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
(03-07-2013, 02:03 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:Oh, I see. You think that applying any new knowledge makes one a modernist.



Nope, applying non-Catholic principles to the religion because they are new makes one modernist....the point of our entire debate.  Don't be tiresome. 

There's nothing non-Catholic or un-Catholic about supporting and helping each other, whether there were Official Support Groups in the Middle Ages or not (though one could argue that religious orders are groups that support each other in growing in holiness, and secular, third orders have existed since the time of St. Francis. Besides which, I'm not sure why whether the matter of something's existence or not in the Middle Ages is the sine qua non in answering the question of whether it should exist now -- and, I assure you, my saying that doesn't make me a modernist LOL)

As an aside, the name-calling in this thread is starting to piss me off, everyone. Stop.

(03-07-2013, 03:25 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]3) The straight masturbater doesn't face a life of no intimacy like homosexuals do. A straight masturbater can get married.

So can a former homosexual.  The lie that they were born that way is bull.
Quote: That's not the case any more than it is when there's a mixed group of straight men and straight women, who often join groups together for all sorts of reasons.

So, which is it, then?  Is homosexuality a particularly virulent, dangerous and perverse temptation, or is analgous to a to heterosexual temptation and no big deal to gather a lot of people with temptation together?  How can we have it both ways?

And, hell yes mixing the practice of the Catholic religion with group psychological therapy is modernist.  I'd think that was obvious.  It's not?  

Thirdly, the seal is on the priest, but the sins are those of the penitent.  The priest can't reveal the sins, and so we don't know the sins of others an can take no delight or solace in them.  Again, why is this controversial among trads?  

Well, I'm out.  This is headed for a bunch of bans.  There ain't no orthodoxy like the board owner's orthodoxy.  That's a necessary consequence of the medium and I don't fault anyone for it. 
(03-07-2013, 03:52 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 03:25 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]3) The straight masturbater doesn't face a life of no intimacy like homosexuals do. A straight masturbater can get married.

So can a former homosexual.  The lie that they were born that way is bull.

Yeah I wasn't convinced that this was really possible in the past, but I had a buddy who was on his way down this path.  People like Joseph Nicolosi have done some important work in this area - looking at the roots of same sex attractions and helping those affected men reform their thoughts and behaviours.  A big part of it seems to be an early distancing from manliness/masculinity.  And with a culture as hyper-feminized as ours...
(03-07-2013, 03:52 PM)mikemac Wrote: [ -> ]
(03-07-2013, 03:25 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote: [ -> ]3) The straight masturbater doesn't face a life of no intimacy like homosexuals do. A straight masturbater can get married.

So can a former homosexual.  The lie that they were born that way is bull.
Non one here is arguing that they were born that way. However, if their attraction to members of the same sex is too deeply ingrained in them, they might not make suitable spouses.
(03-07-2013, 03:54 PM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]Well, I'm out.  This is headed for a bunch of bans.  There ain't no orthodoxy like the board owner's orthodoxy.  That's a necessary consequence of the medium and I don't fault anyone for it. 
Given your posts in this thread, your avatar is quite funny.  :LOL:
Yeah, I know lord Humungous swings that way.  Everyone else thinks it's Jason Vorhees.
(03-07-2013, 11:14 AM)Burdensome1 Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:But we will never restore things if all the trads are run off. Some men out there with the fortitude to deal with the lavender mafia will have to grin and bear it long enough to get through seminary if we're ever going to have a Church in which the TLM, other traditional sacramental rites, and traditional teaching are the norm. That's how the lavender mafia situated themselves; the Commies infiltrated, they shut up long enough to get into "gatekeeper positions," and then they were able to control entire seminaries and dioceses. We have to do the same thing.

Yep.  That is entirely true.  We have many friends who have completed or are in seminary formation.  And we have a few who gave up along the way.  Your clear statement "grin and bear it" is the antithesis of modern psychological formation.  Even the "good" seminaries cannot help but fill their heads with psycho-babble, and sadly I cannot even exempt the trad seminaries on this one. 

We would be much better off if men were formed for about 2 years.  A smart one can obtain the intellectual formation in that time, and he's less likely to get screwed up in the process.  We can skip philosophy now, because the tradition connection between philosophy and theology is no longer made, removing the value of the philosophy in formation.  We can skip the idea that men need time to live in community, since they go solo after ordination and the community is scandalous and harmful anyway.  Homiletics is a joke (anyone surprised?) and management isn't taught anyway.       

Quote:BTW, I don't see Lent as an excuse for not dealing with problems in the Church. Focusing on our own sins and also on problems that entail the sins of others aren't mutually exclusive things. I also don't see how this thread could possibly be "scandalous" unless it were to cause someone to become fed up with the general tone of things in the Church and leave. But folks around here are already aware of things. "Scandalous" doesn't mean "shocking."

Dang, I'm starting to really like this place. 


So, are you saying that even trad seminaries have this problem?
Would that include all of them?  I heard a Michael Voris episode, where he stated that he was told in his 20's that you needed
several years of Philosophy to prepare for Theology classes later on, is that still the case?  Many thanks & God bless.
If you want to discuss formation, start a thread.  I'm not posting anything substantive in this one any more.
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