I will grant that today there are a few priests who are "controversial" or "hot potatoes". One of them is even a bishop. Some people have washed their hands of these priests; they "can't take the heat" for whatever reason.
I think it's sometimes a really tough call for a traditional Catholic. I'm thinking specifically of that man from South America who's routinely garbed in white, and who styles himself the "Bishop of Rome
". Considering his appearance on the cover of The Advocate
as their 2013 "Person of the Year", without any resultant protest from the Vatican, it seems overly charitable to describe him as "controversial
What would you do if you had been born 2,000 years ago in the Holy Land?
In the case of the "bishop
" I'm describing, no
, it's highly likely that even upon his invitation, I'd not
risk my civil future by carrying a sword
- to escort him to a private session of prayer in the out-of-doors, nor, if armed men arrived to arrest him
- , would dare I lop off one of their ears.
But it's no secret that the dates, not only of his consecration
to the episcopacy, but also of his ordination
to the priesthood, makes their validity questionable prima facie
, so perhaps he's not the "bishop
" alluded to in the original posting.
Note *: Was it legal for the subjugated people of Judæa to carry a gladius
during their homeland's occupation by Roman troops? Would it be legal for an adult to carry one in public for personal defense in any state in the U.S.A., or would a person need a concealed-carry
Note #: Altho' being a head of state, diplomatic immunity would probably protect him in peacetime, except possibly from the U.N.