@mystic Your comment is somewhat ambiguous. Normal men sacrifice the good of becoming husbands and parents, to follow Christ and become priests. Men afflicted by homosexual tendencies - even if they remain celibate - are only giving up what they shouldn't even be doing in the first place - i.e. having homosexual relationships. Which is why the Church, in Her wisdom, has twice declared in 1961 and 2005 that even celibate homosexuals cannot be ordained. See my comment to @John A Cassani further down this page.

@English Catholic Well, in my view, if you feel that you must give something up, then there remains tension between what you want and what you do. That will stand in the way between celibacy and you, and thus between Jesus and you. It will affect your performance, because you are not honestly what you say you are. Giving something up in your implicit definition means that a lack of this something is a sacrifice. I think past that and presume that after the decision of honest celibacy, a complete passivation has taken place that had posteriorly led to a Christ driven conversion. In that latter case, a said "homosexual" could transform into a Christ like creation that in all cases when Jesus Christ is done with this person, is not homosexual any longer, but a celibate creature in Christ. Don't underestimate Jesus. However, something inside me says that if a person previously used certain sexuality as part of his identity, then it will be very difficult to rid of that true identity, because he will need to rid of himself. Therefore, I say that the motivation to become priests of such people is probably a dubious justification of a secondary agenda.

@mystic. Not at all. I could say I don't like your kind of Catholics who confuse rather than clarify issues. As I said, the Church - and indeed as Jesus Himself has said - "if you love me, keep my Commandments" - has, in Her wisdom stated that: ""In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture." And for the record, that's not the Catechism, it is a Vatican document specifically written on this matter: Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies You stated not to underestimate Jesus - but if we ignore His Church, then we are ignoring Him, not underestimating Him. It may be that some younger men may go through a brief period of sexual confusion, which once sorted out completely, wouldn't necessarily exclude them from the priesthood. But I think the Vatican document makes the other issues quite clear: " (We) cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture." We're living through the disasters of bishops/dioceses ignoring these instructions. How can you say otherwise. Perhaps you're younger than I am. I remember the likes of Archbishop Rembert Weakland in the USA, always being ambiguous about homosexuality, then defending it, then getting caught paying $450,000 to a Paul Marcoux, a former seminarian studying at Marquette University, to settle a claim he made against the Archbishop more than two decades earlier stemming from a long-term relationship with Weakland. Weakland admitted to the affair and apologized after the story broke. And then, of course, more recently we've had the Cardinal McCarrick scandal. There have been many more. There will be many more. A strong stand has to be taken. Clarification is a necessity.

My Jesus says to me: My church is held hostage by Social Sciences. They are blind and see not what I want them to see. Administrators, philosophers, Masters of art , history, social sciences and psychology. I hear them say: Correctly administer the host. Know ye that I am that host. You reason from the world. I, truly being that host, according to them, cannot be administered to a sinner. What do you think? Will I be defiled or will the sinner be cleansed? Now that you think the former you underestimate me and believe not that I am.
---

And God had already foretold all this concerning the pharisees that lead the Catholic church from the beginning.

11 Thus said Jehovah of Hosts: `Ask, I pray thee, the priests [of] the law, saying:

12 Lo, one doth carry holy flesh in the skirt of his garment, and he hath come with his skirt against the bread, or against the pottage, or against the wine, or against the oil, or against any food -- is it holy?' And the priests answer and say, `No.'

13 And Haggai saith, `If the unclean of body doth come against any of these, is it unclean?' And the priests answer and say, `It is unclean.'

14 And Haggai answereth and saith, `So [is] this people, and so [is] this nation before Me -- an affirmation of Jehovah -- and so [is] every work of their hands, and that which they bring near there -- it is unclean.

@mystic, Sorry I don't understand. Who is 'My Jesus' (as in 'Your Jesus')? There is only one Jesus, the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, God made Man. Lord of all of us. How have we gone from discussing ordaining homosexuals to the administration of the Sacred Host? Sorry, I'm not being facetious, I just don't follow your thread. The Church has always taught that Holy Communion can only be issued to those in a state of grace, and not in mortal sin (any mortal sin, not just homosexual activity). To do otherwise is to commit sacrilege. Holy Scripture tells us this: "Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord." (1 Corinthians 11.27)

Our Lord Himself said to the Apostles (and so to their successors) "He that heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10:16). This does not mean that we have to blindly obey and believe anything that any cleric tells us, if they teach error. For instance, if a priest said that there were four persons in the Blessed Trinity, we can safely ignore him, because he is teaching something contrary to what the Church has always taught. However, you can't just ignore magisterial documents which state and confirm perennial teaching on the ordination of homosexuals, just because it doesn't gel with your viewpoint. You wrote "And God had already foretold all this concerning the pharisees that lead the Catholic church from the beginning." Are you saying that from the Apostles onwards, all prelates have been Pharisees?

Also, I did not say 'once a homosexual, always a homosexual'. In fact, if you read above, my words were: "It may be that some younger men may go through a brief period of sexual confusion, which once sorted out completely, wouldn't necessarily exclude them from the priesthood. But I think the Vatican document makes the other issues quite clear: " (We) cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture." I didn't write that in italics, it came from the Vatican 2005 document. If you disagree with it, then you would have to take it up with them.

My Jesus talks to me every day, all day long. I call this "my Jesus", because if I simply say: Jesus talks to me, then most people become angry somehow. For me, I hear what I hear. And I tell you what I hear and see, and I tell here sometimes what my Jesus wants me to tell in public. He showed me the heavens, and the base thereof. He showed me hell and the workings of the spirit. For me, it is clear. I know that my Jesus is the Jesus. The same Jesus from the Holy Trinity. There is no problem in saying my Jesus. You have your Jesus, and if my Jesus and your Jesus are the same Jesus, fine. If it is not, then also fine. Any explanation that we have about Jesus here on earth is a graven image, because we want to explain heavenly things with earthly references and spiritual things with human knowledge. Indeed, that makes us all pharisees. Pharisees, because graven images that are worshipped (accepted) make change difficult because you need to shatter the graven image and make a new one. And that hurts our pride. Because graven images are not really the problem. Worshipping a graven image. That is what leads to the second death. And the interpretation we have of God and the heavens is a graven image that the church teaches and most likely is not completely correct. As knowledge and understanding advance, we must shatter the old image and make that graven image new. Every time again. And people are proud of their interpretations they have of their God and the ideas they have of the heavens. For you, just read what I say and judge for yourself. I can see that you are good at judging your way, because your spirituality is limited to legalities, while I am sorry to notice that, from my viewpoint, most things you say lack true spirituality. My Jesus speaks spiritually in parables, and as far as I can see, you don't seem to catch the similes because your questions are of this world, and I will or cannot answer most of them with worldly answers. My Jesus warns me not to do that. I would never defend my religion with obvious facts, much less with clauses like because it is written or the church teaches. That is for lawyers, and I am an engineer. I am not afraid to make mistakes and pass through the valley of death. Being a lawyer is a good starting point, though.
I just reread what we just spoke about, and indeed, all the things I say sound crazy if you read them with two feet in the world. Spiritual knowledge is like a key. If you are spiritual and you have spiritual knowledge, then suddenly it will make sense. I mean, if you had my spirituality, of course, my spirituality is the spirituality that my Jesus taught me. He came to me and spoke to you through me to teach you his spirituality. Unless my Jesus is not, that would mean that I am crazy. You decide.

@mystic Our Lord (we were taught to use the Holy Name sparingly) told us to show we love Him by keeping His commandments. Does that make HIM legalistic, a lawyer? Of course not.

Stop digging…you are coming across as someone who is a few sandwiches short of a picnic

@John A Cassani After the 1961 document 'Religiosorum Institutio' Religiosorum Institutio | EWTN "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers" and the 2005 Vatican document "Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders" Criteria for the Discernment of Vocation for Persons with Homosexual Tendencies "In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."

I would offer the opinion that such men have been ordained validly but not licitly. Some may go even further and say that if the truth were known by both ordinand and bishop, then both would incur an automatic latae sententiae excommunication.

But, it would be a true administration of the Sacrament of Holy Orders, sacrilegious as it would be, and as sinful as it would be for all involved. This is why it is imperative to stop it from ever happening, and why the Church has always been so stridently against it. This man will be able to confect the Eucharist for the rest of his life, once ordained, which is a horrifying thought, whether he does so licitly or not.

@Patricia McKeever I don’t know how you would have gleaned that impression from my comment. Nothing gives anyone the right to be admitted to seminary, but being baptized makes a man able to be ordained. That fact is the reason why seminary admission, and seminary formation, must be so selective. Any formator who would not summarily dismiss a homosexual from seminary, once being made aware of it, ought to be excommunicated as far as I’m concerned.