@taliesin, siren: with the quote i was just meaning that one shouldn't judge another's actions based on the religious creed this person professes to have. after all, being a christian (or a muslim, or a buddhist, or whatever) only means that the person concerned is making an effort to adhere to a theological interpretation of the world - it doesn't imply that this person will be a model of virtue from the get go.
expecting believers to have a higher moral standard than most is human: after all, they say they're buying values and rules that condemn certain courses of action, and they shouldn't hence be caught performing the same actions contradicting their weltanschaaung. still, while it is human, it does not hold water logically: no religion that i know of claims to instantly purify its believers of all evils from the moment they set foot in a church, mosque or temple.
one can be honestly christian and not be able to follow every single rule imposed by the church he refers to; or one can follow all the rules without being christian; or one can say he's a christian and follow the rules; and so on and so forth. but quid iuris can anyone judge another's faith or behavior? note that this has nothing to do with deciding that some actions or beliefs are right or wrong as a concept, i'm talking about judgment passed on a specific individual. and no, believing that an action is evil per se doesn't make you automatically believe that those who commit it are evil, that's a major philosophical misunderstanding (for a lecture on formal and material cooperation in evil, ring me).
we have conventional judgment in courts of law, and that's all well and good: most societies recognize the need for a structure that sanctions behaviors that are socially wrong. thanking the almighty heavens, there's no such thing anymore for behaviors that are morally wrong: to simplify to the max, believers normally think that this is reserved to god, while atheists/agnostics refuse the idea of something that is definitely wrong from the moral standpoint.
so, to conclude this rant: while i understand taliesin's solidarity for his friend and lack of desire to interact with that woman, and i even support it to the extent to which i know the facts, i don't think that her self-labeling as a catholic should add or subtract anything to/from the equation. it's a matter of her conscience, of how she relates her catholicism with her actions. maybe (but i know i'm overstepping my boundaries - it's just for the sake of example) she should ask herself a couple of questions about her role in creating scandal, in the sense of widespread disapproval of her faith based on her actions.
bottom line: @taliesin: reactions like yours are common and i don't mean to judge you either - you have a history of life and thoughts that led you there, it's up to you to know it and treat it critically. nevertheless, i wanted to point out what is a flaw in logic, with all due respect to you.
not to mention that those who follow religions by the book are often criticized as harshly as those who offer more liberal interpretations, and by the same people. wow.
