Two notable comments today from Andrew Sullivan...

One Good, one Bad.

First, the Good: his commentary on how the Democrats are in a bad shape chiefly because they are "anti-" lots of things, but not "pro-" anything, at least according to how they've been doing things of late.

Second, the Bad: Andrew affirms an editorial in the Jesuit weekly America, which (in Sullivan's words) "firmly supports the continued ordination of gay priests." Mr. Sullivan then quotes part of the editorial, and I'd like to quote one part of that excerpt: "Ensuring that the church ordains only psychologically healthy priests is one answer to the sexual abuse crisis. Scapegoating healthy and celibate gay priests is not."

The problem here is this: what if homosexuality is a psychological disorder, and not a genetic one? If that were the case, then "psychologically healthy priests" and "gay priests" would be terms that are difficult to reconcile, would they not?

I'm not arguing (here, at least) that homosexuality's origins are psychological... I'm simply pointing out that this possibility may provide some explanation any possible change in the Church's attitude towards ordaining men with a homosexual inclination.