this is just absurd. :mad:

no more gay priests

Sign me up for the screening committee!

I'll administer the final "test" before the committee gives its decisons.

Just saw a report on this on ABC News. Once again they equated homosexuality with child abuse and no one pointed out the difference. In fact the reports intro was "Will banning gays from priesthood stop the abuse". Guess fact checking is a thing of the past.

It's a total copout, and yet another example of that pimp Ratzodict's demonization of gays.

He and the Catholic Church are well aware that MOST gay men do NOT abuse children or adolescents. Studies have repeatedly shown that most child abuse is male adult on female children, yet no one makes the stupid equation that all heterosexual male adults are going to abuse and rape infant, pre-adolescent and adolescent girls. Rather than trying to address the affinity of pedophiles and ephebophiles to the Catholic priesthood (what is it about the Roman Catholic Church, its doctrine, its priesthood and the formation and training of priests, the supposed "vocation," etc.), the pope decides that he'll extend the hatefulness that he presented in toxic form in that document, "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons." That's the one that refers to homosexual acts as "intrinsically disordered" and "evil," and that I couldn't get Mima to respond to....

And another question: how will banning gay men stop the whoring of people like that hypocritical pig priest who destroyed a marriage in New York City? Or do the pope and his minions just not care about that? The Ten Commandments don't mention homos, but they're pretty clear about adulterers and coveting other people's spouses.

Why is anyone still Catholic? They seems so very incredibly out of touch.

That's an excellent question--one that I've often asked myself. There should be a mass exodus of gays and lesbians from the Catholic Church. Once they stop putting money in that collection plate on Sunday mornings, the Vatican will get the message and cut out the crap.

So I was skimming the active topics and my mind read this one has "New Vatican Rules said to open new gay bars for Priests"

A much more interesting news item I think.

[ September 22, 2005, 08:30 PM: Message edited by: kujhawker ]

There's a good article about this topic in today's NYT if anyone is interested.

I wonder if the papist hierarchy will succeed where reason has failed. I hope they end up getting all the queers out of their evil organization.

[ September 23, 2005, 09:29 AM: Message edited by: memphistn ]

Assume you're referring to Gay Men Ponder Impact of Proposal by Vatican

At least this article makes a distinction between adult homosexuality and pedophilia: "Gay priests say they are being scapegoated for crimes committed by pedophiles..."

Great idea for visiblity of gay priests and their supporters: "A 48-year-old gay priest who has spent 18 years in a religious order... said he was considering donning a pink triangle - the symbol used by the Nazis - and getting heterosexual priests and members of the laity to wear the triangles as a protest." Let's hope the idea spreads. I'm going to ask my 86-year old mom, a devout RC with two openly gay kids, to think about wearing one to church. She's probably got the chutzpah to do it!

And how about massive guerrilla action to post the pink triangle symbol on the dooways of Roman Catholic churches? That would be quite a pointed and visible statement against a former member of the Hitler Youth.

[ September 23, 2005, 08:03 PM: Message edited by: fenwayguy ]

But there's an inclination to do so when you're around the same sex so much, especially since male homosexuality is so sex-oriented. Just ask Ozzie Guillen.

I, for one, have swum the Tiber away from Rome to the Episcopal Church. When I took a good look around me, I found either jack-booted doctrinal conservatives, or loons, and sometimes both in the same person. Nowhere did I find CHARITY, and "ubi caritas, ibi deus est". In my current community I actually found genuine concern for others and real human warmness, not just pharasaical dread that one wrong slip would send me straight to heck. Besides, the music is soooo much better. :cool:
The Catholic Church COULD be a light to the world, but it seems intent on demonizing select groups while continuing to protect infamous sexual predators like Marcial Maciel, founder, former head and still eminence grise of the Legionaries of Christ. www.exlegionaries.com provides some background on this outrageously cultish "catholic" group.

A grand jury report of 418 pages came out this week regarding the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and its cover up of priest abuse over the last several decades. In an article printed in the Inquirer examples of abuse were cited including that of 2 girls. Making gay priests leave the church certainly won't eliminate the problem.

Inquirer Article

[ September 25, 2005, 06:36 PM: Message edited by: fenwayguy ]

What the hell are you talking about? There's no "inclination to do so"--meaning abusing CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS--when "you're around the same sex so much." Are you that incapable of seeing the difference between children/adolescents and mature adult males, or is it a problem for you as well, because you seem to be making the same logically faulty, homophobic statement as these church officials.

Children and adolescents are NOT GROWN MEN. Maybe you have an issue being around boys and male adolescents, but most gay men I know do not. Most gay men do not. Most abusers of children and adolescents are heterosexually inclined, not homosexually inclined. Even proportionally, heterosexually inclined males commit more abuse than homosexually inclined males. Pedophiles are pedophiles, whether they're in a seminary, a grade school, a scout camp, a global corporation, or the military. So what the hell are you claiming?

And are you defending pope Maledict's statements, either in "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," or in terms of this policy? Do you agree with his sick and unfounded statement that homosexual sex is "intrinsically disordered" and "evil"? Or are you going to dodge this basic question yet again?

[ September 24, 2005, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

"New Priests To Rule New Vatican Gay Bar As Said."

[ September 25, 2005, 12:20 AM: Message edited by: Erik G ]

SARCASM ALERT!

"Hey, everybody, this guy's a homosexual! He's a child molester!" - Ozzie Guillen, 8/8/05

I will let a good friend (I have known him for over 30 years), and one of my favorite Jesuit authors answer for me. He wrote what I consider to be the most insightful essay of the later 20th C on that subject.

Why I’m Still A Catholic
Andrew Greeley

Introduction

I am still a Catholic because of the beauty of Catholicism, beauty being truth in its most attractive form. It is the beauty of the images and stories of Catholicism which keep me in the Church, not the wisdom or intelligence or the virtue of the Church leadership. Beauty, truth in its most attractive form, is not weaker than prosaic truth but stronger.

I am also still a Catholic because of the warmth of the social support which the Catholic community provides, most often though not always through the neighborhood parish. I’m still a Catholic because I was born Catholic, raised Catholic, educated Catholic and like being Catholic. I’ll never stop being Catholic, despite the fact that many of the current leaders of the institutional church are corrupt thugs, from the parish right up to the Vatican. The word "still" might be construed as suggesting that we who remain in the Church are somehow a declining minority. In fact 85% of those who were raised Catholics are "still" Catholics. It is those who depart who are the exception. Moreover the departure rate has not changed in the last thirty five years, despite the enormous turbulence which has shaken the Church since the end of the Second Vatican Council. If the idiots who are running things (most notably bishops and we priests) have not driven the lay folk out with thirty five years of insensitivity and stupidity, then I suspect that they will never drive them out.

Link to the full essay

Peace

Rob

Funny how each religion seems to have their very own version of the "truth" I think as human beings we are all supposed to do whatever it takes to uphold good will.This does not mean meeting in a building at least once a week and listening to someone who has sinned more than I could ever hope to!The worst thing about all forms of faith is that it is truly blind faith!
None of us were here several thousands of years ago and we really don't know who said what to whom as it was supposedly dictated for the bible.
I was raised a catholic and all it ever instilled in me was a tremendous amount of fear and guilt.If anything it had/has kept me from enjoying life to the fullest.I don't hold anyone's belief against them until they try to impose it on me.I basically think to some extent that we are all here to look after each other.
As much as I resent my catholic upbringing,the other denominations are just as bad.I have to refrain from laughing at these folks on television who get filled with the "holy spirit" and start rolling on the floor!These people must be tremendously open to suggestion!Either way as I said before,it all comes down to good will.So,I say forget the church!

:confused: Did you not read what I wrote or the essay? :confused:

:confused: R :confused:

With all due respect Rob, The beauty of the Catholic church? Utter bullshit!! Nothing but sheer ugliness comes out of that bunch!

I read it Rob,but I believe a lot of that applies to other churches as well.I "personally"
cannot tolerate the hypocrasy of most so-called christians,catholic and otherwise.The catholic church and it's beliefs have hindered my personal life more than you would ever believe!

It is not easy trying to be Catholic these days.

The current hierarchy certainly haven't made my life easier either.

No one likes being spit upon all the time.

But I truley believe the Church is too important to be left to the clergy. The laity is what makes the Church a worthwhile institution, and the laity want change, so change will come eventually.

Truthfuly, as much as I have looked, and I searched for years, I found nothing better and many worse.

R

I'm not searching.I think as long as I'm a pretty decent guy then that's all God or whoever can ask of me.I haven't been nearly as bad as I want to be!!

Someday, Eddiecat, you may need something more. That is why I am still Catholic. It has nothing to do with the Pope, my priest, or any other figure in the Church. It has to do with my local parish, where I feel comfortable. I feel more a part of my community by attending my local Church. As for the Church itself, I too agree with the article posted by IT Jock. I believe it is the beauty of truth that keeps me happy in the Catholic Church. Dispute that all you want, but that is the reason why I am still Catholic, and will probably always remain so. Please understand this may be a difficult concept to understand when looking at the Church from the outside. My love for the Church goes way beyond any personality or position in the Church. I am there simply because of my love for Christ.

[ September 26, 2005, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]

Miller,I do understand but that is your personal choice.Whatever it is that you think I may need,someday,I'm pretty sure I won't get it from the church.And by the way,in order for there to be "beauty in the truth" it probably has to be the truth,first and foremost.

[ September 27, 2005, 02:56 AM: Message edited by: eddiecat ]

With all due respect...
Was this a comedy piece? I mean, come on, since when has the Catholic church been concerned about the truth? They've spent years and years covering up child abuse, promoting those guilty of it and paying out over a billion dollars in settlements.

Truth? Beauty??

When I have attended Catholic services, I find the pomp and circumstance of mass spectacular & I felt closer to God. It was one reason why I wanted, for a time, to be a priest.

It would be interesting to see what the Vatican would do if all the gay priests and seminarians simply walked out....

First, let me say that I am not Catholic, but attended Catholic schools for grades 9 and 13.

I also attended a small Catholic University, solely as they had one of the best business programs in the country.
And for the past 3 years, this same small university (2,500 undergraduate students) has been voted the best undergrad university in Canada.

I never noticed overt prejudice for being gay, but back when I was in University in the late 70's, I kept it fairly well hidden in rural Nova Scotia.

In fact, I encountered more prejudice being from "upper Canada" than I did even from those people who suspected I was gay.

But fast forward to 2 Sundays ago. One of Wayne's and mine best friends is a single mother of a 16 yr old daughter. Both are religious, and attend mass every week, no matter where they are. Their priest is apparently fairly young, and one would think because of that would be more tolerant.

WRONG!!!!!

When my friend told him that she couldn't help at the church that night as she was helping Wayne and I celebrate our 25th anniversery, he was apparently upset, and then made a point of mentioning it in his sermon last Sunday. He publically chastised my friend for allowing her daughter to be exposed to "filth" such as Wayne and I, and called her "unfit to receive blessing".

I have never talked religion to her. Her faith is an important part of her life, and she has never ever used it against Wayne and I, and in fact has always been a good friend, no matter what, but this time I feel caught in the middle. She told us about it this past Sunday, and is still upset. I don't dare suggest she not go to mass, but told her if she wanted to talk about it I would.

Most of the congregation is on her side, and seriously angry at the priest, but given that the bishop was at the service when my friend got the blast, she doubts anything will be done.

Another great example of the "New" Catholic Church

I won't even open the can of worms that is the virgin birth, (snicker).

Somehow it didn't sound "with all due respect".

My god it is tough to be a Christian these days, much less a Catholic.

Apparently, you did not read my reply or the essay. There is a great deal of truth and beauty in the Christian Community, as there are in many other religious traditions.

While it is true that many of the Church’s Clergy have failed miserably, and have committed unpardonable sins and even crimes in their sometimes isolated arrogance; you can not tar the entire church as evil or corrupt. Considering the size of the Church, the abuses have actually been few and minor when compared with society as a whole, or even other religious organizations.

I do not excuse the crimes or abuse, or the institutional clergy’s role in covering it up. I state a fact. Studies of other religious and social organizations show the same or even higher levels of abuse (LCA 2002; State of New York AG 2001; State of MA AG 2000; UCSB 2001). It is our challenge AS A SOCIETY, as a COMMUNITTY, to ensure that things like that are never allowed to happen again.

The civilizing influence of the Church and the good it has done in so many areas sadly don’t seem to make good news bites or Ad copy.

In many parts of the world, the Church is still the only institution many people can turn to in hard times of trouble. The Church has a long history throughout the world of protecting the poor and disenfranchised from unscrupulous merchants, developers, politicians, landowning aristocracies, etc. The World would be a much poorer place without the 37% of the world’s total of free hospitals and clinics run by the Church (WHO – 1992). The world would be a much less enlightened, much darker place without the tens of thousands of Grade schools, Middle Schools, High schools, Colleges, and Universities that have led western civilization since long before any modern government was considered. Many of these exist despite the active persecution of rapacious governments and the wealthy.

While many people are justifiably upset at the current Administration of the US government for its huge failures at every level from the top down, almost nobody would advocate the overthrow of the US Government. I see no rush to the Mexican and Canadian borders of people intent on the dubious hope of finding a better home elsewhere. Rather we as citizens and members of the community call for change.

If 9/11 taught us as Americans anything, it is that you could burn down or firebomb every single federal building, including the White House and the Pentagon, and yet the United States of America will endure; because the US is not in those fragile buildings, documents, and even individuals. The US is the PEOPLE of this community; in the IDEALS we profess; the IDEAS that have made us great and strong.

So too the Catholic Church is not made up solely of the Clergy, even the Vatican Hierarchy - who are after all only as human as you or I, or the beautiful Cathedrals and quiet forest chapels. The CHURCH is the LAITY who as a community profess certain common beliefs first articulated by the words and actions of a simple TEACHER more than 2000 years ago.

Despite the sometimes ill advised actions of its leadership, a Clergy who have frequently been isolated from the common people and insulated from any unpleasantness (If it is easy as a President to be surrounded by thousands who tell you only good news, how much more isolated can a man be who millions revere and think of as God’s representative on Earth?); despite a Clergy who are sometimes unable to see the ‘beauty and truth’ themselves; The “Truth and Beauty” exist in the Catholic Christian Communitas of the Laity, the traditions and pageantry, and the hope that we can change the world into a better place.

The Clergy is made up of simple, and sometimes not so simple, men and women, No more, no less. As such they fall to all of the sins and excesses of all human beings everywhere. They are no better or worse. Even the Pope is but a man.

I do not expect many people to understand that communitas. Many in the Church itself do not think of it that way. Many of the Clergy do not understand it. Many who do think of it that way are AFRAID of it to the point of denial. It is a concept that was thousands of years ahead of it’s time, breathtaking and revolutionary.

The Church is FAR to IMPORTANT to be left solely to Clergy.

Whatever your religion or considered thoughts on the subject, I will not attack you for your belief for that was not ‘THE WAY” of ‘THE TEACHER”. Instead, I will only leave you with his example, and his word.

Shalom

Rob

[ September 27, 2005, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: ITJock ]

Rob,
I just think that the beauty lies in the concept of what the church is "supposed" to represent.Our church has not lived up to the expectations.I hope that I have not offended you or anyone else.However as gay men it almost seems self destructive to practice a religion which has basically condemned our lifestyle.

No - our church has frequently not lived up to its ideals or our expectations. You have not offended. I simply felt the need to explain. Sometimes I am overly touchy when people criticise 'The Church'.

As for self destructive - half the world condems us for the way were born and hard wired; we call for change, and work hard toward the goal of equality knowing we may never see it in our lifetimes. I am willing to work at least that hard for the 'soul' of the religion based upon the teachings of a man I love.

R

So I wonder why they do this, what do they want to achieve? Is it a mis-guided attempt to minimise child-abuse? a slavish application of the 'gays are evil' doctrine? Are they drawing the line so they don't have a future Bishop Gene Robinson event? A knee-jerk reaction to the victories of the gay-rights campaigns? A demonstration of power by a new Pope? Downright vindictiveness and witch-hunting of gay people? Those last two, I don't believe. It may be a combination of the others.

If they don't want gays to be priests, do they want gays to be members of the congregation? My understanding is that if a person does not follow the rules (such as no sex outside hetro marriage) then you are not in communion with the church and can attend Mass but not take the sacrament. I'm an a-la-carte Catholic, I feel part of a community, I take guidance on some issues, I ignore the anti-gay prejudice, and leave the rest between me and God, if there is a God. I'm not interested enough in theology to select another religion.

Why do they do it?

A guess. Many of them are older (Avg age in their late 60’s), in office bound careers rather than in the parishes with the people. I think many of them are out of touch with common people or ‘the street’. They believe that they are protecting the church from people who are constantly attacking it. In some ways, it is a bunker mentality like that of many institutions under fire.

When most of these guys were young men, they saw tremendous change in society; and much change in their beloved Church. They were attacked then by both sides of society for being too conservative, and by many older more conservative members for being too liberal. The easiest thing to do is to do nothing – not to change.

Also, in some ways, no one is more bound than they themselves. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope, when he solemnly defines a matter of faith and morals ex cathedra (that is, officially and as pastor of the universal Church), is correct, and thus does not have the possibility of error.
This doctrine has a long history, but was not defined dogmatically until the First Vatican Council of 1870. In Catholic theology, papal infallibility is one of the four channels of the Infallibility of the Church; and probably the most misunderstood.

The only statements of the Pope that are infallible are statements that either reiterate what has always been taught by the Church or are ex cathedra solemn definitions (which can never contradict what has formerly been taught; see e.g. Gal 1:8-9). Infallible statements in the former category are said to exercise the "Universal" or "Constant" Magisterium (and the doctrine which strictly and merely repeats what the church has always taught is considered infallible); infallible statements in the latter category are said to exercise the "Extraordinary" or "Solemn" Magisterium. Statements that exercise neither the Universal Magisterium or the Extraordinary Magisterium (i.e., statements that do not simply reiterate what has always been taught or which are not solemn definitions expressed ex cathedra) are not infallible, and are said to be an exercise of the merely authentic Magisterium. Such teaching is to be obeyed and given religious assent as long as it does not contradict infallible Magisterium and does not harm the faith or lead to sin.

The conditions required for ex cathedra teaching are mentioned in the Vatican decree: The pontiff must teach in his public and official capacity as spiritual head of the Church universal, not merely in his private capacity as a theologian.
He must be teaching some doctrine of faith or morals in a manner that explicitly and solemnly defines an issue. His teaching cannot contradict anything the Church has taught officially and previously. It must be evident that he intends to teach with his supreme Apostolic authority. In other words, he must convey his wish to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way. There are well-recognized formulas that are used to express this intention, such as "We declare, decree and define, . . .". It must be clear that the Pope intends to bind the whole Church. Unless the Pope formally addresses the whole Church in the recognized official way, he is assumed to not intend his teaching to be ex cathedra and infallible (unless he is reiterating what has always been taught).

Thus the vast majority of Popes, and certainly the very conservative Cardinals JPII appointed, have felt bound by their predecessors even should they have an idea about change.

It is an institution deliberately set up over the centuries NOT TO CHANGE and for there to me no mechanism for change. In light of that, the two Vatican Councils were truly extraordinary events, which shocked many of the clergy of the time. It is amazing to me that the Church has adapted as well as it has to the 20th and 21st Centuries.

Change within the Church is MEANT, even DESIGNED, to take place slowly – even over hundreds of years – if at all.

That is a lot of inertia to overcome.

Like many bodies of men, there is a sort of pendulum effect that goes with the times, some times are more ‘liberal’, some more conservative (reformation – counter reformation, etc.) Currently the pendulum is away from the perceived ‘liberalism’ of the early and mid 20th C which culminated in V2.

This is a vast over simplification, and there are obviously many more things at work here, not the least of which is the centuries long struggle between centralization and decentralization within the Church.

And that is just the short off the cuff version.

Rob

Well I definitely think you should spread the word to the children who have been raped by their priests that the abuse was minor.

Oh, and as far as it being "tough to be a Christian these days" - so true, the martyr/victim role is very appropriate.

IT Jock:

Thanks for for your articulate, well-thought-out posts. You've expressed perfectly what many of us feel. I see faith as a personal matter; you should never feel you have to explain or defend your religious choices, but I'm glad you chose to do so.

Munson Man

Ahhh RazorbackTX,

Once again you deliberately insist in quoting me outside of the context of my remarks.

Is this antipathy personal, against the Catholic Church, or against organized religion in general?

Whatever it is, I don't believe I have attacked you or your personal beliefs in my writings; therefore I have to ask why you are attacking meand mine? Did I offend you personally in some way? What is the basis of your antipathy?

You seem to be showing not just concern, or even anger fueling hot discourse, but a deep antipathy for both me and the Church. What have either done to you?

Rob

I don't know if the SF Chronicle's editorial cartoon, Bad Reporter, is on their Web site (www.sfgate.com) but if it is, today's is hilarious. The Bad Reporter is a series of "spoof" headlines related to real news. First panel: Massive Traffic Jams as Gay Priests are Evalucated from Catholic Church"
In the second, the pope is telling the gay priests to go to the superdome for shelter and the headline:
Almighty God: 'Popey, You're Doing a Heck of a Job'
Final panel: Widespread Gay Priest Looting Causes Panic and beneath "Pottery Barn Robbery was About Survival"

Please explain the "once again" comment.
_____________________________________________
You said:
Is this antipathy personal...

Did I offend you personally in some way?

You seem to be showing not just concern, or even anger fueling hot discourse, but a deep antipathy for both me...

Me: Congrats, you get an A+ for the martyr role.
________________________________________________

No, it's not personal. Apparently you have never read any of my other posts about the Catholic "church" - otherwise you wouldnt be asking that question.

I think an organization that condones children being raped by shuffling priests around, promotes those who cover it up and then tries to mimize the damage is depraved.
If you choose to associate yourself with that kind of organization - have at it.

Your "church" has labled gay people as "evil" -
all the while they swept child abuse under the rug, to me that's hypocrisy at its highest level.

[ September 28, 2005, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]

here's a link:

Ponitiff-icating

For me, the worst part about the ban is the ammunition that it gives people who don't recognize that people of less traditional lifestyles have an equal dignity before God. What if scientists isolate a gene or develop a test to determine predispositions to homosexual behaviour in vitro?? Even people who reject the teaching against abortion may latch on to the "intrisically disordered" language and use that as an excuse for termination. For adults, too, this move on the part of the current head of the Catholic Church seems to fan the flames of hatred, not kindle the love of Christ.
Furthermore, my gut tells me that such a sweeping statement flies in the face of an authentic Catholic understanding of the person qua person, and in the Christian context, of soterology. How can one say that one biological male, redeemed by the unmerited grace of baptism is less worthy of holy orders than another, of equal and undisputed karyotypic maleness. If anything, the current instruction UNDERMINES the rationale behind denying ordination to women, by making it the reasons against conferral of holy orders as subject merely to accidents, and not substance.
Here's a modest proposal, how about mandatory castration for all men wishing to enter holy orders?? After all, Jesus does mention various types of eunuchs. Why should the One True Holy Catholic Apostolic Church ignore this vital distinction made by our Lord and Saviour?? I think we must needs embrace it.
Yes, and Rob, as a cradle Catholic, I do sincerely love many things about it, and will never truly leave, but Jesus himself said "There are other sheep not of my fold...", but the current church, along with society, has lost sight of humanity -- Christ was not only God. Like I said, the Catholics in my acquaintance have more in common with the pharisees of the NT than the disciples of Christi: in hoc omnes cognoscent quia discipuli mei estis...
I just don't find the AGAPE anymore.

[ September 28, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: chi-town ]

Bravo! Well said!

And not only that, but by issuing this decree, it implies that all the priest who have molested boys in the past were homosexual. So, it's just their subtle way of further demonizing gays.

..This child abuse problem will go away now that we've made it clear - "no fags allowed"!

A terrific piece on the subject from Slate.com:

Let He Who is Without Sin...

Of COURSE a lot of the men leading this witch-hunt are gay themselves... isn't that always the way?

Made official today: In Strong Terms, Vatican Document Bans Gays as Priest

Mesa AZ (near Phoenix) suffered the most recent resignation over the church's "aggressive anti-gay positions".

William Saletan reviews Ratzinger's deeply rooted obsession with homosexuals.

And how about this one: Talk about dizzy!

[ November 30, 2005, 09:01 AM: Message edited by: fenwayguy ]

This morning, I listened to a CBC Radio interview with a Canadian priest who has decided to take the courageous stand of publicly coming out of the closet. There is no link to the interview itself, but here's some background from the CBC website:

In the Catholic church, gays and lesbians have always been in something of a precarious position- careful and concealed. Many nonetheless stayed with the faith; many even joined the priesthood. But now the Vatican has slammed its doors. A document issued this week decreed that the seminaries of the Catholic Church are not open to men who "are actively homosexual, have deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called gay culture." To some, this may seem like just more of the same from a church whose position on homosexuality is clear. But to other observers, the Church has now gone farther than it ever has before by suggesting homosexuals are fundamentally unfit for the priesthood.

With Michael Enright this morning is Father Richard Renshaw of Montreal. Father Renshaw has dedicated his entire life to the priesthood, working in countries devastated by wars and natural disasters, and on social justice and peace initiatives here in Canada. And he is gay, a fact he has never before discussed publicly, and he is angry.

Father Renshaw had already been barred from administering the sacraments because of his support for 'gay culture' (eg speaking at gay pride rallies). During the interview, he slammed the Vatican for further strengthening its already anti-gay position and called it an example of how the Church humiliates and shames people.

[ December 04, 2005, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Marc ]

Andrew Sullivan has been blogging extensively about the Vatican's newly-stated policy. Roman Catholic and openly gay, Sullivan takes the matter personally. (Here's the black-on-white version, if you prefer.)

[ December 05, 2005, 06:54 PM: Message edited by: fenwayguy ]