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
Here are infallible declarations from the Church that sin must be voluntary and the conscupiscence and bad desires, if not willed, are not sins--see especially the condemnations of St. Pius V:

Council of Trent:

Council of Trent, Session V Wrote:But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.[22]

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,[23] the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.

But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

St. Pius V condemned the following, ex cathedra, in the Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (NB: the following propositions are being definitively  condemned as contrary to the faith, not being affirmed):

46. Voluntariness does not pertain to the essence and definition of sin, nor is it a question of definition, but of cause and origin, whether every sin is bound to be voluntary.

50. Bad desires, to which reason does not consent, and which man unwillingly suffers, are prohibited by the precept: "Thou shalt not covet."

51. Concupiscence, whether the law of the members, and its depraved desires which men experience against their will, are the true disobediences of the law.

(03-12-2013, 03:18 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]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.

First of all, it is true that men who have deep-seated homosexual attraction are not supposed to become priests. That being said, if some one has struggled quietly with SSA, and lives a holy and chaste life, how are we to determine that such a person struggles with SSA? Should we, as Dr. Bombay so brilliantly suggested, require that the man demonstrate that he can have sexual congress with a woman before he enters the seminary?  :LOL:
(03-12-2013, 03:18 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]You are in no position to try saying your poo don't stink.

But it's covered with snow.   :rose:
(03-12-2013, 03:20 PM)SaintSebastian Wrote: [ -> ]Here are infallible declarations from the Church that sin must be voluntary and the conscupiscence and bad desires, if not willed, are not sins--see especially the condemnations of St. Pius V:

Council of Trent:

Council of Trent, Session V Wrote:But this holy council perceives and confesses that in the one baptized there remains concupiscence or an inclination to sin, which, since it is left for us to wrestle with, cannot injure those who do not acquiesce but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; indeed, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned.[22]

This concupiscence, which the Apostle sometimes calls sin,[23] the holy council declares the Catholic Church has never understood to be called sin in the sense that it is truly and properly sin in those born again, but in the sense that it is of sin and inclines to sin.

But if anyone is of the contrary opinion, let him be anathema.

St. Pius V condemned the following, ex cathedra, in the Bull Ex Omnibus Afflictionibus (NB: the following propositions are being definitively  condemned as contrary to the faith, not being affirmed):

46. Voluntariness does not pertain to the essence and definition of sin, nor is it a question of definition, but of cause and origin, whether every sin is bound to be voluntary.

50. Bad desires, to which reason does not consent, and which man unwillingly suffers, are prohibited by the precept: "Thou shalt not covet."

51. Concupiscence, whether the law of the members, and its depraved desires which men experience against their will, are the true disobediences of the law.

If SSA isn't willed by the person experiencing it who wills it then? Just a question.
(03-12-2013, 03:18 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.
You attacked when you said theChurch doesn't call sin sin, and that they're so infiltrated that they can't teach truth. Further, you have been claiming that lust equals desire, and that the Church teaches falsely on this issue. You also accused ALL Catholics of pride because some have called you out on your attitude of moral superiority attitude. That seems backward. No, you cannot backpedal and say you've only been saying homosexuals cannot be priests, mostly because no one here actually disagrees with that statement.  I don't appreciate being accused of lying when your own words are there for anyone to read. Speaking of sin, calumny is most definitely considered a sin.
(03-12-2013, 03:44 PM)Anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 03:18 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.
You attacked when you said theChurch doesn't call sin sin, if it says that a man wanting to have sex with another man and the inclination to want to isn't sinful I'd agreeand that they're so infiltrated that they can't teach truth. WHERE did I say that?Further, you have been claiming that lust equals desire, so a man "desiring" to have sex with another man isn't lust...ok  :eyeroll:and that the Church teaches falsely on this issue.it didn't used to teach what it does now on the issue just check out the MHFM on the issue they prove it pretty well You also accused ALL Catholics of pride actually I never said any such thing I was telling you that your church has so many issues and is in full on crisis right now that you have no place to tell me your church is betterbecause some have called you out on your attitude of moral superiority attitude.You mean like Impy and Papist who just happen to be SSA and have already pulled the "victim" card? That seems backward. No, you cannot backpedal and say you've only been saying homosexuals cannot be priests, mostly because no one here actually disagrees with that statement.actually you obviously haven't read Papist's comments and snarky comment about how a priest should have to have sex with women to prove he's not gay. He seems to think that someone who quietly stuggles with SSA should be allowed to be priests which is where the homo lobby/mafia came from  I don't appreciate being accused of lying when your own words are there for anyone to read. yes my words are there for anyone to read and I have said no such thing you are lyingSpeaking of sin, calumny is most definitely considered a sin. so is bearing false witness

my comments in red-for everyone to see BTW here's the MHFM link I told you about...

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/d...exuals.php

of course please ignore the "vatican II sect" comments and such but you'll get the gist of the article. It's pretty clear and I totally agree with them even though they think I'm a heretic whose going to be damned. This is my exact position to a tee.
(03-12-2013, 04:10 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]my comments in red-for everyone to see BTW here's the MHFM link I told you about...

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/d...exuals.php

of course please ignore the "vatican II sect" comments and such but you'll get the gist of the article. It's pretty clear and I totally agree with them even though they think I'm a heretic whose going to be damned. This is my exact position to a tee.
I'm going to go with the de fide statements made in the post above, rather than this site you provide.
(03-12-2013, 04:10 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 03:44 PM)Anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-12-2013, 03:18 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.
You attacked when you said theChurch doesn't call sin sin, if it says that a man wanting to have sex with another man and the inclination to want to isn't sinful I'd agreeand that they're so infiltrated that they can't teach truth. WHERE did I say that?Further, you have been claiming that lust equals desire, so a man "desiring" to have sex with another man isn't lust...ok  :eyeroll:and that the Church teaches falsely on this issue.it didn't used to teach what it does now on the issue just check out the MHFM on the issue they prove it pretty well You also accused ALL Catholics of pride actually I never said any such thing I was telling you that your church has so many issues and is in full on crisis right now that you have no place to tell me your church is betterbecause some have called you out on your attitude of moral superiority attitude.You mean like Impy and Papist who just happen to be SSA and have already pulled the "victim" card? That seems backward. No, you cannot backpedal and say you've only been saying homosexuals cannot be priests, mostly because no one here actually disagrees with that statement.actually you obviously haven't read Papist's comments and snarky comment about how a priest should have to have sex with women to prove he's not gay. He seems to think that someone who quietly stuggles with SSA should be allowed to be priests which is where the homo lobby/mafia came from  I don't appreciate being accused of lying when your own words are there for anyone to read. yes my words are there for anyone to read and I have said no such thing you are lyingSpeaking of sin, calumny is most definitely considered a sin. so is bearing false witness

my comments in red-for everyone to see BTW here's the MHFM link I told you about...

http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/d...exuals.php

of course please ignore the "vatican II sect" comments and such but you'll get the gist of the article. It's pretty clear and I totally agree with them even though they think I'm a heretic whose going to be damned. This is my exact position to a tee.
Anyone reading this thread can read your posts, where you did not distinguish between the Catholics who agreed with you and those who did not,condemning them all equally. Specifically , posts 255 and 259. The fact that you can only reference the nutty Dimond brothers, who also condemn theRoman Catholic Church, only further supports this. You're constantly making false statements about what the Church teaches, and ignoring anything the actual Catholics here post with Church sources. And when you're called on it, you play the victim more than anyone homosexual could.
Honestly, when you are so gratuitously nasty while at the same time being so arrogant about your own sanctity, even to Catholics who largely agree with you, I'm beginning to see your husbands side of things.
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