[Jim Noble]

I suspect that the major premise is true-that the RC priesthood has always been a refuge for gay men, and that for centuries accepting them was a pragmatic compromise between "objectively disordered" and a compassionate approach to human reality (WWJD?).

But this pragmatic approach foundered on the increased sexual acting out which began in the 1950s. Tens of thousands of straight priests got married-and in what in retrospect was a very bad call, were expelled from the priesthood and shunned.

This left behind a larger proportion of gay men-not in itself a bad thing, but in a culture of secrecy and increased sexual acting out, a formula for scandal.

I agree gay men are no more likely to molest children-if there are any gay priests abusing six year olds, I bet you can count them on the fingers of one hand.

Teenage boys-that's another matter. I suspect that sexual interest in teenage boys, and attraction to them, is foundational for gay men-and that's the reason the "scandal" in so many dioceses won't go away. Notice in the quote from Sipe, ''over twice as many priests are involved with adult women as with boys.'' Yes, I'm sure that's true-but "involvement" with adult women is the fulfillment of Creation, and involvement with boys is a felony. This false comparison lies at the root of why the Church is having such a struggle with this issue.

Maybe married priests aren't a good idea-but they would certainly be an improvement on the status quo.

[Khepera]

To find all articles tagged or indexed using Straight Americans Speaking up (SASU™), click below:
	click here >>>	SASU™	<<< click here
Master Bump List (To view all FR Bump Lists, click here)

WWJD? He would not have homosexuals in positions of authority in the church.

[Khepera]

Of course involvement with adult women to whom they are not married is fornication and a sin. Sin should not be tolerated within the body of Christ.

[grania]

Maybe married priests aren't a good idea-but they would certainly be an improvement on the status quo.

This is not the time to change the rules. The real issue is that the church knew about many of these cases, paid off the victims, then moved the priests into other positions where they would work with vulnerable children. That's what has to be dealt with...in Massachusetts it is a crime NOT to report abuse of children (sexual or otherwise).

The Catholic Church is going to hav e to live with a leaner priest hood for awhile and see how it plays out. Maybe there would be more qualified and moral men willing to take vows if this mess is cleaned up. Maybe the answer isn't married priests, but elevating some nuns to the priesthood.

[Bush2000]

"It would mean the resignation of at least a third of the bishops of the world."

Of course, this moron doesn't provide any basis for his statement -- but since when has an absence of facts ever made a difference with the liberal media?

[angkor]

''Homosexually oriented priests don't violate their celibacy any more or less than heterosexually oriented priests,''

Maybe, but we don't hear too much about heterosexual priests who've molested a string of 20, 40, or 65 adolescent female parishoners.

A wayward romance with an adult woman, perhaps, but nothing like the wholesale degenerate assaults unleashed by homosexual priests.

[Teacher317]

Do the Islamic Mullahs get criticized for the same stance? I didn't think so.

[SuziQ]

And it's very much against the tradition of the church; many saints had a gay orientation, and many popes had gay orientations,'' Sipe said.

Is this the same guy who did that bogus study on priests and AIDS for the Kansas City Star a couple of years ago?

Well if it means we have to do without some priests, I'm ok with that! It would only be for a short time, however. There have been many young men who decided NOT to join the priesthood because of some of the things they saw going on at the seminaries they visited. Or young men who were more, let us say, ORTHODOX catholics were run out of seminaries by the feminist nuns who were inexplicably sitting on the boards to decide who would and would not be ordained!

There were many Bishops who started getting squishy on this back in the 70s, so that a good number of priests with questionable character were ordained. The Bishops were beginning to listen to the liberal Catholics who were beginning to get themselves into the Chanceries and boards of Seminaries, and unfortunately have remained in many of the Dioceses like LA, Detroit and Madison, Wis. The Diocese of which Dallas is a part went throught the whole pedophilia thing a few years ago as a direct result of the lax attitudes of those in charge of the Seminaries. And I don't believe for a minute that there are large numbers of homosexual or pedophile priests. I've lived in 5 states and countless Parishes during my almost 49 years and I have YET to meet a priest who later turned out to be EITHER homosexual or a pedophile! Considering how many priests that includes, as a statistical sampling, I think it is pretty significant! It is because of the media hype that people have the notion that it is widespread.

Not requiring celibacy will not change a thing with regard to either homosexuals or pedophiles in the priesthood; neither group has paid attention to the rule so far. And married priests will just mean that the Pastor or Associate will be continually distracted from his pastoral duties by the needs of his wife and family. He won't be able to give his undivided attention to either and it will annoy both.

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Although scholars have established no connection between homosexuality and pedophilia...

Common sense says that any man who sexually molests a boy is a homosexual.

[StopGlobalWhining]

Every male pedophile who sexually molests a young boy is by definition a homosexual. Heterosexual males never sexually molest little boys.