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.
The priest did right to remain in the sanctuary, manfully leading the people in prayer, and he did, in fact did finish the Mass. The Bishop might well have said that while the eyes of the world news were on him for one brief moment. I fault the Bishop for letting an opportunity to confirm the brethren pass him by. He had time to think and consider, and he coulda been a contender.
Wow. A stunning example of the shepherds sacrificing the sheep for themselves. Hilariously funny if it wasn’t so damn sad. And shame on anyone defending this disgusting cowardice from anyone in the relevant archdiocese. Look at the clerics in Africa - who suffer real persecutions, death threats and frequent bombings of their churches - I can’t see them acting like this.
We have a smashing line of bullet proof vestments in all liturgical colours. The full line is on clearance as no one seemed interested in them. These vestments are backed by our guarantee. If they don't work, we will refund your money and add 15%.
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.
My issue is more that the suggested alternate statement is mocking the priest and altar servers for taking cover. And yes, I know it's meant to be humorous but the intention seems to be to suggest that the priest is supposed to be some kind of avatar of gayness or demasculinization and that seems totally projected onto and unjust in this particular scenario. Sure, the bishop can do better in his statement but what was suggested (one of the last block quotes from Ms. Armstrong making fun of the men at the altar) certainly isn't an improvement.
Nobody said the priest should deal with the shooter. He stayed in the sanctuary where he should have been. The bishop might have pointed that out, and mentioned why the priest stayed there. He could have caused the kind of media firestorm that Butker caused simply by making a statement - any kind of statement, that sounds Catholic and manly to a man's ears.
But see, it wasn't luck. A particular woman made the choice to confront the gunman. The article says she was back there with a child. The article also says there were men around when she did that. Why was she the one to act? The video shows a lot of men acting a lot of different ways. I wonder if any patterns could be seen.
Look around you. Is the problem you see facing the Church today that clerics don't take cover when they should? Is it that men are being too protective of women? Is it that Bishops are being too clear and forceful and precise and Catholic in their language?
Satire is annoying and always wrongheaded when drawn out to its extreme literal conclusion. But there is no doubt that perverse bishops and those they control and form have a way of speaking and acting that is not like normal men. It has become so pervasive we don't even see it anymore.
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.
Lots of things he could have said. What he said was... not pastoral.
The priest did right to remain in the sanctuary, manfully leading the people in prayer, and he did, in fact did finish the Mass. The Bishop might well have said that while the eyes of the world news were on him for one brief moment. I fault the Bishop for letting an opportunity to confirm the brethren pass him by. He had time to think and consider, and he coulda been a contender.
Wow. A stunning example of the shepherds sacrificing the sheep for themselves. Hilariously funny if it wasn’t so damn sad. And shame on anyone defending this disgusting cowardice from anyone in the relevant archdiocese. Look at the clerics in Africa - who suffer real persecutions, death threats and frequent bombings of their churches - I can’t see them acting like this.
We have a smashing line of bullet proof vestments in all liturgical colours. The full line is on clearance as no one seemed interested in them. These vestments are backed by our guarantee. If they don't work, we will refund your money and add 15%.
Really?
https://open.substack.com/pub/dollarstorethomist/p/bulletproof-vestmentss?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=3hwo9d
Yes. Really.
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.
The bishop's statement was annoyingly bland and didn't address the reality of the situation.
My issue is more that the suggested alternate statement is mocking the priest and altar servers for taking cover. And yes, I know it's meant to be humorous but the intention seems to be to suggest that the priest is supposed to be some kind of avatar of gayness or demasculinization and that seems totally projected onto and unjust in this particular scenario. Sure, the bishop can do better in his statement but what was suggested (one of the last block quotes from Ms. Armstrong making fun of the men at the altar) certainly isn't an improvement.
Do you think the Bishop's statement was manly?
Nobody said the priest should deal with the shooter. He stayed in the sanctuary where he should have been. The bishop might have pointed that out, and mentioned why the priest stayed there. He could have caused the kind of media firestorm that Butker caused simply by making a statement - any kind of statement, that sounds Catholic and manly to a man's ears.
But see, it wasn't luck. A particular woman made the choice to confront the gunman. The article says she was back there with a child. The article also says there were men around when she did that. Why was she the one to act? The video shows a lot of men acting a lot of different ways. I wonder if any patterns could be seen.
Look around you. Is the problem you see facing the Church today that clerics don't take cover when they should? Is it that men are being too protective of women? Is it that Bishops are being too clear and forceful and precise and Catholic in their language?
Satire is annoying and always wrongheaded when drawn out to its extreme literal conclusion. But there is no doubt that perverse bishops and those they control and form have a way of speaking and acting that is not like normal men. It has become so pervasive we don't even see it anymore.