Catholic Church Hardens Stance on Gay Priests

“The House Transportation Committee is now considering a bill that would allow pilots to carry guns for protection. I’ve got a better idea, why not give guns to altar boys, give them a fighting chance.” — Jay Leno

It’s hard to pass by a title like “Vatican Speaks Against Gay Seminarians” without rendering some sort of smart comment. According to the AP article:

The Vatican is toughening its stand against gay candidates for the priesthood, specifying in a new document that even men with “transitory” homosexual tendencies must overcome their urges for at least three years before entering the clergy.

One would suspect that Father John Geoghan considered each of his victims merely transitory, and considering the very long list of them, he’d be technically correct.

For the record, I’m not Catholic, and could care less which sort of private parts prurient priests prefer, so long as it doesn’t involve pedophilic penile penetration. However, it does seem to me that the Catholic Church should be spending more of its efforts fighting seriously depraved crimes (along with their subsequent cover-ups) as compared to modifying its “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.

Stephen Gordon

I like tasteful cigars, private property, American whiskey, fast cars, hot women, pre-bailout Jeeps, fine dining, worthwhile literature, low taxes, original music, personal privacy and self-defense rights -- but not necessarily in this order.

  1. “Heh, hheh… he said ‘hardens’…”

    “Yeah, heh, heh… I don’t get it.”

    Seriously, though, as a resident of the area that spawned Cardinal “Bernie” Law… let’s just say I was never a Catholic choirboy.

  2. I couldn’t help myself on that title. It was all I could do to not make some stupid comment about Semen-arians.

    Oops, I guess I just did!

  3. I’m not Catholic either, but the last time I checked the Catholic Church was beholdened to the Bible, not secular popular opinion, for its moral values and teachings. Yes, secular culture tells us that unrestrained sex is the be-all and end-all of life and that anyone who disagrees is intolerant, narrow-minded, prudish…well, you get the idea. However, that’s not the stance of the Catholic, or any, Christian church. The Bible calls Christians to a certain sexual standard, and the Catholic Church is just trying to adhere to it. Secularists who object to this standard are free to do so but should stop demanding that the Church remake itself in their image as the price for being allowed to function in society. How intolerant!

  4. Yeah, we know… sex should be something only performed in a marriage setting, and then only when absolutely necessary to make more children. And, when one simply *must* have child-conceiving sex, it should be the equivalent of a Wonder Bread and Hellmann’s Mayonnaise sandwich.

    I won’t get into the CC’s faults, because some people think their religion should be immune from any negative discussion… heh, heh. “Politically-correct” thinking, appled incorrectly. Gotta love it.

    Have a government-approved day, Dwana!

  5. “sex should be something only performed in a marriage setting.” You got that much right.

    And Stephen, obviously you haven’t followed the facts of the crisis, which is one of gay clergy engaged in sex with (usually) teenagers, and being covered up (often) by other gay clergy. There have been very few “pedophiles” among priests (fewer than in the general population or among boy scout leaders or teachers)–this is a gay crisis. The Church is saying the solution is to not allow them into seminary in the first place.

  6. private parts prurient priests prefer, so long as it doesn’t involve pedophilic penile penetration

    Wow, Steve… you’re good. I couldn’t SAY those words, let alone type ’em.

  7. BC,

    Frankly, the CC shouldn’t be requiring their priests to be celibate; they should allow them to marry, like civilized, advanced priests in other Christian-offshoot religions. Celibacy should be VOLUNTARY in the CC, in other words.

    I won’t hammer on the “artificial birth control” nonsense, only to say it is nonsense. The only reason the CC frowns on it, IMO, is to insure a steady crop of children born to its flock, thus ensuring its continued customer base. Sound business reasoning, really. But silly.