I suppose, then; any Roman-rite priest who is legitimately married was not ordained into the Roman rite and usage, but transferred over from another rite or usage.
No, I’m not, because you’re taking my remarks completely out of context. They pertain only to the “‘celibate’ vs. ‘chaste’” subthread.
Might have gotten permission from God, but the Pope could overule that.
OK, I got it muddled.
A Roman Catholic priest is supposed to be chaste. He is not supposed to engage in sexual conduct of any kind.
It is extraordinarily rare that a married man may be called to the priesthood, or, even rarer, for a priest to marry. Accommodation of such members (or potential members) of the priesthood must be made by the Holy See; I assume that, should a married man become a priest or vice-versa, that the standard conventions of marriage (including, but not limited to, sexual intercourse) would apply.
I remember the incident…Barney was shocked, shocked! to find out that this was going on in his own apartment.
If you’ll check, I never mentioned the gay angle.
Why do you think it makes a difference?
In the Eastern rites, married men may become priests, and historically they have made up the majority of clergy in those rites. No clergyman at the level of deacon or above may marry after being ordained.
The few Roman-rite priests who exist do so because they were either priests of a different rite who transferred to the Roman rite, or were a married priest before converting to Catholicism, and were received as a priest into the Catholic church (as has happened in the Anglican usage of the Roman rite).
Bitch, please! I can fully believe the man was so enamored of his boytoy with the extracurricular activities that he didn’t see the signs of what was really going on. I simply cannot believe the man was so stupid that he thought he, a prominent Democratic senator (and the only gay one at that), could get away with running a gay prostitution ring openly out of his apartment without the press and his colleagues finding out about it. You just want to find something to call Frank out on because your hero Rectal Sludge said something stupid and reactionary again.
Nitpick! Nitpick here! Getcher nitpick here!
Not a Senator. Representative.
“Does it come with chips?”
Do you have any information that such was not the case?
You intimated that Frank was “running” a prostitution ring out of his apartment. Can you back that up or can’t you?
So what? I never said you did.
When did I say I thought made a difference? It makes no difference to me whatsoever. I have no problem with prostitution of either sort as long as no kids are involved and the prostitutes are willing.
The question is do YOU have a problem with prostitution rings? You brought that into the conversation as though it meant something about Barney Frank’s character? Dop you think there’s something wrong with prostitution?
Ah. Sorry.
I guess today I’m having problems with concentr let’s go ride our bikes!
Sorry. I’d forgotten he was still a Congressman at the time.
Having since Googled the story, I’d like to note that it was Gobie who claimed that Frank knew about it. Considering that his admitted motivation for shopping the story around to the media in the first place was money, I’m not inclined to believe him about a detail that would make the story all the more lucrative.
He still is a Congressman.
Actually, until
Roman Catholic priests could and did marry, though the Church strongly preferred that they be celibate.
Quote taken from ON PRIESTLY CELIBACY AND THE PRESENT CRISIS IN ROMAN CATHOLICISM: OBSERVATIONS OF A MARRIED PRIEST OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH.
Well yeah, by “always” I meant for hundreds of years. I didn’t include the 1070 decision because a) it was a gratuitous fact, and b) I had no idea what the date was.
By the way, is it true that the real reason for forced celibacy was so that priests could not build large power bases with which they could tip the balance of power to their favor? I’ve heard someone make this claim, but I never got a goof cite.
Shhh. His mom thinks he does run a man-ho ring. It would break her heart!
So Moto, these things only happen in such liberal bastions as Boston, North Dakota, and Wyoming,right?
So you don’t agree that a general climate of sexual license and moral relativism led these priests to do what they did, just those characteristics in these particular priests. And you certainly don’t agree that it was the climate of the city of Boston that led to it.
Basically, you agree that the priests who did this were bad people. Shit, I would agree with Santorum up to that point.
Except that Sanorum is making almost the opposite point–this happened not because of the people who did it, but because of the society they live in. I thought it was us liberals who blamed society instead of individuals for crimes.
I’m just sitting at my desk here in Central Pennsylvania, rubbing my hands in politically-motivated glee at the thought of Santorum being shown the door.
Casey isn’t doing much besides grass-roots campaigning and he’s still ahead 11% according to the Quinnipiac poll somebody else cited? WHOO-HOO!!!
Happy to help vote this schmuck out of office,
Robin
Heh. That “always” is a tricky word to use, isn’t it?
I found this online, can’t vouch for its accuracy, although it rings bells from the dim dark past of my college years when I majored in Medieval Studies:
You have to scroll about a third of the way down to find that bit.
Yep. Yep. It’s always tricky. 
Thanks for the cite.