Do you feel safe going to Mass?


The fact that he fractured his baby stepson’s skull to me means this man should have been locked up for 20 years minimum


K i’ll believe that when the 50 page manifesto about his " beef with christians " comes to light.


I’m just speaking my mind and what I observe. No need to get snarky because you disagree. That goes for you and @Xanthippe_Voorhees.


im not being snarky, if anything I am being sarcastic, because it isn’t that far fetched and has been seen in the past where such criminals have had such manifestos. An I have done the same; speaking my mind and what I have observed. If you don’t like it, that is fine, doesn’t bother me any.


What was snarky about Xanthippe’s reply? What she posted is true from his motivation to taking domestic violence more seriously. Snark-free truth, that.


I don’t appreciate the eye roll. She did it a couple of times with those that held opposite views as if their stance was petty.

What she posted is true from his motivation to taking domestic violence more seriously. Snark-free truth, that.

His motivation is still unknown. Not even I said it was entirely on religion, just implied that we can’t rule it out entirely. So, no it wasn’t “snark-free truth.”


Who said to ban or to regulate?


I feel, and have always felt, completely safe going to Mass. That’s true in my home parish, and it was true when my home parish was in the inner city in New York in the 70s and 80s, just up the street from one of the city’s biggest heroin markets, and it’s been true all over the world, including in supposedly dangerous third-world countries where I don’t speak the language. Never for a moment have I felt less than safe.

I’ve never been in a church where it seems like there’s a need for security, except in those churches that are essentially also museums, like in the Vatican, or at Hagia Sophia in Istanbul (which I guess isn’t technically a church these days, anyway).

I would never in a million years consider bringing a weapon to church.


The motivation was that the person who help her get away from him was in that church and how dare they interfere with a “private matter.”


Quote me where I said to ban or to regulate.


But you don’t really know their motivation.

Now that was snark.


What I mean ban or regulate emojis.


But why shoot up a church? Why not just go after the person that helped the wife?


Yeah…can we know his motivation 100%? No. But we do know from reliable sources that he wanted to harm his wife. We know that he was livid that she reported his abuse. We know that he wanted to harm–and had threatened–anyone who got in his way. We know that he HATED his mother in law passionately and wanted her GONE.

We know that he would stop at nothing–even cracking the skull of a BABY in order to inject fear into the life of his partner.

The connection to the church–to religion–was purely tangential. Had the library been a favorite place of the MIL he would have targeted that. Had she loved to shop and gone for a manicure–that would have been the place.

We know that his target, his rage, was completely focused on the woman he blamed for taking away his family.

It might do you good to understand the hate abusers create for those who allow their victims to break the cycle of violence. They are often the targets of gross abuse. In fact, one of the reasons that a child in foster care may have to leave their foster parent during a “supervised” visit is becuase that child’s abusive parent will lash out at the foster parent since they KNOW they cannot attack the child. When yellow pages/white pages were still a thing foster parents were encouraged to keep their names out–and in general be anonymous as possible because abusive parents would target them. That means keep your name out of the paper–out of the school board minutes, out of the PTA. If they can find a way in, they will use it to try and destroy a person. It’s no secret…and it is in the training today.

This is no less true for victims of domestic violence. When the abuser can no longer abuse they will not target their victim, but try and go after their victim’s support system. This is two fold–it potentially creates a second person to control and victimize and it guilts the original victim into wanting to protect their support system and making them feel as if the support system is unreliable.

Which legitimate sources had already revealed that this was the case…the man WANTED to scare his victim’s support system. He was locked up (committed) in a mental health facility under an involuntary hold. They don’t do that because you want to give people hugs or because you “hate” a certain religion. The requirements for involuntary holds are incredibly high and involve credible threats of harm to yourself…or in this case…others. You also have to note that he did was locked up in one of the most liberty-preserving states by one of the most “look the other way towards domestic violence” jobs that one can have. Basically, it had to be really bad. This isn’t like the case of the kid who made a poptart a gun…

So I think it is ENTIRELY eye role cringe-worthy for people to start ascribing religious persecution fears as that of the Middle East.

We know that he fully intended to bring harm to the MIL and everything she loved. The church just made for easy access.


In all seriousness…do you know anything about the patterns of abusers or those encountering domestic violence? Because it’s not exactly unusual for an abuser to go to any length it takes.


I’m in social work.


In all seriousness, then you should be a little bit wiser to the patterns of abusers. That an abuser would want to destroy the life of someone who helped a victim–and would find any way to destroy that person’s life–should not shock you at all. Nor should the idea of guilt by association. It isn’t at all unheard of for random false “anonymous” charges about anything and everything (from food to coaches to asbestos) to start occurring when a school buckles down on the safety and privacy of a foster kid.


It never crosses my mind that I wouldn’t be safe.

No way.



Because they can. They have guns. They want to inflict pain on as many people as possible. They want to impose control on as many lives as possible because they’ve lost control over their victim(s) when family, friends, the law, etc. intervene.


It doesn’t even take guns.

So much harm can be done by word of mouth. Abusers will stop at nothing. I cannot tell you how many people my abusive biological parents reached out to–well into my college years–to try and inspire fear in me. I learned that this was a common tactic. The dean of students at my college even had to tell individual departments not to take calls becuase they would make guesses at who my professors were—or other people that I liked–and try to accuse them of something random so they would be forced to stop teaching.

Edit to add: this was YEARS and YEARS after my adoption. Even a decade later. People seem to think that a couple years pass, and things are fine. Nope. I’m in a better place than I was as a child/young adult (and I can hide my whereabouts better) but the shenanigans have never completely stopped. And from reliable psychologists–this now multi decade stretch is not that out of the ordinary.

Abusers want to control. First and foremost. Most choose words as weapons because they are free. And they want to punish whomever dares to get in the way of that control.

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