[RobbyS]

Rev. Ray Ryland, who teaches theology at Franciscan University in Steubenville, Ohio. "I have not come across this distinction [on gay celibacy] that the cardinal makes, but I think he's quite right in saying it," Father Ryland said. "As a prudential judgment, I agree that persons of that orientation should not be admitted to the priesthood because of the very grave temptations they face" in seminary and parish life. He gets it. The assumption that there is no difference between a "gay" celibate and a "stright" celibate has just been shown to us all too clearly. The problem is that many of the people beating up on the Church refuse to see the link, just as they won't see that AIDs is mainly a homosexual disease in any country with quality medical care.

[Thundergod]

I agree that persons of that orientation should not be admitted to the priesthood because ...

Because it's not an orientation. IT'S A DISORIENTATION!

[sinkspur]

The assumption that there is no difference between a "gay" celibate and a "stright" celibate has just been shown to us all too clearly.

What's IS the difference, Robby, if they are both celibate? How do you know who is gay and who is straight in the priesthood, if they are both celibate? One likes striking floral arrangements and the other doesn't?

[Chemnitz]

Or to put it bluntly, there is a vast difference between hetero men surrounded by hetero men in a seminary dorm and homosexual men surrounded by homosexual men, or even one homosexual among many heterosexual men.

We do not expect a heterosexual man to keep his mind on the priesthood in a dorm full of women. That would be so carnal. So how can the opposite work? Besides, the homosexual mindset is wrong, against natural law, and a sin. It is like saying that someone who dreams of robbing the church treasury can be the church treasurer, as long as he promises not to touch the money. Am I being too blunt?