[Mrs. Don-o]

Circlecity: I think you need re-read what Scalia actually wrote. She was not talking about sodomote ((men who practice perverse sex acts with men). She specified "faithful and celibate." That would mean, sexually, beyond reproach.

She is not proposing that men who lie with men (to use the Biblical term) are fit candidates for the priesthood. By their "i>behavior --- acting on their sexuality via sinful sexual acts --- unchaste men would be proving themselves unfaithful, in violation of celibacy, and unfit to be priests.

You, I, and Scalia would all agree on that.

[PapaBear3625]

The problem is, it appears from statistics that homosexual priests are much less likely to remain "faithful and celibate" than heterosexual priests (unless we assume that the vast majority of priests are homosexuals).

The vast majority of sex scandals involving priests involve homosexual pedophile priests. If the objective is to preserve the repute of the Church, then that objective requires the exclusion of homosexuals from the priesthood.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

She is not proposing that men who lie with men (to use the Biblical term) are fit candidates for the priesthood. By their "i>behavior --- acting on their sexuality via sinful sexual acts --- unchaste men would be proving themselves unfaithful, in violation of celibacy, and unfit to be priests.

Actually, the Catholic Church already tried that, and we wound up with a bunch of homosexual pedophile priests for which the Church is now infamous.

[circlecity]

"She specified "faithful and celibate." That would mean, sexually, beyond reproach. She is not proposing that men who lie with men (to use the Biblical term) are fit candidates for the priesthood."

I don't think I agree. Paul described even the attraction as "vile affections" ("to use the biblical term") and I don't believe one who has been given over to such "vile affections" can be considered beyond reproach. I'm not saying that doesn't make them regenerate or beyond salvation but I don't think they are a proper candidate for Pastorship. E. Pluribus pointed out an excellent reason why.

[circlecity]

"She specified "faithful and celibate." That would mean, sexually, beyond reproach. She is not proposing that men who lie with men (to use the Biblical term) are fit candidates for the priesthood."

I don't think I agree. Paul described even the attraction as "vile affections" ("to use the biblical term") and I don't believe one who has been given over to such "vile affections" can be considered beyond reproach. I'm not saying that doesn't make them regenerate or beyond salvation but I don't think they are a proper candidate for Pastorship. E. Pluribus pointed out an excellent reason why.

[Cicero]

OK, I hadn’t read your comment when I posted. Celebate homosexuals can remain in the priesthood if they are really celebate. But I would agree with Church policy not to admit them INTO the seminaries in most cases, if their preferences are known, because that is asking for trouble.

[JoeDetweiler]

While I agree with what you’re saying, I would still worry about going down the same road that I see Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams traveling.

First homosexual Priests are OK as long as they’re celibate.

Then it’s OK if a homosexual Priest chooses to live with another man because, you know, they aren’t necessarily having sex.

I think we all know what the next step will be.