Organist fired for other reasons

  • Thread starter Thread starter MichaelTDoyle
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
If the articles she sells aren’t against Church teaching then he has a) No business asserting to the parish at large that it is and b) no right to terminate her participation because of it.
Click to expand...
If you go to the company’s (Pure Romance) you will see on the side column there are various categories you can shop:
  • Lubricants (possibly okay)
  • Heighteners (possibly okay)
  • Massage (possibly okay)
  • For Couples (possibly okay)
  • For Him (uuuuhhh a little dangerous there)
  • For Bachelorettes (HERE’S A PROBLEM)
  • Books & Games (possibly okay)
  • The Classics (have no idea)
  • Vibrators (possibly okay - given Michelle Arnold’s answer)
  • G-Spot (possibly okay)
  • Anal (HERE’S A PROBLEM)
 
BillP said:
Well his assertion that she works for:

is certainly not true and defamatory wouldn’t you say?

I guess we see things differently. I see a guy making a arbitrary decision, getting called on it and intentionally spinning mis-information to the parish at large to justify himself.
Click to expand...
What would you say the firm she works for sells?
 
pprimeau1976 said:
If you go to the company’s (Pure Romance) you will see on the side column there are various categories you can shop:
  • Lubricants (possibly okay)
  • Heighteners (possibly okay)
  • Massage (possibly okay)
  • For Couples (possibly okay)
  • For Him (uuuuhhh a little dangerous there)
  • For Bachelorettes (HERE’S A PROBLEM)
  • Books & Games (possibly okay)
  • The Classics (have no idea)
  • Vibrators (possibly okay - given Michelle Arnold’s answer)
  • G-Spot (possibly okay)
  • Anal (HERE’S A PROBLEM)
Click to expand...
Actually, there isn’t ANY problem with Bacherlottes, after presumably the entire point is providing her with stuff to “enhance” her wedding night…right?

No problem with anal either, there’s no Church based problem with those activties as long as the two key criteria (couple are validly married and man finishes in the right place) are observed.

If the “him” stuff is used to help him acheive and maintain his the status required for him to finish in the right place there’s no problem with that either.

In fact, the companies entire line is, used responsibly, not only benign, but it could very well serve the purpose of helping couples get the greatest benefit out of their God-given gift of sexuality.

QED
 
water said:
pardon me but who wants to buy this? 😃
Click to expand...
The fact that YOU don’t need/want these products doesn’t mean that the Church proscribes them nor does it mean that people who do want/need them shoudl be deprived.
 
pprimeau1976 said:
If you go to the company’s (Pure Romance) you will see on the side column there are various categories you can shop:
  • Lubricants (possibly okay)
  • Heighteners (possibly okay)
  • Massage (possibly okay)
  • For Couples (possibly okay)
  • For Him (uuuuhhh a little dangerous there)
  • For Bachelorettes (HERE’S A PROBLEM)
  • Books & Games (possibly okay)
  • The Classics (have no idea)
  • Vibrators (possibly okay - given Michelle Arnold’s answer)
  • G-Spot (possibly okay)
  • Anal (HERE’S A PROBLEM)
Click to expand...
I wish I were born 2000 years ago. These stuff are kinda nasty. 😃
 
Lance said:
I think the church would have a problem with many of their products.
Click to expand...
On what basis?

There are many posts in the “Ask an Apologist” which indicate that the Church has no problem with marital aids if they are properly used.

What do you see as being “wrong” or “sinful” about them?
 
Pax vobiscum!

Bill, you have got to be kidding yourself if you think that the goal of this company is to sell these items only to married Catholic couples using them only in the context of appropriate marital sex. The fact that one of the items that Lance linked to is called a “masturbator” and says it is “great for the traveling man” speaks for itself.

In Christ,
Rand
 
Reminder: If you wouldn’t post pictures of these products here, then don’t post links to the pictures either. Thank you for your cooperation.
 
Rand_Al_Thor said:
Pax vobiscum!

Bill, you have got to be kidding yourself if you think that the goal of this company is to sell these items only to married Catholic couples using them only in the context of appropriate marital sex.
Click to expand...
Not at all! But I do think that might be the goal of the organist.
I also think the Priest in question had not business assuming otherwise. He owed her that much in Charity. As do we all.

Everything that scandalizes anyone isn’t forbidden us.
 
BillP said:
On what basis?

There are many posts in the “Ask an Apologist” which indicate that the Church has no problem with marital aids if they are properly used.

What do you see as being “wrong” or “sinful” about them?
Click to expand...
Go to their web site. They advertise many of their products for use outside the bounds of what the Church would consider acceptable.
 
BillP said:
Not at all! But I do think that might be the goal of the organist.
I also think the Priest in question had not business assuming otherwise. He owed her that much in Charity. As do we all.

Everything that scandalizes anyone isn’t forbidden us.
Click to expand...
Let’s suppose that she abused one of the Altar Boys or a child in the childrens choir, don’t you think that in the law suit against the church a lawyer would point out that the fact she was doing this should have raised a red flag and she should not have been allowed to have a position of authority in the parish?
 
Lance said:
Go to their web site. They advertise many of their products for use outside the bounds of what the Church would consider acceptable.
Click to expand...
So what? That doesn’t make the product itself immoral. Look, a surgeon uses the same scalpel to remove a cancerous tumor that he does to perform an abortion. Its not the scalpel that is sinful its the surgeon who performs the abortion.

The FACT of the matter is that the Church has NO teaching proscribing the possession or usage or sale on these materials. The priest has NO BUSINESS asserting that the Church so teaches. Where I come from that would be called a LIE). Nor did he have any business firing the lady, nor did he have any business smearing her by letter to the parish at large.
 
Lance said:
Let’s suppose that she abused one of the Altar Boys or a child in the childrens choir, don’t you think that in the law suit against the church a lawyer would point out that the fact she was doing this should have raised a red flag and she should not have been allowed to have a position of authority in the parish?
Click to expand...
I think a heck of a lot more priests have been convicted of that behavior than 50 year old women. If we’re getting rid of people on that basis…

No, I don’t think it would come up. I don’t believe that fact that she ran such as business would be considered relevant.
 
The woman got what she wanted: The name of the company she represents is called out in the article. Free advertising.

And one can only imagine that her parties do not begin with a lesson on the Theology of the Body and end with a prayer.

'thann
 
thann said:
The woman got what she wanted: The name of the company she represents is called out in the article. Free advertising.

And one can only imagine that her parties do not begin with a lesson on the Theology of the Body and end with a prayer.

'thann
Click to expand...
Have you been to one of them or are you simlpy assuming the worst?
 
BillP said:
Actually, there isn’t ANY problem with Bacherlottes, after presumably the entire point is providing her with stuff to “enhance” her wedding night…right?
Click to expand...
Theoretically, yes. But that’s dangerous ground you are treading. Why would the company separate “couples” from “bachelorettes” and “for him”.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top