Under this pope, I think, homosexual persons have become inherently morally sick, Untermenschen in his own language, moral lepers incapable of self-governance and liable to make the church "unclean." They cannot marry or form stable relationships; they cannot remain celibate; and they are all potential molesters of children. What other logical inferences are possible from this new policy? -- Andrew Sullivan commenting on the remarks by Archbishop Edwin O'Brien who said that homosexuals should be barred from the Roman Catholic priesthood.
Priests take a vow of celibacy.
If a priest is practicing their sexuality, they are in violation of their vows, whether homosexual or heterosexual.
A priest's sexual orientation should be of no consequence if they are willing to make and take seriously their vows.
Posted by: Kathy | September 13, 2005 at 03:36 PM
I sort of want to agree with Kathy, but find it very difficult to do so.
If it's okay for non-catholic clergy to get married, have sex/breed etc, then why SHOULDN'T gay clergy be able to do the same (albeit without breeding)?
On the other hand, logic has always abandoned my brain when it comes to considering why any gay person (male or female) would actually want to join, as clergy, an organised religion that despises/condemns/curses/denies who they are as a human being and one of God's children.
Having faith is one thing. Membership of an organised religion is not required to have faith. Wanting to join an organisation that really doesn't want you as part of it is another thing altogether, which puzzles me very much.
Posted by: Piggy and Tazzy | September 14, 2005 at 04:06 AM
Oops! I thought it hadn't posted and clicked 'post' a couple of times.
Sorry Houston!
[Not to worry. I deleted the duplicates.-editor]
Posted by: Piggy and Tazzy | September 14, 2005 at 04:29 AM
Editor?? Oh how grand you sound today!
:)
Posted by: Piggy and Tazzy | September 14, 2005 at 07:52 AM