The Celibate Priesthood - God’s Will and Human Nature

“Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” 1st Peter 2:12-13

The issue of sexual perversion, of whatever sort, amongst Roman Catholic priests proves the difference between God’s perfect way and man’s faulty way.

The Bible states, “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him’” (Genesis 2:18). Plain and simple, men and women have emotional and physical needs that are fulfilled in emotional and physical relationships with the opposite sex. God’s plan is that one man is to come together with one woman in order to fulfill these needs.

The Bible further states that it is acceptable for a person to choose to remain unmarried (see 1st Corinthians 7:7-9) and be celibate, “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it” (Matthew 19:12).
For example, Paul recognized that since he was unmarried he could devote all his time to the ministry and not have to divide his time between ministry, wife and children (see 1st Corinthians 7:32-35). However, the Bible states that “if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1st Corinthians 7:9).
Moreover, although even a married couple could abstain from physical relations it is to be for a predetermined and agreed upon temporary period of time (see 1st Corinthians 7:5).

What we have in the system created by God is a clear recognition of, and provision for, natural human needs. However, as clearly opposed to this, the Roman Catholic Church has created its own system which as the evidence of history proves has, does, and will fail. We cannot go against the will of God and expect success.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that, as far as its upper level clergy is concerned, it is good for man to be alone because the Roman Catholic priesthood is one in which celibacy is a life long commitment, a vow. It may be argued that celibacy is not imposed upon Roman Catholic priests, it is a decision that they make and to which they commit.
The problem is that this issue is not simply a matter of black and white intellectual discussions because we are dealing with real life human beings with real feelings, needs and all that comes with. A young man who wants to become a priest may in all honesty believe that he can be a lifelong celibate, and of course God can give him the gift of celibacy.

But what happens five, ten, thirty, fifty years down the line? What if a priest, according to natural human needs, begins to long for physical relations? “Then he can leave the priesthood and get married,” you might say. It’s not that simple, at this point the priest must make a difficult decision and he must make it due to the faulty human system in which he finds himself trapped, “Do I give up my life’s work, my decades of service in the priesthood for marriage?”

We hear over and over of people who have been laid off of work after decades at the same job, “I don’t know anything else,” they say, “I don’t know what to do!” Keep in mind that a Roman Catholic priest does not pay rent, does not pay utility bills, does not have a wife and children to support, they are given a car and an allowance for food plus their wage. It’s not as simple as to think that a person would be willing or able to walk away from a life long vocation and not having to pay most of their bills.

In this way they are forced to remain in a faulty system. You are either celibate or you are not a priest is the Roman Catholic stance which causes us to declare priestly celibacy as being forced. Moreover, the choice between marriage or the priesthood is not what the Bible teaches (of course you will not find a New Testament priesthood, but that’s another article).

This is why it is extremely important to consider that God tells us in His word that “the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons. Speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth” (1st Timothy 4:1-3).
Nowhere does the Bible teach that one cannot serve God if one is married and while, for example, Roman Catholic deacons can be married the higher levels of the clergy are reserved for the celibate. These are the sort of problems that the Roman Catholic Church has created for itself by making up its own rules instead of following God’s.

We speculate here in stating that just as a person might commit adultery for a momentary thrill, a celibate priest may decide that it is not worth giving up his life long career and financial ease for a momentary physical thrill. Roman Catholicism has set up for itself a system by which to grade sin, venial and mortal. It seems to be a human tendency to excuse ourselves by thinking that if we are not committing a grade A sin then a grade C or grade Z sin is not so bad. B

eing caught in this dilemma a priest might unreasonably reason that if he has vowed to never have a natural male/female relationship he can, in an odd way, get his thrills with children or other men. They might tell themselves that they, while they have sinned, it was not as bad as violating the original vow of abstaining from a natural male/female relationship. It is true that celibacy ultimately means abstaining from any and all sexual relations, but we are speculating about how people make excuses for themselves.

Speculating upon the inner workings of a troubled mind is difficult indeed, if you cannot conceive how someone could sexually abuse a child you should thank God that you are so far removed from that malicious perversion that you could never have conceived it.

Therefore, the bottom line is that some people can ruin it for everyone else. All priests are now looked upon with suspicion, which is a shame because many do not deserve such scrutiny. But what are we to do about the children who are left in the care of priest, for class, as altar server, or what ever reason? Sad to say but these children should never be left alone with any priest. This is not an assumption that the priests themselves are not trustworthy but because the Roman Catholic Church as a religious hierarchy proves over and over that if something does happen they will either do nothing, or simply relocate the priest (giving him fresh hunting grounds).

They will buy silence from the family with money and ultimately they will hide yet another skeleton it in the Vatican’s closet. They constantly prove to the world that a false clean outward appearance is more important than a true inward cleanliness. Jesus pointed out that some people are like a beautiful mausoleum, beautiful on the outside but full of dead men’s bones on the inside (see Matthew 23:27). The covering up or ignoring of these horrendous acts is as bad or even worse than the acts themselves.

One single priest may take it upon himself to privately molest a child, but we see that a system of thousands of clergy are willing to look the other way and allow it to continue, allow children to be scarred for life and cause people to turn away from God due to the terrible actions of people who are supposed to be His holiest servants.
When King David committed adultery with Bathsheva, and arranged for her husband to be killed in battle, the prophet Nathan told him that by his actions he had caused the enemies of God to blaspheme (see 2nd Samuel 12:14). We should never add fuel to the fires of unbelief. Let us pray that their attempts at reformation and reconciliation in this area will be fruitful.

One Biblical response to such perverted behavior comes up in a church that Paul was involved with, “It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles…In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” (1st Corinthians 5:1-5).
In time, when the person repents they are to be restored. “Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted” (Galatians 6:1).

We could not go without pointing out the obvious, which is that celibate Roman Catholic priests are not alone in the commission of these grave sins. Some married Protestant Pastors are likewise guilty. Some regular Joe American married men, and women for that matter, are likewise guilty. We have heard stories of Hindu-Hare Krishna school teachers that are likewise guilty.
Recently, Buddhist priests in Cambodia have been suspended for frequenting brothels and watching pornographic videos. We have focused on Roman Catholic priests in order to explore a particular aspect of their system that adds fuel to the fires of a troubled mind and heart and to show that God’s will takes into consideration that which Roman Catholic celibacy does not.

Other verses of Scripture seriously contradict Roman Catholicism’s concept of the celibacy of the clergy.
Bishops are to be allowed to marry:

“you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—if a man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of dissipation or insubordination. For a bishop must be blameless, as a steward of God” (Titus 1:5-7).

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife” (1st Timothy 3:2).

Peter, who Roman Catholicism claims to be the first Pope, was married:

“Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles,
the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas [Peter]?” (1st Corinthians 9:2).

“Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever” (Matthew 8:14).

In conclusion, we note that all and every form of perversion is born from the seed of rebellion against God’s will for our lives. God has set up a system that takes into account and provides for human emotional and physical needs, when we do not follow God’s will we can expect nothing but the worse, the acting out of the darkest human deeds unrestrained.

“for you know what commandments we gave you through the Lord Jesus. For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you should abstain from sexual immorality; that each of you should know how to possess his own vessel in sanctification and honor” 1st Thessalonians 4:2-5

Continue reading The Celibate Priesthood - God’s Will and Human Nature...

Roman Catholicism and Islam : Traditional Traditions

Roman Catholicism claims that all of its traditions, those teachings not found in the Bible, were the original teachings of the Apostles and were passed down through apostolic succession. However, anyone that has read Roman Catholic doctrine regarding these teachings will notice that there is no line of witnesses to be found.

Allow us a circumlocution; Muslims believe that the Hadith, the traditions, are second in authority to the Qur'an. Each Hadith relies on a line of witnesses, each begins with a statement such as, “Narrated 'Abdullah bin 'Umar” or “Narrated Salim’s father” thus, the Hadith are traced back to a saying or action of Muhammad.

Each Muslim group picks and chooses which Hadith they consider reliable and which they do not; a strong and weak Hadith. For example, many Muslims (particularly Black Muslims) do not like to think of Muhammad as a white man who owned black slaves as some Hadith teach.
Quoted from Sahih Bukhari:[i]

Vol. 1, Book 3, #63, “‘Who amongst you is Muhammad?’ At that time the Prophet was sitting amongst us (his companions) leaning on his arm. We replied, ‘This white man reclining on his arm.’”

Vol. 2, Book 17, #122, “a white (person) (i.e. the Prophet).”

Vol. 6, Book 60, #435 refers to “a black slave of Allah’s Apostle.”

The point is that in Roman Catholicism there is no such line of witnesses, no substantive evidence at all that their traditions can authentically be traced back to the Apostles. Indeed, the fact that many of these traditions do go against Biblical doctrines speaks strongly against apostolic origin. Many of these traditions can actually be traced back to Gnostic writings, and or, various apocryphal books from post New Testament times.

For example, Mary’s assumption and other such stories come from apocryphal books such as the fourth century Passing of Mary and the sixth century Nativity of Mary. Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott wrote,

“Direct and express scriptural proofs are not to be had….The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus-narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries. Even though these are apocryphal, they bear witness to the faith of the generation in which they were written despite their legendary clothing.”[ii]

Lastly, a word about the circular reasoning regarding relying on tradition in granting the Roman Catholic Church infallibility and the Church granting infallibility to the traditions.

“…a novice in logic can see that the thing to be proved, viz., the infallibility of the church, is assumed, and that tradition, instead of being traced down through history and thus being established by the historical method, is pronounced infallible because the church has held it…If tradition is invoked to prove the infallibility of the church, one should not with the next stroke of the pen argue for the correctness of tradition on the basis of the infallibility of the church. For tradition to be accepted as trustworthy evidence in establishing the infallibility of the church it will have to be established by history.”[iii]

[i] “Sahih Bukhari is a collection of sayings and deeds of Prophet Muhammad…Each report in his collection was checked for compatibility with the Qur'an, and the veracity of the chain of reporters had to be painstakingly established. Bukhari’s collection is recognized by the overwhelming majority of the Muslim world to be one of the most authentic collections…is considered second to none” (M. Muhsin Khan, trans., Sahih Bukhari, from the introduction).
[ii] Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Ill.: Tan Book Publishers, 1974), pp. 208-210
[iii] Paul Matthews, Basic Errors of Catholicism (Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club, George W. DeHoff, 1952), pp. 25-26
Continue reading Roman Catholicism and Islam : Traditional Traditions...

The Local Archdiocese and the Death Penalty

Deacon Juan Barajas is the Director of Evangelization and Hispanic Ministry at the Archdiocese of Santa Fe’s Catholic Center, Alb., NM. Deacon Barajas writes a column that is mailed out to the Parishes of the Archdiocese to be included in the church bulletin.

For September 16, 2002 the column titled Stewardship reads:

“The Gospel of Luke, 15, presents several stories of God’s compassion. They are beautiful as long as we see ourselves as the receivers of God’s compassion. Are we willing to forgive others in the same way God forgives us? Many states in our country believe in Capital Punishment. We cannot be disciples of Jesus and believe in the death penalty. Forgiveness, and respect for life…this is what stewardship is all about.”

This certainly an extremely strong statement, it is nothing less that condemning to eternal damnation those who believe in the death penalty. In corresponding with the deacon he stated that it is an exaggeration to state that he was damning people, but never explained what else the statement could mean.
All across our city the message was sent which clearly stated that you are not a disciple of Jesus, not a Christian, not assured eternal salvation if you believe in the death penalty. This issue has been turned not only into an issue of physical life and death for the convict but it is an issue of spiritual life and death for all Catholics and non-Catholics.
However, note that the same Archdiocese that inform the city that “We cannot be disciples of Jesus and believe in the death penalty” also informed the city that “We also recognize that many people of good faith support the death penalty.”[1] We wrote to the Archdiocese asking them to clear up this contradiction of extremes in opinion but we received no response.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church #2266 states:

“Preserving the common good of society requires rendering the aggressor unable to inflict harm. For this reason the traditional teaching of the Church has acknowledged as well-founded the right and duty of legitimate public authority to punish malefactors by means of penalties commensurate with the gravity of the crime, not excluding, in case of extreme gravity, the death penalty. For analogous reasons those holding authority have the right to repel by armed force aggressors against the community in their charge.”

The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary states:

“It is Catholic teaching that society has the clear right to take life in order to repel unjust aggression against itself or its members. From this it follows that the state has the right to inflict the death penalty for serious crimes. There is much debate, however, on the value of the death penalty.”[2]

Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field who is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine wrote:

“Capital punishment is part of the acknowledged Christian tradition, illustrated by St. Paul’s statement that, ‘The State is there to serve God for your benefit. If you break the law, however, you may well have fear; the bearing of the sword has its significance. The authorities are there to serve God; they carry out God’s revenge by punishing wrongdoers.’ (Rm. 13:4).”[3]

Clearly the official and traditional teaching of the Roman Catholic Church is that the death penalty is an acceptable practice. We have quoted only from publications approved by an ecclesiastical censor as Nihil Obstat meaning that it contains nothing that will hinder the Catholic faith.

Although, it is crucial to understand the following:

“The Pope says that the death penalty should not be used ‘except in cases of absolute necessity,’ which he considers ‘very rare, if not practically nonexistent’ [Pope John Paul II’s 1995 encyclical The Gospel of Life #56]. Pope John Paul II has often asked U.S. governors and political leaders around the world not to execute specific people. He and many other bishops have made abolishing the death penalty an important part of their Jubilee Year efforts.”[4]

We must be fair and careful to understand this and take it into consideration.
For example, “The National Conference of Catholic Bishops went on record against capital punishment in 1974, and again in 1980.”[5] Also, “The three Bishops of New Mexico…have for a long time been on record as opposing the death penalty in our state.”[6]

We must be careful not to presume upon, or un-righteously judge, those with whom we disagree. When I wrote to Deacon Barajas I did not state my personal opinion regarding capital punishment. However, since I called his statements into question he made a faulty assumption. He wrote to me stating that if I thought I could find support for capital punishment in the Catechism I could probably find some Scriptures that I thought would support it as well. Of course, I explained that I had gone to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the very reason that I ought to consult it, in order to find out what the official position of the Roman Catholic Church is.

Beyond the wish to abolish the death penalty and beyond the Pope’s requests to political leaders to not execute certain criminals on death row, the official Catholic Church teaching allows for capital punishment. It is unknown to us how or from where Deacon Barajas got the authority to condemn people for this belief. These are extremely serious issues; both the death penalty and the condemnation of those who believe in it.

Indeed there is a movement within the Roman Catholicism to abolish the death penalty, but considering that the church teaches infallibly through its Catechism that the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude the death penalty in case of extreme gravity.
People of God: News Paper of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe,

“Almost all civilized nations have long ago abandoned the death penalty. In our day society does not have to use the death penalty to protect citizens from dangerous persons.”[7]

If this is so then what does it say about the Vatican, the Pope’s city? As we have seen in The Catechism of the Catholic Church #2266 provision is made for the death penalty does this mean that Vatican City is not civilized?
Thus, it appears that the church is attempting to take a splinter out of the eye of the state while they have a pole in theirs. “why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5).

Today there are various clergy as well as lay people in the Catholic Church who are strongly opposed to the death penalty but they must abolish it from their own infallible teachings first. Note that the abolition of the death penalty, according to Catholicism, does not have to do with the protection of ones family from intruders nor does it have to do with fighting a war.

Joe Ross wrote,

“Knowing that every person is made in God’s beautiful and holy image, how can we presume to cut short another’s life before God has given every opportunity for conversion?”[8]

There are various problems with this statement. First and foremost, God is sovereign, He is in control of everything, nothing occurs which is outside of God’s knowledge or control. This is not to say that all that happens is God’s perfect will, after all we do live in a cursed creation and do have free will, yet we learn from Job 1:6-12 in particular that even the works of the devil must be approved by God.
No one dies before their time, if they did then God is not sovereign and if God is not sovereign then He is not God. In the case of the death penalty, no one is executed before their time, as far as salvation is concerned.

The quote stated:

“how can we presume to cut short another person’s life before God has given every opportunity for conversion?” This presumes that we can beat God to the punch, that we could overpower Him, as it were, that human will can cancel out God’s. Yes, humans have free will and yes God wishes that all be saved but simply stated, as much as God wants all to come to Him He will not force people who want nothing to do with Him to spend eternity with Him, that would turn heaven to into hell, “‘Do I have pleasure at all that the wicked should die?’ says the Lord God, ‘and not that he should turn from his ways and live?’” (Ezekiel 18:23).

Yet, God is omniscient, God knew from before the creation of the universe when a person would be executed.
The Bible states:

“He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, ‘So that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of.” (Acts 17:26-27).

Thus, the Lord ends all our arguments and proves Joe Ross wrong. God has determined, preappointed times, the dwellings. He has decided when and where we would live in order that our lives, the situations we find ourselves in, the people we know, the good, the bad and the ugly would make us realize that we need Him. According to this fact of Scripture there is no such thing as a person who was never given a chance. Mr. Ross is asserting that God does not give certain people a chance for salvation or that in some cases He just waited so long that we humans did not give Him enough time.

No one who dies or is killed without having accepted Christ would have done so if the had just one more day, one more year, one more decade or century.

[1] People of God (News Paper of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe), Opposition to the Death Penalty, Nov. 2001, Vol. 19, #10, p. 3 and New Mexico Catholic Conference; Press Release Opposition to the Death Penalty 10-9-01
[2] Albert J. Nevins, M.M., ed., The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary (New York: Dimension Books, 1965), Nihil Obstat Rt. Rev. Msgr. James T. Clarke, Censor Librorum 11-27-64. p. 101
[3] Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.; a leading authority in his field, he is also a professor in the Institute for Advanced Studies in Catholic Doctrine, The Catholic Catechism, A Contemporary Catechism of the Teachings of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1966) Nihil Obstat: Daniel V. Flynn, J.C.D., Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: James P. Mahoney, D.D. Vicar General Archdiocese of New York 12-13-74. p. 345
[4] Fr. Pat McCloskey, “Ask a Franciscan,” St. Anthony's Messenger, August 2000, p. 48
[5] Anthony Wilhelm, Christ Among Us, A Modern Presentation of the Catholic Faith-Third Revised Edition (New York: Paulist Press, 1981) Nihil Obstat: Rev. Charles W. Gusmer Censor Librorum. Imprimatur: Most Rev. Peter L. Gerety, D.D. Archbishop of Newark. p. 280
[6] People of God (News Paper of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe), Opposition to the Death Penalty, Nov. 2001, Vol. 19, #10, p. 3
[7] People of God (News Paper of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe), Opposition to the Death Penalty, Nov. 2001, Vol. 19, #10, p. 3
[8] Joe Ross, Living and Dying on Death Row: An Eyewitness Account, 2001 Respect Life Program.
Continue reading The Local Archdiocese and the Death Penalty...