LA Times story says "repeatedly stabbed the choir's lead singer." Uh, I wasn't aware that choirs had lead singers.

No disrespect toward flutists, but that wouldn't have been my first guess as to who tried to save the "lead singer" in this attack. Guess I was wrong, according to the following article.

And it appears that earlier reports might have been wrong, as well. Two of the victims appear to have been critically wounded:
http://www.koat.com/news/new-mexico/albuquerque/2-stabbed-at-northwest-albuquerque-church/-/9153728/19928372/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/x5p5oa/-/index.html

Our church was robbed in broad daylight between Masses on Easter Sunday several years ago. He employed stealth and knowledge of the unusual patterns of people coming and going to make his way into and out of the sacristy.

At a church I previously served, a man came down one of the side aisles with a bucket of human filth and before anyone noticed him he rushed the altar and threw the contents of the bucket all over the altar and book of gospels. He was able to so this because the church was "gathered seating" style with multiple aisles and such a wide-open space that his movements went virtually unnoticed until it was too late. (This occurred the year after I'd left that position so I was not a witness to it but read about it on the parish website.)

What if in the first instance the man had a gun? (We don't know that he didn't, but if he did, thankfully he didn't feel compelled to use it. What if the second man had a weapon instead of a bucket of feces and urine?

Unfortunately, churches are "target rich" environments since in most states concealed carry is forbidden on church property. I know of one person who served an inner city parish in Detroit and violated the archdiocesan policy of no concealed carry because the area where he worked was very dangerous. He felt that it was better to explain yourself standing before 12 people than to be carried to your gravesite by 6.

The Albuquerque TV station did a hospital bed interview with the flutist who leapt into action in order to save people:
http://www.koat.com/news/victim-in-church-stabbing-speaks/-/9154100/19931658/-/14tn6e7/-/index.html

I lock the loft when I play without the choir. During the choir mass, Jeffrey Quick is our first line of defense ...

Unfortunately, churches are "target rich" environments since in most states concealed carry is forbidden on church property. I know of one person who served an inner city parish in Detroit and violated the archdiocesan policy of no concealed carry because the area where he worked was very dangerous. He felt that it was better to explain yourself standing before 12 people than to be carried to your gravesite by 6.

I second Ben's comment. I don't blame him either. I once worked at a church in a very bad area too, which thankfully did not classify as a gun free zone where I was at. Needless to say, after having had lunch with choir friends at a nearby restaurant just blocks from the church, I was followed to my car by a vagrant with something in his hand under some clothing he was holding, and when he approached me at my car, he was shocked to find a 45 pointed right at him. Needless to say he took off running. It appeared he had a knife under the clothing. The guy tending to hang around the church quite a bit. After that encounter, I never saw him again.

Who is discussing 2nd amendment issues? No matter on what side anyone falls regarding issues, the fact remains that in these times, more and more incidents are occurring at churches. Just the other day, an Archbishop in Belgium was assaulted by a "peace and equality for all" group. A church nearby to where I worked, had robbers come barreling in with guns, robbing church goers at an early morning Mass a few years ago.

While I don't recommend doing anything deliberately unsafe for no good reason, and while my heart breaks for the victims of any tragedy, I'm at the same time bothered by what I perceive (maybe inaccurately) as an inappropriate "us vs. them, batten-down-the-hatches" sense underlying commentary such as this. Like- (and again, this could be me projecting here)- it's somehow in particularly bad taste for violence to occur in a church, and that the world used to be a better place where these sorts of things didn't occur. ( Therefore, some societal/cultural/political shift has occurred, which I don't agree with, and which is contributing to these problems. If only my preferred religious/political/cultural group had more control over society. )

It has always been dangerous to do God's work, as the life of God Himself attested while He was here. Frankly, I can think of no better place to die than in God's house, and I can think of no reason to die worthier of a Christian than simply being one.

At the same time, the Catechism makes clear that those responsible for the lives of others (for example, fathers of families) are REQUIRED to protect them. In today's society, that means bringing a gun.

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others.

I did not want my comments to be construed as a 2nd Amendment discussion. No "us versus them, batten down the hatches" mentality intended.

I do however want to point out that there's a difference between being a martyr in witness of the Faith and foolishly leaving oneself open to the loss of life at the hands of an unprovoked aggressor. Everyone must decide for themselves to what extent their faith and the formation of their conscience allows them to defend themselves against such an unprovoked attack, quite possibly requiring deadly force, especially in an environment that common sense informs us is "target-rich".

I don't view it as martyrdom to lose one's life in an unprovoked, life-threatening attack at the hands of a violent aggressor simply because it happens to occur in a church building.

Just so we're clear on Catholic Teaching and formation of conscience in the matter, here are the applicable sections of the CCC:

Legitimate defense

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one's own right to life. Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one's own life than of another's.66

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

Perhaps I should sit near Ben as well.

Maybe if everyone sat near Ben, the world would be a better place. Or at least people would think twice before defying the GIRM! :)