You ask for stats to back up my argument of “self-identification,” but, unfortunately for our society, all you have to do is look around. How many organizations define themselves as gay and/or lesbian? How many define themselves as straight or heterosexual? How many laws protecting gays/lesbians have been proposed or passed, as opposed to laws protecting heterosexuals, specifically, by that term? How many “tolerance” programs, teacher-training programs, textbooks, etc. that present homosexuality as an “alternate lifestyle” have been mandated in schools? How many such programs have been introduced in the public sector that glorify heterosexuality?
How many media stories, sitcoms, TV series, talk shows (and talk show hosts) day after day, tell us the stories of those who identities as “gay” are central to the story? Why is there a group of Congressman who identify themselves as “gay,” when there’s no such group identifying themselves as “straight?” Why are there “gay pride” parades, and no “staight-pride” parades?
And lastly, if homosexuality is not a problem for a priest, why is it such a point of contention? If a homosexual wants to enter the priesthood so earnestly, and he is good, spiritual, celibate man, why would he identify himself as “gay?” What would be the point – if he doesn’t engage in homosexual acts? Could it be the same rationale – acceptance of this “sexual identity,” -- that propels the proliferation of laws and programs for acceptance throughout the country? Could it be the aim of those homosexuals who want to enter and/or remain in the priesthood that not only their “identity” be accepted, but, as in society itself, that the homosexual act be accepted? Is that why celibacy itself is under attack?
It's quite likely he doesn't (most priests I know and you know don't identify themselves in any way sexually), but there seems to be a desire now that he do so, so that he can be rousted from the priesthood or prevented from entering a seminary.
See, that's the problem here. When I was in the seminary, back in the 70s, there was no "identification" of one's sexual orientation. It was never discussed, no one ever talked about sexual attraction to women or men. It was as if we were asexual. In fact, much of our training just assumed we were; that we had all come to terms with celibacy, that that issue was settled, and now let's all just ignore our urgings and follow the Lord. When a man decided that he couldn't do that, he left on his own, or, if he was discovered in some compromising position, he was kicked out.
Now, I know that some of these men were homosexual; I could guess which ones, but I could be wrong. The thing is, they didn't talk about it, act on it, or give any hint that they were "gay".
It would be real shame at this point to force these men to somehow declare their sexual orientation in some kind of witch hunt to rid the priesthood of all gays.
This is what Cardinal George was referring to when he said on MTP that it is a difficult thing in most cases to determine which priests are gay. Nor, I would contend, should the Church do that.
Screen for homosexuality in the future, but let's not destroy some of these good men who are trying their best to live holy and celibate lives because we want to "purify" the Church of gays.
You couldn't do that even if you tried.