Liberal and neo-liberal (professing evangelicals who deny the historicity of Genesis' creation account) are
culpable, having merited more stripes than those less privileged than they by virtue of rejected light. Erroneous theology is not a partial protection against sin, it may even act as an accelerant a catalyst to iniquity. For 'they have rejected the word of the LORD; and what wisdom is in them?' (Jer. 8.9).
It is His prerogative to 'choose their delusions', and with the perverse to show His cunning subtlety (תִּתְפַּתָּל) (Ps. 18.27).
It is no wonder then that homosexuality and other vices abound among them as they also do among atheists.
'The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests bear rule by their means; and my people love to have it so: and what will ye do in the end thereof?' (Jer. 5.31) Being teachers for itching ears, it is no wonder they are described by Zephaniah, 'Her prophets are light and treacherous persons: her priests have polluted the sanctuary, they have done violence to the law'.(2 Tim. 4.3, Zeph. 3.4) They are 'ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness', ' giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh' (σαρκος ετερας) like Sodom, 'spots in your feasts of charity,...feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.' (Jude 4,7,12,13)
The 'Is God anti-gay?' movement amongst professed 'evangelicals' is on the edge of their ranks. To them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. Since 'My people would not hearken to my voice; and Israel would none of me. So I gave them up unto their own hearts’ lust.'
Romanism: enforced clerical celibacy
The foreseen and foreannounced Roman 'doctrine of devils' of 'forbidding' clergy 'to marry' has produced massive inquity, as even Pope Francis is beginning to see (1 Tim. 4.1,3). Historical testimony to its manifold perversions abounds.
The writings of Elizabeth of Germany, abound with charges. She says, addressing the Bishops: " The iniquity of the land, which ye have hidden for the sake of silver and gold, ascends up like the smoke of a furnace." Maimburg, a celebrated Popish writer, says, "The lives of the clergy themselves are so horribly debauched, that I cannot, without trembling, relate the hideous description."
The sphere of their abominations was extended to the monasteries and nunneries-those pretended paradises of pristine purity. Cardinal Baronius, himself the last man to bring a false charge, confesses that "They were deformed with the foulest practices, and that there was no crime of which their inmates were not guilty."
Mapes, the Archdeacon of Oxford, an indisputable witness, who was intimately conversant with the state of the Continent, has recorded the results of his experience thus: -There is no demon worse than a monk! All the abbots I have ever seen, by their manner and conduct, lead men to hell." The renowned William of Paris, a monkish historian of the first distinction, moreover a lover of truth and virtue, has borne similar testimony. "The clergy, according to him, "have neither piety nor learning, but rather the foul vices of devils, and the most monstrous uncleanness and crimes! Their sins are not mere sins, but rather the most prodigious and dreadful crimes! They are not the Church, but rather Babylon, Egypt, and Sodom! The prelates, instead of building the Church, destroy it and make a mock of God!" Passing on to a later time, Alvarus Palagius, a Papist, in his "Lament of the Church," makes a similar charge against the clergy. According to him, "They are addicted to feasting, drunkenness, and whoredom, which is a common vice with them; and most of them also, are guilty of the sin which is against nature. They are not examples of good to the laity, as they ought to be, but rather the contrary; for in the present day, commonly the clergy are more wicked than the laity."
As bearing upon the subject of this chapter, he says, "Against that holy chastity which they have vowed to God, they offend constantly, even in public; besides those most horrid crimes, which they practice in secret, and which neither my paper will receive nor my pen will write." Let us hear another devout and faithful witness,
Catherine of Sienna, who thus testifies: - "In former times, the clergy were moral and faithful, but in the present day they are wicked. Wherever you turn you behold all the clergy, both secular and religious, prelates, and those subject to them, small and great, old and young, infected with crime, pursuing riches and delights, neglecting the support of the poor and the care of souls, simonaically selling the grace of the Holy Spirit, and mismanaging the affairs of the Holy Church. That which Christ purchased with his sufferings on the cross, they waste on harlots; they corrupt souls redeemed with the blood of Christ."
This bold and fearless writer, aroused by her zeal, thus apostrophized the clergy in the person of Christ, "Oh! diabolical tabernacle! I chose you to be the angels of the earth, but ye are incarnate devils, whose works ye do. Oh! wretched animal of uncleanness; thou showest thy flesh, anointed with sacred oil and consecrated to me, unto harlots; yea, thou doest still fouler iniquity."
But let us hear Giesler, author of the "Text Book of History." That most competent witness, speaking of the clergy, says: "Their chief offence, their incontinence, seemed to grow worse, the more there was done to restrain it. In no century had there been so many decrees passed against the concubinage of the clergy, as in the fifteenth, yet in none were complaints so common of their incontinence (which in Italy degenerated into unnatural vices), as well as derision and lamentation over the inefficiency of all the means used to restrain them. The number of the offenders made it difficult or impossible to carry into effect the more severe punishments, whilst the avarice of the Bishops substituted a pecuniary mulct, afterwards changed into an annual tax. The commonness of the offence made it seem to the clergy a light thing; of course the laity could not be expected to view it in any other light, and in consequence the vice increased to a fearful degree."
Taken from Iain Paisley's page on clerical celibacy
The Irish historian, William Lecky quotes the following form his History of European Morals:
"An Italian bishop of the tenth century described the morals of his time, saying that if he were to enforce the canons against unchaste persons administering ecclesiastical rites, no one would be left in the Church except boys. A tax was systematically levied on princes and clergymen for license to keep concubines"
Bernard of Clairvaux protested against enforcing celibacy on the clergy as contrary to human nature and Divine law, saying:
"Deprive the Church of honourable marriage, and you fill her with concubinage, incest and all manner of nameless vices and uncleanness."
Henry Bamford Parkes, in his A History of Mexico, says:
"Clerical concubinage was the rule rather than the exception, and friars openly roamed the streets of cities with women on their arms. Many of the priests were ignorant and tyrannical, whose chief interest in their parishioners was the exaction of marriage, baptism, and funeral fees, and who were apt to abuse the confessional."
Taken from Iain Paisley's page on clerical celibacy