Celibacy and Pedophile Priests

Two full pages of the January 15, 1998 issue of the official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano were dedicated to the issue of priestly celibacy.

According to the report, grounded in the work of theologian Stefan Heid, the tradition of celibacy was solidly established in the ancient church.

Heid determined, after studying recent debates on celibacy in the light of ancient traditions, that the tradition of celibacy can be traced to the Apostles. The theologian acknowledges that some of these, like Peter, were married. However, he claims they understood and accepted "Jesus' call for celibacy among priests." Therefore, in order to follow Jesus' example, they became celibate and observed "perfect continence."

Of course, as is not at all unusual when examining Roman Catholic positions based on the whimsies of RCC theologians and apologists, there is absolutely no Scriptural basis for the claim that Peter or any other married Apostle or disciple practiced "perfect continence." As with so much of Romish doctrine, the guiding principle appears to be: if the fantasy would help substantiate a previously reachedt doctrinal position, then it must be true.

Celibacy within marriage not only is unnatural, it also is unbiblical. Even Rome's official teaching acknowledges this:

"5. . .Let us look openly at the principal objections against the law that links ecclesiastical celibacy with the priesthood.

The first seems to come from the most authoritative source, the New Testament which preserves the teaching of Christ and the Apostles. It does not openly demand celibacy of sacred ministers but proposes it rather as a free act of obedience to a special vocation or to a special spiritual gift.[2] Jesus Himself did not make it a prerequisite in His choice of the Twelve, nor did the Apostles for those who presided over the first Christian communities. -- The Celibacy of the Priest, (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus), Encyclical of Pope Paul VI promulgated on June 24, 1967

The "special gift" Paul VI refers to is drawn from a tortured interpretation of Matthew 19:11-12, where we read:

11 Who said to them: All men take not this word, but they to whom it is given.
12 For there are eunuchs, who were born so from their mothers 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, let him take it.
-- Matthew 19:11-12, Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible

There are margin notes for both verses to explain what Jesus really meant:

Note 11: All men take not this word. . .That is, all receive not the gift of living singly and chastely, unless they pray for the grace of God to enable them to live so, and for some it may be necessary to that end to fast as well as pray: and to those it is given from above.

Note 12: There are eunuchs, who have made themselves eunuchs, for the kingdom of heaven. . .This text is not to be taken in the literal sense; but means, that there are such, who have taken a firm and commendable resolution of leading a single and chaste life, in order to serve God in a more perfect state than those who marry: as St. Paul clearly shews. 1 Cor. 7. 37, 38. -- Ibid.

Reading the entire passage, this time in the KJV, and applying a literal/historical/grammatical hermeneutic, the honest student of Scripture will soon see that this passage does not in any way support obligatory priestly celibacy.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,
5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?
8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.
9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.
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.
12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.
Matthew 19:3-12

The passage addresses an issue some Pharisees brought to Messiah. In Jesus' time, followers of Rabbis Shammai and Hillel were divided on the question of divorce. The Shammaites held to a strict interpretation of the Law and permitted a man to divorce his wife only if she were guilty of sexual immorality. The Hillelites, on the other hand, took a more pragmatic approach and allowed a man to divorce his wife for just about any reason.

Jesus' response referred them to Torah, recalling the words in Genesis 1:27 and 5:2, and echoing the question in Malachi 2:15.

The Pharisees, applying a technique so dear to Roman Catholic inventors of doctrine, challenged Jesus, using a flawed interpretation of Moses' words as recorded in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. According to their eisegesis, Moses had commanded that a man divorce his wife and send her away. An honest reading of the passage clearly shows that, though recognizing the legitimacy of divorce when a wife has been found guilty of sexual sin, it was not a command for divorce but, instead, a restriction on remarriage in the event of such a divorce.

Jesus' words in verse 8, shows Him clearly to be aligned with the Shammaite view that a man might only divorce his wife if she is guilty of sexual immorality, which was understood to cover a variety of sexual sins. In such cases, Jesus has provided an exception that makes it acceptable for the innocent party in such a divorce to remarry without being guilty of committing adultery with his or her new spouse.

In the 10th verse, the disciples verbalize their correct understanding of the binding nature of marriage, observing that Jesus had established a very high standard prohibiting divorce in all but the most extreme cases. They were saying, in effect, "Since marriage is THAT binding, maybe it would be better not to marry."

Jesus is aware that not everyone is able to handle the solitary life, and in verse 12, He declares that the decision to live celibate is entirely a personal choice except for those whose physical condition would make normal marital relations impossible. The Savior acknowledges that some might find pragmatic reasons not to marry for the good of the kingdom. Over the years, Rome's dream weavers morphed what Christ declared to be a personal choice into a mandatory requirement for the Catholic priesthood.

But is that biblical? I don't believe such a requirement can be supported from Scripture. In fact, Paul warned Timothy, and through him the Church, that heretics would depart from the faith and introduce false doctrines. Notice that one of the false teachings the Apostle specifically warns against is one forbidding marriage.

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
3 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.
-- 1 Timothy 4:1-3

Let us reason together for a moment. If Paul considered a doctrine forbidding marriage to be false in the 1st century, can it now be sound doctrine in these latter times? Only if you are under compulsion to believe what Rome teaches.

For just a moment, let us examine Heid's assertion that the married Apostles practiced 'perfect continence.' Again, this fanciful declaration cannot be supported in Scripture. In fact, the Bible specifically enjoins against such behavior within the marriage bond.

In his first letter to the Corinthian church, Paul responds to specific questions representatives of that church had communicated to him. One of those questions dealt with marriage. This was a hot topic in a city in which virtually any form of sexual behavior was tolerated

It appears that some in the congregation, like the doctrinal fantasizers of the Roman Church, came up with the idea that the best way to avoid sexual sin and marital difficulties would be to remain single. In fact, they supposed that it would be even more spiritual to remain celibate. Such beliefs might induce some falsely pious folks to advocate a return to single status through divorce. Paul's response, though promoting the celibate single life, no way teaches that marriage is an inferior state.

1 Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.
6 But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment.
7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that.
8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.
9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
-- 1 Corinthians 7:1-9

In the 1st verse, Paul informs the Corinthians that while it is good to be single and celibate, that is not better than to be married. In fact, in the 2nd verse, the Apostle warns of the danger of sexual sin that faces single people. He goes on to show that marriage is God's provision for sexual fulfillment.

Notice he goes on to point out that, while celibacy is proper for those who are single, it is not proper for married folks. In fact, he makes it clear that, under the bond of marriage, each partner has the right over his or her spouse's body for achieving satisfaction. In verse 5, he explains that withholding from marital relations for a limited time is permissible, but only if both partners agree to do so as a part of their intercessory fasting. He adds that they should resume sexual relations once the spiritual hiatus is ended. This is important, in that sexual desires tend to increase during periods of abstinence, thereby increasing one's vulnerability to sexual temptation.

In the following verses, Paul explains that, being aware of the God-given benefits of both single and conjugal life, he is not commanding people to marry as a means of avoiding sexual sin. He acknowledged that his single state provided him freedom and independence to serve our Lord, but he did not expect that all believers should be single, nor those who were single at the moment remain that way. And he certainly did not expect married believers to live celibate lives. True spirituality has no connection to one's civil state. Marriage is a gift from God, after all.

The final two verses in this passage address the state of unmarried believers and widows. A jump to verse 11 helps us to understand that 'unmarried' refers to people who once were married but now were single, though not widowed. It is possible that Paul was a widower, though that is only speculation. His identification with unmarried and widows would seem to affirm his status as a widower.

The Apostle first suggests that widows and unmarried should remain single, as he was. However, he then commands that those for whom the single state is a difficult burden should marry. After all, a person dominated by unfulfilled sexual desires would find it difficult to live a happy or godly life.

The Roman Catholic church, and it's denominations in the Latin Rite, demand that its priests be as singlemindedly devoted to their Catholic Lord as possible. One means to that end is celibacy. Paul would have understood their intent though not, I believe, their practice. Look again to the 7th chapter of Pauls's 1st Corinthian letter for another passage Rome likes to call upon to support the doctrine of clerical celibacy:

32 But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord:
33 But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.
34 There is difference also between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman careth for the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit: but she that is married careth for the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
35 And this I speak for your own profit; not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is comely, and that ye may attend upon the Lord without distraction.
-- 1 Corinthians 7:32-35

Certainly, an unmarried man likely would find it easier to live a consecrated life. However, as the Apostle makes clear in verse 35, marriage does not prevent great devotion, though it does have the potential to introduce distractions that could interfere with it.

One Catholic Pope managed to come up with a really bizarre twist on priestly celibacy, linking it to Roman Catholic salvific doctrine.

26. . . . The consecrated celibacy of the sacred ministers actually manifests the virginal love of Christ for the Church, and the virginal and supernatural fecundity of this marriage, by which the children of God are born, "not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh.[45] [46]-- The Celibacy of the Priest, (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus), Encyclical of Pope Paul VI promulgated on June 24, 1967

Voluntary celibacy for ministers spread throughout the young church, according to Paul VI, until various councils and papal utterings 'strengthened, spread and confirmed the practice in the West.' The doctrine of obligatory celibacy for clergy was solemnly declared by the Council of Trent and included in Canon Law. (Ibid. para 35, 36)

Catholic denominations that follow the Eastern Rite do not consider marriage to disqualify a man for the priesthood, though tradition does require that bishops be celibate. Yet Rome considers those who follow the Eastern Rite to be under her umbrella. How does she explain that marriage does not disqualify men for the priesthood in those denominations? Easily, of course, for RCC doctrine is nothing if not adaptable to RCC needs.

38. If the legislation of the Eastern Church is different in the matter of discipline with regard to clerical celibacy, as was finally established by the Council of Trullo held in the year 692,[77] and which has been clearly recognized by the Second Vatican Council,[78] this is due to the different historical background of that most noble part of the Church, a situation which the Holy Spirit has providentially and supernaturally influenced. . .-- The Celibacy of the Priest, (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus), Encyclical of Pope Paul VI promulgated on June 24, 1967

Does Rome think any less of Eastern Rite married priests? Not according to what Paul VI wrote:

. . .We Ourselves take this opportunity to express Our esteem and Our respect for all the clergy of the Eastern Churches, and to recognize in them examples of fidelity and zeal which make them worthy of sincere veneration-- Ibid.

So, what is the role of the Catholic priest in his community of believers? Paul VI tells us:

31. In the community of the faithful committed to his charge, the priest represents Christ. Thus, it is most fitting that in all things he should reproduce the image of Christ and in particular follow His example, both in his personal and in his apostolic life. To his children in Christ, the priest is a sign and a pledge of that sublime and new reality which is the kingdom of God; he dispenses it and he possesses it to a more perfect degree. Thus he nourishes the faith and hope of all Christians, who, as such, are bound to observe chastity according to their proper state of life.-- The Celibacy of the Priest, (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus), Encyclical of Pope Paul VI promulgated on June 24, 1967

Over the years, I have read newspaper accounts of numerous cases involving Roman Catholic priests who took advantage of their position as spiritual leaders to sexually abuse children. In most of the cases I have read, though the local bishops and, perhaps, other senior members of the child-molesting priest's diocese were aware of the man's contemptible and sinful behavior, they elected to do nothing and continued to permit him to perform his priestly duties. To me, this shows a cavalier contempt for the holiness of the Catholic Christ, whom the priest orders down from the Catholic Heaven to become a communion wafer, that he handles and consumes or gives to others to eat.

Not to worry, for Paul VI admitted in his encyclical that some rotten apples slipped through the gates and were ordained. So, what happens to these ordained perverts when they are found out? Why, they often are moved to another parish where no one knows them and so are turned loose on a new flock of unsuspecting sheep. T

Though the Roman Catholic Church calls the billion or so souls wearing its chains to live holy lives, and uses the threat of anathema or excommunication to enforce obedience to its sovereignty, it seems not so concerned with the holiness of its priestly class. How like the Pharisees of Jesus' time.

Interestingly, pervert priests often are not defrocked. In fact, Paul VI writes tenderly of them:

83. Now, with fatherly love and affection, Our heart turns anxiously and with deep sorrow to those unfortunate priests who always remain Our dearly beloved brothers and whose absence We keenly regret. We speak of those who, retaining the sacred character conferred by their priestly ordination, have nonetheless been sadly unfaithful to the obligations they accepted when ordained.-- The Celibacy of the Priest, (Sacerdotalis Caelibatus), Encyclical of Pope Paul VI promulgated on June 24, 1967

There are many Christians, myself included, who argue that the RCC's requirement that her religious practice lifelong celibacy is a major factor contributing to the sexual excesses of priests, monks and nuns that sometimes come to the attention of the news media. One can only wonder how many incidents are not reported. It may be that the obligation for celibacy actually attracts sexual deviants to the priestly or religious life by providing both a cover for those to whom heterosexual marriage is unattractive and a rich hunting ground for sexual predators.

So, it is not unusual for the Roman church to protect, even nurture, her pervert priests with callous disregard for the safety and welfare of those poor innocents who look to them for spiritual leadership and the dispensing of God's grace.

"Okay," say those inclined to turn a blind eye to symptoms of depravity in the clergy and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, "there are bound to be a few bad apples who evade the close scrutiny of the the bishops and manage to get through seminary and be ordained to the priesthood. Their corrupt behavior should be viewed as the failings of individual men and not of the Catholic Church as a whole." That sounds pretty good...on the surface.

Do officials of the RCC seek to "cover up" the aberrant sexual behavior of its priests? Let us examine the manner in which the various ordinaries are said to have dealt with the allegations and charges laid against priests under their authority. In San Antonio, claims surfaced that the Archdiocese was aware of the vile sexual preferences and behavior of at least one priest convicted of sexual abuse but that, rather than acting to protect children and others of the RCC faithful, simply transferred the offender to another parish.

Defrocked priest Rudy Kos claimed that he tried for years to tell officials something was wrong with him and that he needed help. He said that he was told he was on his own. When he was 16, Kos was sent to a juvenile facility for deviant bevahior. He claimed to have seen a number of psychiatrists who either could not or would not help him. He said he entered the priesthood seeking a refuge from homosexual feelings he had been having. Kos blamed the RCC hierarchy, which he said betrayed him.

A suit against the Bridgeport (CT) Diocese was allowed to go to jury in spite of the abuse victim's age because there was an issue of fact as to whether the Diocese had fraudulently concealed the cause of the action. The Diocese was also ordered to pay $33,195 in sanctions for withholding evidence. (Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese. No. 3:93 CV 1482 (Arterton, J.) U.S.D.C. , New Haven, August 26, 1997

In an Alabama case, a woman claimed, in a suit against a priest and the Catholic Diocese, that her parish priest sexually abused her as a child, and that one of his female followers raped her. The case was dismissed on a technicality involving the statute of limitations. (Alabama, Doe v. Roman Catholic Church , 656 So.2d 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1995)

In recent years, the new media has mainained a steady flow of reports of priestly sexual misconduct, One can only wonder how such monsters can become priests. Once the pedophiles, fornicators and carousers within the "celibate" priesthood are identified, why does the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church appear to protect them, rather than separate them from the innocents they are charged to shepherd? Sending a depraved priest on a retreat to the "mother house" of his order, seems hardly enough. Certainly, merely transferring such a person to a different parish does nothing more than expose other innocents to his predatory behavior.

Those cases broke and were settled before the big priestly misconduct scandal was spread all across the nation, and the world, in television, radio and newsprint reports. Most who read here must be aware of the lawsuits that have financially devastated or bankrupted diocese all across this nation. Don't you just wonder how many hundreds, or thousands, of charges have yet to surface? Perhaps one reason is that Catholicism does not require impeccability of its priests. In itself, of course, this is not unusual, for who can live a sin-free life? Certainly not this writer and, as we have seen over the past several years, not some who would preach from a Protestant pulpit. What makes a difference within the RCC is its failure or refusal to adhere to its own doctrine and laws.

Scripture is quite clear as to God's opinion of those who willingly participate in deviant sexual behavior:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination.-- Leviticus 18:22

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.-- Leviticus 20:13

There may be those who would argue that priestly pedophilia is not quite the same thing as homosexuality. I would agree. It is worse. In any case, the Lord God Almighty admits to no weaseling:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.-- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10

The Lord has provided a golden parachute for those who turn aside from the reprobate life.

And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body.-- 1 Corinthians 6:11-13

God forgives those whom He calls and covers theirs sins with the shed blood of Christ, but He holds in low esteem those who, knowing Him turn back to their evil ways:

The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;-- 2 Peter 2:9-15

The RCC, which is a law unto itself, has much to say concerning those to whom it accords the authority and power (according to her own dogma), to call Jesus Christ down from Heaven to reside in eucharistic wafers. To whom it calls alter Christus, or "another Christ." Compare the public behavior of the Roman Catholic hierarchy with the Canons of its own Law.

Can. 1395 1 Apart from the case mentioned in can. 1394, a cleric living in concubinage, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.-- Code of Canon Law, Book VI, Sanctions in the Church, English translation copyright 1983 The Canon Law Society Trust

Whoa! Just what does this mean? In the Catholic reckoning of the Decalogue, which conforms to the Augustinian model, the Sixth Commandment is: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Now, according to the Catholic understanding of adultery, it must involve sexual relations with a married person. Clearly, a 10-year-old altar boy is not likely to be married so, I suppose, according to the strict letter of the Canon Law, pedophilia involving a priest and such a child would not be considered adultery.

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of, guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. A1phonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446).-- John Webster Melody, Catholic Encyclopedia, "Adultery," copyright 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright 1997 by New Advent, Inc. w/Nihil Obstat & Immprimatur

I suppose the questions here must be 1) is it adultery when a priest sexually abuses an altar boy; and 2) if it is, what would be a "just penalty"? Perhaps another question should be: If it isn't adultery, is it not still wrong?

Continuing to read in Canon 1395:

2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.-- Code of Canon Law, Book VI, Sanctions in the Church, English translation copyright 1983 The Canon Law Society Trust

Mother Church has a catch-all canon to cover those ecclesiastical crimes not addressed specifically in the canon law. When you read the following, please give particular notice to under what conditions this law might be invoked.

Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired-- Code of Canon Law, Book VI, Sanctions in the Church, English translation copyright 1983 The Canon Law Society Trust

In other words, take action as necessary to protect the RCC from unfavorable media attention.

Is the Roman Church unaware of the evil nature of the predatory actions of its pedophile/ephebophile priests and religious against the children who serve at the altar? I think not, for in the Catholic Catechism, we read:

ARTICLE 4 - THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.-- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., (C) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc.

How can a pedophile or other sexual predator officiate at the Catholic Mass? How can a priest who, by even the Roman Catholic concept of justification, clearly has fallen out of grace be permitted to invoke priestly powers to call Christ down from Heaven to be offered yet again in the Eucharistic sacrifice? How can a priest who has fouled his soul with sexual sin take in his hands the consecrated wafer which is, according to RCC dogma, the real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity? How can the Catholic faithful take this bread from his tainted hands?

Does not Scripture warn that those who partake of the Lord's Supper unworthily will incur God's wrath?

For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."-- 1 Corinthians 11:26-31

Catholic canon law holds to a similar position:

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.-- Code of Canon Law, Book IV, The Celebration of the Eucharist, English translation copyright 1983 The Canon Law Society Trust

This appears to cover those who continue to practice grave sins such as fornication, pedophilia, and the like, but what about the officiating priest? What about the man whom Catholics love to refer to as alter Christus? Does he not only call Christ down from His seat at the right side of the Father to become a communion wafer but actually partake of that wafer, that so-called body of Christ, in the Eucharistic sacrifice? Can someone guilty of persistent grave sin be qualified to do these things? Canon law states:

Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.-- Code of Canon Law, Book IV, The Celebration of the Eucharist, English translation copyright 1983 The Canon Law Society Trust

I am not prepared to address whether a "sacramental confession" of persistent and continuing grave sin qualifies a person to be another Christ. Nor will I address the issue of the validity of such a confession when the confessing sinner has every intention of continuing to sin in the same way. Let Rome's canon lawyers dispute over that. Suffice it that the Council of Trent addressed the effect of grave sin on one's standing with the grace of Christ:

Against the crafty genius of certain men also, who, "by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent" [Rom. 16:18], it must be maintained that the grace of justification, although received, is lost not only by infidelity [can 27], whereby even faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin, although faith not be lost [can. 28], thereby defending the doctrine of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only the unbelievers, but also the faithful who are "fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liers with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners" [1 Cor. 6:9 ff.], and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the assistance of divine grace they can refrain and for which they are separated from the grace of God [can. 27].-- Council of Trent, 6th Session, January 13, 1547, Decree Concerning Justification, Chapter XV (Denzinger 808)

Making the question as clear as possible, can a priest who is cut off from the grace of Christ because of persistent sexual sin truly celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice that is the very heart of the Mass? Trent says he can and, moreover, that his standing with the Lord has no effect on the sacraments he confers or effects. Hard to believe, hunh?

Canon 12. If anyone says that a minister who is in mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that pertain to the effecting or conferring of a sacrament, neither effects nor confers a sacrament, let him be anathema-- Council of Trent, 7th Session, March 3, 1547, Decree Concerning the Sacraments, Canons on the Sacraments in General, Denzinger 855

Those of you who in silence read the postings here, I entreat to search your hearts. Can you believe that Christ would choose to permit Himself to be controlled by the priestly incantations of a man guilty of such vile and persistent sin as pedophilia or epphebophilia? Do you honestly believe that Christ, who is pure and holy, would submit to being handled and broken, when in cookie form, by the sinful hands of a depraved priest? When you take the consecrated host from the hands of the priestly celebrant of the Mass, can you be sure that those hands are spiritually clean? The Canon Law of the Roman Church requires that all Catholics diligently seek the truth in matters that concern God and His church.

Can. 748 1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it.
2 It is never lawful for anyone to force others to embrace the catholic faith against their conscience.
-- Code of Canon Law, Book III, The Teaching Office of the Church, English translation copyright 1983 The Canon Law Society Trust

The Word of God makes the same charge to the faithful:

Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.-- 2 Timothy 2:15

Home | More Catechetics | Catholic Stuff | PTG Forum