Excuse me, but FAITH and CHURCH are not the same thing!

It is obvious some people don’t realize that faith and church are not the same thing.  I say this from the comments I have received.  It might surprise you, but some of the greatest accomplishments in the church have come from people who had the courage to question the church. 

Each of Christ’s apostles did not doubt the church they doubted that Christ would be resurrected. It was incomprehensible to them… even after having witnessed a man walk on water and raise the dead. All of the original apostles had doubts. And, some of you want to stone me because I doubt the actions of some of the hierarchy in the church and yet you are willing to follow men that even had some doubts about Christ.  GET REAL!

Each of them, one by one, sat there witnessing the mighty miracles that came from this Nazarene. They had questions and problems with much of what Christ had taught, but their minds were open not like some of you. 

The problem exists when a person thinks that they are beyond FAITH. That they are too logical for miracles. That their intellect exceeds the need for faith. I have never said any of those things. People who are honest enough to admit their doubts and then face them head on without becoming antagonistic, making hardline rash decisions, or ruling out the need for faith are some of the greatest contributors to this kingdom. 

If you want to follow men blindly that is fine with me - go ahead!  I am not that naive. You may trust the words of men. I trust the Holy Spirit.  I can reason right from wrong by comparing what man says and what scriptures says. I am not going to rely on tradition and rituals to support the words of man when they are contrary to the words of the Bible. 

Mary the Mother of God - WHO?

I have often said and written many Catholics recite words at Mass that have absolutely no meaning to them.  They recite Catholic prayers out of habit that they memorized long ago.  They have become just words.

Then to my shock I found that I am as guilty as anyone else.  "Holy Mary Mother of God" - "Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with you,- blessed are you among women, blessed is the fruit of your womb Jesus.  HOLY MARY MOTHER OF GOD...."  I have said the rosary thousands upon thousands of times and just recently it hit me - Mary is the mother of Jesus Christ.

Many Catholic prayers have in them "Mary the Mother of God".

Those of us who believe in a triune God believe there is ONE God, but three separate and distinct Beings. The Trinity is really impossible to explain and one must except it on faith.  I was told in seminary to describe it like this - water is a liquid, water can become ice and water can become steam.  That is not really a good analogy because water is not liquid, solid and gas ALL at the same time. God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit exist all at the same time.

The Jehovah Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints (Mormons), Christian Scientists and others do not believe in the Trinity.  Some Christians teach Christ was born with divinity and others say Christ got His divinity on earth from the Father.  It is said by some when Jesus was baptized and the Father spoke from heaven and said, "This is my beloved Son" is when Jesus Christ got His divinity.

There is much about God that man or woman cannot and will not understand while on this earth.  It is a shame that a lot of theologians believe they must be able to answers everyone's questions instead of saying "I DO NOT KNOW".

If Mary was the mother of GOD that would mean she was before GOD (Father) and no one believes that. Many will say that is not a big deal so why even mention it.  I say we should think about what we say because I am sure the atheist think about every word we say.

Did men in the Catholic Church centuries ago use "Mary Mother of God" to put more emphasis on Mary?

I wish I could take credit for realizing what we were saying, but I did not.  In all my ministry no one every question me about that phrase, but an eight year of little girl recently ask me "Father, is Mary the mother of the Father and the Son or just the Son?" WOW!  I guess the poor child was thinking something weird is going on here if Mary was the mother of the Father and the Son.

We must accept that the nature of the Trinity is debated among Christian denominations.  Trinitarian denominations use quotes from the Bible to support their interpretation and those that do not believe likewise can quote scripture to support their beliefs.  It is all in the interpretation.  Who is right and who is wrong - I DO NOT KNOW, but one day we will know.

I do not think God holds us responsible for honest mistakes.  I would leave any church or denomination that said, "You must believe our way or you are destine for hell". What  arrogance to think you are on God's level and understand everything God said the way He meant it.

The Forgotten Man - Jospeh

All the attention is given to Mary the Mother of Christ, but what about Joseph?

Joseph had as much to do with raising Jesus as Mary and maybe even more. 

After the bar mitzvah the Jewish boy became the responsibility of the father. That is how Jesus was left behind in Jerusalem. Jesus got separated from his parents after his bar mitzvah and they started home. Going he would have traveled with His mother and returning it would have been the custom for Him to travel with his father. Each parent probably thought Jesus was with the other. 

There is not much said of Joseph in scripture. He is only mentioned by name about 17 times. The preachers do not mention Joseph much and do not preach sermons on Joseph. Sometimes he is mentioned on Father's Day.

I know my denomination teaches there were no other children than Jesus, but I personally do not believe that teaching is correct. I do not accept the doctrine that my denomination uses to explain away the reference in the Bible of Jesus siblings in order support the doctrine of Perpetual Virginity.

We do not know much about Joseph, but we do know he was a carpenter and trained Jesus to be a carpenter. We do know he was an honorable man. He married Mary in spite of the pregnancy.

We can use our imagination and assume since Joseph was a carpenter (craftsman) he would have been creative, patient, dedicated, disciplined, took pride in what he did, quite and humble. I say humble because God always chose the humble for great things in scripture. Scripture makes clear God always looks into a mans heart when judging him.

Joseph did not build houses because he worked with wood and houses were not made of wood in Israel. He made furniture, doors, shutters, etc. requiring great skill and dedication to perfection.

I would also assume Jesus had a good relationship with Joseph and called him daddy, since Jesus called His Heavenly Father Abba meaning daddy.

Yes, I would say Joseph was a good father and a good man all together. Jesus had a good role model on earth.

We can learn much from Joseph, especially daddies. If we do perhaps 26 percent of young men that were surveyed in the U.S. in 2016 when ask next year about their relationship with their father’s will not say they have a bad relationship with their father's.

What have we all done (mothers, daddies, grandmothers, grandfathers, aunts and uncles) to be good role models to children and young people today? We need to model our faith in order to pass it on to the next generation. We need to demonstrate love of God, others and self.

You would be surprised how many men and women avoid a relationship with God the Father because they had a bad experience with their earthly father.

A religious label no longer fits me - Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical or Independent

I confess I do not agree with all Catholicism and Evangelism teachings. There are some of each that I like. There are some of each I believe. There are some of each I follow in my personal walk with God. There are some of each that I believe have it all wrong. Neither of them any longer totally satisfy me. I have come to believe most Catholic priest read and study the Bible with their mind and a lot of Evangelical ministers read and study the Bible using only their hearts.

Being a product of the seminary I loved those deep discussions on theology and philosophy. But, I finally realized I knew God with my mind, but I did not have a real personal heart relationship with Him.

The Bible may have become just another academic course I had to complete to be ordained. I take responsibility for it, but I also blame the priest that trained me. It was a shock when I entered the reality of ministry and found some parishioners really had a better personal relationship with God than I did - with all my book smarts. It was also a shock when I started to watch Christian television and on occasions stumbled on an Evangelical minister that had something worthwhile to say and was not begging money.

I now realize how important it is to read the Bible with both the heart and mind. I now know how important it is to stop and pause and allow God to speak to us as we read and study.  We can memorize all the scripture we want, but if it does not touch our heart we really have accomplished nothing. I guess as many Christians do we can use it to impress others.

I recently read a book on brain/thought/mind and quite time. This may sound foolish to some of you that are smarter than me, but I always thought of my brain as the organ that produced action and thought. After reading the book and spending a lot of time thinking about what the author wrote I came to believe the brain only reacts to what our mind (thought) tells it to. I wonder if the Bible really means ‘mind’ when it speaks of heart so many times.

If you are like I was you may be spending time in daily Bible study aimed more at interpreting the text than at meditation and experiencing God. You may also find your prayers are more ritualistic or formal than personal. Is your prayers dominated by petitions for needs and confession of sins. Mine was. If you are Catholic yours are probably taken from a little prayer book. It saddens me when I see Sunday after Sunday people with their little paper prayer books praying from them instead of having a simple conversation with  God.  The words used by great men of the church is not what God wants to hear. God wants to hear from us.

I began to notice many years back that parishioners were leaving the Mass after some of the priest delivered their homily without getting any practical knowledge to take with them to apply in their daily lives – a waste of time. The priests were delivering the same stuff that was delivered to them in the seminary without feeling, personal experiences or practical application given. I have found that in a lot of the Evangelical churches the congregation leaves full of emotional feeling (Adrenalin)and little mental comprehension. There needs to be a balance. What is the point in going to church if you are fed book knowledge or given an Adrenalin high that does not carry you through the week and cannot be applied to real life situations.

I am opposed to those speed reading Bible assignments that some ministers believe produce such great fruit. Read only with your mind and not your heart and you will not accomplish anything. Reading the Bible should be about establishing a personal relationship with God. I have had relatives that are more interested in CHECKING off the daily reading list given by the pastor or purchased in bookstores than really understanding how it applies to their life. That yearly Bible reading goal should not interfere with the big-picture of having 365 daily opportunities to feed your soul in God’s word.

If I am pressed for time and do not have the time to read scripture and then meditate on what I read I put it off until later in the day, but if possible always accomplish it before I go to sleep that night. Reading the Bible should not feel like an obligation it should be something you enjoy and want to do. After reading scriptures you need to take time to ponder on them (meditate) and seek how they can apply to your daily life. I have a relative that was in the hospital for about a week and unable to read her Bible. When she got home the first day she caught up on all the daily reading she had missed and called me to confirm that she had. I did not have the heart to tell her I was not impressed. I would have preferred she just picked up with the daily reading on the day she got home.

Research shows nearly six in ten (59%) of young people who grow up in Christian churches end up walking away from either their faith or from the institutional church at some point in their first decade of adult life. Sadly when asked what has helped their faith grow, “church” does not make even the top 10 factors. Instead, the most common drivers of spiritual growth, as identified by Millennials themselves, are prayer, family and friends, the Bible and their relationship with Jesus.

This tells me the organizational church is failing the young people. We need to stop blaming society and start looking within our own walls. Perhaps the organized church has allowed itself to fall out of step with modern times – I believe it has.  I think many young people feel the organized church is not relevant’ or see attending worship services ‘a boring duty’. If that is true then it is the Churches fault. I do not think most churches today offer the depth young people need to deal with their everyday life decisions. Modern life is complex!

Many Evangelical Churches have created a Young People’s Country Club or Night Club and that is not the solution in my opinion. They are looking for the same thing we adult Christians are looking for - a personal relationship with God, a place where they can be accepted for who they are and to be given an opportunity to take a meaningful and productive role in the church.

I think people have the right to expect from their church:

Acceptance

People want to feel not only welcomed and loved but also wanted. I think the Catholic Church does an awful job of making visitors feel welcome. A lot of Protestant Churches go to great pain to make first time visitors welcome and forget about them after that. Is your Church a place that welcomes people on the first visit and beyond the first visit?

Accountability

People want to be held accountable. They want someone to follow up with them and make sure they are understanding what has been taught and how it can be used in their daily life. Is your Church a place that motivates and provides  partnership to the goal of serving Christ?

Discipleship

People desire to know more about their faith whether it’s newfound or not. People want to understand what they are doing, why they are doing it and how to improve what they are doing. Is your Church a place of learning that equips the believer with the tools necessary to survive in the Christian walk? 

Opportunity

A growing Christian wants an opportunity to get involved in the ministry of the church they attend. People want to be a part of something. People want to serve, and we must not forget God wants them to serve as well. As a Church we must be excelling at preparing our members for service. Giving them an opportunity to serve Jesus. So many times we can fail because we wait too long to get new members involved in serving. They want to serve, and we must let them. Is your Church full of opportunities to serve?

Is your Church a place of acceptance, accountability, discipleship and opportunity or is it a place where the leadership has expectations for everyone else, but not themselves.

Religion can be harmful!

Religion can be harmful!

Religion can be dangerous because it is usually run by men. Religion usually ends up in the hands of a few men that determine the interpretation of God’s words for us; they make all the rules and traditions that we are to follow. Religion is often fueled by fear and it is anchored in our conscious. Our conscious can be right or wrong. Our conscious has generally been shaped by some type of religion, a religion that we have been taught by men. We tend to listen more to men of the church than the Holy Spirit. Religious followers tend to turn to men of the church rather than God when in doubt.

There are usually a group of dedicated followers that are dependent on a group of men to understand where they stand with God. These men determine who will go to hell and heaven by how they interpret God’s words.

Jesus did not come to improve or extend the legalistic temple model of religion.  Jesus came to start something new. I have only recently realized this during a serious bout of bad health that kept me in bed for approximately six weeks. I once believe Jesus did not come to establish a new religion (Christianity), but to improve the Jewish religion. I no longer believe that.

I now believe Jesus came to establish something entirely new. Something without thousands of rules and traditions made by man, but one simple commandment LOVE! One simple law LOVE! One simple rule LOVE! This one law is what all our decisions should be based on.  When we are not sure what we are to do we should ask ourselves what love requires of us?

Jesus did not come to establish a place (a House of the Lord).  Jesus came to establish a new movement of people. Jesus came to establish a movement that was for all people for all times. It was a movement that was to be focused on people (one another) not the temple or a church building.

Jesus did not want the old mixed with the new, but unfortunately man has mixed the old temple ways with the new Jesus movement and they have ruined what Jesus came to establish. The only thing that counts is faith expressed through love, love expressed for other people. Too many are trying to express love through a denomination (a church building) a denomination or building created by man not Christ.

Our bodies are TEMPLES, our bodies are sacred, and no building or denomination is more sacred than we are. Our bodies are holy and contain the Spirit of God.

The early Christians had only one thing and that was an extraordinary love for one another. They had no Bible not even the Old Testament.  They followed one law LOVE ONE ANOTHER! They put the person next to them ahead of themselves.

Constantine, an emperor, built the first churches.  He passed a law churches did not have to pay taxes so all the rich people started turning their property into churches to avoid taxes.  They would take in orphans and overnight Christianity became inseparable from the empire.  Christianity became more empire than Christianity. Men then began to determine how God’s word would be interpreted by all.

The Nicene Creed was the results of a political issue. Some believed Christ received his Divinity as a reward for what He accomplished on earth and other believed He was born with his Divinity. Constantine did not want the debate to continue. Constantine who was not a theologian put out an edict all material relating to Jesus not being born Devine should be destroyed and if not destroyed the person holding it will be put to death. Thereafter believing the wrong thing was a crime. Christians arrested Christians for believing the wrong thing. Man became the gate keeper to heaven and hell and in many instances it remains that way in 2016.

We Christians talk about the Crusaders killing pagans, but few know we also killed Jewish men, women and children for crucifying Christ and taking all their possessions. Hitler was not the first to take revenge on the Jews. This all followed the Council of Trent. It was all done in the name of God.

1517 Martin Luther wanted to reform the Church not destroy it. Scripture not the Church became the authority and the Protestant movement began. We began to move back to the command to love, but we have never really returned to the original movement Christ came to establish among people. In my opinion denomination is still more important to many than love and we see this in the denominations anti-gay movement just as the church was pro-slavery and segregation. The Church denominations still use the Bible as weapon instead of an instrument of love. Protestants and Catholics continue to beat people over the head with their interpretations of the Bible today.

What we see as sin has been shaped by man. Some feel guiltier about missing Mass or church services than mistreating others. Some fear over the eternal life of their child who dies and was not baptized because of the interpretation of men and not God. Putting water on the head of anyone does not determine if they go to heaven or not.  Does other people’s failure make you feel superior instead of making you sad if it does you do not love as Christ commanded us to?

If everyone got up thinking God is fine with me and now I must make myself fine with others the world would be what Jesus Christ wanted it to be filled with LOVE? If you truly love others you are in line with the Gospel. If you love like Christ commanded you will love God. Love will be the basis for your interpretation of God’s word.

When we begin to live by God’s command and not man the people of the world will know we are Christians by our love.

STUDY-PRAY-READ-LISTEN TO ALL SIDES-TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT IS BEST FOR OTHERS- THEN THINK FOR YOURSELF.

Cruz should have the majority of evangelical votes - but he doesn't - why?

Donald Trump is a mainline Protestant who hardly goes to church. Ben Carson’s 15 minutes of fame is over. Marco Rubio’s faith journey has taken him from Catholicism to Mormonism to evangelicalism and back to Catholicism. If Rubio has as difficult time making political decisions as he has making religious decisions I question his loyalty to any principle.

Cruz is supposed to be the real deal. A true evangelical Christian, loyal to the U.S. Constitution, Southern Baptist, a preacher’s kid and yet he has not sewed up the evangelical vote – why? He announced his candidacy at Liberty University, founded by Jerry Falwell, but Jerry Falwell’s son who is head of Liberty University supports Trump – why? No one has a better record in Congress on the social issues that “Old style” conservatives embrace, but he still does not have the evangelical vote in the basket – why?

Trump all but matches Cruz for evangelical support in Iowa. Trump’s refusal to participate in the FOX debate may change that. Cruz is going to twist the truth and out and out lie to use Trump’s refusal against him. I noticed since Trump announced he would not participate in the debate Sean Hannity who has had his head up Trumps backside has pulled it out and stuck it up Cruz’s backside. That may hurt Trump in Iowa.

Could it be that evangelicals know Cruz is a hypocrite? Southern Baptist teaches tithing ten percent of your gross income to the church is essential to your faith and according to public records Cruz contributes LESS than ONE percent. He claims to be against Wall Street, yet his wife is an executive of one of the largest Wall Street firms and even borrowed one million dollars from Wall Street banks to help finance his campaign. There’s got to be something more that’s made a lot of evangelicals wary of throwing their support to Cruz, and I think I know what it is. Evangelicals hate hypocrites.

In the last Republican presidential debate, Cruz gave his testimony, and (as he notes) he gives it all the time. But the conversion story he tells is his father’s, not his own. Cruz was born in a Christian home and has always been a Christian and was raised in the church.

I have not decided to support Trump because to be honest I do not like his fight with Megyn Kelly and FOX, Carly Fiorina (face), and Marco Rubio (sweat) or his more serious attacks on Mexican immigrants (accusing the many of what the few do), his character assault on Ben Carson, comparing him to a child molester who has pathological problems and, most recently his apparent mocking of the disability of a New York Times journalist. It bothers me he does not apologize for his remarks. I do not like his extra-large ego and pettiness, but I am convinced he can do more to help the economy and foreign affairs than any of the other candidates – he would be a strong leader. 

The warnings in Proverbs are strong: “Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? There is more hope for a fool than for him” (Proverbs 29:20). “A fool gives full vent to his spirit, but a wise man quietly holds it back” (Proverbs 29:11). I really think this applies to anyone, but especially to anyone who wants to be President of the United States.

Do you think white evangelicals are recalling an earlier election and are looking more for a candidate that is better for the country, rather than better for the church? The year of the evangelical was the Southern Baptist Jimmy Carter. President Carter brought millions of evangelicals into the political process — on behalf of the Democratic ticket. The list of white evangelicals who supported Carter that year reads like a who’s who of the religious right, including Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and Billy Graham. That fall, Carter won nearly half the evangelical vote. No Democrat has even come close to that in the decades since. Few people today would deny Carter was the worse U.S. President in our lifetime. I personally think Obama took that title from Carter.

I think the Rev. James Linzey, a retired Army chaplain and vocal leader among some conservative Evangelicals, sums up his support for Donald Trump and it applies to me and many evangelicals, “Because he tells it like it is, and he exudes honesty and transparency, and he’s the kind of person who is not going to deceive us. Evangelicals are tired of being deceived by wolves in sheep’s clothing.”

I do not think any of the political pundits or media elitist’s or Republican establishment realized how deep the voter’s frustration with the GOP really was. The Republican Party has failed to take care of even one major issue that concerns conservatives and evangelicals over the past many years.

I am not impressed with Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council endorsement of Cruz. He has for a long time urged Christian conservatives to pick a consensus presidential candidate early in the nomination process, but remember he early on endorsed the nominations of John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012. I do think Cruz will gain strength among evangelicals and the only one in the end that will share in those votes is Rubio, but I believe Tony Perkins is wrong again and Cruz is not the candidate to beat a Democrat candidate.

Put down your rocks!

Many Protestants say that all sin is the same in the sight of God. Others, while they admit that some sins are worse than others, argue that all sins, if not forgiven, bring death to the soul. They imply that Catholics are soft on sin.

Protestants will quote, "The wages of sin is death" (Rom. 6:23), and "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:4), but what about 1 John 5:17, "Not all sin is mortal." Jesus, John and Paul indicated that some sins are greater than others they knew that the Jews taught that sins committed intentionally were more serious.

John 19:11 - Jesus says before Pilate, "You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin." Jesus must have recognized a greater and lesser degree of sin.

1 John 5:17 - “All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.”

Some Christians would say that sin is sin, and all are the same.  I do not think the Bible agrees with that. Any kind of unrepentant sin can send one to hell. But the Bible speaks of one kind of sin that God referred to by a different name: It was called an Abomination. The word “abominable” refers to something which is extremely despised. Therefore, there are some things which God hates extremely.

These are some things which are found in Proverbs 6:16-19 that are said to be abominable to the Lord.

  A Proud Look:  “Every one that is proud in heart is an abomination to the Lord “(Prov. 16:5). Pride is an attitude of arrogance, superiority, boastfulness. The wealthy often feel superior to the poor; the educated often feel superior to the uneducated; the strong often feel superior to the weak. The Pharisee displayed an attitude of arrogant superiority toward the publican, Luke 18:9-14. This attitude is still present today when some Christians act “holier-than-thou”.  A Christian must display humility. He or she needs to imitate the humility of Jesus Philippians 2:2-3 and not the superiority of the wicked. Do any of us really display humility all the time?

  2.      A Lying Tongue: “Lying lips are abomination to the Lord” (Prov. 12:22). People lie for different reasons. Some auto dealers lie to sell automobiles. Some politicians lie to win an election. Some preachers lie to gain wealth. Some people lie with the intent of keeping peace. But, the Bible states, there is no justification for one to lie to another.  ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake of fire. Revelation 21:8.  Has any Christian not told a lie?

  3.     Hands That Shed Innocent Blood: “Shedding innocent blood” is a reference to murder. A physician, who is trained to save life and use their medical instruments to kill an innocent unborn baby as a means of birth control is an abomination to God and all those that participate in the procedure are likewise guilty of murder. Anyone who kills, or attempts to kill the righteous is an abomination to God, Deuteronomy 19:10; Isa 59:7, 8. Is an accident that takes a life when the party involved is under the influence of drugs or alcohol included in this? I think it is.

  4.     A Heart That Devises Wickedness: “The thoughts of the wicked are an abomination to the Lord,” Proverbs 15:26. Before wickedness is committed, it is planned and plotted. This would include robbery, pornographic movie or magazine, rape, seduction, cheating, fraud, gossip, etc. Have you really never planned anything that you knew would profit you, but would be a disadvantage to others?

        Feet That Are Swift in Running to Mischief: If you have ever done anything for pleasure while knowing that God would not approve this would apply to you. We should all remember to be swift to hear, but slow to speak, and slow to anger, but how many of us have always done that.

  6.     A False Witness: A false witness is a special kind of liar their lying assists in perverting justice. The false witness distorts the truth. Does it really have to be only in court that bearing false witness is an abomination to God? Most of us deal with dispensing some kind of justice every day, especially if you are a parent. When you remain silent and you know a wrong has been committed, when you support a friend and you know they have wronged another, when you cover up the wrongs of your children is that not also bearing false witness? I tend to believe we have all been bearers of false witness at some time in our lives.

  7.     He or She That Sows Discord: Those who disrupt the unity of God’s people are objects of God’s anger. The unity of God’s people is destroyed by gossips and carrying tales. “Where no wood is, there the fire goes out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceases. As coals are to burning coals, and wood to fire; so is a contentious man to kindle strife”, Proverb 26:20, 21. A whisperer separates chief friends, Proverb 16:28; 17:9. Wow! You are really a good person if you have never gossiped or repeated something to someone that you knew before you said it would not benefit the person you were carrying the tale on.

Who's the biggest sinner? WE HAVE ALL SINNED. We all need to put our stones down and stop acting like hypocrites. It is human nature to look upon the sins and faults of others, while often overlooking our own sins. James 2:10, “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he or she is guilty of all.” This is a doctrine that is hardly touched upon in churches today.

 No Christian should claim to be less a sinner than others. There is no teaching in the Bible that says Christians are less sinful than unsaved people. Christians should never reject the sinner because of a perceived sin we think he or she has committed. We ought to love everybody with God's unconditional love, but many in the Christian Churches are rejecting others when it comes to our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters. I am tired of hearing them say we love the sinner, but not the sin and then close their doors on the sinner. Where do they expect them to go? If they are not welcome in their church then you should take responsibility for sending them to the gay bars.

 If we could ever hate the sin in ourselves as much as we hate the sin in others, we might have a better idea what the Bible is all about. I have no righteousness to offer God, and neither do you. People tend to judge themselves based upon the sins they personally DON'T commit. People who don't commit adultery are quick to condemn others who commit adultery, because that's not their sin. Some Christians who are not homosexual are quick to condemn homosexuals without taking a good look at themselves.

 “Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortionist, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week; I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalted himself shall be abased; and he that humbled himself shall be exalted, “Luke 18:10-14.

We had all better think twice before we decide to throw rocks at other people who sin, denouncing them as evil, and taking delight in their troubles (HIV/AIDS). Our day of reckoning is also coming. So before you look down in disdain upon someone else who you think has sinned, you had better consider your own sins, because the Lord will judge us according to how we judge others.

Have you tested what your preachers or religious leaders said?

Pope Francis during a meeting of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Sciences said the scientific account of the beginning of the universe and the development of life through evolution is compatible with the Catholic Church’s vision of creation and he is being attack by some theologians/preachers for saying it.

Christians should reject the idea that the world came into being by chance, but to continue to dispute proven scientific facts makes a mockery of Christianity and the Bible.  Why can evolution not be part of God’s plan?

The author or authors of Genesis were trying to explain something they could not possibly understand at the time. They were not lying, but theologians/preachers today that continue to support the fantasy that everything was created in seven days are lying and I believe they know it. It insults my intelligence, the intelligence that God gave me, for them to continue to try and force me to believe a fantasy in order for them to consider me a Christian.

Just as some theologians/preachers today have a need to think they can explain everything some of the authors of the Bible may have suffered from the same weakness. I believe the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but it is not the dictated Word of God. It is time for theologians/preachers to stop trying to force us to believe that the Bible is a science book or history book. The Bible is a book that God used and continues to use to teach us moral values. Unfortunately, some authors of scripture allowed their personal moral values, which were influenced by man’s traditions and culture, to be included in the Bible and we must use our God given intelligences to try and distinguish between what is God and what is man.

I do not need to believe in fictional stories in order to believe in God. I do need to try and understand the lessons that are being taught by those stories in order to have a better relationship with God and to be a better person. Quite honestly, I do not believe God endorsed slavery; I do not believe God endorsed the killing of innocent women and children; I do not believe God endorsed denying women equal rights; I do not believe God endorsed many of the things found in Proverbs and Leviticus and I do not believe theologians/preachers that claim to believe in the literal translation of the Bible believe it either or they would apply them to their personal lives, instead of ignoring them as they do.

A lot of Christians today are making the mistake of listening only to theologians/preachers, instead of listening to the Holy Spirit. The Father sent the Holy Spirit to comfort and guide us. Yes, He instructed the disciples to go forth into all the world baptizing in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but he never said they were to become our god or take the place of the Holy Spirit.  God does not come in confusion and when a theologian/preacher speaks words that cause you confusion you need to get alone with God and allow the Holy Spirit to speak to you.  Do you not inject your personal beliefs into the things that you communicate? If you do then why do you think theologians/preachers do not do the same?

Transubstantiation is the teaching that during the Catholic Mass, at the consecration in Communion, the elements of the Eucharist, bread and wine, are transformed into the actual body and blood of Jesus and that they are no longer bread and wine, but they retain the appearance of bread and wine.

 In the year 1215A.D. Pope Innocent III decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. Five years later in 1220A.D. Pope Honorius sanctioned the adoration and or worship of the wafer and wine as doctrine. Then The Council of Trent re-confirmed the teaching: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."  The Council of Trent began Dec. 13, 1545 and ended on October 11, 1551. Was transubstantiation always ‘the conviction of the Church of God’ or did it come about in 1215A.D.

Saint Thomas said, “No act is greater than the consecration of the body of Christ. In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and the authority of God Himself. When the priest pronounces the tremendous works of Consecration, he reaches up into heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man.” How many times does Christ need to be sacrificed for our sins?

This doctrine gave the men of the church tremendous power. They could do something that no other man or woman could do. People who refused to believe they had this power were killed.

No matter if I do or do not believe the doctrine of transubstantiation it does not make me love the Catholic Mass any more or any less. Regardless of my belief I like the dignity, honor and respect the Catholic Mass gives the Sacrament of Communion. A respect that I do not think most Protestant Churches give Communion and a respect that I believe Communion deserves. I do resent being told I must believe one way or the other in order to be a Catholic.

The Protestants do have a valid argument against transubstantiation. Some of the verses used to substantiate the Catholic teaching are the following: Matt. 26:28, "for this is My blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins," John 6:52-53. "The Jews therefore began to argue with one another, saying, how can this man give us His flesh to eat? 53 Jesus therefore said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves,” 1 Cor. 11:27. “Therefore whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner shall be guilty of the body and the blood of the Lord." One could question are these words spoken literally or not and how could it have been possible for them to eat the body and drink the blood of Christ if He had not yet been sacrificed.

"But I say to you, I will not drink of this fruit of the vine from now on until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s kingdom," Matthew 26:29. Why would Jesus speak figuratively of His blood as "the fruit of the vine", wine, if it was His literal blood? Jesus called it wine. There are many more questions rightly raised by the Protestants.

I have gotten alone with God, pray, meditated, studied and sought direction from the Holy Spirit and I am content with my decision on transubstantiation and other Catholics must do the same.

Catholics are free to understand the story of Jonah and the whale as literal history or fiction to teach a moral lesson. If it happened, it was certainly a miracle. In 1891 a seaman, James Bartley, from a ship named the Star of the East, was found missing after an eighty-foot sperm whale had been caught. He was presumed drowned. The next day, when the crew cut up the whale, Bartley was discovered alive inside. We know that a man can live one day in the belly of a whale, but three days we do not know. Some Protestant theologians/preachers question the faith of Christians that do not believe the story of Jonah happened literally as told in the Bible.

I am content with the lesson we can learn from Jonah and the whale. It should bring comfort to all of us who fall short at times when it comes to obedience and when we attempt to run away from what we know God wants us to do. Jonah’s story should serve as a lesson to all who sometimes possess a short fuse and who at times are guilty of a superior attitude. What is more important, the lesson to be learned or accepting the story to be literally true.  I happen to think the lesson to be learned is more important.  

If anyone asks you do you take the Bible literally be careful how you answer. If you say "Yes," they may quote some Bible verses that, if taken literally, make little sense. For example Mark 9:42-48, which tells Christians if their hand or foot "offends" them, they should "cut it off," and if their eye "offends" them, they should "pluck it out." Do you really take that scripture literally? If you say “No.” they may claim the Bible means whatever the believer wants it to mean. Therefore, any person’s interpretation is as good — or poor — as anyone else’s.

I have found the best reply is, “I take the literal parts literally, the figurative parts figuratively, and I use common sense, my experience, my knowledge of language and grammar, the techniques of hermeneutics (interpretations) and rely on the Holy Spirit for help in knowing the difference.  I do the same thing you do any time you hear or read any statement by anyone about anything."

Knowledge of the Bible is a great thing to have; it can help you defend your faith and to teach others in it. But knowledge alone does not signify spiritual maturity. It is our personal relationship with God that causes us to grow spiritually. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to right interpretations. It is our personal relationship with God that leads us to a stronger faith.

I think God prefers us to know what we believe and why we believe it rather than being spoon fed religious beliefs without questioning them. I know it makes for a stronger faith and not a weaker faith. Unfortunately the beliefs and faith of the majority of Christians today are based on what the leadership believes and not what the Christian personally believes.  

Do you feel the Catholic Church has failed you?

I have reached a point where I can no longer justify the actions of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. I have not had anything done to me personally, but I have witnessed for years how the hierarchy’s thirst to hold on to power and control has hurt and even destroyed others. I have managed to continue to attend Sunday after Sunday by telling myself the church is not at fault it is the hierarchy of the church that is at fault.

I thought Pope John Paul I would bring change, but his death came too quickly. I thought Pope John Paul II would bring about change, but he caved to the misguided Cardinals. I knew when Pope Benedict XVI came to power all hope for change was lost.  I still cling to hope that Pope Francis can bring about change, but I do not think I will live to see it due to my bad health.

I realize the church is governed by men who are not perfect. Anyone who expects them to be flawless is not logical. I can deal with not personally agreeing with some of the decisions they make, but when I see people being hurt by their decision it is difficult for me to deal with that.

For years I have ask God Do I leave or do I stick it out and continue to hope for change? There are many denominations that I could attend like Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian or Presbyterian, but I love the Mass. No other denomination could replace the Mass for me.

 “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Matt. 16:18.

No matter the issue of hurt, harm or anguish, Jesus is the head of the church, not the pope, not the cardinals, not the bishops and that will never change.  Unfortunately, many in the hierarchy of the church have come to believe it is their church, they are in charge, they make the rules and the rest of us must follow without questioning them.

“So shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.” Isaiah 55:11.

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more the heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him.” Luke 11:13.

When in doubt I go the Bible and the Holy Spirit for guidance. If the words of the hierarchy do not line up with the Bible and the direction the Holy Spirit leads me I ignore their words.

The Holy Spirit does not just speak to the hierarchy of the church He speaks to us to. When we are living in close relationship with God, the close proximity of our heart to His allows us the privilege of hearing as He speaks to us with peace in our decision-making processes.  If you are walking with God and do not feel peace about a situation then something is wrong for our God is not the author of confusion. (I Cor. 14:33). There is a reason the Holy Spirit is not giving you peace and this should guide your decisions in all situations, including church situations.

There was a time when it bothered me to hear a Christians say, ‘The church has failed me’.  I now think differently because if you are Catholic you have no say in the decisions of the church. If you are Protestant you do. Protestants have a say in making the church what it should be, but Catholics do not.  If you risk speaking out in the Catholic Church you risk being excommunicated. There is no democracy within the Catholic Church and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church would be the first to admit that. The hierarchy has unquestionable authority. The priests cannot even question their authority.

Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe artificial birth control is a sin? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorced and remarried people should be denied Communion? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe divorce should not be allowed? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and Catholic priests believe you can pray the dead into heaven? Do you honestly believe all Catholic laity and priests believe the same on the issue of homosexuality? Do you honestly believe all Catholic priests were for the bishops covering up pedophilia by other priests?  I know they do not and did not! Many priests reported child abuse to their bishops and it fail on deaf ears.

The church hierarchy is not infallible; neither are the pastors. What do you do as a Catholic when you are assigned a pastor by the bishop that is lazy, arrogant, and stubborn, has a bad attitude, and never prepares a homily? You do nothing because you have no say on who your pastor will be or who the assistants will be. You pray you can tolerate him for six years. If you are Protestant you take it up with the Board or Elders.

For decades and decades and decades we sat silently suspecting something might be odd with our priest, but we never uttered a word that he might be molesting children. When some began to speak out they were not only attack by the hierarchy of the church they were attacked by some priests and some of the laity.  We had been trained well. Catholics never speak in a negative way about their priest. To speak against the priest or the hierarchy is to speak evil of the Catholic Church. I would venture to say some feel it is speaking evil against God.

I am all for having people of authority in the church, but I am not for those people abusing that authority. All organizations need authority figures, especially the church.

There was a time in history when absolute control may have been justified, but not today.  Any curious challenge or genuine question about Scripture, teachings traditions or doctrines is seen by the hierarchy as a direct attack on church leadership. I know people who have been branded as spiritually rebellious for questioning something they've been told rather than silently accepting it without question.

I feel like the hierarchy of the church is preoccupied with maintaining its position of authority in a changing society rather than seriously challenging itself. It appears to me the hierarchy would prefer the church to be an outdated museum than a relevant part of modern society. It refuses to make any changes to adapt to modern society. The attitude seems to be if it worked in 300A.D. it should work today and if it does not then something is wrong with you. The Church hierarchy has allowed the church to become out of touch and ineffective. It has become steeped in hypocrisy and complacency.

“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9).

This is speaking of confessing our sins to God not man.  There was a time when only the bishops could forgive abortion and allow you to take Communion again. Now the bishop can allow the priest under him to forgive abortion and permit you to take Communion again.  This is a change and a good change, but whose Communion is it, the bishops, the priest or Gods? Why does a woman have to tell her bishop or priest about the abortion if she has confessed it to God, repented and sought forgiveness. It seems to me the change did not go far enough, but we do not have the right to question if the change went far enough or not.

“…for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself (herself).” 1 Corinthians 11:29.

This scripture does not say he that gives the Communion brings damnation to himself. It says the one taking the Communion unworthy brings damnation to himself. Should the worthiness to partake in Communion be between God and the Communicant or the hierarchy/priest of the church and the Communicant? Should anyone have the right to deny another Christian the right to take Communion? None of us hierarchy/priest/laity are really worthy.  How can my divorced friends and homosexual friends feel a part of the church when they are judged by the church every Sunday?

Don’t tell me we cannot change we no longer own slaves, we no longer kill our children that talk back to us, we no longer require women to remain silent, we no longer consider women property of men, we no longer require women to cover their heads in church, we allow women to do the 1st and 2nd readings and we are now allowed to attend weddings and funerals at churches of other denominations. This is just a few of the unjust and silly cultural/traditions that we have done away with.

My closing words to the hierarchy/priest/pious laity is take the 2x4 out of your eye before you try to take the splinter out of your brother’s or sister’s eye. Then maybe we can become the church God called us to be.

Do women not have the ability to be priest - church hierarchy think not.

The Catholic Church (my church) declared Mary the most important human being of all time. The Catholic Church has put more attention on Mary than any other denomination. I think they have put too much emphasis on Mary and it has caused confusion among Catholics. Instead of revering Mary some Catholics, especially in third and second world countries worship and some even want to put her on the same level as Jesus Christ. But, the same church refuses to ordain women.

God has given women many important roles in history, but man continues to deny her the right to be a priest. The men of the church hierarchy claim they have in the past and continue to deal with the question of ordination of women the same way they approach every other important decision; with prayer, the Bible, Church Tradition and the wisdom of theologians. They claim, “The Church wants to know what God has to say about this, and we believe God does not want women ordained priest.” The words they use seem to tell me they really see themselves as “the church”. PRIDE!

John Paul II, whom I love and respect, said: "Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren, I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful."

I have no problem with Pope John Paul II decision not to ordain women that was his right to do so. I disagree with his believing that all Catholics must agree with him and not question what he said.

There are many people in the Catholic Church that pray and read the Bible as much as the hierarchy of the church. I also believe God speaks to everyone’s heart. In fact, I know many priests that the only time they read the Bible is during the Mass. I know many priests that do not have any personal prayer time. I know many priests that do not consult God on personal or professional decisions.

The thought that theologians know more about what God wants than devoted Christians is arrogant to me. One of the problems within our church is that many of the theologians think that seminary training makes them experts in all things pertaining to God. It certainly does not make all of them good preachers. It seems some priest think wearing the right vestments and clerical clothes make them more important than the laity in the church. They think because they are the only ones that can administer the sacraments the church cannot function without them. This alone is a good reason for ordaining women.

I do not think Pope John Paul II was a chauvinist, but I do think he relied too much on church traditions, that were established by men, and considered the personal feelings of Cardinals and Bishops too much when making his decisions.

Relying on church traditions have value, but they can also be abused and prevent needed reform. One of the main differences between Protestants and Catholics is Protestants rely more on the Bible than traditions and it seems Catholics often rely more on traditions.

Many traditionalist Catholics disliked Pope John Paul II because they felt he was "too liberal". Many of us who loved Pope John Paul II thought he would bring more needed changes to the church, but he did not because he was too conservative in many areas and unlike Pope Francis did not have the personality to stand up to those who opposed his ideas.

 I do not think his position on ordination of women was about discriminating against women or that women did not have the abilities needed to be a priest, but rather he thought he was following God's desire for the Church and feared it would cause too much division in the Catholic Church. Some in the church will argue he was proven right because Methodist, Anglican and Episcopal ordained women and it caused their attendance to decrease and caused divisions in their denominations.

Change regardless if it is good or bad always brings division and causes some to leave that cannot adapt. All denominations, including Catholic, have suffered losses in attendance. This is due more to changes in society than anything else. We would suffer more loss in attendance if not for Second and Third World countries where “OBLIGATED ATTENDANCE” is still taken seriously. In addition our membership grows every time we baptize an infant.  

There are less conservative people who will argue that Pope John Paul II did not declare for the church to not ordain women from the 'Chair of Peter', therefore the statement was not "infallibly" made. I am one of them. He left the door open for change someday.

The ultra-conservatives in the Catholic Church will argue that those of us who make the “infallibly” claim are the same ones who want same sex marriage and contraception use approved by the pope. They are correct when they accuse me of wanting to broaden contraceptive rights. I am for non-abortive artificial contraception. I think God is more pleased with people who use contraception, instead of bringing children into the world they cannot properly educate, clothe, feed and provide medical care for. I believe each denomination has the right to decide if they will perform or not perform same sex marriages. I believe the government should provide some type of protection for those in same sex relationships that want to commit to one another and have the same protection as those in opposite sex relationships have. I do not want to call it “marriage” because I do respect the tradition of “marriage”.

I think Jesus Christ allowed Himself to be influenced by traditions when it came to some issues pertaining to male and female. One cannot deny that Jesus Christ gave power to women that at the time were unheard of. I know that Jesus Christ broke many Jewish traditions, but that does not mean He did not choose a female to be one of the twelve disciples because He did not believe women were qualified to have the title disciple or that He was sending us a message in 2015 that women should not be ordained. I think He did not bestow the title of Disciple on a female follower because it was a tradition that He knew would make His ministry and the ministry of His follower even more difficult than it was.

Those that argue Jesus was a tradition breaker and would have given the title of Disciple to a female if it was acceptable to His Father will say He broke other traditions pertaining to women such as healing a woman on the Sabbath; speaking with the Samaritan woman and freeing the woman caught in adultery from being stoned. They will argue that Jesus was clearly not afraid to break the traditions of His time; therefore if it was okay to ordain women today He would have designated a female disciple. It is true that Jesus was not afraid to break Jewish traditions, but He also honored many Jewish traditions in order not to offend the Jewish leaders unnecessarily. He knew to pick and choose the battles He wanted to encounter.

Ultra-conservatives within the Catholic Church will argue we have to consider that there were women performing similar roles to a priest in other religions at the time of Jesus, therefore it is inaccurate to say there was no historical precedence for women being priest. There were not women performing priestly duties in the JEWISH religion. The women performing priestly duties were priestesses in PAGAN religions. The Jewish leaders bitterly opposed the priestesses and I am sure they would have accused Jesus of starting a pagan religion if He would have suggested women priest or women disciples. It would have created an unnecessary battle for Jesus and His followers to fight.

Ultra-conservatives will say scripture refers to the Bride and Bridegroom when speaking of the relationship between Christ and the church. I certainly agree with that, but scripture is talking about JESUS CHRIST relationship with the CHURCH not a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest relationship with the church. Are they trying to say that a pope, cardinal, bishop or priest has the SAME relationship with the church as Jesus Christ?

Their argument is the priest represents Christ "In persona Christi" when administering the Sacraments, and as such is the groom of the church and must be male. In persona Christi is a Latin phrase meaning "in the person of Christ" a man-made theological concept, not a Biblical concept and refers to the action of a bishop or priest while celebrating a sacrament.

The priest acts in the person of Christ in the pronouncing of the words of the sacramental rite. There are essential moments in the rites where the priest's words and gestures confect the sacrament, change bread/wine to body/blood. I guess it really comes down to they believe men have certain mystical powers women do not have when it comes to saying ‘certain words’.

Ultra-conservatives will argue that Pope St. Gelasius (494 AD) wrote a letter of discipline to an area that was allowing women to serve at the altar. They will say it does not prove there was a historical precedent for female priest it only proves that some in the church were violating the rules of the church and they were wrong and just as Saint Paul did Pope St. Gelasius stepped in to correct mistakes in the administration of the Eucharist.

Ultra-conservatives put total faith in the magisterium which gives the pope, cardinals and bishops the authority to lay down what is the authentic teaching of the Church. I believe unity is not only important, but is essential, but unity dictated by a few in the hierarchy of the church without the opportunity for the laity to offer opposing views can also be dangerous. In essences it requires Catholics to turn their brains off when it comes to matters of the church, religion, teachings, etc., and accept the words of the hierarchy to be the only truth.

It could be interpreted by non-Catholics or Catholics who are not willing to turn their God given brain off that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is trying to say God only speaks to them. According to the church hierarchy if they say God does not want women to be ordained the matter is not open for discussion. I think it also says volumes about the hierarchy of the church wanting to guarantee that males control the church.

I would say most Catholics do not know that women with theology degrees are now "Chaplains" in most Catholic high schools and universities. Ultra- conservatives argue the term "chaplain" can only be used for a priest, Canon Law 564-572. They also claim that some of these women are not being made to be extra careful to uphold the teachings of the Church the way the priest are.

Here are some of the arguments the ultra-conservatives use to try and get women chaplains removed from schools and universities – THEY TEACH: Scripture is not inerrant, and only parts of it are the true Words of God, it should be read with a critical eye; Many of the miracles can be explained in natural ways, like the miracle of the loaves came from people sharing what they already had; Purgatory is an invention of the Middle Ages to keep control of the masses and keep them obedient to the Church and make money; Contraception is good if sex outside of marriage is going to be practiced and total dependency on chastity among youth, due to peer pressure and hormones, is unrealistic in society today; The Magisterium is an "old boys club", not the institution put in place by Jesus to guard and direct the Church; Same sex attraction is very complicated and the Church should not make an absolute pronouncement that it is disordered to act on it; Confession is a good psychological cleansing, but that's about all it is. A priest isn't necessary to reconcile with God and Baptizing is a good tradition that fosters belonging, but it is not the means of salvation.

I have found male chaplains that teach and believe the same way the female chaplains do. There does not seem to be the same outcry against the male chaplains as it is against the female chaplains. Is it possibly a sexist thing? I have found many priest believe as the female and male chaplains do.

One ultra-conservative said this, “… my prayer is that one day the majority of women with theology degrees who work in high school chaplaincy offices will focus on teaching the Word of God, rather than challenging it. All the faithful women I know have absolutely no interest in challenging the Church teaching on a male priesthood.” Of course they don’t, because they are comfortable with being where they are in the church structure and have no desire to advance to a higher position within the church. I do not think these women chaplains are challenging the Word of God they are challenging the Word of Catholic men in authority.

Ultra-conservatives use the fact that the Catholic Church included in our Bible the book of "Judith", book of “Esther” and the book of “Ruth” as proof we do not discriminate against women. I really do not see the connection, but I suppose they do. They get really excited over the fact that Ruth wasn't even a Jew, yet she plays a key role in salvation history.

They even claim if the Catholic Church discriminated against women they would have rewritten the story of Mary – do they really believe we didn’t when most Catholics turn to Mary more than they do the Holy Spirit. I think we gave Mother Mary a role that God never intended her to have.

They think they have a real argument supporting the Catholic Churches refusal to ordain women by pointing out that the Catholic Church recognizes Martha, Mary Magdalene, Anna, Elizabeth and a dozen more women as a prophet. It would be hard not to recognize these women as prophets. I honestly do not see how recognizing a few women as prophets have anything to do with ordaining women.

Most ultra-conservatives put their hopes in Pope Benedict the XVI. They believed he would close all the doors that Pope John Paul II cracked open. I had one tell me that he bet I prayed every day that Benedict would die. I never hoped that and certainly never prayed that, but Benedict took care of the problem himself or divine province did when he retired.

I prefer to see qualified women ordained rather than see parishes closing because we do not have men to staff them and for some strange reason I think God prefers the same. The harvest potential is great, but there are not enough harvesters.

 

Sexual abuse among Protestant and Catholic leaders.

Many Protestants are naïve and dishonest when they imply that the pedophilia and sexual abuse problem is unique to the Catholic Church. Protestants can be very arrogant when pointing to Catholics.  The fact that most Protestant ministers are married does not mean they do not commit sexual sins.  There is really no data which demonstrates whether religion plays a role in this phenomenon. We do not know if sexual abuse is higher or lower in fundamentalist, evangelical and other Protestant denominations than the Roman Catholic Church.

There is no denying we Catholics had or probably still have a problem with sexual abuse in our church. I believe what was worse than the abuse itself, if anything could be worse, is the payoffs and cover-ups by the church. I think there was more internal outrage among Catholic to the church hierarchy simply transferring the abuser to another parish. It is hard to accept that the church hierarchy cared more for our priest than our people. Their actions seem to say they cared more for the abuser than the abused.

There is evidence of sexual abuse within fundamentalist, evangelical and other Protestant denominations. Sexual abuse is found throughout society. It is believed one in four girls is sexually abused as a child. The most shocking to me is approximately 1% of girls are abused by their own fathers before puberty.
 
Dr. James Dobson of Focus on the Family discussed a crisis among Pastors of non-Catholic churches. He reported that 21% of evangelical/Protestant pastors had had inappropriate sexual contact with members of their congregations. Sixty percent of evangelical pastors, most of whom are married, have a problem with pornography. In a 1984 study, 76% of pastors knew of another evangelical pastor who had sexual intercourse with a member of their congregation. The majority of these cases of improper sexual behavior involved an adult member who consented to the activity, but some were assaults on children and youth. Sin is sin!

Joe Barron, one of the 40 ministers at Prestonwood Baptist Church, one of the largest churches in the United States with 26,000 members, was arrested for solicitation of a minor after driving from the Dallas area to Bryan, Texas, in order to allegedly engage in sexual relations with what he thought to be a 13 year-old girl he had met online. The "girl" turned out to be an undercover law enforcement official.

FBI agents raided Tony Alamo Christian Ministries headquarters as part of a child pornography investigation. This investigation involved allegations of physical abuse, sexual abuse and allegations of polygamy and underage marriage. Reverend Tony Alamo was convicted on ten counts of transporting minors across state lines for sexual purposes, sexual assault and other crimes. He was sentenced to the maximum punishment of 175 years in prison.

Wayne Bent the founder of Lord Our Righteousness Church was convicted of one count of criminal sexual contact of a minor and two counts of contributing to the delinquency of a minor. He was sentenced to 18 years with eight years suspended.

James Truxton was an elder of the First Evangelical Free Church in Fullerton CA. women came forward to accuse Truxton of molesting them when they were children. The church removed Truxton as an elder and revoked his membership. Unfortunately, the accusations came more than 6 years after the abuse events and he could not be prosecuted under the state's statute of limitations. Later another woman came forward and the statute of limitations did not affect the case and he was convicted.

Daniel Vasquez is the pastor of an evangelical church and is being investigated following allegation that he sexually abused 30 boys. Vasquez denies the allegations, and says that the accusations are fabricated by members of his congregation who have been involved in a dispute with him.

Eddie Long is pastor of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, near Atlanta, GA. It is the largest Baptist megachurch in the U.S. Three male adult members of the church have filed a lawsuit accusing him of coercing them into sexual relationships when they were youths aged 17 or 18 in his congregation. Long is one of the most homophobic black leaders in the religiously based anti-gay movement. A fourth young member of one of Long's churches has accused Long of coercing him into a sexual relationship during a journey that they took to Kenya in 2005. His lawsuit claims that Long convinced him that "... engaging in a sexual relationship with his pastor was a healthy component of his spiritual life."  In other words Reverend Long’s philosophy is ‘do not do as I do, but do as I say’. This isn't the first allegation against a religious leader who has crusaded against gay marriage and homosexuality.

Ted Haggard left New Life Church of Colorado Springs, Colo., in 2006 after a male prostitute said Haggard paid him for sex. Haggard denied the allegations, but later admitted to "sexual immorality" and started a new church in June 2010 after he saw mental counseling and was healed of desiring sex with men. He has made a fortune off his book covering his sexual problems.  

Reformation.com lists allegations involving 838 Protestant ministers who have been accused of sexually abusing children: 147 Baptist Minsters, 251 fundamentalist/evangelical ministers, 140 Anglican/Episcopalian Ministers, 38 Lutheran Ministers, 46 Methodist Ministers, 19 Presbyterian Ministers and 197 misc. Church Ministers. I think I have provided enough facts that sexual abuse is NOT unique to the Catholic Church.

I do not think the percentage of abusers is higher among Catholic priests than among Protestant ministers. But, individual priests probably have more victims because they operate longer before they are caught. Some people view celibacy as an unnatural lifestyle (I do for those that do not want to be celebrate). They speculate that a higher percentage of priests are abusers than are Protestant ministers, because of the Catholic Church’s celibacy requirement. The implication is that if celibacy were made optional, then priests could marry and wouldn't abuse children. Most Protestant clergy are free to marry, and most heterosexual ministers and pastors do marry and evidence show that it has not slowed or prevented their sexual abuse problems.

What many do not realize is that there are married Roman Catholic priests. The existence of married priests within the Roman Catholic Church came about when the Episcopal Church decided to ordain females, about 95 Episcopal ministers in the U.S. were so distressed by the idea of sharing the priesthood with women that some converted to Roman Catholicism in order to remain in a purely male priesthood. The church allowed them to remain married. The number has grown over the years. 

The Christian mission field is a “magnet” for sexual abusers, said Boz Tchividjian (the grandson of Rev. Billy Graham), a Liberty University law professor, prosecutor and pastor who investigates sexual abuse. When comparing evangelicals to Catholics on abuse response he said, “I think we are worse than Catholics, too many evangelicals have sacrificed the souls of young victims.”

Protestant organizations also suffer from covering up sexual abuse. Protestant Mission agencies especially (where abuse is most prevalent) often don’t report abuse because they fear being barred from working in foreign countries. Abusers will get sent home and might join another agency. What data they have released shows 25 percent that are put out of the mission program for good are repeat cases.

Many religious leaders of all denominations and non-denomination discourage whistle-blowing by condemning it as gossip in order to try to keep people from reporting abuse. People of the church are told to protect the reputation of Jesus. I do not think Jesus wants his reputation protected by committing a crime and encouraging people to lie.

Frankly, I do not understand why the Catholic Church has taken a well-deserved beating in the courts and in the court of public opinion as former altar boys, orphans and ordinary parishioners come forward with appalling stories of sex abuse. Yet, equally horrendous violations by Protestant clergy fail to generate the same level of outrage.

Maybe it is because the Catholic Church is thought of as one monolithic entity. Maybe it is because the Catholic Church is a centralized hierarchy which makes Catholic offenders easier to sue and guarantees deep pockets. The lawsuits in turn generate their own news cycle and bring victims out of the closet. Maybe it is because most Americans are Protestants; the Catholic sex abuse scandal is a story about "them" and Protestant sex abuse is a story about "us," which makes it less gratifying and more uncomfortable. Maybe it is because most Americans find the idea of celibacy peculiar. It makes for a more interesting narrative than a generic story about abuse of authority. I am sure there could be many other reasons such as jealousy, prejudices, ignorance and just plan evil.

Sexual abuse is a crime regardless of who the violator is and should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Sadly, we have a long way to go to solve the problem if a solution is even possible. But, I beg the leaders of all churches, denominations and religious organizations to not cover it up – let justice for those violated occur!