I look back now and giggle, thinking this priest and nun, as well as lots of other priests, could be asked this same thing. I’ve always been told that one Jesus is in your heart and your life, your life will be transformed. Not that it means you will no longer feel the urge to sin, but certainly you’d expect Jesus to nudge you in the right direction. This doesn’t seem to be the case in the least (no surprise there). Any priest, who supposedly is very sure of their faith, that would risk molesting children knowing the consequences would have to be insane. And I don’t think all these priests are insane, so how do they justify the risk knowing the consequences, short of they no longer buy into their belief?

If the highest mortal authorities can’t even hold themselves to their higher standard, of what worth is this standard at all?

Certain as in “not specified”, certain as in “true”, or certain as in “having confidence in one’s opinion”?

Certain as in “particular”.

To me this is simply evidence that the Catholic Church needs to change its own rules and allow priests and nuns to marry

I’d like to point out, for the record, that in the New Testament church, there is no office of priest or nun. Both are man made, and their celibacy is a man made rule. And the only church offices prescribed in the Bible for the New Testament church, elder and deacon, have specific spousal requirements (1 Timothy 3). There is a difference between rules that institutions make, and what the word of God actually prescribes.

Because knowing certain facts are not the only determining factor of actions.

Certain as in “not specified”, certain as in “true”, or certain as in “having confidence in one’s opinion”?

I call BS. Religion claims it has the truth. If they know there is a God, why would they ever sin?

Because knowing certain facts are not the only determining factor of actions.

It’s a short read written by someone who is still faithful, despite his finding plenty of reason to doubt.

I strongly disagree that seeing your priest getting some is “plenty of reason to doubt”. It’s easy to see that the actions of one individual don’t necessarily reflect on the whole. This could serve as a minor moment of doubt, or as a spring board to more serious doubts, but by itself it’s not much.

I can think of numerous actually serious reasons to doubt religion, but from the article there’s no indication that George Saunders considered these. In fact, as the article portrays it, it seems like his faith was only very temporarily shaken, and he didn’t pursue his doubt further, and his skepticism went no further than realizing priests and nuns weren’t infallible. In his article he expresses more skepticism over which nun it was than over whether Jesus exists.

If this episode is the closest he’s come to doubting his beliefs, then I see no reason to praise him. It certainly doesn’t seem like he reached the “plenty of reason to doubt” stage.

The hypocrisy of specific individuals proves only their own profession of morality to be a sham, not that of the institution of which they were a part

I call BS. Religion claims it has the truth. If they know there is a God, why would they ever sin?