This is also a disturbing point of view. The taking of human life, except in self-defense or in capital punishment, is not a God-given right. Murder is not a natural condition.
It might have been the case that intervention or a conversation between the Father and the murderer may have resulted in the murderer turning away from murder as a modus operendi to his emotions, but by no means is murder a default condition. Such a conversation would not be 'saving' another life. Saving another life implies another life was lost by default. Quite the contrary, the life wasn't taken until the murderer actually squeezed the trigger and intentionally took premeditated action and decided to murder his victim.
More disturbingly, this view that the priest intervening could save a life, completely misses the relationship between God and man, as well as ministerial and pastoral guidance per the Great Commission. The Father displays an arrogance that his will might have influenced the will of the murderer in order to proclaim another life was 'saved', whereas the ONLY salvation of directed worth is that salvation of things immortal, through Christ. And that salvation is only granted by God Himself, through grace, not works lest any man should boast.
The Father in the article is reportedly guilty of evil as promoted by a 'do-gooder'. This situation is an outstanding example of how such seemingly innocuous evil can wind its way into apparant good.
By no means do I suggest the murderer is less guilty of his behavior nor that DeFalco is not good intentioned, but this is a convenient opportunity to point out a significant doctrinal point missed by many Christians who associate 'do-gooder' behavior with Christianity. In fact such behavior appeals to a satanic counterfeit system whereby knowingly or not the 'do-gooder' becomes an agent of the Adversary by substituting the do-gooder's will for God's will.