![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
sophia-sadek.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsWhen a person has been drawn into the depths of hellish governance his every action leads to additional degradation. It is similar to the way that struggling in quicksand only leads to a faster submersion. We can see this process at work in that magnificent bastion of outer darkness that goes by the name of the Vatican.
The latest news from that cavernous domain is that Roman practice is intolerant. Before this bit of "so what" insight, priestly celibacy was put on the table for discussion. It may seem that the newest Pontifex Maximus is open to reform in order to correct the wayward sexual tendencies that have plagued the Roman priesthood through the period of full-blown flat-Earth worship to the present day. As with American military intelligence, things within the Vatican are not what they seem to the outside world.
The official argument in favor of the celibacy requirement is that Roman priests need to dedicate their lives to the despotic kingdom of the material Creator. Raising a family will distract them from the task at hand. According to legend, Jesus and his followers had to forgo family life in their campaign against despotism. It makes sense that despotic priests must do the same in order to counter the opposition.
Now the tables have turned and it may be more to the advantage of Roman despotism to emulate the Protestant practice of allowing priests to wed. This is especially an issue now that Rome is trying to attract reactionary Anglican clerics to rejoin the Roman hierarchy. Anglican reforms have gone through a progression of abandoning the celibacy requirement, abandoning the gender requirement, and abandoning the homophobia requirement. Retrograde Anglican clerics accepted the first reforms but have been alienated by the relaxation of homophobia. It went too far too fast. By changing its policy on celibacy, Rome may be hoping to staunch the flux of rebellion and pick up some of Caesar's wayward sheep.
Even before the recent attempt to attract Anglican reactionaries there was a push to allow celibacy in order to promote Roman despotism in Africa. Advocates of clerical marriage observed that many Africans treat men better when they have a wife or more. This recent move to discuss relaxation of the celibacy rule may also be aimed at expansion in Africa.
Will this dialog on a change in the rules at the Vatican help the cause of Rome or will it lead to additional departures from Caesar's flock?
Links: Elliot Hannon on the Vatican's willingness to discuss priestly celibacy. Tracy Connor on some of the issues involved with priestly marriage. Tom Kington on plans to re-write the Vatican constitution.
The latest news from that cavernous domain is that Roman practice is intolerant. Before this bit of "so what" insight, priestly celibacy was put on the table for discussion. It may seem that the newest Pontifex Maximus is open to reform in order to correct the wayward sexual tendencies that have plagued the Roman priesthood through the period of full-blown flat-Earth worship to the present day. As with American military intelligence, things within the Vatican are not what they seem to the outside world.
The official argument in favor of the celibacy requirement is that Roman priests need to dedicate their lives to the despotic kingdom of the material Creator. Raising a family will distract them from the task at hand. According to legend, Jesus and his followers had to forgo family life in their campaign against despotism. It makes sense that despotic priests must do the same in order to counter the opposition.
Now the tables have turned and it may be more to the advantage of Roman despotism to emulate the Protestant practice of allowing priests to wed. This is especially an issue now that Rome is trying to attract reactionary Anglican clerics to rejoin the Roman hierarchy. Anglican reforms have gone through a progression of abandoning the celibacy requirement, abandoning the gender requirement, and abandoning the homophobia requirement. Retrograde Anglican clerics accepted the first reforms but have been alienated by the relaxation of homophobia. It went too far too fast. By changing its policy on celibacy, Rome may be hoping to staunch the flux of rebellion and pick up some of Caesar's wayward sheep.
Even before the recent attempt to attract Anglican reactionaries there was a push to allow celibacy in order to promote Roman despotism in Africa. Advocates of clerical marriage observed that many Africans treat men better when they have a wife or more. This recent move to discuss relaxation of the celibacy rule may also be aimed at expansion in Africa.
Will this dialog on a change in the rules at the Vatican help the cause of Rome or will it lead to additional departures from Caesar's flock?
Links: Elliot Hannon on the Vatican's willingness to discuss priestly celibacy. Tracy Connor on some of the issues involved with priestly marriage. Tom Kington on plans to re-write the Vatican constitution.
(no subject)
Date: 2/10/13 07:58 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/10/13 15:02 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2/10/13 15:32 (UTC)And neither can I think of any effects that said perceived harsh moderation has had on you, if any. Perhaps you would remind me of some.
Your initial remark was indeed passive-aggressive and personal-grudge-induced, therefore that's exactly what I'm calling it. For someone so concerned with personal name-calling, your conduct seems oddly inconsistent with the principles you are so righteously presuming to espouse.
> as of late
If memory serves, you were around as early as two or three years ago. Don't tell me you had slept through all that drama.