FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

We're allowing a Lutheran heretic with a Dimond Brothers fetish to lecture us on Catholic theology?

Huh.  Too bad it's not 500 years ago.  :bonfire:

(03-12-2013, 07:23 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]We're allowing a Lutheran heretic with a Dimond Brothers fetish to lecture us on Catholic theology?

Huh.  Too bad it's not 500 years ago.   :bonfire:

Not anymore. She's banned. I didn't know she was a freakin' Lutheran. I'm adding "Lutheran" to her name so people reading won't mistake her posts as those from a Catholic.

Would the correct term for someone who had an attraction to the same sex, and is now chaste because they want to follow God's teachings and save their soul, be "ex-homosexual"? If not, why not?

(03-12-2013, 07:31 PM)FaithfulCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Would the correct term for someone who had an attraction to the same sex, and is now chaste because they want to follow God's teachings and save their soul, be "ex-homosexual"? If not, why not?

"Homosexual" means "someone who is attracted to the same sex." Chastity doesn't change that. Which isn't to say there aren't ex-homosexuals out there, too.

(03-12-2013, 03:38 PM)traditionalLUTHERANmom Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

That is a very good question traditionalLUTHERANmom.  Especially considering some "sensitive" types are persistent in their choosing to identify themselves as people with same sex attraction.

Darn she got banned.  I was just about to ask her if she thought the reason why the Lutheran Church has not returned to the Catholic Faith yet is because of the homolobby in the Church.  You know considering an Eastern Orthodox prelate has just recently said that he is hoping for a traditional Pope.

Now if I don't get banned too I have lots more to say in this thread.

(03-12-2013, 05:45 PM)Crusading Philologist Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

That is from a 2005 document Crusading Philologist.  It gets even more rigorous in this 2008 document.  

On page 15 of this thread I posted "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."  And I quoted from a Wikipedia page.  I have since gone to the 2008 Vatican source page titled "GUIDELINES FOR THE USE OF PSYCHOLOGY IN THE ADMISSION AND FORMATION OF CANDIDATES FOR THE PRIESTHOOD" which I quote from below.
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ti_en.html

Quote:4. The document of this Congregation for Catholic Education, A Guide to Formation in Priestly Celibacy, recognizes that “errors in discerning vocations are not rare, and in all too many cases psychological defects, sometimes of a pathological kind, reveal themselves only after ordination to the priesthood. Detecting defects earlier would help avoid many tragic experiences.” 16

Hence, the need for every formator to possess, in due measure, the sensitivity and psychological preparation 17 that will allow him, insofar as possible, to perceive the candidate's true motivations, to discern the barriers that stop him integrating human and Christian maturity, and to pick up on any psychopathic disturbances present in the candidate. The formator must accurately and very prudently evaluate the candidate's history. Nevertheless, this history alone cannot constitute the decisive criterion which would be sufficient for judging whether to admit the candidate or dismiss him from formation. The formator must know how to evaluate the person in his totality, not forgetting the gradual nature of development. He must see the candidate's strong and weak points, as well as the level of awareness that the candidate has of his own problems. Lastly, the formator must discern the candidate's capacity for controlling his own behaviour in responsibility and freedom.

Thus, every formator must be prepared, including by means of specific courses, to understand profoundly the human person as well as the demands of his formation to the ordained ministry. To that end, much advantage can be derived from meeting experts in the psychological sciences, to compare notes and obtain clarification on some specific issues.

III. Contribution of Psychology to Vocational Discernment and Formation

5.
...
In fact, those who today ask admittance to the seminary reflect, in a more or less accentuated way, the unease of an emerging mentality characterized by consumerism, instability in family and social relationships, moral relativism, erroneous visions of sexuality, the precariousness of choices, and a systematic negation of values especially by the media.

Among the candidates can be found some who come from particular experiences – human, family, professional, intellectual or affective – which, in various ways, have left psychological wounds that are not yet healed and that cause disturbances. These wounds, unknown to the candidate in their real effects, are often erroneously attributed by him to causes outside himself, thus depriving him of the possibility of facing them adequately.20

...

8.
...
The timely discernment of possible problems that block the vocational journey can only be of great benefit for the person, for the vocational institutions and for the Church. Such problems include excessive affective dependency; disproportionate aggression; insufficient capacity for being faithful to obligations taken on; insufficient capacity for establishing serene relations of openness, trust and fraternal collaboration, as well as collaboration with authority; a sexuality identity that is confused or not yet well defined.

In the phase of initial discernment, the help of experts in the psychological sciences can be necessary principally on the specifically diagnostic level, whenever there is a suspicion that psychic disturbances may be present. If it should be ascertained that the candidate needs therapy, this therapy should be carried out before he is admitted to the seminary or house of formation.

The assistance of experts can be useful for formators, including when they are marking out a path of formation tailored to the candidate's specific needs.

When evaluating whether it is possible for the candidate to live the charism of celibacy in faithfulness and joy, as a total gift of his life in the image of Christ the Head and Shepherd of the Church, let it be remembered that it is not enough to be sure that he is capable of abstaining from genital activity. It is also necessary to evaluate his sexual orientation, according to the indications published by this Congregation.25 Chastity for the Kingdom, in fact, is much more than the simple lack of sexual relationships.

In light of the objectives indicated above, a psychological consultation can, in some cases, be useful.

...

10. It is possible that the candidate – notwithstanding his own commitment and the support of the psychologist, or psychotherapy – could continue to show himself unable to face realistically his areas of grave immaturity – even given the gradual nature of all human growth. Such areas of immaturity would include strong affective dependencies; notable lack of freedom in relations; excessive rigidity of character; lack of loyalty; uncertain sexual identity; deep-seated homosexual tendencies; etc. If this should be the case, the path of formation will have to be interrupted.

The same is also true if it becomes evident that the candidate has difficulty living chastity in celibacy: that is, if celibacy, for him, is lived as a burden so heavy that it compromises his affective and relational equilibrium.

...

The Supreme Pontiff Benedict XVI, during the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect on 13 June 2008, approved the present document and authorized its publication.

Rome, 29 June 2008, Solemnity of the Apostles SS. Peter and Paul.

So traditionalmom I was correct when I said that Pope Benedict does not allow homosexuals in the priesthood.

So to any of you ... um ... "sensitive" type that happen to be reading this, you are not welcomed in the priesthood.  And I will say it again "Now that homosexuals are not allowed in the seminaries the next step is to clear out the homosexual infiltration of the existing priesthood."

DrBombay instead of your idea the above 2008 document is the solution, a very rigerous analisis of the candidate by experienced formators.

I guess documents provide some hope, if their directives are kept everywhere by everyone.

Clearly my idea is the only fool proof method to insure we keep the deviants out of the priesthood. QED

(03-12-2013, 09:21 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Clearly my idea is the only fool proof method to insure we keep the deviants out of the priesthood. QED

How would you implement it doc?  Please explain in full detail.  Go ahead, this thread has gone far beyond G rated long ago.  Would you use hookers?  :LOL:

(03-12-2013, 09:16 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]I guess documents provide some hope, if their directives are kept everywhere by everyone.

Yeah and cooperation by the bishops, which has been lacking in the last couple of decades.  Possibly if the formators were trained and assigned from the Vatican.  Then competence at the Vatican would have to be ensured too.  Possibly these last two are already in place.  I think immediate expulsion and excommunication with the loss of any retirement and benefits would go a long way to make sure it didn't happen again too.  And to start the process of getting rid of the offenders that are already in the priesthood.

Regarding cooperation did you notice in the quote from the Wikipedia page that I posted on page 15 of this thread it says "Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has been quoted as saying that the Vatican's directive was not tout court a "no-gays" policy."  Tout court is French for in short.  So if the Wikipedia page is correct then it is saying  "Archbishop Timothy Dolan of New York has been quoted as saying that the Vatican's directive was not in short a "no-gays" policy."  If this is true then Dolan has said the complete opposite to what the 2008 Vatican directive states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuali...ic_priests

But who knows if the Wikipedia page is right or not because the source it uses is this National Catholic Reporter article and the National Catholic Reporter has been told to stop using the name Catholic.  The National Catholic Reporter article says “It’s not a no-gays policy,” Dolan said on CNN."
http://ncronline.org/news/vatican/archbi...d-new-york