Posted on 01/08/2006 5:54:51 PM PST by Ellesu
I am a Catholic and have been quite angry about the sexual perversion among our priests. That being said, I agree with you. As long as he's celibate or chaste (depending on which side of the semantic argument one goes with), I have no problem with his inclinations.
There are vows of celibacy and vows of chastity--celibacy, at least until recently, denoted a promise not to marry. Samson took such a vow, but Delilah was still in the picture. The media uses celibacy as a synonym for chastity--the meaning may have changed (dictionaries are much more likely to include neologisms and newly-coined meanings than thirty years ago)--I still don't accept that a vow of celibacy is necessarily also a vow of chastity.
It's irrelevant what you accept. The arbiter is Canon Law and in that there is no difference between a promise of celibacy or vow of chastity for those receiving Holy Orders in the Latin Rite.
The problem is he claimed to be gay, not just homosexual. Big difference.
celibate Queer - Oxymoron
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.