I was just listening to Bush's press conference, and when asked about the problem of pedophilia in the Church (Lord only knows why the reporter thought that this was an issue for the President), he replied something to the effect that he knew many in the Church hierarchy, and that they were men of integrity.

I haven't said much on this issue, but I do have a couple of thoughts. First, I find it curious that many of the same people who claim that being gay is "unnatural" and sinful because it can't result in progeny simultaneously require that their priesthood be celibate, which to my mind is equally, and perhaps even more, "unnatural"...

Second, I am not a lawyer, but it seems to me that anyone in the Church hierarchy who helped keep such crimes quiet, and simply transferred transgressors to other parishes to sin again, were aiding and abetting felonies, and engaging in a criminal conspiracy. Is there any reason (legal reason, that is, not political) that they shouldn't be so charged?

You have to pay close attention to the newsreports, because it's being downplayed, but it seems that most of these priest's victims are young boys.

So you get a two-fer here-- non-celibate homosexuals.

I know that. I'm not sure what it has to do with my point. The church is not just going after pedophiles--they're going after homosexual priests.

My question is: how is celibacy more "natural" (even assuming there's some intrinsic positive value to things that are natural) than homosexuality?

I think the purpose was to be devoted to God, without the distractions of the physical world. That is why most curches also provide housing and salary, so the priest/pastor/father is further removed from the material needs that the rest of us face. They can devote all of their time and energy to the Word. Catholics believe that a physical relationship would hinder that. It has nothing to do with nature. I have come across quotes(at Andrew Sullivan, I think) from people in the church hierarchy that have said a celibate homosexual can serve in the preisthood, it is the noncelibate homosexual that is a problem, just as a noncelibate hetero should be a problem.

Right now you are seeing a whole lot of CYA from bishops who are trying to stave off public criticism by 'doing something'. If going after gays in the preisthood will do the trick, that is what they will do. If kicking every puppy in the country would do the trick, that is what they would do. The 'problem' in the church is the same problem that exists in Washington, people so in love with personal power they will do anything to maintain. Including selling their soul.

I think the purpose was to be devoted to God, without the distractions of the physical world. That is why most curches also provide housing and salary, so the priest/pastor/father is further removed from the material needs that the rest of us face. They can devote all of their time and energy to the Word. Catholics believe that a physical relationship would hinder that. It has nothing to do with nature. I have come across quotes(at Andrew Sullivan, I think) from people in the church hierarchy that have said a celibate homosexual can serve in the preisthood, it is the noncelibate homosexual that is a problem, just as a noncelibate hetero should be a problem.

Right now you are seeing a whole lot of CYA from bishops who are trying to stave off public criticism by 'doing something'. If going after gays in the preisthood will do the trick, that is what they will do. If kicking every puppy in the country would do the trick, that is what they would do. The 'problem' in the church is the same problem that exists in Washington, people so in love with personal power they will do anything to maintain. Including selling their soul.