An Open Letter to LGBT Community, and Muslims, from a Faithful Catholic Cop; In Light of Orlando

 

            To those people with Same Sex Attraction: I am a faithful Catholic who happens to be a cop.  I am very sorry and deeply grieved at the horrendous atrocity and loss of the lives of loved ones and friends in Orlando.  I know no words can heal the wounds, physical and emotional, that were inflicted upon some of you and the communities you are in.  I know that feeling; that wound.  Every time one of my brothers or sisters in Law Enforcement is killed, I know the emotions.  I also know your communities must have greater anxiety and fear after such horrific hatred.

            I hope my words can diminish, in some minor way, your fears.  As a cop, I promise you I will treat you as I would anyone and everyone else.  Your lifestyle choices will have no effect on the quality of service I give to you and your communities. I will protect you.  That includes risking my life and even - God Forbid - dying to save you.  That is my commitment to you.

You have an absolute right to live in peace and have your views heard; I will do everything in my power to uphold those rights.

            As a faithful Catholic I want to also relieve some other fears you may have.  I do not hate you.  If the Catholic Church taught hate, I would not be Catholic.  I love you.  I will always love you.  Let me be totally honest: I do not agree with your lifestyle choices, but I love each and every one of you.  I absolutely respect your moral right to live in peace, and to have your views heard.  As Christ laid down His life for you, so I will lay my life down for you.  I want the best for you and your life.  Again, we will disagree on what we believe is the best way to live; and we can amicably talk about that sometime; but now is not that time.

            I know what it is to be hated for the choices you make in your life.  I choose to be a faithful Catholic and a cop.  I am hated by some for the first and by others for the second.  Hatred of people of any kind – even of those you disagree with – is absolutely wrong and should NEVER be tolerated.

            I love you, I respect you, I accept you as a person – made in the image and likeness of God, I will do whatever I can to eliminate all signs of unjust discrimination against you, I will walk with you to help you fulfill what God wants for you in your life.

You have my prayers, and my love.

            To the peaceful Muslim Community:  I also know your pain and suffering.  Every time a police officer crosses the line and commits a crime, or someone claiming to be Catholic does something awful, I feel what you must be going through right now.  I’ve walked through communities where, just because I wear a badge or a crucifix, I am looked upon with suspicion.

            I would like to relieve some of your fears as well.  If you are peace loving, and law abiding, as a cop, you are my ally.  I not only don’t look upon you with suspicion, I rely on you to help me keep our community, our homes and our loved ones safe.  Your beliefs will have no bearing on how I treat you as a person, or the quality of service I give you or your communities. I will protect you.  This includes risking my life or even – God Forbid – giving up my life to save you.

You have an absolute right to live in peace, have your views heard and live above unwarranted suspicion; I will do everything in my power to uphold those rights.

            I would also like to attempt to relieve some of your fears as a faithful Catholic.  I do not hate you; I love you. 

I know what it is to be accused and suspected without cause.  Catholics, since the very beginning of the United States, have been suspected, accused, discriminated against in law and practice.  Presidents have called us essentially second class citizens; we were not allowed to hold office in some states; and immigration laws – some still on the books – were passed to keep Catholics out of this country.  I can empathize with your plight. 

I believe that if we each pray from our hearts, God will hear us, because there is only One God and He revealed Himself to Abraham.  There are many things about who God is, His revelation to us and how He wants us to live our lives that we would disagree on; and there is a time and a place to amicably discuss that; this is not that time.

Christ laid down his life for you; so I will lay down my life for you.  I love you, I respect you, I accept you as a person – made in the image and likeness of God, I will do whatever I can to eliminate all signs of unjust discrimination against you, I will walk with you to help you fulfill what God wants for you in your life.

You have my prayers, and my love.

To all reading this:  Now is the time to eliminate hate.  NO I did not say eliminate or ignore disagreement or compromise beliefs; the two are mutually exclusive.  It is a fallacy of this fallen culture – perpetuated by all the letter news networks -  that says ‘because I disagree with you I therefore hate you.’ or ‘because I love that necessarily means I support all your choices and beliefs.’ 

Now is the time to show what true love is: love of people, not necessarily of choices or beliefs.  Love is a choice, not a feeling or intense emotion – another fallacy of this culture.  Love is willing the good, or wanting the best, for someone else, especially if it costs me something; i.e Sacrifice.  I may still disagree with your beliefs and choices; I love you.

Response to Amaryllis Fox Video

There is such a thing as evil and it cannot be reasoned with...

 

I’ve been a cop for over 13 years, all patrol, and I am still employed.  I have been to terrorism training for Law Enforcement, I teach Police Response to Active Violence and have performed terrorism assessments for my local area.  I have done less than some, more than others.  The information about Islam below comes from my personal study.

                 Maybe you're one of the 61 million people who have viewed the alledged ex-CIA agent's video on Al'Jazeer Plus' facebook page.  I saw it when someone linked it on face book but I cannot seem to find it on anything that will let me link it to my blog.  The whole premise is this alledged ex-CIA agent for "almost 10 years" tells us that the big secret about the war with ISIL / ISIS is that "everyone thinks they're the good guy."  She goes on to insinuate that everyone is just fighting for their families and the "oversimplified" narrative of Islamic Extremists wanting to kill us is controlled by a "very few."  Her final point is that we should just sit down and listen to those in ISIS.  The implication is that all the problems will then go away.

                There is a lot of truth here.  There is also a lot of error here.  Unfortunately the idea behind the video falls victim to the great error of Relativism: the belief that all beliefs are equal and none are better than another.  But Relativism  is a self-refuting proposition like me typing: I can't type.  In the case of Relativism in general, the proposition "all beliefs are equal and no one belief is better than another" is presumed to be the one idea that is better than all the others.  So it fails it's own standard.  
               Let me show you how this applies to the movie:  Ms. Fox obviously believes she is "right" to espouse the beliefs in her video and that her beliefs are "good" otherwise she would not have made the video.  However, if we were to apply her own criticism to her own argument, she would not have posted the video because the point of the video is if you think your ideas are right and good then you need to reconsider.  You also need to listen to the other view.  Certainly don't act upon your convictions.  So, by the fact she believes she's right, she acted upon those beliefs, and - as far as my views are concerned - she never sat and listened to my views, her own argument refutes her video.

                But beyond the fatal philosophical flaw there is more to say.  Given a peaceful environment I will listen to anyone.  I will treat anyone with respect and dignity if, for no other reason, one cannot be convinced about how much you know and how correct your information / beliefs are, unless they are first convinced about how much you care.  I have listened to abusers, molesters, armed robbers and murderers about why they did what they did.  They all believe they did what they did because of some perceived good.  They were wrong.

                Let me apply this to this video.  I will listen to anyone from any of the numerous branches of Islam, again, given a peaceful environment.  As a country we MUST acknowledge that there are numerous different interpretations of the Koran, the Hadith and the Teachings of Mohammad - all three authoritative in Islam.  However there is no central, authoritative, interpreting authority in Islam.  Some branches of Islam are very peaceful.  Most branches of Suffi, for example, take a very introspective, contemplative, spiritual interpretation on the violent passages and teachings of Islam.

                However, we MUST acknowledge that there are other branches of Islam that take a very literal interpretation of verses that directly advocate enslaving or executing anyone who is not Muslim.  Wahabi Muslims are an example of this.  According to these branches, Suffi are not Muslim and therefore deserve enslavement or death.  I would still be willing to talk to Wahabi-ist Muslims if they would let me.  The problem is, according to their own Imams and Laws, talking with an Infidel -  anyone who is not Muslim - is forbidden unless the Infidel agrees to be enslaved.  If the Infidel refuses enslavement they are to be killed.  So the return respect is not there.  ISIL / ISIS and Al-Qaida are made up of this style of Islam.

                In this belief system the world is split into two area: Dar Islam and Dar al-Harb: the world of Islam and the world of War.  Either the world is under their law - Sharia Law - or they are at war with the parts that are not.  Sharia Law is the governing system in these versions of Islam.  It is both a religious belief system and a governmental system - these branches of Islam have no concept of separation of masque and state. Sharia has laws stating women are property of men; women are not allowed a voice in government, society or even their own lives; if someone is not Muslim they are not human so killing a non-Muslim is not against Sharia.  This and more is incompatible with the Western world’s philosophy.  This is NOTHING that the U.S. did, movies notwithstanding. 

                An irony about this video is the speaker, being a women and, apparently, not a Muslim, would not be listen to by the very people she says we need to listen to.  She would be enslaved at best or killed by these branches of Islam.  Where these branches of Islam rule 10 year old Christians are being beheaded or crucified - literally; Journalists are beheaded for trying to report truth; sentences of death are administered by stoning or beheading for anyone who has same-sex attraction; women and little girls are sold into “slavery.”  All of this is verified by news accounts - even news agencies sympathetic to these styles of Islam.  In these branches of Islam, there is no right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”  There is no tolerance of people OR ideas.  The beliefs of these Muslims are wrong.

                I do not see anything similar in the West.  The Western philosophy is based on tolerance of people; tolerance of discussion of ideas; but intolerance of harmful ideas.  This is based off of one of the basic tenants of Christianity: Hate the sin; Love the sinner.  I don’t see the West unjustly beheading or crucifying anyone as a rule.  There are no systematic forceful conversions - that includes the crusades and inquisions; that’s not what either of them were about despite the faulty modern popular teaching to the contrary.

                Yes, there are other more moderate branches of Islam that do not hold to the harsh, radical interpretations.  Unfortunately, a historical study of Islam, from Mohammad’s birth in AD 632 to the present, shows that these moderate, peace-loving Muslims are not the traditional way Islam has been interpreted.

                So I agree with the video: things are NOT as simple as some make them seem.  Unfortunately for this movie it again fails its own standard.  According to the movie things have been over simplified: either us or them.  However, the solution is over simplification: just listen to them and everything will be better. 

                We must have a balanced approach: listen when able; act when we must.  Tolerate people, do not tolerate harmful ideas, stop the people acting on those harmful ideas.  Unfortunately, when someone does not see you as a person and is actively trying to kill you - or advocating for someone to kill you - the time to listen is over; the time to act to protect life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is at hand.  Anyone who fails to do act when the time to act is at hand is as guilty as those who fail to listen when the time to listen is at hand.

                The violent-advocating branches of Islam are wrong.  I will not tolerate those harmful ideas.  I cannot tolerate those harmful ideas.  Prudence, Justice, Mercy and Morality demand that of me.  If a person espouses those ideas, I will listen and I will show where their though process has gone wrong - yes there is such a thing as correct thinking: it's called the Laws of Logic.  If that same person stops talking and starts trying to harm me, my family or innocent people I will stop them using every way necessary.  There is such thing as evil.  I have seen it.  I will do whatever I can to stop it.  Evil does not stop on its own.  It does not listen to pleas or reason.  Evil does not care what you think.

                Why does the West love the movies like Independence Day and Star Wars?  Because, in the history of the world, the Western philosophy of tolerance of people, peace, personal responsibility, liberty and justice for each person no matter their sex, age, race or belief and the freedom to behave as you aught IS AN ANOMILY.  It is a blip on the radar.  It is a radical idea espoused by a very few who are immediately attacked by those whose power is threatened by these ideas.  Socrates was executed for espousing ideas like this; Christ was crucified for it; Peter, Paul, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch and thousands more were all executed by the Roman Empire for espousing it; the US was born in blood fighting for these ideas; we fought a war with our self over these ideas;  WWII was fought over the same thing; and today we must uphold these ideas from all enemies foreign or domestic.

                I have listened to ISIL / ISIS and Al-Qaida.  I have heard what they say in both word and deed: Death to the West; Death to the Christian; Death to the Jews; Death to the Pope - who has no army and preaches dignity and value of all people, love and peace; Death to all who do not espouse their brand of Islam.  I have listened and I take them at their word.

                The Blue Crucifix

P.S. As I searched for information about this video, all I found is similarly worded blogs in support of it.  I found none - zero - vetting of the video.  I’m curious why.  I can’t even find anyone asking the question: was Amaryllis Fox actually a CIA agent and why did she serve only “almost” 10 years?  When I hear of a cop who says that, it usually doesn’t bode well for why they left the profession. 

Open Letter to Msgr. Swetland about Gun Control from a Just Defender

Dear Msgr. Swetland,

As a practicing Catholic (and yes I need more practice) I am deeply concerned over your latest support of taking guns away from law abiding citizens.  I am not schismatic over it as I am aware that your support of a political person's errant proposal does not constitute religious assent on my part; and the position is vague enough - as most are - to allow from some 'controls' while still allowing the faithful to obey Catholic teaching, both explicitly and Ordinary Magisterium.  Yes I typed that correctly.

First, a bit about myself:  I am a police officer.  I am not the most experienced officer nor am I the least.  I have taught the police response to Active Shooters for years.  I am also a student of Catholicism, not just a pew sitter - of which only 25% of our members do, which means 75% of our members are killing their souls each Sunday / Holy Day of obligation.  I am also a revert, having realized, through study, that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded, after years away in both the religion of Apathy and then in Protestantism.

My concern comes from a lack, in the last 60 years or so, of recognition of Catholic teaching on Righteous Defense and Just War, except to keep saying a certain conflict is not a Just War.   Righteous Defense is brought up just about as often as Humane Vitae, from the pulpit, which means virtually never.  The support of certain gun restrictions is a symptom of this and needs to be adjusted.

The gun control desired by the politician you have supported, is to eventually take all guns from all law-abiding citizens.  This puts his desires at serious odds with the ability of Catholics to faithfully fulfill a "grave duty" according to the Catechism.

First a bit of Catholic History that, at least from lack of exhortations, lack of recognition of martyr status, does not seem to be remembered: The Christians who faithfully served in the Roman army, performed their duties to the full without being told 'no'.  The Crusaders were granted a plenary indulgence for their participation in the DEFENSIVE series of wars that occurred between the 11th Centuries and the 16th Centuries - technically they were armed pilgrimages, not wars but that distinction does not play into this discussion. 

We celebrate "The Feast of the Rosary" to commemorate "Our Lady of Victory" for the military success of a hastily thrown together fleet over the Muslims in the battle of Lepanto.  During that time we also have the Poor Knights of Solomon's Temple  (The Templar) who were monks who took up arms to protect the pilgrims on their way to Jerusalem.  It is a tragedy that the Templar and the Knights of St. John who were captured and executed by the Muslims for being Catholic, have never been recognized as martyrs, though they meet the criteria.

We have the Cristeros Army of the 1920's made up non-military, just plain faithful Catholic laity - most of the priests having been kicked out or martyred.  We even have St. Gabriel Possenti who, as part of the reason he was declared a Saint, disarmed a member of a violent gang and faced down the rest of the gang with a handgun:  http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/GABPOSS.htm He is the patron Saint of handgun owners.

The point is: Catholicism is NOT a pacifistic religion; but you wouldn't know it to hear Catholics talk these days.  Modern day, we have groups killing thousands of Christians.  Thousands of girls are being sold into sexual slavery where they are raped multiple times a day.  So bad are the conditions that children under the age of 10 are choosing suicide rather than continual rape.  We have (a very few) bishops calling for a Just War against this evil, but the call to take up the Cross is silenced.  Christ had ample chance to preach pacifism, but never once told any soldier or Centurion to stop practicing their trade and on the contrary  Christ orders the purchase of weapons in certain circumstances.  When Peter strikes with the sword, Christ doesn't tell him he was wrong, he just tells Peter to stop and put it away - not down.  Yet exegetes refuse to acknowledge the literal sense and implications of these words, skipping right to the 'spiritual' sense.

Catholics have suppressed some defenders (using lies and unjust methods as excuse) others voluntarily put down their swords.  Catholics today mostly shun legitimate defenders and try to take away the tools necessary for the vocation.  Today, because of an over emphasis on pacifism, we are in effect telling our brothers and sisters in the Middle-east, Africa and else where, "Be warm and eat well!"  and, "Pick up your cross..." (many are LITTERALY forced to).

But what does Catholicism teach?  The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2265 states, "Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others."  I have never heard any priest preach on this paragraph. 

Let me break it down through the eyes of a Catholic Cop.  It is the right of anyone who has responsibility to protect the lives of others to protect those lives.

It is also "grave duty."  The term grave here must refer to "grave matter" otherwise why would the Catechism use the term 'grave'?  Unless, suddenly, we have a different definition of the word for just this paragraph akin to what most Protestants do to the word "Justified" just for James 2:14-24.

The paragraph does not say by what means this protection takes its form.  Now let the trained Police Officer take over.  In order for protection to be considered effective the means of protection must reasonable to overcome the likely threats.  So, for example, if the likely threats only rise to a 'slap' across the hand - if that is the most severe threat anyone would likely face - then simply standing in the way would be all the means necessary.

However, given that evil has no intent on obeying any politicians laws - let alone ecclesial or moral law - they will get whatever they can to get an advantage with weaponry.  Given, also, that guns are very easily illegally obtained; a highly-likely threat is from a person with a gun.  (Please note, the gun alone is not the threat and cannot be; only a PERSON with a gun can be a threat.)

Now, what means are legitimate defense against a person threatening with a gun?  "Legitimate" is a two-edged sword - pun intended.  If someone were to put a small pebble in their pocket knowing that wouldn't protect anyone but saying "I am providing Legitimate defense" they are not obeying Catholic teaching.  That is not, objectively, Legitimate.  The means MUST be reasonably effective.  Just as we would not "just pray" over a child who is gravely ill, when a hospital is nearby, we should not force ourselves to eliminate legitimate effective means of defense.

At this point some may object and say that this paragraph of the Catechism refers only to government agencies like the Police.  However, the context says nothing about that.  It merely says, "one who is responsible for the lives of others."  The related paragraphs do nothing to support that this only applies to government.  Are parents responsible for the lives of their children?  Are school teachers responsible for the lives of their students?  Are police officers responsible for the lives of the people in their jurisdiction?  I think a moral theologian would see a sliding scale of more responsibility to remote responsibility in the examples I provided, YET no one would doubt that the police need guns to fulfill their responsibility to this Catholic teaching, as well as their civil duties.

Let me add another wrinkle: are we our brother's keeper?  Are our persecuted brothers and sisters in need of Legitimate Defense?  It now becomes our 'grave duty' as the Church to provide it. 

Another objection may be "we should not meet violence with violence but with love."  It might shock you that I wholeheartedly agree.  Now, playing the theologian let me make distinctions:  As telling the Nazi that you are not hiding Jews in your house (when you are) is not 'lying'; Legitimate Defense (and Just War) is not violence.  Violence is action intended to take peace away from the innocent.  Legitimate Defense makes peace by stopping violence.  Love, as we know from Christ Himself, is not always doing what makes others comfortable.  Sometimes love means telling someone they're wrong.  Same with Legitimate Defense.  Sometime the most loving thing that can be done, given the fallen nature of man and the world, is use Legitimate Defense up to and including the "lethal blow".

The final objection to address here is: if all guns were eliminated, wouldn't that reduce violence and restricting guns is in the realm of taking steps in the right direction, isn't it?

But just who are we restricting the guns from?  Bad guys are exactly that: they have given themselves over to evil.  Yes, the ultimate goal is to get them to convert, however, by their free will, they sometimes give up all their chances for conversion.

Bad guys do not care if there is a law preventing them from obtaining a gun.  They will have someone else buy it, or they'll steal it, or they will go to another country to get one - or many.  So, in effect, the only ones who would be restricted are the good and innocent.

For example, the end of the Cristero Wars was negotiated by the Vatican.  Both the atheistic government forces and the Cristeros agreed they would lay down their guns (gun restriction?).  The Cristeros obeyed their bishops, but the evil men of the atheistic government did not.  The result was violence: 6,000 innocent people were slaughtered because their bishops told them to lay down their guns.  The Cristeros knew it.  I'm pretty sure the negotiators knew it at well.  This is NOT 'Peacemaking', this was allowing evil to succeed because good men were restricted from adequately providing Legitimate Defense.

Would we restrict good people, charged with the grave duty of protecting themselves, their family and their neighborhood, to literally "bringing a knife to a gun fight?"

Even if all guns were eliminated, evil will use knives (the most deadly weapon in history - even in modern day - not the gun).  Japan, China, Israel, Iraq, and other places have all had horrible incidents, in the modern era - where an evil person used a knife to attack numerous people in crowded areas.  Would the same position then support "knife control"?  Should a chef suffer be limited to a knife under 4 inches?  Do not forget that the first murder in Scripture was committed by a rock or club, yet no where are these items forbidden - or restricted - by Moses, the Judges, Scripture, the Kings, or Christ.

I invite you to read the following essay by ret. Lt. Col. Dave Grossman.  http://www.killology.com/sheep_dog.htm

After you are finished ask yourself: if the Catechism allows for Legitimate Defense, is a holy vocation "Legitimate Defender" and if so, what tools do they need to perform their vocation?  If the Catechism allows Just War, is "Just Warrior" a holy vocation?  Is the only place for a Holy Defender or Holy Warrior in a government position?  Do we restrict pens from lawyers because "the pen is mightier than the sword?"  (I'd be in favor of that - St. Thomas More excepted).

Thank you for your consideration.
God Bless,
The Blue Crucifix aka "Fidei Defensor"

Fight "vs" be a Martyr?

 Both Can be Holy...

     With the recent shooting at Umpqua Community College, we are, again, looking at Active Shooter tactics and how to prevent them.  Even though I taught Active Shooter for years, I am not writing about the tactics (but as a side bar, if your department is still teaching "hold and wait" or "diamond formation" it's time to get a new training division).  This particular case struck me because of who the shooter was after: Christians.  According to reports the maniac - I will not give him the satisfaction of printing his name - either told all the Christians to stand up, or one by one told people to stand up and state their religion.  To the Christians he told, "You're going to meet God in a few seconds." or something similar.  But I am not going to talk about the increase in persecution of Christians in the last few years either.

     What is this blog about?  A side discussion I heard on Relevant Radio yesterday, briefly discussed whether or not a Christian's responsibility, in the situation above, is to just be martyred or to fight.  This topic is of great interest to me.  When I was away from any kind of faith, the Knights Templar - or Poor Knights of Solomon's Temple - were one thing that kept me connected to religion.  In brief, the Knights Templar were an order of religious knights, started around AD 1100, to protect the roads around Jerusalem from robbers and bandits.  Hmm, wonder why, as a cop, they interested me.  Their mission was seen as a holy one.
     Granted the ideal is that no one needs to fight.  That is not how the world was created to be.  But, thanks to Adam and Evewe live in a world where sometimes the most loving, holy thing we can do is fight, physically.   How 'bout them apples... (although if I'm honest, I'd have been making apple pies).
     When I started to take faith seriously again, one of the things I looked at was how different religions view the use of deadly force to protect your self and others.  What I discovered was two camps, basically, the Evangelical / Fundamentalist "Kill 'em all and let God sort them out" and the Buddhist / Quaker, "Never use any force, ever, for any reason what-so-ever."  Don't try to deny it, you both know it's generally true.
     Neither sat well with me.  Life is far more complicated than a one-size-fits-all bumper sticker theology.  (Good word of warning.  If what you believe fits on a bumper sticker, you need to think about it some more.)
     I even saw that with the Templar: first to the fight, last to leave the fight and fight to the last if need be, they were the most feared warriors on the battlefield.  It is said that several Muslim commanders never wanted to know anything about the size of the Christian force except how many Templar they had. 
     In the Battle of Acre - the last battle in the Holy Land of the Crusades (the Crusades extended many hundreds of years more, but never again in the Holy Land) - the infirmed, women and children who could not flee on the boats prior to the battle, fled to the Templar's fortress.  The Templar knew they couldn't win, so they sued for terms of surrender.  The Muslims promised to allow everyone to leave provided they left their weapons and armor but as soon as the gates were opened, the Muslims attacked intent on slaughtering everyone.  The Templar stood in the gap to the last man, buying time for people to escape.
     Yet, in the after math of the never-should-have-been-fought Battle of Hattin, where Christian forces were routed, to say the least, due to exhaustion from lack of water and no rest, hundreds of Templar were captured.  Saladin ordered the immediate execution of the Templar.  It is reported by Muslim chroniclers that the Templar were pushing and shoving in line... TO BE THE NEXT EXECUTED!
     I don't blame the previously mentioned religious groups for not understanding the fuller picture; Buddhism aside, in general the Protestant tradition hampers a fuller understanding of history and lessons learned from it.  (Again, I'm not going to get into that here.  If someone wants an explanation, ask.)
     I found only one religion who, at least in official teaching, understood both sides of the issue: the same religion the Templar professed: Catholicism.  Catholicism has always understood, in this fallen world, the necessity at times for Just War and Just Defense.  Interestingly, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - what the Catholic Church actually believes - paragraph 2265, sounds an awful lot like many of our state laws.  Substitute "subject presenting threat of death or great bodily harm" for "unjust aggressor" and "stop the threat" for "unable to render harm" and you'd have something easily recognizable to most of our training divisions. 
     Note the fact that it is called a "grave duty".  The word "grave" in Catholic teaching refers to how serious an action is to perform or not perform.  What this is saying is that to NOT stop the threat of someone posing an immanent threat of death or great bodily harm COULD be a Mortal Sin, which, in Catholic teaching, is a sin that causes one to lose their salvation.That is how serious the Catholic Church teaches the necessity of the physical defense of life.
     BUT the Catholic Church also teaches that "martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith..." (paragraph 2473) and an early Catholic is quoted numerous times throughout history as saying "The blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church."
     So... what does this have to do with Oregon?  While most people are calling the people who stood up, and identified themselves as Christians and were killed for it, "Heroes."  I do as well by calling them "Martyrs".  Yet, according to what we know to be true, as cops, written on our hearts, and recognized by the only religion to think about this for 2,000 years, a completely moral - and holy - option would have been this:

Man with Gun:  "All Christians stand up."  (Several people stand up).  "Good, you're all going to meet your God in a few seconds."  One of the Christians draws a Glock...

If only we could get the rest of society (including some in our own departments) to recognize this as well...

Martyrs of Hattin, Malta and Lepanto.... Pray for us!!

The Blue Crucifix

 

Why I don't want to be Frank Reagan

     In my continued viewing of 'Blue Bloods' (I'm well into season 3 now) I have concluded: I do not want to be like Frank Reagan.  Yes, yes, I know the writers want him to be the one everyone wants to be.  Heck they even pulled in Tom Selleck to play him.  But for several reasons I do NOT want to be him

1) He doesn't take his Catholicism seriously enough.  I don't mean this to say he should be going around, sour faced saying, "I'm Catholic, damn it!"  But, it isn't the center of his life - which would make him even better of a P.C. than his is now.  In one episode, he's seen in the Confessional, which normally would be great, but, in a non feeling monotone, says, "I swore in front of the kids twice.  These are my sins."  and then proceeds to ask the priest if it is true he's leaving the parish.  In other words, his confession was a pretext to get info out of the priest.  This is what knowledgeable Catholics call, leaving the confessional with more sins than you went in...
    Second example of not taking his Catholicism seriously is the floozy he shacks up with when she's in town.  He's compromising his, otherwise, seemingly, untouchable sense of right and wrong for a few minutes of pleasure that could compromise his whole career, let alone his soul.  Then, they have the GAUL to joke about it:  "Better go to confession for this."  Next day his family jokes how he sang with such Vim and Vigor at Mass that morning.  Everyone of them knowing what happened, and not a single one of them caring that he just compromised his integrity nearly as bad, if not worse than, those other cops he confronted for selling stolen guns, or compromising investigations etc.  Frank's no better.  Just so happens that decades prior, enough guilt ridden politicians took his poison of choice off the legal ledgers.  (In my state it's not off the books, but I tried charging someone with it.... got that report kicked back and told to round file it - I sensed another guilty consciences.)
     2) Which is reason #2:  Frank compromises his integrity just as bad as many of the other cops he's fired, forced to retire or let retire.  The fact that he doesn't see this as a weakness in his character that could lead to more and more breaches in his integrity, is another flaw of his called Pride.  The only unforgivable sin is the one you don't think is.  Pride makes sure you won't think it is.
     Frank also compromised his integrity in telling Danny to get the information about a terrorist, from a captured terrorists using, "whatever it takes."  Clear indication that he is ok with torturing the suspect.  Now I applaud Danny and his partner for using a lot more brain than brawn to get that info, but the breach of integrity is done.
     3)  Finally, Frank sticks his neck out for a "good guy" in the department who is being blackmailed by, practically, a hooker in Atlantic City, whom he had an affair with after discovering  that his wife had an affair.  So , I guess, to Frank a "good guy" is one who swears an Oath to God to stick by this woman, "till death" but then decides to break that oath out of revenge.  What should that tell Frank about what this guy would do to his Oath to the State, should the right circumstances come along.
    I could pile on, but I'm too tired to care enough.
Bottom line:  As a Catholic Cop, I Don't want to be Frank Reagan.

Warrior or Guardian?

Who Cares!  Just do the Job.

     Recent comments by both the president and some high-ups in the Law Enforcement world want police officers to stop using the word "warrior" in referring to the job and instead use the word "guardian."  We've seen debates both at Police One and in departments on what term to use.

     I thought I'd weigh in on my personal opinion - because I know you all are just dying to know.

Here it is...

WHO CARES, JUST DO THE JOB!
 

     Let the clueless politicians (both "in" and out of Law Enforcement) waste their time with pointless wordsmith-ing.  Get out there and do the job to the best of your God-given abilities.

 

Does the job mean guarding?  At times yes.  When that time comes, do it the best you can.

Does the job mean using war-like tactics?  At times, yes.  Do it the best you can.

Are we called to be community builders, bridging cultural divides?  At times, yes.

Are we called to support those under our command until evidence proves otherwise?  YES - Do it, darn it

Are we supposed to enforce all just laws?  Absolutely.

Are we supposed to be gentle sometimes?  Yup.

Are we supposed to be justly violent sometimes - and win the encounter?  Definitely.

Are we supposed to take the media opinion into account?  Never

Are we supposed to take race into account more than a descriptor?  Never

Are we supposed to stand between chaos and peace?  Without fail

To those who do evil, are we agents of God's wrath that do not carry the sword in vain (Rom 13:1-7)? Amen.

 Do all of these and whatever else the day brings, to the best of your God-given abilities.

 

Call it warrior.  Call it guardian.  Call it, tiddly-winks.  Call it mumbly pegs.  Let those who don't know, or have forgotten what the job it get their undies in a bundle over it.

 

Know the Job; Do the Job!

Stay Safe, Happy Hunting, God Bless,

The Blue Crucifix.

 

 

Blue Bloods: Good or Bad for Law Enforcment?

Too good to be true?

     Many cops enjoy the show Blue Bloods which is the portrayal of an Irish, Catholic family living in New York.  Each member of the family either is, or was in some branch of Law Enforcement: Grandpa, Henry, is the retired Commissioner of Police; Frank, his son, is the current Commissioner of Police; Danny, the oldest son, is a Detective; Joe - never seen except pictures - was a cop but was murdered on the job before the series began; Erin, the only daughter, is an Assistant District Attorney; Jamie, the youngest son, went to Harvard for Law but after graduating decided to join the NYPD.
     I've been one of those living under a rock and had not seen the show until recently.  I've been watching both the most recent episodes and the old ones on DVD.  Full disclosure: I have not seen all the episodes.

     But what do I mean by the blog title?  Issues about the Reagan (the family name) 'mob' running New York aside, the question is: overall is the series good for law enforcement's image or does it portray such an unrealistic picture to skew the general public's view to an even greater degree than it already is?
     Let's take a look at a couple examples and I'll start with Danny.  Danny is the oldest son, has been on the force for more than 15 years and is a detective.  Sounds like a good start; but the problems start in how Danny conducts himself: in different episodes he's seen "water boarding" a suspect, in a toilet, to get a confession; he's thrown a tire iron at a witness; threatened another with a blow torch to the eye; slammed suspect's heads into tables; started fist fights with others; punched prisoners; and I think that's just season 1. 
     Needless to say but this is not only unrealistic - at least in my dept. any rumor of any one of these types of behavior and I.A. would be sniffing around, and Danny seems to get a pass every time - it's also a horrible image.  The vast majority of cops would never even dream of doing these things.  The vast majority of investigations are completed in a totally professional manner: more Law and Order, less Dirty Harry.  This day and age, we cannot afford one more show with cops slapping suspects around, breaking laws to get arrests and threatening witnesses. 
     Many in the public think this is still how we handle business and we don't need or want that stereotype reinforced.  We went through that period in Law Enforcement history - just read the circumstances around why we have the Miranda ruling - but the reality today is very different.
     Another example to  consider in our question 'Is Blue Bloods Good or Bad for Law Enforcement?' is the Patriarch of the family: Frank.  Frank is the Commissioner.  He worked his way up from Patrol to Detective to a Brass position and finally to Commissioner.  Frank is a strait laced and by-the-book as they come - it helps also that the "book" he's by is the Good One.  Frank's morals and integrity are completely solid and he doesn't change them from the family dinner table to his desk.  He's every Patrol Officer's dream supervisor: he actually remembers what it's like to be a Patrolman and makes decisions that way and not based on money or expediency.  He keeps his moral compass on track by keeping his faith strong too: attending Mass every Sunday (and other days as well), going to confession every other week (can only manage every other month); and prays regularly about decisions he needs to make. The only impropriety he's ever shown being involved in is the implication of having a sexual relationship with a reporter - this is tempered by the fact that Frank is a widower, and thankfully he dumps her in episode 2 or 3 of season 1.
     But does Frank being so good actually play against us in Law Enforcement?  Let's think of a supervisor... ANY supervisor.  How many make decisions based off of morals and not money?  When's the last time your Chief, Commissioner or Sheriff told the Mayor / Governor / County Exec to pound sand when the Mayor / Governor / County Exec suggested not giving raises in the next budget?
     Case and point:  Frank gets approached by a State Senator and friend asking Frank to quash a citation for the Senator's secretary.  Turns out the secretary got pegged for Operating While Intoxicated, 1st Offense.  The main reason for the request is the Senator was in the car with the secretary, late at night.  The report mentions the names of all occupants - they were the only two in the vehicle - and the Senator fears that if the ticket goes through, the press would pick up on this and imply that the Senator was having an affair.  When Frank refuses to make the ticket go away, the Senator threatens to reveal a situation in Frank's professional career that could prove to be embarrassing to him.  Frank's response?  No.  In his words, "I will not let a Patrol Officer know that I can be bought."
     In the series, I thought this was excellent.  What left a very bad taste in my mouth was not that Frank upheld his morals and convictions in the face of adversity, it is my own experience with Chiefs / Sheriffs / Commissioners: I knew one who cited himself for causing an accident.  Great!  Exemplary!  The press got a hold of it the next day - I'm not sure how or who tipped them.  It made a big splash that he cited himself.  The article called him 'honest' and so forth.  The day after the headlines, he quashed his own citation..........................................................................
      The most unrealistic portrayal, though, of Frank is that he didn't want to be P.C. but was chosen to be P.C. because of his merits.  Even though he didn't want it, he took the job out of a sense of Duty, and responsibility.  You ever meet a head of dept that didn't angle to get it?  Yeah, me neither.
     There's Jamie, the youngest and a Beat Cop.  He, like Frank, is steeped in honesty and integrity.  The only difference between Jamie and Frank is Jamie has a law degree from Harvard and tends towards the "that's not technically legal" attitude rather than "this is what's right."
     Then there's Erin who is a A.D.A.  Besides her occasional comments that Law Enforcement tends to go over the line, she doesn't factor into our discussion much.
     Henry, the retired P.C., is definitely Old School.  Early on he's the one who occasionally pulls Danny aside and tells him who to ruff up and who to threaten to get the job done.  But later in the series he seems to be more of a mentor to all of them, but especially to Frank since their lives are so similar (they're both P.C.'s, and widowers).  Henry, on occasion, even reminds Frank, in later episodes, to hold to his morals and trust in God for the outcome - something unheard of just about anywhere else on T.V. where 'God' is either merely the prefix to 'damn it' or suffix to 'oh my'.
      I'm split.  I'm still watching the series and I think, for a T.V. show, it's well made, the acting is very good, the premise is very unique and the writing keeps me entertained.
      Viewing it from the eyes of a cop, I'll just list why I think it's both good and bad.
      It's bad for Law Enforcement because it doesn't do much to fight the image of cops out of control and going over the line to get a conviction.  The show so unrealistically portrays the P.C. holding his morals and integrity that I fear no brass will ever try to be like him.  I didn't address the unrealistic nature of some of the situations (Danny's in a shoot-out every other week but never seems to need to do paperwork on it; Jamie gets pulled into a deep, undercover sting of a Mob family but is never taken off Patrol; Frank makes decisions of discipline on both Jamie and Danny without so much as a peep from the media about bias;)  Those bug me a little, but that sort of thing is in every cop show.
     The show is good for Law Enforcement because it, generally, shows cops as heroes again.  It shows a wholesome, Christian (Catholic) family of cops that - for the most part - do not leave their morals at home; they do the job not because of some power trip, but out of love of family, honor and desire to make a difference.  This embodies what Lt. Col. Dave Grossman said about cops and 9/11: most of us have that secret desire to want to be there; that maybe we could have made a difference even though it may have cost us our lives.
     Finally, I think the show is good for Law Enforcement because of the portrayal of Frank as P.C.  It's a two-edged sword.  Yes it's unrealistic.  So are the portrayals of Aragorn as a king, Foyal as a detective, and Superman.  But they're Archetypes of what we should strive to be.  So, maybe there's someone out there who's on the 'fast track' or 'golden touched' who looks at Frank and says to themselves, "That's the type of supervisor I want to be."  Yeah, it's unrealistic to expect every administrator to change his / her ways.... but maybe one....
     I'll leave it up to you in blue (and brown, and green) out there to figure out for yourselves whether or not 'Blue Bloods' is good or bad for L.E.  Let me know what you think.

Stay Safe, Happy Hunting and God's Speed,
The Blue Crucifix