[Discuss] Are Priests still not able to rule?

[Matt Runyon]

Vin wrote:
> On 10/18/06, *Arron Robinson* <mouserar at gmail.com 
> <mailto:mouserar at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     I know that this has been through, but I want it in concrete.
>
>     Is it still not gonna happen, even in theocracies?
>
>
> The basic definition of religions priest hood could mean, giving away 
> all this is luxurious and taking a path of god. So how can a priest be 
> a ruler anyway, even in Theocracies...
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>   
(shakes head) This is ridiculous.  Since when do all priests do that?  
Even today, in modern Western cultures, that doesn't happen.  Hello, 
does anyone recall Cardinal Richelieu?  Ruled France?  I know he wasn't 
the "official" ruler, but still.  The Pope ruled the Papal States 
directly, which were quite extensive at one time.  As far as wealth in 
general, Catholic Bishops in old Europe were extravagant.  Even lower 
priests.  Just go back and read your Robin Hood, much less actual 
history.  The extravagance of the Catholic Church was one of the big 
triggers of the Reformation. 


-- 
Unsubscribing and other list options:
http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss