Cardinal: Married Catholic priests a possibility

[CountDeMoney]

What a waste of good peanut butter.

You are just Little Miss Critic today, aren't you?  Goddamn.

[garbon]

What a waste of good peanut butter.

You are just Little Miss Critic today, aren't you?  Goddamn.

I've only critiqued your complaints in two instances.

[derspiess]

Celery is rad.

With peanut butter.  Or at least salt. 

[Malthus]

Everyone should abstain from celery. That goes without saying.

Screw you, and the peanut butter that goes down the middle.

Chunky, or smoothie?

'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.

[Malthus]

It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.

On point 1 I think you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of these cases came before the shortage of priests or seminarians. As I think the cover up's are far more about an abuse of power and the protection of an institution over the vulnerable than anything else. The Church was hardly unique in that, as I've said, but is perhaps uniquely harmed by it because it undermines their moral credibility.

I thought that the shortage of priests went back to the 1960s, or even earlier.  Am I mistaken in that?

Malthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.

Peter was married. Aside from that there are early 4th century Church Councils that prohibit bishops from marrying and they mention that the Roman Rite already had a tradition of total clerical celibacy.

I noticed that Malthus, in responding to AR, skipped over the point about church councils.

Not seeing why a church council is relevant in this situation. Allegedly, all these councils did was mention that a tradition of celebacy existed in one rite of the Church. They extend the tradition back in time to the 4th century, but they do not provide a reason why it arose it the first place. 

[CountDeMoney]

Chunky, or smoothie?

'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.

What the hell?  What's the point of peanut butter without chunks of peanuts?  That's not peanut butter, that's peanut spackling.

[derspiess]

Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.

[garbon]

Chunky, or smoothie?

'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.

What the hell?  What's the point of peanut butter without chunks of peanuts?  That's not peanut butter, that's peanut spackling.

I had the same position until I had braces and only could eat creamy for a long time. I now exclusively prefer creamy.

[fhdz]

Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.

Would you say it's a "bar to trust"?

[garbon]

Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.

Would you say it's a "bar to trust"?

[fhdz]

Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.

Would you say it's a "bar to trust"?

[derspiess]

Yeah, I have a hard time trusting anyone who doesn't like chunky peanut butter.

Would you say it's a "bar to trust"?

I'm saying I wouldn't buy creamy peanut butter even if it only cost a tiddler

[Malthus]

Chunky, or smoothie?

'cause I'm not screwing with chunky.

What the hell?  What's the point of peanut butter without chunks of peanuts?  That's not peanut butter, that's peanut spackling.

Eating is one thing; screwing another. 

[dps]

It is plausable that this response was exacerbated by two factors: (1) a staffing shortage; and (2) the indulgence with which "sexual sinning" was viewed by the Church.

On point 1 I think you're wrong. The overwhelming majority of these cases came before the shortage of priests or seminarians. As I think the cover up's are far more about an abuse of power and the protection of an institution over the vulnerable than anything else. The Church was hardly unique in that, as I've said, but is perhaps uniquely harmed by it because it undermines their moral credibility.

I thought that the shortage of priests went back to the 1960s, or even earlier.  Am I mistaken in that?

Malthus, all your references go back to scripture. But in catholicism scripture isn't the only source of doctrine: tradition also is one, as well as major church councils. For instance, while I am aware that some popes were married, the vast majority have not been, and that crosses all the historically documented eras as well as the last 1000 years or so. The preference for celibate clergy is longstanding and well established.

Peter was married. Aside from that there are early 4th century Church Councils that prohibit bishops from marrying and they mention that the Roman Rite already had a tradition of total clerical celibacy.

I noticed that Malthus, in responding to AR, skipped over the point about church councils.

Not seeing why a church council is relevant in this situation. Allegedly, all these councils did was mention that a tradition of celebacy existed in one rite of the Church. They extend the tradition back in time to the 4th century, but they do not provide a reason why it arose it the first place. 

His point was that councils, not just the Bible, are sources of Catholic Church doctrine.

[Ed Anger]

All you crunchy PB fags need to be sent to a camp.