Blog

Controversial Leadership

22nd December 2009
2:22pm

Posted by Georgia Gill

Filed under Misc

Within organisations and the community people look to their leaders for guidance. Their messages are often powerful, inspirational and influential. So what happens when your leader communicates a controversial issue? Recently a Parish Priest openly supported and encouraged desperate people in need to steal. However, to ensure his guidance still had moral standings, he suggested these people should only steal from large stores (perhaps those who could afford the loss?). On the news this morning the Priest defended himself by saying that stealing a can of soup was far better than robbery or prostitution and to my surprise, many people wrote in and supported this. Although large businesses can be quite wasteful and perhaps struggle less than their smaller competitors, they are still businesses fighting for growth and their share in the market. Are we right to punish these businesses by encouraging people to steal from them, even if they are desperate? Or is this a bigger issue? Perhaps the Priest’s intention was to get on national television to share the message that we are not doing enough to help the needy people in this country and that large supermarkets have a social responsibility to help them out? Whether he is right or wrong, his message was certainly powerful and provocative and will hopefully encourage more positive rather than negative actions.

Comments

  1. Daniel Honeywell

    December 22, 2009
    2:41 pm

    I am not religious, but I am pretty sure that one of the 10 Commandments is ‘Thou shalt not steal’. I think it is also safe to assume that the priest in question knows this, and I believe it is highly irresponsible for him to make this suggestion.

    If and when people get caught, he will not be the one getting arrested.

    However, I once had an eye-opening conversation with a Muslim friend. He explained to me that although it is against the teachings of the Qur’an to drink alcohol, it is also implied that if you are about to die of thirst and all you could find was a beer, you would be committing more of a sin if you did not drink it and ultimately died than if you drank the alcohol.

    Perhaps this is what he is trying to get at.

    Controversial yet interesting.

Add your comments