Jump to content

Should a Vicar from York endorse shop lifting?


Geoffrey Settle
 Share

Recommended Posts

A Vicar from York is preaching a message of compassion saying that when you have no other way, can?t get help or assistance then stealing a can of ravioli for 80p from a major supermarket maybe the only option you have left.

 

Shame on us!
as he says, especially given the amount we spend at this time of the year - should be looking at ourselves and seeing how we can help and not passing judgement on those who have nothing.

 

Is this a message of compassion or is it a crime?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime. I thought one of the Ten Commandments is, you shall not steal.....mind you the other nine have gone by the way....especially the one about not covet your neighbour's ox or donkey. :wink::)

 

PS Just wondering if the police will charge him with incitement to commit a crime, maybe in his defence he will cite guidance by a greater power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Crime. and yes the vicar should be charged with incitement. Stealing is stealing regardless of the victim. Mind you, most shoplifters don't even get the tap on the wrist anymore (as that would probably be assault in this loony left world we live in)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes it is a crime, BUT the bigger crime is not sorting out the reason why they do it.

For years I have been saying that the church is not giving moral guidance. If this is an example, it's a good job they don't.

One should practise what one preaches. I hope that he is inviting the miscreant to Christmas Dinner AND give him a turkey leg to take home.

 

I suppose he also condones the beggars who do it to make a tidy penny whilst living a life of relative luxury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did he suggest his congregation should commit the crime, or was he suggesting that they should take a moment to see the big picture instead of sitting on their well-fed bums passing judgement on people who are desperate? See, one is some self-important gob on legs trying to get attention by being controversial and the other is a man of God doing his job..... I have no issue with the former being locked up, but the latter should be patted on the back if even one member of his Church dropped a quid in a cup on the way home so someone else could BUY their ravioli that day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So LP, it is a good thing to give the wrong message to those likely to offend????? :shock:

 

What wrong message? I asked whether he was telling his flock to shoplift or saying to his flock that perhaps those who shoplifted were in genuine need and should be helped rather than condemned. I was quite clear that telling people to thieve was not the function of a vicar and he was a stupid man who should be locked up if that's what he did. Where is the wrong message in that?

 

I said that if he was making the point to his congregation that sometimes people who shoplift have no alternative, then he was encouraging charity and compassion, not theft, and again, where's the wrong message in that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So LP, it is a good thing to give the wrong message to those likely to offend????? :shock:

 

What wrong message? I asked whether he was telling his flock to shoplift or saying to his flock that perhaps those who shoplifted were in genuine need and should be helped rather than condemned. I was quite clear that telling people to thieve was not the function of a vicar and he was a stupid man who should be locked up if that's what he did. Where is the wrong message in that?

 

I said that if he was making the point to his congregation that sometimes people who shoplift have no alternative, then he was encouraging charity and compassion, not theft, and again, where's the wrong message in that?

Isn't that sitting on the fence?

 

I understand that most shoplifting is done to obtain goods to sell to purchase drugs.

If that is true, the sermon was pointless as the message was incorrect.

People will speculate when the message is not clear.

 

Perhaps the vicar wishes to be the next Lord Longford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we live in a Country where folk are so poor they have to steal, it would seem these God botherers should be acting politically to change it - rather than excusing it. :roll:

 

but we don't do we? we don't have real poverty in this country despite what some people would have you believe....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So LP, it is a good thing to give the wrong message to those likely to offend????? :shock:

 

What wrong message? I asked whether he was telling his flock to shoplift or saying to his flock that perhaps those who shoplifted were in genuine need and should be helped rather than condemned. I was quite clear that telling people to thieve was not the function of a vicar and he was a stupid man who should be locked up if that's what he did. Where is the wrong message in that?

 

I said that if he was making the point to his congregation that sometimes people who shoplift have no alternative, then he was encouraging charity and compassion, not theft, and again, where's the wrong message in that?

Isn't that sitting on the fence?

 

I understand that most shoplifting is done to obtain goods to sell to purchase drugs.

If that is true, the sermon was pointless as the message was incorrect.

People will speculate when the message is not clear.

 

Perhaps the vicar wishes to be the next Lord Longford.

 

I didn't hear what he actually said. I think that's quite an important factor in forming an opinion - clearly you don't agree. If he told his congregation it was OK for them to go and nick stuff, clearly he's wrong. If he was trying to make them more sensitive to the struggle some people have to survive, then he was doing his job. I'm not sitting on the fence, that is my opinion at the moment. When I know what he actually said, then I can pin down whether he was right or wrong. More interesting is why you're taking issue with me when you don't seem to know what he said either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Baz, I don't think we're qualified to say "we don't do we"; and I used the term "if". However, for many reasons. some self inflicted, some inflicted by others or by circumstance; I think you'll find that there are many folk sleeping rough this Xmas, quite a few being ex-servicemen - such is the absence of care and community. :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually Baz, I don't think we're qualified to say "we don't do we"; and I used the term "if". However, for many reasons. some self inflicted, some inflicted by others or by circumstance; I think you'll find that there are many folk sleeping rough this Xmas, quite a few being ex-servicemen - such is the absence of care and community. :cry:

 

perfectly tue Obs; there are many people sleeping rough, but many of them do so by choice rather than need. If the benefits system in this country can give enough housing benefit to a single somalian woman and her bastard offspring to live in a Chelsea mansion but not enough to get an ex-serviceman off the streets, then the system really is screwed up, racist and biased towards foreigners in a way that would be prosecuted in the private sector. If it is true, then something really does need to be sorted out and it is little wonder the BNP are so popular

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...