Mom confronts gunman in Church; not everyone is so brave
This story is a bit out of date, but it’s emblematic enough to comment on: Pastor of St. Mary Magdalen Catholic Church says community was 'rocked and shaken' by gun incident during First Communion
Basically, someone who, reading between the lines, seems to be mentally ill, came into the Abbeville, LA church with what was described by the pastor as a handgun but by KADN, the local news station.
“… the teen was dressed all in black, including a black hoodie pulled up over his head, and was wearing a mask. Officials noted temperature outside at the time was in the mid 80s. They also pointed out the church is built on top of a small hill, which requires those entering to climb two sets of outside stairs.”
He was stopped by a mother in the back of the nave who noticed the gun “and denied him further entry.” A terse description of a rather gutsy move.
The story continues in the same detached vein: “Having been alerted, a gentleman in attendance entered the church building from the same door and removed this young man who was then disarmed and detained. A parishioner in attendance called 911. Law enforcement responded immediately and arrested the individual.”
The accompanying picture is, to say the least, not flattering to some others in attendance.
Who among us can say how we would react?
But perhaps if we project ourselves into this situation, we might think and pray about which character we would like to play: Mom juggling a toddler in the back, but nevertheless ready to confront a gun- (perhaps rifle-) wielding crazy person? “Gentleman” prepared to disarm and “detain” him?
Or?
I couldn’t let the comments of my pseudonymous friend Jane Armstrong (occasional contributor to The Latin Mass Magazine) disappear from the notice of posterity, especially now that our usual acerbic social critic, Fr. Paul Mankowski RIP, is gone. I think he would have, in his generous way, allowed that she had nailed it:
Jane notes in an email to me:
I mean, I know the men are not usually in the narthex with the tots, and when times get tough, we must rely upon the Judiths and the Jaels but . . .
She continues:
Also, this has to be the weeniest use of the passive voice by a bishop thus far, and that is saying something.
Bishop J. Douglas Deshotel said: “We are thankful to God that a tragedy was avoided.”
"We are grateful for the brave women and men of this parish who confronted and took down this would-be killer before he could act upon his evil intentions. Blessings upon them for their willingness to lay down their lives for their friends. We are thankful to God for giving them good wits and swift courage, and for sparing them any harm. We beg God's mercy upon the soul of the young would-be murderer, and I look forward to hearing his confession when he is ready to repent and believe in the Gospel."
THERE FIXED IT FOR YA
When I adverted to the photo, she replied:
What a lost opportunity. This Bishop could have created a Butker-level ruckus. . . It could have been glorious:
"... furthermore, Father Dupre would like it to be known that he promptly finished the Mass that was so rudely interrupted because we never stop a Mass until it is finished. In future, all clerics will be trained not to cower behind the Cranmer table and all altar boys will be expected to genuflect under fire. We expect to see everyone return to fulfill their Sunday obligation tomorrow. There is nothing to fear, because from now on every red-blooded man in this parish will be packing heat and assisting at the Holy Sacrifice with his head on a swivel so that women and children will never ever be our first line of defense ever again. Please accept our sincere apologies, ladies; we have been stewing in gayness for decades now and it is going to take us a while to man up."
We later agreed that the milque-toast statement was no doubt crafted under the watchful eye of Counsel, but more’s the pity. What does the bishop have to lose? Only the souls of the faithful…
While I share the sentiment, the bishop cannot throw the pastor under the bus anymore than he already threw himself - the parishioners likely lost some respect for him and the bishop can’t make him look even more pathetic than the pictures. As these parishioners (men and women) already did the right thing in this situation, not sure how helpful it would be to criticize those who panicked.
I will be honest that I don't really see what the issue is here. The woman and the man probably dealt with it bc the gunman entered through the front door and they were the first people there- there's also no mention of children around in the back so they both might have been more free to act than people are imagining. Is the imagined expectation that the priest and altar servers would have swooped down from the altar and gotten involved while the situation was already being dealt with? The man at the door may have been better trained to deal with a violent intruder than priests, perhaps off duty law enforcement. Regardless, the clergy did exactly what civilians should do in that moment to avoid carnage- take cover and let ppl who know what they're doing resolve the issue (which they already were). I think it's unfair to criticize the clergy based on imagined scenario where the priest was the first line of defense- in most cases that wouldn't be the case just bc of the physical setup of most churches.
I don't really understand what is being imagined it would be better for the priest to do- run down and get involved even if he doesn't know what he's doing to look like a he-man in front of his congregants? That would be stupid and very unhelpful to any actual law enforcement or even just competent civilian taking care of the intruder. God forbid, bloodshed did occur - you want the priest available for last Rites and to protect the Sacrament above all. I think it's possibly a different scenario of say he's the only man in a little chapel of elderly women, say. But this is not that situation, and i see no issue with stepping back while the criminal is being dealt with literally at the door. And certainly imputing 'gayness' to a group of men taking cover while under threat from a man with a gun in the building.... is just totally out there- that's what most people should do in an active shooter situation and has zero to do with sexuality- ask any cop you know. Piling onto the bishop and clergy here out of a desire for a Harrison Butker like affirmation of manly men and womanly women seems so intensely twitter brained to me- take a second and think about how this likely unfolded in material reality...
Actual shooter (or wannabe shooter) situations are a mess, not a stageplay- again,
ask any soldier or law enforcement. It's very lucky that there were two individuals competent enough to hold back the attacker so no one was hurt. Shaming people for taking cover to score some culture war points is dangerous and dumb- that's often what people ought to do, it's not cowardice.