The "uglification" of a church
#31
The question should be; at what point would Father Gunslinger profane the Altar if he should use his side arm?

OT: I still like the artwork. The pipe organ cabinetry tho, is plain ugly and giving it a place of prominence is very questionable.
Reply
#32
(10-20-2012, 09:43 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: The question should be; at what point would Father Gunslinger profane the Altar if he should use his side arm?

OT: I still like the artwork. The pipe organ cabinetry tho, is plain ugly and giving it a place of prominence is very questionable.

His intent would not be to profane the Altar, but to protect his congregation.  Grace builds on nature (which doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but it's something I heard in a philosophy class one time so I throw it out there and see if it sticks).

I think it would be wise for priests nowadays to wear a firearm under their chasuble.  Shepherds must protect their sheep, both spiritually and physically.  And that's what I think. 
Reply
#33
(10-20-2012, 09:48 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 09:43 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: The question should be; at what point would Father Gunslinger profane the Altar if he should use his side arm?

OT: I still like the artwork. The pipe organ cabinetry tho, is plain ugly and giving it a place of prominence is very questionable.

His intent would not be to profane the Altar, but to protect his congregation.  Grace builds on nature (which doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but it's something I heard in a philosophy class one time so I throw it out there and see if it sticks).

I think it would be wise for priests nowadays to wear a firearm under their chasuble.  Shepherds must protect their sheep, both spiritually and physically.  And that's what I think. 

In this matter, the overt action of Father Gunslinger would have more weight than his intent; assuming that he has a quick draw and hair-trigger that over rid  his objective reasoning. I would think that Father Gunslinger would have to do some hefty explaining if the Altar and Church needed to be regularly re-consecrated. Plus he would risk the ire of the Sacristan and possibly the Altar Society. From personal experience, it is very difficult to get gore out of silk brocades and linens.

Secular Priests with guns is just a horrible idea. (Secular means not a Religious)
Reply
#34
(10-20-2012, 10:31 PM)Lateran15 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 09:48 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 09:43 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: The question should be; at what point would Father Gunslinger profane the Altar if he should use his side arm?

OT: I still like the artwork. The pipe organ cabinetry tho, is plain ugly and giving it a place of prominence is very questionable.

His intent would not be to profane the Altar, but to protect his congregation.  Grace builds on nature (which doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but it's something I heard in a philosophy class one time so I throw it out there and see if it sticks).

I think it would be wise for priests nowadays to wear a firearm under their chasuble.  Shepherds must protect their sheep, both spiritually and physically.  And that's what I think. 

In this matter, the overt action of Father Gunslinger would have more weight than his intent; assuming that he has a quick draw and hair-trigger that over rid  his objective reasoning. I would think that Father Gunslinger would have to do some hefty explaining if the Altar and Church needed to be regularly re-consecrated. Plus he would risk the ire of the Sacristan and possibly the Altar Society. From personal experience, it is very difficult to get gore out of silk brocades and linens.

Secular Priests with guns is just a horrible idea. (Secular means not a Religious)

Having a Catholic congregation mowed down by a marauding gunman while no one in the building is able to return fire is an equally horrible idea. It's coming.  One armed priest could put a stop to it before it starts and send a message to any other potential nuts that you don't screw with the Church. We are the Church Militant (and sometimes the Church Militant dot tv) after all.

And yes, I realize nuts can't be reasoned with.  All the more reason to ensure their unreasonable brains develop a close acquaintance with a bullet. Big scary guns don't kill people.  Bullets do.
Reply
#35
(10-20-2012, 11:03 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 10:31 PM)Lateran15 Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 09:48 PM)DrBombay Wrote:
(10-20-2012, 09:43 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: The question should be; at what point would Father Gunslinger profane the Altar if he should use his side arm?

OT: I still like the artwork. The pipe organ cabinetry tho, is plain ugly and giving it a place of prominence is very questionable.

His intent would not be to profane the Altar, but to protect his congregation.  Grace builds on nature (which doesn't really have anything to do with anything, but it's something I heard in a philosophy class one time so I throw it out there and see if it sticks).

I think it would be wise for priests nowadays to wear a firearm under their chasuble.  Shepherds must protect their sheep, both spiritually and physically.  And that's what I think. 

In this matter, the overt action of Father Gunslinger would have more weight than his intent; assuming that he has a quick draw and hair-trigger that over rid  his objective reasoning. I would think that Father Gunslinger would have to do some hefty explaining if the Altar and Church needed to be regularly re-consecrated. Plus he would risk the ire of the Sacristan and possibly the Altar Society. From personal experience, it is very difficult to get gore out of silk brocades and linens.

Secular Priests with guns is just a horrible idea. (Secular means not a Religious)

Having a Catholic congregation mowed down by a marauding gunman while no one in the building is able to return fire is an equally horrible idea. It's coming.  One armed priest could put a stop to it before it starts and send a message to any other potential nuts that you don't screw with the Church. We are the Church Militant (and sometimes the Church Militant dot tv) after all.

And yes, I realize nuts can't be reasoned with.  All the more reason to ensure their unreasonable brains develop a close acquaintance with a bullet. Big scary guns don't kill people.  Bullets do.

I can not and may not agree with your post. Horrible thing have happen and will undoubtedly continue to be so, but we may not and must not participate in manifested evil, even to the point of stepping in front of the hypothetical Priest to prevent him from shooting. Although I can not imagine and will not believe a Priest desecrating a Church.

People kill people, the means are rather incidental to the result.
Reply
#36
You guys talk like the Middle Ages didn't have a solution for this. They had designated armed men. The priest himself shouldn't have to carry a weapon on his person, especially during Mass.
Reply
#37
(10-21-2012, 02:21 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: You guys talk like the Middle Ages didn't have a solution for this. They had designated armed men. The priest himself shouldn't have to carry a weapon on his person, especially during Mass.

I agree compleatly.  From the beginning of the Church the Shepherds had their menions for these tasks when necessary.  Even Our Lord told St. Peter to Put up thy sword into the scabbard (St. Matthew 26:52, St. John 18:11).  A reading of the very early history of the Church seems to me to indicate that there was a decided lack of physical resistance to persecution, esspecially by the clergy, yet the Church thrived and grew.  Precedent for the clergy "taking up arms" are few and far between (though I recall reading that Pope Julius II mounted up and led a contigent to recover some territory of the Papal States that had been upsurped by somebody).

As for the appropriatness of Father dropping the host onto the patten and "fireing away" a) that should never be necessary, it is a task for others as The_H_K has indicated, and b) the rubrics might have something to say about it.  When I was in parochial school, until a new church was build adjacent in 1963, we had weekly Mass in the cafeteria.  A couple of times a fire drill occured during Mass (I'm presuming the Fire Department conducted these at random and were not aware that a Mass was going on).  The nuns marched us all out, including the altar servers, Father remained at the altar with the Blessed Sacrament.

And realisticly, how often does a church get "shot up" on Sunday morning?  It did use to happen now and again in African-American churches in the segregated south (especially if they had gotten uppity and registered voters, or something like that).  The only recent example that comes to mind is when a shooter fired inside of a Unitarian Church in Tennessee in 2008, two were killed.  The shooter was motivated by "hatred of Democrats, liberals, African Americans and homosexuals".  One of those killed was an usher who courageously rushed the shooter to distract him.  The shooter was taken down and restrained by 4 other congregants.  Police responded within 3 minutes.  Going only by a few Unitarians I know locally, while several are sportsmen who hunt and fish, they seem unlikely to "pack heat" when they go to church or attend civic and cultural events.

In the rare occurances of these tragic situations, I think it is good, when possible, to apprehend the culprit and figure out the motives.  People, especially the families and friends of victims, will want to know why this happened.  When an incident like this begins there will be some victims before others realize what is occuring and can react and take the guy down with a tackle.  Quite frankly I'd be more concened about the collatoral damage from a bunch of amature wannabe rambos fireing away wildly in such a situation.
Reply
#38
Christianity is not a pacifist religion.  The Church teaches one has the right to defend oneself and the innocent with deadly force if necessary.  There is nothing evil about a priest defending his congregation with arms during Mass if such a situation arises.  To claim or even imply that there is demonstrates a woeful ignorance I'm afraid. 

As for the suggestion that armed men should be appointed so the priest doesn't have to carry a weapon, that might be the ideal but practically it would be an epic fail from the get-go.  Can you imagine the reaction of the average NO parish council if such an idea were put forward?  Even the trads would have a fit I'm sure.  The same kind of response would be heard as what we've seen here in this thread, namely tongue clucking, jowl quivering outrage:  "Oooooohhhhh noooooooo!!!!  Big scary guns are evil!!!!  We're Christians!!!! To even suggest we defend ourselves is EVIL!!!! Guns are wicked!!!! People shouldn't bring guns into our church, they might start shooting us!!!! Please don't even mention guns again, they frighten us!!!!  What about the children??!?!!" 

I'm not saying priests should be forced to arm themselves.  But if Father decides he wants to carry a firearm during Mass, what is the harm, aside from some poor folk's tender sensibilities being offended?  If he conceals it properly they'll never be the wiser anyway.  I think most would be shocked if they knew how many people they run into everyday are carrying concealed weapons.  It's enough to make the paranoids with nervous dispositions develop a bad case of the vapors.   
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)