FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
(02-19-2011, 09:54 AM)Aragon Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-18-2011, 11:01 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: [ -> ]Show me a "gay" priest who is for Tradition (in theology as well as liturgy).

There have been gay priests in the SSPX, I think a few were expelled after they came onto some seminarians. They then formed the Society of St. John before being suppressed by the diocese (I think..)

They were suppressed only after the diocese ignored +Williamson's warnings and after they attempted pedophile acts.
Is there more than one socierty of st. John?  I visited a Ukrainian Catholic monastery in Michigan once that is someway also called society of st. John.  The two founding monks used to be Latin but became Ukrainian over a disagreement with the Latin bishop, so now I'm wondering and hoping there is no connection.
(02-19-2011, 03:09 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: [ -> ]Your points.
1.  Psychopathology is not a theological category.  Even the CCC (pp 2357) admits that it cannot identify the psychological genesis of this 'disorder.'
2.  'Lifestyle' is not a theological category.  Attraction is human desire (see James 1:12-16).  It should not define a person.  God created two sexes only.

Problem one is you are changing the board in the middle of the game.  Here you are referring to "theological categories" but previously your referred to "anthropological categories"

"Catholic Johnny" Wrote:However, it must be admitted that no such anthropological category as the "homosexual person" existed before the Pontificate of John Paul II.

Which is it?

Quote:3.  Pennance, faith, mortification of concupscient desire, and growth in grace and holiness are the lot of all Christians.  No exception should be made for the homosexual.  You are adopting a medical theory and not a Gospel position on this.  The medical theory is "once sick, always sick" (cf alcoholism) and therefore the compassionate response is to help the "alcoholic" (another nonbiblical identity designation with widespread acceptance in the Church) cope with his 'disease.'  The Gospel calls us to "overcome the world" (1 John 5:4). 

Well, you are adopting an anthropological position on this, or at least you were until you changed directions.

Be that as it may, the Gospel tells us to bear our Crosses, not that our Crosses will be removed from us.  If someone has a predilection towards a particular sin, that is their Cross.  No one is making any exception in that for anyone.

Quote:4.  I never said anyone wasn't good enough to be called Christian.  I said the opposite: that the sacred and exalted title of Christian was too holy to be hyphenated with a mortal sin. 

No one is hyphenating anything.  No one said "homosexual-Christian" or "heterosexual-Christian".  What you said, may I remind you, is this:

"a homosexual cannot be a Christian"

Seems like a pretty clear statement to me.  Anyone who has same-sex attraction problems cannot be a Christian in your book.

Quote:I think you are obscuring my point.  Because Catholics are confused about something that the Apostles have made clear (and the Fathers and Doctors in Tradition), we uncritically allow homosexual "Priests" to "minister" in the RCC and they are destroying it from the inside out.  Peripheral discussions about psychology and pseudo-medical theories may help to clear the air as they are dispelled by sound doctrine, but the issue I am raising is the status of those who claim to be Priests and homosexuals at the same time. 

I'm not obscuring your point.  If your argument is flailing, it's your fault and your responsibility to clarify it.  Make a better argument.

Those are not peripheral discussions when you say a homosexual cannot be a Christian.  They are relevant and go to the basis of your argument.

Quote:I still haven't seen anyone here on this thread yet address St. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and Romans 1:24-28. 

First, as a trad, you should use a trad Bible. Actually, even a Catholic Bible would be a step in the right direction.  You're quoting from the NKJV.  Why you would use a Protestant Bible to argue Catholic doctrine is beyond me.

Let's try the D-R:

[9] Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, [10] Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Effeminate means more than homosexual.  It means those who seek luxury and avoid pain.  Homosexuals are included in that for philosophical and theological reasons as St. Thomas describes in the Summa, but it means practicing homosexuals.

Quote:Objection 1. It seems that effeminacy is not opposed to perseverance. For a gloss on 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind," expounds the text thus: "Effeminate--i.e. obscene, given to unnatural vice." But this is opposed to chastity. Therefore effeminacy is not a vice opposed to perseverance.

Reply to Objection 1. This effeminacy is caused in two ways. On one way, by custom: for where a man is accustomed to enjoy pleasures, it is more difficult for him to endure the lack of them. On another way, by natural disposition, because, to wit, his mind is less persevering through the frailty of his temperament. This is how women are compared to men, as the Philosopher says (Ethic. vii, 7): wherefore those who are passively sodomitical are said to be effeminate, being womanish themselves, as it were.

In other words, what the Protestants translate as "homosexuals" really means God doesn't like the weak that are weak because of their own luxuriousness.  As St. Thomas points out, homosexuals are effeminate by virtue of being the passive participant in sodomitical acts.  If one does not engage in those acts, they are not effeminate in that manner.

The cite in Romans is clear.  It condemns acts.  No one is arguing homosexual acts aren't sinful.  It doesn't say "homosexuals cannot be Christians".

(02-19-2011, 11:12 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Is there more than one socierty of st. John?  I visited a Ukrainian Catholic monastery in Michigan once that is someway also called society of st. John.  The two founding monks used to be Latin but became Ukrainian over a disagreement with the Latin bishop, so now I'm wondering and hoping there is no connection.

Yeah, this was in Pennsylvania if I remember correctly.
(02-19-2011, 11:16 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [ -> ]First, as a trad, you should use a trad Bible. Actually, even a Catholic Bible would be a step in the right direction.  You're quoting from the NKJV.  Why you would use a Protestant Bible to argue Catholic doctrine is beyond me.

The DR, or even the Vulgate if one is comfortable enough with Latin, should be used to debate theological points.

However, as far as English speakers go, I guess the original KJV could be used for stylistic reasons. If in doubt about some passage, check with the DR or the Vulgate.

1.  Concede.  Permit me to adjust anthropological to theological.  What I was referring to was a definition of a category of man that has no precedent in Tradition.
2.  Please locate for us a reference to homosexual persons in Catholic theology prior to the 1986 Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Letter Homosexualitatis problema.
Quote: Be that as it may, the Gospel tells us to bear our Crosses, not that our Crosses will be removed from us.  If someone has a predilection towards a particular sin, that is their Cross.  No one is making any exception in that for anyone.
 Not true.  The invention of a category, 'homosexual persons' does just that.  No one says to the idolater, "you are an idol worshiping person.  Bear your cross and do not perform acts of worship towards your idols.  We deeply respect your special status as an idolator."
Quote:No one is hyphenating anything.  No one said "homosexual-Christian" or "heterosexual-Christian".  What you said, may I remind you, is this:

"a homosexual cannot be a Christian"

Seems like a pretty clear statement to me.  Anyone who has same-sex attraction problems cannot be a Christian in your book.

a.  Yes, it is hyphenating (our more accurately coupling) the terms homosexual and person together here in the context of a life of Catholic faith lived in chastity.  Or do you deny that this is the explicit application of pp 2359 in the CCC?
b.  I stand by my statement.  Regardless of what they call themselves, according to the Apostle Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 homosexuals will not inherit the kingdom of God.  To invent a category of personage that has no precedent in Tradition which flagrantly opposes the explicit teaching of an Apostle in Scripture is unsupportable as a Catholic concept.  
c.  You are conflating same-sex attractions with a definitive personal identity.  "Such were some of you."

5.  I never self-identified as a trad, although I support most if not all the positions assumed by Archbishop Lefebvre.  I quoted from the NKJV because of its superior English.  My personal Bible is the D-R.  If you like for the purpose of this discussion, I can limit myself to quotes from the D-R.  Not all of our readers will be comfortable with the archaic English.  I will use the NAB only if no other translations are available.  
a.  You seek a more nuanced definition of "effeminate" (although the provided explanation makes my point nicely  ;)) and omit the very next identity category liers with mankind.  So, "effeminate" as "Passively sodomitical" (receives penile penetration as though a female) or "liers with mankind" (a reference to Leviticus 18:22) both address the behaviors referred to Romans 1:24-28 as a category of personal identity.  "Such were some of you."
Quote: In other words, what the Protestants translate as "homosexuals" really means God doesn't like the weak that are weak because of their own luxuriousness.
 This is a strained interpretation of what the Apostle is referring to in the passage.  

Quote:The cite in Romans is clear.  It condemns acts.  No one is arguing homosexual acts aren't sinful.  It doesn't say "homosexuals cannot be Christians".
a.  Romans condemns persons:  Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them. Romans 1:32, D-R
b.  1 Cor. 6:9-11 explicitly condemns homosexuals.  2 Cor. 5:17 declares the results of conversion: a new creation.  Again, "such were some of you."

The verb to "be" is important here.  The Most High God reveals His sacred Name to Moses as "I AM that I AM."  Paul uses the same verbs here to explain what these Corinthians were (homosexuals) and what they are (washed, sanctified, justified...).  He makes a clear distinction based on the status of their individual identity.  You cannot possibly be what you no longer are.  

One is 100% free to employ this language (homosexual persons) as a way of discussing the situation regarding either those unrepentant persons or those who have been converted, but not as a theological term.  The term was adopted in Homosexualitatis problema from the psychological world.  It does not exist in Catholic theology prior to this document.   Even Pope Benedict's reference to this problem in 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 refers not to any previous Papal teaching but to the 1992 Catechism.

The real danger here is the uncritical acceptance of self-identified homosexuals as Roman Catholic Priests and all that that implies.
Before we do anything else, let's clear up 1 Cor.  After that, if you want to persist in your argument, we can continue.

1611 KJV:
9 Know yee not that the vnrighteous shall not inherite the kingdome of God? Be not deceiued: neither fornicatours, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselues with mankinde,

1769 KJV:
Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,

Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

neque molles neque masculorum concubitores neque fures neque avari neque ebriosi neque maledici neque rapaces regnum Dei possidebunt

Here is what "molles" means:

oft (cushion/grass); flexible/supple/loose/pliant; mild/tolerable; easy; calm;
weak; cowardly; unmanly; effeminate; womanish; pathic; tender (women/youths);
conciliatory/peaceful; complaisant; kindly; impressionable/sensitive; feeble;
tender, gentle; smooth, relaxing; languid (movement); amorous (writings);

Why would St. Paul be condemning homosexual behavior twice?  I.e., "effeminate" and "liers with mankind"?  He's not.  The reason is because he is condemning unmanliness which St. Thomas points out is being passive in the sexual act, a disposition appropriate to the woman, and also the attraction to luxriousness, which is also attributed to women.

The modern Prot translations get it wrong on "effeminate" by translating it as "homosexuals".  That can be seen by looking at how the Fathers interpret that word:


Esther alone we find justly adorned. The spouse adorned herself mystically for her royal husband; but her beauty turns out the redemption price of a people that were about to be massacred. And that decoration makes women courtesans, and men effeminate and adulterers, the tragic poet is a witness; thus discoursing:

O adulterous beauty! Barbarian finery and effeminate luxury overthrew Greece; Lacedæmonian chastity was corrupted by clothes, and luxury, and graceful beauty; barbaric display proved Jove's daughter a courtesan.

To such an extent, then, has luxury advanced, that not only are the female sex deranged about this frivolous pursuit, but men also are infected with the disease. For not being free of the love of finery, they are not in health; but inclining to voluptuousness, they become effeminate, cutting their hair in an ungentlemanlike and meretricious way, clothed in fine and transparent garments, chewing mastich, smelling of perfume. What can one say on seeing them? Like one who judges people by their foreheads, he will divine them to be adulterers and effeminate, addicted to both kinds of venery, haters of hair, destitute of hair, detesting the bloom of manliness, and adorning their locks like women. Living for unholy acts of audacity, these fickle wretches do reckless and nefarious deeds, says the Sibyl. For their service the towns are full of those who take out hair by pitch-plasters, shave, and pluck out hairs from these womanish creatures. And shops are erected and opened everywhere; and adepts at this meretricious fornication make a deal of money openly by those who plaster themselves, and give their hair to be pulled out in all ways by those who make it their trade, feeling no shame before the onlookers or those who approach, nor before themselves, being men. Such are those addicted to base passions, whose whole body is made smooth by the violent tuggings of pitch-plasters. It is utterly impossible to get beyond such effrontery. If nothing is left undone by them, neither shall anything be left unspoken by me. Diogenes, when he was being sold, chiding like a teacher one of these degenerate creatures, said very manfully, Come, youngster, buy for yourself a man, chastising his meretriciousness by an ambiguous speech. But for those who are men to shave and smooth themselves, how ignoble! As for dyeing of hair, and anointing of grey locks, and dyeing them yellow, these are practices of abandoned effeminates; and their feminine combing of themselves is a thing to be let alone. For they think, that like serpents they divest themselves of the old age of their head by painting and renovating themselves. But though they do doctor the hair cleverly, they will not escape wrinkles, nor will they elude death by tricking time. For it is not dreadful, it is not dreadful to appear old, when you are not able to shut your eyes to the fact that you are so.

But for one who is a man to comb himself and shave himself with a razor, for the sake of fine effect, to arrange his hair at the looking-glass, to shave his cheeks, pluck hairs out of them, and smooth them, how womanly! And, in truth, unless you saw them naked, you would suppose them to be women. For although not allowed to wear gold, yet out of effeminate desire they enwreath their latches and fringes with leaves of gold; or, getting certain spherical figures of the same metal made, they fasten them to their ankles, and hang them from their necks. This is a device of enervated men, who are dragged to the women's apartments, amphibious and lecherous beasts. For this is a meretricious and impious form of snare. For God wished women to be smooth, and rejoice in their locks alone growing spontaneously, as a horse in his mane; but has adorned man, like the lions, with a beard, and endowed him, as an attribute of manhood, with shaggy breasts—a sign this of strength and rule. So also cocks, which fight in defence of the hens, he has decked with combs, as it were helmets; and so high a value does God set on these locks, that He orders them to make their appearance on men simultaneously with discretion, and delighted with a venerable look, has honoured gravity of countenance with grey hairs. But wisdom, and discriminating judgments that are hoary with wisdom, attain maturity with time, and by the vigour of long experience give strength to old age, producing grey hairs, the admirable flower of venerable wisdom, conciliating confidence. This, then, the mark of the man, the beard, by which he is seen to be a man, is older than Eve, and is the token of the superior nature. In this God deemed it right that he should excel, and dispersed hair over man's whole body. Whatever smoothness and softness was in him He abstracted from his side when He formed the woman Eve, physically receptive, his partner in parentage, his help in household management, while he (for he had parted with all smoothness) remained a man, and shows himself man. And to him has been assigned action, as to her suffering; for what is shaggy is drier and warmer than what is smooth. Wherefore males have both more hair and more heat than females, animals that are entire than the emasculated, perfect than imperfect. It is therefore impious to desecrate the symbol of manhood, hairiness. But the embellishment of smoothing (for I am warned by the Word), if it is to attract men, is the act of an effeminate person,— if to attract women, is the act of an adulterer; and both must be driven as far as possible from our society. But the very hairs of your head are all numbered, says the Lord; Matthew 10:30 those on the chin, too, are numbered, and those on the whole body. There must be therefore no plucking out, contrary to God's appointment, which has counted them in according to His will. Do you not know yourselves, says the apostle, that Christ Jesus is in you? 2 Corinthians 13:5 Whom, had we known as dwelling in us, I know not how we could have dared to dishonour. But the using of pitch to pluck out hair (I shrink from even mentioning the shamelessness connected with this process), and in the act of bending back and bending down, the violence done to nature's modesty by stepping out and bending backwards in shameful postures, yet the doers not ashamed of themselves, but conducting themselves without shame in the midst of the youth, and in the gymnasium, where the prowess of man is tried; the following of this unnatural practice, is it not the extreme of licentiousness? For those who engage in such practices in public will scarcely behave with modesty to any at home. Their want of shame in public attests their unbridled licentiousness in private. For he who in the light of day denies his manhood, will prove himself manifestly a woman by night. There shall not be, said the Word by Moses, a harlot of the daughters of Israel; there shall not be a fornicator of the sons of Israel. Deuteronomy 23:17

But the pitch does good, it is said. Nay, it defames, say I. No one who entertains right sentiments would wish to appear a fornicator, were he not the victim of that vice, and study to defame the beauty of his form. No one would, I say, voluntarily choose to do this. For if God foreknew those who are called, according to His purpose, to be conformed to the image of His Son, for whose sake, according to the blessed apostle, He has appointed Him to be the first-born among many brethren, Romans 8:28-29 are they not godless who treat with indignity the body which is of like form with the Lord?

The man, who would be beautiful, must adorn that which is the most beautiful thing in man, his mind, which every day he ought to exhibit in greater comeliness; and should pluck out not hairs, but lusts. I pity the boys possessed by the slave-dealers, that are decked for dishonour. But they are not treated with ignominy by themselves, but by command the wretches are adorned for base gain. But how disgusting are those who willingly practice the things to which, if compelled, they would, if they were men, die rather than do?

But life has reached this pitch of licentiousness through the wantonness of wickedness, and lasciviousness is diffused over the cities, having become law. Beside them women stand in the stews, offering their own flesh for hire for lewd pleasure, and boys, taught to deny their sex, act the part of women.

Luxury has deranged all things; it has disgraced man. A luxurious niceness seeks everything, attempts everything, forces everything, coerces nature. Men play the part of women, and women that of men, contrary to nature; women are at once wives and husbands: no passage is closed against libidinousness; and their promiscuous lechery is a public institution, and luxury is domesticated. O miserable spectacle! Horrible conduct! Such are the trophies of your social licentiousness which are exhibited: the evidence of these deeds are the prostitutes. Alas for such wickedness! Besides, the wretches know not how many tragedies the uncertainty of intercourse produces. For fathers, unmindful of children of theirs that have been exposed, often without their knowledge, have intercourse with a son that has debauched himself, and daughters that are prostitutes; and licence in lust shows them to be the men that have begotten them. These things your wise laws allow: people may sin legally; and the execrable indulgence in pleasure they call a thing indifferent. They who commit adultery against nature think themselves free from adultery. Avenging justice follows their audacious deeds, and, dragging on themselves inevitable calamity, they purchase death for a small sum of money. The miserable dealers in these wares sail, bringing a cargo of fornication, like wine or oil; and others, far more wretched, traffic in pleasures as they do in bread and sauce, not heeding the words of Moses, Do not prostitute your daughter, to cause her to be a whore, lest the land fall to whoredom, and the land become full of wickedness. Leviticus 19:29

Such was predicted of old, and the result is notorious: the whole earth has now become full of fornication and wickedness. I admire the ancient legislators of the Romans: these detested effeminacy of conduct; and the giving of the body to feminine purposes, contrary to the law of nature, they judged worthy of the extremest penalty, according to the righteousness of the law.

For it is not lawful to pluck out the beard, man's natural and noble ornament.

A youth with his first beard: for with this, youth is most graceful.

By and by he is anointed, delighting in the beard on which descended the prophetic ointment with which Aaron was honoured.

And it becomes him who is rightly trained, on whom peace has pitched its tent, to preserve peace also with his hair.

What, then, will not women with strong propensities to lust practice, when they look on men perpetrating such enormities? Rather we ought not to call such as these men, but lewd wretches (βατάλοι), and effeminate (γύνιδες), whose voices are feeble, and whose clothes are womanish both in feel and dye. And such creatures are manifestly shown to be what they are from their external appearance, their clothes, shoes, form, walk, cut of their hair, look. For from his look shall a man be known, says the Scripture, from meeting a man the man is known: the dress of a man, the step of his foot, the laugh of his teeth, tell tales of him. Sirach 19:29-30

For these, for the most part, plucking out the rest of their hair, only dress that on the head, all but binding their locks with fillets like women. Lions glory in their shaggy hair, but are armed by their hair in the fight; and boars even are made imposing by their mane; the hunters are afraid of them when they see them bristling their hair.

The fleecy sheep are loaded with their wool.
And their wool the loving Father has made abundant for your use, O man, having taught you to sheer their fleeces. Of the nations, the Celts and Scythians wear their hair long, but do not deck themselves. The bushy hair of the barbarian has something fearful in it; and its auburn (ξανθόν) colour threatens war, the hue being somewhat akin to blood. Both these barbarian races hate luxury. As clear witnesses will be produced by the German, the Rhine; and by the Scythian, the waggon. Sometimes the Scythian despises even the waggon: its size seems sumptuousness to the barbarian; and leaving its luxurious ease, the Scythian man leads a frugal life. For a house sufficient, and less encumbered than the waggon, he takes his horse, and mounting it, is borne where he wishes. And when faint with hunger, he asks his horse for sustenance; and he offers his veins, and supplies his master with all he possesses— his blood. To the nomad the horse is at once conveyance and sustenance; and the warlike youth of the Arabians (these are other nomads) are mounted on camels. They sit on breeding camels; and these feed and run at the same time, carrying their masters the while, and bear the house with them. And if drink fail the barbarians, they milk them; and after that their food is spent, they do not spare even their blood, as is reported of furious wolves. And these, gentler than the barbarians, when injured, bear no remembrance of the wrong, but sweep bravely over the desert, carrying and nourishing their masters at the same time.

Perish, then, the savage beasts whose food is blood! For it is unlawful for men, whose body is nothing but flesh elaborated of blood, to touch blood. For human blood has become a partaker of the Word: it is a participant of grace by the Spirit; and if any one injure him, he will not escape unnoticed. Man may, though naked in body, address the Lord. But I approve the simplicity of the barbarians: loving an unencumbered life, the barbarians have abandoned luxury. Such the Lord calls us to be— naked of finery, naked of vanity, wrenched from our sins, bearing only the wood of life, aiming only at salvation.


But are you handsome and beautiful? This is the boast of crows! You are not fairer than the peacock, as regards either its color or its plumage; the bird beats you in plumage, it far surpasses you in its feathers and in its color. The swan too is passing fair, and many other birds, with whom if you are compared you will see that you are nought. Often too worthless boys, and unmarried girls, and harlots, and effeminate men have had this boast; is this then a cause for haughtiness?


Truly it were fitting that for these you should be glad, and rejoice, and express your thanks to the Emperor, since his castigation has proved a correction, his punishment a discipline, his wrath a means of instruction! But that the Baths are shut up? Neither is this an intolerable hardship, that those who lead a soft, effeminate, and dissolute life, should be brought back, though unwillingly, to the love of true wisdom.

If you suppose dignity to belong to a city, think how many persons must partake in this dignity, who are whoremongers, effeminate, depraved and full of ten thousand evil things, and at last despise such honour! But that City above is not of this kind; for it is impossible that he can be a partaker of it, who has not exhibited every virtue.


Let Vulcan lay aside his envy, and not be jealous if he is hated because he is old and club-footed, and Mars loved, because young and beautiful. Since, therefore, you Greeks, your gods are convicted of intemperance, and your heroes are effeminate, as the histories on which your dramas are founded have declared, such as the curse of Atreus, the bed of Thyestes and the taint in the house of Pelops, and Danaus murdering through hatred and making Ægyptus childless in the intoxication of his rage, and the Thyestean banquet spread by the Furies. And Procne is to this day flitting about, lamenting; and her sister of Athens shrills with her tongue cut out. For what need is there of speaking of the goad of Œdipus, and the murder of Laius, and the marrying his mother, and the mutual slaughter of those who were at once his brothers and his sons?


It is now our purpose to demonstrate that death ought not to cause too heavy grief, because nature itself rejects this. And so they say that there was a law among the Lycians, commanding that men who gave way to grief should be clothed in female apparel, inasmuch as they judged mourning to be soft and effeminate in a man. And it is inconsistent that those who ought to offer their breast to death for the faith, for religion, for their country, for righteous judgment, and the endeavour after virtue, should grieve too bitterly for that in the case of others which, if a fitting cause required, they would seek for themselves. For how can one help shrinking from that in ourselves which one mourns with too little patience when it has happened to others? Put aside your grief, if you can; if you cannot, keep it to yourself.


For how can it be other than worthy of the utmost condemnation that a damsel who has spent her life entirely at home and been schooled in modesty from earliest childhood, should be compelled on a sudden to cast off all shame, and from the very commencement of her marriage be instructed in imprudence; and find herself put forward in the midst of wanton and rude men, and unchaste, and effeminate? What evil will not be implanted in the bride from that day forth? Immodesty, petulance, insolence, the love of vain glory: since they will naturally go on and desire to have all their days such as these. Hence our women become expensive and profuse; hence are they void of modesty, hence proceed their unnumbered evils.


This, I think, neither befits the divine majesty nor the discipline of the Gospel, that the modesty and credit of the Church should be polluted by so disgraceful and infamous a contagion. For since, in the law, men are forbidden to put on a woman's garment, and those that offend in this manner are judged accursed, how much greater is the crime, not only to take women's garments, but also to express base and effeminate and luxurious gestures, by the teaching of an immodest art.


9. Innocence, then, and knowledge make a man blessed. We have also noted already that the blessedness of eternal life is the reward for good works. It remains, then, to show that when the patronage of pleasure or the fear of pain is despised (and the first of these one abhors as poor and effeminate, and the other as unmanly and weak), that then a blessed life can rise up in the midst of pain. This can easily be shown when we read: Blessed are you when men shall revile you and persecute you and shall say all manner of evil against you for righteousness' sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you. Matthew 5:11-12 And again: He that will come after Me, let him take up his cross and follow Me. Matthew 16:24

Effeminate includes homosexuals in a sense, but it is not limited to it.  Translating "effeminate" as "homosexual" is theologically wrong.  It's not how the Fathers interpreted the meaning of the word, as you can see above, and if you search yourself, you will find probably another hundred references to it.  It means "womanly" in all philosophical connotations of the word, the word in Latin being "molles" which never meant "homosexual" in the strict sense you are and the intellectually dishonest fundamental Protestants are using it.

The moral of this story is: don't use Protestant sources if you want to understand Catholic theology.  Use Catholic sources: Catholic Bibles, the Summa, the writings of the Fathers, etc.

As far as "homosexual persons", before we go into what I believe is an unnecessarily labored interpretation of the phrase on your part,  do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?  Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?
Can a Catholic think that Homosexuality is the result of a Brain disorder? I don't mean psychological disorder, I mean brain, a biological defect. As long as you don't justify the behaviour which must nevertheless be resisted if they want to save themselves.
Wait a minute, if effeminate is attachment to luxury, does that mean a man who wants to have a nice house or a nice car or an easy job can't go to heaven?
(02-20-2011, 03:23 PM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]Wait a minute, if effeminate is attachment to luxury, does that mean a man who wants to have a nice house or a nice car or an easy job can't go to heaven?

If a man wants a nice house, a nice car, or an easy job above God, then he cannot go to Heaven as far as we know.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36