How much of this by the ferocious wielder of the language and knife-sharp penetrator of fog and misinformation Ann Coulter do I have to read before I decide to read further?
Despite the growing media consensus that Catholicism causes sodomy, an alternative view — adopted by the Boy Scouts — is that sodomites cause sodomy. (Assume all the usual disclaimers here about most gay men not molesting boys, most Muslims being peaceful, and so on.)
This much should do it, even though I am hell-bent on doing other things right now. Follow her lede here. Hint: it’s about celibacy as promoting sex abuse.
However, and begin with the column’s very bad, i.e. misleading Town-Hall-dot-com title,
I must demur from her implied defense of the celibacy requirement. Implied but no more than that: she is primarily here shooting down an easier target, libs’ self-contradictory handling of SEX AND THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.
As for mandatory celibacy, I tentatively offer this concern, that it unduly protects priests from various realities such as living intimately with one other or in the case of children with more than one and surrendering other freedoms of a bachelor existence — summed up perhaps as having no one individually dependent on you as are wife and children.
Moreover, that it provides a social system in which the homosexually-inclined can more easily find and flock with birds of a feather. Let me rephrase that: a system in which the legitimately (sacramentally) heterosexually active can have their say in ecclesiastical circles on equal footing with the others.
Two different things, you say. Yes, but the internal politics of any institution has its poles and centers of influence. Right now, there are two: gay and straight, or gay and non-gay, allowing for the same-sex-oriented (and it’s a matter of degree, I suppose) who remain neutral or band with the non-gays. Permitting entry of the married would permit a third pole, diluting gay influence.
Enough for now. As my old Latin teacher used to ask, is any of that clear? But it may help to read this from New Oxford Review,
New Oxford Notes
Why Won’t Our Bishops Solve the “Gay” Priest Problem? — July-August 2004.
Why Won’t Our Bishops Solve the “Gay” Priest Problem? — July-August 2004.
Meanwhile, far from shooting Ann Coulter down, I applaud her shots at her lib targets, especially among the mediums. And thank her for (unwittingly) getting me to expose myself, as it were, in the above fashion.
Blithe Spirit 
Beyond sad is the link “Why Won’t Our Bishops Solve the “Gay” Priest Problem?”
I didn’t think that we need a married clergy, but I’m beginning to see that we need to elevate married deacons to the priesthood now to dilute the gay mafia’s influence.
I have been in Fr. Canary’s presence; his speech and manners don’t leave much doubt about his orientation.
No wonder the Church is on the side of the secular humanists and socialists with these gays in the hierarchy and dominant in the clergy.
LikeLike
Ouch re: elevating deacons. I wldn’t do that, based on those I have seen, so ill-trained and ill-equipped. They would, in my opinion, (a) dumb the clergy down and (b) be putty in the hands of experienced ecclesiastics.
LikeLike