FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Catholics and homosexuality
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 37
(03-09-2013, 11:13 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]For Heaven's sakes Bombay, she quoted Canon Law.

In this day and age there is no need to explain why someone is not married.  To say that is what is pushing homosexuals into seminaries where they attempt to "hide out" is complete nonsense.  Homosexuals are entering seminaries because it is a deliberate infiltration of the Church.

Let us hope "they" do infiltrate we definitely need more orthodox priests.
(03-09-2013, 11:37 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]You are just being ridiculous now Bombay, as usual.  In 2008 Pope Benedict changed the policy for entering a seminary to not allow anyone that has ever had any inclination towards same sex.

Very Modernist of him. The gay priests are not the problem, the problem is the rabble among the laity that would have stoned Christ for some perceived fault.
(03-09-2013, 11:37 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]You are just being ridiculous now Bombay, as usual.  In 2008 Pope Benedict changed the policy for entering a seminary to not allow anyone that has ever had any inclination towards same sex.

Uh huh.  And how does one prove one isn't gay?  By having sexual congress with a woman.  My idea has merit and it stands.  QED
St. Pius X' Oath Against Modernism (used for all clerics until Vatican II) would certainly help sort these issues out!
(03-09-2013, 11:42 PM)Lateran15 Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 11:37 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]You are just being ridiculous now Bombay, as usual.  In 2008 Pope Benedict changed the policy for entering a seminary to not allow anyone that has ever had any inclination towards same sex.

Very Modernist of him. The gay priests are not the problem, the problem is the rabble among the laity that would have stoned Christ for some perceived fault.

No, gay priests are definitely the problem Lateran15.  In fact two months before his death Pope John Paul II took criticism for implying in a document that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia.  And we all know now that pedophilia is not the appropriate word, it's ephebophilia which is described as homosexuals with a sexual preference for pubescent and adolescent boys.

No Bombay your idea does not have merit.  The 2008 Vatican directive implemented psychological screening for candidates for the priesthood with conditions listed for exclusion that include "uncertain sexual identity" and "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".  So even if a man is not certain of his sexual identity he is not allowed in the priesthood.

Quotes from Homosexuality and Roman Catholic priests
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuali...ic_priests
Quote:Church directives

In 1961 directive signed by Pope John XXIII outlined church policy. "Advancement to religious vows and ordination should be barred to those who are afflicted with evil tendencies to homosexuality or pederasty, since for them the common life and the priestly ministry would constitute serious dangers."[9] The Catholic Church today teaches that "Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder".[20] Although a 1961 document entitled Careful Selection And Training Of Candidates For The States Of Perfection And Sacred Orders stated that homosexual men should not be ordained, this was left to bishops to enforce, and most did not, holding homosexuals to the same standards of celibate chastity as heterosexual seminarians.[21] With regard to the United States, in 2002 the Vatican ordered an "apostolic visitation", an examination of American seminaries directed from the Vatican. The visitation began in 2005, and the final report of that effort was issued in 2008. The report discusses "difficulties in the areas of morality", remarking that "Usually, but not exclusively, this meant homosexual behavior". The report describes steps taken to deal with the problem, including correcting a "laxity of discipline".[22]

2005 directive

In November 2005, the Vatican completed an 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. Publication was made through the Congregation for Catholic Education. According to the new policy, men with "transitory" homosexual leanings may be ordained deacons following three years of prayer and chastity. However, men with "deeply rooted homosexual tendencies" or who are sexually active cannot be ordained. No new moral teaching was contained in the instruction: the instruction proposed by the document is rather towards enhancing vigilance in barring homosexuals from seminaries, and from the priesthood. As the title of the document indicates, it concerned exclusively candidates with homosexual tendencies, not other candidates.

    The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies. Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.....In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question, cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture". [23]

While the preparation for this document had started 10 years before its publication,[24] this instruction is seen as an official answer by the Catholic Church to several sex scandals involving priests in the late 20th/early 21st century, including the American Roman Catholic sex abuse cases and a 2004 sex scandal in a seminary at St. Pölten (Austria).[25] Two months before his death in 2005, Pope John Paul II, troubled by the sex scandals in the US, Austria and Ireland,[24] had written to the Congregation for Catholic Education: "Right from the moment young men enter a Seminary their ability to live a life of celibacy should be monitored so that before their ordination one should be morally certain of their sexual and emotional maturity."[26] The document has attracted criticism based on an interpretation that the document implies that homosexuality is associated with pedophilia.[27] There were some questions on how distinctions between deep-seated and transient homosexuality, as proposed by the document, will be applied in practice: the actual distinction that is made might be between those who abuse, and those who don't.[28]

Implementation

The Belgian college of Bishops elaborated that the sexual restrictions for seminary and priesthood candidates apply likewise for men of all sexual orientations.[29] Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has been quoted as saying that the Vatican's directive was not tout court a "no-gays" policy.[30] The Vatican followed up in 2008 with a directive to implement psychological screening for candidates for the priesthood. Conditions listed for exclusion from the priesthood include "uncertain sexual identity" and "deep-seated homosexual tendencies".[31] Pope Benedict XVI in his book "Light of the World" appears to state that homosexuality and the priesthood are completely incompatible "The Congregation for Education issued a decision a few years ago to the effect that homosexual candidates cannot become priests because their sexual orientation estranges them from the proper sense of paternity, from the intrinsic nature of priestly being. The selection of candidates to the priesthood must therefore be very careful. The greatest attention is needed here in order to prevent the intrusion of this kind of ambiguity and to head off a situation where the celibacy of priests would practically end up being identified with the tendency to homosexuality.

Now that homosexuals are not allowed in the seminaries the next step is to clear out the homosexual infiltration of the existing priesthood.  Yeah StCeciliasGirl St. Pius X's Oath Against Modernism would certainly help. 
So now we're big believers in psychology?  I thought it had been established on this thread that psychology was a bunch of modernist bunk.

Huh.  I still believe forced fornication as part of the seminary application process is the real answer.
The inability to make a distinction between one's personal opinion and Catholic teaching has been an ongoing problem throughout this thread. The Catholic Church teaches that homosexual actions are sins and that homosexual attractions are disordered.  Nobody in this thread has disagreed with that.  Therefore nobody in this thread has been defending Catholic teaching from those who disagree with it.

Instead, one of the main points of disagreement in this thread has been the value of the organization Courage. Nobody has established that Church teaching is opposed to this organization.  In fact, Courage has been approved by the Holy See.  That ought to carry more weight than the baseless opinions of lay people on the internet.  People in this thread, who have no clue what happens at a Courage meeting have been condemning
them.  As if that was not bad enough, when others object to this condemnation being unreasonable, these objections are dismissed as lack of Catholic orthodoxy.  There is nothing modernist or otherwise heretical about expecting people to know what they are talking about. The Courage website contains information about this, in case anyone is interested in the truth: http://couragerc.net/Running_a_Courage_Meeting.html

While I dare say that St. Thomas is right that it would be better for people to avoid talking about homosexuality, that is not an option in our society.  It is almost impossible to avoid people talking about homosexuality, most of them making false claims that are opposed to Catholic teaching.  In this situation, if we choose to be silent about homosexuality, it means letting lies go unchallenged.  There is nothing wrong with people who struggle with SSA gathering together to reinforce each other in accepting and following Church teaching, especially not in a culture intent on doing the opposite.  If there are some for whom being in the same room as others with SSA is an occasion of sin (which, I suspect, is very rare) they can participate in Courage's online discussions for the same purpose.  Here are the goals of Courage:

To live chaste lives in accordance with the Roman Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality. ( Chastity )

To dedicate our entire lives to Christ through service to others, spiritual reading, prayer, meditation, individual spiritual direction, frequent attendance at Mass, and the frequent reception of the sacraments of Reconciliation and Holy Eucharist. (Prayer and Dedication)

To foster a spirit of fellowship in which we may share with one another our thoughts and experiences, and so ensure that no one will have to face the problems of homosexuality alone. (Fellowship)

To be mindful of the truth that chaste friendships are not only possible but necessary in a chaste Christian life; and to encourage one another in forming and sustaining these friendships. (Support)

To live lives that may serve as good examples to others. (Good Example/Role Model)


I have also been appalled by the personal attacks on Vox in this thread.  There have been multiple suggestions that she holds unorthodox positions and, as if that were not a serious enough calumny, that she bans people for disagreeing with her alleged unorthodoxy. Not only are these accusations untrue, they show outrageous
ingratitude.  Vox has provided an amazing web site and this forum for us to have discussions.  This has involved considerable time, effort and expense for her.  The least we could do is not use it to insult her and lie about her.


(03-09-2013, 04:48 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 01:45 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like more the posters here are more concerns with proving how "tough" on gays they are, and less concerned with what actually might convert the sinner. Again, I remember something about millstones.

That's the second time that you have used the millstone analogy.

Matthew 18:6 "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea."

But nobody here is scandalizing you.  Take the advice that Courage can give you, then leave.  A continual association with people with like minds is not good.  It can lead to temptation in itself.  How long are you going to call yourself a person with SSA?  Twenty years?  Thirty years?  Your whole life?  You are not one that likes to flaunt it, are you?  Just give it up.  Walk away like Lot did.  Don't look back like Lot's wife did.  Please.  My prayers are with you.  And I'm sure many in this forum are too.

It is quite possible that this thread is scandalizing people. It does have the potential to lead people to sin.  I went through a period in my life in which I was a gay rights activist and a major factor leading to me sinning that way was reacting to Catholics who lacked compassion and understanding.  I eventually came to see that this was a problem with Catholics and not Church teaching itself and I repented of my sin.

The way that we present Church teaching matters.  Some in this thread are going beyond actual Church teaching, mixing in their own opinions and creating a mess that has a very good chance of driving people away
from the Church, as similar messes almost did to me.  There is nothing in Church teaching that says it is wrong to attend Courage meetings. There is nothing that says there is a problem with using the term "SSA".  On the contrary using the term is a good way to distinguish between homosexual actions which are sins and homosexual attraction which is disordered but not a sin.  Using language which helps to make Church teaching more clear is a good thing.

Lecturing Papist like you have done above is totally out of line.  He has a better understanding of Church teaching on homosexuality than just about anyone in this thread. He has said nothing wrong and he is
not doing anything wrong.  He is living chastely under circumstances in which it is extremely difficult to do so. I appreciate the struggle that he has taken on for the love of Christ.  I appreciate the example of virtue he has set for us. I appreciate the patience he has shown with this thread. It would be a lot more appropriate for him to be the one giving the lecture than receiving it.
Father Hardon's Catholic dictionary has a good entry on homosexuality:
Fr. Hardon's Catholic dictionary:
In general, some form of sexual relationship among members of the same
sex. From a moral standpoint, three levels are to be distinguished:
tendency, attraction, and activity. Homosexual tendencies in any
person are within the normal range of human nature, whose fallen
condition includes every conceivable kind impulse that with sincere
effort and divine grace can be controlled. Sexual attraction for
members of the same sex may be partly due to the peculiar make-up of
certain individuals or, more often, the result of indiscretion or
seduction and presents a graver problem; yet this, too, [b]is not by
itself sinful and may in fact be an occasion for great supernatural
merit.
When the condition is pathological, it requires therapy.
Active homosexuality is morally indefensible and has been many times
forbidden in revelation and the teaching of the Church. The most
extensive declaration on the subject was the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith, approved by Pope Paul VI on November 7, 1975.[/b]

And here is a good Michael Voris video on the subject:
(03-09-2013, 04:48 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 01:45 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]Sounds like more the posters here are more concerns with proving how "tough" on gays they are, and less concerned with what actually might convert the sinner. Again, I remember something about millstones.

That's the second time that you have used the millstone analogy.

Matthew 18:6 "But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea."

But nobody here is scandalizing you.  Take the advice that Courage can give you, then leave.  A continual association with people with like minds is not good.  It can lead to temptation in itself.  How long are you going to call yourself a person with SSA?  Twenty years?  Thirty years?  Your whole life?  You are not one that likes to flaunt it, are you?  Just give it up.  Walk away like Lot did.  Don't look back like Lot's wife did.  Please.  My prayers are with you.  And I'm sure many in this forum are too.

Here's an excerpt from a blog from a traditional Catholic mom that may help you understand what we are saying.
Quote:As a Catholic mom of three teenagers and a pre-teen, here is my very brief rendition of how a Catholic mom might present this to her teenager.

“The Church teaches us that it is always a sin to commit a homosexual act, and that would include any kind of physical contact that is sexual in nature, like touching with hands, or kissing. The Church also teaches us that it isn’t a sin to have desires like that, but that it is still not okay because those are temptations that can lead us into sin. Some people have those kinds of desires, especially when they are going through puberty and are just beginning to think about sex. The vast majority of people are naturally drawn to people of the opposite sex, but sometimes young people are confused about that. If your friends at school are telling you that it is okay to be attracted to someone of the same sex, they are wrong. It is not okay.”

In my experience with my own teenagers, I have noticed that it is difficult for them to understand the difference between something being a “sin” and something being “not okay.” Certainly, the distinction can be confusing for anyone, let alone a teenager. It occurs to me that confusion is spread when Catholics are out there presenting arguments in public that it is “okay” to have same-sex attraction but “not okay” to commit a homosexual act. Do you tell your kids at home that it is “okay” if they are attracted to someone of the same sex? If so, you’re leading them into temptation, not away from it. Read the “Our Father” and see, that’s not good parenting. Are you a Catholic mom of teenagers telling your kids one thing at home and telling the world something different on your blog? That, too, is bad.

    “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.”
While I appreciate your concern, I never said that I actually attend courage meetings. I deal with my struggles with my spiritual director/confessor. However, I understand that some might need the courage group in order to deal with their struggles. Just because it's not something I need, I will never belittle those who do need that support.
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 37