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

Bruce Jenner, Rachel Dolezal, denial of facts, Problems for Cops

What the Future of Law Enforcement Will Look Like if Trends Continue.

 

     Imagine: You're a patrol cop.  You get called to the scene of an Armed Robbery at your local stop-and-rob (read: gas station).  After fighting a sea of traffic that has completely forgotten what to do when red and blues are behind them, you arrive at the gas station; the clerk has been pistol whipped and in need of medical attention.  You secure the scene, get rescue rolling, and begin talking to the clerk about what happened.

     "Did you see who did this?" you ask.

     "Yeah." the clerk says, as you're holding pressure to a particularly nasty gash in the back of his head.

     "Can you describe them?"

      "Yeah, it was a guy."

     "A male?"

     "Yeah."

     "Did you see what race?"

     "Yeah, white."

     "About how tall?"

     "I don't know, about 6'0."

     "How big was he?  What was he wearing?"

     "He had a white t-shirt, blue jeans, long brown hair, medium build."

      "You pretty sure about this?"

      "Yeah I got a good look at him."

       You radio the information to dispatch who sends out an "ATL" (Attempt to Locate) on the subject.  Later, you obtain the video footage from the security cameras and see that the description was spot on.  You also find a stocking cap possibly worn by the suspect as they entered the store.  There are hairs and follicles that can be analyzed.  Weeks later, after DNA analysis is complete - sorry CSI fans, this is real world policing - the profiles of both the DNA and hairs confirm what the victim and other evidence has already indicated.

     In searching the DNA database a profile match is made.  John Smith was convicted for felony battery and released a few months before the crime.  You contact the county jail and obtain his booking photo.  

     To lock everything down, the investigator decides to do a photo line up.  He takes 5 other photos of white males of approximately the same height, build, hair color and style, and as per case law, take two blank pieces of paper to intersperse in the 6 photos, with one being the last.  You go with the investigator to contact the victim and present the photo line up, "The person who did this may or may not be in these photos......"   The victim immediately picks out John Smith.

     A warrant for John Smith is issued.  Some time later word comes that John Smith was picked up, by patrol, on a traffic stop... only "he's" now JANE Smith.

     Apparently, while in prison, Mr. Smith realized he was really a "she" and underwent operations to "transition" (read: mutilate) himself to a "herself."  In addition, "she" believes "she" is "really" African American.

     "Whatever.  We got him or "her" or whatever." you say to yourself.

      But a few months later, you get a summons for a motion hearing.  You think to yourself, "This is nailed from so many different angles what is there to argue?"

     You arrive at the court house, find the court room and get a minute or two to talk to the Prosecutor before the hearing.

     "Do you know what their arguing here?" you ask.

     "It's bogus; they're arguing that the photo line up was done wrong.  I looked at your report, it was done exactly right."

     A few minutes later, "Mrs." Smith is brought in by court security and sat at the defendant's table.  The first indication that something is amiss is when you notice that the back of "her" jail jump suit says "County Jail, Woman's Wing." The judge enters, the hearing starts and you're called to the stand... by the Defense.  After being sworn in the Defense Attorney stands and begins asking you questions.

     "Officer, when you first obtained a description of the suspect of the crime what description did you receive?" the slick-haired attorney coyly asks.

      "The victim initially described the suspect as a white, male, approximately 6 feet tall, medium build, long brown hair wearing a white t-shirt and blue jeans."

     "Officer, when you had dispatch send out the 'Attempt to Locate' what description did you have them send out?"  Did you detect a hint of a grin?

      "The same description  I just gave."

     "Officer, when you entered the information for search parameters for the additional photos for the line up, what description did you use?"

      "The same."

      "Thank you Officer.  No further questions, your Honor."

      The Prosecutor, shrugs and says, "No questions, your Honor."

      You're dismissed from the stand.  Curious at what that was all about, instead of leaving, you sit in the gallery and listen to the Defenses' motion.

      "Your Honor, you've just heard what the police officers used as a description both to look for someone of a specific description and then to use as comparison photos in a photo line-up.  The problem is, your Honor, that is not the physical description of my client.  My client is NOT a white male.  My client is a black female."

      In the gallery, you are shocked at what you're hearing.  You'd laugh, except no one else - most notably the judge - is laughing.

     The attorney continues, "I motion that the charges against my client are dismissed, with prejudice, as it is readily apparent that the police did not even arrest a person matching the description they were looking for!  In addition, the photo line up used the wrong search parameters for the additional photos; they did not accurately represent my client."  There is a definite sound of triumph in the attorney's voice.

     The Prosecutor is just as shocked as you are and obviously was not prepared to argue this line of questioning.  He stammers and tries some counter-argument about investigating in "good faith". 

     Finally, not able to take it anymore, you stand up and yell, "C'mon!  It doesn't matter what he "feels" like, scientifically, genetically he's a he and white!  You can call an elephant a 'dog' but it's still an elephant!"

     The judge bangs her gavel, "Officer, you will sit down and be quiet or I will have you removed from the court!"

     You sit down almost dizzy with unbelief.

     "Your Honor, you see how bigoted and genderphobic the police officer is.  It is obvious that the investigation was based on bigoted and genderphobic ideology!"

     Everyone waits for the judge's ruling... "I grant the motion to dismiss the charges with prejudice..."  You're so upset you don't hear the rest.  You storm out of the court room...

     The next day the headlines read, "Courageous African American Woman Endures bigoted attack by police.... Woman vows to sue..."

 

Final Thought:  Maybe the two murderers from upstate New York just felt they were supposed to be free.  Who are we to judge them?

 

The Blue Crucifix

Fatherhood: Lessons Learned from Lord of the Rings' Boromir

Written with four fingers pointed back at me...

The three little ones hide behind trees and under logs as orcs hunt for them,  intent on evils the little minds of those hidden cannot even conceive of.  These orcs know no pain, no mercy, no fear and will not stop until those Hobbits are found.  As the orcs come closer, two Hobbits spring from their hiding spot and run, purposely leading the evil away from their friend. But being so pure and innocent they cannot imagine the danger they just placed themselves in.  The seemingly unstoppable hoard of evil turns its attention on the two and begins to pursue with a new, twisted glee at the anticipated slaughter so near.

            The two Hobbits run as fast as they can, but their little legs are no match for the orcs that do not tire and that have been breed to hunt and kill.  With every step the evil closes and the horrible end is about to begin.

            Suddenly, a horn and a warrior's yell pierce the air: Boromir!  The warrior charges headlong into the fight, placing himself between the mass of evil orcs and the innocent Hobbits.  With strength and skill only forged from above, he single handedly holds off the hoards.  With every skillful stroke orcs fall around him; but more come to take their place.  This Man of Courage stands bravely in the face of overwhelming odds and fights, fights with everything he has been given.  Except, not everything.  He has forgotten his armor and his shield...

            You see, earlier, before the battle, Boromir snuck out of camp, intent on stealing a powerfully evil ring from one of the Hobbits, and to use it for "good"... only it's Boromir's definition of good - there is no doubt that whatever Boromir had convinced himself was "good" would have been the destruction of him and the world.  Not foreseeing any battle near, Boromir left his armor and shield in camp.  After his failed attempt at taking the ring by force, he comes face to face with his error, his sin.  Now, he tries to atone as the orcs come in waves towards him; he stands between torturous destruction and innocence. 

            A single orc, more horrifying than the rest, lifts a wicked bow and looses a barbed, poisoned arrow, not at the innocents behind the able warrior, but at the protector himself.  Without his large shield and thick armor, the arrow pierces his left lung, sucking the breath from him.  Boromir staggers, but catching a glimpse of the child-like Hobbits pleading with their eyes for help, Boromir continues to fight, what is now obviously his last fight.  Another arrow flies and strikes Boromir in the lower torso.  Boromir almost seems stunned that this could happen, but through strength and determination that is not his own, he finds a way to fight on.  Finally, the single orc takes more careful aim and looses the final arrow.  Boromir is hit in the heart.  He falls.  Evil takes the Hobbits from him.  The failed protector is left bleeding, gasping his last breaths in utter agony.

            Fathers, learn well the lessons from our comrade, Boromir.  The world, the flesh and the devil are after your family, your wife and your children.  Are you your wife's, son's and daughter's Protector?  Will you fight? 

            Your children are being hunted by evils never seen before in previous generations: a host of filth at the click of a button, or the tap of a finger, set to poison their minds forever from God's plan for sexuality.  A press of a button brings a wave of violence, to their eyes, never seen before in history which is shown, through brain scans, to make children more prone to acting out violence.   A game controller puts them in the person of a deranged psychopath who maims police officers then sets them on fire, shoots up schools, malls or churches, or beats to death a prostitute just to get their money back.  "Coincidentally" violent crime rates are up over 500% between 1950's and 2000's - since the mass introduction of T.V. in the home.  With a short 'chat room' conversation, a child predator can know everything they need to know about your child, including where to find them and the best time to secretly meet them. 

            Are you talking regularly with your children about true marriage, God, True Manhood, True Womanhood, and the 'Big Questions' they have?  If not, someone on the internet IS and the majority of what they will learn there is lies, anti-moral, anti-Christian, anti-parent and anti-God.

            Your children do not know the danger they can get themselves into, that is hunting them; that knows not the Fear of God, nor the pain of regret, nor mercy on their souls.  Do you know what is hunting them?  Are you preparing for the battle you cannot yet see? 

            If you knew for certain that one year from today, at midnight, a hardened murdering rapist was going to break into your home and attack your wife and children, how would you be preparing today?  Tomorrow?  In the weeks and months ahead?  Would you buy a gun?  Body Armor?  Would you work out daily?  Would you dare miss a day working out or practice drills?  Truly, Truly I tell you, your sons, your daughters, and your wife's souls are being attacked.... NOW!  They are under attack NOW!

            Or are you sneaking out of your camp after some evil you have justified to yourself as good?   Evil that is precious to you?  "I don't do this THAT often." "I deserve this." "I've worked hard this week, this is 'me' time."  " There's nothing wrong with it; Guys are just naturally more visually based." "I've heard 'experts' say that a few drinks are actually good for you." "A little more overtime and I can afford that boat, or get that promotion." "Just one more hour; if I get this level / quest done then I'll go to bed." "What do they know?  They aren't under the pressure I am."

            "[The evil Ring] is a gift, I say; a gift... it is mad not to use it..." as the possessed Boromir says after he snuck out of camp.

            But you don't see a battle.  Really, why all the fuss.  "My wife and kids are safe."  Oh really?  Experts now say if your child has a smart phone with access to the internet, your kids are under attack.  If they have a T.V. in their room and can watch whatever network (let alone cable) T.V. they want whenever they want, your children are under attack.  Heaven help them if they have a computer in their room, whether or not it has "parental restrictions" - those take about 30 seconds of research to bypass - your children are under serious attack.  Studies also indicate that these orcs are breed to hunt down your children and kill their souls; they do not tire and they do not rest.

            Let me ask you fathers: WHERE ARE THE COURAGIOUS MEN OF GOD!  Will you charge headlong into this fight?  Will you place yourself directly between this army of Satan's demons and your sons and daughters; even if your kids don't think you're cool, don't 'like' you or their friends' parents don't hold the standards you do; even if it means death... death to yourself, death to your pleasure seeking ways, death to saying "MY WILL BE DONE!"?  The odds are overwhelming.  The hoards are all around you. 

WILL YOU STILL CHARGE OR ARE YOU A SPIRITUAL COWARD?

            Or worse... are you willingly letting the hoards at your children?  Did your children learn that getting drunk is ok because daddy does it?  Did your children see your computer search history and figure, if Dad's doing it, it must be ok?  Did your children learn that anger, insults, yelling, temper tantrums or worse, violence, is the way to handle a disagreement because they've seen how you treat other people, or (Heaven Forbid) your greatest ally in This Fight: your wife and their mother?  Are your wife and children even able to distinguish you from the orcs?

            But if you still have a sense of courage, are you even prepared to fight?   In 'Boot Camp' the soldier is strengthened through serous trials, almost endless repetitions of strength drills, target practice, mock fights, after action reviews, correcting bad practices and reinforcing the good ones.  In the military the soldier drills familiarity with his weapons.  A soldier takes apart his rifle and puts it back together numerous times, sometimes blindfolded.  Have you done any Spiritual Strength drills?  When was the last time you had a Spiritual after action report in the Confessional?   How familiar are you with the weapons of Spiritual Combat? Do you even know what your weapons are?

            Your weapons are: Prayer, Fasting, the Sacraments and Sacred Scripture.  They are Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Kindness, Goodness, Gentleness, Endurance in Suffering, Humility, Faith, Modesty, Continence and Chastity. 

Do you Love your children?  Do you tell them multiple times a day?  Do you love your wife?  Do you sacrifice "me time" to talk to your wife and be with your children?

Do you show the Joy of Christ to all you meet?  No that doesn't mean being a clown or always smiling.  It does mean that you're satisfied with the life God has given you, you recognize the immense blessings you have (if you're reading this, you own a computer; if you own a computer and have internet you're in the top 1% richest people in the world.)

Are you at Peace in your own soul?  Are there wounds you still need to expose and heal?  How was your relationship to your own father and mother?  Are you constantly trying to "get" more "stuff?"   Cause you can never have enough of the stuff you don't need.

Is your default way of dealing with other people Kind, Good, and Gentle?  Are you a Gentle Man?

Do you show Humility?  Do you always have to be right even when you're not sure you are or when you know you're not?  Do you humble yourself by getting down to the level of your sons and daughters to play with them...  there's a practice in patience and endurance in suffering there too.

Are you Faithful: to your wife?  No I don't mean in the big ways... I mean in ALL ways.  Do you speak good of her at work?  Are you faithful to God and your family, even when you think God isn't watching?

Learn especially what Modesty, Continence and Chastity mean; Live them; teach them to your children that they may not inherit the sins of their father.

            Pray, Pray, Pray.  On your knees, daily, for your family, for all families, for your marriage, for all marriages, for the strength to conform yourself to God's Will (and not your own will) for the strength to fight The Fight of all fights.  Prayers from the heart, rote prayers, silent time in God's presence (especially in Eucharistic Adoration)... all are powerful weapons.  The Rosary is in the prime place (no it's not just for old women).  Satan hates the numerous reminders of God becoming Man, through the Blessed Mother.  The linked beads are like a belt of machine gun ammo.  Make sure to "take it apart" and "put it back together" - study the prayers:  What are we saying?  What are we asking?  What is the purpose?  What are the promises associated?

            Fasting in combination with prayer is like increasing the caliber of a gun: going from a .38 special to a .45 ACP; or from a .22 LR to .308 Winchester.  Also remember that a .50 BMG is possible if you remember what BMG stands for: adding the intersession of the Blessed Mother of God!  Fasting does not have to be on bread and water, though it can be.  Fasting can be as little as giving up that 5th beer or that second slice of pie - ok, ok, giving up half of the second  slice of pie - or salt at a meal.  Do what you can to add that additional power to your prayers.

            Sacraments are the strength, endurance, breath of life and willpower to fight The Fight.  Here Penance and the Eucharist are key.  Penance is the time to perform the after action report: look at your life, compare it with what God wants from you - a good examination of conscience is very useful - then report it to your Supreme Commander; but do not skip up the Chain of Command; take it to a priest, the one appointed to receive these types of reports.  You will be lovingly corrected, but forgiven, and bolstered in the ways you need to go.  The Eucharist brings that otherworldly power to the fight.  You cannot fight This Fight alone; only Christ can win it.  If we are what we eat, then consume our Lord as the Eucharist as often as you can - daily whenever able, weekly is a bare minimum.  Become what you eat to gain the strength and endurance from Heaven for The Fight.

            The Word of God is the Sword of the Spirit.  Read Scripture daily.  Start with the Gospels and read them over and over again for a year; then move on to other parts of Scripture.  Ten minutes a day first thing when you wake up.  Don't save it until last; put First things first.  Learn who Christ is.  Learn to emulate what He did.  Learn from His teachings.  Learn to mirror Him to your family and the world.

             Learn well the lessons of Boromir: never forget your armor or shield.  What is our armor and shield?  St. Paul writing to the Ephesians makes it clear: 

"Draw your strength from the Lord and His mighty power.  Put on the armor of God so that you may be able to stand firm against the tactics of the devil.  For our struggle is not with flesh and blood but with the principalities, with the powers, with the world rulers of this present darkness, with the evil spirits in the heavens.  Therefore, put on the armor of God, that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything, to hold your ground.  So stand fast with your loins girded in truth, clothed with righteousness as a breastplate, and your feet shod in readiness for the gospel of peace.  In all circumstances, hold faith as a shield, to quench all [the] flaming arrows of the evil one. And take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God."

            Do you have your loins girded in God's truth?  Or do you think that truth is relative: what's good for you is not necessarily what's good for me?  Or just as bad, are your loins girded in the lies of pornography, lust, contraception and adultery?  There is such a thing as objective moral truth.  If you're going against that, your living a lie.

            Is your heart guarded by a breast plate of righteousness - i.e. right doing?  Do you do the right thing, even when no one is looking?  Or do you sneak extra breaks at work, cut corners, lie or steal? 

            Are your feet ready to walk in the Gospel of Peace?  Do you know the Gospel well enough to walk in it as well as lead your families?  Is there Peace in your home because of you or despite you or is there no Peace in your home?  Know Jesus, know Peace; No Jesus, no Peace - and as Mother Theresa said: No Mary, No Jesus; Know Mary, Know Jesus.  You want to know Jesus better?  Ask his Mama: the spouse of the Holy Spirit.

            Do you have Faith to shield you in tough times?  Or are you completely exposed when the arrows of doubt, despair and anxiety come?  Can you share your Faith?  Shield others from their arrows by sharing your Faith with them?  The Spartans had an oath; the oath of the shield.  I find it very appropriate here: 

This is my shield,
I bear it before me in battle,
But it is not mine alone.
It protects my brother on my left.
It protects my city.
I will never let my brother out of it's shadow
Nor my city out of it's shelter.
I will die
With my shield before me
Facing the enemy

            Your Family and your community are your city.  Your fellow Brother-in-Christ is your Brother on your left.  How is your Faith shielding them and you?

            Is your mind protected with the confidence that you are doing what needs to be done to get to heaven?  Brother are you a on the path to be a Saint?  If you paused at all to answer that question then you seriously need a work out.  "Work out your salvation with fear and trembling."  Study salvation.  What must you do to be a Saint?  Then rest in the confidence of your salvation, with the knowledge that you can mess up and lose it if you allow the enemy to invade your soul.

            Is your sword, the Bible, sharp in your mind, oiled, familiar to you, an extension of your arm?  Are you skilled with it?  Or is it rusting on a shelf somewhere where you don't even know where it is?  Do you even own a Sword?

            Fathers, listen up: Boromir fought the good fight, even though he handicapped himself.  As he lay in the dirt his king found him wounded and dying.  Jesus always sees our wounded-ness; He already sees the arrows and barbs in our life: Sin.  In agony and broken breaths Boromir confesses his sins before his king: "I tried to take the ring... I failed you.  Forgive me!"  His king places Boromir's sword back in his hand and says, "You have fought bravely. You have kept your honor... Be at peace."  So too does our King respond when we confess before him.  He re-arms us, forgives us and tells us "Peace be with you."  Then the king tells Boromir that by all the power the king has, he will restore Boromir's homeland: "... I swear to you I will not let the White City fall, nor our people fail."   Boromir tells the king, "I would have followed you anywhere, my brother, my captain, my king."

            Even if we fathers have failed to protect our children, it is not too late.  Repent!  Pray!  Fight for them NOW!  Our King has already said to us "Yet even now... return to me with all your heart and with fasting, weeping and mourning; and rend your heart and not your garments.  Now return to the Lord your God... I will return to you what the locusts and the cankerworm have eaten..." (Joel 2:12-13a; 25a).  Will you follow Him anywhere He leads even if it's through Hell?  Is He your Brother, your Captain, your King?

            A movie father once asked the same thing I do here: Where are you Men of Courage?  Satan prowls the world like a roaring lion looking to devour your family.  By your Baptism you have become a member of the Church; by your Confirmation you are the Church Militant.  You swore an oath to Defend your Mother, the Church, and by the nature of Marriage, you swore to be priest and protector of your domestic church: your Family.  Are you a Man of Your Word?

            When you die, will your Captain and King say, "Well fought good and faithful soldier"?  Will He place your sword back in your hand, "You have kept your honor.  Now come rest, be at Peace forever..." Where are you Godly Men of Courage? 

Will you march on Hell for His Heavenly Cause? 

Though It Cost You Your Life: Will You Fight or Are You a Coward?

The Blue Crucifix

Hypocricy Ok, if it attacks Cops or Christians

     As part of the all-out campaign to attack any organization that stands up for truth, justice and the American Way (let alone anything that stands up for sexual moral ethics) the errant (evil?) mindset behind it all has finally, blatantly, directly, contradicted itself.  The questions remain: will anyone notice and will anyone care?
     As the proverbial cliché goes: unless you've lived under a rock for the last few months, you're very aware of the attack on Law Enforcement by the media, the government, their own "superiors" and everyone really.  The silent majority may be behind us but they are... well... silent.  A few political commentators might be trying to score political points by "supporting" Law Enforcement but how many phone calls have they made to police chiefs, senators and congressmen?
     But maybe there's a reason.  Turns out if you even support Law Enforcement, you become the target.  Recently a Miami public school principal was "reassigned" for posting a message supporting the Police Officer in Texas who decentralized a resistive teen and drew his gun on two more teens who were attempting to sneak up on his back.  So what was this principal's 1st Amendment protected comment?  Was it racist, sexist, hateful, derogatory, threatening, or even in ALL CAPS?  I'll let you decide:  Alberto Iber commented on his personal Facebook page: "He did nothing wrong.  He was afraid for his life.  I commend him for his actions."
    Let's analyze this, unlike the AP report of this story, race is not the first thing said about both participants, so the principal's comment cannot be racist in nature.  Neither gender is mentioned by the principal so it is not sexist.  Hateful?  No.  Derogatory?  No  Threatening?  No.  And no, it's not even in all caps.  So why was this principal removed?  According to the Miami-Dade Public Indoctrination Board, Alberto Iber was removed because teachers "are required to conduct themselves, both personally and professionally, in a manner that represents the school district's core values."
     Say what?  So who decides what these "core values" are and where are they listed?  Since when does "core values" play ANY role in the left's actions, unless that core value is "if it feels good do it."
     If that's not enough, this is the EXACT thing the same group (liberal school teachers) is fighting against in San Francisco.  San Francisco, the jewel of the left coast, (St. Francis is smacking his forehead in heaven) recently got a new Archbishop: Salvadore Cordileone.  Some members of San Francisco's elite apparently don't like something the Archbishop did.  So much so, a whopping 100 people signed a petition and took out a newspaper add asking Pope Francis to remove the Archbishop. 
     (An aside: please do not call these 'petitioners' 'Catholics'.  To paraphrase Dr. Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College: Calling these people 'Catholics' is like calling a cannibal a 'chef'.  They hate and oppose everything that makes them Catholics; starting with Jesus Christ and culminating in a mouth-frothing, rabid, hatred of sexual moral truths.)
    What was the Archbishop's crime?  Sexism?  Racism?  Abuse of children?  Decentralizing a resistive teen and justifiably drawing a weapon on two teens sneaking up on him with possible intent to do him harm?  Making a Facebook post in support of police?  Nope.  If those last two had been the source of the attack against him, it still would have been in error but at least it would have been consistent.
     Instead, Archbishop Cordileone's "crime" was insisting that teachers in the Catholic Schools in the archdiocese of San Francisco conduct themselves both personally and professionally, in a manner that represents the Catholic Faith accurately. 

No, I'm not kidding.  No, I'm serious.  You can get up and stop laughing now.

     Whether you're Catholic or anti-Catholic, or anything in between, the problem should be clear: how can a mindset fire someone for violating something that it rails against elsewhere?  Where is the media on this?  Oh, that's right.  They're swallowing it hook, line and sinker.  Where's the government on this?  Oh, look another bobber just went down....
    Either it is good to uphold "core values" and therefore discipline can be leveled against someone who doesn't uphold them, or "core values" are bad and anyone who tries to impose them should be removed.  If we were to apply the standards equally, someone should take out a 1 page add in the Miami Herald calling for the removal of the Miami-Dade Indoctrination Board OR Archbishop Cordileone should be able to remove all the teachers who have been rebelling against Catholic "core values" for decades.
    Which is it?  It can't be both.  I think G.K. Chesterton would say this is one of the reasons people go mad.

Keep Checking you Backplates, Brothers and Sisters,
Keep Up the Fight!
God Save Us!

The Blue Crucifix

P.S. Here's an article deconstructing the 4 complaints in the "add" taken out against the Archbishop.