lat-puzz.com

by **WiZ** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:28 am

Father Ben Ronald is a priest. Early one morning, he met a man in an inn. He thought to himself 'I am truly qualified to criticise this man'. He didn't, of course, but that is beside the point.

The question is: What made him so qualified?

True story. No caveat. No specialist knowledge is required.

by **biograd** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 4:33 am

Does his qualification rely on him being a priest?

If he had chosen to criticize the man, would the criticism have been about his moral character? his life path? his accomplishments? his aesthetic/cultural sense of taste in something?

by **wwhere** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 8:11 am

Was a (religious) Confession involved?

by **peter365** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 12:53 pm

HI WiZ (love the puzzle title)

Is the inn a normal pub as it were? Was there a pub quiz going on by any chance?

by **Doriana** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 2:43 pm

Relevant why the priest was at the inn the first place? Relevant why the other man was there?
Did the priest and the other man relevantly talk to each other? If so, does the priest think he's qualified to criticize the man before talking to him? while taking to him? after talking to him?
Is the priest's denomination relevant?
Relevant that this happened in the morning? Is the day of the week relevant? Does this relevantly happen on a holiday?

by **WiZ** » Mon Apr 12, 2021 9:12 pm

Biograd

Does his qualification rely on him being a priest? no

If he had chosen to criticize the man, would the criticism have been about his moral character? his life path? his accomplishments? his aesthetic/cultural sense of taste in something? It could equally have been about any of the three

Wwhere

Was a (religious) Confession involved? no

Peter

HI WiZ (love the puzzle title) And it's not even an R.E.M. lyric!

Is the inn a normal pub as it were? yes, small ish Was there a pub quiz going on by any chance? no

Doriana

Relevant why the priest was at the inn the first place? Relevant why the other man was there? yes to both
Did the priest and the other man relevantly talk to each other? yes, at some point If so, does the priest think he's qualified to criticize the man before talking to him? yes while taking to him? after talking to him? and yes to these, but only because the qualification doesn't wane in the process
Is the priest's denomination relevant? yes (although not exactly pivotal)
Relevant that this happened in the morning? yes Is the day of the week relevant? no Does this relevantly happen on a holiday? as in, Easter or Christmas or something? no

by **gregoryuconn** » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:21 am

Day drinking relevant? Is it relevant how early in the morning it was? Shortly after the priest woke up? Shortly after the other man did? Shortly after a typical person might? Or was it the "early in the morning" at the point where someone might plausibly have been up all night at that point, like 4 AM? Had the priest been up all night in fact? The man? Could this happen any morning? Did something relevant happen that morning prior to the priest encountering the man? The previous night? Some other point in the past? Did this relevant thing lead to the priest being qualified?

Would this work if the priest were a rabbi? An imam? The President of the Skeptics Society?

by **biograd** » Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:26 am

"If he had chosen to criticize the man, would the criticism have been about his moral character? his life path? his accomplishments? his aesthetic/cultural sense of taste in something? It could equally have been about any of the three"

From this I gather that the qualification doesn't pertain to being able to criticize a particular trait/flaw that this man happens to have, but to this particular man as a person? If so, did the priest realize he was qualified when he saw what the man was wearing? when he saw some physical feature of the man? when he found out the man's name? when he heard the man say something else about himself?

by **LemonCurry** » Tue Apr 13, 2021 11:17 am

Was the man supposed to be somewhere else? Was he supposed to do something else?
Has the priest seen the man before?

by **peter365** » Tue Apr 13, 2021 1:12 pm

Are the priest and the man both staying at the inn? Is the priest there to officiate at something? A wedding ? A funeral?

by **WiZ** » Thu Apr 15, 2021 12:36 am

GregoryUConn

Day drinking relevant? no Is it relevant how early in the morning it was? broadly Shortly after the priest woke up? Shortly after the other man did? Shortly after a typical person might? yes to all Or was it the "early in the morning" at the point where someone might plausibly have been up all night at that point, like 4 AM? no Had the priest been up all night in fact? The man? no to both Could this happen any morning? yes, although it would be more likely to at certain times of year Did something relevant happen that morning prior to the priest encountering the man? yes, good q The previous night? Some other point in the past? no to both Did this relevant thing lead to the priest being qualified? yes

Would this work if the priest were a rabbi? An imam? The President of the Skeptics Society? yes to all, although the scenario would be less likely to arise - in that order, too

Biograd

"If he had chosen to criticize the man, would the criticism have been about his moral character? his life path? his accomplishments? his aesthetic/cultural sense of taste in something? It could equally have been about any of the three"

From this I gather that the qualification doesn't pertain to being able to criticize a particular trait/flaw that this man happens to have, but to this particular man as a person? yes If so, did the priest realize he was qualified when he saw what the man was wearing? strong yope, explore when he saw some physical feature of the man? no when he found out the man's name? no when he heard the man say something else about himself? no

LemonCurry

Was the man supposed to be somewhere else? no Was he supposed to do something else? noish to yope
Has the priest seen the man before? likely but not strictly necessary - he could have come to this realisation upon seeing him for the first time

Peter

Are the priest and the man both staying at the inn? yes Is the priest there to officiate at something? A wedding ? A funeral? no to all

by **LemonCurry** » Thu Apr 15, 2021 6:20 am

Was the man there for spiritual retreats, and he was violating some rule?

by **Doriana** » Thu Apr 15, 2021 7:00 am

Was the man relevantly not wearing something?

by **Sundowner** » Thu Apr 15, 2021 9:56 am

Is the man's profession relevant? does he work at the inn?
Did this happen in winter? spring? summer? autumn?
Could this have happened only in the early morning because of some natural phenomenon? like: sunrise? birds singing?

by **WiZ** » Fri Apr 16, 2021 12:01 am

LemonCurry

Was the man there for spiritual yes retreats noish to yope, and he was violating some rule? no, small ish

Doriana

Was the man relevantly not wearing something? yesish, FA lurking

Sundowner

Is the man's profession relevant? no does he work at the inn? no
Did this happen in winter? spring? summer? most likely either of these two autumn?
Could this have happened only in the early morning because of some natural phenomenon like: sunrise? birds singing? no

by **biograd** » Fri Apr 16, 2021 5:11 am

Was the man relevantly not wearing something? yesish, FA lurking

Was he naked (relevantly or irrelevantly ;-)

)?

Is the relevance of not wearing something that the priest could see part of his body that would have otherwise been covered by clothing? or because he was not wearing something that would have been important to wear for spiritual reasons?

by **WiZ** » Mon Apr 19, 2021 12:48 am

Was he naked (relevantly or irrelevantly ;-)

)? We all stand naked before God. But no.

Is the relevance of not wearing something that the priest could see part of his body that would have otherwise been covered by clothing? or because he was not wearing something that would have been important to wear for spiritual reasons? no to both

by **LemonCurry** » Mon Apr 19, 2021 7:18 am

Was the man having breakfast? Was he supposed to have done something else in the morning before?
Was his clothing relevant? Should he have been out in the open before breakfast?

by **Sundowner** » Mon Apr 19, 2021 10:28 am

Did the man come into the pub from outdoors when the priest met him? Did the man spend the night somewhere else but not in the inn? Did the priest think so?
Did the priest think the man is lying or pretending something to him?

by **trebor** » Mon Apr 19, 2021 3:41 pm

Did they meet in the pub part of the inn? In one of the guest rooms? The lobby? Hallway? Pool/fitness area?

The thing that happened that morning: prayers? A fire alarm? Something part of a normal waking up routine (showering, brushing teeth, etc.)?

Is the man of the same religion as the priest?

by **WiZ** » Tue Apr 20, 2021 3:40 am

LemonCurry

Was the man having breakfast? not necessarily, but this is quite possible Was he supposed to have done something else in the morning before? yes, FAs lurking
Was his clothing relevant? very Should he have been out in the open before breakfast? there is no reason why he shouldn't be out/have been out

Sundowner

Did the man come into the pub from outdoors when the priest met him? this is possible, but the priest could equally have found him already in the pub Did the man spend the night somewhere else but not in the inn? no Did the priest think so? no
Did the priest think the man is lying or pretending something to him? no

Trebor

Did they meet in the pub part of the inn? In one of the guest rooms? The lobby? Hallway? all of these are roughly equally likely Pool/fitness area? the particular pub/tavern in question would be unlikely to be equipped with such facilities

The thing that happened that morning: prayers? A fire alarm? no to both Something part of a normal waking up routine (showering, brushing teeth, etc.)? yes to morning routine, no to 'waking up' routine

Is the man of the same religion as the priest? irrelevant, but likely

by **LemonCurry** » Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:26 am

Is the man wearing a habit? If so, could the priest see that he has put on this habit just now, when he was supposed to wear it before?

by **WiZ** » Tue Apr 20, 2021 4:34 am

Is the man wearing a habit? no If so, could the priest see that he has put on this habit just now, when he was supposed to wear it before? no

by **LemonCurry** » Tue Apr 20, 2021 6:56 am

Washing relevant?
Would whatever he was supposed to do leave marks on his body? And the priest could see through the man's clothing that there were no such marks? Would whatever he was supposed to to be painful?

by **LemonCurry** » Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:50 am

One more try: Was the man on a pilgrimage, and had cheated by taking the bus?

by **Sundowner** » Wed Apr 21, 2021 12:52 pm

Did the man wear sporting outfit? but did not do any sports?
Did the priest think he is qualified to criticize because he's a priest? because he has firm religious beliefs? because he is morally superior? Any sort of behavior relevant that would qualify as immoral or a sin? (Stealing? Cheating? Lying? Swearing? Not observing Sundays?) Anything that is mentioned in the ten commandments?

by **WiZ** » Wed Apr 21, 2021 11:07 pm

LemonCurry

Washing relevant? no
Would whatever he was supposed to do leave marks on his body? no And the priest could see through the man's clothing that there were no such marks? n/a Would whatever he was supposed to to be painful? no

Was the man on a pilgrimage yes!, and had cheated by taking the bus? but no

Sundowner

Did the man wear sporting outfit? no, although OTRT in one aspect but did not do any sports? n/a
Did the priest think he is qualified to criticize because he's a priest? because he has firm religious beliefs? because he is morally superior? no to these Any sort of behavior relevant that would qualify as immoral or a sin? no (Stealing? Cheating? Lying? Swearing? Not observing Sundays?) Anything that is mentioned in the ten commandments? n/a to all

by **Doriana** » Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:00 am

Relevant which pilgrimage the man was on? If so, Camino de Santiago? Was the priest on the same pilgrimage? Had he done the pilgrimage before?
Was the man wearing hiking attire? Relevantly not wearing hiking attire?

by **WiZ** » Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:23 am

Relevant which pilgrimage the man was on? More the nature of the pilgrimage, but see next: If so, Camino de Santiago? yes Was the priest on the same pilgrimage? yes Had he done the pilgrimage before? irrelevant (but yes - this is based on a priest I do volunteer work with, and he has done it many times)
Was the man wearing hiking attire? yes Relevantly not wearing hiking attire? no

by **LemonCurry** » Thu Apr 22, 2021 9:40 am

Is the man doing something unhelpful for himself? Like wrong clothing? Wrong equipment? Wrong food? Getting up late so he has to walk in the hot sun?

Is he doing something that is not in line with the spirit of a pilgrimage? Like doing business? Womanizing? Acting like a tourist? Bragging about his achievements on Instagram? Mobile phones, tablets or laptops relevant in any case?

by **peter365** » Thu Apr 22, 2021 3:18 pm

Isnt' there something about getting more tan on one side of your body when you do the camino walk? Is that relevant?

by **WiZ** » Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:32 am

LemonCurry

Is the man doing something unhelpful for himself? see next Like wrong clothing? yes! Wrong equipment? Wrong food? Getting up late so he has to walk in the hot sun? no to rest

Is he doing something that is not in line with the spirit of a pilgrimage? not willfully Like doing business? Womanizing? Acting like a tourist? Bragging about his achievements on Instagram? n/a to these Mobile phones, tablets or laptops relevant in any case? no

Peter

Isnt' there something about getting more tan on one side of your body when you do the camino walk? Sounds plausible, but I wasn't able to find a source Is that relevant? no

by **Doriana** » Wed Apr 28, 2021 6:35 am

Had the priest made the same clothing mistake in the past?

Is the man wearing brand new hiking boots?

by **WiZ** » Wed Apr 28, 2021 8:56 pm

Had the priest made the same clothing mistake in the past? no, but you may be on to something with this line of questioning...

Is the man wearing brand new hiking boots? no!

by **Doriana** » Wed Apr 28, 2021 9:48 pm

Is the man wearing appropriate/suitable shoes? If not, are they too old? not sturdy enough? too warm? not warm enough? Do they have holes in them?

by **WiZ** » Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:40 pm

Is the man wearing appropriate no /suitable but yes shoes? If not, are they too old? not sturdy enough? too warm? not warm enough? Do they have holes in them? no to all

by **Doriana** » Wed Apr 28, 2021 10:58 pm

Had the man stolen the shoes? If so, from the priest? Or, if not stolen, accidentally taken the priest's shoes?

by **WiZ** » Thu Apr 29, 2021 12:55 am

Had the man stolen the shoes? If so, from the priest? Or, if not stolen, accidentally taken the priest's shoes? Correct!

So, how might accidentally taking another man's shoes on a long walk position someone to criticise a man?

by **Doriana** » Thu Apr 29, 2021 1:01 am

Because he had literally walked a mile in the other man's shoes?

by **WiZ** » Thu Apr 29, 2021 2:35 am

Because he had literally walked a mile in the other man's shoes?

***** SPOILER *****

According to a popular saying, in order to truly criticise a man, you must first walk a mile in their shoes. The two men were walking the Camino de Santiago de Compostela, and had stayed in the same inn the previous day. The stranger had inadvertently taken Fr. Ben's shoes as he left (which looked similar and fit about as well), leaving the priest to take the strangers shoes for the next leg of the journey.

They met up again at the next inn, each having literally walked a mile (and then some) in each other's shoes. They swapped back, had a laugh, and lived happily ever after.

Congratulations, Doriana, on the solution, and thank you everyone for playing!

by **Doriana** » Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:20 am

Ah, nice one! I was a bit confused because I thought the man had only taken the priest's shoes that morning, so I wasn't sure why the priest would have walked in the man's shoes. Makes more sense now.

by **trebor** » Thu Apr 29, 2021 6:30 pm

Bit late to the puzzle, but if anyone likes the writing of Graeme Simsion (The Rosie Project), he and his wife Anne Buiste wrote a wonderful, witty book called "Two Steps Back" about two people on the Camino.

by **WiZ** » Thu Apr 29, 2021 8:28 pm

There's a good BBC programme called Pilgrimage: The Road to Santiago which features a few celebrities walking the trail and waxing philosophical. Enjoyable, if you can get past Ed Byrne finding any excuse to grumble about undead sky wizards.