Thursday, June 12, 2014


Updated below with new local videos news story and a news item from Vatican Radio:

Father Kenneth Walker, FSSP, Associate Pastor, was murdered. Requiescat in pace. Please, pray also for the consolation of his family: his parents, brothers and sisters. Father Walker was 29.

Father Joseph Terra, FSSP, Pastor, was severely wounded by the criminals, and is (at least to our knowledge as of this moment) hospitalized in critical, but stable, condition. Please, pray for his health and his complete recovery, through the mercy of God Almighty.

Church \ Church in the Americas

Priest killed in Phoenix

(Vatican Radio) A young priest was killed in the city of Phoenix in the United States late Wednesday night, the apparent victim of an attempted burglary.
Father Kenneth Walker, 29, of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter, died after being taken to a local hospital.

Another priest, Father Joseph Terra, FSSP, was also injured in the attack, which took place in the rectory of the Mater Misericordiae Mission in downtown Phoenix.

“We are stunned and deeply saddened to learn of the tragic assault perpetrated last night against Fr. Joseph Terra and Fr. Kenneth Walker,” the Diocese of Phoenix said in a statement.
Both priests are members of the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. A communiqué issued by the FSSP General House, the society of apostolic life remembered Father Walker as “dearly loved by the people he served and his confreres in the Fraternity.” Father Walker had recently celebrated the second anniversary of his ordination.

Both the Diocese and the Fraternity asked for prayers for the victims, for their community, for their families and for their parish.
Police in Phoenix are investigating the crime, but have not identified any suspects.

Statement of the Diocese of Phoenix
We are stunned and deeply saddened to learn of the tragic assault perpetrated last night against Fr. Joseph Terra and Fr. Kenneth Walker, two religious order priests who belong to the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter.

Fr. Walker's life was taken. Fr. Terra remains in critical condition but stable.
The reported attack occurred at Mater Misericordiae Mission in Phoenix.
The police are still gathering information and trying to sort through the details of this senseless act of violence. We ask that people offer prayers for both priests, the religious community, their families and the parish.

Eternal rest grant unto him, O Lord, and let perpetual light shine upon him. May he rest in peace. Amen.

Communiqué of the Fraternity of Saint Peter General House
The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter mourns the death of Rev. Kenneth Walker, FSSP, who was murdered on June 11, 2014 at the Rectory of Mater Misericordiae Parish in Phoenix, Arizona, where he served as assistant pastor. He was dearly loved by the faithful he served and his confreres in the Fraternity.

Fr. Joseph Terra, FSSP, was also injured in the assault; he is hospitalized and in critical but stable condition.  We ask for your prayers for the health of Fr. Terra.

Police are still looking into what happened last night.

We ask for your prayers for the repose of the soul of Fr. Walker and that God might grant great consolation to his family and his parishioners in this terrible tragedy.
O God, Who didst give to thy servant, Kenneth, by his sacerdotal office, a share in the priesthood of the Apostles, grant, we implore, that he may also be one of their company forever in heaven. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.
Requiem Aeternam dona ei, Domine,
Et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Requiescat in pace.


Anonymous said...

The NRA will probably suggest that all priests should get "carry" permits. Problem solved.

rcg said...

Our FSSP parish is in a very, very bad part of town. Huge numbers of drug houses, sales, human trafficking, protestation, etc. many of our congregation live locally, and many drive an hour or more for Mass. Many daily. The ladies will meet evenings for Altar Society, make meals for StVdP, die wood chips for the Pentecost, etc. everyone has a concealed carry permit.

Gene said...

The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. When seconds count, the cops are just minutes away.

John said...

Satan especially hates these priests.

Gene said...

Well, RCG, the nice thing about a Priest carrying a pistol is that he can go ahead and perform Last Rites, as well. Sort of a one-stop shop for the lucky thug.

Desiree said...

I saw this story this morning. I'm 28, so it really struck he's a priest. I'm so sorry and am praying for the priest's soul, and for his family, friends, and parish to find peace.
Is it ok for a priest who's in a bad part of town to carry? I think it makes sense, but is that what Jesus wants?

Gene said...

We do not always know what Jesus wants. We do what we have to do and cast ourselves upon the mercy of the Divine judgement. I do not believe that Jesus prefers that we sacrifice the lives of people like Priests and the innocent to worthless scumbag thugs.
There is a righteous use of weapons…I am all in favor of it.

rcg said...

Desiree, our priest is now living alone. The other priest was reassigned yesterday and the new priest is not due until July. I don't know, and won't ask, about the priest carry. But I am conducting a security evaluation this evening. I have thought about it before and this news made me call and schedule it today. I would have been stupid if it had been our priest killed. Can't let that slip again. We may not need a priest to carry if we have rotating sinners in the parking lot after dark.

Anonymous said...

Gosh Gene...your brilliance shines through again. That thing that you wrote about a bad guy with a gun and a good guy with a gun is awesome. Maybe the NRA could use it as a slogan. You should send it to them.

Anonymous said...

Desiree, I reckon Jesus could have had an AK 47. But He didn't.

Gene said...

Jesus didn't need an AK 47. Besides, he probably would have chosen an M14/M1A, a far better weapon than either an AK or an M-16. The AK is only full auto and you might could hit something with it from ten feet away. M-16s are a pain in the butt, need constant attention and cleaning, and can be persnickety.

Anonymous, actually I think those are NRA statements or t-shirts or something. Not original with me. The best one is still the now cliched, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns." The simple truth of that should just scream at everyone…and wake them up.

John Nolan said...

'The only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.' But most of the killing sprees we hear about end up with the killer shooting himself. So one must deduce that a) the good guys don't have guns; b) they have but they are bloody lousy shots; c) many more incidents are nipped in the bud because the malefactor is gunned down by one of the good guys before the cops get there; d) an individual who is not directly threatened might hesitate before killing someone because he judges 'within seconds' that the said individual poses a threat to the community.

If it is (c) I would like to see some evidence, and if (d) I can understand why someone who is not a peace officer (who has a sworn duty to defend the community and not just himself) might be reluctant to face a charge of murder or manslaughter if his split-second decision is wrong. Legitimate self-defence is another matter.

Desiree said...

Hmmm. Jesus and an AK 47. Being that He is God, I suppose he could've been about 1900 years ahead of the people around Him...

I know some people see Jesus as a peaceful hippie, while others (myself included) see Him as the table thrower. I also know God doesn't want His people to be door mats. Protestant preachers carry, but that's a whole diff species of Mason-American.

Just trying to figure out what priests can do to keep themselves and others safe while still staying Catholic classy. I prefer a priest to carry over many of the cops out there!

George said...

One of my uncles on my mother's side was a Redemptorist missionary sent from the U.S. down to one of the interior regions of Brazil. This was
in the 1950's and 60's. He is deceased now. I had to check with a family member to confirm what I seem to remember.
He did carry a sidearm-a .45. I'm sure he had the permission of his Redemptorist superior. This is unusual I know because
I've never met any other priest that carried a firearm.

Here is something the Redemptorists of the Baltimore province web site about the comditions they operated under:

"Father Giles Gardiner pointed to a mountain that looked to be four miles away and told us about a mother who gave birth to twins in her village home. One lived, but the other was still-born and the mother’s life was in danger. He told us that the Redemptorists had the only Jeep in town, so he drove up to the home and brought the mother to the hospital. Her life was saved.

As I listened to this story that happened maybe more than 50 years ago, I could still hear the sadness in his voice for the lost child, but a joy that the mother had been saved. He pointed into the distance and told us that he and others would go out on horses for a month at a time to visit the people and bring them the sacraments. The priests would bathe in the rivers and wash their clothes and stay at the homes of anyone who would offer hospitality."

rcg said...

This really is a tragedy. I understand Fr Terra is a "nice man". Pray for his recovery.

Anonymous said...

Holy cow Gene...That quote from Wayne LaPierre that you posted was like you putting a "Kick Me" sign on your behind. It's really amazing that you didn't even recognize it when I kicked you...That I'm having to explain it to you now.

BTW...we actually do know what Jesus wants....they are called the ten commandments.

BTW2...your show off discussion about which is a better gun is a bit juvenile.

Gene said...

Anonymous, The Church accepts the concept of the just war and also the idea of self-defense. It is in the CCC…look it up.
Actually, my comments on the different rifles is good info. You might keep it in mind when you decide we live in a dangerous world. Oh, and an MIA/M-14 is heavy…you may prefer something lighter.

Desiree said...

Where is the line of not being defenseless and being a martyr? To die for Christ makes one a sain; to die over worldly assets is ridiculous. From what I understand, there aren't a lot of details as to why the priests were shot. If they're in the ghetto I'm thinking it's a senseless shooting over items. I have a gun and will use it to protect my family and self for times like that. I would like a priest to be able to do the same. A young FSSP priest has so much to offer. His time was cut way too short. I pray the other priest recovers, and is able to tell the story.

Marc said...

Desiree, consider this: if the criminal had been killed in the midst of this crime, there is a high likelihood of eternal damnation for the criminal. If, on the other hand, the criminal is allowed more time on this earth, he may well repent and be saved.

If the priest had been armed, he might well have lived, but in so doing, he might have consigned his assailant to eternal damnation. Priests lay down their lives for the flock. This is martyrdom in that sense.

Bernard Fischer said...

Father Terra was the pastor of the FSSP parish in Dallas before he moved to Phoenix. He was the priest when I started attending the TLM out of curiosity when Summorum Pontificum came out. I was very sad when he moved away, and was shocked when I heard he was shot this morning. He's a wonderful priest with wonderful sermons and, from what I can tell, a warm personality.

I pray he has a full and speedy recovery.

rcg said...

@john Nolan: there are instances of third parties intervening on behalf of a victim. The civilian training classes I have attended, and those that my brother leads, emphasise the need to be ready to shoot but hold fire until the need to fire is clearly established as the only alternative to the threat. It certainly is subjective, but there are many examples of this occurring that make local news, but rarely national or international news. You might google the phrase "held at gun point until police arrived".

Gene said...

Marc, we think very differently. I think the thugs should be killed in the midst of their crimes and go to Hell. Nine times out of ten, a felon allowed more time on the earth will continue a life of crime. You know the recidivism rates, I'm sure.
Perhaps, if we were not over run with violent criminals due to non-enforcement of laws and sissy parole boards, we might consider things differently. As it is, civilization is struggling for survival. Rough dealings for rough times.

Desiree said...

I can see your point, but what about all the Catholics the priest helps...and people he converts?

Our free will has consequences. If someone is using theirs to attempt to harm someone and they end up dying from someone's right to self defend, then isn't that just?

I don't know exactly what's right in this situation. It is just sad and mind boggling that this even happened.

RCG has a point about holding a person at gun point until cops arrive. I hadn't thought of that.

Anonymous 2 said...

First of all, let’s get the facts about what happened and why.

Second of all, God help America to overcome its collective insanity about guns! And to those who deny the existence of such collective insanity, I say: “QED.”

Anonymous said...

Praying for the soul of Fr. Walker and the recovery of Fr. Terra. Also praying for the soul of the murderer.


You are correct, many if not most of the mass murderers end up killing themselves when opposed by law enforcement or citizens.

Recently at Pacific University, a Christian University, a gunman was stopped by the students before police arrived. They maced him and then "dogpiled" him until the cops arrived. Cops arrived after the death of a student.

In Nevada, a husband/wife team, killed two police men. Entered a Walmart and was confronted by an armed citizen. The citizen only saw the man and did not suspect the woman. She came up behind him and shot him. He delayed them long enough for police to arrive. They ended up killing each other with faced with opposition.

Pearl River Mississippi. Student ended another gunfree zone. Was stopped by a teacher who got his gun from his truck and confronted him. Saved many lives.

It is not the guns, but the morality of people causing this. Plus the silly gun free zones which just create target rich environments for murderers.

I grew up in Alabama and attended High School in the late 70's and early 80's. Almost every truck had a gun rack and a shotgun or rifle in it. If your parents dropped you off and you planned to go hunting with your friends afterward, just put the gun in the vice principals office and the shells in your wall locker. Every boy carried a pocket knife since age 6-7. Usually given a gun around 10-11. Until then you used dad or granddad's gun.

No one was stabbed, cut or shot. Fist fights, broken noses yep.

My father saved the lives of a woman and her two kids by pointing a shotgun at the man trying to kill them. They ran into our house. Mom and I, age 10, locked the door. He broke the door down, but my father had gotten his shotgun and when he came through the door..his attitude changed. Dad turned him over to the police.

I was newly ordained, with my wife and baby. A man attacked a woman in the parking lot of a Toys r us. I went to her defense, I was in my clericals. He had a friend I did not see. They were armed, I disarmed one, former Marine, but if another man had not come up with his pistol drawn, my wife would be a widow and my other 4 kids would not be here.

So it is not the guns, but the mindset and morality behind the gun. And as long as the Church refuses to preach about sin and continues everyone is ok and God loves you, we will continue to sink deeper.

OH and up in Pittsburgh or Philly, a kid stabbed wounding or killing up into the double digits before he was stopped. No gun, just a knife.

I believe if you read the American Rifleman, a monthly mag, it contains a column listing some of the acts of armed citizens stopping crime in the States. Can not list them all.

Just some personal experiences and evidence for you to think about.


Joseph Johnson said...

May Father Walker rest in peace and may he intercede for the greater availability of the Mass he regularly celebrated--the Extraordinary Form . . .

Marc said...

In my post above, I was attempting to convey the idea of saints who are "passion-bearers."

Anonymous said...

Father Walker died a martyr for The Holy Roman Catholic Church, please pray for this young and Holy priest and his family in Kansas, and pray for Father Terra's recovery and the F.S.S.P., for Satan truly hates these Holy priests of the Traditional Rite.

Flavius Hesychius said...

Does the Church have a concept similar to the Orthodox concept of Passion-bearer?

I remember from my Orthodox days learning about them, but I can't recall ever reading about a Catholic equivalent.

Gene said...

If we ban guns because they kill people, cars should be banned, as well. Hysterics like Anon 2 don't have a clue and, as bright and knowledgeable as John Nolan is and as much as I admire him, Brits and Europeans just do not understand America or the right to bear arms.

Marc said...

Desiree, it is certainly a conundrum. If this priest is now in heaven interceding directly, while also serving as a model for virtuous life on earth, he could be said to be helping in an even greater way. One could have said that the martyrs should have pinched that incense to the false gods so they could gain a little more time for their earthly ministry...

Gene, I am not claiming that I'm right, just proposing an alternate viewpoint. I am, of course, aware of recidivism rates. I am also aware of many felons who, given the time, have come to repent and are now solidly Chrisitan. So, it is very possible. Recidivism and repentance in prison aren't opposed. Criminals need to be arrested, and many need long prison terms to come to repentance.

Flavius, I don't think the Roman Church uses the title "passion bearer" for saints, but surely it recognizes such people as saints without using the title. I was just using the analogy to illustrate the idea.

Pater Ignotus said...

In allowing for legitimate defense, the Church requires that that defense be proportionate.

For example, a state is not morally justified in using a nuclear weapon to repel an attack by a lightly armed squad of soldiers.

Stand Your Ground laws do not embody that proportionality which is required for legitimate defense. A person is legally, though not morally, justified in using deadly force to prevent a felonious attack, even if that attack is not intended to cause the death of the victim.

Since The Fall, human culture has been trapped in a spiraling cycle of violence. This is embodied in LaPierre's infamous and chilling assertion that "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Those words are a prescription for greater violence, not a reduction of violence.

But there is a release from this memetic cycle - the Gospel. In his book "Violence Unveiled," Gil Bailie writes, "The New Testament cannot be humanity's revelatory text par excellence unless it can show us how to keep from turning our moral outrages into newfangled versions of the thing that outraged us." (p 208)

Bailie goes on to say that the Gospel has deconstructed the scapegoating myths that have been and continue to be the basis for individual and group violence. Our continued belief that continued violence is laudable or restorative is nothing short of idolatry.

Of idolatry, Bailie writes, Christianity "...carries to its conclusion the biblical aversion for idolatry, and because idolatry's core illusion - humanity's oldest and most tenacious illusion - is the one that makes victimizers (doers of violence) proud of what they've done." (p 26)

Gene said...

A potential victim does not know whether a felonious attack is intended to kill or not. That is silly. So, if someone is beating on my car and trying to snatch open the door, or if they are in the process of breaking into my house, or if they are holding a weapon and approaching me aggressively they are going to get shot. Maybe some lucky Priest like Ignotus will be nearby to administer last rites.

Gene said...

Greater violence is a response to greater violence. Our culture is violent and dangerous and quoting Scripture or academics about it is just plain stupid and naive. I'd rather see the good people using the greater violence against the bad ones than vice versa.
Violence is an unavoidable and necessary part of life in a fallen world. You need to get good at it just in case...

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - You are quite right in saying that there is doubt concerning the motives of an attacker. In our understanding of justice, however, the accused is innocent until proven guilty, and beyond the shadow of a doubt.

In a Stand Your Ground situation, the law seems to reject that concept of justice, allowing the victim to presume guilt of a homicidal nature. Further it allows the victim to determine the attacker's intentions in the heat of the moment when, as we all know, judgment is not optimal.

When a "Christian" says that quoting Scripture is stupid and naïve, that Christian has joined the defeatism of the LaPierre crowd and is advocating for greater violence. This is contrary to the Gospel, to the Church's teaching, and to plain old common sense.

Our culture is not violent and dangerous. Violent and dangerous people are.

Anonymous said...

Gene, have you ever actually shot a "worthless scumbag thug" with any of the many weapons in your arsenal?

If you haven't, it sounds as if you would welcome the opportunity to do so if it came along.

It's also possible that, as we say in Texas, you've got a big cattle.

Gene said...

No, Anonymous, I have only shot worthless scumbag gooks. But, I figure it would be about the same except most thugs do not carry AK's or have artillery backup.

Gene said...

Ignotus, You are incredibly naive. You cannot "presume" innocence or intent when someone attacks you. When you need to shoot, you need to shoot NOW!!! There is no theology or psychology discussion in a threatening situation.

A culture filled with violent and dangerous is a dangerous culture...

Gene said...

Anonymous, no one should welcome the opportunity to use a weapon, and no one should go looking for a confrontation. However, people who accuse others of such motives are often projecting...

Gene said...

Ignotus, There you go twisting words again and presuming meanings. I did not say that quoting Scripture was meaningless and naive…I said it was meaningless and naive when someone is trying to kill you. There is a difference. However, I am sure I could quote from memory while firing.

Anonymous 2 said...


Who is proposing the banning of guns? Please stop being hysterical.

I am glad you brought up the car analogy. It is a good one. What sane people want regarding guns in America is the type of prudent regulation that applies to the use of automobiles to apply to the use of guns. For example, before you can drive an automobile, you have to pass a test proving your competence and responsibility. And you might forfeit the privilege to drive due to irresponsible misconduct. In addition, you can’t drive just any vehicle you want. When was the last time you saw a civilian driving a tank on the roads?

To use your words: get it?

John Nolan said...

Gene, I am definitely on the side of the NRA in the debate, and although I have yet to visit the USA, I don't believe it is a particularly violent society compared with Europe. The murder rate involving firearms is indeed proportionately higher, but legitimately held firearms play little part in this.

The right to bear arms is enshrined in English common law, although parliamentary statute has restricted this to an extent which appears to me to be excessive. Too often it was a knee-jerk reaction to a one-off incident, and the US is right to resist this.

Provided that there are reasonable checks, and that there are restrictions on the amount of ammunition an individual might hold unsecured in his home, I am all for the right of a free citizen to bear arms and use them in the defence of himself, his family and (to a certain extent) his property. To shoot dead someone who was attempting to steal one's car would be disproportionate, if understandable. That's why we have laws. We are not, however, entitled to make them up on the spot. The death penalty for theft was abolished nearly two centuries ago, and while you might think this was a namby-pamby liberal measure, it happens to be the law. The rule of law, not democracy (simply a voting system which reflects the ignorant prejudice of the majority) is the bedrock of civilized society.

Gene said...

John Nolan, I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the clarification. I have often thought that firearms lessons for new gun owners would be a good idea. Problem is, once you legislate that, it will quickly become oppressive in the hands of liberal morons.
I agree, you cannot shoot dead someone who is trying to steal your car unless you happen to be in it at the time. Everyone I have taught to shoot, I have emphasized that you must feel that your life or the life of loved ones or innocents is in immediate danger. That also means you cannot shoot someone who is running away when you present your firearm. There is a lot of over-reaction on the part of the Left in this country. You are correct…very few incidents involve legitimate gun owners.

Anon 2, the banning of guns is the ultimate goal of the Left and the kokojin…er, person in the White House.

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - This is what you said, "Greater violence is a response to greater violence. Our culture is violent and dangerous and quoting Scripture or academics about it is just plain stupid and naive. I'd rather see the good people using the greater violence against the bad ones than vice versa."

You made no mention of quoting Scripture or academics "when someone is trying to kill you" and neither did I. YOU inserted that idea - it wasn't mine.

The "I Didn't Have Time To Reach a Good Judgment" is precisely why Stand Your Ground laws are so destructive to society. If you don't have time to think, you have no business pulling the trigger. Not only that, but by allowing a person to shoot to kill when what might be lost is twenty-five bucks is grotesquely out of proportion.

Anonymous 2 said...


I hate to break it to you but you cannot, in this country, be “on the side of the NRA in this debate” and at the same time be in favor of “reasonable checks” and “restrictions on the amount of ammunition an individual might hold in his home” because, as I understand the matter, the NRA opposes these two things. So, the fact that you favor these very reasonable things makes you a “gun control nut.”

What you have to understand is that while the NRA pretends to represent gun owners, and indeed once did so, now it mainly represents gun manufacturers. It is as like cigarette manufacturers championing the rights of smokers on the issue of cigarette regulation. What do you think the cigarette manufacturers cared more about: the rights and health of individuals, or corporate profits? As always, and indeed as a result of the "modernism” and “post-Christianity” frequently lamented on this Blog, you have to “follow the money” to discover the sad truth. I just wish people would see this and be consistent in their opinions.

Thus, there are many aspects to the “collective insanity” from which we now suffer. The greed for profits at the expense of important other values and the inability to reason are two important aspect of this collective insanity. And if you need further proof of the inability to reason, I refer you to Gene’s apparent inability to distinguish between a ban on guns and reasonable regulation of guns.

Gene said...

Ignotus, you are hopelessly naive and ignorant about violence and self-defense. Maybe that is how you prefer it. It isn't a matter of time to reach a good judgement, it is a matter of immediate response. Things happen fast. Obviously, you have never been there so you do not know. So, why don't you just quit talking about it?

Anonymous 2 said...


“The banning of guns is the ultimate goal of the Left.” Even if that were true, which is doubtful, there is the small matter of the Constitution.

The use of the term “kokojin” gives you away. As Father McDonald dees not speak Japanese, he probably did not catch that you were saying: “The banning of guns is the ultimate goal of the Left and the black man . . . er, person in the White House.”

Anon friend said...

Good discussion! A topic I have cared about for many, many years. I am conservative politically, and a traditionally-minded Catholic. BUT...
Gene, I think A2 and Pater have made some excellent points here, points that matter a lot. The gun-brandishing I have watched over the years in our country leaves me speechless at times. Should those who carry guns (the only purpose of which is to maim or kill) not at least be subject to a temporary learner's permit with an "adult", testing and licensure procedure similar to that for driving an auto (which is NOT used to maim and kill hopefully)?
And, should we not consider the factors that contribute to the issue of escalating violence, most especially from the Catholic perspective? We view the world differently from Protestants and most certainly from pagans. The world is the most beautifully articulated act of God and He is totally in love with His creation. He allows free will, of course, and that can certainly lead into trouble, disgrace and devastation in personal lives. But our human nature is not "fallen" in the sense of what He created--God is all good and can only create good. Thus the world is not "fallen", but good. I am no theologian, but I KNOW that when people kill people, God weeps, just as He did when His only begotten Son was killed; no matter who they are, God created them (including "gooks").
OK, thanks for letting me vent that...

Gene said...

No, Anon 2, you are wrong again. You probably ran to Wiki again, which misrepresents the term as "kokujin" and says it means black man. The actual Japanese term is koko jin. Not koku with a u. That doesn't even mean black in Japanese You may want to look up "koko."

Gene said...

So, then, Anon Friend, the world is not fallen? That is surely an interesting bit of theology. You are saying there was no Fall, right, and everything is just hunky dory? So, all that stuff about a new creation and the form of this world passing away in Paul is wrong, I guess. Gee, damn, fancy that. Wow…

I have not seen all this "gun brandishing you are talking about? Where have I missed it?

Gene said...

Anon 2, You probably won't find your definition on the net. It is slang…you'll just have to wonder…LOL!

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - No, I will not just quit talking about violence. And what I know is that your solution - shoot first, ask questions later - dooms us all to greater violence and suffering.

Not having time to reach a good judgment usually means you don't.

So, if making poor judgments in the heat of the moment is your idea of the basis for a civil society, I'd have to say you're wrong.

Anon friend - Yes, what sets us apart from many other Western and/or industrialized nations is our tendency to rely on violence to settle disputes. Maybe it's a "pioneer" thing with us, maybe it's a function of our relative youth and immaturity as a country. On that level, there's lots of room for speculation.

Rene Girard has an extraordinary book dedicated to the causes and solutions for violence. "I See Satan Fall Like Lightening" is the title.

He writes about the seductiveness of violence and the mimetic power it has over us - due, of course, to our fallen nature. But he also writes very movingly of the power of the Cross to break the mimetic cycle of violence.

Of the story of the woman caught in adultery who is about to be stoned, Girard writes, "Saving the adulterous woman from being stoned, as Jesus does, means that he prevents the violent contagion (mimesis) from getting started. Another contagion in the reverse direction is set off, however, a contagion of nonviolence. From the moment the first individual gives up stoning the adulterous woman, he becomes a model who is imitated more and more until finally all the group, guided by Jesus, abandons its plan to stone the woman."

What is notable in the encounter is that Jesus days, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.” The ONE among you is key. It is easy for the CROWD to give into the temptation to violence; it is much harder for an individual to do so on his/her own.

The contagion is stopped dead in its tracks.

Anon friend said...

Gene, just as I don't allow Pater to suck me into his poorly-formed arguments/agendas, I likewise will not with you. I have agreed with you on many issues on this blog, but not the argument you present in this thread. I do not believe that personal arsenals are an answer to many situations at best, and certainly can provide munitions to troubled family members or children at worst. Perhaps I am wrong.

Anon friend said...

Beyond that last poorly-formed post of mine, I just need to be clear: personal arsenals are not the answer to our problems. Violence begets violence. I have never personally witnessed that guns solve anything; I have, however, personally witnessed the resulting chaos that guns can and do produce.

Anonymous 2 said...


Here are some sources to support my understanding of the word you wrote “kokojin” as “black man.”:

An online Japanese-English dictionary translates “kukujin” as “black person”.

This is not Wikipedia.

But, of course, you wrote it with an o not a u and you suggested it is slang. So, here are several entries for the slang word “kokojin”. Again, as you can see, they mean “black person”:

If you intended something different, the burden is now on you to explain what you intended, and to overcome the evidence provided by these references as well as the reasonable inferences drawn from the context provided by all your previous comments about “Obammy,” etc.

Anonymous said...

Gene...little by little, layer by layer, your pretend macho, pretend holier than thou, pretend smarter than thou, is being peeled away to reveal the real, insecure, scared, probably-picked-on-as-a-kid-but-look-at-me-now-I'm-an-educated-big-shot-killer-with-a-gun guy...the real Gene, the pitiful racist Gene. Say your prayers. God will help you.

Gene said...

Ignotus, the story of the woman taken in adultery is about sin…about pointing out our common sinfulness. It is not a treatise on non-violence.

rcg said...

The word hero is thrown about carelessly these days. I hope I have a priest who, though badly injured will have the discipline to give me last rights and hear my confession. Amazing.

Anonymous said...

Someone has published a video of an excellent sermon on mercy and justice given by Fr Kenneth Walker of the Fraternity of St Peter who was murdered on Wednesday. He explains in his sermon that God will not prevent something from happening if we do it of our own choosing, but that God gives time for us to repent. An excellent sermon from such a young priest - which we rarely hear these days. I do not like the idea of priests carrying weapons, but I think security cameras should be installed in every parish rectory - that at least would be some deterrent. Deo gratias for a life well lived and may he rest in peace.

Here is the link to his sermon:


Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - Like most Scriptural stories, the Woman Caught in Adultery has many layers of meaning. So, while you are right in saying that the story is about sin, you are wrong in saying it is about the sin of the adulterous woman only.

By your reasoning, the Miraculous Feeding of the Five Thousand would have to be only about lunch, and the healing of Naaman was only about saving the poor general another fruitless trip to the dermatologist.

The Miraculous Feeding, of course, is also about the Eucharist, and the healing of Naaman is also about teaching us the danger of idolizing money and power.

But I digress . . .

If the scene were only about the sin of the adulterous woman, Jesus would not have engaged the entire crowd. That he did indicates, plainly, that there is more to the story.

His interaction is, as the text plainly shows, with the woman AND with those in the crowd who want to continue the evil practice of scapegoating (victim substituting) - the mimetic transfer of fury onto the innocent victim. ("Innocent" here does not refer to the woman's adulterous behavior. It refers to the attempt being made to make her bear the guilt of the community's sins.)

Victim substitution - scapegoating - is, despite the Triumph of the Cross, very much still with us precisely because we choose to participate in this sinful behavior rather than to live in the freedom won for us by THE "victim substitution" of all time - the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

As for me and my household, His Sacrifice is what sets me free from the contagion of violence.

George said...

The Woman Caught in Adultery:

Those who wanted to stone the women were hypocrites. They were also trying to test Jesus. They wanted to trap Him. The Mosaic law according to Leviticus was clear that one caught in adultery was to be stoned. Of course they were in the presence of God from wence the law came.He being the Just Judge above all other earthly judges. He also could read the hearts and minds of men since nothing was hidden from Him. He as God also had the power to absolve a sinner.As with the devil when he spent 40 days in the desert, Jesus did not engage these accusers in any argument.
He didn't need to get into a legalistic argument over the interpretation of the Mosaic law. "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her".Jesus bent down and starts writing with his finger on the ground. Jesus, being God, knew the sins of these men as they, knowing themselves, did also. None could throw a stone without committing another sin.To the adulterer Jesus, as God who can absolve sin, says:"neither do I condemn you". Respecting the Mosaic Law he says to her "go and sin no more".

Gene said...

Ignotus, You won't even answer the question whether you believe in the bodily resurrection or the Real Presence…LOL!

Pater Ignotus said...

"Social justice cannot be attained by violence. Violence kills what it intends to create."
- Pope St. John Paul II

"Violence and arms can never resolve the problems of men."
- Pope St. John Paul II

“As a Christian I want to say at this point: yes, it is true, in the course of history, force has also been used in the name of the Christian faith. We acknowledge it with great shame. But it is utterly clear that this was an abuse of the Christian faith, one that evidently contradicts its true nature." - Pope Benedict XVI

"“One who has hope lives differently.” - Pope Benedict XVI

Gene said...

Ignotus, I agree with everything you quote…but, I will still shoot if I am attacked.
Now, "social" justice may not be attained by violence, but just good ol' day to day justice certainly can be.
Violence is sometimes a necessary method of putting the problems of men on hold…WW II for instance. It may not solve the problems of men, but nothing else will, either, until Christ's return. The problems of men are insoluble by human means. I do believe the Church was justified in taking up arms against those who would destroy her. The Church seemed to believe so at the time, as well. Modern Popes have 20/20 hindsight.

George said...

Justifiable violence and Just Wars are unfortunately sometimes necessary. For a Christian, violence should be a last resort. A person has a right to be prudent and prepare for its use if he or she so chooses.Can anyone deny someone the right to protect themselves or their family? Although war is the least preferable option, a nation with a sound foreign policy has the right to have it as a prudent and available option.

Gene said...

Definition: Bayonet: " A means of bursting the bubble of a nation's political conceit that would not yield to the tongue."

Pater Ignotus said...

Pin/Gene - Violence is never necessary. It is always a choice.

Gene said...

Ignotus, you must be standing in the Church because you are talking out of your apse...

Paolo Perspicacitas said...

Following is an excerpt from the Gospel reading at today's Mass:

(Jesus said:) “You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn the other one to him as well."
-- Matthew 5:38-39

Today's reading is quite propitious to the discussion thread here, don't you think?

- Paolo P.

Gene said...

No, because you are misreading and mis-interpreting the saying.

George said...

It sometimes becomes necessary for say, Law enforcement or even a private citizen, to use violent means to stop the violent actions of another. I suppose you could characterize that as a choice
but if there are no other options as is sometimes the case, what choice exists? When you read accounts of some deranged individual(s) shooting at other human beings,what choice would a police officer have in that situation?

Pater Ignotus said...

Today's Collect from the mass "For Our Oppressors":

O God, who have laid down by your precept of charity that we should sincerely love those who afflict us, grant that we may follow the commands of the New Law, striving to return good for evil and bearing one another's burdens. Through Our Lord, Jesus Christ,...

Under the NEW LAW, the PRECEPT is to return good for evil.

Those who follow the OLD LAW do not follow God's precept.

Rejecting violence is not a misreading or a misinterpretation of God's precept.

George - What was the choice made by the martyrs of the Church when confronted with mortal violence? Do we remember and venerate them because they fought back, matching blow for blow, or because like lambs led to the slaughter or sheep to the shearer - they opened not their mouths.

Paolo Perspicacitas said...

Gene said, "No, because you are misreading and misinterpreting the saying."

I would be grateful if you could elaborate a bit on your response which, as is, strikes me as quite perplexing. To prevent further misunderstanding, please clarify, most especially the following three points:

1) What have I misread: the comment thread here or the Gospel passage I quoted?

2) How have I misinterpreted the saying? My comment’s intent was merely to present a Gospel passage that might help to advance the discussion (or argument?) thread. Even a quick summation of my error would help to clarify your meaning. ...Frankly, I am very curious to know the gist of my misinterpretation, as you imagine it to be.

3) To what do you refer as the saying? I suppose "An eye for an eye" could be a saying in some respects. I most certainly doubt our Lord coughed up "Turn the other cheek" as a mere apothegm. Furthermore, it is deeply disappointing to think that Presbyterians might have diminished the sensibly absurd yet extraordinarily transcendent wisdom revealed throughout Matthew 5 to something as pithy as a list of sayings...

Well... most certainly I now am digressing deep into blatant misreading—I hope!!—of your dismissive one-liner. To avoid more mis-es, I would be truly grateful if you could kindly clarify. Thanks in advance!

— Paolo P.

Carol H. said...

Thank you, Father, for the Requiem Mass for Fr. Kenneth Walker today. I pray that he quickly be recognized as a red martyr.