And like I said, it is a way for a Church elder to show willingness to sacrifice.

If I remember celibacy was originally intended to discourage nepotism and maintain the church as a trans-tribal organization. It does seem to go against the "husband of one wife" thing but that can be explained and in any case would not necessarily apply to monks.

In any case it is a humane way to care for the unmarriageable and give them some dignity especially in an age when virginity is thought of as a symbol of social incompetence not of purity. Being able to wear vestments and say,"Of course I'm a virgin, I'm a monk" would have advantages. Monasticism also provides a congenial setting, good company, and fulfilling work. I suppose if I were Catholic, I would have taken orders long ago and worn vestments in public and thumbed my nose at the world.

Carol, I'll never forget taking a college psychology class (and no, not one of *those*; it was about the mechanics of perception, particularly how our brain works with our five senses) and seeing two women sit together and chat. The first was a tall, stunning platinum blonde with Hollywood-worthy makeup, platform heels, and a preference for electric blue miniskirts. The second was a nun, about the same height and age, but dressed in full floor-length black habit like Whoopi Goldberg's in "Sister Act", and of course no makeup. The bombshell would choose to sit next to the polar opposite of her appearance. I often wondered what they found to talk about, and I sometimes wondered if the habit were placed on the one, and the makeup and miniskirt were transferred to the other, if I would be able to discern any difference. Mostly, I wondered if the nun could have any influence on her classmate's appearance. (I wasn't walking with the Lord at that time, so I confess that my concern was not entirely academic.) If the Marilyn Monroe clone were to dial it back a few notches, I thought, perhaps she could attract a man more inclined to love all of her instead of just her exterior. It had clearly worked for the other woman.

Catholics and Protestants strongly disagree about many topics like vows of celibacy and nuns being "the bride of Christ" individually versus the bride being the entire Church. I myself have strong feelings about this. Even so, I can heartily applaud those Catholics who are sufficiently serious about their faith that they are willing to take a huge step in order (sorry) to proclaim it.

Jason, if you'll permit me, I'd like to give you a different perspective on the Pope being "single".

In Catholicism, his vows make him "married" to God in a way no human marriage could hope to attain. Not even the most romantic fairy tales can come close to what the Pontiff is supposed to gain from his relationship with God. Some Popes manage to attain that level of intimacy, and some don't (and no, I'm not naming names). This is one (of many) reasons that priests/bishops/Popes stay celibate.

Well I take a glass-half-full approach to that. The fact that he was willing to base so much on what he did accept of scripture is light years ahead of most modern politicians. His penknife approach was not unlike what many modern theologians use (sadly). But at least the willingness to show - in the public square - the scriptural basis for many of his beliefs is something we need back. The builders of his memorial knew it and chiseled it into the walls.

Does Jefferson watch over the verses he erased from the Bible?

There are Bible verses posted on marble monuments and buildings all over Washington, DC. Good reading. Lincoln and Jefferson watch over several of them themselves. As do FDR and Eleanor.

I know that Kevin, but everyone is a victim of something.

Gays are no different from involuntary celibates and I have no intention of rewriting the Bible for my convenience. I do think sermons on chastity in some ways come easier from the late Pope, then from Evangelical preachers as he was kind of, you know,

...single.

It's the Politics of Outrage and Victimhood, Jason, sad to say-- and sadder to observe its increasing prevalence. It's somewhat common here in Berkeley: many people seem to scrutinize events to find something about which to be outraged. In a way, it's a non-comedic replay of Steve Allen's old bit where he would read newspaper headlines on his show and get the audience mock-worked up.

What in the world are they doing complaining about the display on the wall on someone else's turf? I don't care what the decorations on a gay bar are.

In a technical sense, you're correct, Phillip.

But let us not blind ourselves to the selective outrage that occurs in politics. Have any gay activists gone after, say, these people?
http://www.muslimbusinessusa.com/

It's exceedingly strange, because those countries with a Christian heritage tend to tolerate homosexuals (who don't return the favor), while predominantly Muslim countries have a rather different attitude (and a radically different response from the LGBT community).

Of course, England itself is becoming more and more a Muslim country all the time. So perhaps the use of business liability as a means of social change is a problem of limited duration.

A business is a corporation, a creation of the State. It could be no more Christian than it could be a jellyfish. Mr Murray as agent of this corporation has agreed to certain responsibilities in exchange for limited liability. "Churches" who become corporations should face the same regulations. We are talking about contracts & regulation here, not religious liberty.