IS THIS A BOMBSHELL FOR RELIGIOUS FREEDOM CONCERNING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND OBAMACARE?

A win for religious liberty on the Eve of Independence Day or a hoax? You tell me! (Update, evidently it is true and that there was a follow-up Supreme Court decision on last night July 3rd as I have another story on it which you can read HERE! Again, I ask is this a bombshell of good news for the Catholic Church?

I just read this off of my Yahoo search engine and it is from "The Week" which I think is legitimate. If I am reading this correctly, it seems to me that the Catholic Church in the USA has won the battle of not having to provide any artificial birth control or abortifacients to those who work for our institutions. Am I interpreting this in a wrong way?

Hobby Lobby Redux    8:05am ET, Friday, July 4th, 2014, Independence Day!
 

Didn't like the Hobby Lobby decision? You're going to hate the Supreme Court's follow-up.(My comment: I didn't know there was a follow-up, did you?)

The Supreme Court on Thursday evening (???I thought Monday was the last session of the Supreme Court for the summer! Are they still issuing rulings on Thursday night the eve of Independence Day or is this a news hoax???) unveiled its latest ruling around birth control and religious freedom — and if you disliked the Hobby Lobby decision earlier this week, you're going to hate this one.

The latest ruling allows Wheaton College to skirt ObamaCare's contraceptive provisions as long as the evangelical school informs the government of its religious objections to providing its staff and students with any type of birth control. Previously, the government required a non-profit with religious objections to sign a form handing over responsibility of providing contraceptive coverage to its insurer or health care plan administrator — now, presumably, the government would handle the hand off. (My comment: Doesn't this automatically have implications for the Catholic Church? Why isn't this big news--of course it was just last night, unless this report is a hoax!)

Saying the decision "undermines confidence in this institution," Justice Sotomayor wrote a scathing dissent, accusing the court of backtracking key elements of its Hobby Lobby decision. "Those who are bound by our decisions usually believe they can take us at our word," Sotomayor wrote. "Not so today."

She said the ruling set up unworkable regulations that risked "depriving hundreds of Wheaton's employees and students of their legal entitlement to contraceptive coverage" and allowed "hundreds or thousands of other objectors" a similar way out.

She was joined in her dissent by the court's two other female justices. In fact, the decision broke down completely across gender lines — the court's male justices comprised the majority opinion — suggesting that the court's battle over religious freedom and reproductive rights is only going to get more contentious.
- - Nico Lauricella

I JUST LEARNED THAT THE KAZOO WAS INVENTED IN MACON, GEORGIA CONFIRMING OUR HIGH ARTS CULTURE! A HAPPY KAZOO INDEPENDENCE DAY TO YOU!

Yes, a kazoo 4th of July to you, from Macon, Georgia, birthplace of the kazoo!

BRINGING CLOSER TO THE LAITY OR DUMBING DOWN--THE PSYCHOLOGY OF THE LOSS OF THE SENSE OF THE SACRED

The following are pictures of the altar both prior and after Vatican II with the post-Vatican II variations of a free standing altar in one of the most beautiful cathedrals in Europe, Chartres in France. What does the re-ordering of the main altar of Chartres Cathedral say to us psychologically?

This photo is a pre-Vatican II black and white photo of Chartres Cathedral main altar:

 This photo was one of the first post-Vatican II re-orientations of Chartres with a box like altar placed in front of the original high altar. Psychologically speaking, what does this flimsy altar box tell a person when compared to the altar behind it?

This is a later addition and please note the rounded floor. The altar is a table and see through. Psychological speaking, what does this do to the Catholic eye especially in this period of time when Mass had been celebrated on the magnificent altar behind it. What impression must this have made to reverence and sacred sensibilities? 

This is the most recent re-ordering of the altar in Chartres. It is no where close to the old high altar which remains against the apse behind it, way, way behind it and now completely in the dark! What does this say, psychologically speaking to the Catholic mind, especially those who remembered high liturgies at the magnificent old high altar?

The old high altar today, now just a museum and tourist piece. What does this say to the Catholic mind, psychologically speaking?

The modern altar in the transept. Psychologically speaking, what does this say to the traditional Catholic eye concerning the sacred compared to the original altar above? You can see way back in the distance the original altar's reredos:

Now, within the last week or two, there were Extraordinary Form ordinations at Chartres, but using the box like re-ordered altar, which is way too small for the Extraordinary Form Mass, but the Mass itself had more dignity than most Ordinary Form Masses facing the congregation at this altar:

And the new and the original, now obscured, altar! What comparisons can we make and if we asked someone who wasn't a Catholic to make comments on both altars, what would they say and how would they describe the differences? Again, psychologically speaking what does the modern altar at Chartres compared to the older and now archaic altar at Chartres say to Catholics about awe, wonder, reverence and the sense of the sacred?

But my most important liturgical question that trumps all others in the post is: How in the world do altar boys light those tall candles?????????

I WONDER WHO SPOKE THESE WORDS? CAN YOU GUESS?

 “The lamb’s wool is meant to represent the lost, sick or weak sheep which the shepherd places on his shoulders and carries to the waters of life…the parable of the lost sheep, which the shepherd seeks in the desert, is an image of the mystery of Christ and the Church. The human race—every one of us—is the sheep lost in the desert which no longer knows the way. The son of God will not let this happen; he cannot abandon humanity in so wretched a condition. He leaps to his feet and abandons the glory of heaven in order to go in search of the sheep and pursue it all the way to the Cross. He takes it upon his shoulders and carries our humanity; he carries us all—he is the good shepherd who lays down his life for the sheep. What the Pallium indicates first and foremost is that we are all carried by Christ. But at the same time it invites us to carry one another in Christ.”

AN ENGLISH LITURGIST'S CASE FOR AD ORIENTEM BASED ON THE ICONOGRAPHY OF THE ALTAR

Below the photos Father Alan Griffiths, a liturgist of the Portsmouth Diocese in England gives a good apologetic for Mass ad orientem. The photos below are meant to illustrate his points.

This photo of the reordering of the altar at St. Joseph Church shows the view from the congregation that maintains the original concept of the unified reredos and altar. It is an optical illusion that is disturbed once the priest inserts himself between the new altar and older altar/reredos:

This is a photo from the 1950's which clearly shows the original more unified look of the altar and reredos an power iconography:

The next three photos show the reordered sanctuary, both Ordinary Form Masses, but one ad orientem and the others facing the congregation:

This is the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta as it appear in 1894:

And these photos show its reordering in the late 1990's maintaining the historic original altar/table but detached from the reredos:

The English liturgist, The Rev. Canon Alan Griffiths of the English Diocese of Portsmouth wrote a couple of comments at a recent Praytell post concerning the design of the altar and the position of the priest. Here is part of one of his comments with my comments at the end:

I think that the medieval combination of altar and iconographic reredos was a single piece, possibly developed on the idea of the Mass surrounded by the representational presence of Christ, the BVM and Saints, even relics or shrines, etc. This sort of arrangement was not decorative but iconographic. 

Then in the baroque the emphasis shifted to the Tabernacle, but still in express connection with the altar. In other words, clearly in the medieval reredos and differently in the later focus on the Sacrament you have a sort of locally realised eschatology, represented by a single object, namely, altar and surround.

Simply to separate these elements as so many churches did in the 1970′s does not take the original unity into account. I think that to my eye (and I stress this might just be me) inserting a priest between these two hitherto conjoined elements disturbs the ‘iconography.’

Some reorderings (and, worse, re-reorderings) retain (or replace) elaborate gradines (steps or shelves), thrones, candlesticks and other ‘bondieuserie’(Any devotional ornament or church object, especially one having little artistic value; a religious knick-knack) and then place an altar freestanding in front of all this. My eye goes straight to the elaborations behind and the focus on the altar is lessened.

I want the altar to stand out as the primary visual symbol of Christ in the Church. (Many)...reorderings (of churches) try to keep things looking as much like they used to be as possible, but when Mass begins you immediately see that this is a false vision, when the priest goes behind the altar.

Part of my thinking rests upon the fact that while (I am) very (pleased) with Mass in English, I have never been really comfortable with ‘versus populum’ celebrant’s position. I have been a priest for 40 years and in the last few years my acquaintance with the EF only makes me feel that discomfort all the more. 

My Comments: Father Griffiths captures my sentiments completely. In many renovated (re-ordered) churches after Vatican II a free standing altar of some type, sometimes matching the older altar in style, other times completely of a different style, beautiful or cheap looking, disturbs the original unity and iconography of the original design. Worse yet is when a beautiful, ornate attached altar and reredos is completely removed and only a cheap looking altar replaces it, one senses something has been disturbed and is missing and the free standing altar looks "cheap and rinky-dink" compared to what had been there.

Both at the Church of the Most Holy Trinity in Augusta and St. Joseph in Macon, the reordering of these churches tried to maintain the unity of what had been there even with the altar becoming freestanding.

At Most Holy Trinity, the original altar table was literally detached from the reredos to allow for the priest to insert himself between the altar and reredos to celebrate Mass facing the people. From the congregation's vantage point, it appears that the altar and reredos is still a unity until the priest arrives and inserts himself between the two.

At St. Joseph, the reordering of the sanctuary in 2005 placed a new freestanding altar in front of the older reredoes/altar. The new altar is not as long as the older attached altar and strives to match the style of the older altar except by the use of a brownish/red Polish marble as accents. This helps the freestanding altar to stand out more. From the congregation's viewpoint, it appears that the new freestanding altar and older altar/reredos are a single unit until the priest goes to the other side of the altar to face the congregation during the Liturgy of the Eucharist. But make no mistake, architecturally, the old altar/reredos remains the focal point of the sanctuary and it is clear that the new is a later addition and placed where it is simply so the priest can face the congregation during the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

At both Most Holy Trinity and St. Joseph, Mass has been celebrated ad orientem with the reordering of the altars. In these cases, the unity is preserved even with the freestanding altars, with the priest clearly a part of the congregation's position and not half hidden by the altar when facing the congregation.

Why oh why was it felt that the priest needed to face the congregation during the Liturgy of the Eucharist? It was of course based upon a false archeologism and a Biblical literalism as it concerns the Last Supper. It is based upon a literal/fundamentalism concerning the liturgy and the "meal" aspect of the Mass. It is based upon a faulty theology that the Liturgy of the Eucharist facing the congregation is more like Jesus at the Last Supper and the congregation like the apostles at the historic event.

Can you imagine the money saved, the heartache reduced and the elimination of the misplaced focus of parish life and the nonexistence of decisions that were decisive in terms of church re-orderings after Vatican II that could have been if the theology of priest facing the congregation during the Liturgy of the Eucharist had not developed and been shoved down the throats of almost every parish in the world? We would not have become that enclosed circle focused on liturgical reordering and self-absorbed with liturgy and engaged in the liturgy wars to the detriment of parish life, spirituality and popular devotions as well as Catholic identity reduced to superficiality devoid of faith and the Church becoming a non-governmental social organization or worse yet a country club. We would rather be a Church that goes out to the periphery of our homes, workplaces, recreational venues and the poor after the eschatological, iconographic experience of ad orientem liturgy even in the Ordinary Form and the vernacular.

"I LIKEWISE FORBID THE CARDINALS BEFORE THE ELECTIONI (OF A POPE) TO ENTER INTO ANY STIPULATIONS, COMMITTING THEMSELVES OF A COMMON ACCORD TO A CERTAIN COURSE OF ACTION SHOULD ONE OF THEM BE ELEVATED TO THE PONTICATE..."

On June 30th I posted something about what Pope Francis had said, that "I follow what the cardinals asked." You can review that post HERE. Now Sandro Magister of the blog Chiesa takes up the question from a fascinating different perspective. Does it have merit?

Vatican Diary / "I follow what the cardinals asked"

The strictures of the pre-conclave on Francis's governance. Agreements connected to the election of a pope are illicit and invalid. But the actual practice comes very close

by Sandro Magister

VATICAN CITY, July 1, 2014 – "I likewise forbid the Cardinals before the election to enter into any stipulations, committing themselves of common accord to a certain course of action should one of them be elevated to the Pontificate. These promises too, should any in fact be made, even under oath, I also declare null and void."

This is established by the apostolic constitution "Universi Dominici Gregis," which regulates the election of the pope, issued by Saint John Paul II in 1996 and still in effect.

Historically "stipulations" or "electoral conditions" are defined as agreements among the cardinals gathered in conclave that aim to bind the future pontiff to certain acts that could restrict his freedom of action.

The first stipulation recorded in history seems to have been that of 1352 at the council of Avignon that saw the election of Innocent VI, who however declared it to be invalid.

And in effect a number of popes, after their election, have renounced the pacts stipulated with their former fellow cardinals.

Pacts that sometimes required the one elected to enact provisions for the actual good of the Church, but in other cases responded to personal or group interests. So that finally it was decided that they had to be formally prohibited.

The prohibition went into effect with the rules for conclaves promulgated by another canonized pope, Pius X, in the 1904 apostolic constitution "Vacante Sede Apostolica" that stated:

"We likewise prohibit that the cardinals, before proceeding with the election, should agree to stipulations or establish anything by common consensus, pledging to observe them if they are elevated to the pontificate. Such things, if they should take place 'de facto,' even under oath, we declare to be null and void."

This disposition - which however does not provide any penalty for those who violate it, as long as the new pope has full freedom with respect to these accords - has been reiterated by all the subsequent documents on the conclave, up to the one that, as we have seen, was issued by pope Karol Wojtyla.

Any stipulations agreed upon before or during a conclave are therefore not only formally prohibited as illicit, but are also practically inefficacious, because the one elected would not be bound to respect them even if he had agreed upon them.

In the accounts of recent decades it is nonetheless recalled that at the conclave of 1958 some cardinals of the Roman curia are alleged to have guaranteed that, in case of election, Venice patriarch Angelo Roncalli would choose as his secretary of state Monsignor Domenico Tardini. And this is what happened on the very evening of the election of John XXIII.

In the subsequent conclave of 1963 the central European cardinals are said to have backed the candidacy of Milan cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini with an "electoral condition" that included the continuation of the Council.

It is however recounted that in 1978 Cardinal Giuseppe Siri, if elected pope, would have to take into consideration the proposal to guarantee the position of secretary of state for one of the competing candidates, Cardinal Giovanni Benelli. While - also as the story is told - Venice patriarch Albino Luciani would be elected pope, as in fact took place, with the concomitant certainty that the dreaded Benelli would not be appointed secretary.

In the conclave that elected Jorge Mario Bergoglio it does not appear that there were any formal or sworn agreements among the cardinals.

Nonetheless Pope Francis has repeatedly professed himself to be bound by certain guidelines presented by the cardinals in meetings before the conclave.

He reiterated this recently in a more extensive manner than usual in the June 29 interview given to Franca Giansoldati of "Il Messaggero.".

In it he said:

"On the program [of ecclesiastical governance] I follow what the cardinals asked during the general congregations before the conclave. I go in that direction. The council of eight cardinals, an external organism, emerged from there. It was requested to help in reforming the curia. This moreover is not easy because there is a step forward but then it emerges that this or that must be done, and if before there was one dicastery there then become four. My decisions are the fruit of the pre-conclave meetings. I have done nothing alone."

To the question of whether he had followed a "democratic approach" in this, the pope responded:

"They have been the decisions of the cardinals. I do not know if it is a democratic approach, I would call it more synodal, even if the word is not appropriate for the cardinals.”

This is what pope Bergoglio has said. Judging by the appearances, there has been no condition or stipulation or call it what you will. But in essence the results have been close.

And the council of eight cardinals that Francis created in obedience to this mandate has just met at the Vatican.

__________


English translation by Matthew Sherry, Ballwin, Missouri, U.S.A.

WORLD CUP SENSE OF HUMOR COMES TO THE VATICAN'S COMMUNICATION OFFICE AND WHAT IT TWEETED

You've gotta love the Vatican's Communication Office's sense of humor, no:

"WHO AM I TO JUDGE?" REDUX--DOES THIS APPLY TO AN ARCHBISHOP ACCUSED AND PRESUMED GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT?

When Pope Francis uttered those famous words, he was referring to priests with same sex attractions who despite this cross strive to search for the Lord and live according to the moral teachings of the Church especially those based in natural law.

What Pope Francis went on to condemn was a "gay lobby" that would promote immorality especially as it concerns natural law and marriage, secular or religious. "Lobbies are not good" in this regard.

Now we have Twin Cities Archbishop John Nienstedt once again being accused of homosexual misconduct earlier in his priestly and episcopal career with consenting adults (outside of his current assignment). You can read the details by pressing the RSN news story HERE.

Archbishop Nienstedt last year was falsely accused of touching a young confirmandi inappropriately during a group photo session after a Confirmation with parents and others present taking pictures. Because of the nature of the accusation, he followed diocesan policy, stepped down and was found innocent and resumed his ministry.

Archbishop Nienstedt has been a very vocal supporter of natural law as it concerns sex and marriage and has opposed the changing of the definition of marriage which violates natural law. Because of this the "GAY LOBBY" in and out of the Church absolutely hates him and seeks to rid the Church of this man who dares to support the Church's teaching in the public square as it concerns natural law, sexuality and secular and religious marriage.

But let's say that Archbishop Nienstedt is guilty before being found innocent? If he repented of his sins, did penance and was returned to ministry and now "searches for  the Lord and has good will," who is the homosexual lobby there to judge? 

Isn't it telling that the homosexual lobby and the media are not invoking Pope Francis famous words as it concerns Archbishop Nienstedt?

But the question remains, can a priest or a bishop who may have sinned with consenting adults of the same sex be forgiven and can they still teach what the Church teaches in terms of this type of immorality and the need to repent and conform to Christ and His Church? Is not the Church a field hospital for sinners to seek medication and healing, that is the forgiveness of sins and the grace to rise above one's sinful disorders?

Keep in mind, though, that Archbishop Nienstedt is innocent until proven guilty and that the homosexual lobby will stoop to anything to stop his ministry in the Twin Cities. They have a proven track record in this regard.

Pray for the Archbishop and his Archdiocese!

IF ROMA BECOMES ISLAMAROMA WILL THERE BE THE MUSTARD SEED THAT REMAINS WHEN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS SUPPRESSED?

Rome Reports about North Korea and how a very small remnant of the Church remains relying on beans to support the praying of the Holy Rosary. When North Korea is liberated (and make no mistake, one day it will be) it is this type of remnant Church that will emerge again and spread the true Faith. When priests are gone and there are no bishops, how will the Catholic Church remain in some form? It will be through the laity who have strong popular devotions, such as the Holy Rosary! Pope Francis knows this and thus he is striving to revive the popular devotions in the Church especially the Marian ones.

Father Z picks up on reports of the extreme Muslim terrorist group Isis leader saying the following about conquering Rome:

(He) saw this at The Telegraph:

Rome will be conquered next, says leader of Islamic State

Muslims have been called to flock to the Islamic State to gather for a battle against non-believers throughout the world

Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed leader of the Islamic State stretching across Iraq and Syria, has vowed to lead the conquest of Rome as he called on Muslims to immigrate to his new land to fight under its banner around the globe.

Baghdadi, who holds a PhD in Islamic studies, said Muslims were being targetted and killed from China to Indonesia. Speaking as the first Caliph, or commander of the Islamic faithful since the dissolution of the Ottoman empire, he called on Muslims to rally to his pan-Islamic state.

“Those who can immigrate to the Islamic State should immigrate, as immigration to the house of Islam is a duty,” he said in an audio recording released on a website used by the group formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham.

“Rush O Muslims to your state. It is your state. Syria is not for Syrians and Iraq is not for Iraqis. The land is for the Muslims, all Muslims.

“This is my advice to you. If you hold to it you will conquer Rome and own the world, if Allah wills.”

Having claimed the title of “caliph”, Baghdadi appealed to “judges and those who have military and managerial and service skills, and doctors and engineers in all fields.”

He also called on jihadi fighters to escalate fighting in the holy month of Ramadan, which began on Sunday. “In this virtuous month or in any other month, there is no deed better than jihad in the path of Allah, so take advantage of this opportunity and walk the path of you righteous predecessors,” he said. “So to arms, to arms, soldiers of the Islamic s, fight, fight.”

My final comments: Keep in mind that Constantinople, the Rome of the Eastern Church, was conquered by Muslims and the Cathedral Church the Hagia Sophia  was taken over by them and turned into a Mosque. The symbolism of this Muslim take-over would have been as shocking as taking over St. Peter's Basilica in Rome by Muslims. As well the city's name was changed to Istanbul. What would Rome's name become? Islamaroma?

 With the pope and bishops in Italy martyred or in exile as well as priests murdered/martyred or  exiled, who will continue the Catholic Faith in Islamaroma? It will be those Catholics who pray the Rosary with macaroni. I kid you not. The question is, how many Italians still pray the Holy Rosary and will continue once Rome is conquered by the Muslims?

YES! I AM JEALOUS AND WHY SHOULDN'T I BE?

Richard C. Goad, aka, RCG, who comments regularly on this blog sent me a link to his parish's Corpus Christi preparations and procession and grand they are and I am green with envy! You can see all the photos at this LINK HERE. The ones I post below are stunning and can you imagine the work that went into these carpets!

This is what he writes about his parish:

Holy Family Church in Dayton, Ohio is my parish.  We have a web site with cool ‘virtual tour’ on the front page that you can move around to see the inside.  Lots of beautiful architecture and art.  The website is: http://www.daytonlatinmass.org/  (Check out the URL!!).  About your guns post: we had watchful people in the parking lot for our procession.  Armed? Perhaps.  Our neighbourhood is one of the highest crime areas in Dayton especially for organized drug sales of meth and heroin.  The nice people are very, very nice.  The bad people are industrial strength bad.  

IS RECENT PAPAL HISTORY REPEATING ITSELF???????????

Pope Francis will pay homage to the first pope to retire, St. Celestine, during a visit to St. Celestine's hometown on Saturday July 5. Pope Benedict also honored him by visiting there too.

When Pope Benedict visited St. Celestine, the first pope to retire, the Holy Father left on his glass casket the pallium he was given at his installation, the ungainly one.

Here are pictures of that historic event which, now in hindsight, was a symbolic gesture of Pope Benedict that he would follow St. Celestine's tradition of retiring from the papacy:

We know that on Sunday, the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul and the imposition of the pallia on the new archbishops that Pope Francis returned to the use of the more recent tradition of wearing the same pallium that other metropolitans throughout the world wear, jettisoning the pallium that Pope Benedict wore after he jettisoned the one that was given to him.

Will Pope Francis on Saturday place his old pallium on the glass casket of St. Celestine and will this gesture indicate that he will follow soon Pope Benedict's tradition borrowed from Pope Saint Celestine?

In this photo one sees the three different style of papal pallium, the first and longest running one the one Pope St. John Paul II is wearing; the second the revised one imposed upon Pope Benedict at his inauguration, which he later gave to Pope St. Celestine; and the third the one Pope Benedict wore and the same style imposed upon Pope Francis at his inauguration, which he has subsequently given up to return to Pope St. John Paul II's style.

GUNS BE GONE!

Guns be gone at Church at least in the state of Georgia. Bishop Gregory Hartmayer joins Archbishop Wilton Gregory in issuing the DECREE which you can read HERE.

The following is the Georgia Bulletin's news article on the decree:

LEARN MORE

• Read the full text of the decree.
• Q & A: Pastoral Policy Related to Weapons

ATLANTA—Guns and other weapons are officially unwelcome at Catholic churches, schools and other buildings owned, leased or operated by the Catholic dioceses of Georgia.

On behalf of the dioceses, Atlanta Archbishop Wilton D. Gregory and Savannah Bishop Gregory Hartmayer, OFM Conv., have issued a decree prohibiting guns and knives with blades longer than five inches from parishes, churches, schools, administrative offices and other buildings owned or used by the Catholic community. It includes both handguns and long guns. It takes effect July 1.

The bishops said, in a statement, Catholic places of worship are sanctuaries where “ways of peace and reconciliation” should be the rule.

“This decree is rooted in the belief that our churches and other places of worship are intended to be sanctuaries—holy sites where people come to pray and to worship God. In this nation of ours, they have seldom been the locations where violence has disrupted the otherwise peaceful atmosphere. Should it be necessary, we will seek the assistance of trained law enforcement personnel for protection, but among ourselves we will first seek ways of peace and reconciliation,” said the statement.

Any parishioner or visitor unlawfully carrying a weapon in violation of this decree may be charged with trespassing. They will be asked to leave the facility and return only once they have removed the weapon.

The policy will also apply to activities sponsored by the Catholic Church in Georgia, such as conferences, parish and school trips.

Law enforcement workers and authorized security personnel, including campus police officers, are exempt from the ban, according to the decree.

The new policy is in response to Georgia’s Safe Carry Protection Act of 2014, which goes into effect on July 1. The act still prohibits weapons in places of worship but allows religious leaders to opt out of that requirement, an option the Catholic Church in Georgia has declined to exercise.

This decree continues the exclusion of guns and weapons in the facilities and churches of the Atlanta Archdiocese and the Savannah Diocese.

In addition to the requirements of this decree, Georgia law already prohibits a number of other weapons from being brought into schools.

There are several exemptions to the Catholic dioceses’ policy. Clergy are permitted to own and keep a weapon securely in a rectory. Ceremonial swords used by the Knights of Columbus, Knights of Peter Claver, and similar organizations are allowed. Students that use rifles for training, such as at the Benedictine Military School, in Savannah, can continue to use them.

Also, a person who has a license to carry a weapon may still drop off and pick up a person at a church facility or be in a car in the parking area, as long as the weapon is secured.