this post was submitted on 26 Apr 2025
146 points (99.3% liked)
Slop.
472 readers
348 users here now
For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.
Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.
Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.
Rule 3: No sectarianism.
Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome
Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.
Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.
Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.
Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip
founded 5 months ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I can only find one case of this, but yeah, she tried to buy a convent from the Catholic Church but two old nuns were still living there. The nuns wanted to sell to some real estate developer who apparently said they'd let them stay there and open the convent to the public after they died. The Catholic Church took Perry's side and said the nuns had no right to sell the property.
I haven't looked up any details, but from what you tell me I too would side with the catholic church and Katy Perry, and saying those words wasn't a pleasant experience.
you think the catholic church had more right to that property than the women who'd lived there for decades?
The actual argument you could make here is that as the "workers" in the convent, they were entitled to the means of production (Production of... holiness I guess) i.e. the convent. The landlord/tenant relationship does not at all map on to a nun and the catholic church
I disagree. If they live on church property, and their ability to do so is contingent on their doing certain kinds of work, then how is that work not comparable to a form of rent? I would concede that it has elements of both.
(unless i misunderstood and they didn't actually live there)
That form of work they are obligated to do is to not be excommunicated. They are not charged rent.
And in either case, selling a convent off to a real estate developer isn't some liberatory action, these women weren't seizing property to put it into the commons or to redistribute it for the good of all, they were essentially claiming squatters rights to sell off a building to a real estate developer who was probably going to flip it. Which now that I'm saying it out loud isn't really any worse than what the church was going to do with it.