Did your priest discuss the Zimmerman case in a homily?

Not interested in members here discussing the case itself (already long threads on that, and that’s not a matter for the L&S forum anyway), merely if your priest inserted it into a homily or even delivered an entire homily on it

If he did, what did he say about it and how did he relate it to any Scripture passage?

Why discuss Zimmerman in a homily? What does one gain from preaching him innocent or guilty in a homily? :confused: I see little to no need of discussing Zimmerman unless he is in a rioting city. :slight_smile:

If a priest wants to discuss “self-defense” and “using more than necessary violence”, he need not go further than St Thomas Aquinas. :wink:

See St Thomas Aquinas’ explanation here: newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7

Why indeed. Again, I’m trying to ascertain whether the priest other than ours did bring it up, and if so, what was the context/rationale for doing that, and how was that related to Scripture?

My priest specifically avoided the topic as he felt it would be nothing but incendiary.

Mine didn’t. I can think of some reason why it might relate to some Scripture, but I think it would be a bad idea to use it right now because of how upset everyone is about it.

NO, he did not. Thank God.

Yes, our pastor made several references to the verdict in his homily Sunday before last… saying, in one instance, that justice does not always prevail.

HOWEVER, our parish is more than 99% black, so I think that it would have been unusual had he not made some reference to the verdict. I don’t know that any comment would have been made were we a parish of 99% white/Hispanic/etc.

So it goes…


I agree.

There is just too much disagreement about what the facts in the case are. (It’s risky enough to reference an emotionally charged event when people do agree about the facts.) If a priest used a “fact” about the case as the premise for a point he wanted to make he likely would have lost anyone who disagreed with that “fact”.

Now if a priest’s homily is making some point about people interpreting what they see quite differently then I guess the trial would be relevant.


My priest is Nigerian. He doesn’t get involved in America’s politics and issues.

Our deacon gave the homily that weekend, and he mentioned it only in passing, as one of a long list of signs that Christian activity is still needed to improve the world. I had kind of tuned out (homiletics is not his strength) but I gather from that that the tone was generally negative.

No outright discussions of it though; our parish has a large black and (especially) Hispanic population both.

Well, a priest may mention it because the death of a youth is a disturbing event, and the turmoil it created in our nation has been great due to the racial implications it carries, as well as the fact that it points its finger at the so called right to bear arms and to a very controversial law in the state where the tragedy took place.

Our priest mentioned it (mind you, we are in South Florida). He did not express any opinion on the matter, but rather invited the congregation to pray so that peace and mutual love may prevail over evil.

My city has been place of disorders in the past, so there was concern for this. On that day, I was wearing my crucifix outside of my shirt on public transit, and I noticed many, many others wearing their religious symbols in a similar way. It was reassuring to see that people were spontaneously raising their hearts to God in a plea for mercy and peace. I am not aware of any disturbance, exception made for a pacific public demonstration a few days later.

I think the priest should discuss it.

He should use it as a way to show how much anger and fear there is between
two people, no matter what the verdict, facts, or race.

If either gentlemen would of thought about the other first, this would of been avoided.

Honestly, who cares guilty or innocent now, it is over.

The real truth is that it is sad that a teen cannot walk home in some neighborhoods.


I would hope the homily, if race based at all would be about more alarming facts than the single case of Zimmerman. In regards to the US;

  1. Approximately 6000 black people are murdered per year.
  2. 93% of them are killed by other black people.
  3. The leading cause of death for someone Martin’s age and race is murder.

I would not mind if a priest brought up the Zimmerman case so long as he did not focus on, and agree with MSM talking points, and instead drew attention to the larger and more serious issues.


We live outside of Detroit, but our parish is in the city proper. Right next to University of Detroit Mercy. The city itself is mostly black folks, the parishioners are a nice mix of black, white, Hispanic and a few people of Asian descent.

Our priest is on vacation and the priest filling in for him last weekend is a professor at the university. He did bring the Zimmerman case up. Once he related it to how we seek wisdom, at whose feet do we sit seeking wisdom, etc. and it was brought up again in prayer. During the announcements we were informed that there is a prayer and singing event this week specifically designed to bring different races together in faith to pray for peace and an end to racism.

I find this to be reprehensible. He fuels the fire of racism by pandering to his primarily Black congregation?


Well said.

No he did not.

Peace of the Lord be with you!

Our priests have more pressing concerns in their homilies, such as the unattended runaway oil train that derailed, exploded and wiped out a local town, destroying the downtown core and killing 50 people. Of course, naturally, many people are asking “why did this happen to us”? Most of the people killed were young adults, leaving 21 children as orphans.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.