2) The last point - which must be present, thanks to the word “and” - seems to imply that publishing facts you have good reason to believe are true would be excluded.
I'm not making any conclusions, only that a prima facie case can be made. As the article rightly pointed out, being gay does not mean you are an abusive pedophile. So, I don't see the public concern, more like a private matter for the church. The last clause pertains to belief of offensiveness. More detail is in the link.
They did approach a Catholic organization about having this kind of information:
In his CNA article, Bermudez wrote that the group that approached him had wanted “to provide this information privately to Church officials in the hopes that they would discipline or remove those found to be using these technologies to violate their clerical vows and possibly bring scandal to the Church.”
in a tweet saying that he and his co-author had weighed the question of individual privacy and decided that Burrill’s Grindr use was a matter of public interest because he was a “high-ranking public figure who was responsible in a direct way for the development and oversight of policies addressing clerical accountability with regard to the Church’s approach to sexual morality.”
There's the answer to your public concern from their view point. Whether you agree with it or not, that is their stance.
The sexual orientation is not the issue here. Just being gay is not a sin according to the Catholic Church. He is a Catholic priest and was having gay sex, which is a sin. That is a public concern (at least to the Catholic public).
That does not justify an invasion of privacy, as a general rule. The state should not back off on individual rights because the church cares about something.
Furthermore, these exceptions to privacy are very rarely limited to use against the rich and powerful. Today we’re excusing Grindr violating the privacy of the priest, tomorrow we find out that this loophole has been expanded to the poor and powerless.
Rights have to be extended to those you find distasteful, otherwise they don’t exist at all.
I never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that.
All I was trying to convey was this had nothing to do with his sexual orientation like you said. His actions on the otherhand are of public concern for Catholics.
> I never said his sexual orientation or actions justify an invasion of privacy. I am not sure where you came to the conclusion I was stating anything like that.
> That is a public concern (at least to the Catholic public).
The reason why I came to that conclusion is because you said it clearly.
Something can be of public concern but not justify violating a person's privacy.
For example, a politician being a murderer would be of public concern, but that doesn't mean we should be tracking and invading the privacy of every politician on the off chance they are a murderer.
You’re commenting on a thread where the concept of “public concern” is part of the justification necessary for invading someone’s privacy. If you want people to interpret your speech correctly, be more circumspect with what you say.
Secondly, I do not believe that a priest’s sexual orientation is a matter of public concern. It might be an interest of the parish, but the parish is not the public and the state is not obligated to treat it specially.
I was commenting on your post which you claimed this had to do with sexual orientation. This has absolutely nothing to do with sexual orientation. If the priest was straight and been using Tinder instead of Grindr to hookup with woman it wouldn't make a difference to the story. If instead of anything related to sex this had been stealing or something it wouldn't make a difference.
That is all I said. You jumped to the conclusion I was implying something I didn't say. You need to be more cautious about properly interpreting other's speech.
The fact your are continuing to claim that this had to do with sexual orientation in this post indicates you don't understand what I was saying. The reason this exploded is not because he is gay. There are a lot of gay priests.
The next issue is this priest was not just a regular diocesan priest. He was a very prominent priest who was part of the United States bishop's conference. He held a role in misconduct investigations. This makes it a very public (US wide) not just a parish / diocese issue.
I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about. I haven't said anything about the state or legality of this issue.
> I am not sure why you are bringing up the state. It makes no sense in any context of what we are talking about.
Because this thread was about whether this creates a tort or not, that’s why mentioning the state is relevant. I’m genuinely confused why you’re confused by this.
This thread is not about a tort. The article doesn't mention it (to my recollection) and your post didn't either. Can you clarify why you think it does?
> Yes, it may be illegal, in civil court. It's the tort of "public disclosure of private facts". Under California law, the public disclosure of private facts is defined as (1) a public disclosure of (2) private facts about an individual (3) that would offend the average person, that (4) was not of legitimate public concern; and (5) where defendant published private facts with reckless disregard for their truth or falsity
It’s right there at the top. I’m actually kind of alarmed that you can’t see that.
2) The last point - which must be present, thanks to the word “and” - seems to imply that publishing facts you have good reason to believe are true would be excluded.