Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (16026)	6/7/2001 12:14:42 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

As usual, the New York Times does not know what it is talking about on such matters. A priest is a priest, and any sacrament he performs is per se valid, even though he is not licensed to dispense the sacraments. It is a serious breach, yes; but the sacrament, properly performed, is valid. Furthermore, baptism does not require a priest, although customarily it is performed ceremonially by one. Any baptized Christian can perform a baptism. Finally, according to Church doctrine, the exchange of vows is sufficient for the sacrament of marriage, the priest merely solemnizes the occasion. In the Church, if you are married by a justice of the peace, you are married, because you had the requisite intent and acted upon it, and an annulment is still required for re- marriage (although one could use a "defective intent" argument before a tribunal, due to having foregone counseling by a priest).