The Vatican is considering barring gays from the priesthood.
“With all those overflowing seminaries, long wait lists of Holy Orders applicants, and five or six priests in every parish, trying to decide who gets to say Mass this weekend, clearly we can do without any of those sort of folks in the priesthood,” Vatican spokesman Fr. Antonio Notagaegi added. “And, after all, if we get rid of all those gay priests, then there won’t be any need for bishops and cardinals to cover up their abuses, so it’s a win-win for everyone.”
(via JillMatrix)
20 view(s)
What a terrible attitude you have. Just because a few bad eggs have tainted the church, please donot paint them all with the same brush. You likely are what you critize in others. may
May, I deleted the extra copies of your comment.
I’m not sure I follow what you’re criticizing here, May. I have to assume you think it’s one of the following:
A. You missed the sarcasm, and think that I actually support the expulsion and barring of gays from the priesthood, because gays were responsible for the abuse mess. Frankly, I think that such an act by the Vatican would be both horribly unjust (homosexuality was not a key part of the abuses in the US Church, let alone their more despicable cover-up) and wildly counter-productive, given the acute lack of priests and lack of people pursuing that as a vocation.
B. You think I’m accusing all bishops and cardinals of being involved in the cover-up of priestly abuses, or that I’m saying that all priests are abusive. Nothing of the sort. I think the vast, vast majority of priests are leading noble lives of self-sacrifice and service to the Church and community. I think that’s true for most bishops, but I think too many among their ranks have thought that service to the Church first of all means suppression of scandal, not the protection of innocents; that’s been the case both for those who have played the shell game of protecting abusers, and for those who have been too slow and too half-hearted in listening to the pain of the Church over this matter.
Since I’m not sure which of those interpretations is correct, it’s hard for me to respond to “You likely are what you criti[ci]ze in others,” other than noting that’s certainly untrue in a general case, and is probably untrue in my particular case no matter what criticism you think I’m making here.