The Priest and The Gunman
Published on August 3, 2007 By Zydor In Religion
Read this for what it is, about an atheist who believes in reality and common sense. Its a bit long, and for that I apologise, but real world examples are often complex, far more so than convenient fables. This is not a Rant, it’s a real world situation I faced, and I thought long before posting, I don’t want any discussion - should there be any - to be heated or Rants, not my nature nor my intent to cause that. This will not be a new problem to many who study theology or religion, but it’s a real life take on it – not theory – and from an atheist, not a fanatical atheist, there is a difference in the latter.

Have Faith ? How, when many representatives of "The Faith" have consistently shown themselves not just, "a little wanting" or were "tested by temptation", the phrases used get more and more philosophical and esoteric the more indisputable facts about the standards of many of their peers are revealed. An example is below - fact not fiction or fable - and by no means the only one of its genre that I have personally had to deal with, nor do I claim to be unique. I am however illustrating the fallacy of the argument that (aka) "we left that behind in the Middle Ages", "we are more civilised now" etc etc. You should also not turn this into a political statement or the fallacy of one Religion over another. You want that, go to another thread as that’s not what this one is about. Its about the principle of Sanctuary in the real modern world, not some dusty long standing theological theory.

I served in Northern Ireland a number of times, and the period 1971-73 was a rough time for many, whatever "side" of the conflict they were (whatever the rights and wrong of either "side", that’s not the issue here, that’s another day, another thread). If we believed via various sources that people on the wanted list or munitions caches were at "X" location, then many times a night operation was mounted to get them. This example is in a City, in a Residential area, rows of terraced houses, schools, community centers, not the commercial district(s). At that time night operations were dangerous affairs, snipers were common - later much easier as security became better, but then it was a foolish person who did not take precautions.

The target "house" would have inner and outer cordons to protect the search party. On the night in question, as had happened many times before, an M60 machine gun opened up on the cordon, at about 200 meters range from the outer cordon - an insane range and weapon for one person against a cordon at night especially as they never learnt to use it “properly”. They had to fire (without night sights) well out of the effective range for nighttime in built up areas, result was bullets spraying over a wide area, mostly into the neighboring houses, where others slept, including children. Our orders were to fire only at known identified targets and then only if life was threatened. At night that causes problems, despite the sense and logic of those orders. Within about 10 seconds the gunman's position was spotted, and some of the guys returned fire - all split second stuff at night, not a high chance of a hit even with night sights – but, at a minimum, it always enough to persuade the gunmen that they had chosen the wrong place to hang around.

The gunman ran 40 yards in cover of front gardens of houses, without giving us the ability for a clean shot that would not endanger other residents. He was seen going into the local church. My Platoon surrounded it, and called for the local Priest who by this time had arrived there (some claimed he had always been there) to allow us in. He did not, (he had always said no in other incidents). We asked for authority further up our command chain, they said no, too emotive for local believers (later in NI, we did, the restriction was lifted with prior authority as the gunmen had deliberately taken too much advantage of the principle of sanctuary). The scenario was more common then than many outside NI realised. End result, long story short, the guy got away. A number of years later that Priest became Bishop of the City, he has since passed away.

Anyone who responds that the Priest rightfully gave "sanctuary" will only reaffirm the barren depraved standards that some have to follow to remain with their Faith, but I will give the Priest full marks for keeping to his Faith even though it was clearly at the expense of those people he is supposed to help. This guy opened up with a fully automatic machine gun, riddled local houses where his "followers" were living, narrowly missing many adults and children alike in their beds, but had hit two, one adult and one child, in their beds. No its not isolated example, no it was not just the NI situation (now over thank goodness). Its inexcusable, and is a disgrace to one of the great Religions of this world, despite the principle of Sanctuary being common to most Religions. You will never convince me it was right, nor convince me that somehow the Priest was following some Devine instruction or "Law". It was a disgrace.

You wish to have Faith, go ahead, more power to you and I genuinely hope you find inner peace. I will always fight for the right for others to believe in what they like, as long as they remain a theoretical human being like the rest of us, but I cannot join you in that Faith. Real world experiences, not Grand Theology and mystic Philosophical Theory, persuade me otherwise, even more so if I am also supposed to condone the actions sanctioned at that church – and many other similar situations.

I will listen with genuine interest to any responses, if any. Whilst I concede its going to be a tough one to change my mind, I will listen sensibly. I am acutely conscious that the principle of Sanctuary has long been a difficult area for many devout Religious individuals.

Comments
on Aug 03, 2007
i do understand what you are saying and i do not disagree with you....my point of view is somewhat different;i do not believe in nor participate in organized religion, which i think is about the worst thing that ever happened;control was/is all, you know...i have a more spiritual outlook(before you wince, hear me out); all is in flux ...everything is in constant motion...solidity is an illusion, as is time;we need those to exist on this planet;take a good look at a chair, please...solid? looks solid..we sit on them all the time...but the possibilities of/in this universe and others;i believe atheism denies the very existence of atoms and the constant motion;all is change...all the time;look at a rose, a leaf..anything...patterns(no patterns in chaos);i do not believe in a god in the sky or even a god;i believe in the universe, a universal intelligence that reaches far beyond ou universe.....i do not care what anyone calls it;doesn't matter; please tell me what you think;, ill you...i am not trying to convert anyone to anything, just sharing, ok? thanks, j artpainter44
on Aug 03, 2007
I hear where you are coming from, I used to be agnostic - not a fence sitter, I was genuinely unsure - but my Army Service finally shifted me to atheist. A very good friend of mine, a Church of England Padre, even remarked "you are assuming all clerics believe in a Supreme Deity", and that was kind of scary

A level physics as a whippersnapper, so trust me I believe in atoms:) To me theological theory keeps shifting

- First Millenium, above the clouds was a mystery, so fine thats heaven, and the images thus created live on to this day, but then they believed it, it was gospel, "The Truth"
- Time marches on, people start to realise that its not just the Earth there is a whole Universe out there. Bingo, theory changes, "ahhh, well it was only a parable about the clouds & heaven, actually He created all"
- Sun worshipers like the Aztecs were fanatical in their belief, a belief centered around something that conveniently cannot be proven or explained. That happens with just about any religion you can imagine. Its pointless quoting the Bible or the Koran, to quote those as evidence (cornerstones of the respective beliefs) as "evidence" is so unreal I am still astonished many try it.

So it goes on, as - for whatever reason when doubt is cast on previous theorys and "Truths", the story or emphasis conveniently changes (the most outrageous one being in 451AD re the Holy Trinity and rewriting the very foundation of the whole of Christianity, a factual reality many many christians are unaware of).

Against that back drop, I am looking at a thug, an out of control murderous thug, over my night sights, who has no respect for human life, has sprayed local houses with automatic machinegun fire, injuring two in their beds and I have to respect Sanctuary? I did because those were my orders, my instinct was to do very much otherwise. Its not a huge leap from there to say, "sorry this theology is nonsense and discredited".
on Aug 04, 2007
I read this very quickly and hope i understand it well enough to get the gist.

First of all, thank you for your military service.


As a lifelong Catholic, I appreciate the sanctuary of the Church. Catholics believe literally that the Church is God's "house" as He is present in the Tabernacle that was most likely located on the altar of the Church.

There is always a certain due decorum no matter who is there, Catholic or non-Catholic that one must always be reverent inside, or even near it.

I can assure you there is no divine or Chruch law that the priest was following other than his own conscience for what he did or failed to do in this life and death case.

I wonder did the priest know the person in the Chruch was a gunman? Could there have been any doubt in the priest's mind as to the exact circumstances?
Had the gunman shot into the rows of houses before or after he went into the Chruch? Was the priest aware of this?
on Aug 04, 2007
"As a lifelong Catholic, I appreciate the sanctuary of the Church"
Most people automatically do, me included - believer or not. In this instance though, I have to be honest and say I would not have done so, had it not been for my orders.

He knew, to elucidate further would be too close to being perceived as an attack on the Priest, thats not my intent. I questioned Sanctuary as a doctrine in these circumstances, and never got to the bottom of it.

The post was not aimed at the Catholic Church, nor the Priest as an individual - the Priest did what he felt his Faith demanded of him, full marks to him. The same standards are demanded of most Faiths, and you cant "blame" individuals, they follow what they deeply believe, in turn that is drawn from their Faith.

What I have never reconciled in my own mind is the logic of Sanctuary, and why its held up in the various Faiths as the right thing to do. Its not a simple thing I recognise, few focus on it because of that, yet circumstances similar to that I described does drive people away from "The Faith" of whatever "flavour" that Faith is. Most realise is a lose-lose situation, so why perpetuate it.

I thought It was a piece of Core Doctrine, obviously not so from what you said. Makes the whole thing even more wacky I guess ....
on Aug 04, 2007
The Catholic Church is considered a sacred place. It sounds to me as though the priest was preventing the inside of the Chruch from becoming a shooting range.

In this case, as you describe it, I really don't know if harboring this shooter, if that's what the priest did, was the right thing to do or not.

Being human, even good priests have poor judgment sometimes and whether or not this was a case of it, again, I really can't tell.

I'll ask my parish priest about this.

on Aug 04, 2007
It would be interesting to hear his views - but be clear I am not after the Priest in question. I may have disagreed with him, still do (I was the Platoon Commander of the Platoon around the church area), but I respect him sticking to his Faith as he saw it. I just use that as a real life problem to illustrate the sanctuary dilemma in my mind.

As for poor judgement, I certainly disagreed thats for sure, but I hesitate to say he displayed poor judgement. I certainly dont have the necessary in depth knowledge to make that call. If it was a bad call, well, dont we all at some point in time.
on Aug 04, 2007
First of all, I am not a Catholic. But I hold to the idea of sanctuary in certain circumstances.

I would not have offered sanctuary in the instance you cite, personally, and I am perplexed as to why the priest would. But you're right, he was true to his calling. But I do think there are instances when the idea of sanctuary should be applied. Ironically enough, in most of those instances, I DON'T see it applied.

I didn't know this side of you. I'm definitely interested in hearing more.
on Aug 05, 2007
I am not sure this is as much a case of sanctuary as it is a case of sacred space. I will not and would not allow weapons in my Temple period. Everyone lived. That's a good thing.

Be well.
on Aug 05, 2007
That was always the problem (sacred space), and why entry in the early days was refused. The gunmen had already got rid of his weapon (they used couriers to move the stripped down pieces within seconds of an incident).

Re living, absolutely. The problems came later when the same gunman opened fire in other incidents killing others. Its true to say if it wasnt him in later incidents it would have been others in his place, but that logic can only go so far.

I have never had anyone explain the theological theory (if thats the right expression) for this. It has to be theological as Courts decided Guilt after we handed them over, not us. Whenever I try to find out, the question is always left hanging in the air. I certainly will not launch a diatribe if it turns out I do disagree with the philosophy behind it. I am just trying to understand why the guy was protected in this way.

I know its not an easy question to answer, and perhaps in reality there is no real answer, I dont know.
on Aug 05, 2007
I wasn't able to speak with my priest this morning, however, some of my fellow Catholics that I posed this scenario told me to check out Catholic Code of Canon Law for answers.



Canon 1210 In a sacred place only those things are to be permitted which serve to exercise or promote worship, piety, and religion. Anything out of harmony with the holiness of the place is forbidden. The Ordinary (priest) may however, for individual cases, permit other uses, provided they are not contrary to the sacred character of the place.

Canon 1211 Sacred places are desecrated by acts done in them which are gravely injurious and give scandal to the faithful, when in the judgment of the local Ordinary, these acts are so serious and so contrary to the sacred character of the place that worship may not be held there until the harm is repaired by means of the penitential rite which is prescribed in the liturgical books.

Canon 1212 Sacred places lose their dedication or blessing if they have been in great measure destroyed or if they have permanently made over to secular usage, whether by decree of the compitent Ordinary or simply in fact.

It seems to me after reading this that the priest was acting in the best interest in the common good of the Church and of the faithful.
on Aug 06, 2007
I understand the concept of Sanctuary.  But have never really thought on the issue in circumstances as you describe.  I will not pretend to answer your question/dilemna.  But I would ask (in all honesty), how many countries even think of the concept of sanctuary.  I know, for the most part, that the US and Western Europe would wrestle with this as a dilemna.  But how much of the rest of the world would think twice about persuing the gunman into the church?
on Aug 06, 2007
DrGuy, I don't know, yet I am willing to think not many. It would seem a corollary to civilized behavior. The more civilized, the less likely to violate sacred spaces regardless of the reason. Civilization requires an axiology, a rank ordering of values, and a commitment to these values, as well as their ordering. This is why deontological ethical systems are so challenging in my view. We say we value life. We say we value sacred space. When the two collide we need a system for ordering these. When does one trump the other?

Be well.
on Aug 06, 2007
We say we value life. We say we value sacred space. When the two collide we need a system for ordering these. When does one trump the other?


The $64 question. And I tend to agree with your answer. Thanks.
on Aug 06, 2007
"It seems to me after reading this that the priest was acting in the best interest in the common good of the Church and of the faithful."

Dont deny he felt was doing so, and despite my obvious disagreement with him in this case, he got my Vote for sticking to his Beliefs in extreme circumstances.

Thank you for trying, I wasnt aware of those Canon's.

I doubt there is any specific formal guidence for circumstances such as this, it would open a whole new can of worms - and for such a relatively rare occurance that would not be worth it. Thats the way life is I guess, its never black and white. If anyone ever finds one, I would be interested in hearing what it is.
on Aug 06, 2007
So Daiho Posts:
The more civilized, the less likely to violate sacred spaces regardless of the reason. Civilization requires an axiology, a rank ordering of values, and a commitment to these values, as well as their ordering. This is why deontological ethical systems are so challenging in my view. We say we value life. We say we value sacred space. When the two collide we need a system for ordering these. When does one trump the other?


Hello So Daiho,

Thank you for sharing these insightful thoughts on this very weighty topic.

In my view, as part of our moral and ethical fiber, the dignity of life and sacred space are on the same plane, each part of the same ordering. I may be off, but I'm thinking of the Natural or Moral Law. It's not so much that they collide, but more that when they are separated, or one or the other is not honored, that we see confusion, general disruption, if not down-right chaos.