![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/09\/FranciscanMonk2.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nLucas Banzoli<\/a> is a very active Brazilian anti-Catholic polemicist, who holds to basically a Seventh-Day Adventist theology, whereby there is no such thing as a soul that consciously exists outside of a body, and no hell (soul sleep and annihilationism). This leads him to a Christology which is deficient and heterodox in terms of Christ\u2019s human nature after His death.\u00a0He has a Master\u2019s degree in theology, a degree and postgraduate work in history, a license in letters, and is a history teacher, author of 25 books, as well as blogmaster (but now inactive) for six blogs. He\u2019s<\/span> active on YouTube<\/a>.<\/p>\n This is my<\/span>\u00a043rd refutation<\/a> of Banzoli\u2019s writings. Since 5-25-22 he hadn\u2019t written one\u00a0 word<\/em> in reply, until he <\/span>responded on 11-12-22<\/a> to<\/span> Part 5<\/a> of my series on souls, and now, a second time. Why<\/em>? It\u2019s b<\/span>ecause he thinks my articles are<\/span>\u00a0\u201cwithout exception poor, superficial and weak\u201d and<\/span> that my<\/span> \u201cobjective\u201d was<\/span> \u201cnot to refute anything, but to exhaust [my] opponent.\u201d<\/span> He claims\u00a0that<\/span> \u201conly a severely cognitively impaired person would be inclined to take\u201d<\/span> my articles<\/span> \u201cseriously.\u201d<\/span> He didn\u2019t<\/span> \u201cwaste time reading\u201d<\/span> 37 of my 40 replies (three articles are his proof of the worthlessness of all<\/em> of my 4,000+ articles and 51 books). He also denied that I have a<\/span> \u201cjob\u201d and claimed that I don\u2019t<\/span> \u201cwork.\u201d I disposed of these and other slanderous insults on my Facebook page on 11-13-22<\/a> and again on 11-15-22<\/a>. Even so, Banzoli thought that replying to me was so \u201centertaining\u201d<\/span> that he resolved to \u201cmake a point of rebutting\u201d<\/span> my articles \u201cone by one.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n I use RSV for the Bible passages (including ones that Banzoli cites) unless otherwise indicated. Google Translate is utilized to render Lucas\u2019 Portugese into English. Occasionally I slightly modify clearly inadequate translations, so that his words will read more smoothly and meaningfully in English. His words will be in<\/span> blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n I\u2019m replying to Banzoli\u2019s article, \u201cA hil\u00e1ria tentativa de Dave Armstrong de encontrar o celibato obrigat\u00f3rio do clero na B\u00edblia\u201d<\/a>\u00a0[Dave Armstrong\u2019s Hilarious Attempt to Find Mandatory Clergy Celibacy in the Bible<\/em>] (11-15-22), which in turn was a response to my article:\u00a0On Whether Required Celibacy is \u201cBiblical\u201d<\/a> (9-24-22). My past words cited will be in green<\/span>.<\/p>\n [T]he Church . . .\u00a0 imposes mandatory celibacy as a condition to the priesthood \u2013 something that simply does not exist in the Bible<\/b>\u00a0.\u00a0And the biggest problem is not even that it \u201cdoes not exist\u201d in the Bible, but that\u00a0it explicitly clashes with it<\/b>\u00a0.<\/span><\/p>\n The principles<\/em> that lie behind<\/em> the requirement certainly are in the Bible. Therefore, our requirement doesn\u2019t clash with the Bible at all. It is agreeing with the portion of it that expresses exactly how we think about the issue. Banzoli started by citing these words of mine that sum up the biblical principle in play:<\/p>\n The Catholic Church (Latin or western rite; not all portions of the Church) has this requirement. But in so doing it simply chooses for its priests men who have already been called by God to celibacy (and to the priesthood). In that sense it isn\u2019t forcing them to do anything. By this reasoning, one would have to say that God \u201cforced\u201d them by calling them to that lifestyle in the first place. But they had the free will to follow that call or not, just as I did to follow my calling as an apologist. It wasn\u2019t \u201cmandatory\u201d that I did so. I chose to follow and pursue what I believe God has called me to, and for which he gave me various gifts (\u201clet every one lead the life which the Lord has assigned to him, and in which God has called him\u201d: 1 Cor 7:17).<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n I wrote:<\/p>\n But Lucas presupposes something that is \u2014 upon reflection \u2014 not true at all: the impermissibility of an institution or organization to draw up rules for its members, for whatever reason it sees fit and helpful. If someone wants to play in the NBA, they will have to have the ability to shoot baskets or play good defense. This rules out many people from the outset. A baseball umpire or a bus driver can\u2019t be blind. A major league pitcher has to be able to throw fast (much faster than the average person). A person in the military (on the battlefield) has to be healthy and physically fit. A kindergarten teacher has to like small children. A gardener can\u2019t have severe allergies. A talk show host has to like to talk. Etc., etc.,\u00a0ad infinitum<\/em>.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Banzoli\u2019s \u201canswer\u201d to this (which is no answer at all but merely a \u201cblow off\u201d) is:<\/p>\n It\u2019s hard to know if Dave really missed the point or if he\u2019s just playing dumb with his \u201cillustrations\u00a0ad infinitum<\/i>\u00a0\u201c.\u00a0The problem is not that the Church has its own rules;\u00a0the problem is that these rules clash directly with Scripture<\/span><\/b>.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n The rule obviously does not<\/strong><\/em> clash with Scripture at all<\/em>, because it teaches that there is such a thing as a person who is called to celibacy by<\/strong><\/em> God<\/strong><\/em> (1 Cor 7:17 + 9:32-35; Mt 19:12). Since the model exists, we are not contradicting Scripture in choosing to follow this very high and self-sacrificing in the case of our priests. Banzoli himself conceded that not all priests must<\/em> <\/strong>marry. Therefore, no contradiction exists between our policy and the Bible. We simply want the men whom Paul describes as being \u201canxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord\u201d (1 Cor 9:32) and those who have an \u201cundivided devotion to the Lord\u201d (1 Cor 9:35). Sounds like the perfect folks to guard over a flock to me!<\/p>\n Dave prefers to continue deceiving people into believing that there is \u201cbiblical evidence\u201d for Catholicism, while rejecting the Bible at the earliest opportunity.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Right. The apostle Paul taught that \u201crevilers\u201d will not \u201cinherit the kingdom of God\u201d (1 Cor 6:10). Banzoli is already in danger of hellfire by denying that Jesus is God<\/a>, and in so doing, becoming an apostate from the Christian faith. He needs a lot of prayer, and I strongly urge my readers to keep him in their prayers: to extend that basic Christian charity to this deluded, highly confused non-believer and heretic. But I don\u2019t deny his sincerity (as he does, mine). He\u2019s just sincerely wrong<\/em> again and again.<\/p>\n But if obligatory celibacy (in the sense already explained above) were just as obvious, why was it not imposed neither in the OT law of God, nor by Jesus, nor by the apostles?<\/span><\/p>\n It didn\u2019t have<\/em> to be. The model<\/em> on which it is based is in Holy Scripture: in people like Jeremiah, John the Baptist, St. Paul, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and even our Lord Jesus. Let me ask him a question in return: if \u201cfaith alone\u201d is supposedly a \u201cpillar\u201d of biblical belief, why is it never taught anywhere in Scripture, and why is it condemned<\/em> in at least one place?:<\/p>\n James 2:24, 26<\/strong> You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. . . . [26] . . . faith apart from works is dead.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And why is sola Scriptura<\/em> (i.e., the Bible as the only infallible norm and standard of doctrine and theology) never taught anywhere<\/em> in the Bible (while it is contradicted<\/em> all over the place. I wrote a book listing 100 of them<\/em><\/a>)? But heroic celibacy for the sake of undistracted devotion to the Lord and service towards others is a perfectly biblical<\/em> principle, without question, and beyond all argument. We choose to take Paul\u2019s and Jesus\u2019 wise advice concerning it and to follow it, in the case of our priests in the Latin, western rite. Eastern Catholics, however, who are just as much Catholics as anyone else, chose to not require it, just as even the Latin Church did for some 1,000 years before it changed its disciplinary requirements.<\/p>\n Dave is literally calling God, Jesus and the apostles imbeciles for not realizing something so obvious,<\/span><\/p>\n They didn\u2019t have to \u201crealize\u201d anything. They taught that God has a calling \/ vocation for every believer, that they must follow (1 Cor 7:17; Mt 19:12). Most of us get married; a small class follows the celibate life, with its spiritual advantages for their particular calling. Both are in God\u2019s will. If it had been an ironclad requirement and \u201cdogma\u201d for all, then there would have been no married Christian workers: like priests in Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, or deacons in western Catholicism, or apologists like myself, or all the married catechists and teachers in Catholic schools. God has a plan for each individual life.<\/p>\n it\u2019s as if the Roman Catholic authorities had more insight into celibacy as a condition of the priesthood than God Himself<\/span><\/p>\n Nonsense. Jesus is<\/em> God, and He taught the principle involved here in Matthew 19:12. But of course, since Banzoli denies<\/em> that He is God, this example wouldn\u2019t count for him. Paul reiterates it and explains it in depth in 1 Corinthians 9. We haven\u2019t invented anything. We\u2019re following the celibacy model personally exemplified by Jeremiah, John the Baptist (likely also Elijah, Elisha, and Daniel)<\/span>, St. Paul, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and our great God and Savior Jesus Christ. And Paul often stressed that his followers should imitate him, and even wrote (in the context of discussing marriage and singleness):<\/p>\n 1 Corinthians 7:7-9<\/strong> I wish that all were as I myself am. . . . [8]\u00a0To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain single as I do.\u00a0[9] But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n God allows it, but the Catholic Church does not,\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n That\u2019s not true. We do in Eastern Catholicism. And we also do in exceptions made for a few priests even in the western rite: particularly those who converted from Anglicanism and were priests there (and married). I myself have known two of these men. The Catholic Church reasoned that Paul was an excellent model to follow; took his own advice, followed his own preference, and wanted her priests to be like he<\/em> was, and to \u201cremain single\u201d; following also the models of Jeremiah, John the Baptist (likely also Elijah, Elisha, and Daniel)<\/span>, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and our Lord Jesus Christ. I think it was an excellent choice, based upon superb and unsurpassed biblical models, including the model of the God-Man Himself: God the Son, Jesus Christ.<\/p>\n The problem is when a priest is\u00a0forced\u00a0<\/i>to be one thing or another, as if the opposite were a sin<\/span><\/p>\n We never said the opposite was a sin (while Banzoli almost implies that our celibacy requirement is<\/em> a sin). It\u2019s the distinction between \u201cvery good\u201d and \u201cbetter\u201d or \u201cheroic self-sacrifice for the sake of the kingdom.\u201d<\/p>\n Dave\u00a0<\/span>knows<\/span><\/i>\u00a0I\u2019m not saying it\u2019s mandatory to have a wife and children,\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Great! Then this entire discussion has now been rendered null and void . . . If marriage isn\u2019t mandatory<\/em> for clergy, then there is such a thing as chosen celibacy, and all the Catholic Church does is acknowledge that this class of people already exists, by God\u2019s express will, and that it is an excellent \u201cpool\u201d from which to draw our priests.<\/p>\n When Peter says that\u00a0<\/span>\u201cwe have left our homes and followed you\u201d<\/span>\u00a0(Luke 18:28), the meaning is not that \u201cwe have left our wives and children\u201d, as Dave claims, but that he has prioritized Jesus over family ties.<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n It\u2019s not me<\/em> saying or inventing this, but our Lord Jesus:<\/p>\n Mark 10:19-20<\/strong> Jesus said, \u201cTruly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children<\/em><\/strong> or lands, for my sake and for the gospel,\u00a0[30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children<\/strong><\/em> and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Peter makes it more clear what was being discussed, by saying, \u201cwe have left everything<\/strong><\/em> and followed you\u201d (Mk 10:28). So Jesus comforts His disciples by noting that anyone who left any and all family members and\/or properties for the sake of the gospel would later receive a \u201chundredfold\u201d for doing so. In other words, they would later be rewarded for what they were now voluntarily depriving themselves of.<\/p>\n What\u2019s really stupid is that Banzoli cites Luke 18:28 and denies that it is also about (or potentially about) children<\/em>, despite the fact that Jesus interpreted the passage in the next verse<\/em>, where He talked about those (like His disciples) who had \u201cleft house or wife or brothers or parents or children<\/em>, for the sake of the kingdom of God\u201d. So Banzoli interprets the Bible according to his own preconceived notions (up to and including denying that Jesus is God). I interpret it with the wonderful help of people like, oh, how about Jesus<\/em>?<\/p>\n the intended meaning is that we should prioritize Jesus above everyone else<\/span><\/p>\n Exactly! And so we are saying that, for the priest, service to Jesus and the flock is prioritized above having a wife and family, per Paul\u2019s wise advice (part of infallible, inspired Scripture) in 1 Corinthians 7.<\/p>\n Dave read[s] the Bible like a 6-year-old reads a Marvel comic. <\/span>There is not the slightest interest in capturing the\u00a0<\/span>meaning<\/span><\/i>\u00a0of the texts,\u00a0<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n Right. Whatever you say . . .<\/p>\n it shows the extent to which Rome is willing to destroy families in order to sustain mandatory celibacy.<\/span><\/p>\n Mark 10:19-20<\/strong> Jesus said, \u201cTruly, I say to you, there is no one who has left house<\/em><\/strong> or brothers or sisters or mother or father or<\/em><\/strong> children<\/em><\/strong> or lands, for my sake and for the gospel,\u00a0[30] who will not receive a hundredfold now in this time, houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children<\/strong><\/em> and lands, with persecutions, and in the age to come eternal life.<\/p>\n Mark 10:28<\/strong> Peter began to say to him, \u201cLo, we have left everything<\/em><\/strong> and followed you.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or<\/span>\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0<\/span>become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to<\/span>\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0<\/span>why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0<\/span>full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/span><\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0<\/span>About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/span><\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n