This formulation is quite widespread in defense of the proposition that gay priests per se are OK, but that "immaturity" is the problem.
What's wrong with this is that same-sex attraction and sodomy are specifically not a common "late adolescent behavior".
The Church (yes, that Church) teaches that homosexuality is intrinsically disordered and that homosexuals should not be priests.
Right or wrong, the RCC has the right to believe this, and to teach it.
Why so many gays have a longing to be priests of an organization that teaches this is, I confess, somewhat of a mystery to me.
Again, the Church teaches that gay men and women are disordered. Right or wrong, they should not have disordered men as priests.
If it is true that the Church could not function without gay priests, perhaps the formulation that they are disordered is incorrect.
Or, alternatively, it is not true that the Church could not eliminate gay priests and continue to thrive.
These two possibilities may be mutually exclusive.
""The abuse is not coming from out priests," he said. "It's coming from tightly closeted priests who won't be targeted."
This is simply the classic liberal double talk. Give us our way and things will be better.
Let all the priests "come-OUT", you know let everyone know they are "flaming gays" and everything will be OK, then. The priests will parade around in leathers and look like the Village People and then you can trust you children with them.
They want the children because without them there won't be another generation of GAY PRIESTS!!!
This makes no sense at all. The only "out" priests we know of are the ones who did the abusing. And we didn't know they were homosexual until they were "outed" by the victims. What other "out" priests is he talking about?
Really?
Perhaps due to the current % actively in Holy Orders--but should Bishops actually implement the 1961 document, that will change.
As to currently-serving homosexuals: if they "act out," TOSS 'EM!
Bullseye! Methinks many of the bishops don't want the spotlight of scrutiny to shine too brightly upon themselves. There are more Weaklands amongst the episcopacy.
Like many of his peers, Dallas Coadjutor Bishop Joseph Galante concludes that the sexual orientation of a priest or seminarian is irrelevant; they should have "psycho-sexual maturity" and be spiritually and socially healthy.
Orientation certainly was irrelevant in the cases of Kos, Geoghan, Shanley, et al wasn't it Joseph. Galante should change his name to P.T. Barnum and continue dodging the spotlight. He's just another cafeteria cleric. The message he sends the laity by ignoring Vatican decree is that they too can pick and choose. People like him are dangerous to the faith.
Gays are attracted to the priesthood because it guarentees ACCESS...just like gays want to be Boy Scout Leaders. I maintain a constitutional right to be DISGUSTED by adult gays who target kids and teens. The media is WAY OFF base to call them "pedophile" priests. More accurately in MOST cases, they are GAY-Pedophile priests....but the pro-gay folks don't want anyone to connect the dots between "GAY and Pedophile".
As long as the priest is not engaging in sexual relations (as any of his unmarried parishioners would be forbidden to do), why do we care about his sexual orientation? This priest should not fear anything, unless he is misbehaving.
Homosexuality = predispostion
Gay = lifestyle
The article & others like it (conveniently) equates the two terms, so that:
Homosexual = Gay
and, successfully confuses the underlying issue - can a priest live a gay lifestyle.
The Roman Catholic Church has decided that a gay lifestyle is an inappropriate & unacceptable lifestyle for a Roman Catholic Priest.
The very concept is diametrically opposed to God's law and Natural law, whichever holds value for you.
There are no gay priests, period. If they are actively engaged in activity which would define them as such, then they are not actively representing any interests in the name of God. When any church makes a point to recongize them they have effectively openly declared they are not a church that serves God, but instead serve the enemy.
What a telling remark.It infers that there was an "expected" direction that this "scandal"would take and that it was not a demand for a critical review of the suitabiity of homosexuals for,or,in the priesthood.
If you don’t want to have a “pedophilia” problem, then don’t ordain pedophiles!
It (the Church) certainly is. As if this doesn't have anything to do with homosexuality.
It certainly is. It's like when a house burns down and we're not allowed to discuss combustion.
We would not have had this horrific scandal, involving the spiritual and physical rape of thousands of teenage boys, without gay priests. The Church would be far better off NOW, if it weren't overrun with homosexuals.