Into the closet with you

Clearly what is going on here is an effort to "shame" Professor Fitzgibbon (and those who agree with him) into silence.

It has been argued (well, imo) that progressives are the inheritors of Puritanism. Emotional blackmail being one of the hallmarks.

Why would the issue of homosexuality ever come up in conjunction with gaining admission to a Catholic academic institution?

It never comes up when choosing a Pope.

I love it when "liberated" folk like red dog use bigoted remarks to express their detachment.

Mr. Miller!

I just wanted to say I love your new blog troll, Pink Puppy. He's adorable--down right cute, I'd say!

[quote]Why would the issue of homosexuality ever come up in conjunction with gaining admission to a Catholic academic institution?

It never comes up when choosing a Pope.[/quote]

It never comes up, doggie dear, because those priests who do struggle with homosexual desire in the Church somehow manage to do so with integrity, ie, they remain true to their vow of celibacy and to the teaching of the Church- thus their sexual proclivities are a moot point.

I am so tired of this "out there culture" How does anyone know if you are homosexual unless you deliberately draw attention to it by wearing a badge?
I think all people should refrain from imposing what should be private on the general public.
We will all face our Maker one day.I assume the first thing same sex attracted people will say is you made a mistake in designing me?

I am so tired of this "out there culture" How does anyone know if you are homosexual unless you deliberately draw attention to it by wearing a badge?

Technically, traditional marriage is an "out there" institution--man and woman in a marriage normally implies children and the public nod to the act that brings children. This is part of why the Church teaches that homosexual unions are unacceptable whether you call it "marriage", "civil unions" or whatever--they imply formal approval of the act that goes with it. Thus, it's not that there shouldn't be stuff out there--there should some things out there--as long as they are morally correct.

"But the dean also later joined a statement from faculty and administrators assuring homosexual students (and staff) that they were welcome at BC Law."

I see nothing wrong with this. Catholic teaching is to respect the human dignity of the individual. It's the act of homosexuality that is morally wrong.

When talking about the homosexual agenda in a Catholic context we should remember this.

I see nothing wrong with this

On it's own, there is nothing wrong with it. However, that's the problem--it never is on its own. Or, to put it another way, it's the ounce of truth that in these scenarios always comes with a pound of bullshit.

Catholic teaching is to respect the human dignity of the individual. It's the act of homosexuality that is morally wrong.

True, but incomplete. The Church also teaches that a homosexual orientation/inclination is an intrinsic disorder (both in kind and degree). Thus, even chaste homosexuals are morally obliged to avail themselves of all licit means by which to eradicate all inclinations to view a member of the same sex as sexually attractive. Hence, I also assert that 'realshanti' is mistaken: sexual proclivities (even if only internal movements of desire) are not at all moot points. This is why the most recent document on seminary training emphasizes that merely being chaste is insufficient from the point of view of the psychological maturity of a candidate for Holy Orders.

Liberals are like the Borg. Their motto is "You will be assimilated; resistance is futile."

[quote]Hence, I also assert that 'realshanti' is mistaken: sexual proclivities (even if only internal movements of desire) are not at all moot points. This is why the most recent document on seminary training emphasizes that merely being chaste is insufficient from the point of view of the psychological maturity of a candidate for Holy Orders.[/quote]

I see what you're saying and I'm no expert but that's why I called it a "struggle" because I am assuming the priest who finds himself in this position is wrestling with an agonizing affliction - and affliction is something with which our saints are quite experienced - that he is chaste is a testament to resting our burdens in Christ...If he is my priest I would be honored to pray for him and grateful for his service...I would certainly NOT[not that I could anyway] ask him to give up his orders because of his affliction...