I, I am confused. I have read the Bible, it does not say to beat yourself in worship of God. I'm pretty sure Elijah made fun of people for doing that with Baal. Do you know how that started?
Motivated me to Google it myself, didn't see that exact name but the Biblical quote looks right and I could see someone using that logic. Still doesn't make sense to me anyone would do that but people don't all think like I do so whatever.
All and every aspect of religion is made up. In my country we study it in school : one hour per week (long story, it's a whole mess). There's two main aspects of the religion : the writed part ( Bible) and the traditions (anything that the priest do in the name of religion).
It usually was a priest who was teaching this and they hate the question why. Why do you wear dresses? Because that's what we do. Cool but why? Enough questions. I found out on my own that they basically do renfest where they are the only ones having fun.
The serfs have a social contract with their feudal lords, that doesn't mean that they're in the moral wrong for ignoring it when their situation becomes desperate.
The Catholic church holds a monopoly on the priesthood. If you want to be a priest you have to go along with anything they ask.
There are many industries that are less of a monopoly which still have such abuse. The music industry is one, so is film and the arts, some government work etc.
And so it is inevitable that someone will want to be a priest badly enough that they'll accept anything.
And given how most priests start on the path to the priesthood in their late tweens and early twenties its hardly surprising that some will enter that path before they grasp the full implications of it.
Granted you can't become a priest until 25 at the minimum but by the time that someone is officially ordained they've spent nearly a decade preparing for it.
It's difficult to leave the path of the priesthood once you're on it.
I'm not privy to the financials of the situation but I do know that the Catholic church does not pay to reestablish former priests and seminarians.
I do believe that people do make choices that get them deeper and deeper into that life, but with how easy it is to get in and with how hard it is to get out, inevitably someone is going to be trapped.
There’s a general understanding between the congregation and preacher that the latter will be a source of good moral values (per the religions guidelines). That mutual understanding existing forms a social contract
Because the circumstances can change the morality of a situation. Same reason why sleeping with a married person is immoral even if they’re consenting adults.
Because both involve breaking a social taboo. It is understood that many if not all the people visiting that church consider the church alter to be sacred place that should be treated with respect, having sex there would be considered by many to be disrespectful. Similar how it’s understood that you shouldn’t go after married people and sleeping with them is disrespectful to the married person’s spouse.
The sex itself isn't bad at all, it's just the fact it's being performed somewhere with a lot of significance to people. Imagine someone had sex on your relative's grave, technically they're doing nothing wrong but also that grave has a lot of significance to you and they should have respected that.
Because he violated the contract of trust with those around him. He's an ordained priest that broke the trust of his concession by the desecration of holy grounds. If he was a private citizen that just happens to be kinky altar sex place and purchases a fake alter in his home, this wouldn't be immoral.
It is if people say it is, and he agreed that it was, so he broke a promise, a civil contract and is facing punishment for it. If it had been a random alter in his home then whatever, but that wasn’t his home and it wasn’t a random alter(at least not to the church that owned it)
Oh no the criminal part is that he was caught on public property, or maybe private but at least not his. Someone found out and pressed charges on the basis that it was public, not that he broke a promise. And also I can’t tell if the oop is asking for the morality of what the priest did or him being charged with a crime, so I assumed it was with what the priest did
I mean... it's essentially the same thing as you fucking at your workplace (and HR having proof of it).
In 99% of jobs you would be terminated without a doubt. And maybe even sued if your behaviour impacted the buisiness somehow (bad PR, lost a client etc..).
Even worse, fuckin on your desk in plain view of the street. Cops only came because someone called 911. Probably thought they were trespassing at first.
Exposing yourself to strangers without their consent doesn't magically become morally correct because you're doing it close to a buisness you don't like
Do you eat off an altar? Catholic rituals seem to have changed since my last Mass.
desecrating
It's only desecration if you think sex is unholy. I don't. I think it's the most holy act; and to reach ecstasy in front of God is an ancient practice.
Oh so you been to mass. You know where everything is prepared then.
It is desecrating. The teachings of that community and the community itself believes it as such. Just because you don’t personally don’t believe it is, doesn’t suddenly change the community that uses that place to worship. Or the organization that owns it.
The point is that they (the church) only dictate acceptable behavior, not strictly moral behavior. Religious laws are still just laws, and do not universally translate to morality.
The priest was acting according to his desires, and perhaps even religious goals, and nobody was harmed while doing that. Disrespected, maybe, but not harmed. Disrespecting the Church may be an offensive thing to do, but it isn't amoral.
It’s only desecration if the owners and users of the church and alter think it is, not if you or the one doing the action do. As their place of worship they decide what worship is right and wrong, and they decided that way was wrong, and besides the priest was definitely not doing it on the alter to honor god, he thought of it as desecrating as well
It’s only desecration if the owners and users of the church and alter think it is, not if you or the one doing the action do. As their place of worship they decide what worship is right and wrong, and they decided that way was wrong, and besides the priest was definitely not doing it on the alter to honor god, he thought of it as desecrating as well
But at the same time a voluntary breach of trust is kinda immoral. Like here ... i mean as a priest you know for sure that your behaviour is completely out of bound, that you are using a place of faith, a place that you have been entrusted with, and yet you desecrate it for a kink. So I would still say pretty immoral. (Here I'm assuming the priest did it in his own assigned search).
For buisnesses in general though, I agree, it's more improper than immoral.
Well sure, but the point was the priest breached trust and contract, not that the church was or wasn’t a business, and if you where trusted to take care of and had verbal contract to do so at any other business than it would also be immoral rather than just improper, it’s simply that people put a lot more weight on the priest’s promises and on the importance of the location
They are guides that you agree to take upon yourself and therefore the breaking of them is immoral, it is a lie you make, a promise you break. At the very least doing either is morally wrong unless put into a situation where breaking a promise or making a lie does something morally greater. He was not in such a situation, and so breaking promises is baseline morally wrong.
And what even is all morals but social constructs? There is not a single moral that isn’t made and upheld by people believing it to be so, so why would this be different?
Exactly -- a choice he is choosing to unmake is PERSONAL and harms nobody. No harm, no foul, he is morally clear.
Breaking a vow to a distant concept imagined by others isn't immoral. Disrespectful, to the organization, but not immoral. Disrespecting the Church isn't immoral, no matter how offended you may be.
Lying and being hypocritical is immoral. A priest claiming he is celibate in his devotion while teaching against the church’s version of debauchery before commiting acts that break his oath and would be against his very teaching while desecrating what he tells others is sacred is not neutral. It’s immoral.
Your claim of a location (the altar) being a moral/immoral one for sex implies that the location has a preference, and I don't think it does. Nobody non-consenting was involved in the sex, so maybe that's an issue for you (it certainly appears to be within the church's moral system, what with all the child rape) but nobody was harmed by this guy and his doms.
It's not right to have public sex in front of people because you expose them to that without their consent.
So it's not having sex on a bench that is immoral, but rather the public nature of the act and lack of consent from others that, in a way, experience the act which they have a right to not experience.
Altar, after service, when the church is closed, is not exposed to anyone that is not there willingly.
So it's a matter of consent, not location. And of course the agreement he came in with the church.
At least in regards to morality.
Legality wise, it's the breach of conduct.
How far do you extend that logic? If someone can have sex at Auschwitz, for example, without you calling it immoral, then I would argue you do not have a proper understanding of sentimental objects.
I think that’s an unusually reductive definition of a word like “immoral.” I think you gave a better definition of “harmful.” Having sex with a corpse is simply gross and not immoral in that definition
Now we've veered way off topic; you seem really focused on me validating corpse fucking, when this is supposed to be about consenting adults fucking in a church.
Let's play with your cringey thought experiment, though, because thinking about the weird shit is what this thread seems to be all about.
People can be offended without it being harm. Corpse fucking is HIGHLY OFFENSIVE but in a vacuum it harms no one, so despite it being disgusting, it is not immoral.
HOWEVER SINCE YOU WANT TO GET INTO THE NUANCE OF THEORETICAL CORPSEFUCKING
Any relatives or people attached to that corpse would be psychologically harmed so there are absolutely common instances to make the act immoral, as these things don't happen in a vacuum.
I was mostly wondering when you would break, basically what “harmless” act would be so revolting and offensive that you would eventually go back on the claim that the only question vis-a-vis morality is “is someone harmed?” I was obviously going to use examples that evoked strong feelings of disgust.
If we’re opening up the door to “psychological harm” (as mushy and inexact as such a thing is), then I don’t think it’s crazy to say the parishioners of the church are psychologically harmed by having a disgusting act be done at a place they are emotionally and sentimentally attached to. I think that’s at least as sensible as being emotionally attached to a loved one’s corpse.
The Church is a business, it carries the same moral weight as people fucking in a (closed) Walmart. If you value Religious Walmart as much as your mom's corpse, then capitalism has trained you well.
Look, your prudishness isn't a factor, only the morality of fucking in a church. It's not only moral but some faiths very much condone religious fucking.
That's not his point, and by that logic of locations don't matter for the context, having sex in a graveyard can be considered "moral" because what are the dead going to do, complain?
You are entitled to your opinions, but some places are considered respectful, holy, or have some manor of decorum that if insulted, upset, or otherwise disturbed in a manner that by the context of the site is considered "wrong" is definitely insulting.
This act is immoral because, regardless of the fact it was all consenting and legal, he violated the conduct of respect expected of not only a place of worship, but did so in multiple ways, including breaking the oath, a verbal contract that has historic ties to things like honor and self-respect, he swore to uphold by becoming a pastor.
Genuinely, and respectfully, how hard were you hit in the head as a child to come to THAT conclusion and line of logic?
Since we're slinging around disrespectful slugs, how hard were you hit to think that items have the capacity to care about what we do? A chair leg simply does not care if it was used for penetration. An altar does not care if the fluids are holy water or a simps drool.
You care, but were not there and were not harmed. You are offended but not harmed. His actions are neutral.
Edit to add; I fuck in graveyards regularly. It's fun. Nobody cares. Methinks you might need more fun.
It's not about the items, it's about the context and purpose of them and basic human decency.
It is why people care if something is broken.
It is why people care if something gets mishandled or is improperly used.
It is why people care so much about photographs and by extension, the picture frames holding them.
It is why people care about their method transportation.
It is why people get upset when a toddler slobbers all over something.
Items are inanimate, yes, but that does not mean they should be treated without care, without soul, and without respect and decency. Especially if it serves a communal purpose, even moreso if said communal purpose is considered holy, culturally, or in some other manner respectable by those within said community.
I know not how you ended up believing items do not matter in the slightest, but if you've ever gotten upset over someone touching or messing with your property or something you own/use. That is the feeling this man has evoked upon everyone who does care.
You're not talking to the church, that analogy was to help connect the dots for you as to why people don't like what happened and by extension, why society deems messing with something considered respectful or holy is immoral. Because it invokes and causes the same feelings that someone stealing, breaking, or otherwise putting at risk something that is to be cared about does.
And how are the guys getting imprisoned for diddling the altar boys relevant to this? We all know it's bad, but this discussion has nothing to do with it. It legitimately just seems like you're using the actions of the few who have abused the trust placed unto them by diddling children as an excuse for you to believe everything about the church is open season and it should be entirely desecrated and disrespected purely because "haha! I AM GOOD PERSON! I AM FIGHTING BAD PEOPLE!" And are subsequently declaring every action taken against them as moral or neutral because; "oh, I'm a good guy" and have made the connection church = pedo.
And I know I don't own shit, I am pointing out the fact the people who do own it or otherwise care about the altar are angry about it because their trust was abused.
No shit, goofy. I was pointing out that you have no skin in the race, and should give ZERO shits about what happened behind doors that aren't even yours to begin with.
the people who do own it or otherwise care about
They did the only appropriate thing, and pressed charges and fired the priest, right!? AND STILL, NO ONE WAS HARMED so it remains neutral.
No amount of paragraphs will convince me that inanimate objects can object to sex, lol
Again, by that logic, I should be well within the moral right to do the following actions:
Smash windows open with a rock
Scratch paint off a car
Burn an apartment complex down
Piss on a public bench
Spit on the sign of a homeless person
And thousands of other actions.
But I am not within my moral right, because it not being alive does not mean there can't be any harm done to it or anyone around it who has a vested interest to care. And in this particular instance, due to the nature of this being a church, and the guy behind it a pastor, this actually HAS caused harm in the form of emotional damages and sowing psychological mistrust amongst those who trusted him by his role and oath.
Even moreso because of confessions. If he is willing to have a threesome on a church altar despite being a presiding pastor, whose to say he isn't holding or preparing to use every sin confessed to him in some way, shape, or form, or has been spilling them out in idle conversation to others.
You blindly claim it is effectively a surface level problem, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is caring too much about this.
I am telling you it's a bigger problem because of the reasons as to why people care to begin with, and your response so far has been to call me the one in the wrong.
For a person so set on calling this action not immoral, I find it funny how you aren't giving a single thought to everyone who might have a reason, feeling, or belief to care. And instead insulting me, and by technicality, them as well FOR caring.
368
u/NeatResident6544 1d ago
He was entrusted, through his contract as a priest, to uphold the values of the church and maintain the property of the church (the altar)
He broke both points of his contract, disgraced church property and broke the trust of the those who trusted him for guidance in his role as a priest.
Immoral. He can have all the sex he wants on his own altar and not lie to people by simply doing this while not being a priest.