4 ms·
I'm not making any conclusions, only that a prima facie case can be made. As the article rightly pointed out, being gay does not mean you are an abusive pedophi
by joshuaheard 5y ago
I'm not making any conclusions, only that a prima facie case can be made. As the article rightly pointed out, being gay does not mean you are an abusive pedophile. So, I don't see the public concern, more like a private matter for the church. The last clause pertains to belief of offensiveness. More detail is in the link.
- x0x0 5y agoA senior policy maker in one of the most homophobic organizations in the world.
- dylan604 5y agoThey did approach a Catholic organization about having this kind of information: In his CNA article, Bermudez wrote that the group that approached him had wanted “to provide this information privately to Church officials in the hopes that they would discipline or remove those found to be using these technologies to violate their clerical vows and possibly bring scandal to the Church.” in a tweet saying that he and his co-author had weighed the question of individual privacy and decided that Burrill’s Grindr use was a matter of public interest because he was a “high-ranking public figure who was responsible in a direct way for the development and oversight of policies addressing clerical accountability with regard to the Church’s approach to sexual morality.” There's the answer to your public concern from their view point. Whether you agree with it or not, that is their stance.