One Christian took the relativistic ramblings of his minister to heart. Hey, the good news is that the minister knows he’s being listened to. The bad news is…well…the bad news is that, according to The Guardian:
A priest who advised poor people to shoplift was showered with a bucket of pasta for making the remarks, the Church of England confirmed today.
The Rev Tim Jones, from St Lawrence and St Hilda in York, attracted harsh words earlier this month from the police and a former archbishop of Canterbury for telling his congregation it was acceptable for the needy to steal to feed their families.
But there came a very different rebuke last weekend, when a man approached the priest outside the church and threw 30 tins worth of ravioli and spaghetti on him. The contents of the bucket may well have been inspired by Jones himself, who said he would “rather that people take an 80p can of ravioli rather than turn to some of the most appalling things”.
Martin Stot, 48, thought the priest’s comments could encourage young people to steal and decided to take action. He told York Press: “One theft could be on their record for 10 years. It would be difficult for them to get a job. I was just offended by what he said. I thought I would make my own little protest.” He bought the canned pasta from Asda and hid in a phone box until the priest emerged from the regular Sunday service.
In the controversial sermon, given the week before Christmas, Jones said society had failed many needy people and it was far better that they shoplift than turn to more degrading or violent options such as prostitution, mugging or burglary.
In fairness, the priest was pretty cool about it and didn’t even report the incident to police.
I think the lesson we should all take from this is that while we can all agree that pelting priests with pasta is bad, it is far better than throwing more dangerous things.
And if the man in question was considering doing something worse like tossing frozen meats or pot pies at the priest and opted to throw tiny Raviolis then it could be argued that a moral good was done.
Hey, I like this moral relativism. I could get used to this.
(Let it be known that the CMR legal team has advised us to ensure the public that we in no way endorses pelting religious with pasta or any food products for that matter. And we hereby advise that if you’re going to throw food at Catholic bloggers like us please let it be Swiss Rolls or Ring Dings. And please leave the wrappings on so we could enjoy it later. Let is also be known that as we are Catholics we don’t believe in condiments.)
January 4, 2010 at 1:24 am
lol
January 4, 2010 at 1:25 am
I'd like to be pelted with the single servicng packages of mini-Pringles – Cheezum flavor, preferably.
January 4, 2010 at 2:02 am
Skittles!!! (Please)
January 4, 2010 at 2:33 am
From moral theology, the priest was right if people were starving and had no other way to get food then it is alright because the other person's right to property is trumped by the starving man's right to live. From pastoral theology, it may not be appropriate considering that they might have been other ways e.g. soup kitchens, begging.
January 4, 2010 at 3:24 am
I actually heard this listening to an encore Catholic Answers yesterday. A guy who was living in his car called to ask if he could still take communion when he was stealing to make ends meet.
The host/guest advised him, IIRC, that he wasn't committing mortal sin (and probably not sin at all) but that he should exhaust all of his legal means first.
January 4, 2010 at 5:26 am
Hey, at least he waited until outside of the Church.
Red Bulls. I don't care if I'd get welts, thems things expensive! It'd be worth it!
January 4, 2010 at 8:01 am
I'm glad he took the ravioli out of the cans before launching them. . .
January 4, 2010 at 8:36 am
I would like to be pelted with Cadbury milk chocolate Buttons, please!
January 4, 2010 at 11:59 am
In many towns in the UK begging is illegal. Do you want to wait all day for a soup run at 7pm?
His public comments were a little reckless and irresponsible but I believe they are in conformity with the teaching of the Catholic Church.
St Irenaeus said that when you give to the poor you are only returning to them what you have taken stolen.
St Anthony of Padua said that the gates of Heaven are wide for the poor, but narrow for the rich.
January 4, 2010 at 1:51 pm
From moral theology, the priest was right if people were starving and had no other way to get food then it is alright because the other person's right to property is trumped by the starving man's right to live. From pastoral theology, it may not be appropriate considering that they might have been other ways e.g. soup kitchens, begging.
You are right. In certain cases it's not stealing, but a form of reasonable appropriation. However, as far as I know:
1.) The circumstances must be desperate. Merely being poor is not sufficient justification.
2.) The one appropriating does incur an obligation to compensate the one appropriated from when the desperate circumstances have passed.
I mention this because the article makes it seem like the priest said or implied that being poor grants a license to steal. T'ain't so.
January 4, 2010 at 6:38 pm
I really don't think there were any young people in his C of E congregation to begin with. Were there some unlucky yob in attendence, he was probably too busy texting his bird to hear anything from the old git.
January 5, 2010 at 6:33 am
If I pelt all of you with your junk food of choice and some bystander calls the authorities who seek to procecute me for assault with a fattening weapon, will you support me if I offer a Twinkie Defense?