User:Hanalone/sandbox

Opposition to gay clergy:

ORIGINAL: On the one hand, there are those who urge acceptance and compassion for priests who are homosexual, arguing that these priests have always had, and continue to have, much to contribute to the church. On the other hand are those who feel that since homosexuality is defined by church teaching as a strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil (The Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons, 1986) the presence of homosexual priests is at best an embarrassment, and at worst a trend that needs to be reversed.

MINE: The controversy surrounding gay men in the Catholic Church is met by two viewpoints. There are those who encourage acceptance for priests who are homosexual, who argue that they contribute to the church and always will. On the other hand, there are those who believe that homosexuality is defined by the church as a "moral evil" and therefore homosexual priests should not be allowed.

ORIGINAL: But the word homosexual, again, is used as a description of sexual orientation, as a condition, not as an indication of whether a person is sexually active. Unless proven otherwise, there is no reason to believe that homosexual priests are any less likely to keep their promises of celibacy than heterosexual ones. This article will assume that homosexual priests take their promises of celibacy as seriously as their heterosexual counterparts do.

MINE: Another element to the controversy is the way people view the word 'homosexual". Homosexual describes a sexual orientation and is not an indication of if a person is sexually active or not. There is no proof that homosexual priests are more or less likely to keep their promises of celibacy than their heterosexual counterparts.

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2000/11/04/challenges-and-gifts-homosexual-priest