Fr. John Zuhlsdorf Begs Priests To Take Firearms Training In Remembrance Of Priest Murdered By His Own Gun! WHAT?

Fr. On Why He Packs Heat While Saying Mass:

About carrying a handgun while saying Mass… I am neutral on that point. It is wrong for a priest or bishop to say Mass with his wallet in his back pocket? Money can be misused, after all. Can he have his smart phone in his pocket? A pocket knife on his key ring? You can do bad things with smart phones or knives or keys. Fr. Z

Apparently Fr. Z is not going to give up his twisted love for guns anytime soon.

Now he begs priests to take up firearms training in order to be able to administer the Sacraments.

Apparently carrying a handgun is the only way to properly say mass - hear confessions - baptize etc.

Moreover, consider well your living conditions and security.  If you haven’t done so yet, begin to develop a situational awareness. Seek advice from professionals.  This is not just a matter of personal concern. It is also a concern for those who depend on you for the sacraments. A priest in the ground or in the hospital is one priest fewer to see to the spiritual needs of people in these darkening times.  You, Fathers, are a precious resource, only slowly “renewable”.  If you are not concerned for the sake of your own person, be concerned for the sake of those who need you.  ___  I might now add to seek, along with advice, perhaps also training. Fr. Z

Fr. Z is a sick man.

Fr. Z On How To Kill A Man:

Perhaps the firearms training many of us have undertaken is helpful as an analogy. First, you seek to avoid conflicts or deescalate them. When you can’t avoid violence you try to discern the level actually needed. Of course, this sometimes must happens in seconds. In the case that you are forced to act in defense of your life or the lives of others, you use deadly force to stop the threat. That means you shoot effectively to stop the threat. You don’t try to shoot the gun out of the enemy’s hand (this isn’t TV). You don’t shoot to hit the leg (because, again, this isn’t TV). You shoot center mass, to do maximum damage so the threat will stop, because … that’s the point you are at. You don’t shoot “to kill”. Shoot (or whatever) so that the clear, present danger to life and limb is no longer a threat.  If a punch in the face or a kick in the ‘nads is enough, and the threat stops, then stop there. Stop punching and kicking.  That’s an analogy from a few horrifying seconds of immediately conflict or threat. In prolonged situations, we have time to analyze our motives and consciences. Fr. Z

Now for the Wisdom of St Thomas:

Article 4. Whether it is lawful for clerics to kill evil-doers?

Objection 1. It would seem lawful for clerics to kill evil-doers. For clerics especially should fulfil the precept of the Apostle (1 Corinthians 4:16): "Be ye followers of me as I also am of Christ," whereby we are called upon to imitate God and His saints. Now the very God whom we worship puts evildoers to death, according to Psalm 135:10, "Who smote Egypt with their firstborn." Again Moses made the Levites slay twenty-three thousand men on account of the worship of the calf (Exodus 32), the priest Phinees slew the Israelite who went in to the woman of Madian (Numbers 25), Samuel killed Agag king of Amalec (1 Samuel 15), Elias slew the priests of Baal (1 Kings 18), Mathathias killed the man who went up to the altar to sacrifice (1 Maccabees 2); and, in the New Testament, Peter killed Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5). Therefore it seems that even clerics may kill evil-doers.

Objection 2. Further, spiritual power is greater than the secular and is more united to God. Now the secular power as "God's minister" lawfully puts evil-doers to death, according to Romans 13:4. Much more therefore may clerics, who are God's ministers and have spiritual power, put evil-doers to death.

Objection 3. Further, whosoever lawfully accepts an office, may lawfully exercise the functions of that office. Now it belongs to the princely office to slay evildoers, as stated above (Article 3). Therefore those clerics who are earthly princes may lawfully slay malefactors.

On the contrary, It is written (1 Timothy 3:2-3): "It behooveth . . . a bishop to be without crime [Vulgate: 'blameless.' 'Without crime' is the reading in Titus 1:7] . . . not given to wine, no striker."

I answer that, It is unlawful for clerics to kill, for two reasons. First, because they are chosen for the ministry of the altar, whereon is represented the Passion of Christ slain "Who, when He was struck did not strike [Vulgate: 'When He suffered, He threatened not']" (1 Peter 2:23). Therefore it becomes not clerics to strike or kill: for ministers should imitate their master, according to Sirach 10:2, "As the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers." The other reason is because clerics are entrusted with the ministry of the New Law, wherein no punishment of death or of bodily maiming is appointed: wherefore they should abstain from such things in order that they may be fitting ministers of the New Testament.

Reply to Objection 1. God works in all things without exception whatever is right, yet in each one according to its mode. Wherefore everyone should imitate God in that which is specially becoming to him. Hence, though God slays evildoers even corporally, it does not follow that all should imitate Him in this. As regards Peter, he did not put Ananias and Saphira to death by his own authority or with his own hand, but published their death sentence pronounced by God. The Priests or Levites of the Old Testament were the ministers of the Old Law, which appointed corporal penalties, so that it was fitting for them to slay with their own hands.

Reply to Objection 2. The ministry of clerics is concerned with better things than corporal slayings, namely with things pertaining to spiritual welfare, and so it is not fitting for them to meddle with minor matters.

Reply to Objection 3. Ecclesiastical prelates accept the office of earthly princes, not that they may inflict capital punishment themselves, but that this may be carried into effect by others in virtue of their authority.