So, the man who seeks to conform his life (though he sinned in the process) to the Church is somehow more "scandalous" than a priest who maintains a clandestine affair while still attempting to represent himself as a chaste man?
The man who acknowledges that he can only be chaste inside of a marriage is a greater sinner than the man who feigns chastity, but leads a life of unchastity.
Got it. I think the laicized priest makes you uncomfortable, whereas the whoring priest seems to be fine with you, as long as he doesn't renounce his vows publicly.
Not quite what I said.....or meant anyway. The priest who renounces his vows in order to make permanent his illicit affair, does more harm to those who have been served by him than does the priest who's spiritual dependents are kept in the dark. I have not judged their sin. I made a point not to.
Interesting that you call him "man"; I call him priest. We may have differing views on the sacerdotal nature of our subject, thus our disagreement in this arena.
I think the laicized priest makes you uncomfortable, whereas the whoring priest seems to be fine with you, as long as he doesn't renounce his vows publicly.
Yes, the laicized priest makes me uncomfortable. After years of contemplating this commitment, after determining that his vocation, his true purpose in life was to become a celibate priest, he becomes completely sidetracked. Yes, it contradicts my notion of the way things are supposed to work.
I am not fine with a whoring priest. In my heirarchy of virtue, holy vows are more important than concupiscence.