As I see it; we cannot deny our sexuality. Priests are asked to sublimate it on the basketball court, etc. If one is homosexual, the position of a seminary poses enormous challenges, yet some remain faithful. I know of a few who don’t, but they don’t need to worry about a scandal like getting someone pregnant. If one is heterosexual, and sees the intimacy that some of these less than chaste men enjoy, they become disillusioned and angry–again I know of one (ME) who stopped pursuing seminary in the 1970s as this was flagrantly practiced. If a heterosexual is allowed to be open and honest to his calling and wants to serve God as a priest, he should be afforded the option. THe Church allows married clergy from Lutheran and Anglican conversion–and they don’t have cooties. I think you allow all varients–but insist on CHASTITY. Instead, we have disallowed SOME heterosexuals but allowed ALL homosexuals, and those who are able to hide their perversions (like molesters). An untapped but potentially HUGE and HOLY segment could also be “elders”–older folks who have had families and are now faced with 20 or 30 years of productive years they could dedicate to the priesthood. I still think a person disposed towards total commitment would be awesome–consecrated virgins, celibate priests–but even the Church has cracked the door a bit allowing good married men to be priests (converted clergy). Why not open the door a bit wider?
Bruce | 11.06.07 - 12:48 pm | #
PS --ST. Augustine got a girl PREGNANT. If instead he married her, instead of leaving her, would we have been denied his wonderful witness? Why not reward virtue as opposed to ostracising those who pursue it. I think the thing that bothers me (and probably others) is that Fr. F. seemed so “all-American Male”, but couldn’t stay on the track. Yet we know more than a few wierdos (not MFVAs) who seem to have no problem sticking around and God knows what they do to alleviate their “needs”> THROW OPEN THE WINDOWS and let the “SON” SHINE.