[A.A. Cunningham]

The Catholic Church flies in the face of scriptures regarding the type of leader a flock is suppose to have. A man of good reputation, married to one wife, with his children under control.

Incorrect. St.Paul's instructions to St. Timothy were not absolute in that only married men should be selected, quite the contrary. Your failure to mention the teaching of Jesus Christ Himself in Luke 18:28-30, Matthew 19:12, 27-30 and the importance of the priesthood of Melchisedech, from the Old Testament, with regard to the Catholic Priesthood proves that you don't know what you're talking about.

[sinkspur]

Let him accept it who can accept it.

[MissAmericanPie]

First, Peter's wife remained with him and is mentioned several times. There is a big difference in the kind of duty Peter preformed, being crusified, than an ordinary preacher performs today. If a married preacher felt the calling to leave his family and go teach in the Spice Islands, risking his life, then he should go, sure. But today, as yet, no one faces a cross for preaching the word as in Peter's time.

If a man can remain single and serve as a preacher fine, if he can accept it. But it is beyond rediculous and against God's will, for a church, in failing to allow married priests, to replace that shortage with homosexuals who bogger little boys, all in order to have enough priests to cover the shortage created by their own, not God's, demand that all priests be single.

The homosexual abomination and influence allowed to go on for decades by the Church is really inexcusable and a far worse situation than allowing normal men, married men, to serve in a priestly capacity.