The anti-gay Pastors’ Decadus Horribilis 1

Through a fittingly croaky voice, the Queen of England called 1992 her Annus Horribilis on account of the avalanche of tragedies that had befallen her and her family that year.Her son’s marriage to Diana fell apart publicly, the royals’ standing in the public esteem fell to an all time low, and then part of Windsor Castle burnt down.

To borrow from Queen Elizabeth II, the 2000-2010 decade is not one on which the anti-gay pastors of the world will look with undiluted pleasure. Here is why:

It was the decade in which our arch enemy, America’s Pastor Jerry Falwell died [in 1997] and left a massive void in the strategy of the holier-than-thou pontificating religious fundamentalists that wanted all gays burnt at the stake. It was also the decade in which Pastor Ted Haggard,, surely the quintessential gay anti-gay bigot of the 21st Century, was outed as a hypocrite who railed against homosexuals in the light of day and then had steamy sex with male homosexual prostitutes while his wife slept soundly in their marital bed at night. Outed and defrocked, Ted Haggard is still trying to revive his failed life and sham marriage to this day.

In 2010 rabidly anti-gay Pastor Eddie Long capitulated and opted to settle the charges of homo-pedophilia brought against him by four young men rather than go to court. He first blustered and breathed fire when the four men accused him of having had sexual relations with them when they were underage. Then, clearly with the dollars he stood to forfeit flashing before his eyes, poor Eddie Long decided to settle out of court rather than let the lurid tales of his homo-pedophilia become public fodder. Another pastor had bitten the dust.

Then in California, again towards the end of 2010, another so-called pastor, this time one who had publicly ranted and raved against homosexuality and homosexual marriages, Tom Daniels,  was indicted on child pornography charges. Pastor Daniels apparently felt that two grown men loving each other in the privacy of their home was sinful but a sleazy pasty ‘pastor’ sleeping with children entrusted into his care wasn’t.

Embattled: Ssempa

Only a few days ago, as 2010 was coming to a close, Uganda’s rabidly anti-gay Pastors, Male and Ssempa, were indicted for coaching witnesses, tampering with a police investigation and bringing malicious charges against a fellow pastor. Oh dear. And this came just as you were thinking it couldn’t possibly get worse for poor Martin Ssempa who had, in 2009 and 2010, lost hundreds of thousands of dollars of his American funding in successive blows to his bottom line due to pressure from gay activists around the world.

To add salted pepper to the already festering wound, the Ugandan anti-gay pastors and their friends then spectacularly lost a legal battle, January 3, 2011 in the courts of law when a judge barred all newspapers from publishing names of men and women they thought were gay on the grounds that it was a violation of their right to privacy. It was not the first legal battle the Ssempa camp had lost. On December 23, 2008, they were dealt a devastating blow by Justice Arach when she ruled that Ugandan gay men and women deserved to have their human rights respected.

If they were all to sit down at one table, it is not far fetched to imagine that the hapless pastors would open their deliberations thus:

“The 2000-2010 years are not a decade on which we shall look back with undiluted pleasure.The decade has turned out to be a Decadus Horribilis.”

Yes, dear pastors. If the last decade were a fish, you would surely throw it back.

As the Americans say: ‘You ain’t seen nothing yet.’

The potestant clergy holds conference in Uganda to discuss gay sex – again 1

You certainly have to give it to them for perseverance. The religious prelates, this time the protestant ones, have come out with yet another communique, again telling the world what it already knows; that they are obsessed with homosexual sex.

Rather confusingly, they have called homosexual sex ““innovation of the truth”” [sic]. Never mind that this statement doesn’t make make any sense whatever. The only notable thing about the lofty pronouncement is that they reiterated it in front of their boss, Bishop Rowan Williams, who was no doubt watching the proceedings in bemusement.

Frankly, this kind of conduct used to be rude in the traditional African societies these prelates claim they are protecting. We never, ever, invited our elders to our house to publicly lecture them about positions we already knew they were not going to change their or our mind about. It was and still remains un-African to do that. So, on the matter of decorum alone, the protestant clergy get a zero score. But, hey, who cares about manners if you have all the time in the world to open your mouth publicly and let whatever comes out come out?

Even on the substance itself, one wonders what they hope to gain by saying the same thing again and again. They made the very same announcement December 2 2009, again when they met in Entebbe to talk about … homosexual sex. Then on January 12, 2010, the president of the country drew a decisive line under the Bahati Nazi Gay Bill by reminding Ugandans that homosexuality has always been with us, and that the bill was interfering with his foreign policy and thus would not proceed in Parliament. Phew, we breathed a sigh of relief knowing that that was that.

But these bishops are like recalcitrant children who will not sit still or pay attention. Again, yesterday, at the start of their latest conference on homosexual sex, Museveni reminded them to be tolerant:

“I think tolerance is firmly based on the Biblical story of the Good Samaritan … “You are what you are, I am what I am and everyone of us is here in their own right by the permission of God; so you must accept me the way I am.”

Absolutely, your excellency but these tone-deaf pastors of the flock obviously think they can pick and choose what they will tolerate – to the extent that they will invite their boss in order to publicly embarrass him with their intolerance of people who have done nothing but be who they are. Never mind that there is no possibility whatever that there is no homosexual among the clergy that gathered at Entebbe to talk at Rowan Williams.

And can you imagine how warped these guys’ priorities are? In a country where 500,000 women die during childbirth in any given year due to lack of basic medical care, and where corruption robs the country of enough money to fix the entire country’s moribund public hospitals, how can they think that they should invite guests from all over the world to expend time talking about homosexuals whose numbers they cannot even guess at because they don’t know them? How is homosexual activity responsible for the corruption that has robbed thousands of schools of basic scholastic supplies? Are these guys living in cloud cuckoo land or what?

And what is this fixation with gay sex? How can an entire continent of clergymen pack their bags and cassocks, board planes and fly to yonder lands to talk about gay sex and put out public statements about it? What is it about gay sex that is so fascinating to these people? Not ‘hot’ enough for them? Too intense? Too mind-blowing? What is it, pray?

Fellow homosexuals … methinks we might be missing a great chance somewhere. If these august gentlemen see the merit of constantly revisiting our perceived sexual practices [perceived because they don’t know what we really do in the privacy of our homes] we must be doing something remarkable – certainly something worth conducting a continental conference over. Imagine the publicity that would bring us … and of course the dollars we could make simply by charging entrance fees.

Just a thought.

"Pastor Skinner" Joins Uganda’s Cabal of Anti-Gay Bigots 3

Check out this site showing the ugly face of the frothing-at-the-mouth anti-gay prelates in Uganda. It is distressing, though not terribly surprising that Gary Skinner of Watoto Children’s Choir fame sits squarely among this group of infamy. After all, we are the company we keep.

Here is the motley crew of self-confessed anti-gay bigots whose company Gary Skinner keeps:

Bishop Simon Peter Emiau – Chairman Evangelical Fellowship of Uganda; His Grace Luke Henry Orombi – Archbishop of Church of Uganda; Pastor Jotham Mutebi – Chairman Full Gospel Churches of Uganda; Pastor Titus Oundo – Chairman Diliverance Churches of Uganda; Apostle John Mulinde – World Trumpet Mission; Apostle Jackson Ssenyonga – Christian Life Ministries; Pastor Gary Skinner – Watoto (formerly Kampala Pentecostal) Church; Apostle Joseph Ssewadda – General Overseer of Born Again Federation; Peter Asiimwe – Uganda Evangelical Mission Agency; Pastor Fred Wantaate – Coordinator for Pentecostal Golden Jubilee – Full Gospel Church;
“You are the company you keep”
 ‘Pastor’ Gary Skinner

Gary Skinner, of course, keeps children, some as young as five years, on the road for months on end, performing (rather than attending school or going to bed at Godly hours) at fund-raising evangelical concerts that often run six months without a break. Then there is the pretense that Watoto has always cultivated that all the children in the Watoto Choir are orphans, something that is patently ridiculous.

Let’s face it: Skinner has gained handsomely from what is surely tantamount to child labor, albeit of a vocal kind. 

And we know that his Kampala Pentecostal Church has endorsed anti-gay stances in the past so perhaps this latest hot poker on our backsides (pun intended) should come as no surprise.

Related Reading:

1. Joyce Meyer condemns Uganda’s anti-gay bill


On loving the sinner but hating the sin 4

Excerpt of a conversation I am having with some people on another forum about the issue of loving the sinner and hating the sin:

Their (Jude and Evelyn’s) argument:

The answer is to make it clear that you do not agree with that kind of lifestyle-,-hating the sin- but treat the person fairly-loving the sinner. … Example: If my spouse came home and confessed he has been seeing another man for the last 30 years. In my case I would continue to love him, hate his sin but throw him out of the house,OR would it be [appropriate] to let him sleep in the other room for the sake of the kids and sweep the family secret under the rug. True stories like this are out there. But yes love the sinner and hate the sin. …

And my response:

The sin above and the sinner are quite apparent. The husband is a sinner for having lied to his wife of (for) 30 years. And he is a sinner because he has admitted his sin of infidelity. And someone is also hurt – the third party who, for 30 years, was not given a choice in the matter. There are no assumptions here.

But you and Jude are basing your assumption of “sin” on a specious premise that all gay men and women are having sex. You are also basing your assumption of sin on the assumption that to be gay automatically means to engage in homo-sodomy.

And my question to you remains the same: what is it that a gay couple might do in their bedroom that you and your husband, wife, girlfriend, boyfriend cannot? That leads to the second logical question: if you are not witness to the sexual activity of gay people, how can you say that they are sinning? How do you know that they are not together for companionship, platonic love and/or spiritual affinity – just as geriatric couples, partners in long term relationships or impotent people sometimes do?

And finally, using your yardstick, do you now understand why I might think of you as someone I should love but whose relationship I might find sinful? After all, I could assume that Jude’s heterosexual partner gives him fellatio – a sinful use of the mouth according to Jude’s standard. Or I might assume that Evelyn’s heterosexual partner visits her nether regions with his tongue – another sin surely.

Do you both see the double edged sword you are holding when you assume the existence of a sexual “sin” when you have not witnessed it and when it has not been admitted to you?

So, do you believe that religion teaches us to make judgments based upon mere perceptions? As a gay man that you don’t know, have never met and have never been in the same room with, what is my lifestyle? Are you assuming that because I am gay, I am having sex? And if I am, what type of sex do you assume I am having that you have no capability of having?

Closer to home, should I assume that because you are heterosexual you are having sex with women? What if you are celibate or impotent?

Are you saying that the tag of “heterosexual” is all we need to make a judgment about your lifestyle? And what exactly is the sin?

I just illustrated that we are gay or heterosexual even when we are virgins, when we are celibate and if we die without ever having any kind of sex. So, if one is gay as a virgin what is the sin there? And if one lives and dies as an openly gay person who never has any kind of sex in his lifetime, what sin has he committed?

Do you see where your love the sinner, hate the sin is just gobbledygook?

On the other hand, one may be gay and engage in more gay sex than you two have had hot dinners. But unless he/she tells you about it, you will never even know about their sex lives. So a gay person might have prolific sex all their lives but unless they tell you about it or someone they have had it with complains, you will never be any the wiser. Exactly what sin then would you be hating there?

In other words, if you as a heterosexual male or female are not defined by having sex (or are you?) why should a gay man or woman?

John Nagenda: Parliament Should Not Pass This Bill

John Nagenda
(Adviser to President Museveni)

While Uganda’s religious leaders were busy drafting resolutions that show how dim-witted they are, John Nagenda (I always thought that this name was spelled ‘Nnaggenda‘ but that is a discussion for another time), the president’s adviser cuts to the chase.

Money quote:

What crime have same-sex lovers committed, per se, by being who they are? Would those who believe God made mankind exclude them, and on what grounds? … When times have changed, if they change enough, then these words will include a leavening of same-sex relationships. Gradualism is not a sin. But hunting down people for same-sex love I believe to be a sin, against Love, one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind

Now compare that with the Neanderthal blathering of the religious dinosaurs:

On which planet are these prelates on? Do they understand that donor communities have sustained Ugandan lives for more than the last 30 years? Are Ugandan lives worth sacrificing for religious dogma? The mind boggles.

Anyhow, even as the cabal of religious relics were putting out their communique, rents were already showing amongst their ranks, and fittingly so. Religion is about being inclusive and so it stood to reason that some of the religious bodies in Uganda would find issues with the primitive resolutions reached in Entebbe by some of their colleagues. And they seem to have completely missed this exhortation by the Catholic Church for everyone to exercise restraint and compassion, the sum of which boils down to tolerance and inclusiveness:


AfroGay now a needs a drink.

Related Reading:

1. On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

2. Anti-Gay Preacher Rick Warren Finally Speaks Out On Uganda Law

Uganda’s Anti-Gay Bill: Jail Gays, Don’t Hang Them 7

The religious clerics of Uganda have pronounced themselves on the anti-gay bill. And their learned contribution? Jail all homosexuals and throw away the key!

Money quote:

“If you kill the people, to whom will the message go? We need to have imprisonment for life if the person is still alive,” said Rev. Canon Aaron Mwesigye, the provincial secretary of the Church of Uganda.

I suppose one is meant to look at this as progress of sorts and Ugandan homosexuals should thank the clerics for this timely intervention. Rather than lose your life for being who you are, you would rather rot in jail.Death by a thousand pricks. (I know … it is death by a thousand cuts but surely an interesting pun, huh?) is better than a quick death, yes?

Unfortunately, no one seems to have asked the Rev. Canon whether he would wish the same fate for his own child. But this is about something that doesn’t concern these prelates, or is it?

There is another curious reference further down in the same article:

Parliament yesterday begun public debates on the Bill, conducted by the committee on presidential affairs

What, my curiosity aroused (pun unintended), has homosexuality got to do with presidential affairs? I am still scratching my head as I write this.

Finally, in a related report from another Ugandan news publication, there is this breathtaking economy with the truth:

Seventh Day Adventist’s John Kakembo noted that homosexuality has been in Uganda since the 1960s. He called on Parliament to quickly enact the Bill into law, so as to curb the vice.

“Homosexuality has been in Uganda since the 1960s?!!”

This man’s name suggests that he is a Christian. Has he ever heard of Kabaka Mwanga and the real reason he sent those pretty pages, the Uganda Martyrs, to their deaths in the 1880s? Is it possible that John Kakembo doesn’t know what Martin Ssempa knows all too well, namely that the boys were killed in part because they rebelled against Mwanga’s homosexual demands?


Related Reading:

1. No death penalty for homosexuals – clergy men

2. Out of the Closet – Unveiling Sexuality Discourses in Uganda

3. Why Anti-Gay Bill Should Worry Us

4. A Gay Witch-Hunt in Uganda


Is this the Church lecturing us on homosexuality? 1

I have just seen this very troubling story in the New York Times today about a mother, her son, and the priest who fathered the child.

The Rev. Henry Willenborg, a Roman Catholic priest
in Quincy, Ill., in 1987 performing the baptism of his son, Nathan.

Money Quotes/Excerpts:

In public, they were both leaders in their Catholic community in Quincy, Ill. In private they functioned like a married couple, sharing a bed, meals, movie nights and vacations with the children. Eventually they had a son, setting off a series of legal battles as Ms. Bond repeatedly petitioned the church for child support. The Franciscans acquiesced, with the stipulation that she sign a confidentiality agreement. …

… the church was tightfisted with her as she tried to care for her son, particularly as his cancer treatments grew more costly. But they also show that Father Willenborg suffered virtually no punishment, continuing to serve in a variety of church posts. …

Father Willenborg, is currently the senior pastor of Our Lady of the Lake, a large, historic parish of 1,350 families on the shores of Lake Superior in Ashland, Wis. … Afterward, in his office, he acknowledged that he does have a son, is aware his son is terminally ill, and said … he did not want to talk about the situation, and pointed out that Ms. Bond had more to lose than he did because she had signed a confidentiality agreement that, if broken, requires her to pay a penalty. …

Father Willenborg’s Franciscan superiors were aware of his relationship with Ms. Bond well before Nathan was born. A year earlier, Father Willenborg and Ms. Bond had conceived another child. Ms. Bond said that Father Willenborg suggested she have an abortion, which she found unthinkable. …

Father Willenborg himself performed the baptism. …

An unexpected turn of events brought their idyll to an end. A young woman showed up at Ms. Bond’s house in a rage. She told Ms. Bond that she had been in a sexual relationship with Father Willenborg for years, since she was in high school. (Reached by phone last week, the woman confirmed the relationship, and said it had caused her a lifetime of pain. … ) Immediately, the Franciscans sent Father Willenborg to a treatment center in New Mexico run by a religious order, for priests with sexual disorders and substance addictions.

In a deposition years later, Father Willenborg said that the Franciscans had never disciplined him, and never suggested that he leave religious life. He was assigned to … the headquarters of his order’s province in St. Louis to oversee “spiritual formation” for priests, which includes educating them on how to remain celibate. …

She said that in 25 years, Good Tidings had been contacted by nearly 2,000 women who said they were involved with priests, many who had signed child support and confidentiality agreements like Ms. Bond’s. There are similar support groups in at least seven countries.

In the next few years, Nathan ([the priest’s son] said his disappointment grew. Father Willenborg did not visit, though he lived only 15 minutes away. … Nathan is now so ill that he rarely leaves his house except for hospital visits. The highlight of his day is lumbering to the mailbox, leaning on his mother, who was told recently by doctors that she had carcinoid tumors in her appendix and colon. Strangers who get Nathan’s name and address from Web sites for cancer victims send him dozens of cards, often homemade, urging him not to give up. Recently the mail included a card from Father Willenborg.

“I never understood,” Nathan said, “why he thought cards could make it all O.K.”

And this is the Catholic Church that turns around and lectures anyone about adult consensual homosexual relationships?

Pass the vomit bucket.

Luke Orombi, Peter Akinola are shown where to get off 1

The Lutherans in the United States have shown the naysayers on the issue of gay ordination what to do about their opposition; go take a jump.

On Friday, August 21, leaders of the nation’s biggest Lutheran denomination voted to allow gays in committed relationships to serve as clergy in the church — making it one of the largest Christian denominations in America to significantly open the pulpit to gays.

It is difficult to see how a clearer message could have been sent. The Lutherans have offered yet another avenue for any gay priest in another denomination that might not be comfortable staying celibate at the expense of their personal happiness. Likewise, anyone who doesn’t want be part of a faith that is inclusive of actively gay clergy now has a clear option – finding another faith.

And it was all done openly, in a democratic manner, with the ‘no’ side losing key votes publicly. Money quote:

Conservatives tried to derail the vote, losing a ballot that would have required a supermajority of two-thirds to approve the proposal. They lost a similar vote earlier in the week.

God bless democracy.


It’s Official: Gay to Straight Conversion Is a Myth! 3

The American Psychologists’ Association has pronounced itself on what most of us knew already; there is no therapy that can change a gay person into a straight one. Reparative therapy is nonsense, mere posturing, a pretense.

I especially like their advice to those whose sexuality conflicts with their churches’ teachings: SWITCH CHURCHES!

Game, set and match. End of story. Hallelujah, Amen!

Related reading:

1. Is the Notion of a Sexually Active Catholic Clergy Really Tenable?

Is the Notion of a Sexually Active Catholic Clergy Really Tenable?

I was raised Catholic (for the most part) but no longer consider myself as belonging to any particular religion.

It is not that I don’t believe in God – I do. It is just that despite, perhaps because of, countless masses I attended as a child, I developed a deep skepticism about aspects of the Catholic religion that I likely will never shed. The focus of my skepticism coalesced around Primary 5 (roughly fifth grade), in the ritual of confession that we were told we had to undergo if we had to receive the ‘body and blood’ of Christ during mass.

When, during confession, I admitted to a real “sin,” meaning a failing I had actually fallen foul to, I got absolution from my priest. But at that age one can only sin so much and with daily masses to attend, one sometimes ran out of sins and was forced to make something up in the confession booth. In such circumstances, I still received forgiveness for my imaginary sins and was directed to chant so many Hail Marys as part of my penance.

It gradually dawned on me that the priests didn’t actually have any power to forgive my sinning. That fueled my disinclination to attend confession which I increasingly saw as pointless. Receiving the body of Christ during mass logically became a no-no (something to do with the sin of receiving Christ without going to confession) and by the time I was 16, I saw myself more as a Christian and less as a staunch Catholic. I eventually made a conscious decision to let my hitherto unquestioning Catholic dedication lapse when I was about 16 years old.Today, I believe in God but not in any formal religion.

But this is not meant to be about my lack of religious fervor, rather the rules of any faith and whether there is any obligation on anyone to belong to any faith.

It is not lost on me that I was able to do that because belonging to any faith is voluntary. In addition, we can exercise independent volition and change faiths. So, one can at various times in their life be a Catholic, Anglican, Baptist, Buddhist, Muslim or Jehovah’s Witness etc. Religion is thus not a straight jacket that we are locked into.

As a gay man, the Catholic religion has little attraction for me unless my right to exist as a Catholic gay man is accepted. Since, as each successive Pope has made it a point to remind me, there seems little chance of that happening, I remain free to exercise my choice to keep Catholicism at arm’s length.

But what about priests and other men and women of the cloth who choose to join a faith with already set rules and then knowingly violate them?

Though it was/is all just rumor and innuendo, the accusations of homosexual activity leveled against Father Musaala, Pastor Kayanja and the rest highlight a conundrum that is hard to ignore. Any aspiring Catholic priest has to accept the premise that they should never have any sex whatsoever for the rest of their lives. If they feel that this might be an impossible demand, they have the choice to opt for pastoral work that doesn’t demand celibacy and, under current Catholic diktat, this must be away from the priesthood. Yes, they might join the calling in the expectation that they will resist temptation but once they fail to resist their base human instincts it becomes a different kettle of fish. The same goes for clergy with homosexual inclinations that they feel they might act upon during the course of their vocation.

Father Cutie

While it is understandable that one might join a calling without being aware that the vicissitudes of life will lead them to carnal temptation, it is less so when people with choices stay within the confines of a calling whose demands they know they cannot adhere to or, worse, they are not interested in adhering to.

To this end, the story of Father Alberto “Cutie” is instructive. He failed to live up to his vows of celibacy and was photographed cavorting with a woman on a beach. When the scandal broke, “Father Cutie” (real name Gonzalez) resigned from the Catholic priesthood, changed to a faith that didn’t demand celibacy and eventually married the woman in the photos. Almost all commentaries agree that the Catholic Church lost more than Father Cutie did since his pastoral work spoke for itself, and Father Cutie has already moved on, continuing with his ministering but this time with a wife, and presumably happiness, to go home to at the end of the day.

Where then does that live those who seek to have religion(s) embrace elements of humanity that the religions themselves don’t want to embrace? In the dog-house I fear.

If a religion demands that its priests must not have any kind of sex, so be it. Any would-be priest has the choice to join or not. Indeed any priest has the option to leave that faith just as Father Cutie did. If they don’t leave, and insist on carrying on their amorous ways, they can and should be excommunicated. That is why it is mystifying that the Catholic Church in Boston and Ireland chose to move priests around after they were accused of (and many proved to have) sexually molested children. Why on earth didn’t the Church just excommunicate them and give them up to law enforcement authorities to answer for their crimes?

Obviously, I am on precarious ground here because Father Musaala (in particular) is well known to me and I have the deepest affection and respect for him. That said, if he is indeed gay, it seems to me that he owes it to his conscience to decide whether it is tenable for him to continue practicing as a Catholic priest given the accusations that have been labeled against him. Is staying in the priesthood the more honorable position to take for a man who cannot, perhaps will not, give up partaking of what his Church forbids? Men like Pastor Kayanja and Kiwewesi, both of whom have been accused of homo-sodomy by a retinue of young men and whose names have been bandied about in Ugandan gay circles for years are in a slightly different category albeit for a different reason.

Kayanja’s palatial lakeside home

Kayanja and Kiwewesi are more or less accountable to no one since they set up these Pentecostal churches and practically created the rules along which they would run them. Their amassing of astonishing fortunes is also well known, so one expects that if they have no compunction about using money collected from their gullible and/or vulnerable followers to build ostentatious lakeside homes, they will not have any guilt about luring young men into their vestries and sodomizing them or asking the boys to sodomize them. Their cynicism barely disguised, there is ample evidence to suggest that these two men went into the pastoral vocation for their own selfish ends above everything else.

But Father Musaala is a modest man and there is no doubt in my mind that he joined the priesthood to do God’s work so that he can help others achieve spiritual fulfilment. That he remains without the trappings of wealth and ostentation that Kayanja and Kiwewesi openly flaunt also goes to confirm his selflessness as far as his priestly vocation is concerned. Yet, since the rules of the Catholic Church were well known to him when he joined, and the rules have not changed to date, it stands to reason that Father Musaala’s position as a Catholic priest has to be untenable if indeed he is actively gay. Father Cutie showed that there is a second and third way. It seems to me that Father Cutie’s was the high road that many priests who fall short of their celibacy vows must consider sooner rather than later.

The solution then is a simple one; either the Catholic Church relaxes its stand on celibacy or any priests that cannot abide by the celibacy demands should find an alternative avenue for their pastoral service. One suspects that if enough priests were bold enough to vote with their conscience (and loins), the Catholic Church would be forced to take a serious look at the whole celibacy stipulation, a stipulation that is not demanded by Biblical fiat, and which doesn’t make the least bit of sense in this day and age when there are so many options for anyone who might want to be a priest but who doesn’t understand why serving God should be at the expense of one’s own worldly happiness.