FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

(03-12-2013, 04:31 PM)Anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Anastasia you are off some emotional lark. I never condemned anyone. Again another lie. I did say that unless the Catholic Church gets rid of all the clergy with SSA the problem of the homo lobby/mafia won't go away. When have I ever played the "I'm so good and sinless" game? Again another lie. I've never said anything about the Catholics that agree with me. I think they are right except SSA being sin. They think it isn't I think it is. Wanting to be sexual with someone of the same sex is sinful not just acting on it. "gratuitiously nasty"? more emotionalism not based in reality. Again another lie. My husband and I are in complete agreement on SSA and homosexual acts.  :P

(03-12-2013, 04:39 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2013, 04:31 PM)Anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Anastasia you are off some emotional lark. I never condemned anyone. Again another lie. I did say that unless the Catholic Church gets rid of all the clergy with SSA the problem of the homo lobby/mafia won't go away. When have I ever played the "I'm so good and sinless" game? Again another lie. I've never said anything about the Catholics that agree with me. I think they are right except SSA being sin. They think it isn't I think it is. Wanting to be sexual with someone of the same sex is sinful not just acting on it. "gratuitiously nasty"? more emotionalism not based in reality. Again another lie. My husband and I are in complete agreement on SSA and homosexual acts.  :P

I referenced the posts, they're available to anyone who can read! At this point, you are the only person on this board who thinks you aren't really attacking the Church. You can accuse me of lying all you like, but what you said is still there, and intelligible to anyone with the intellect of Winnie the Pooh. Oh, and you played the sinless card in your first response to me. You know, the one where I pointed out that defaming Catholcism on a Catholic board was not perhaps the best idea? And then you went ballistic ( speaking of emotional) that I dared question you?
But nice try with the emotionalism argument, we Catholics called that an ad hominem fallacy, and it is as about as respected as your sources the Dimond brothers.

I have to admit that like traditionalmom, I have a hard time in seeing only the DEED of performing sexually perverse acts as a sin and not the THOUGHTS that are of a sexually perverse nature as a sin, also. Especially when someone has so many ongoing thoughts about the particular sexual perversion they are thinking about that they then claim it as their identity and proclaim that they ARE a homosexual, or a bisexual, or a transgender. Labeling oneself as such doesn't seem to be distancing oneself from the spirit of Lust. It seems to be embracing it.

To say, as the Church has done since Vatican II, that only sexually perverse ACTS are sinful, but not the sexually perverse THOUGHT, seems to render the Confiteor we say at Mass moot and not meaning what it, in fact, does say;

"I confess to Almighty God...that I have sinned exceedingly in THOUGHT, WORD, and DEED, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.".

In the Confiteor we acknowledge that our THOUGHTS are indeed our fault and we do commit sins even with just our thoughts. So the question is, at what point do fleeting thoughts of sexual perversity become actual sinning by thought? And how many times would one be allowed to experience these fleeting thoughts before sinning by thought occurs? Or should we just dismiss the Confiteor as a dusty old relic and embrace the new pastoral Vatican II teaching on this?

(03-12-2013, 04:52 PM)Anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2013, 04:39 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2013, 04:31 PM)Anastasia Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

Anastasia you are off some emotional lark. I never condemned anyone. Again another lie. I did say that unless the Catholic Church gets rid of all the clergy with SSA the problem of the homo lobby/mafia won't go away. When have I ever played the "I'm so good and sinless" game? Again another lie. I've never said anything about the Catholics that agree with me. I think they are right except SSA being sin. They think it isn't I think it is. Wanting to be sexual with someone of the same sex is sinful not just acting on it. "gratuitiously nasty"? more emotionalism not based in reality. Again another lie. My husband and I are in complete agreement on SSA and homosexual acts.  :P

I referenced the posts, they're available to anyone who can read! At this point, you are the only person on this board who thinks you aren't really attacking the Church. You can accuse me of lying all you like, but what you said is still there, and intelligible to anyone with the intellect of Winnie the Pooh. Oh, and you played the sinless card in your first response to me. You know, the one where I pointed out that defaming Catholcism on a Catholic board was not perhaps the best idea? And then you went ballistic ( speaking of emotional) that I dared question you?
But nice try with the emotionalism argument, we Catholics called that an ad hominem fallacy, and it is as about as respected as your sources the Dimond brothers.

:angrywom:-you  :deadhorse:-over and over the same things :eyeroll:-my thoughts on the matter.  The smileys speak for themselves...but just in case I added text.

(03-12-2013, 05:04 PM)FaithfulCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]I have to admit that like traditionalmom, I have a hard time in seeing only the DEED of performing sexually perverse acts as a sin and not the THOUGHTS that are of a sexually perverse nature as a sin, also. Especially when someone has so many ongoing thoughts about the particular sexual perversion they are thinking about that they then claim it as their identity and proclaim that they ARE a homosexual, or a bisexual, or a transgender. Labeling oneself as such doesn't seem to be distancing oneself from the spirit of Lust. It seems to be embracing it.

To say, as the Church has done since Vatican II, that only sexually perverse ACTS are sinful, but not the sexually perverse THOUGHT, seems to render the Confiteor we say at Mass moot and not meaning what it, in fact, does say;

"I confess to Almighty God...that I have sinned exceedingly in THOUGHT, WORD, and DEED, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault.".

In the Confiteor we acknowledge that our THOUGHTS are indeed our fault and we do commit sins even with just our thoughts. So the question is, at what point do fleeting thoughts of sexual perversity become actual sinning by thought? And how many times would one be allowed to experience these fleeting thoughts before sinning by thought occurs? Or should we just dismiss the Confiteor as a dusty old relic and embrace the new pastoral Vatican II teaching on this?

As a Lutheran we say the Confiteor as well only modified but thought is definitely in there. And look Anastasia I'm actually agreeing with and have absolutely no problem with what faithful Catholic said. Pope Pius V had some fight'n words on homosexual priests. Do you think he only felt that way about their acts or their thoughts on sodomy? Here's the quote:


That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.

(Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum,
Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

An evil thought becomes sinful when it's consented to and no effort is made to distract oneself from it, or pray for help to overcome it.  Many saints were bombarded with all kinds of wicked thoughts but they prayed continually and renounced the thoughts.  An absent-minded daydream, no matter how evil, is not a sin, because it didn't engage the will.  It's a temptation.

(03-12-2013, 05:21 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]An evil thought becomes sinful when it's consented to and no effort is made to distract oneself from it, or pray for help to overcome it.  Many saints were bombarded with all kinds of wicked thoughts but they prayed continually and renounced the thoughts.  An absent-minded daydream, no matter how evil, is not a sin, because it didn't engage the will.  It's a temptation.

"distract oneself from it" you mean they didn't (the saints) say that they are (murderous minded, fornication minded people) they did not claim it as who they were, ie their being who they were as people.

(03-12-2013, 03:02 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Actually, this is incorrect. From the document in question:

Quote:From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. 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.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

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[9], 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"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ne_en.html

In the document, "deep-seated" tendencies are contrasted with transitory tendencies that will disappear before ordination. A chaste person who is sexually attracted to other men would be considered to have deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Ok well I will check back later I have bible reading to do and house to clean while my little ones nap.

(03-12-2013, 05:34 PM)traditionalmom Wrote: [ -> ]

(03-12-2013, 05:21 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]An evil thought becomes sinful when it's consented to and no effort is made to distract oneself from it, or pray for help to overcome it.  Many saints were bombarded with all kinds of wicked thoughts but they prayed continually and renounced the thoughts.  An absent-minded daydream, no matter how evil, is not a sin, because it didn't engage the will.  It's a temptation.

"distract oneself from it" you mean they didn't (the saints) say that they are (murderous minded, fornication minded people) they did not claim it as who they were, ie their being who they were as people.

Yes, that's my understanding.  They don't identify themselves with their temptations.  But they would have to know themselves well enough to avoid the temptations that were occasions of sin for them, and so, if they had SSA, for example, they would not try to enter the priesthood.  I've never heard of any saints who had SSA, but that doesn't mean there are none.  It's not a sin to recognize one's predominant temptations, though.  That's why it's not sinful to call oneself someone with SSA.  I don't personally recommend making one's particular temptations public, but it's not inherently sinful to do so, as far as I know.