The only thing that changed is that the society got sexualized and cannot think beyond the penis. So there is a greater need for celibate priesthood today.
I agree that a homosexual tendency should be a disqualifier for the priesthood, and it is.
Monarchy, by the way, looks better and better everyday. You are talking to a monarchist.
But it was always a disqualified, but that rule was left almost entirely unenforced. One of the main points I'm trying to make with you and Salvation is that it will remain unenforced so long as the enforcers are themselves largely homosexual. Do you understand that point?
Monarchy, by the way, looks better and better everyday. You are talking to a monarchist.
Great, but this bespeaks, quite obviously, your refusal to size up the world as it really is. Monarchy? I don't know what to say. It's exactly the same issue with the patently obvious impracticability of the clerical celibacy rule. You can admire it as a fine ideal, but the results have proven disastrous in practice.
Let me ask you this. The RCC has just lost Ireland due to the sex abuse scandals caused by homosexuals in the ranks of the clergy, and it's obvious that the celibacy rule contributes (at least significantly) to the homosexual infiltration problem. Yet you remain unconvinced. So here's my question: what would it take to convince you? What additional horror committed by the RCC homosexual clergy would finally prompt you to embrace the reality that I described in detail above?
I suspect that there is nothing that the clergy could ever do that would convince you. For you and, I suppose, Salvation, the celibacy rule is a sort of tenet of the faith that you cling to without regard to all evidence to the contrary. I hope I'm wrong about that.
So, once again, is there any scenario you can imagine that might cause you to rethink your position?