3 ms·

The sexual orientation is not the issue here. Just being gay is not a sin according to the Catholic Church. He is a Catholic priest and was having gay sex, whic

The sexual orientation is not the issue here. Just being gay is not a sin according to the Catholic Church. He is a Catholic priest and was having gay sex, which is a sin. That is a public concern (at least to the Catholic public).

ashtonkem 5y ago
That does not justify an invasion of privacy, as a general rule. The state should not back off on individual rights because the church cares about something. Furthermore, these exceptions to privacy are very rarely limited to use against the rich and powerful. Today we’re excusing Grindr violating the privacy of the priest, tomorrow we find out that this loophole has been expanded to the poor and powerless. Rights have to be extended to those you find distasteful, otherwise they don’t exist at all.
- _-david-_ 5y ago
  I never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that. All I was trying to convey was this had nothing to do with his sexual orientation like you said. His actions on the otherhand are of public concern for Catholics.
  - ashtonkem 5y ago
    > I never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that. > That is a public concern (at least to the Catholic public). The reason why I came to that conclusion is because you said it clearly.
    - _-david-_ 5y ago
      Something can be of public concern but not justify violating a person's privacy. For example, a politician being a murderer would be of public concern, but that doesn't mean we should be tracking and invading the privacy of every politician on the off chance they are a murderer.
      - ashtonkem 5y ago
        You’re commenting on a thread where the concept of “public concern” is part of the justification necessary for invading someone’s privacy. If you want people to interpret your speech correctly, be more circumspect with what you say. Secondly, I do not believe that a priest’s sexual orientation is a matter of public concern. It might be an interest of the parish, but the parish is not the public and the state is not obligated to treat it specially.
        _-david-_ 5y ago
        I was commenting on your post which you claimed this had to do with sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. If the priest was straight and been using Tinder instead of Grindr to hookup with woman it wouldn't make a difference to the story. If instead of anything related to sex this had been stealing or something it wouldn't make a difference. That is all I said. You jumped to the conclusion I was implying something I didn't say. You need to be more cautious about properly interpreting other's speech. The fact your are continuing to claim that this had to do with sexual orientation in this post indicates you don't understand what I was saying. The reason this exploded is not because he is gay. There are a lot of gay priests. The next issue is this priest was not just a regular diocesan priest. He was a very prominent priest who was part of the United States bishop's conference. He held a role in misconduct investigations. This makes it a very public (US wide) not just a parish / diocese issue. I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. I haven't said anything about the state or legality of this issue.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        > I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. Because this thread was about whether this creates a tort or not, that’s why mentioning the state is relevant. I’m genuinely confused why you’re confused by this.
        _-david-_ 5y ago

ashtonkem 5y ago

That does not justify an invasion of privacy, as a general rule. The state should not back off on individual rights because the church cares about something. Furthermore, these exceptions to privacy are very rarely limited to use against the rich and powerful. Today we’re excusing Grindr violating the privacy of the priest, tomorrow we find out that this loophole has been expanded to the poor and powerless. Rights have to be extended to those you find distasteful, otherwise they don’t exist at all.

_-david-_ 5y ago
I never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that. All I was trying to convey was this had nothing to do with his sexual orientation like you said. His actions on the otherhand are of public concern for Catholics.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > I never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that. > That is a public concern (at least to the Catholic public). The reason why I came to that conclusion is because you said it clearly.
  - _-david-_ 5y ago
    Something can be of public concern but not justify violating a person's privacy. For example, a politician being a murderer would be of public concern, but that doesn't mean we should be tracking and invading the privacy of every politician on the off chance they are a murderer.
    - ashtonkem 5y ago
      You’re commenting on a thread where the concept of “public concern” is part of the justification necessary for invading someone’s privacy. If you want people to interpret your speech correctly, be more circumspect with what you say. Secondly, I do not believe that a priest’s sexual orientation is a matter of public concern. It might be an interest of the parish, but the parish is not the public and the state is not obligated to treat it specially.
      - _-david-_ 5y ago
        I was commenting on your post which you claimed this had to do with sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. If the priest was straight and been using Tinder instead of Grindr to hookup with woman it wouldn't make a difference to the story. If instead of anything related to sex this had been stealing or something it wouldn't make a difference. That is all I said. You jumped to the conclusion I was implying something I didn't say. You need to be more cautious about properly interpreting other's speech. The fact your are continuing to claim that this had to do with sexual orientation in this post indicates you don't understand what I was saying. The reason this exploded is not because he is gay. There are a lot of gay priests. The next issue is this priest was not just a regular diocesan priest. He was a very prominent priest who was part of the United States bishop's conference. He held a role in misconduct investigations. This makes it a very public (US wide) not just a parish / diocese issue. I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. I haven't said anything about the state or legality of this issue.
        ashtonkem 5y ago
        > I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. Because this thread was about whether this creates a tort or not, that’s why mentioning the state is relevant. I’m genuinely confused why you’re confused by this.
        _-david-_ 5y ago