Amy Wellborn at her (very orthodox) Catholic blog "Open Book" had an intersting editorial on the Vatican's new "not even celibate gay priests" policy:

After the huge exodus of the 60's and early 70's, the panic started to set in, and, contrary to what you might think, seminaries put a premium on healthy heterosexual men, and did anything they could to retain them, including dismissing their own concerns about their ability to lead a celibate life and, in the end, their vocation.

Combine that with theological confusion, with the abandonment of structure..and you have big problems, which are about far more than a homosexual subculture. ...

I say...that position can't and, isn't really interested. So for that reason, sure, the self-identified political gay man shouldn't be in seminary.

But should the man who struggles with same-sex attraction and seeks to live chastely, who buys the whole package of Catholic moral teaching, be put into that category? Absolutely not. To me, that's insane, and truth be told, it's not that difficult to tell the difference. And if you think that your list of favorite, orthodox priests through the ages doesn't include at least one who's struggled with same-sex attraction, you're mistaken, and I'll bet you real money. Not that we can prove it, of course.

You want your manly, virile bombastically hetero priests? Here's the news flash: Hasn't always been so. My personal opinion is simply that the enormous exodus of mostly hetereosexual priests in the 1960's and 70's simply made the presence of the others more pronounced, therefore putting a self-fulfilling prophecy into motion...

Andrew Sullivan (a very unorthodox Catholic)reminnds us of previous Vatican policy:

Notice that in 1986, the Church officially rebutted the idea that gay men, let alone gay priests, cannot be expected to be celibate, let alone molest children. The notion that all gay men are sexually compulsive was, in the words of then-Cardinal Ratzinger, an "unfounded and demeaning assumption." That "unfounded and demeaning assumption" is now church policy. The 1986 document also proclaimed that, "the human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation."

The hard reality is that a large minority of the Catholic clergy (priests and nuns) have always been gay. This includes such Orthodox giants as Henry Cardinal Newman who was buried with his friend Fr. Ambrose St John, who Newman describes as "From the first he loved me with an intensity of love, which was unaccountable".

The exodus of straight priests in the 60s and 70s simply made the large minority of gay priests (which had been there for centuries - at least since the impostion of manditory celibacy) into an absolute majority.

"Hi, this is the Center for Disease Control calling. Can you tell us whether you committed adultery in 2002? It's just something our scientists want to know. No one will ever find out. Promise."

daniel:

They're still just a fraction even in the American Church. But will, of course, always be with us.

So the exodus of the of the 60s and 70s must always be with us?

We're about to find out how big a fraction, OJ.

If Rose's "Goodbye Good Men" (a very conservative examination of the scandals) is reasonably accurate, about 2/3 of the priesthood is gay. In olden days they were a minority, but always represented a much higher percentage in the clergy than in the general population.

RC, so long as the unnatural burden of manditory celibacy is imposed on the clergy we will have a priesthood dominated by gays. In pre-Vatican II "good old days", straight priests had "lady friends" and "housekeepers" and lived a life of hypocrisy. Only the naive believed that these guys didn't get laid like the rest of us.

daniel:

Yes and it appears to be a higher fraction than acceptable--certainly higher than the general population--but lower than other jobs that offer similar access to children. It's a problem for the Church but not one that's particularly difficult to remedy.

Celibacy is for poofs.

Lack of self-control is for secularists.

Yes it is very easy to remedy, get rid of mandatory celibacy.

Much of the RCC's resisitance to this change stems from fear it will expose the gay mafia that permeates the church - and has for centuries.

Yes, allowing married priests would certainly seem to be an option they should consider. But it's easier to start by banning practicing, openly, and not-contrite homosexual ones. Nothing wrong with being attracted to men as long as you fight it as sinful.

But the new Vatican policy makes it clear that even those who "fight it as sinful" are unfit to be priests and will be defrocked.

That is what Amy Wellborn called "insane" and what Sullivan noted was contrary to established Church teachings.

Zero tolerance seems like a sound over-reaction for the moment.

daniel: Of course mandatory celibacy is "unnatural". So what? The point is whether the position is in line with what God wants. If you want to eliminate the priest shortage problem, the most effective way to do it is just make everyone a priest, or abolish the priesthood (which is of course the same thing).

b, Jesus described celibacy as fit only for eunuchs. That doesn't strike me as something God wants. Celibacy is not only unnatural it has always been the wellspring of scandal throughout Church history.

daniel:

It was good enough for Him though. No reason that some should not seek to emulate Him if they feel strongly enough about it. Of course, not being divine they're bound to fail fairly often, but it's the trying that counts.

Being divine, He found it easier to achieve.

If trying is what counts, then let it be voluntary, not manditory.

it is. Unless you want to be a priest.

"If trying is what counts, then let it be voluntary, not manditory."

daniel: So you think that the 10 Commandments really should be the 10 Suggestions, as the joke goes? Considering that we're all sinners and the Church of course recognizes this, but still directs us to TRY to avoid sinning and hope God's love is enough to overcome our failures...Well, why not make everything voluntary (i.e., become Episcopalians)?

(blank) your comment is a red herring. The manditory celibacy rule is man-made, not a divine commandment. It is not dogma it is a discipline. The Pope could end it tommorow if he felt like it without violating any Church beliefs. It is as unnatural as homosexuality. When it was imposed, it violated cneturies of church tradition, beginning with Peter (the first pope) who was married.

OJ, that will result in even fewer priests than we have now.

daniel: Yes, it has been conceded that celibacy is unnatural (although I am a bit confused that you state the same thing about homosexuality). So what? Many people these days claim that monogamy is "unnatural." When we're dealing with issues involving the Divine, whether something is "natural" or not is irrelevant.

b, priestly celibacy is not divine. It is a man made discipline. It is not dogma or creed. The Pope could end it tomorrow without changing a word of Catholic doctrine.

daniel:

Harder discipline will revitalize the Church, which it seems to have finally recognized.

Harder discipline will further alienate the laity,of whom 95% ignore Humanae Vitae.

Harder discipline will force out all but that tiny minority of celibate priests (not just gays, those Third World and African priests who havemore than one wife or use nuns as a harem).

Harder discipline will make the Church as doctrinely pure as Hasidic Jews or the Amish, and just as isolated and insignificant.

The American experience is the exact opposite, with even mainline liberal Protestant denominations beginning to stress a return to moral teachings in order to compete with their more evangelical brethren and even the more liberal parishoners seeming to like it.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2004/12/back_to_the_fold_1.html

daniel: You're being willfully obtuse. Change my phrasing to anything you like that reflects that when discussing any religious issue, whether something is "natural" or "unnatural" is irrelevant.

As far as I know you're correct on your point that priestly celibacy is simply a policy that in theory could be changed without adversely affecting any other Church dogma. I don't agree that it would not be likely to have detrimental effects, but then I don't think "orthodox" is a pejorative term...

b:

That's where you lose daniel. He despises orthodoxy.

b, flying is "unnatural". Wearing clothes is "unnatural". You were the one who conflated unnatural with sinful. The two are not the same.

And if you actually understood the Catholic dogma to profess to follow (assuming you are Catholic) you would already know that celibacy is mere discipline. I suggest you brush up on your catechism.

What could be detrimental about letting sexually normal and emotionally mature men become priests?

And its not orthodoxy I hate, its self destructive stupidity.

"You were the one who conflated unnatural with sinful."

daniel, what the heck are you talking about?

b:

Remember, he thinks the Church is self-destructiveness here at the peak of its global reach, prestige, and power.

If the scandal plagued church which is dying in its own heartland of Europe (even the Irish don't go the church anymore) is at the peak of its prestige I'd hate to see the nadir.

Europe isn't the heartland--it's a hinterland.

The fact that Christianity died on its home turf in Europe (and is now the hinterland) doesn't exactly describe a Church at its peak.

Europe died. Christianity moved on.

Moved on to an African Church where the priests keep nuns in harems.

That's not an improvement.

Why not?

Anon:

You are forgetting something key about the way the church operates. Priests and monks have the care of young boys and postulates in monasteries and residential schools, but not generally of girls. If they did, concerns about hetero priests would be just as prominent, if not more. They used to have co-ed monasteries in the Middle Ages, but they were a little quicker than the U.S. Navy at recognizing the inevitable consequences.

Also, the hard truth is that the sexual abuse of children was simply not seen as the mind-blowingly revolting and damaging horror we see it as today. It wasn't approved of, of course, but the idea that it is a permanently scarring and debilitating horror from which one never recovers is very modern.

OJ, priests keeping nuns in harems (mostly to avoid HIV) is a violation of their priestly vows and is adultery of the worst sort. Why do you think there is nothing wrong with this practice?

Local churches will begin with their own peculiarities but over time will trend towards orthodoxy. It's been going on for thousands of years and has worked rather well.

Anon/daniel:

Can we take it you are not a big fan of the Catholic Church? Just asking.

I'm not a fan of self destructive stupidity. Celibacy has been nothing but a source of scandal over the centuries as it imposes a burden few men can bear while providing a convenient cover for gays (as Amy Wellborn noted, gays in the the RCC have alwasy been over represented compared to their numbers in the genreal population). When faced with a massive priest shortage as straight men left the clergy in droves during the 60s and 70s, the RCC chose numbers over strict doctrine. Now we'll see how well they do with only 1/3 of the clergy they have now (a clergy already stretched thin) as they force out the 2/3 that are gay.

Most have had little trouble bearing it, though Christophobes harp on the exceptions for obvious reasons.

If most could bear it, you would not have seen a mass exodus of straight priests. Most did so for honorable reasons, like not wanting to live the traditional hypocritical life with a "housekeeper".

A few liberal American clerics in the 60s/70s aren't indicative of much besides the rot in the society around them. Celibacy isn't a challenge to the Church's future.

A hemorrhage is not a few. And if they were all liberal, then all that would have been left in the clergy is rock hard conservatives, eh? So how does your claim account for the fact that the priesthood is a primarily gay profession?

And if it were Christophobes that harped against celibacy, does that make Martin Luther and all the other Protestant reformers "Christophobes"?

I love it when you paint yourself into a corner. However, like a little boy cheat whose lost the game you'll throw a tantrum and "tip the board" by either deleting or selectively editing my posts, or by launching off into another non sequitur.

But you'll know I've won, and I'll know I've won. And that's all that really matters.

They had to recruit replacements and made the mistake of going with the social flow. Of course Martin Luther was motivated by hatred of the Church.

The corrupt and immoral church of the Renaissance deserved condemnation. The pedophile protecting Church of today deserves condemnation.

When are you going to stop worshiping organizations and start worshiping God?

It deserved reform, and got it. The Church today needs some marginal reforms too. It'll get them. God doesn't expect perfection of us anymore.