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
Madam, this is a Catholic forum. 
(03-12-2013, 02:36 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]no of course you'd like to and even enjoy trying to say something I didn't say. It's not about "whose better" it's about the Catholic Church allowing people to think lust isn't lust unless it's acted on and then saying people like myself aren't even Christians or at best heretics. That's warped. I'm sure you will continue to try to paint me in a corner when clearly there is no corner. There is no "better" we are all fallen sinners. But some of us know we sin, call it sin and try to stop doing it. We don't make excuses about having some "cross" to bear to keep living in sin and even go as far as not calling it sin. Lust is sin. Sexaul attraction from one man to another is sin. It's perversion. If the Catholic church doesn't acknowledge this it will never get rid of the problem of the homo lobby/mafia.

edited to add some more points
How can attraction be the sin of lust when it not willed? I'm confused.
(03-12-2013, 02:47 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]Madam, this is a Catholic forum. 

yes it is. see also...

"Though the forum has traditional Catholicism as its focus, there are all types of people who post there -- Catholics of all varieties, non-Catholic Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and pagans. Posters can run the gamut of the political spectrum, too."

I'm stating an opinion and would like someone to tell me how I'm wrong. I don't just want some comments from Aquinas because he's not infallible to you all and I'd like some ex cathedra comments from pre-vatican II sources that say the attraction isnt' sinful. If it's been around since Sodom (homosexuality) I'd like to see some ex cathedra comments.
(03-12-2013, 02:56 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 02:47 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]Madam, this is a Catholic forum. 

yes it is. see also...

"Though the forum has traditional Catholicism as its focus, there are all types of people who post there -- Catholics of all varieties, non-Catholic Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and pagans. Posters can run the gamut of the political spectrum, too."

I'm stating an opinion and would like someone to tell me how I'm wrong. I don't just want some comments from Aquinas because he's not infallible to you all and I'd like some ex cathedra comments from pre-vatican II sources that say the attraction isnt' sinful. If it's been around since Sodom (homosexuality) I'd like to see some ex cathedra comments.
I'm sorry that you don't like Aquinas, but he is considered the Universal Doctor of the Catholic Church. While his statements are not infallible, they hold quite a bit of weight for us Romans. :)
(03-12-2013, 02:52 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 02:36 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]no of course you'd like to and even enjoy trying to say something I didn't say. It's not about "whose better" it's about the Catholic Church allowing people to think lust isn't lust unless it's acted on and then saying people like myself aren't even Christians or at best heretics. That's warped. I'm sure you will continue to try to paint me in a corner when clearly there is no corner. There is no "better" we are all fallen sinners. But some of us know we sin, call it sin and try to stop doing it. We don't make excuses about having some "cross" to bear to keep living in sin and even go as far as not calling it sin. Lust is sin. Sexaul attraction from one man to another is sin. It's perversion. If the Catholic church doesn't acknowledge this it will never get rid of the problem of the homo lobby/mafia.

edited to add some more points
How can attraction be the sin of lust when it not willed? I'm confused.

So you do not have any control of who you are sexually attracted to? Does the man whose sexually attracted to children? Should he be allowed to be a priest? What about the person sexually attracted to animals is he fine to be a priest. BTW to one poster that said (I believe it was mikemac) that B16 doesn't allow homosexuals in the priesthood that's not exactly true he said those with "deep seated" homosexual tendencies and said that those living chastely as SSA people can be priests.
(03-12-2013, 02:56 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 02:47 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]Madam, this is a Catholic forum. 

yes it is. see also...

"Though the forum has traditional Catholicism as its focus, there are all types of people who post there -- Catholics of all varieties, non-Catholic Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and pagans. Posters can run the gamut of the political spectrum, too."

I'm stating an opinion and would like someone to tell me how I'm wrong. I don't just want some comments from Aquinas because he's not infallible to you all and I'd like some ex cathedra comments from pre-vatican II sources that say the attraction isnt' sinful. If it's been around since Sodom (homosexuality) I'd like to see some ex cathedra comments.
But you're not allowed to attack the Church, as you have been doing.
Also, ex cathedra statements are not often made, and certainly not about  one fine point about one particular sin. That is why Catholics DO use St Thomas, other respected theologians, and plain old common sense about these things. After all, if any sexual attraction equals lust, why are married couples allowed and encouraged to desire each other? The Bible doesn't say lust is evil, except if you're married.
Our reactions to things that we find distasteful don't define them as sinful (or not).

We've been over the concepts of appetite and consent here.  Your position is simply untenable from a Christian standpoint.
(03-12-2013, 03:02 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]So you do not have any control of who you are sexually attracted to? Does the man whose sexually attracted to children? Should he be allowed to be a priest? What about the person sexually attracted to animals is he fine to be a priest. BTW to one poster that said (I believe it was mikemac) that B16 doesn't allow homosexuals in the priesthood that's not exactly true he said those with "deep seated" homosexual tendencies and said that those living chastely as SSA people can be priests.
There are quite a few issues intertwined here, and confused in your post. The issue about whether or not sexual attraction is the result of the will, and whether or not pedophiles should be allowed to be priests are to entirely separate issues. Do I know the genesis of homosexual attraction? No. Do I know the genesis of the attractions inherent in pedastry? No. I  suspect that they are a complex mix of nature, nuture, psychology, and practice. The fact that one is tempted to sex with members of the same sex at any given moment is not that persons fault. How could it be? The attraction remains disordered and acting on the attraction through either fantasy, or a real sexual encounter is a mortal sin. But how can one be guily of sin if a thought pops into his head, and he chooses not to entertain it?
Now, should people tempted to pedophelia be allowed to be priests? No, of course not. Their sickness puts others in danger. I don't understand why you are even asking this.
I think the difference between the Catholic view of the matter and the Lutheran one is that for Catholics, our fallen human nature is still ontologically good, though damaged and often disordered. Lutherans see our human nature as no better than dung, and the redeemed person as dung covered in snow.

I had a protestant friend in college who could not understand how Mary could be without sin because, in her view, "to be in the flesh is to be in sin." A very protestant view of human nature.
(03-12-2013, 03:04 PM)Anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 02:56 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 02:47 PM)ImpyTerwilliger Wrote: [ -> ]Madam, this is a Catholic forum. 

yes it is. see also...

"Though the forum has traditional Catholicism as its focus, there are all types of people who post there -- Catholics of all varieties, non-Catholic Christians, atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and pagans. Posters can run the gamut of the political spectrum, too."

I'm stating an opinion and would like someone to tell me how I'm wrong. I don't just want some comments from Aquinas because he's not infallible to you all and I'd like some ex cathedra comments from pre-vatican II sources that say the attraction isnt' sinful. If it's been around since Sodom (homosexuality) I'd like to see some ex cathedra comments.
But you're not allowed to attack the Church, as you have been doing.
Also, ex cathedra statements are not often made, and certainly not about  one fine point about one particular sin. That is why Catholics DO use St Thomas, other respected theologians, and plain old common sense about these things. After all, if any sexual attraction equals lust, why are married couples allowed and encouraged to desire each other? The Bible doesn't say lust is evil, except if you're married.



Where have I attacked the Catholic church. I've attacked the idea that SSA isn't sinful. I've attacked the idea that it's ok to have SSA priests. You are making false statements. I said that get rid of the homo lobby you must purge the priesthood of SSA people not just practicing homosexuals. That's what I have been attacking not the Church itself. Careful with the snootiness (our Catholic poo don't stink) attitude..."he who exalts himself shall be abased and he who humbles himself shall be exalted" the church is in crisis just as Voris or MHFM. You are in no position to try saying your poo don't stink.
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