For that group of Catholic homosexuals becoming priests to (in part) deal with, or possibly avoid dealing with, their feelings of confusion, alienation and estrangement regarding their sexual orientation - yes. Gays are making rational choices about alternatives, and for some young, gay, devoted Catholics becoming a Priest lets them (attempt to) subsume these internal conflicts in the service of a greater good.
Airman, this is not about getting rid of active homosexuals*, the Vatican wants to get rid of anyone who simply has that orientation whether they’re active or not. Did you read the part where they said it wouldn’t even matter if the person had been celibate for ten years or more?
Sacrifice has nothing to do with the conversation. We’re talking about people who HAVE made the sacrifice. This is not about priests who are sexually active.
Celibacy does not change anyone’s sexual orientation, by the way. Orientation is not defined by behavior but by attraction.
Of course, when communion is the centerpiece of your worship services, that’s a bit of a problem…
Right…which is why I mentioned coupling. I think they agree that sex goes with marriage, so to take marriage away also takes the sex away.
But this brings me to a question I’ve never given any thought to before. Are priests allowed to DATE? I mean, if they don’t marry, is there anything wrong with developing a life with a woman (or man) who they are in love with? They could buy a home together, adopt children, etc., without marrying. Is that allowed?
It is a witch hunt to “get at” an supposedly easy target. There is no biblical basis for celibacy. There is no biblical basis for not allowing priests to marry. All that nonsense came about during the middle ages for one purpose - to hold and keep land and power. If a bishop or cardinal was married, there was a chance his eldest son would claim land as an inheritance. The church was worried that all these heirs might have a valid claim. So it had not a damn thing to do with devotion or purity. It had all to do with church wealth and power. What is especially idiotic is how the church now represents so much nonsense as the Word Of God (echo effect) under a kind of creeping infallibiility (even “infallibility of the pope” has no biblical basis). You can’t marry. You can’t have any form of sex. You can’t even whack off (which would be a good safety valve). Some of the rules and laws of the church are pure invention and need to go. But that won’t happen.
Maybe they feel that it’s only one shortcoming in their relationship with god, much the same way a man can be a cheater for the purpose of sex but stay with his wife because the rest of the relationship is good. Or vice versa.
At least not openly. 
I always thought that clergy was more of a spiritual guide. As I said in my earlier post, there are effective clergymen of other faiths who have sex and marry and who are there to point you in the right direction per your faith. Why would giving up marriage and sex make you “better” than the rabbi down the street?
No.
I make no judgements about that rabbi, Kalhoun. And I converted to Catholicism from Protestantism, so I’m well familiar with married spiritual leaders, many quite effective ones.
The Catholic Church has, though, different traditions. And tradition is very important to a Catholic.
It is impossible to understand Catholics without knowing that it is a traditional faith, grounded in ritual as well as Scripture. Therefore, we have lots of rules not found anywhere in the Bible, yet considered by us essential to our worship of God as we see fit.
Hmmm. Hardly seems fair, does it? But then, it’s not supposed to be I guess.
Why even bother? For the same reason as I would bother with a married doctor, a married heart surgeon, a married plumber or a married electrician: because they have taken the trouble to set aside a portion of their life to become well qualified in their trade. A clergyman’s willingness to set aside his hope of marriage counts pretty small with me next to his wisdom, his insight, his sincerity, and his hard work in becoming a clerk in holy orders. I expect him, because of his aptitude and his special training, to be specially fitted in those matters for which I wish a clergyman to be specially fitted.
IANALF , in case it’s not obvious.
Apparently, they’re getting a little foggy on the meaning of “forgiveness,” too. Priests are, after all, human. And humans, as the Church so often reminds us, are inherently sinful and falliable. Yes, if there is a priest who is regularly, actively searching out romantic relationships without regard to his vows, he should be removed from the priesthood. But really, how many priests do you think that describes, Airman? I think most priests intend to follow thier vows of celibacy, but like most of us, they sometimes fall short. Should they be drummed out of the church for a mistake? Should they be drummed out for any sin? And most tellingly, do you think the Church would be more forgiving of a priest who has an affair with a woman than one who has an affair with another man?
Fair enough.
We already know they’re forgiving of male-male relationships. C’mon…people have to know what’s going on. They look the other way!
In addition to the other responses to this, I have seen people equate “homosexual orientation” and “calling to celibacy”. Which means that someone who is gay will be presumed by some people to have the calling to lack of relationship even if that person does not have even the slightest inclination that way.
I think they should assemble all of the students, then bring in Liza Minnelli singing “Liza With a Z”. Whoever doesn’t faint- keep them.
I think they should assemble all of the students, then bring in Liza Minnelli singing “Liza With a Z”. Whoever doesn’t scream or faint- keep them.
Deacons may not administer the sacrament of reconciliation - that is, they may not hear confessions.
Deacons may not administer the sacrament of confirmation.
Deacons may not administer the sacrament of extreme unction (anoiting of the sick).