TOTAL SUBMISSION

Priests, according to Peter De Rosa, are seen by the Pope as civil servants who implement whatever they are told to do (pg. 201.)   

They are also the Pope's first and overall concern (much like the way in which the British Prime Minister, as the First Lord of the Treasury, will swear allegiance and loyalty to defend and protect the British Monarchy at all costs. Once this is done, he will be able to defend Parliament and then the Country - in this order.)   

With this is mind, one can now understand why Rome gave orders to prelates globally (like Boston), to put their dioceses into liquidation. Thus avoiding additional expensive compensational payouts, to numerous victims of Catholic paedophilia.  

And recently the Archdiocese of Portland, Oregon in the US, has declared itself bankrupt, due to the enormous cost of 50 million pounds in paedophilia payouts.   

In the diocese of Dublin alone, there are 400 claims still pending in the courts.  

Throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church, it has always been policy to bring the whole world to acknowledge Christ and His church.   

"Pope Gregory (590-604AD) was the first who claimed, as the representative of Deity, to be above all the kings of the world" (Grattan Guinness, Romanism and the Reformation, pg. 18.)     

Pope Leo XII also gave himself total dominion over the whole earth; he now saw himself as God (Great Encyclical Letters, pgs, 193; 304.)  

With this new power in hand, Popes (prior to Vatican II) actually had the power in many cases, to personally choose world leaders (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. II, pg. 666.)  

Or, in their own words, Pope Boniface VIII (1294-1303):

"The Pope is of so great dignity and excellence, that he is not merely man, but as if God, and the vicar of God. The Pope alone is called most Holy Divine monarch, and supreme emperor, and king of kings. The pope is of great dignity and power, that he constitutes one and the same tribunal with Christ, so that whatsoever the pope does seems to proceed from the mouth of God. The Pope is as God on earth." 

And in 1949 Pope Pius XII told Catholic priests, how they were not obliged to submit to civil authorities in whatever country they resigned (Catholic Encyclopaedia, Vol. XIV, pg. 779.)   

"The king of England (15th century) agreed to hold his kingdom as the pope's feudatory and to pay him annually one hundred thousand marks as an acknowledgment...Then the great and valiant emperor of Germany stood (15th century) for three winter days and nights barefoot in the courtyard of his holiness, waiting for the honour of an audience, in which he might beg the pope's pardon for having acted as an independent monarch!" (Guinness, pgs. 48,49.)    

No wonder three American Presidents (one still serving) knelt down at the body of the late John Paul II.

John Paul's long reign had only been successful, due to the iron grip and fear that he had had on his church. The Pope excommunicated and censored numerous theologians and bishops, which hadn't agreed with him wholeheartedly on his churches teachings in all areas of theology (and some non-areas of theology.)   

The Vatican, like the Jehovah Witnesses and Mormon Church, see itself as a modern day theocracy.   

Bishops and Cardinals are not allowed to publicly display their feelings on issues that don't reflect the Vatican's. 

Priests that I have known, live in almost terror of their bishops. Some fear being moved from one parish to another, with sometimes only three or four days notice. Priests don't own the presbyteries they live in, the diocese does. Therefore they have to be very careful not to fall out with their bishops, who in return also have to be very careful not to fall out with their superiors in Rome.   

The Vatican, by and large, has total control of over one billion Catholics. Perhaps only Chairman Mao matched this? For anyone who is not familiar with Catholicism, all this may sound like the dark ages returning with a vengeance.  

People may also be surprised to learn that priests don't receive a wage as such but a stipend and this is only about six thousand pounds per annum.

They do, however, get paid quite handsomely for weddings, funerals, baptisms and masses. Also Christmas and Easter offerings can exceed ten thousand pounds per priest, if his congregation can afford it.  

Some people may also be interested to know that all priests are given a special licence to preach, upon ordination, which the dioceses can and do, from time to time, withdraw from priests who haven't towed the line.   

Incredibly, numerous priests that have denied the Virgin birth, Deity and Resurrection of Christ, have not had their licences withdrawn. Yet for those who have questioned the Pope's Stazi grip, have had their licences withdrawn. So without this invaluable licence, priests cannot say mass and subsequently lose any income they would need to live on. 

One such person who fell foul of the Pope was their greatest theologian, Hans Kung. Yet he was not stripped of his credentials for denying the deity of Christ something he did do and nothing was said, but for questioning the pope's infallibility.  

(In Southwark, a laity group exists for priests and offers financial assistance to them, when they have fallen foul of their superiors.)  

I remember Walter Martin telling his radio audience how he once told Mitchell Pacwa, SJ, that his churches view on Mary was heretical. But what can Pacwa do? Agree with Martin? He probably did privately, but he couldn't do publicly, for fear of loosing his license.   

Also when priests retire, they receive no pension fund whatsoever for all the years of service that they have put in for their church (Bishops and Cardinals, it would seem do, however.)   

I know one priest who worries considerably about financial problems when he is elderly and no longer capable of working.  

I used to wonder how Rome was able to keep all its clergy and apologists in line with their traditional doctrines. It must be very frustrating when a Protestant apologist performs an excellent and precise exegesis on a certain Scripture, when the Catholic in return can't, even if he wanted to, agree with him. He has no option but to blindly close his eyes to the obvious and follow his fallible and ever changing Church. The problem for him, however, is when his Church changes their mind (Vatican II for example) and not only does a 360-degree turn, but also embraces other beliefs; something that has happened many times before (wait for Vatican III.)   

One such case of compulsory blind obedience dates back to the 1980s, when an American Jesuit, Terence Sweeny, refused to play ball with his Roman superiors. Sweeny had been commissioned by Cardinal Ratzinger (Rome's brightest theologian) to conduct a poll, in which he would ask 312 American bishops what they felt about issues such as female priests, celibacy and marriage for priests.   

Thirty-five bishops replied, but their views were not in accord with the Pope's.  

Upon Sweeny's results, Ratzinger repeatedly told him: "burn your research." 

Disgruntled with the immense pressure from Rome, he resigned from his post in utter disgust (De Rosa, pg. 200.)

James G. Battell, 2004

Updated, March 2007 

(All Rights Reserved)