Bishop Robert Lynch, Ordinary of the Diocese of St Petersburg, Florida issued a pastoral letter in response to the massacre in Orlando of 49 people and wounding of 53 more perpetrated by a domestic abusing, Islamic terrorist, registered Democrat. The good Bishop did not use that description of the assailant, as accurate as it is, because it did not fit his theme of falsifying and then blaming the Second Amendment and banning so-called “assault weapons.” Never mind that the assailant, who was employed as a security guard, had access to just as lethal, just as fast firing guns not usually referred to as “assault weapons.”
But Bishop Lynch’s letter is much worse than that as he incredibly, outrageously suggests Christians/Catholics share the blame. The letter came to us by way of Catholic Vote which opposes the Bishop’s advice and has encouraged respectful letters to him. We set forth the Bishop’s open letter below and our response sent to him, slightly altered for this publication.
Our response —
Dear Bishop,
The righteousness of expressions of Christian love, concern, support for the victims of the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando does not justify corrupting U.S. history (Constitutional and weaponology), philosophy, including what it means to be pro-life, or the rights of nation-states.
You have managed to do all in your letter “Orlando, Orlando We Love You”
Just a few points of truth in response to some of the tendentious comments you made as part of your expression of concern. I believe integrity demands correction of the distortions and misleading comments you rendered. The implications of your comments are greatly troubling as well. In that regard I have included a few questions inspired by your letter.
You wrote:
Our founding parents had no knowledge of assault rifles which are intended to be weapons of mass destruction. In crafting the second amendment to the Constitution which I affirm, they thought only of the most awkward of pistols and heavy shotguns. I suspect they are turning in their graves if they can but glimpse at what their words now protect. It is long past time to ban the sale of all assault weapons whose use should be available only to the armed forces. If one is truly pro-life, then embrace this issue also and work for the elimination of sales to those who would turn them on innocents.
Our “founding parents” (seriously Bishop, was “founding fathers” just too sexist for you?) were not oblivious to, indeed were well aware of ongoing weapons development throughout the ages. High capacity firearms predated the Constitution through preceding generations. Weapons such as cannons and rockets were available to private owners prior to and after the ratification of the Constitution and for several generations thereafter. Assault weapons (undefined by you) are not weapons of “mass destruction”‘ (also undefined by you) any more than a revolver which can be fired just as quickly and lethally as any firearm used in the Pulse nightclub massacre. To refer to any of them as weapons of mass destruction and nothing else has no rational basis. Why can they not just as accurately be referred to as defensive weapons, indeed weapons of peace keeping? Had a patron of Pulse had one available and used it to stop the assailant would that person be a peacekeeper or not? Is that person not “pro-life?”
You mentioned a “heavy shotgun” as by implication acceptable under the Constitution but later-day weapons as not. Were you referring to a blunderbuss type weapon, well-known for perhaps a couple hundred years prior to the Constitution? Loaded with grape-shot, as they were, they were handheld weapons by your standard intended for maiming and killing a multiplicity of people, a weapon of “mass destruction.” They were used to sweep the decks of ships of people and rigging.
The reality is a gun of any type never assaulted anyone, only another human being can do that. Your use of the term seems to display the Manicheistic error of confusing or applying evil to matter. It is also true that we have a multiplicity of laws to prevent the sale of any fire-arm to people with a history of ill-intent or known pathological proclivities. But so many things could be used as a weapon of mass destruction, what sort of regime do you propose toward so much that with a little evil imagination could be employed as a weapon?
You also mention the “founding parents” spinning in their graves. Given that they fought against despotism, the spinning would not be because the average American can be in possession of what is less lethal than what is common to the average infantryman of the Kings army, so to speak. They are spinning, but it is over the interpretations of their document that have brought us a federal government without serious limit.
Questions engendered by your comments about what the “founding parents” anticipated: Did they anticipate the mass spreading of lies instantaneously broadcast and other means as regards free speech? Are lies not dangerous? Is the preaching of ignorance not dangerous? How might they be regulated? Did they “anticipate” abortion on demand for any reason at any time of pregnancy (even paid for with taxpayer’s dollars) as a right guaranteed under what they wrote and the country approved?
Regarding your third paragraph: “ Second, sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets, mostly verbally, and also often breeds contempt for gays, lesbians and transgender people.”
Of this I am particularly astounded. Do you want to seriously maintain that? Indeed what properly construed Christian/ Roman Catholic teaching of the Gospels do you say maintains any such thing, that is intended towards sinners as opposed to sinning? But say such is official doctrinal of the Catholic church, or Biblically clear, what right do you claim to alter it? What provision of “religion, including our own” should be repudiated that you say targets “gays, lesbians and transgender people”
You go on: Singling out people for victimization because of their religion, their sexual orientation, their nationality must be offensive to God’s ears. It has to stop also.
Pray tell, may we not single them out for any action related to such categorization? Presuming we both know the difference, is that not the purpose you eschew when you say definitively that “sadly it is religion, including our own, which targets,” By the way, what if their religion is anti-Christian? What if their sexual orientation is pedophilia or supports polygamy? What if their nationality is that of a nation that has called for death to America? Are you saying they must not be treated differently? What if they want to impose Sharia law, democratically of course?
You go on some more: Third, responding by barring people of Muslim only faith from entering the country solely because of their stated faith until they can be checked out is un-American,
Is preferring one faith over another un-American or prudential given the exigencies of the times? Does the Catholic Church admit non-Catholics to communion? OK maybe that ship has sailed, how about to the priesthood? Does a country have to admit everyone that shows up on its border or, are safe havens elsewhere not an ethical approach, prudential for all concerned? Should not admission to a country with concerns for the safety of its citizens not at least prudentially involve some information about the tenants of the belief system adhered to by the prospective immigrant and due diligence in determining the sincerity of demurrals regarding tenants of that faith that are reasonably considered “anti-American or anti-Christian/ Jew/ secularist, etc, etc.?
More questions engendered by your comments: Are quotas on immigration un-American? Can any preference be employed on any basis? Does a country have a right to protect its culture from predation by another? What was the Vatican wall at 39 feet tall built to forestall? Why are other nations to be forbidden such protective qualities?
R Mall
