Just a random thought here. It’s probably an illogical fallacy, or some sort of improper reasoning, but here goes:
If the Church will no longer admit homosexual men into seminary, does that mean that the Church believes that homosexuality is something that cannot be changed in a person? Because if the Church thinks homosexuality can be changed (or at least, not acted upon) then they should continue admitting gay men into the priesthood. I mean, isn’t it all about, “Hate the sin, not the sinner”? (Thanks to one of my more dogmatic/histrionic high school religion teachers for drilling THAT phrase into my head over and over and over.)
But since the Church now won’t admit gay men into seminary, then I can only conclude that Ratzi and Co. believe that homosexuality is genetically based, and incapable of being changed (or at least controlled by a vow of chastity and/or actions of celibacy.)
What do you think? Am I reading too deeply into this? I know my logic isn’t spot-on, so help me out.