Should we bring back vergers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JosiahOaklin1776
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s a lot, lot harder to do something legally if there’s no security detail in the first place. If you have security, you’re setting yourself with more responsibility.
 
Last edited:
What I mean is that parishes can take volunteers for the role just someone who can have minimal training but can protect the people, also it can be intimidation to stop violence in the first place
 
I know I agree with you but I don’t think the church has the funds for that
 
I think a licensed security officer operating as Verger should be just one member of a team of security officers.

There should be main security officers in the nave of the Church, securing the pews, doors, etc.

The Verger’s job would be to protect the priest, deacon and others at the altar only. He would not be there to protect the people in the pews. That would be the job of the regular security officers.

In other words, if a parish only had one security officer at a mass, that officer should NOT be functioning as the Verger.
 
Last edited:
Plus, we should have the “ushers” acting as “security guards” reporting anything they see to the officers
 
One pastor I spoke to said that the most likely situation would be a security company that would be only be at the parish during Mass on Sat night, Sundays, and Holy Days (at minimum) and perhaps during weekday Mass too if things get worse.
 
27lw said:
So basically he’s like a security guard?
Click to expand...
Not really. In the Church of England the virgers are actually more like church caretakers who prepare and often take part in the mass in some way, and almost always leads processions. They’re not there to protect clergy. If there is a serious threat to clergy in any particular church or cathedral, I would suggest security.
 
That’s what I meant that might mean only three or four hours the company can use that at as a charitable donation.
[/quote]

The problem is that most security companies will eventually wind up working for MANY churches. They are not going to be able to service 10s or 100s of churches for free each Sunday.
 
Last edited:
potentially, the Catholic Church might get a better deal if they sign a diocesan level agreement (even if parishes can opt out)
 
I am totally in favor of whatever kind of security is needed, for all locations such as churches and schools, where many people are gathered together in one place. It’s an intrinsically vulnerable situation.

I would fix these people up with whatever they need to keep order and respond to crises. (Qui legit, intelligat.) Call them vergers, call them porters, call them SROs, call them whatever. I rest much more easily knowing they are there, than that they are not there.
 
There may be a handful of big-city cathedrals where something like this is necessary. But the thought of turning the average parish church into this kind of armed camp seems both ridiculously expensive and productive of a nightmarish liturgical atmosphere. The potential liability issues alone - what happens the first time an inside “security guard” gets trigger-happy and Maces someone they think hasn’t properly consumed the Eucharist? We’re living in an era where police departments are getting sued almost daily; the exposure of the Church to the potential mis-deeds or even honest mistakes of a private security force is mind-boggling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
Found this image, they aren’t virgers but give em some swords would suffice for me(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
Last edited:
Just get some proper security guards, like off-duty cops. That old guy in a robe couldn’t fend anyone off.

A lot of cathedrals already have a guard or two in the church. Not sure why Philadelphia was letting someone wander around the church in a menacing way during Mass, but the Archbishop presumably has beefed up security so we won’t have that again.
 
Last edited:
I bc e never been at any church function wherein I felt there was a need for security.

I think we run the risk of getting hyped that there are imminent threats lurking outside the doors of every Mass.

This is the U.S. I’m talking about, not Sudan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
Pitcairn17 said:
The potential liability issues alone - what happens the first time an inside “security guard” gets trigger-happy and Maces someone they think hasn’t properly consumed the Eucharist?
Click to expand...
That wouldn’t happen in ten thousand years.

The little country parish where everybody knows everybody else, not necessary. Urban parishes, parishes that have a far-flung community and people really don’t know each other (and thus would not spot a stranger who’s never been there before and has evil intentions), probably recommended. High-crime areas, absolutely needed.

I am actually far more of an advocate for SROs (school resource officers), whether from the public sector, or privately contracted, than anything else.
 
Outside of certain parts of the US (cough cough Texas *cough cough) carrying guns, mace, tasers, batons, nunchucks or swords in a public place is illegal except for (trained) police officers. Personally as a priest, I find the idea of armed security in my church aberrant (likewise the cost of employing such personnel… only more so).

I’m aware that some larger churches - such as Westminster Cathedral - employ security either on a temporary or permanent basis and certainly I can appreciate a role for unarmed security. Often them just being there (and looking like they’re not to be messed with) is enough to deter malcontents or defuse any potentially messy situations. For myself, I’m happy to take my chances. After all, the Pope has security and Benedict XVI still got tackled by some crazy woman at Midnight Mass so if someone’s determined enough security isn’t going to stop them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nik
on_the_hill said:
I bc e never been at any church function wherein I felt there was a need for security.
Click to expand...
If you’re at a cathedral in the middle of some not-so-great urban area, there’s often a need for some security. One reason is that Catholic cathedrals in general, unlike some other churches, tend to allow the homeless and street people to hang around both outside the building and also sometimes inside as long as they are reasonably well behaved (the standard for behavior varies by cathedral). There may even be ministries that serve them during the day. Most of these folks are harmless, but you get the occasional case of a person with some sort of problem who makes trouble. The second reason for having security is to deal with those who come to the Cathedral specifically to express anger or make some sort of activist statement, by yelling out in the middle of Mass, committing vandalism etc. Both of these scenarios are pretty common, and I appreciate it when cathedrals have some security especially when I’m going to a cathedral during the evening or early morning hours when it’s dark and there’s not a ton of people around.

Ordinary churches have much less to fear in general and any disturbance is more random. Churches do need good locks on the doors, surveillance, and caution about the type of statue, etc they put outside.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top