I only have to adduce that there is ONE married priest to have accomplished the job of showing that her authority as a former Catholic can carry no weight (while other authority might carry some weight — I only argued against what was said).
I STILL think that’s far tooooo much of a
S T R E T C H
TO SOUND soooooooooo smug about it.
I suspect that you are well aware of the popular understanding abroad in the world by most RC’s as well as other non-RC’s that marriage is BASICALLY NOT a normal option for RC priests.
Making such a fuss over such a miniscule relative exception is . . . not overly . . . kosher, to me.
This is too miuch, First when someone gives evidence of disgracefully awful catechesis WHILE claming the authority of experience it is beneath me to address the argument and to point out that I who have received ZERO catechesis (auto-didact here) know more than she does.
And now you don't like my tone of voice when I type? YOU don't like the tone of MY voice?
If someone essentially says, You have to agree with me, I know what I'm talking about and then says a series of things that are grotesquely untrue, I don't see where my obligation extends beyond pointing out the errors. If she wants classes, let her ask for them.
BUT I DID point out the uniate churches. However, no one on your side remembers that. I don't know why it was forgotten, but remembering it would interfere with the current doctrine of my haughtiness.
I suspect that you are well aware of the popular understanding abroad in the world by most RC’s as well as other non-RC’s that marriage is BASICALLY NOT a normal option for RC priests.
Of course. But normal Catholics and non-Catholics do not tell other Catholics that they have to agree with them because they possess knowledge not only superior but unassailable.