Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"We The Priests in order to form a more perfect union"
Common Conservative Website ^ | April 1, 2002 | Ray McClendon -"Parson Mac"

Posted on 04/20/2002 2:31:05 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl

A religious revolution in the making

by Parson Mac
04/01/02

It is largely understood that many (if not most) of our current problems with Civil Authority (i.e. guv'mint) is that it is no longer safely and securely moored to Constitutional principle. Liberals consider the Constitution a "living" (therefore, ever-evolving) document. Thus loosed from the anchor of historical context (the original, intended meaning), we are cast adrift on a tempestuous sea of random and destructive political ideologies of all kinds, most of them diametrically opposed to constitutional ideals.

Those who wish to make our country something different from the Constitutional Republic our Founding Fathers gave birth to must first do an end run around the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Liberal politicians and their ideologies do not respect, acknowledge, nor abide by Constitutional authority. They don't mind giving it lip service. They just don't want to do or be limited by what it says.

Likewise, it should be understood that many (if not most) of our current problems with the Religious Authority of organized religions (and many disorganized), is that they are no longer safely and securely moored to Biblical principle. Liberal theologians consider the Bible a "living," (therefore, ever-evolving) document. Thus, loosed from the anchors of historical/cultural context and faith in the inspiration of Scripture, the religious world has been cast adrift on the tempestuous sea of random and destructive religious theologies of all kinds.

Those who wish to make religion and religious faith something different from what the Good Lord had in mind, must first do an end run around the Bible. Liberal theologians and their ideologies do not respect, acknowledge, nor abide by Biblical authority. They don't mind giving it lip service. They just don't want to do or be limited by what it says.

The parallel really is fairly exact!

It is not, as some may think, overly simplistic. Here's why. You either respect and abide by an accepted standard of authority or you reject it out of hand. Mere verbal profession to uphold something means nothing, if in fact, you don't accept it as authority. Religious leaders who speak of the Scripture as the 'word of God', and then legislate their own opinions and agenda are no different than politicians who swear to uphold the Constitution (right hands on a Bible no less) and then proceed to dismantle every word as soon as they obtain office.

The simple truth that lies at the heart of this perpetual priestly problem is, the doctrine of celibacy. As understood and practiced by the Catholic church, there is no scriptural basis. Nowhere does the Bible bind celibacy or command abstinence from marriage for spiritual leaders across the board. In fact, it recommends the opposite. The Apostle Peter, some of you may be interested to know, was married. We know this because Jesus healed his mother-in-law. The Apostle Paul even asked on one occasion, "Don't we have a right to have a wife like Peter does?" So why could the first "Pope" be married but others couldn't? Simple. Early church leaders, in rejecting Scriptural authority, decided to re-invent a few wheels.

In fact, one of the principal qualifications for leaders in the first century church (Elders and Deacons) was that they "be the husband of one wife and the father of faithful children." Because they demonstrated the ability to inspire, take care of, and lead a successful family, they exhibited some of the necessary qualities to lead "a flock."

Liberal theologians departed from their founding document by legislating their own opinions and ideas concerning it. This end run around the inherent authority and wisdom of their "Constitution" is precisely what has set the Catholic church up for the kinds of rotting, immoral cancer that's manifested itself almost continually from day one. For most people, sex is the fourth most desperate need and strongest drive we have--right after breathing, drinking, and eating (and it comes in second or third for some folks). God did not make us asexual beings. He did not intend that multitudes of men and women (don't forget those poor nuns) to mentally and emotionally castrate themselves. It's not natural. It's not healthy. It's not realistic. More to the point, its not required by the Judeo-Christian Scripture! Traditional Jewish and Christian culture acknowledge the preeminence of family and it's stabilizing influence at all levels of society, including the religious.

Just as government would solve a lot of its problems by streamlining, simplifying, and going back to the common sense and wisdom of the Founding Fathers (who were far wiser, more educated, and morally upright than 90% of today's Congress-people), so religion would solve a lot of its problems by streamlining, simplifying, and going back to the common sense and wisdom of the Founding Father (who was and is far wiser, more educated, and morally upright than 100% of today's religious leaders).

The solution to sexual woes within Catholicism is relatively simple. First, you correctly identify the problem. Its not pedophilia! Pedophilia, if you care to look it up, has to do with sex with little children of either gender. While that may be a problem for some, the BIG problem is predatory homosexuality. Men with boys, many of whom have reached puberty, but not the age of consent.

Were talking about the rule here, not the exception. Strike down celibacy, promote healthy families, and healthy sex lives. You would not only increase the strength, capacity, and virtue of spiritual leadership across the board, these sexually satisfied men and women would not be playing hide and seek with their core beings!

"Marriage is to be held in honor before all, and the bed, undefiled."

"If you can't control yourself, get married, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."

Gee, you'd think if anyone would take God's advice, it would be a spiritual leader.

Return to the Table of Contents of "Parson Mac's Muse"

Write a note to Parson Mac.

Printed with the kind permission of Parson "Mac" - Ray McClendon.


Other Parson Mac articles at CommonConservative.com:

Infernal Rev'nue Service. Taxes and Boston Tea Parties.
Koran 3:16."Hate your neighbor."
Beware Hypocrisy. Poetic Enron.
"Model" Families. How Johnny (Jihad) learns.
"Illiterature". Christian bashing by the "lettered."
Idiots or Commies. "Ode" to the "peaceniks."
Jabberdonkey. Clinton a la Carroll McClendon.
"I Am Awful's" Departure. Nailing NOW.
"Get Some Action" Jackson. LOL!


TOPICS: General Discusssion
KEYWORDS: catholiclist
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

1 posted on 04/20/2002 2:31:05 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
I agree that the celibacy requirement is nonsense. But I would rather the Church wait 20 years to do away with it rather than appear to be acting under public pressure.
2 posted on 04/20/2002 2:41:31 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The simple truth that lies at the heart of this perpetual priestly problem is, the doctrine of celibacy.

See what happens when the Church makes up their own doctrine.

Matthew 15:9 "And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men."

3 posted on 04/20/2002 2:58:02 PM PDT by AmericaUnited
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
I understand your feelings about the appearance of buckling to public pressure, but admitting that the church was wrong about celibacy, caring more about the Word and the welfare of the flock would be courageous and right. We are told that some are called to celibacy but others aren't. Let those who genuinely are, remain so. Simple. Right? (^:

So why could the first "Pope" be married but others couldn't? Simple. Early church leaders, in rejecting Scriptural authority, decided to re-invent a few wheels.

Whether or not the church was guilty, it took over 50 years for them to apologize for any part in the Holocaust. Still, the existence of homosexual Priests in the Roman Catholic church and the serious abuse of their authority is rather a large and messy problem to sweep under the rug yet again. Isn't that why they're having this problem today, sweeping sexual abuse under the rug?

4 posted on 04/20/2002 3:34:46 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The Church never apologized in any way for the Holocaust and it shouldn't. Those lies have been well debated on site. The Church in no way is responsible for the Holocaust. The Pope did apologize for anti semitism within the Church in the past. Prostestant Churches were readily nazified during Hitler's reign while the Catholic Church remained a thorn in his side.
5 posted on 04/20/2002 3:41:08 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
The Holocaust was a poor example.The French Roman Catholic church and others have apologized recently, for political purposes, I think ..Google links, but we know that members of the church of course did more to help those in trouble during the Holocaust than not.

With Carter and Clinton blaming America for 9-11, and our "wealth" for the worlds' poverty in weekly opinion pieces, the Roman Catholic church could join the crowd and admit they were wrong about celibacy, call off the attack dogs in the press, remain true to their calling and the Word while appearing PC. It's a win win situation. If the purpose is to remain faithful to the Word, bring lost sheep to Christ and so save souls, isn't all else vanity and pride? Get rid of the celibacy rule. Fire the gay priests. Simple. (^:

6 posted on 04/20/2002 4:08:12 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
There is a "fag-oligharchiy" in the American Church Heirarchy. Of that I have no doubt. My Great Uncle, who served at Anzio and gave last rights while under heavy fire, used to complain about it to my dad in the 80's. But one thing the Church never does- is to appear to bend to popular will and they shouldn't.
7 posted on 04/20/2002 4:16:03 PM PDT by Burkeman1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Burkeman1
But one thing the Church never does- is to appear to bend to popular will and they shouldn't.

After 9-11, the politics of the Church is just tiresome and unworthy of their awesome calling and responsibility to the flock. People are starving for the truth. Paul talks about the world hating Believers. 1John 2:15-"Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him."

Maybe the Church should simply do what God commands. The faithful will cheer. The lost will venture close. The press..."be angry and sin not"? (^:I don't believe that Jesus Christ said it would be easy or popular to follow Him. Just one sinner's opinion.

8 posted on 04/20/2002 6:16:21 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl; Admin Moderator;, Jim Robinson; *Catholic_list; patent; notwithstanding...
FR has pulled most "Catholic" threads defending the Church from the News Forum and placed them in the Religion Forum.

This is clearly not a News article but a theological attack on Catholicism, and a poor one at that.

Please apply a little justice and even handedness, and move this to the Religion Forum also, as you have done with most Catholic threads trying to answer to these types of charges.

9 posted on 04/20/2002 8:37:55 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diago
See my last post.
10 posted on 04/20/2002 8:40:38 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator; Jim Robinson
Thank you.
11 posted on 04/20/2002 8:42:20 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Who is 'Parson' Mac?
12 posted on 04/20/2002 9:04:00 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: goldenstategirl
Someone who doesn't understand that priestly celibacy in the Catholic Church is a discipline and not a doctrine (and should stick to talking about stuff of which he has some knowledge)?
13 posted on 04/20/2002 9:17:11 PM PDT by ELS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
The simple truth that lies at the heart of this perpetual priestly problem is, the doctrine of celibacy. As understood and practiced by the Catholic church, there is no scriptural basis. Nowhere does the Bible bind celibacy or command abstinence from marriage for spiritual leaders across the board. In fact, it recommends the opposite. The Apostle Peter, some of you may be interested to know, was married. We know this because Jesus healed his mother-in-law. The Apostle Paul even asked on one occasion, "Don't we have a right to have a wife like Peter does?" So why could the first "Pope" be married but others couldn't? Simple. Early church leaders, in rejecting Scriptural authority, decided to re-invent a few wheels.

The simple truth is that McClendon and many others, engage in smorgasbord Christianity, picking and choosing what they want from Scripture and ignoring Scripture when it serves their purpose. Ray obviously never learned that it was better to have every one think you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Celibacy is a discipline not a doctrine and its wide practice dates back prior to the Apostles. Examples of celibacy are found in both the Old Testament and New Testament. The author obviously missed the following celibates in Scripture: Melchisedech, Elias, Paul, John the Baptist, the Blessed Virgin Mary and Jesus, just to mention a few.

While it is true that Peter was married, he practiced the discipline of lex continentiae, continence. Incidentally, Scripture does not identify Peters wife, nor the wives of any of the Apostles, if they were in fact married, by name. Scripture also does not describe Peter or any of the Apostles having sexual relations with any woman, wife or otherwise.

Matthew 19:12 "For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mother's womb: and there are eunuchs, who were made so by men: and there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it, let him take it."

Matthew 19:27-29 "Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting."

1 Corinthians 7:8 "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."

1 Corinthians 7:32-33 "But I would have you to be without solicitude. He that is without a wife, is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided."

From St. Clement of Alexandrias The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter XI:

They say, accordingly, that the blessed Peter, on seeing his wife led to death, rejoiced on account of her call and conveyance home, and called very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, "Remember thou the Lord." Such was the marriage of the blessed and their perfect disposition towards those dearest to them.

Thus also the apostle says, "that he who marries should be as though he married not," and deem his marriage free of inordinate affection, and inseparable from love to the Lord; to which the true husband exhorted his wife to cling on her departure out of this life to the Lord.

Finally, for those who ignorantly argue that celibacy will solve the problem of sin, let them read the following examples of clergy who are not bound by the vow of celibacy.

Child Sexual Molestation by Protestant Clergy

Clergy Sexual Abuse

Former Pastor To Stand Trial

Minister found naked with teen

Minister held on rape, sexual abuse charges

Pedophile suspect indicted for molesting five of 50 boys

Sexual Exploitation by Clergy in the Religious/Faith Community

Orthodox abusers

Brother Tony's Boys

And finally, lest McClendon or any other "Bible believers" reject Scripture and drone on with the plaintive wail "But that's not in the Bible", let them read the following:

John 21:25 "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.

1 Corinthians 11:2 "Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you."

2 Thessalonians 2:14 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle."

2 Thessalonians 3:6 "And we charge you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother walking disorderly, and not according to the tradition which they have received of us."

14 posted on 04/21/2002 11:45:11 AM PDT by SMEDLEYBUTLER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
I'm sorry that you were angered by this thread. It was not my intention to offend.

Believe for a minute that you are not being attacked...that individuals newly hungry for the Word of God want to know and thus ask questions.

Do you believe that the Bible should be kept from the masses as it was before the Reformation and studied and interpretted only by those who felt a calling?

Discussing celibacy is not a condemnation of the Catholic Church as a whole. This is not about the Holiness of celibacy, or the unquestionable sacrifice and purity of this calling. God had mercy on us when we couldn't keep his laws.... Jesus Christ died for us while we were sinners. Is it possible that celibacy is not a calling for all? Doesn't the Bible say that Believers will be given different gifts? And that all Believers are commanded to spread the truth of the Gospel throughtout the nations?

If Priests did stray, and the Church, knowing this, allowed these few Priests to remain in positions of authority and in close contact with the young....we all should mourn. All of Christianity is being judged today, not just by those who are enemies of the church, but by those who may have come to be saved and will now turn away.

This morning I heard a respectable conservative pastor bring up what I had previously considered unfair atheistic attacks on the church.... that Martin Luther hated Jews, and that Hitler followed Luther's writings on this subject; that the 7 Crusades were bloody, murderous attrocities sanctioned by the Pope where thousands of non-Christians were burned alive....this from a conservative evangelist. Is it wrong to be horrified and remorseful about the un-Christ-like actions of the Church "in the name of God?" Because these same attrocities are often used by those who hate the Church to condemn Christians, should Christians deny the truth? Christianity's great gifts so far outweigh any sin in time or deed that it seems a small thing to admit an occasional mistake.

We often compare a wrong like the Spanish Inquistion to a greater wrong...like the number of people killed by their own government under Communism. Why do Christians choose silence or self-righteous counterattacks when proof of the goodness of their faith is all around today and well documented in history? Why not speak the truth. Miracles still happen, families are made stronger, murderers are forgiven, artistic and scientific advancements inspired, neighbors trusted, slaves freed, bosses and employees fair. Christianity should be celebrated and studied in the village squares and schoolhouses....not removed from the public debate, or from the general thread on FR.

Israel needs us to stand tall on the world stage and defend them today. Christians need to know how to defend their faith against the media, Muslims, the UN, EU and left. Why not use this wonderful technology and Jim's forum to discuss the Church's position so that we can learn, and equip ourselves for the coming times?

Why should people seeking Christ come dressed for battle? If you are an expert in Church doctrine and/or Biblical understanding, you could step in to correct misperceptions as an older brother or teacher and increase everyone's understanding.

15 posted on 04/21/2002 2:37:50 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SMEDLEYBUTLER
Thank you, Smedley. Your scriptural references were very helpful.

When Jesus tells Peter in Matthew 19:27-29-"you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting." is He talking specifically to his 12 disciples? If not, it is the most convincing argument for the Blessedness of the discipline of celibacy, but a requirement for his followers?

When Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7:8 "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I."..he goes onto say in the same verse..."But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that."

It is clearly considered virtuous to be able to remain celibate. Jesus and Paul state clearly in these passages that not all men will be able to receive this ability to remain celibate.

1 Corinthians 7:8 "But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I." You know that immediately following in 1 Corinthians7:9..."But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than burn."

There are of course many verses about the sanctity of marriage....as Jesus said to the Pharisees who sought to trap him in Matt.19:4:"Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female."5:"For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?"....10:His disciples say unto him, "If the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry." 11:But he said unto them, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." Then follows your verse- Matthew 19:12 "..there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it, let him take it."

Jesus says, "all men cannot receive this," and "He that can take it, let him take it."

So, we know from scripture that all men cannot be celibate. Jesus himself says so. If the Priests are culled from those who are capable of remaining celibate, how, when a young man comes to study for the Priesthood, does the Church know whether they have been given this gift?

Mr. McClendon is not saying that celibacy is the only answer, or that the Catholic Church is unique in the sins of a few of its members. He addresses the problem of homosexual predators as well, and his essay has valid points.

The Catholic Church is the public spiritual beacon for the world...and we all owe the courageous Catholics our thanks for not remaining silent over the centuries. When the Catholic Church is under attack, Christianity is under attack...and in this world, with the Muslims and press and misinformation...what is done by the Catholic Church is of interest to the world.

Smedley, Mr. McClendon is a fine writer and good man. Read some of his other work. He's a poet and a humorist.

Oh, and if we could get all of the "Bible" believing churches together to protest homosexual activism...and in one effort armed with facts about the destructive influence on children, families, crime, suicide, drug abuse, childhood sexual abuse, death from disease, violence in relationships....if Catholic, Protestant, Jewish all came together to bring the truth to Oprah and Dan Rather, would they then condemn us all?

16 posted on 04/21/2002 4:16:17 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
I'm sorry that you were angered by this thread.

I tell you honestly that I am not "angered" by this thread. It is laughable.

What angers me is that threads criticizing Catholicism were being given a free ride on the News Forum while threads defending Catholicism were regularly exiled to the Religion Forum ghetto. In other words, positive threads about Catholicism were actively being censored and removed to the oblivion of the >Religion Forum ghetto where rank and file FReepers never tread, yet critical threads remained and were not treated equally.

This is the first time I have witnessed equal treatment.

17 posted on 04/21/2002 4:36:53 PM PDT by Brian Kopp DPM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Ragtime Cowgirl
"Celibacy frees us to give ourselves completely to the Lord and the service of his people," he said. "I don't think you can do this as a married man."
....Cardinal Edmond Szoka
18 posted on 04/21/2002 4:59:52 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Matthew 9:11 Jesus says, "All men cannot receive this saying, save they to whom it is given." And, Matthew 19:12 "..there are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He that can take it, let him take it."

How does the Church know whether a Priest is given this gift from God? When Paul says in 1 Corinthians7:9..."But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than burn," isn't this directed, as all of Paul's words are to the Believer?

I am in no way criticizing the call to celibacy. The Bible repeatedly praises those who are able to leave all and follow Christ, but it also then says that not everyone will be given this. Not that they can learn to be celibate with practice, or choose to be celibate without the gift....but that it is given. I am not criticizing the Catholic Church or the Priests and Nuns who live these amazing, obedient lives of service. They are so far above me I can only imagine their sacrifices.

19 posted on 04/21/2002 6:09:30 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Dr. Brian Kopp
Laughable? Thanks for your patience and willingness to hang out with the unwashed, Doc. I asked for humility, I received. God is good.

For the record, Pope says that Priests must remain celibate, post #27, April 21, 2002...a prompt response from the Vatican.

20 posted on 04/21/2002 6:13:01 PM PDT by Ragtime Cowgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-25 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson