Not better. But different.
In the Jewish tradition, the rabbi down the street has no particular power or facility that any Jewish male does not have. He is trained in the Law, but he does not have any special spirtual faculty or ability by virtue of being a rabbi.
In the Catholic tradition, being ordained as a priest makes a spirtual difference. It imprints a character; it leaves an indelible mark upon the soul.
My recollection from my years at St. Pius X is that anyone may administer extreme unction if necessary. Do I recall wrongly or has it changed?
Unction requires a priest but you might be thinking about baptism. Anyone can baptize. You can even baptize yourself in dire circumstances.
This is what I was taught in 11 years of Catholic school: No, you’re not wrong. But only under extraordinary circumstances. The same goes for Confession (Reconciliation) and Holy Communion, the reason being that God will intervene on your behalf as you are attempting to allow someone to die without sin. In other words, God won’t hold it against you if you can’t find a priest before you die.
Guin, I think this is a witchhunt, and like all other witchhunts it is ridiculous. Trying to divine intent is virtually impossible. What do they do, ask someone if they’re gay and throw them out if they answer yes? It doesn’t matter. Sex is forbidden anyway, so who cares? So yes, I think that the Church is being wrongheaded and insanely stupid about this whole thing.
Dio, without the act of sex orientation doesn’t matter. Is a person who takes a vow of silence a mute? Perhaps not physically, but they may as well be for all practical purposes. Same same.
Airman, your implication is correct with regard to the present case. For the benefit of any impressionable youngsters who may be reading, however, I’d just like to remind people that even if I never had sex again, I’d still be queer. I wouldn’t be a very happy queer, but I’d still be queer.
They’re kicking gay men out of the Roman Catholic priesthood? What’s next, Teleflora and the Alvin Ailey Dance Corps?
Wait a minute. This was announced this in advance?
So much for their chief weapon. At least the (ahem) “teams” will still have Fear and their Almost Fanatical Devotion to the Pope to fall back on.
They still have the horrors of “The Comfy Chair” to fall back on.
Technically, “celibacy” simply refers to not getting married, and obviously most Catholic priests are celibate. It’s nonsense to speak of non-celibate gays in the context of the Catholic Church, because the Church doesn’t recognize gay marriage. At any rate, it seems strange to insist that priestly celibacy is somehow essential to being Catholic, as not only are married priests who convert from other faiths allowed into the Latin Church, but Eastern Rite Catholics (as with most Eastern Christians) permit priests to marry. These are small exceptions, numerically, but still there are plenty of married Catholic Priests.
At any rate, if they truly are trying to ensure that chaste (chastity refers to abstinence from sex outside of marriage and moral sexual conduct within marriage; all Catholics are expected to be chaste) gay men are not admitted into the priesthood, that seems unbelievably foolish. Isn’t it an open secret that a huge percentage of Catholic priests are gay? It’s kind of a natural thing that if you are gay but committed enough to the tenets of the Church that you remain chaste, you’d consider the priesthood. My understanding is that nowadays a very large proportion of priests are gay. It seems like this would have an enormous impact upon the number of priests - and isn’t there concern about the declining numbers of them?
It’s sad, really. With the ascent of the Ratzinger (now Benny-16) faction, there is to be expected a strong reaction against any accommodation to our “decadent” Modernist Mores. “Declining numbers of priests in the West? Meh, we’ll recruit them in the Third World and send them as missionaries TO Europe and North America. Or ordain deacons. Or dagnabbit, we’ll run with what we have and you’ll just have to get into a 14-hour line for Confession once a year! We’re the One True Church and anyone who wants to follow had better be ready to suck up the One True teaching. This is NOT a democracy, if God is at the head it’s not just blasphemous it should be bloody impossible for it to be a democracy!” And according to RCC doctrinal orthodoxy, homosexuality is a “disorder”, so “of course” it disqualifies you from priesthood – because you’d be renouncing an abnormal sexuality, which you’re supposed to do anyway.
And as to using this to smokescreen the pedophilia scandal, it looks as if a bunch of the people at the Vatican act like pedophilia is totally alien to their comprehension. Which is saying something for people who supposedly can debate some really complex theo-cosmological mysteries in their sleep…
And for those confused: Airman Doors is arguing that this latest purge makes no sense to him, since to him chastity is chastity is chastity, so why go after people who ARE making the sacrifice? He seems to favor letting sincere, committed gays who will truly follow the discipline of chastity follow the calling.
That’s just ignorant and homophobic.
The only true way to to tell is the CLANG! CLANG! CLANG! test.
Yes, you can argue that the RC Church’s rules are its own business but it also carries itself as the one true Christian church so I feel I have a right to comment. I was baptized and raised RC so technically I am very lapsed but I am a member of the Evangelical Lutcheran church. There is a precident there because it was not Luther’s intention to leave the RC church but to reform it. His job isn’t done.
I am not any kind of authority (atheist, raised Protestant in West Virginia), but my ex-boss (who I bumped into a week ago) is a long-married Italian-American Catholic guy who retired and became a deacon.
He is pretty much busy full-time, performing various ceremonies that my eyes glazed over learning about.
If he’s not a full priest, maybe I should loan him my Penn and Teller videos? (They perform lots of magic tricks, it might bring him up to par?) 
Last year we had our own scandals wich involved a priest and a deacon. The first worked in an orphanage, the latter in a school, both were accused of sexually abusing the children. The deacon went down in flames when he was also convicted of killing a couple that were supposedly blackmailing him, cutting their bodies in pieces, stuffing them in two barrels and setting the barrels on fire. The response from our local cardinal? That he would personally see that all homosexuals were removed from the seminary, “anyone showing any manerisms”. Spot the ignorant bullshit in that last sentence.
Went the trolley!
My great uncle was a priest. He worked behind the scenes at Vatican II, the GrudgeMatch. He was a support member for his Cardinal from Toronto ( I think.) and he and his team of priests campaigned extremely hard to get on the table at the Vatican for discussion the " There is no Gospel/biblical reason for why priests have to marry." cause if you think of it, I think only RC have this issue.
As you can guess, it didn’t get put on the platter.
All of his notes and whatnot from that time are in the Toronto’s control (Like the ark of the covenant…to never be seen again.)
I heard this from two cousins who are or were nuns.
Just thought I would mention it.
Carry on.
Actually, while I’ve no idea if this is doctrine, I feel the same way about priests in general, at least Episcopal and Catholic ones. For me, celibacy hasn’t been that difficult, and if the call to the priesthood were strong enough, it wouldn’t be an issue. Of course, being a woman would rule me out for priesthood in the Catholic Church, even if I ever chose to convert. The priests I’ve known, with one notable exception, both male and female, married and single have had something different and special about them that went well beyond wearing a white collar.
CJ
No.
What you say is true for Baptism. Consider Canon Law 861:
Note that the law provides that the ordinary minister is a bishop, priest, or deacon, but then goes on to explictly allow any person in cases of necessity to baptize.
Contrast this with the law concerning…
Confirmation:
Anointing of the sick:
Confession:
A lay person or deacon may of course distribute the Host to the sick as Viaticum, but even in cases of emergency, he may not consecrate the bread:
Well you’re here, Bricker, would you care to share your opinion on the OP brings up (removing homosexuals–even celibate ones–from seminaries)?
s/Well/While/
Bricker loves him some rules.
It’s foolish.
As has been cogently argued above, it’s manifestly irrelevant whether a priest has sexual desires for men for for women. He undertakes vows of celibacy and chastity. He may not marry. As long as he keeps those vows, and is serving his vocational calling, we as faithful have no need to ask more.
I know a priest who, I’m fairly certain, is gay. He’s celibate, and chaste. It must be as difficult for him as it is for his hetero brothers. But he is sustained by the Holy Spirit, and presumably the rewards of that sustenance are sufficient, just as presumably they are for every other priest.
In short - it’s hogwash. A calling is a calling; God doesn’t lose your number if you’re gay.