Randy Cassingham's Blog

Posted by David Burlington ,NC on June 15, 2008:

Maybe the way to prevent this in the future is right at hand?
In the future just make the sign of the cross and say, "Well hate to break this to you but this means you've accepted the catholic faith and tenets. I now pronounce you man and wife. Now report to the Vatican for your pregnancy test. We have to check her out for Li'l Saints on board.

Posted by Neal, Sturbridge, MA on June 15, 2008:

After reading through the comments, I have to say I agree with both sides. Yes the couple wanted to increase the fun with the risk of getting caught (but its only really fun when you DON'T get caught). But they were very wrong to do that. Any public place, or even semi-public private place (like a church, temple, etc) is a bad location to have sex.

My fiance and I are both fairly non religious. I can mostly call myself a Wiccan. On the (rare) occasions my fiance goes to the Buddhist Temple, I go with her and show respect to the religion. When I go to help a friend with something at their church, I respect that religion.

I got a good laugh at this story, but I feel sorry for the church that this couple affected (since they now have to purify their space), and for the couple (because they were not smart enough to think before they acted). As for the tagline..... all i can do is quote Monty Python: "Every sperm is sacred......" (Monty Python's The Meaning of Life)

Posted by Ann Northampton, MA on June 15, 2008:

When I was a teenager I knew a couple who had sex in a chapel. She asked me later if I thought she had committed a terrible sin. I reminded her that if she was religeous just having sex was a sin since they weren't married which brings me to the thing that always puzzled me back in those days. Catholic teenagers had sex which was a sin but would not use condoms because .....it was a sin.

---

Right: then it would be TWO sins, see? I knew an unmarried RCC couple who would have sex several times a week, but she wouldn't go on the pill because that was a sin every day, thus it was a lesser sin to chance getting pregnant. Naturally, she did get pregnant -- and it wasn't her first time. -rc

Posted by Lisa in Grand Rapids, Michigan on June 15, 2008:

This is really a sad story. This couple decides to get hot and bothered by performing an act that they know would be incredibly offensive to the large group of people who are meanwhile doing something that they see as positive and meaningful in a place that they have purchased and maintained for this purpose. This is like a dinner guest peeing in your kitchen sink.

To those who think that this Catholic church is nothing more than a building, you are wrong. To the people who worship there, a Catholic church is a sanctified space. It doesn't matter what you believe. It's not your church or your building. It's what they believe about their building and their worship ceremonies that counts.

This couple knew this when they decided to have sex there, as opposed to some Denny's bathroom. They knew that the Denny's bathroom would be risky and tacky, but it would not offer an extra level of desecration that having sex in a confessional during a solemn ceremony would.

This is not about people being too easily offended or worshiping their building. This is just another sad example of the thrill that jerks get from performing blatantly offensive acts upon other people's properties in the name of personal freedom.

I'm willing to bet these Catholics would not be interested in getting their jollies out of inviting themselves to these people's next backyard barbecue and performing a blessing on the joint. This couple should show the same amount of respect.

Posted by Ayesha, Boston area on June 16, 2008:

I agree with an earlier commenter: "This has nothing to do with atheism or sex and everything to do with disrespect."

As an atheist *and* a sex-positive Goth, I declare myself highly annoyed with this silly couple. They're old enough to know better -- I'm younger than they are and I know that! Public sex and the thrill of the possibility of being caught is one thing, but a little perspective, please. Atheism posits (to me, anyway) that we all rule our own destinies: if there is no God, there is no Fate, and there is no reason to let scriptures or clerics or anyone else dictate what your behaviour must be.

The flip side of that, the one that people like these two "we are soooo edgy and raw cause we're *atheists who dress in black*, oooo" twits so often conveniently forget, is that therefore YOU are the only one responsible for your own behaviour. If you do not behave like a grown-up, making basic respect and common sense your priorities, you have no-one but yourself to blame when you are caught acting like a damn fool and mocked or censured.

So yes. Nothing to do with atheism, being a Goth or a punk, nor with being sexy or sex-positive. Everything to do with being immature and trying to shock people.

Also, the tagline was awesome.

And, David from Burlington NC? I snrk'd at your post. :^D

Posted by Will, Virginia on June 16, 2008:

Story: reminds me of the " Sex for Sam " scandel in Boston or New York City (not sure) a few years back.

Tagline: brilliant

I have one question as it relates to the idea of reason as described by someone previously. If I have a theory that all blues are also greens, I would have to test my theory to prove it true or false, correct. The outcome would establish fact. Thus the reason I believe all blues are green is due to my observation of the results of the test proving the theory. Faith is only as good as the object it is placed in/on, and is backed up by evidence of truth, else it would be blind faith and useless. If I take a portion of scripture and can substantiate that what it states can be proven then I have established a truth. Subsequently if I pile on top of the first truth many other evidences of truth I would then establish a pattern of truth. This would then give me a "REASON" to believe that the scriptures were true until proven false. Logic would dictate I follow the results, thus if everything I tested in scripture fell in only the two categories of true or unproven and nothing ever feel in the category of false I could reason scripture was true. If I am incorrect in my understanding of reason please explain.

Posted by Valerie - Oak Park, Michigan on June 16, 2008:

I agree that it has little to do with Atheism and everything to do with disrespect, but few organizations are as powerful a magnet for disrespect as the Roman Catholic Church. At least there were only consenting adults involved.

So while I wouldn't poke a sharp stick in the church's eye this way, I don't have a lot of sympathy for the organization which is responsible for more human suffering than anything else in history. When the church stops intruding into my personal life, I might begin to care that two people intruded into one of their buildings.

Posted by Dominic, Cape Town on June 17, 2008:

Valerie of Oak Park, Michigan seems to have been carried away by the excitement of the moment if she really believes the Roman Catholic Church is "... the organization which is responsible for more human suffering than anything else in history...". Granted, much evil has been perpetrated for personal political gain in the name of the Church but the culprits knew then as we know now that their activities were nothing to do with the Church's role on this planet. One doesn't have to look very far back for the legitimate aspirants for the title of "Worst person / organization in history".

Posted by John, Florence, KY, USA on June 17, 2008:

Let me begin by stating that I am a practicing Roman Catholic. With the exception of the previously posted deacon, I believe I am the only commentor who has said that. I consider myself a tolerant person with a well developed sense of humor, but this story annoys me on a multitude of levels.

Although the ultimate motivation of the couple in question is pure speculation, it is also immaterial. Whether simply immature thrill seekers or radical provocatuers, the Goths had to know what they were doing was rude, offensive and probably illegal. In other words, WRONG. Whether, because of their atheism, they believed the church to be "no different from any other place", is a specious argument. They had to know the kind of outrage their actions would foment from the congregation. They knew it was not just any old place to the people who worshipped there. So I dismiss them as the kind of self centered, obnoxious people whom I encounter all too frequently in this world. They have no respect for others and therefore I suspect little for themselves either.

In Catholicism, a church is a holy, sanctified place. When a new church is dedicated, there is a specific ritual performed whereby the local priest and bishop bless the edifice and specific areas within where sacraments are to be performed. These include the altar, sacristy, baptismal font and confessional. To poke fun at the bishop's remarks about the need for purification of the confessional showcases your own ignorance of or disrepect for the Catholic faith.

In a way Randy's tagline is similar to the Goth's actions. He knows he is about to offend others, but he does so anyway. Why? Is it for a laugh? The line is clever. I can see that. But is it truely just about being funny? Perhaps Randy is attempting to display some kind of superior or more enlightened viewpoint to the tenants of Catholicism. I find that sad, as I always do when people resort to humor in an attempt to elevate themselves at the expense of others. Taking the higher ground means not always making the easy joke. You may have to think a little more to find humor, but I think it is worth the effort.

I am heartened by the numerous postings from atheists, agnostics and others who disapprove of the couple's actions and recognize the need for more respect and tolerance of differing viewpoints. Reasonable people can disagree about even the most fundamental principles without getting all "fundamentalist"! But provocation, whether thoughtless or deliberate, is dangerous. History, as well as the news of the day, is full of examples.

Posted by Jennifer,Brisbane,QLD,AUST on June 17, 2008:

I read all the comments, and was shaking my head the whole time..... prehaps this couple were crossing off their "places to have sex in list". I've done it in a baptist church during the sermon, in the outside eating area of starbucks during lunch, on the bonnet of a car in the middle of a major round about, on the counter of subway (a fast food sandwich place) and in the playground of maccas (ok that one was at about midnight but I still did it so I could cross it off).

The only thing I think these people did was get caught, and as it comes to churches being violated doesn't it say, "you will not find me in places made of sticks and stone, lift a rock and you will find me, split a piece of wood and I am there"? A church is just a building that people congregate in.... are you all up at arms in those people who buy old churches to live in? Essentially they are doing the same thing are they not?