Anglican priest's new commandment: Thou shalt shoplift

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I agree that if there is no other means with which to survive, you have to do what you must. But his ideas should have been further expanded to include the things one can do*** to help their situation out before they go about stealing. For example, food stamps, welfare, charities, friends, family. Many times- and I know, having helped those in need- not everyone does what all they can in times of need. Many times, stealing is the easy path. All of this should have been clarified, otherwise, you are sending a lopsided message that errs on the side convenience, sin, and selfishness for those ready to hear what they want. ***************
 
Fran65 said:
I don’t know. However, journalists are not known for nuance and often paint issues as black and white as it makes for more readers and more reaction.
Click to expand...
I was much relieved to learn it was an Anglican priest. Catholic Priests have had enough bad press already. I also suspected it was an Anglican priest when I first read the story because Anglican theology has become so liberal and relativistic.

It is also curious that on the internet news page that I visited, they showed a person holding a rosary with the Papal Tiara and crossed keys crest also blurred in for good measure! :mad:

Even though journalists may not be known for delicate distinctions, that in my mind is irrelevant. The priest was preaching in an obviously shocking manner and the proof is that the press jumped on it. If the priest had been preaching in an orthodox manner, he would have made it abundantly clear that shoplifting was wrong and no one would have had a story.
 
There is a difference between stealing and borrowing. If there is a fire in a prtking lont and I don’t have a fire extinguisher but see one in the back of a nearby pick up, it would be reasonable to use the fireextingusher that is readily available. This is not stealiing if the intent is to replace the item and the reason for acquiring the item far out weighed the inconvenience to the owner. Another factor is if it is presumed that a reasonable person would agre and the owner is not available to ask. In such a scenario I don’t think the person should be held criminaly liable but should be civily liable. However, if the owner is available and refuses, then criminality should be back on the table unless there is an imminent servival issue. In a scenario such as this morality and criminality should be considered closely linked.
 
I’m having some trouble with figuring out how your analogy relates to this particular issue. Can you please explain a bit further?
 
NCSue said:
I’m having some trouble with figuring out how your analogy relates to this particular issue. Can you please explain a bit further?
Click to expand...
Royal Archer - Yes, I’m asking you to clarify your last post on this thread. I’m having trouble following… but maybe it’s a lack of sleep on my part.

Thanks.
 
NCSue said:
Royal Archer - Yes, I’m asking you to clarify your last post on this thread. I’m having trouble following… but maybe it’s a lack of sleep on my part.

Thanks.
Click to expand...
Point is that if there is an existing resource such as a fire extinguisher which is intended for a purpose someone has a need relative to that purpose adn it could reasonably presumed that the owner of that resource would allow for that resource to be used for that purpose (even if they would charge for it) it would not be criminal to use that resource nor would it be immoral to use that resource in the heat of the moment. In the case I mentioned it would not be stealing to commonder the fire extinguisher to put out the fire. likewise:

-If you were stranded in the middle of no where and came upon an unused cabin, you could go in to seek wamth.
-If you were starving and took a piece of food.
-If someone were injured you could use a nearby first aid kit.

In any such case, you could only do so with intent to pay the owner back and where there is a reasonable assumption that the owner would permit it if they knew the circumstances.
 
Thank you for clarifying, Archer.

I think what bothers me isn’t whether or not it is sinful to take food in order to survive if there is another option. Rather, it was someone advising others to do so from the pulpit. As Jesus said, “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!”
 
NCSue said:
Thank you for clarifying, Archer.

I think what bothers me isn’t whether or not it is sinful to take food in order to survive if there is another option. Rather, it was someone advising others to do so from the pulpit. As Jesus said, “Woe to the world because of the things that cause people to sin! Such things must come, but woe to the man through whom they come!”
Click to expand...
In a way it should be like jury nulification where you do not want to advise people to do it but accept it if they come to such a decision on their own.

Jury nulification = a jury finding someone innocent of a crime even if their is ample evidence they committed the act because the jury decides the act should never have been illegal in the first place.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top