Is That Legal?

Several of the disciples were married, including Peter himself who is considered the "first Pope." So I don't think you can fob off the celibacy requirement on Jesus. In fact, the requirement of priestly celibacy arose somewhat later, after many priests were married, and the CAtholic church has some married priests (who were Episcopalian priests granted special exemptions). As for homosexuality, we have no record of Jesus ever having mentioned the topic. We do have Torah passages and epsitles from Paul on the topic. In short, I don't think either of those views can be accurately traced to Jesus himself.

If that's a serious question, here's your answer: because the church views homosexuality as a disorder that makes a "sufferer" more likely to engage in the forbidden behavior (sex). By that same logic, the control and command structure of the church seeks to keep heterosexuals with an unusual predisposition to sexual activity out of the priesthood. At least, that's what B16's buddy just said on Fresh Air.

You've got to hand it to the Catholics: their premises might be completely bat shit, but their logic is always tight.

Leviticus 18:22, per the KJ Bible, says:

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Just so we're clear here, Leviticus does not call homosexuality a sin. It is completely silent about "loving" or "desiring" someone of the same sex as one would love or desire someone of the opposite sex.

Instead, Leviticus only bans the ACT of same-sex sex. So the answer, Eric, is there's no there there.

And while we're on the subject of explanations, would someone please explain to me how the Christian fundamentalists get to say some laws in the Hebrew Bible matter (like Leviticus 18:22) but others do not. Where's the principled distinction?

And don't tell me moral laws versus laws of mere cleanliness. The first 5 books of the Bible say NOTHING, not one word, that such a distinction exists using words like "moral" and "cleanliness".

So you can't be a literalist and then "legislate," that is, re-write, what the Scriptures say to make the Bible fit your own personal views.

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to trash Harriet Miers and the religious right's view of "strict construction" as applied to the Constitution.

A lot of religious folks seem to have that proclivity. Personally, I think they really dont know what the Bible says and have been indoctrinated by their parents, their church leaders, and their sub-culture to believe this stuff.

Who needs principled distinction and when cognitive dissonance will suffice.

It reminds me of that joke from Ninotchka:

"A man comes into a restaurant. He sits down at the table and he says, 'Waiter, bring me a cup of coffee without cream.' Five minutes later, the waiter comes back and says, 'I'm sorry, sir, we have no cream. Can it be without milk?'"

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Does that mean lesbianism is okay?

Nice post. Regarding the first comment, the celebacy requirement came fairly late, as did the vow of poverty. Both came in response to the tendency of local priests to enrich themselves by all means possible.

A funny anecdote that arose from this occured in Iceland, which lost communication from Europe during the dark ages. When communication was re-established after a few hundred years, the Catholic Church sent emmissaries, who were shocked to find that Iceland already had a large Catholic clergy -- most with multiple wives.

Jesus insists no such thing. Where did you get this idea?

While the Catholic Church's celibacy rules may be misguided, I think the Church has made it clear that it is a discipline imposed by the Church and is not required by the teachings of Jesus.

FYI: there are four rites in the Catholic Church headed by Pope Benedict. Most Catholics in the US are governed by the Latin Rite, which forbids married priests unless the priest has converted from a protestant church after he was already married. The other three rites of the Catholic Church do not forbid priests from marrying though, I believe, married priests cannot be elevated to the bishopric.

Obviously, Jesus isn't insisting on these inconsistencies.

Outsider, I hear the Iceland story from time to time, but have never been able to get to the source of it.

Iceland wasn't settled until 870 and although trade with the rest of Europe may have fallen off in the 14th and 15th centuries (partly because Icelanders had used up all the wood -- mostly driftwood -- and were no longer able to build their own ships, partly because they had little to trade that Europe needed) it was never out of touch.

Something like that may possibly have happened in Norse Greenland, which was pretty much forgotten for some years. But by the time an emissary from Rome finally got back there, I believe the Norse Greenlanders had completely disappeared. It is still a mystery what happened to them. Jared Diamond's account, by the way, is mostly wrong.

If you recall where you came across the Iceland story, or have a lead on it, I would like to try to track it down. Thanks.

"The Bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 admonishments to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision." -- Lynn Lavner

The BBC account is wrong (no surprise there).
John allen reports that:
"A forthcoming Vatican document on homosexuals in seminaries will not demand an absolute ban, a senior Vatican official told NCR Oct. 7, but will insist that seminary officials exercise "prudential judgment" that gay candidates should not be admitted in three cases.
Those three cases are:

* If candidates have not demonstrated a capacity to live celibate lives for at least three years;
* If they are part of a "gay culture," for example, attending gay pride rallies (a point, the official said, which applies both to professors at seminaries as well as students);
* If their homosexual orientation is sufficiently "strong, permanent and univocal" as to make an all-male environment a risk."
http://nationalcatholicreporter.org/update/bn100705.htm
For those who do not know, the National Catholic Reporter is a liberal Catholic publication, and John Allen is generally recognized by most Catholics, both liberal and conservative, as the best reporter covering the Vatican today.