Replies

Many, if not most, gays prefer to define themselves -- meaning their entire persona, their souls, their psyches, the fullness of being -- by their sexuality.

Is this, as I suspect, your gut feel, or do you have some statistics to back this up?

This "call to chastity" is a prohibition not to commit acts "contrary to the natural law." It is not an affirmation that homosexuals, since they are called to chastity should be admitted to the priesthood.

Is fornication contrary to natural law? Are reformed fornicators called to the priesthood?

Does God only work with virgins, or can He call sinners to serve Him? Peter denied that He even knew Jesus AFTER he was called.

Fornication is contrary to the law of God, regardless of whether it is heterosexual or homosexual. That having been said, sexual intercourse between a man and a woman within marriage and open to the conception of such children as God sees fit to send is quite in accordance with God's law and with the natural law. Homosexual intercourse is no more natural than intercourse between humans and sheep. It is an intrinsically disordered act.

It is intrinsically disordered (and quite prohibited by both Scripture and Tradition) for a man to have intercourse with another man or a woman with another woman whether or not one or both of the participants have become convinced that it may not be so disordered. Objective reality is objective reality. A is A. Likewise as to the sexual abuse of children (which would in most jurisdictions include those up to 17 years of age).

On many of these threads, you have eloquently argued for suppression of the abuse and the enabling of abusers. To welcome into the priesthood those whose sexual orientation is intrinsically disordered while attacking abuse is analogous to campaigning for inclusive attitudes towards bank robbers while professing opposition to bank robbery.

Apropos of another of your posts, the closer the bishops hew to the Bevilaqua position stated here, the less likely they are to be flat, black and glowing in the dark from a universe of attack from those ranging from Catholic to secular to outright enemies of the Church. Cardinal George is a good man but his desire to keep on board those with previous strikes will not stand. If he is not prepared to do what is necessary and purge the lavenders, all of them, from the priesthood, then it is also time for him to go.

If you define yourself (using that term generically, not specifically) by your baser instincts, your sexuality, that very definition would exclude you from a life that is based on man’s higher instincts: self-sacrifice, spirituality, ministering to others (including the most vulnerable and helpless), executing the sacraments of the Church, etc. (Of course, if you believe man has no “higher instincts,” this argument is fruitless.)

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?