Who's Left Now?

The current issue of TIME contains an essay the Catholic Church's recent statement concerning the ordination of gay men. As a religion steeped in history and tradition, there are many Catholic doctrines that are "politely disregarded." For example, the concept that contraceptives are not to be used, as they are not in accordance with God's will. I grew up in a Catholic Church and know many Catholic families, across several generations. I don't know any of those families to agree with that concept.

With the installation of a new Pope this summer, change is to be expected. But I'm not sure what to think about this newest change. It should be noted that the article referenced in TIME is written by a gay man, and thus biased. But it brings up some interesting points worth considering. For example, how does the Church plan to determine whether or not a candidate for priesthood is, in fact, homosexual? I don't believe this is a decision that can be made based on observation. The author comments that gay men cannot be determined by ""trouble relating to their fathers; are uncomfortable with their own identity; tend to isolate themselves; have difficulty in discussing sexual questions; view pornography on the Internet; demonstrate a deep sense of guilt; or often see themselves as victims."" That assumption is falling prey to a social stereotype, and in a Church that is struggling to find new men willing, or being called, to join the priesthood, there's something amiss with turning a man away because of the abovementioned characteristics.

Also, both priests and nuns are called to a vow of celibacy. The Church believes that, once ordained, a priest is "married" to his faith, his church and his duties. If this be the case, why is the man's sexual orientation a factor? Are we worried he will "brainwash" our children? Our adults? A few years ago, the Catholic Church was rocked when allegations of sexual abuse erupted into a full-fledged scandal. At the time, the argument was brought up that many Catholic priests are guilty of child molestation because they are unable to indulge in sexual activity of their own. I completely disagree with this, as molesting a child and having a sexual relationship with a consenting adult is like trying to compare apples to oranges, and sex with a CHILD is NEVER excusable. But that's a different rant. What, then, is the answer? Heterosexual priests will commit molestation because they are unable to explore sexual activity. Homosexual priests may send the wrong message to their parishes by example of their chosen sexual preference. That leaves...nobody.

I find this essay to raise several questions. As I said, I grew up in the Catholic Church and attended a Catholic Church through college. There are some Catholic traditions and values that I still hold close. There are others that disturbed me and caused me to question whether I belonged in that Church. I currently attend a Presbyterian Church and am happy with my minister there. No organized religion is perfect. They are all run by human beings who make mistakes, who succumb to pressure. No denomination is free controversy.

I'd like to read more about this, particularly from the Church's perspective. I'm open to any comment or further observation, or links, if you happen to come across anything. At the least, it's a conversation starter.