(Insert for section on sin)

Priest were not always celibate. In fact, there are biblical scholars whose research has cast doubt on the supposedly celibate life of Christ. And once again, people who are willing to use common sense are going to conclude that Jesus had some kind of human sexuality. To deny that would be to deny him the most important part of being human. Not surprisingly, every Christian Church of nearly every sect claims Christ to be a virgin. Let's face it. Their rules about human sexuality preclude any other possibility. So we are left to believe Jesus had no sexual encounters and no lust in his heart. Even Jimmy Carter had lust in his heart.

Okay, lets say we are willing to swallow this nonsense. What is the precedence for priestly celibacy? There were no clear and absolute rules until 306AD when the Council of Elvira created regulations regarding the unholy act of touching pee pees. So for three hundred years after the birth of Christ, it was okay to screw. To any logical, sane human being this would beg the question, “Why did they get to do it?” And why don't we? Did God suddenly decide that his representatives on earth, the priests, had to stand outside the candy store?

You can imagine what a horrible rift this might have caused within the Church. You can also imagine that with a controversy like this, popular opinion would vacillate. You would be correct.

The act of love is allowed only within the confines of marriage and only for the utilitarian purpose of procreation. So don't be having fun in bed. At the core of Henry VIII's feud with the Church was sex. He wanted to have lots of it and with whomever he wanted. When the Catholic Church said no, he picked up his concubines and executioners and formed his own evil corrupted misogynistic Church.

We can always go to Paul if we want to see a completely perverted view of human sexuality: “He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided.”

Hate to break it to you Paul, but he who is without a wife is solicitous of pussy. In fact, he who is without wife is much more free to think than he who is with wife. He who is without wife in constantly in search of that which only a wife can give.

This kind of sexual repression sort of made sense in the days before condoms. It reminds me of the aversion to pork. We now know that improperly cooked pork can cause trichinosis. So it seems fortuitous that primitive Jews made it sinful to eat pork. They had no idea why they were doing it. They just knew there was something unclean about pork. Sex is even more dangerous than pork. So it sort of makes sense that primitive people would attempt to make a set of governing principles designed to make sex safe.