1 Comment

I wanted to be a priest as a young man and made an initial visit to a seminary to investigate my prospects. I was absolutely sure it was the right vocation for me and yet I never made a return visit. I knew that I could not keep the vow of celibacy. I was still a virgin and unsure of my sexuality but I was quite certain there would be a time that I would want to have sex and that I would not want to degrade my position as a priest by breaking the vow of celibacy. I don't feel discriminated against unless there is some hidden agenda whereby priests only have to say they are celibate but don't actually have to practice it. If that is the case then the whole thing is a sham. As a homosexual (I am no longer confused) and a Catholic I have always understood that my being a homosexual is not a sin in itself but having gay sex was. Gay sex is no different than any other sex that is for recreational purposes and outside of the bonds of marriage as far as the church is concerned and I am ok with that. I will happily stand with anyone who wishes to explain this position to the average lay person who might be tempted to scapegoat homosexuality as a "problem" while ignoring the major disobedience that is adultery and promiscuity emboldened by the widespread use of birth control. Again I say if all these things are simply guidelines and not the rules of God as the Church has presented to us then it is all a sham. I guess what I am saying is that I am okay with taking my "punishment" for willing having gay sex because I do have the option of remaining celibate. As long as the church remains steadfast steadfast in the implementation of these rules equitably regardless of their sexuality then I don't feel discriminated against. I am rambling now but thank you for your argument on behalf of civil disobedience and discrimination in the Church towards homosexuality.

Expand full comment