In today's Toledo Blade there was a column about the new Vat Doc which can be summed up thus: it's not about purity that this was written, but "persecution"--we're persecuting active gay men from being priests. And a church with an "acute shortage of clergy does not need to summarily force out good pirests or reject quality seminarians because of their sexual orientation."
Let's dissect this a little bit. First of all, if they're "good priests" and "quality seminarians", then naturally they obey all the teachings of the Church and are living celibate, chaste lives, no matter what their orientation, right? Um, not always. Sure, I know there are gay priests. But they must be celibate or they're not meeting the "good" and "quality" criteria. Has the Blade read Michael Rose's Goodbye, Good Men ? I think not. We're not saying you can't be gay and a priest; we're saying that you cannot be an "active" gay man or a man who actively supports the gay agenda and be a priest in the Roman Catholic Church, because we believe differently. It's like saying you want to be a Jewish Rabbi but you're all about advancing the "Christ agenda", that maybe Jesus really was the Messiah and for 2,000 years Jews have got it wrong. That wouldn't really fly with a Jewish congregation, would it? I don't know for sure, but something makes me think not. If you want to be a priest, then you need to get on board and believe what the Church teaches so you can teach it to others; otherwise, you are misusing the position of priest to advance your own agenda which is in stark contrast to the Church you supposedly serve. Not cool. And not "good" or "quality", either.