Sex numbers near me
(Unless, I suppose, the homosexual priest was foolish enough to attempt a “civil union” in the state of Massachusetts.) Canon 1055, and its frequent application in marriage tribunals, exclusively defines marriage as a covenant between a man and a woman.
Since he should avoid the near occasions of sin, he is taught by his Catholic faith that it would be wrong for him, without a compelling reason, to live with women, or to associate exclusively with women in situations outside of his work or the necessities of his ministry, or to develop particularly close, or personal, or secret, or intimate relationships with women.
Of course, all of this moral double-dealing leads to many situations of outright hypocrisy and utter dishonesty.
For example, how can a homosexual priest who lives with another man, rightly tell the young “couple” in high school that it would be morally dangerous to spend so much exclusive and private time together, or tell the college kids that it would be improper for them to share intimate coed living arrangements, or to instruct the “couple in love” that they should not be living together?
What is the result of this morality in the real world of the Catholic rectory?
The outcome is that Fr Y, the homosexual priest, is potentially allowed to have, certainly not prevented from having, one might even say continually tempted to have, many personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate and emotionally fulfilling relationships with other men, whom he can even live with, and associate with almost constantly. X, the heterosexual priest, on the other hand, is discouraged from having, forbidden to have, and actively prevented from having such personal, lifelong, secret, exclusive, intimate, and emotionally fulfilling relationships with women, whom he certainly cannot live with, nor with whom he can constantly associate. X, the heterosexual priest, cannot live his life with women. Y, the homosexual priest, is conveniently "forced" to live his life with other men.