Let me project:

I think they mean, something rather like work all day, take a disco nap and then party all night long, until you’re so drunk that you wake up the next morning and realise you had sex with a stranger.

Well… in my youth - when I did do so - I learned to do so from my very straight fraternity brothers. We had a keg in the fraternity house and several flavours of drugs flowed freely: mostly to the benefit of our mortal passions. While I had to wait several years to participate in things that you read about in pr0n mags, my fraternity brothers were in the midst of them at the ages of 18 - 25: multiple partners, too-drugged to remember the sex, unsafe sex, mild S&M and an odd form of what we might call bisexual homoetorticism that I never quite figured out.

All of these - clearly sins - are part of the *heterosexual culture* of NYU in the early 1980s. Your small-town raise gay boy (me) was as annoyed then as I am now - and I can only imagine what it’s like now at NYU. And I know I wasn’t just, accidentally, stuck among a bunch of perverts. We were, near as I can tell, reasonably normal for a group of young men with 24/7 access to beer in NYC at the time.

So…

Let’s assume that Rome is talking about the feather boas and bad lip syncing. Elseways, it makes this whole thing look rather like some dualist nightmare. It’s like I keep saying: there’s only one sin left.

As a season-ticket holder at North Shore Music Theater and a longtime HGTV fan, I am in big trouble now.

I agree with Fr Ernesto that it is (or should be) all about doctrine. Any man who faithfully teaches and confesses his Church’s doctrine (on sexuality and everything else), and honestly strives to live by it, ought to be worthy of consideration for the holy priesthood — whatever his “orientation” may be. But one may certainly “support the gay culture” in the sense of showing love and respect for, and defending the dignity of, gay folks, without compromising one’s commitment to orthodoxy.

If “supporting the gay culture” means “teaching contrary to the Church’s doctrine on sexuality” then they should simply say that, and skip the nonsense about “gay culture.”

No - it’s not Donatism. But in a sense it is:

Chris hits the nail on the head with an argument I made several years ago. This is This is, as Cato says in HBO’s Rome, “not a defeat but, in fact, a rare form of victory” for gay rights. Rome is, effectively, saying there is something ontologically different about these people (ie, me). This ontological difference bars them (ie, me) from even vowing celibacy and working out my salvation in a monastery.

How shocking is that?

One point of great importance: gay men and lesbians do relate in different ways to men and women. I’m not sure if this is “disordered” or not.

And rightly Chris questions the line on “the gay culture”. Fr E leaps right for “lifestyle” but that begs the question even more. Chris is right “That language opens the door to all manner of stigmatization, blackmail, and ostracism.” If you like Broadway musicals, or watch too much HGtv, you’d better stay away from the new witchhunt.

It appears that the Curia is also saying that those with these orientations are incapable of learning self-control. Does this mean that there is no path to holiness for those with certain orientations?

Mind you, oddly enough, I can more easily see the prohibition against those who support gay lifestyles. That has nothing to do with the person’s nature and everything to do with not ordaining those who are in disagreement with your doctrine, which is fair enough, since no religious group ought to be forced to recognize clergy who disagree with their doctrine. Freedom of religion applies to groups as well as to individuals. The Curia also has the freedom to issue instructions to refuse to ordain those who are pro-abortion, pro-slavery, etc.

Rome has not turned Donatist.

This is a matter of discipline not doctrine and a church can legislate it but I think I agree with all here so far that this is not necessarily the best way and not necessarily well put.

In terms of theological anthropology, this is a confusion of person and nature, in which “homosexuality” is seen as a component of the nature, but condemned as sinful anyway. When you think about it, seeing human nature as sinful in this manner is tantamount to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity.

And don’t get me started about “supporting the gay culture.” What, exactly, does that mean? That could mean anything from lobbying for gay marriage to simply treating one’s gay friends as if they are human beings. That language opens the door to all manner of stigmatization, blackmail, and ostracism.

I haven’t become a “liberal” (whatever that is); I still believe the traditional teachings of the Church on sexuality. But those teachings tell us what behaviours are spiritually healthy; they don’t sanction condemning people for who they are.

Let me get un-angry and I’ll re-engage.