thanks for this spirited discussion! Please bear in mind the following: The editorial does not take issue with the natural right to self-defense, which is God-given and unchangeable. The editorial takes issue with one specific, prudential application of that right, namely, the right to own a gun as specified in the second amendment. The right to own a gun is not a natural right, but a positive right, meaning it is a human-made and changeable right. Those who maintain that the editors are questioning the right to self-defense in their call for repeal are making a categorical error.

Dominick Ahrens

4 years 2 months ago

No, Mr. Malone, we're not "making a categorical error", we are simply more understanding of the intent than the editors appear to be. As evidence of this (with all due deference) the 2nd Amendment reads:

 

Amendment II.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

That paragraph has been viewed with firearms as the focii given that they are the primary type of weapons used (for good or ill) since that document was written. However, as much as the meanings of the various terms have been argued, it's pretty clear that it says nothingabout guns. Nor "sporting purpose" or any of the other qualifiers the limiters of our individual rights have seen fit to attach to it throughout the long debate. Does it? One could easily make the argument that "arms" also means cannon, swords, knives, axes, or any other weapon one would use to inflict harm upon another, regardless of the intent. Perhaps that's why the Founders chose not to proclaim "...keep and bear musket". As an example, Tench Coxe, one of our Founders, wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette in 1788

 

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

If guns were truly removed from the face of the planet, do any of the editors seriously think that we would be at less risk from those who intend to do us harm? While history and the Bible provide historical accounting of millions being slaughtered by swords, I seem to recall the latter providing a case in 1 Samuel 17 where a sling and a rock were particularly effective at eliminating an enemy. That said, in all honesty, I'd still prefer my Glock. ;D And your editorial did not say "ban handguns", "outlaw assault weapons" or "elliminate shotguns". It said:

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that whatever the human costs involved, the Second Amendment “necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” The justices are right. But the human cost is intolerable.

Repeal the Second Amendment

(emphasis added)

Thus an argument against the individual right - despite the afterthought of categorizing it as a "positive right" (when it was clearly not ascribed as such - consider the Declaration of Independence and the reference to "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights"), and the artificial limitation of the call for repeal to somehow apply to firearms alone... it is at worst an insult to our intelligence and at best a hasty and ill-prepared bit of apologetic sounding covering of one's backside. And let us say that we banned guns. We have now condemned the weak to be prey of the strong, as it was in days of old. The phrase "God didn't make man equal, Colonel Colt did" is not an advertising slogan from the 1800's, but a reflection of the reality that human ingenuity had provided a means of defense to the weaker, older and feebler amongst us against the largest and strongest of thugs and evildoers. Kind of like the rock and sling, albeit without His hand to guide it. And if the Founders were correct in their observations of the human condition - that is, that the 2nd is the guardian of the other Amendments - how long before you would be publishing an editorial calling Catholics and other people of faith to action against the government movement to eliminate organized religion on the basis of "tolerance", "diversity" or some other machination of those that would see us believe in a kingdom of man instead of the kingdom of God? Many times it only takes a small percentage to stand and fight for what is right to protect the whole from tyranny. But what could we do as defenseless as we would be to stand up for the beliefs that we have, or for the beliefs and rights of others, if your suggestion was heeded? Whether you wish to admit it or not, you called for us all, regardless of our individual exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, our age, and our faith, to be condemned to victimhood in support of a social agenda, Mr. Malone, and to abandon our natural right as given by God. It was unforgiveable and we will not forget, no matter in whose name you suggested it.

Despite having a badge as an excuse to be armed in the presence of a sign, I find this incredibly offensive and another example of the leftist bent the Church has taken.

I very well may wind up affixing a letter to our parish doors the day this goes into effect.

[BobPistol]

Remember, there are Eastern Catholic Churches that don't have to listen to Cupich. They are not subject to this policy, and their eparchs (bishops) don't intend to enact one.

[markthesignguy]

There has to be lawyers DROOLING at the DEEP pockets of the church, and the lawsuits stemming from disarmed victims.

 

The FIRST key to carry in Illinois was a church. The SECOND key to unlocking carry may again be a church.

 

When the anti's find out they will be liable for their disarmament actions, all the casual anti's will back off.

[BobPistol]

 

At one point, the dictator (Napoleon) launched into another tirade, telling Pius’ adept, seen-it-all Secretary of State, Ercole Cardinal Consalvi, that he would “crush” the Roman Catholic Church.

The cardinal sighed and shook his head over the emperor’s naivete. "If in 1,800 years we clergy have failed to destroy the Church, do you really think that you'll be able to do it?" he answered.

[mikew]

 

The fact that we know his politics at all says a lot about the Chicago Archdiocese, or maybe the church more broadly.

 

Think the pope is ready to give up having the Swiss Guard?

[Rockdiver]

Never forget that this is a business, making a business decision, based on what it belives will appeal to its ideal target demographic....the desperate.

 

This is only a shade of the Church I was raised in. Sad, really.

 

I don't begrudge anyone their faith, mine has evolved to no longer be dependent on another man's interpretation of the intention of God, particularly a man I believe to be compromised.

 

God does not need my money. I will not finance the perversion of his word.

 

Shriner's and Children's Memorial recieve my tithe.

[b52]

Wouldn't the cemeterys be safe haven. I visit my dear wife every week at one.

[MrTriple]

I've completely lost all respect for Cupich.

[MrTriple]

As far as I know, Canon Law doesn't prohibit you from attending Mass outside your own home diocese, does it? If so, I see a lot of Catholics traveling far and wide to celebrate the liturgy outside of the Archdiocese. I see a lot of donors withholding money. I see a lot of people basically leaving and going elsewhere. Not a smart move, Cupich.

[BobPistol]

As far as I know, Canon Law doesn't prohibit you from attending Mass outside your own home diocese, does it? If so, I see a lot of Catholics traveling far and wide to celebrate the liturgy outside of the Archdiocese. I see a lot of donors withholding money. I see a lot of people basically leaving and going elsewhere. Not a smart move, Cupich.

 

You can attend mass at any Catholic Church - outside your home diocese, or the Eastern Catholic Churches (who have their own eparchies - dioceses) they don't have to listen to Cupich, because they have their own bishops.

[mauserme]

This reminds me of a recent opinion piece in the New York Times. The author says:

 

...

There has never been a more opportune moment for the Democratic Party to demand compromise not from the left but from the center. What are anti-choice Democrats going to do? Become Republicans?

...

It's as if they've already forgotten the results of the last election... forgotten that many of their constituents became "anything else" and, for many of them, that meant voting Republican.

 

It's as if the Catholic Church is willing to make the same bet because, "what are they going to do, become Lutheran?". It's as if they lost track of the numbers who have already left, and left for a reason.

 

That reason is not because they've lost their faith. That reason is their faith.