Greed and money, for sure, but also total indifference or even contempt for other cultures.
(Emphasis mine).
It doesn’t seem likely that these artifacts would be in the Vatican archives, then.
No, not these ones in particular. I gave this as an example that I was familiar with, and explained that many different church denominations did this.
The Vatican does have many artifacts that were stolen from indigenous cultures. I don’t have enough familiarity with these to comment, so I’ll leave that for others.
A quick cursory search let me to this site.
I am guessing that the Vatican did not pay for all of these indigenous artifacts that they now have in their possession.
Well, he’s a gay man that works and advocates for an actively homophobic organization. I’m more than happy to bounce a (metaphorical) stone off his noggin for that.
But I agree that the group that outed him was also acting unethically. We need stronger data protection laws to prevent this kind of abuse.
I’m not at all comfortable with the idea that sneaky unethical surveillance of people is bad, except when someone does it to someone of whom we disapprove.
If it’s wrong, it’s wrong.
That seems far too strong a word to use. According to this article in the Vancouver Sun, the provenance of most of those articles is unknown.
It’s possible that a few may have literally been stolen, but the great majority would have been sold or traded by their owners, or voluntarily handed over by their owners on converting to Christianity.
There’s a moral argument that they should be returned, but it’s far from clear.
Surely the missionaries were directed by the government to steal those artifacts.
Many were stolen when the potlatch was outlawed.
This was one of the cornerstones in the attempt to destroy indigenous culture in Canada. Items confiscated were supposed to be destroyed, but for some odd reason (money) they ended up in possession of indian agents or missionaries who sold them for profit. In my mind, this was theft.
Where did I say it wasn’t bad? I specifically called it out as unethical. All I did was point out that this priest is a hypocrite. And, as you say, “wrong is wrong.”
Anyway, your complaint would be better served to your Church. I just pointed out his hypocrisy on an anonymous message board. The Church is the one that officially censured him based on this ill-gotten data. And, I suspect, did nothing to censure the group that found and revealed it.
Sounds like you’re ok with it, in this case. You might not be in others.
Okay, that puts a different complexion on it.
How the fuck does, “It’s unethical and should be illegal,” sound like “I’m okay with it?”
And where’s your criticism of the church for actually censuring this guy over this leaked data? I’m just some dude on the internet. This guy’s actual employers - and alleged moral authority - used this unethically sourced information to put a permanent ding in this guy’s professional record. Why aren’t you complaining about that, instead of misrepresenting my arguments?
Where’s my criticism? In the real world. This was discussed in my parish group last night. That’s how I know about it. I had a fair amount to say about it. Although my understanding is that the priest in question resigned his position with the USCCB, not that he was fired from it, so I’m not sure how “this guy’s employers” used the information to put a permanent ding in his record. But perhaps more facts have come to light.
And I’m sorry, but I didn’t think I was misrepresenting your position. Yes, you said “the group that outed him was also acting unethically.” You also said “Well, he’s a gay man that works and advocates for an actively homophobic organization. I’m more than happy to bounce a (metaphorical) stone off his noggin for that.”
Perhaps you didn’t express yourself well, but that comes across as “yes, it’s wrong, but in this case I’m glad it happened.”
But perhaps that’s not what you meant, and I misunderstood.
I think there’s a question of expectation of privacy, here. By default, I assume that anything I post on the Internet is public (and therefore don’t post things that I don’t want to be public), unless I take extreme measures to hide my identity. I don’t know Grindr’s privacy policy, but I doubt it’s strong enough to constitute such extreme measures, and I don’t know how much privacy this priest was actually seeking. Based simply on the fact that he was caught by an apparently broad search, my guess is that he wasn’t seeking much privacy at all. But I don’t know.
Oh, and @Ulfreida, thank you for that post. I’ve been meaning to post something similar, but you worded it much better than I could have.
Perhaps you should Google local community colleges in your area, and sign up for some remedial reading classes then, because if you’re parsing, “This is unethical and there should be a law against it,” as “I’m okay with it in some circumstances,” I’m pretty sure the problem is on your end, not mine.
I’m basing my comments on Saintly_Loser’s description of how this happened:
If it was just someone browsing Grindr, and they recognized their priest on it, I might feel differently, depending on exact circumstances. Buying data from a gay dating site with the express purpose of tracking down and damaging people who use it is different.
But I probably shouldn’t be trusting that Saintly_Loser’s description of the situation is accurate, given his other struggles with simple reading comprehension.
You’re being a little selective in your restatement of what you posted, but I’ll accept that I may have misunderstood you. I was confused by your juxtaposition of your disapproval of such surveillance with your happiness that someone you perceive to be a hypocrite got exposed.
As to signing up for community college, I don’t doubt that you’re far better educated than I. I do have a community college degree (Borough of Manhattan Community College!), So perhaps my reading skills aren’t up to your level.
I’m being selective? You’re the one who quoted me twice, and both times chopped off the part that explicitly contradicted the meaning you were trying to force on me.
On gay priests, see In the Closet of the Vatican by Frédéric Martel.
Martel (a gay priest himself) says that a majority of senior clergy in the Vatican are gay, and so are a large proportion of the senior clergy in America and elsewhere.
Not really a surprise, because in decades past when being gay was less acceptable in society, many Catholic gay men became priests, as one way of concealing it from family/society.