[markedman]

"As someone who is skilled in research, I know that if you cite a primary source in a scholarly paper your cite will be well-received, while if you fail to cite and write "see Google", you'll be laughed at."

I do primary research and write papers for a living, albeit on subjects relating to financial engineering.

Given the medium and the audience, there is no reason to expend (waste) vast amounts of time on subjects that can easily be looked up - even by the intellectually lazy.

[wideawake]

I do primary research and write papers for a living, albeit on subjects relating to financial engineering.

Yet, you can't cite.

Given the medium and the audience, there is no reason to expend (waste) vast amounts of time on subjects that can easily be looked up - even by the intellectually lazy.

A good sign of intellectual laziness might be that someone, instead of identifying a specific primary source, refers someone to a web search.

Another good sign might be an inability to to express a coherent thesis in his own words.

Again, now that I have demonstrated you to be completely wrong - cf. the Regesta including the decreta of Pope Siricus - what have you to say?

Papal celibacy was firmly established in the West more than a 1000 years before Trent, and all discussion of clerical marriage in the West from 400 until the 1960s centered on whether (1) celibate priests who took on live-in girlfriends subsequent to their ordination should be relieved of their duties or allowed to do penance and (2) whether clerics in minor orders like acolytes and subdeacons should one allowed to marry.

[ninenot]

Arthur Andersen did "financial engineering," too.

IIRC, their "engineering" had some flaws.

Your "research" has flaws big enough to drive M1A1's through.