You don’t think “the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities” isn’t a generalization? Just so that we’re clear, it is. You’ve had several reasonable conversations with people you agree with or can share sarcastic comments with. When I made statements about divisions you made it about homosexual priests. I was addressing your flawed assumptions about priests and the priesthood in general. The fact that you continue to do so makes me regret saying I was done. I’m not.
>> You don’t think “the doctrine of priestly celibacy can lead the priesthood to be a good safehaven for Christian men with homosexual proclivities” isn’t a generalization?
No, I don’t. It addresses a doctrine, and what I see as a doctrinal problem, not a person or group of people. I have said nothing about all priests, or any particular priest. That there are homosexuals among the priesthood is undeniable ... and that this is a problem is also undeniable.
>> When I made statements about divisions you made it about homosexual priests.
The original article made it about homosexual priests.
>> I was addressing your flawed assumptions about priests and the priesthood in general.
I have made no assumptions about any priest or any group of priests.
SnakeDoc