I’m not a Catholic, but I’m also not hostile toward Catholicism. I have many Catholic friends whom I value as much as anyone outside of my immediate family. They’re good people.
But there are some members of the Catholic clergy whom I don’t feel so kindly toward.
It’s not that they’re Catholic, though. That doesn’t bother me at all. It’s that the acts as if their priestly authority should dictate what is and isn’t accepted in society, especially in matters of our civil liberties.
That was highlighted in a recent letter to the editor of the Modesto Bee.
It started with a headline that read, “Turlock pastor: Here’s why religious leaders support gun control | Opinion.”
That’s a problem because the Catholic clergy doesn’t speak for religious leaders of all faiths. That’s not on the priest who wrote the letter, though. No, he said plenty of other things that we can take issue with.
Religious leaders support gun control
“As schools welcome students back, safety is top of mind after Minneapolis shooting,” (modbee.com, Sept. 2)
This moment calls for moral clarity, pastoral courage and faithful action. Cardinal Blase Cupich lamented the widespread availability of guns and criticized the rejection of common-sense gun laws “in the name of a freedom not found in our Constitution.”
It sounds like the cardinal has never actually read the Constitution, then, because that freedom is explicitly found in the Second Amendment. Further, the Ninth Amendment makes it clear that just because a right wasn’t explicitly enumerated in the Constitution, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist or can be infringed upon.
So there.
But that’s the cardinal’s take, not the priest in question’s take. Let’s get to that.
Parents of the victims have also spoken out, urging lawmakers to take meaningful steps to prevent future tragedies. In the wake of the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, Pope Leo XIV (then Cardinal Robert Prevost) reposted statements calling for stronger, sensible gun control laws.
Bishops have long supported common-sense measures to reduce gun violence, including universal background checks, a ban on assault weapons, mental health support and funding for school safety.
These are not partisan demands. They are moral imperatives.
They are not moral imperatives.
The moral imperative here is to focus on the murderous hearts, not the weapons that are used far more often for lawful purposes than criminal actions.
The moral imperative is for priests to focus on their flocks, to teach them morality, and guide them toward not killing children with any weapon, be it a firearm or something else.
The moral imperative is to recognize that the clergy of any faith has no place demanding that we infringe on our right to keep and bear arms simply because they believe it’s somehow morally right under their own definition of morality.
No one has that authority. No one has the authority, moral or otherwise, to strip a right given to us by God, simply because they don’t like the fact that some people do bad things with it.
What would be next? My Freewill Baptist grandfather thought drinking was a sin. Should we reinstate Prohibition because the clergy of that faith feel it’s a moral imperative to do so?
That’s not how our system works. Freedom of religion may not mean what many want it to mean, but it does mean that members of the clergy can’t dictate what laws we should and shouldn’t pass because of their own religious beliefs. Especially as those beliefs aren’t universal among even Christianity, much less the other religions we find in this great nation.
So, no, I’m afraid the good father can pound sand. His very partisan demand needs to fall on deaf ears.
Editor’s Note: President Trump and Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense.
Help us continue to report on their efforts and legislative successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
