Another terrible article from Father de Souza

I hate the National Post. It was started by Conrad Black, who is undoubtedly one of Canada’s biggest scum bags. He wanted to start a newspaper to reflect the conservative attitudes of some Canadians. It’s the equivalent of Fox News here in the Great White North, with all the integrity you would expect from such a publication.

One of their regular contributers is Father Raymond J. de Souza. I’ve written a few articles about the nonsense he’s published, but this one sure beats the cake: His latest article is entitled “Why Priests Don’t Have Kids“, and de Souza seems convinced that the reasoning behind it is for men of God to be able to purify themselves in anticipation of the next life.

Father de Souza is convinced priests are supposed to emulate and follow the examples of Jesus, which is what I also thought before I did a little research of my own. It’s true, according to the Bible, Jesus had no children. In fact, throughout the Gospel, Jesus suggests his disciples and followers abandon their jobs and families in order to follow him. In his eyes, the rebirth of the Kingdom of God was at hand, so there was no need to do anything more than prepare for End Times (he told his followers he would return before anyone of them would perish, a promise he unsurprisingly never fulfilled).

The actual reason why Catholic priests can’t marry, however, has little to do with the life of their Messiah. It’s entirely because of money. Before the 11th century, it was not uncommon for priests to have wives and children, but as these kids grew up, their fathers would have to leave them an inheritance, and this redistribution of resources was costing the Church dearly. InĀ 1139, the Second Lateran Council forbade the marriage of priests altogether and declared all existing marriages involving priests null and void, (these voided marriages simply turned their spouses into concubines). The Council of Trent in the 1500′s would officially make celibacy the norm, and from there, it was easy to sell the idea that it was somehow more devotional and pure, since Catholics view human nature as inherently sinful.You were devoted to the institution when you joined, and not towards family loyalties.

Yet this priest seems to be totally unaware of the political and financial reasoning behind celibacy, thinking instead that the amount of time and devotion he requires would not allow him to be a good father. That doesn’t seem to have stopped any priests in other Christian faiths from managing both. But then again, Catholics are so busy telling people they are terrible and evil sinners that perhaps it’s best they don’t have children anyways.

I’ll let Father de Souza explain in his own words the value of his celibacy:

The priest, and others in consecrated celibacy, lives now as a sign of the world to come, with his life fixed upon the promise of the eternal fulfillment God provides. In freely renouncing the great good of married life and children, the priest points to the world to come. Indeed, without the world to come, the celibacy of the priest would make little sense.

You’re right about one thing, Father. It makes very little fucking sense.

(props James for the link)

Comments (2)

  • avatar

    Aaron

    Also, most reformed Churches allow their priests to marry. Luther said that celibacy is unnatural. This is probably why you don’t here about any Protestant ministers molesting children; they get all their fucking done at home.

  • avatar

    Jacob Fortin

    They do molest kids too, but they don’t have a conspiracy to cover it up, that’s the difference.

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top