To: Little Ray
Your "facts" are wrong. Mandatory celibacy dates to 1139; but the tradition goes back much further. Also, continence was required for married priests, which is certainly not envisioned by today's "reformers."
That anti-Catholic chestnut about inheritance makes no sense whatsoever, which hasn't stopped it from spreading via the likes of Fr. McBrien. How could children inherit property that did not belong to their parent? Ludicrous.
40 posted on
04/07/2005 6:56:28 AM PDT by
B Knotts
(Ioannes Paulus II, Requiescat in Pacem.)
To: B Knotts
continence was required for married priests, which is certainly not envisioned by today's "reformers."
Is there a reference for this?
41 posted on
04/07/2005 6:57:49 AM PDT by
Dominick
("Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to do what we ought." - JP II)
To: B Knotts
Also, continence was required for married priests, which is certainly not envisioned by today's "reformers." The reason marriage was eventually ruled out for priests is because continence between married people was a pipe dream. It didn't work then, and it certainly wouldn't work now.
46 posted on
04/07/2005 7:04:47 AM PDT by
sinkspur
(If you want unconditional love with skin, and hair and a warm nose, get a shelter dog.)
To: B Knotts
Sorry 'bout the date. Doesn't change the arguement.
Technically, that feudal holdings don't belong to the feudal lord; they belong the king. Nevertheless, the lord's son inherits it, or else there is trouble. The same thing applied to the holdings of the Roman Church. In many ways it was another feudal kingdom, just more geographically dispersed.
Personally, I think priests SHOULD be married. But what do I know - I'm just a Protestant.
82 posted on
04/07/2005 8:22:20 AM PDT by
Little Ray
(I'm a reactionary, hirsute, gun-owning, knuckle dragging, Christian Neanderthal and proud of it!)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson