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
(03-13-2013, 08:26 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 08:25 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]Perhaps our new Papa will take my seminarian screening idea under advisement!

"Francis, rebuild my Church" indeed!

You're a scandal and a half, is what you are.

Lie detectors are unreliable.  Psychiatrists and psychologists are quacks.  Every other test and or tester can be lied/manipulated/faked out as applicable.  My method is the only surefire way to ensure that seminarians actually have a desire to copulate with adult females and not any other gender/age group/species. QED

I'd like to hear another suggestion that is as foolproof as mine.  I'm waiting.  So is Papa Francis I'm sure.
(03-09-2013, 11:25 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

I have an ideaPerhaps there should be a NEW test (for those wishing to pursue [the priesthood]).  An aspiring seminarian should be REQUIRED to demonstrate he is CAPABLE of copulating with a female, in front of a CAREFULLY SELECTED panel of priests (of course), before being granted admittance to the seminary. This should SOLVE the problem, CONCLUSIVELY!!!!!

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
(03-13-2013, 08:45 PM)FleetingShadow Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 11:25 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

I have an ideaPerhaps there should be a NEW test (for those wishing to pursue [the priesthood]).  An aspiring seminarian should be REQUIRED to demonstrate he is CAPABLE of copulating with a female, in front of a CAREFULLY SELECTED panel of priests (of course), before being granted admittance to the seminary. This should SOLVE the problem, CONCLUSIVELY!!!!!

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Dr. Bombay has all the wit on the forum. He also had all the wit back in his CAF days.
(03-13-2013, 02:13 PM)StCeciliasGirl Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 10:01 AM)Melkite Wrote: [ -> ]I haven't bothered to read the whole thread, but man, what I have has been a laughingstock!...

I understand that many are uncomfortable with this topic and would prefer to live in a make-believe world where it doesn't exist (hence, DWIP).

Then you have not read the thread.

Excuse me... Habemus Papem.

But we do not feel uncomfortable with you at all. Please read the thread. ♥
I heard that spending time around some one with SSA puts one at risk for developing an attraction to underage raccoons.
(03-13-2013, 08:56 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 08:45 PM)FleetingShadow Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 11:25 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

I have an ideaPerhaps there should be a NEW test (for those wishing to pursue [the priesthood]).  An aspiring seminarian should be REQUIRED to demonstrate he is CAPABLE of copulating with a female, in front of a CAREFULLY SELECTED panel of priests (of course), before being granted admittance to the seminary. This should SOLVE the problem, CONCLUSIVELY!!!!!

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Dr. Bombay has all the wit on the forum. He also had all the wit back in his CAF days.

And the philistines had the temerity to ban me! Marian Carroll, my nemesis, hated me from day 1.
(03-13-2013, 09:01 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 08:56 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 08:45 PM)FleetingShadow Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-09-2013, 11:25 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(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.

I have an ideaPerhaps there should be a NEW test (for those wishing to pursue [the priesthood]).  An aspiring seminarian should be REQUIRED to demonstrate he is CAPABLE of copulating with a female, in front of a CAREFULLY SELECTED panel of priests (of course), before being granted admittance to the seminary. This should SOLVE the problem, CONCLUSIVELY!!!!!

:LOL: :LOL: :LOL:
Dr. Bombay has all the wit on the forum. He also had all the wit back in his CAF days.

And the philistines had the temerity to ban me! Marian Carroll, my nemesis, hated me from day 1.
Joe in the Eastern Christianity forum hated me because I had the audacity to suggest that Eastern Orthodox Christians should not create threads celebrating the defection of Catholics to Eastern Orthodoxy on a Catholic forum. Such is life.
delete
(03-13-2013, 09:22 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]delete

I agree.
(03-13-2013, 09:26 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 09:22 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]delete

I agree.

Were you this witty on CAF?  I must search your posts there!
(03-13-2013, 09:27 PM)per_passionem_eius Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 09:26 PM)DrBombay Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-13-2013, 09:22 PM)Papist Wrote: [ -> ]delete

I agree.

Were you this witty on CAF?  I must search your posts there!

I was a lot more pro-SSPX, at least toward the end.  Somebody had to defend them and that task fell to me.  Meh, I did what I could.
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