I seriously doubt they're a threat. In the spirit of inclusiveness though, we might tap their best parade costumers to scare the bejeezus out of Liberian rebels though.

I don't think you have to worry about them bombing churches or other facilities. savage and random redecorating might occur though. E.

I doubt there are many left in the catholic church to be offended by what the pope says. Lots have become Episcopalians, where the controversy over electing a gay bishop in New Hampshire is much in the news this week. There are quite a few gay members in my suburban Episcopal parish, where they are active, committed members and quite welcome. I wish half of the rest of the congregation was as giving of their time and money to the church as they are. And they do a heck of a job helping out with the annual Christmas pagent.

I have wondered, on occassion, what is it about gays that gets some church folk so inflamed? Even if you believe that it is an unacceptable sin, are they saying that THIS particular sin is too sinful for a priest, while OTHER sins are Okay?

Personally, I take the view that if what other people want or feel compelled to do with their genitalia really isn't a big deal, then why do I have to hear about it?

>I have wondered, on occassion, what is it about gays that gets some church folk so inflamed? Even if you believe that it is an unacceptable sin, are they saying that THIS particular sin is too sinful for a priest, while OTHER sins are Okay?< Sarge, I personally can't get all that worked up about it because it's fairly well established that sexual orientation is biological in nature and determined by the hormonal environment in the womb, and therefore not a matter of choice. I think lots of people are uncomfortable with gays to begin with, for a lot of reasons, and the idea of doing something as intimate as worshiping with them and sitting next to them on the rummage sale committee gives them a big old case of the heebee geebees. Gay people are different, and different can be scary. I have seen people start to see gays as individuals and work through their discomfort after getting to know them at church, which is certainly a good thing. The old testament (principally Leviticus) does say it's forbidden. It also says that human slavery is dandy (especially for those unmarried daughters who hit the ripe old age of 16) and there's no problem with killing your neighbor if you see him working on the sabbath. Anyway, to finally answer your question, all of us (even priests) are sinners, but we're also expected to turn away from sin (especially priests). Unfortunately, gays can't change their sexual orientation any more than straight people can, and I think it's silly to expect them to be celebate their whole lives, but some people do. That is the offical Roman Catholic position. So it's not that other sins are okay, but rather that being gay somehow represents an unchangably sinful state in some peoples minds. What it really boils down to is that the social conservatives in the church think that electing Gene (yes, I've met him and he's a great guy and a wonderful priest) amounts to endorsing his orientation, whatever that means. The whole thing is a huge mess and more socio-politcal than theological. To me, it really comes down to what kind of church do we want to be. I know this was kind of a rambling rant, but I hope it was at least a little illuminating.

2/3 of the New Testament was written by a homosexual (Paul)

>2/3 of the New Testament was written by a homosexual (Paul)< Doesn't surprise me a bit. Jesus probably talked him into chairing the New Testament Task Force (reporting to the standing committee on Church Communications), and when nobody else showed up at the meetings, Paul wound up writing all those letters and things himself. After everything he did when his name was still Saul, he probably felt he owed Jesus big time. Actually, 2/3rds is probably high. And is there any serious historical or scriptural evidence he was gay, or is it just interesting speculation?

Probably just interesting speculation, but it tends to ruffle the feathers of the "no gays in heaven" crowd. If true, rejecting homosexual input into Christian theology would throw out quite a bit of the New Testament. I think there's a verse where Paul talks of struggling with his own homosexual urges. Though I must admit, I'd have to be far more intrigued to hunt it down.

"Sarge, I personally can't get all that worked up about it because it's fairly well established that sexual orientation is biological in nature and determined by the hormonal environment in the womb, and therefore not a matter of choice." If this is the case, it is really hard to justify homosexuality being a sin on ethical grounds, since moral "right" and "wrong" require intent and volition. One would have to question the judgement of a God who creates people who are willing to serve and yet unworthy of being his priests on account of a condition beyond their control, so I would guess that the official church position is that it is not born, it is a conscious choice.