More Obfuscation from Ashcraft…

Mr. Ashcraft issued a response of sorts… more like an elaborate excuse for why he is exempt from the educational standards the rest of the us are held to. His primary excuse is that as a “traditional Catholic,” he cannot attend seminary because all of the schools are inundated with homosexuals:

 A stumbling-block to orthodox men in the seminaries is a pervasive “‘gay subculture’, comprised of both students and faculty”; some of the seminaries have gleefully earned such nicknames as “Notre Flame (for the Notre Dame Seminary in New Orleans)” and “Theological Closet (for Theological College at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C.).”  “St. Mary’s Seminary in Baltimore has earned the nickname the ‘Pink Palace.'”  Heterosexual, orthodox men who do make it into the seminaries often find themselves under siege by the homosexuals and having to fend off sexual advances, even rape.

Would Mr. Ashcraft really have us believe there is not a single seminary he could attend that isn’t over run with homosexuals? I wonder what real Catholics like Francis J. Beckwith might say?  Of course, this behavior is nothing new in Roman Catholicism. It traces back to the medieval period infamously known as the “pornocracy” by historians. The ex-Jesuit, Peter De Rosa, writes of the medieval popes,

“They were less disciples of Christ than of Belial, the Prince of Darkness. Very many were libertines, murderers, adulterers, warmongers, tyrants, simoniacs who were prepared to sell everything holy. They were nearly all more wrapped up in money and intrigue than in religion.”[i]

The behavior described by Ashcraft is simply nothing new for Roman Catholicism and indeed should be expected from an institution whose own policies encourage it. In truth, the rule of celibacy has been an albatross to the Roman Catholic priesthood by forcing them to pursue proscribed means of satisfaction. It is not a new problem. John Calvin commented on it in his Institutes:

“In one thing they are more than rigid and inexorable—in not permitting priests to marry. It is of no consequence to mention with what impunity whoredom prevails among them, and how, trusting to their vile celibacy, they have become callous to all kinds of iniquity.”[ii]

Unfortunately, the Roman system encourages and invites perversion. While we already covered Pope Benedict XVI’s role in covering up and protecting the pedophiles, here we offer some explanation. Number one, it is important to note that no one starts out as a pedophile. Pedophilia is at the end of a long-term addiction which continuously escalates requiring more and more bizarre perversions to titillate and satisfy. The problem for Rome is that it will never stop because enslavement to sexual sin is inherent in the design of the priesthood.

Priests are forced into the impossible (for most) demand of lifetime celibacy. The vast majority, of course, fail in one form or another. In regard to sexual desire, Paul also taught, “But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn” (1 Co 7:9). But the celibacy rule makes it much easier to sin. If he commits a sexual sin like fornication, all that is required for absolution is confession to a fellow priest(s). All he has to do is tell one of his peers. It is easy to imagine a tit-for-tat arrangement: you forgive me of mine, I’ll forgive you of yours. However, if a priest were to engage in the only God-ordained means for sexual fulfillment—that is, within the bounds of a marriage covenant—then he is in big trouble.

In fact, the only way to get absolution for getting married is directly from the pope. If they do not get absolution, they believe they will suffer in hell. Can you see how they are virtually enslaved into a world of sinful, sexual pursuit? If they fornicate, they can easily gain absolution. If they marry, they risk excommunication. In this way, the system encourages them to pursue illegitimate perversions outside of God’s design. It is no wonder that Catholics with sexual attraction disorders flock to the seminaries. Because the homosexual issue is demonstrably nothing new, Ashcraft’s excuse amounts to so much special pleading.

Even unaccredited theology programs like Columbia Evangelical Seminary allow themselves to be accountable to the public. Unlike Ashcraft’s mystery school, transparency is indicative of holding high standards. Ashcraft has still failed to account for his listed degree. His LinkedIn profile lists an earned a Doctorate in Divinity from St. Sergius Seminary but only offers:

Sedevacantist bishops are purely sacramental bishops, and sedevacantist priests are purely sacramental priests. There are no claims of secular title, only religious titles and religious education alone. Such was the program I studied in, and I make no apology for doing so. …My own studies were partly formal and partly at the direct mentorship of a traditional Roman Catholic priest.

His argumentation is full of double speak. If formal then where? If via mentor then why create a fictional St. Sergius Seminary? If he is not looking for worldly recognition, then why list the faux credentials on a public profile?

 

[i] Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, 1st American ed. (New York, NY: Crown, 1988), 47.

[ii]John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, electronic ed., IV, xii (Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 1999). 23.

About Cris Putnam
Logos Apologia is the ministry of Cris D. Putnam. The mission of Logos Apologia is to show that logic, science, history and faith are complementary, not contradictory and to bring that life-changing truth to everybody who wants to know.

Comments

  1. Chuckles says:

    Cris said:

    His argumentation is full of double speak.

    That’s putting it mildly, Cris. Now, of course, he’s claiming you misunderstood him, and the real issue was rampant modernism in the seminaries, not homosexuality per se.

    The thing I don’t get is, if he’s so all-fired pro-Bible, what the heck is he doing in RC-ism at all, let alone in the so-called priesthood? He’s supposedly all anti-modernism, yet he sought “ordination” so he could perform the Eucharist?

    Seminarian or not, messed-up he is.

  2. Kim says:

    Easy way to turn a post about a sedevacantist into an anti-Catholic post, since sedevacantist, like you, are anti-Catholic. Irony of ironies your reading of Genesis is how the Catholic Church reads Genesis as well.

    • Chuckles says:

      Kim, who are you, and how do you know what my “reading of Genesis” is?

      According to Mr. Ashcraft, it’s “mainline Catholics” who are “anti-Catholic”., so, I guess one’s point of reference is critical.

      Btw Kim, I’m not “ant-Catholic”, I’m EX-Catholic, and pro-Bible. Having been brought up in RC-ism, I’m well aware of the unbiblical doctrines and practices involved in it. What strikes me as so startling about Mr. Ashcraft is his supposed defense of “traditional Christianity”–by which he means pre-Vatican II RC-ism of course–and his complete blindness to the grossly unbiblical nature of RC’s faith-plus-works “gospel” from the get-go. He’s all miffed about “compromising” a system which is so thoroughly and hopelessly compromised already. There’s irony, so thick, a cathedral could be built on it.

      • Kim says:

        Chuckles, my comment was directed at Cris’ original post not your comment.

        • Cris Putnam says:

          Kim the post is about Ashcraft claiming credentials he does not have… By all appearances he just lied about earning a Doctorate and made up a fictional seminary where he earned it. The rest is just a red herring from Ashcraft, so I used it as foil to discuss the problem of the priesthood in general.

        • Chuckles says:

          My apologies, Kim, for mis-reading the thread order, and mis-applying your post. Your comment about a “reading of Genesis” makes more sense to me now.

          To be fair to Cris though, I’ve never gotten the notion that he is anti-Catholic. His writing on the subject has always suggested to me that he wishes Catholic people to be delivered from that false faith, and embrace the biblical faith.

          Am I right about that, Cris?

          • Cris Putnam says:

            I am “anti-Catholic” theology because they cursed the gospel… I do wish the people the best. But that misses the point, this fellow Ashcraft said he couldn’t attend seminary because of corruption, I just pointed out it was nothing new. He is a charlatan trying to make TV appearances as a priest but he is not one.

          • Chuckles says:

            That’s what I figured, Cris.

            I have a problem with the term “anti-Catholic” (which has been leveled at me more than once) because it implies being against certain people. But as you say, it’s not about being against people, but against a certain theology which is hostile to the biblical gospel, and holds many people in bondage.

  3. Tarquin Rees says:

    The argument is a specious one. If one wants an education then one goes to an institution to receive that education regardless of the one’s co-students. My own University education was in several places blighted by of specific lifestyle-choices but I didn’t care because I was there getting my degree.

    If – and this is something in the original post – one of them had committed a crime against my person or there was a possibility of such, then that would not in anyway be a deterrent to going would it? Do you not go to the Mall in case you get mugged?

    And of course there is the old homophobic aspect to all this….but we probably have enough worms on our plate for now.

  4. Michael Sean says:

    I was brought up RC in an Irish Catholic family (I’m English) and was a catholic by habit for 22 years before disappearing into agnosticism and worse for another 20 years. I have a disability so when I was young the local church took me to Lourdes to get cured. It’s a strange old world.

    When I was only a child we had a parish priest who was young and ultra popular with the kids and families in our area. He was hard working, and charismatic, and made it his duty to make nightly visits to the local flock in our homes. He inevitably fell in love with a young woman and it became a scandal. He had a break down and was removed from his post. I met him some years later at another church where he was saying mass. He had become a shell of his former, enthusiastic self. I often think that he would have made a stunningly affective pastor, or even a vicar.

    Even my staunch catholic father never understood the celebacy vow. He just didn’t see where it had any purpose, and was only detrimental to the church.

  5. Bill Vaile says:

    The message of Christ is peace and love for your fellow man. It is not a message teaching us to attack others in self righteous judgement of them.

    We are to stand before Christ to be judged not some blogger attempting to elevate their status at the expense of others.

    Does this whole blog premise and subject seem very un Christian like? If it does not then maybe I know a different Christ than others do.

    Does anyone believe that going to school makes someone a better Christian?

    Does anyone believe that just because someone is on television that it makes them somehow less a believer, less a Christian?

    The devils greatest asset and Christ’s greatest enemy is denial so to say going on television as a Christian is a bad thing … well … Just ask Billy Graham that one.

    Does anyone believe that those who write these blogs as though they had the authority to pass judgement on others is somehow a better Christian for doing so?

    Can anyone truly imagine a world full of people who stand in condemnation of others and who pass judgement on them? The devil is rejoicing at the very idea!

    Finally I would ask what the author seeks to gain from this? Perhaps the very notoriety they are condemning in others? Honestly I cannot think of a single upstanding reason or purpose for this type of blog. It certainly is not Christian and it certainly does not promote any teachings of Christ that I am aware of.

    So I would ask .. purpose please? … or agenda??? If agenda then the purpose becomes perfectly clear and it has nothing to do with Christ!

    God Bless

    • Michael Sean says:

      You’re missing a vital point. This post is about Mr. Ashcraft lying about his credentials. Or do you think it’s okay to present yourself as something you are not, under the guise of following of Christ?

      These lies have been exposed by Cris so that those who may listen to Mr Ashcroft are now informed about the misrepresentation of his supposed credentials. As a man who professes Christ he has presented himself in a deceptive way. As Christians we need to expose the deceptions liars that can lead others astray, and as far as I am concerned Mr Putnam does this very well.

      When Christ exposed the Pharasees was he being “un christian like?”

      The Devil is the father of lies, and liars hate the light being shined upon them.

  6. Michael Sean says:

    “Pharisees”

  7. Bill Vaile says:

    To Michael,
    I would think there are much more important things to discuss than to spend time attacking or judging one person. Satan is wreaking havoc and the world is falling apart and we are spending time on this? Seems more than a bit myopic to me and I still question the motives. It seems like a personal agenda to me. It would seem far more important to spend the time and energy discussing how to defeat evil or how to honor Christ than to spend it on such issues. Missing the point? Not if we are to worship Christ and concern ourselves with that work. Thanks for your respectful reply and God Bless.

  8. Bill Vaile says:

    PS to Michael,
    To your point re the Pharisees. Yes that is true but to put your point in perspective had Chris written about Muslim extremism trying to destroy our world and our religion then I would wholeheartedly agree and it would be more to the point of your comparison. Thanks again and God Bless.

  9. Michael Sean says:

    To Bill

    I think happen to think that one of Cris’s talents is exposing bad theology, and frauds who claim to follow Christ. Something satan takes great delight in is Christians being led astray by such issues, and so yes I think spending time on this kind of thing is important work. It is certainly important for relatively new Christians like myself, who are perhaps still comming to terms with our new found faith and the fact that it is much more of an intellectual pursuit than I realised.

    Cris also has a body of work that explores all kinds of areas, and although I don’t whole heartedly agree with some of his conclusions it is very thoroughly researched, well written material.

    As for Christ and the Pharisees; because Jesus was a Hebrew exposing the Jewish hierarchy of the day, I think it still stands to some degree. Exposing liars, frauds, and hypocrites to his followers was something He certainly found important enough to include in his ministry. Wasn’t the Church at Ephesus commended because they “tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars ” (Rev. 2:2).

    Thanks for your reply

    In Christ, Michael

  10. Bill Vaile says:

    Michael,
    It doesn’t equate. The Pharisees were one of three sects of Judaism. They equate much more to the sects of Islam and even the different churches of today. They each had a different path. To say condemning or judging one and comparing that to what Jesus did is inaccurate and not a reasonable comparison. I believe I have said my peace. I will leave you with this and you can do some soul searching about whether Chris is following Christ when he judges and condemns others. With this I am signing off as this is not going to have any effect on someone who has an agenda and tries to hide behind Christ to justify it. Not you and I appreciate your respectful debate. I just hope you some day realize that we are not to judge others. We are to serve the Lord. God Bless you and good luck!

    Matthew 7:1-3 King James Version (KJV)

    7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.

    2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.

    3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

  11. Michael Sean says:

    To Bill

    I don’t see where Cris has really “judged” Mr Ashcroft. He has questioned his claimed academic credentials, which on evidence seem to be somewhat lacking in honesty. If anything his article has more of an issue with the Catholic church’s poition of celebacy for the priesthood.

    The “judge not, that ye be not judged” quote has been used against me (not that you are using it against me in this instance Bill) a few times since I came to Christ. It seems to me, in my layman’s mind, the quotes are not warning us never to judge, they are warning of the consequences of judging when we ourselves are guilty of the same or worse. In that respect it would be up to Mr Ashcroft, or one of his friends, to either prove Cris wrong, or point out where Cris errors in his own ministry. If we were to never judge we wouldn’t have prisons and we wouldn’t vote.

    Thanks again for your reply.

    In Christ, Michael

    • cyberpriest says:

      So then everybody else’s theology is wrong except for Mr Putman Yep, Right!

    • Bill Vaile says:

      Had to make one final point.

      In a fair God fearing society we should not simply accuse an individual then require they prove their innocence without evidence to justify the accusations. If we do not follow these simple but fair and equitable rules then anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Then the accused is required to defend or explain themselves or suffer the default position of guilt by the absence of a defense to an accusation to which they are entirely innocent.

      Hardly fair.

      Simply making an accusation without basis or fact is not only unfair it is obvious in it’s intent. So to this I say … Where is any proof that substantiates any accusations here or is this simply grandstanding for attention or agenda driven? It must be one of these.

      The facts to justify the ad hominem attacks please.

      Signing off but will be looking for the actual and documented facts to justify all these attacks!

Speak Your Mind