These are not normal men....

Serious men do not parade in embroidered dresses. Men who carry the cross of Christ do not wear fanciful costumes more than once a year, and then only in the company of their children. These men, "princes of the church" resplendent in their papal-conclave regalia, are not serious men. They are men with an unmanly love of finery, fancy and ceremony. They are as serious as Hollywood, as normal as Liberace.

If it has not yet dawned on members of the Church of Jesus Christ that the onslaught of homosexuality in America is a direct product of the sodomitic leadership of Roman Catholicism, eyes are blind and ears closed. Gay shepherds corrupt the flock. Gay churches produce a queer nation.

The homosexual nature of the Roman Catholic priesthood in America and much of the West has been an open secret for over fifty years. Talk with any group of fifity-year-old men who served as altar boys or attended Roman Catholic schools and the odds are at least one of them was propositioned by a priest.

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. In the midst of the Evangelical/Reformed drift toward Rome of the last several decades it may never have struck those doing the drifting that the primary reason for refusing to belly up to the Roman bar is as much moral as theological. We live in a Roman Catholic nation: God preserve us from the Pope and the members of his synagogue.


SPOT ON!!!! Repeat, SPOT ON!!!

Calling the Catholic church a church is like calling NAMBLA a youth organization.

We need to see more posts like this.

What is this?! I thought the Bayly's were well known for their Catholic sympathies. 

I do not make the connection between wearing robes of royalty and women's attire. The wearing of robes of royalty from the Middle Ages illustrates the desire to be a power in the world, but says nothing about homosexuality which was occasioned by another faulty decision by the early Roman Catholic Church to forbid marriage to priests in violation of 1 Corinthians 7.


I agree with you completely about the forbidding of marriage and the evil that evil has caused. While you would not likely get a Catholic to use the word "power" or "royalty" to describe the purpose of the robes and the finery, no one can deny that it is about authority. This does not prevent it from being practically girly-looking though. It is girly-looking, right? I can't believe this is lost on anyone - not even the Europeans. It looks girly; and when the highest authority in a group prides itself on looking girly, it is gonna attract those who aspire to be respected in their sorta-kinda...well...ahem...cross-dressing. Just sayin'. 

I had forgotten about the cross dressing issue. The Pope's red shoes cost $600.00. When a man buys a $600.00 pair of shoes...........poofter fo' sho'.

Deuteronomy 22:5: "The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garmet: for all that do so are an abomination unto the Lord thy God."

I have been reading this blog off and on for months.  Not because I necessarily agree with what is written all the time, but because I believe it is good to read other points of view.  However, I am amazed by this post and felt led to speak up.  Am I understanding you correctly that you are saying that because the Catholic leaders wear priestly robes in the 21st century then they are being effeminate?  What about the thoub muslim men wear?  Or the sarongs Indian men wear?  Or buddhist monks' robes?  Am I to take it you believe the same thing about them too?  Should I also understand that you also believe that women wearing pants promotes lesbianism?

I agree that there are problems of sin within the Catholic church.  There are problems of sin within Protestant churches as well.  The root of sin is not our physical attire but our hearts.  Sin comes from putting self ahead of God.  We are all susceptible and sin can come in much sneakier forms than sexual sins.

The Bible says we will know Jesus' followers by their fruit and the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,...  Writing blog posts that continue to point out the faults and failings you all see in people is not showing me the fruit of the Spirit in your lives.  I would love to hear how you are personally reaching out to those whose lives you condemn on your blog.  For example, if you are concerned with the sins of Catholic priests, how are you reaching out to them?  How about seeking to build a friendship with a Catholic priest in your city before judging him based on the clothing he wears?   

I think some folks are making it much too complicated. Of course it's effeminate for these men to wear robes of such finery. MSN sees this as an event much like a Hollywood red carpet reception or a processional of Miss Universe contestants.

These men really are quite lovely.

Disagree? Then maybe you can't tell the difference between a man whose clothes are ripped, sweat-stained, and greasey from actual work rather than paying $65+ for pre-stained, pre-ripped jeans. Of course we can all tell the's in the smell.

>Then maybe you can't tell the difference between a man whose clothes are ripped, sweat-stained, and greasey from actual work rather than paying $65+ for pre-stained, pre-ripped jeans. Of course we can all tell the's in the smell.

I don't wear either.  I do use overalls though.  Does that get me off the hook?

We all know John Knox was a nancy boy for wearing a Genevan gown. 

There are so many meaningful critiques of Rome that can be made that this is puerile.  And it would carry more weight if the same clothing hadn't been worn for centuries.  The real critique seems to be that the RCs aren't sufficiently sensitive to modern fashion, with a particular bent to egalitarian tastes.  Go after them for being soft on sodomy, go after them on justification, go after them for forbidding marriage and their grotesque practicies on annulling marriages, etc.

Bracing post. If the only crime of the catholic church was the attire of the priests, a post like this would not be needed. But the point, if I understand correctly is that sexual sins abound in the church and should be evident to us even in the way they dress. 

Don't think of this as a bunch of jr. high bullies subjectively ostracizing someone who looks different. The Deuteronomy passage cited above really means something. In Muslim countries men where the whatever. But these cardinals are meeting in Europe, are largely European church leaders and wearing what to western eyes is (outside of the Vatican) women's clothes. Look at the western leaders at the UN. Men who lead ought to look like men to the men they lead. When a principle is made of wearing fine clothes, that's a sin. When a principle is made of wearing clothes that the other sex would wear to the ball, there's a whole other kind of sin. And it's significant enough to have been mentioned in Dt.

Men *wear* the whatever 

It is perhaps unwise to equate the current standards of dress in the Western Hemisphere with dress in Biblical times. It is clear throughout scripture that men in that area of the world during the time periods of Scripture did not wear pants and moreover wore ROBES.
The priests in the OT wore them (including in Deuteronomy).
Jesus himself is described in Revelation, as wearing a robe. We are told that we will wear white robes in Heaven. Tunics, cloaks, etc were the norm.

The entirity of this original blog post and this specific response, is ethnocentric and off base. It either lacks knowledge of scripture and Biblical culture, or simply ignores it in order to bang a drum.

Perhaps a reading of Scripture and even a foray into some of Joseph Bayly's writings are in order to regain not only an understanding of the Word of God, but to remember that we need to drop our stones and walk away until we can challenge sin in others with the same mercy, grace and truth that we would desire to be extended to us.

Dear Julia, 

The Word of God says, "Let judgment begin with the house of God." This means we don't begin our approach to homosexuality with homosexuals outside the Church, but at the root of homosexual sin within the Church. 

I suspect you're not unaware of the tragic pattern of homosexuality within the Roman Catholic priesthood, but from your comment it would seem the homosexual character of the Roman Catholic priesthood isn't worth noting, that it's wrong to comment on behaviour linking the two.

But beyond the simple need to address the roots of homosexuality that may lie within the Church, when you compare gold-embroidered, scarlet-tinged finery with the dress of Arab men you make two mistakes, both of which do injustice to Arab men.

First, the robes of Arab men aren't richly embroidered finery. The chief Ayatollah Khameini of Iran dresses far more soberly than these cardinals. Find an ayatollah anywhere who dresses anything like these "princes of the church..."

Second, the robes of Arab men are cultural norms for non-homosexual males. Pictures of these men aren't plastered all over the NYT simply because of the weird splendor of what theyr'e wearing. They're manly, in other words, and any self-respecting Arab man in his daily robe would resent your implication of a link between his dress and the dress of these men.

Christ Himself commented critically on the soft--by implication, effeminate--clothing of the Pharisees. 

Please, sister, don't let your desire for niceness conflict with Christ's call to let judgment begin with the house of God. I don't claim sinless perfection. And when called out for my sin, I listen and often confess publicly. That said, we can't ignore the homosexual nature of the Roman Catholic priesthood, can we?

Love in Christ,


Ever see the Supreme Court Justices? They wear robes. Even when all of the Congress and Senate, etc. wear suits to the State of the Union...

Try calling a judge a homosexual in open court for wearing a robe and enjoy your time in jail for contempt.

Julia, your reply shows a fundamental difference of how men and women think. You write: "The Bible says we will know Jesus' followers by their fruit and the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness,...  Writing blog posts that continue to point out the faults and failings you all see in people is not showing me the fruit of the Spirit in your lives. "

In general, women tend to function more on emotion rather than reason and they never want to assume any accountability for their actions. Thus, you pick the parts of scripture that support that view while ignoring others that don't.

Matthew 7:6: "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you."

The Catholic church has been under the control of satan (No, I'm not going to capitalize satan) for some time.....perhaps most of the time. Sitting around the camp fire singing Cum By Yah with a bunch of evil priests who are working for the enemy is not how the creator of the universe wants us spending our time. Let's not forget that the disciples were armed. They weren't carrying corsages to pin on the chest of members of the Synagogue of satan.

No normal Christian should want to build a friendship with a pedophile.

You also state: "The root of sin is not our physical attire but our hearts." If you're a man dressing up in women's clothing, your heart is not good.

Dear Friends (besides Julia),

Please note that I'm not criticizing episcopacy in this post, but rather an effeminate episcopacy.

There are arguments that must be made against the papacy and Gary Knapp makes them powerfully here

There are arguments that can be made for episcopacy, minus the papacy. 

There is no argument for soft men wearing soft clothing leading the Bride of Christ--Matthew 11:7-9.

Love in Christ,

David Bayly


Julia is not concerned with niceness. And her reply today is not based on this one post alone, but on the continual judgment and sniping that so permeates this blog.

Judgement indeed starts with the house of God. The problem is, you are forgetting who the judge is. There is a Biblical process for confronting a sinning brother. This forum does not follow it.

Perhaps you and another brother should travel to Rome and have an audience with the new pope to challenge what you perrceive to be a problem in regards to what they wear.

Furthermore, this post does little to promote the real problem of sexual sin in the Catholic Church or the tragedy of so many lives shattered by it over the years by reducing it to a question of what people wear.

In Christ,


Dear Mike,

Actually, I have and will build friendships with pedophiles. There but for the grace of God went I.... I didn't fall into that trap, but there are plenty I did fall into. 

No sin lies outside the desire of God to forgive, the love of God for sinners or the glory of regeneration's power.

But I build friendships based on repentance--on calling the unrepentant to the joy of repentance, on worshipping Christ together as men and women who have tasted the fruit of repentance by the power of His blood.

Love in Christ,



Public sin can demand public correction.  I don't agree with the premise of this post but if I did I'd have no problem with it being posted.  If I have a private problem then I should address it in private within the constraints scripture provides.  But if public correction for public sin is a sin what was Christ guilty of when he called the sons of darkness "whited sepulchres full of dead men's bones"?  Those are incredibly harsh words within the context of Jewish culture and their understanding of what is unclean.  I have no problem with the tone of the post, just the target.  We need more men who speak plainly and sophistry and manipulativeness are a particular evil for those who should bear witness to the truth.


If you mean that we men can be self-righteous jerks, then I agree.

There is definitely a need for speaking truth. However, there is to be love and grace along with it.

According to scripture, Jesus was full of GRACE and Truth. In that order.


Dear Evan,

Well, at least we share the same sin, don't we?

Love in Christ,


David Gray,

I don't disagree. When sin is clear, it should be challenged clearly. When it is public, there is a fitting public response. Saying that men wearing robes is an indication of and leads to homosexuality is neither.


Indeed. You pray for me and I will do the same.

You are right and with that I will excuse myself before I lob anymore unnecessary posts or engage in anymore fruitless arguments.



Then I don't understand why you thought the Baylys should address the matter privately.  Disagreeing as to whether it is sin I can see.  But you also suggested that such matters should be addressed privately.  If the use of traditional clothing was a sin this is precisely how it should be confronted.

Appreciate the Matthew 11 reference.  Is the original word "soft" related to the word(s) for "effeminate" elsewhere? 

Would we then expect to see a degree of effeminacy among royalty and the rich?  Would that then be a reason so many of the "upper class" make sure they get a degree of "roughness" in military and sporting pursuits?

Let's take a look at some men wearing robes who are not dressed effeminately. I think this will be helpful.

Manly Mongolian Men in Robes

Manly Man in Bathrobe

Violent Manly Men in Robes Throwing Rocks

Nobody would confuse these men for soft effeminate men, prone to homosexuality, would they? 

How is it that suddenly everybody is blind to cultural context? All we ever hear about passages that address sexuality is "You have to understand the cultural context." Now suddenly, everybody wants to ignore the cultural context. Amazing!

A man walks into your church in downtown New York City, wearing a plaid skirt, and lisping. A man walks into your church in northern Scotland wearing a kilt with mud on his shoes.

OH NO! I can't make any judgments about what kind of clothes people wear! There's no such thing as a man dressing like a woman. Sometime somewhere men used to wear things that looked like that! 

Paul was wrong! There's no such thing as soft, effeminate men.

If you need mud on your shoes to prove your masculinity, then you are very insecure about that masculinity indeed.

Insecurity about masculinity permeates this entire post. A man is characterized by honesty, respect, and love--a real man doesn't have to prove masculinity by acting or dressing "macho" enough to satisfy others.

And let's not forget that that word "malakos" ("soft" in Matthew 11:7-9) is the same word the Apostle Paul couples with "homosexuals" in his list of those who will not inherit the kingdom of God (1 Cor. 6:9). But, if you go searching for it in your ESV you won't find it. The NASB gets it right with "effeminate." 


I suppose I should have used a qualifier instead of making an absolute statement. Yes, the bible is full of examples where horrible sins are forgiven, but the nutshell is the old good versus evil battle. I believe that is the larger point you were making. The Catholic church has largely become infiltrated by evil, which manifests itself at times by the clothing and behavior of the church leadership.

I shall try to be more clear in the future.


Umm... JRJ, getting mud on your shoes is what happens when you walk in northern Scotland. Just an FYI. 

>>Perhaps a reading of Scripture and even a foray into some of Joseph Bayly's writings are in order to regain not only an understanding of the Word of God, but to remember that we need to drop our stones and walk away until we can challenge sin in others with the same mercy, grace and truth that we would desire to be extended to us.

Dear Evan,

As David and I grew up, we read Dad's exhortations and warnings all the time as he wrote his monthly column, "Out of My Mind" for "Eternity" magazine. Dad rebuked men and institutions like Carl McIntire, Wheaton College, President Nixon, famous New York City preacher Norman Vincent Peale, Robert Schuller, "Christianity Today," Bob Jones, Bill Gothard, seminaries in general, and on it went. Most saw it as the sniping of a gadfly. David and I knew Dad from inside out and we knew he had more courage and more skin in the game than anyone could know.

Yesterday I was writing and needed a quote from a column Dad wrote back in 1982—thirty-one years ago. This particular column was titled, “Who Are We To Judge?" and he wrote:

How far we’ve strayed from believing and obeying the Word of God.

The evangelical church is sick—so sick that people are crowding in to join us. We’re a big flock, big enough to permit remarriage of divorced people (beyond the exception Jesus allowed), big enough to permit practicing homosexuals to pursue their lifestyle, big enough to tolerate almost anything pagans do. We’re no longer narrow; it’s the wide road of popular acceptance for us.

“When the Son of Man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?” (Luke 18:8).

The church today is much worse than it was when Dad wrote that warning. It desperately needs men like the Apostle Paul who characterized his ministry in Ephesus by saying he never stopped warning the souls of the church; that he did it house to house, day and night, with tears.

David and I fail at this example, but we try to fail in its direction rather than the direction of men who surround themselves with preachers who no one in his or her right mind would ever, ever describe as the Apostle Paul described his own work.

In the last years before Dad died, I remember him saying to me offhandedly, "Tim, I'm an Evangelical gadfly." It didn't sit well with me since I felt it demeaned his ministry given to him by God and inestimably useful and needed by the church. "Gadfly? Surely much more than a gadfly? Don't demean yourself and your work in this way, Dad."

Well, now I've lived another thirty years and have watched men lead who had no such father. So many of them are paralyzed by fear—particularly of women's judgments—and the church has given herself over to the most wicked sins with sexual sins at their center. Yet I see that David and I have been somewhat innoculated by having a gadfly for a father and I am grateful to God.

Jeremiah was a gadfly. So was John the Baptist. And John Knox?

Calvin and Luther never stopped warning against the pomp and circumstance of the papacy and they used words and images that would make you blush. David's tame by their standards.

But of course, you don't read Calvin and Luther. Or if you do, you don't see and hear them. Which is to say judgment is an easy thing for you: you don't do it never and nohow. You're too big a man for that.

Except when a gadfly comes along and unsettles your complacency.

Thank you, sir, for reminding us of Dad. David and I wish every Christian man had been privileged to have him sniping and carping at their and others' sins as they were leaving childhood behind, becoming men.



I hope I'm not coming across as too self righteous. Over the course of my life I've committed more sins than half a dozen average Joes, but, ultimately everything boils down to good vs. evil.

There will be some terrible trials and tribulations in the not too distant future and while having grace is important, men will have to be men. Weak Christians do not enhance the faith. Speaking the truth in a forceful and commanding tone and being willing to die for God will be the orders of the day soon.


Umm... JRJ, getting mud on your shoes is what happens when you walk in northern Scotland. Just an FYI.

In the highlands it is likely to have some sheep dung with it...

A Dionne, thank you for the hint at the Greek.  I do appreciate it, and it seems that the commentators I've seen also picked up on it.

Give me faithful fathers who give it straight! Like faithful Athanasius, contending against the Arian false shepherds in his work, "Against the Arians," written during one of his exiles:

...but the Arians are without disguise irreligious against the Father Himself. For hearing from the Scriptures that His Godhead is represented in the Son as in an image, they blaspheme, saying, that it is a creature, and everywhere concerning that Image, they carry about with them the phrase, ‘He was not,’ as mud in a wallet, and spit it forth as serpents* their venom. Then, whereas their doctrine is nauseous to all men, forthwith, as a support against its fall, they prop up the heresy with human patronage, that the simple, at the sight or even by the fear may overlook the mischief of their perversity.

And the footnote:

*...and so Arians are dogs (with allusion to 2 Pet. ii. 22.), de Decr. 4. Hist. Ar. 29. lions, Hist. Ar. 11. wolves, Ap. c. Arian. 49. hares, de Fug. 10. chameleons, de Decr. init. hydras, Orat. iii. 58 fin. eels, Ep. Æg. 7 fin. cuttlefish, Orat. iii. 59. gnats, de Decr. 14 init. Orat. iii. 59. init. beetles, Orat. iii. fin. leeches, Hist. Ar. 65 init. de Fug. 4. [swine, Or. ii. 1.] In many of these instances the allusion is to Scripture...


I cannot tell if you are speaking somewhat tongue-in-cheek here, but Matthew 18 has a focus on not expanding the circle of the involved beyond what is needed when two brothers have a quarrel (whether real or perceived on either party) within the church.

It is not, however, a passage providing a blue print for dealing with public figures, who do their deeds in public in plain view, and who are held to a stricter judgment in the case of church leaders. For example, if I am a governor, and I am caught in an affair which is made public, it would be impossible at that point to limit exposure by taking two or three.

Matt. 18 is also not a passage touching upon dealing with leaders in other religions/cults, and although I do not consider the RCC to be cult, neither do I consider it to be a church any longer either.

John's epistles, for example, tell us not to show home hospitality to false teachers. Dealing with false religious leaders is not at all analogous to keeping harmony between brothers in the body of Christ.


I apologize for causing confusion and or personal strife. There is no doubt that we need to be bold in proclaiming truth and challenging that which is offensive to God. My overwhelming hope and intent is that we not do so with a graceless and blind eye towards our own sin.

I think it is a noble thing to be a gadfly, but not if it is because we have become so negative and judgmental that it is because of our words rather than our defense of the Gospel. Not that I am saying this is the case here necessarily and I wrongly made that judgment earlier.

It is true, however, that much of what comes out of the Evangelical church today seems to be condemnation based on moralism and tradition, not necessarily the Word of God.

To this end, I pray that we all can grow in our ability to identify the truth based on our clear hearing of the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
I also pray that we not respond out of our own flesh, even when we are right in our discernments and our desires to confront sin.

Today, I failed in this regard.  I let personal frustrations determine my tone.

To be clear, there is much wrong with the Catholic church, just as there is much wrong with all of the church. We all need the refining fire of the Holy Spirit to convict us of sin and burn off the dross of our depravity.
May we be faithful to speak what God leads us to speak, and not one word more.

Evan Nutter

Three comments:

(1) Didn't the priests in the OT have ceremonial garments that were very elaborate (and described in detail in the OT)? So why is it wrong when the RCC does so now? 

(2) The RCC church is growing fastest in Africa and Asia. Is there any evidence of priests sexually abusing boys there? If there isn't, aren't you impugning a large segment of the RCC because of the heinous sin of the many priests of Western RCC?

(3) There are many parish priests who have never touched a boy or girl inappropriately, yet alone used them for a sexual object? Isn't unfair to lump them in with those that have? Some have a homosexual orientation, but if they are celibate, personally I honor them for not giving way (with the help of God) to their temptation.


As an Anglican, I'm not nearly inclined against the robes the cardinals wear as others might be. Our bishops wear ceremonial attire when they visit churches and our archbishop also does when he visits diocesan conventions and other significant events when he attends a eucharistic service or gives a speech.

Dear Sue,

Well, there is the fact that the priest's clothing was only worn when he was fulfilling the ceremonial duties of his office, not all the time everywhere. 

There is also the fact that the veil of the temple was rent upon Christ's death. 

I could go on, but this should be sufficient to make clear that though I respect your question, I disagree with what I suspect may be your conclusions. And, yes, I do oppose elaborate, expensive, art-filled houses of worship along with the wearing of fancy clothing.

You're right about the RCC's growth outside the West though I spoke specifically about the West in my post. I fear for the future of the RCC in the non-West. Western influence is as pervasive as western wealth. 

Finally, there were thousands in Israel who had never bowed their knee to Baal but judgment fell on the whole regardless. We are corporately tied by the Covenants of God, like it or not, and to the extent that Rome contains elements of the true Church within her bounds, her sins are ours as well.

Love in Christ,

David Bayly 

  Just to change the tone a bit  ...  Come hear some of our State Reps talk about what s going on in pro life legislation in Ohio .   Friday Morning , March 15  7:30 am  ,  at the Premier banquet hall, 4480 Heatherdowns.. 

This post is beneath the Bayly brothers. Men have been wearing robes for centuries. It is historically a sign of power. Read what Chesterton said about women wearing "robes," what men traditionally wore.

Here is the Chesterton quote I was thinking of:

"It is quite certain that the skirt means female dignity,
not female submission; it can be proved by the simplest of all tests.
No ruler would deliberately dress up in the recognized fetters
of a slave; no judge would appear covered with broad arrows.
But when men wish to be safely impressive, as judges,
priests or kings, they do wear skirts, the long, trailing robes
of female dignity. The whole world is under petticoat government;
for even men wear petticoats when they wish to govern.

>>This post is beneath the Bayly brothers.

Not at all, my dear sister. Just recently I was listening to Chesterton's words you quote above. Great words. Great point.

Wrong application.

Look at the pics and try to compare them to a judge wearing robes or a minister a Genevan gown.

Other things being equal, David and I don't oppose heterosexual officers wearing the uniform of their office. I have a Geneva gown and it was worn recently in one of our services.

But we do oppose forms of dress that confuse or trump all kinds of modesty as well as demonstrating clothing "histrionics" (Calvin's word). The fact that these clothing histrionics of the Papacy go back to the time of John Calvin only goes to show how deeply committed to sin Rome is. Even Luther and Calvin's rebuke of these extravagancies did no good—not for half a millenium, now!

The clothing you see in the pics posted on this site in the past couple of days are immodest and they point as well as a German Shorthair could to the prevalence of sodomy within the curia and its church.

I can't help but conclude from the discussions under these posts that many of our readers are almost clueless about the prevalence of sodomitic rape among Roman Catholic clergy across the Western world. There's nothing "safely impressive" about any of the clothing these men are wearing, and this is the reason Calvin inveighed against it.


The big issue here is that the RC church is under attack and bearing the fruit of her sin. The forces of the World are seeking to get her to be "reasonable" on social issues to help the youth to be able to come to the church.

I had a conversation with a young priest to be at Planned Parenthood where he told me that I was being to judgmental in what I said to the escorts. I told him about all the strong young Ken I had met recently in the RC church just desperately looking for a faithful shepherd to lead them - and that the these men will need men to lead them.

He seemed to take the conversation well but I wonder if he went back to the retreat center and was told thathe should embrace a more passive gospel. Before we parted the gave me an idolatrous metal of Mary that sadly I took and later threw away.

Tha RCC worships women and if you grew up in old New York catholic families like I did you probably had at least one homosexual spinster uncle who many had encouraged to be a priest like I did. I remember asking my dad about why my uncle was so strange and my dad said, "He never wanted together married so your grandmother encouraged him to become a priest"

And as a teen I got a picture of what people thought of the Catholic church. The unspoken truth was that weird uncles who didn't seem to fit well with regular men became priests and in the church priests weren't really respected by the men - in my family the regular men didn't find anything to respect about the church leaders - except the nuns - and so we had no respect for God and the Church - so most men I knew left the church. We didn't talk about it but we left because the men were effeminate and the nuns were not.

So now there is a new crop of young men coming through the RC church and they are seeking strong men that they can look up to and emulate but will they fall victim to attacks like NPRs where they keep telling us that the youth want gay marriage and contraception - nit the dark ages? I hope they stand firm - something it's hard to do in a dress.

The problem about homosexuality in the Catholic church goes almost to the top. Recently the head of the Catholic Church in Scotland, Keith O'Brien, was forced to admit to "historical indiscretions", and was stood down by the Vatican on the spot. And now there's more bubbling to the surface:

And there's the little matter of the Italian media going undercover with videocams and exposing sodomite members of the curia. Also the BBC's piece on the Congregation for the Evangelisation of the Peoples buying twenty apartments and setting up shop in the same building housing Italy's premier gay sauna. Rome and her Vatican are corrupt and some of Italy's most conservative papers believe a large part of Benedict XVI's resignation was a desire for another man to take over the curia's reform. Read more about it here.

I will say that I had confidence in the personal integrity of John Paul II and Benedict XVI.


Spot on, the catholic church is like a mafia.

An Elf,

The Roman Catholic church's Curia and parts of its hierarchy might be as awful as the Mafia. But I'm not willing to diss all of the local parish priests who faithfully serve their parishioners (and do not molest children, mostly boys) and individual Roman Catholics who joyfully love and serve the Lord just as Protestants and Anglicans do.

Sue - concur, strongly. Chaucer's "poor parson of a town" has his modern examples.

>>just as Protestants and Anglicans do...

Dear Sue,

Ideas have consequences. So does doctrine. That there are true Christians who trust the blood of Jesus Christ alone to make their garments white who worship in the Roman Catholic church is no less extraordinary for being true. They are the exception that proves the rule. They go against the grain of their entire doctrinal system, and many Anglicans and Protestants across the centuries put their life at risk to recover Biblical doctrine, calling to those in the Roman bondage to repent and believe. Those who imply that Luther and Calvin and Knox were fools for doing so are ignorant of what Scripture and Rome teach, or they are opposed to the very idea that ideas have consequences and that it is the job of the Church to make disciples of all men, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and teaching them to obey everything He commands.

But really, again you and I run into the most basic failure of logic in our blind world. Systems of doctrine which are heretical, of which Rome is our primary example here, are generally held by those who align themselves with the churches who claim that system of doctrine. Priests sacrifice Christ over and over again. This is the primary privilege or responsibility of their ordination. They are priests—not pastors—and they preside over the sacrifice of the Mass. This is contrary to the "once and done" teaching of Hebrews. Does it matter?

Luther and Calvin and Knox thought it does, and you? Or are generalizations so distasteful to you that you will never allow that any system of doctrine can be denounced as heretical and that any person who is a member of the communion holding to that system of doctrine can be expected to hold to the heresy of that system of doctrine?

Ideas have consequences. Doctrine has consequences. Rome has anathematized my faith and doctrine for over half a millenium now and they're right to do so if their dogma is right. So I reciprocate and anathematize their system of doctrine as they have mine. And I warn Roman Catholics to leave the dead to bury the dead and enter Christ's true church where the doctrine of salvation has not been and is not corrupted by the systematic monetization of justification not by faith alone which the ecumenical council of Trent deposited permanently at the center of their church.

Do we really care for souls? Do we really love anyone? Do we really see deceptions and grieve over them? Or are we simply committed to a laissez-faire spirituality that Rodney King summarized best when he spoke for a decadent age, asking "Can't we all get along?" The Apostle Paul writes the book of Galatians defending the doctrine of justification by faith alone and we respond, how? "Oh, Paul, there you go again getting on your high horse! Don't you know how many sincere and well-meaning Judaizers there are? And how can you know men's hearts? And how harsh you are, Paul, telling them that, while they're at it, he wishes they'd just go ahead and cut it all off. Grow up, Paul. Are you a misanthrope? Take a chill pill, dude! I mean, really!"

Now you might resent my putting it this way, but really, in every discussion with weak and sentimental moderns, we find that the exception to the rule is all that matters—never the rule.

Roman Catholicism is a heresy and its main heretical dogma is most clearly seen in the Tridentine documents which can never, which may never be repealed according to church law. Which is to say the magisterium is stuck down a mine shaft they can never escape without denying one more false doctrine which is the authority of church tradition. And their false doctrine really does lead most of the souls under the care of those defending and teaching and preaching and practicing that false doctrine to Hell.

If all we ever show concern for is saying that there are some people who are real Christians in the Roman Catholic Church and some parish priests who don't sodomize little boys, what have we said that anyone needs to hear today?

Nothing. Nothing at all. Everyone knows it and no one will argue with it.

Which really is why saying it is so very popular.

But what does a true Christian shepherd say to Rome and her subjects?

A true Christian shepherd says to Rome and her shepherds what the Apostle Paul says in Galatians. If you continue to trust your sacraments and good works to save you, there is no hope for you.

We all need to keep in mind the statement that we moderns are given over to the morbid habit of sacrificing the normal on the altar of the abnormal. Rome is blind leading blind subjects further into their blindness. That is the norm with Rome.

The abnormal is Roman priests and parishioners who are the exception to Rome's heresies and truly believe. We must not focus on those abnormalities and fail to blow the trumpet warning of the normalities of the false doctrine Rome is steeped in to her neck.

With continuing love,

PS: I've put this up as a post and would appreciate having any further discussion of this comment under that post. Thanks.

Add new comment