FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums
There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Printable Version

+- FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums)
+-- Forum: Archives (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Theology and Philosophy (https://www.fisheaters.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?fid=13)
+--- Thread: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest (/showthread.php?tid=42374)

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


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 05:41 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: .and a few of the arguments bare a certain similarity to your arguments.

I assure you, they do not.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Habitual_Ritual - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 06:09 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:03 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Thanks,your making my point. Homoism is a highly disordered sin and as such can be conquered through prayer,fasting and the salvivic nature of Our Lords Passion and death....as is the case with sin in general,some of course being worse than others.Homoism is  not a fixed anthropological state of being as society would have us believe

Is that a new word?  Homoism?

I don't think anyone on this thread has said homosexual acts are not gravely sinful.  That's not the question.  The question at hand is if one can be a Christian and a "homosexual" by the dictionary definition of the term.  CJ claims they cannot.

Yes,homism is a new word.I cant be bothered to type the other one...too long.

Should the dictionary really be the final arbitrator in this matter??


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 05:35 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Sure,but there is a tendency out there when using the term homosexual , to describe such folk in an anthropological sense, (hence the homo prefix), rather than as someone who suffers from predispositions of one sort or another.

We're in the middle of a thread where someone is criticizing the Church for using a particular word and making a claim that anyone that word applies to cannot be a Christian.  It seems to me that we should be using the true definition of the word, not what some pro-homo anthropologists would like to make it to be.  If we don't do that, we can criticize the Church for saying "Justified" because the Protestants mean it differently.

Quote:The purpose being to legitimize the sin to some extent in the sphere of naturalism

Whatever the purpose is, the word can be used properly with its proper meaning.  I would assume in a theological discussion that's what we would do, not make up definitions on our own or apply someone else's made up definitions.

If not, well, heck, then I think a homosexual is someone who likes cheese and crackers.  All's well now!





Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 06:13 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:09 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:03 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Thanks,your making my point. Homoism is a highly disordered sin and as such can be conquered through prayer,fasting and the salvivic nature of Our Lords Passion and death....as is the case with sin in general,some of course being worse than others.Homoism is  not a fixed anthropological state of being as society would have us believe

Is that a new word?  Homoism?

I don't think anyone on this thread has said homosexual acts are not gravely sinful.  That's not the question.  The question at hand is if one can be a Christian and a "homosexual" by the dictionary definition of the term.  CJ claims they cannot.

Yes,homism is a new word.I cant be bothered to type the other one...too long.

Should the dictionary really be the final arbitrator in this matter??

In the matter of this thread?  Absolutely.

We should assume the Church publishes documents using the correct meaning of words, not transient cultural ones.  If the term "homosexual" is used in a Church document, it should be assumed the dictionary definition is meant unless it is clearly otherwise from context.

ETA, and if CJ ever answers my question on what he would find acceptable, we will get into why it says "homosexual persons" and why the meaning of words are important.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 05:51 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:05 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.

Did you read the OP?  It isn't my opinion, its the clear teaching of the New Testament.

Its a bit like saying you can't be a horse and Christian (which is true) but that's only if you buy into the modern naturalistic anthropological definition of Homosexuality rather than accepting it is a highly disordered tendency to certain forms of sin which can of course be conquered.
Yes but to be clear the OP refers to Priests not the individual person in the pew who is struggling. What Johnny is saying I think is that priests who are told they ARE homosexuals, and they the Priests say yes fine I AM a homosexual is not struggling against but condoning sin...by changing its definition. Nothing to repent of in the first place. Further let us not forget that engaging in a venial sin to many times can turn into a habit which then blooms to mortal sin  WHICH THEN CAUSE A DESIRE THAT ALMOST SEEMS PART OF THE PERSONS NATURE-Sin has made a home in them..... Also there is the problem that we see melkite getting appoplectic about in that there is this modernism that places  this sin along side the simple sins of so called heterosexuality ( a redundantly structured word created for a political agenda) dumbing down the definition of sodomy to that of mere lack of charity to strangers.
It all comes down to this question are HS's BORN that way. Quis is of the opinion that some some indeed are born that way...which again there has never been and can never be proven and still hold God as just. IMO .....I assert  Some where along the line when theyre very young -the person becomes developmentally disordered by evil caused to them, either sexual abuse, or just abuse in general or neglect. They then grow up with this evil seed living inside them...which causes disordered desires--and sadly for them they live in a brave new world that tells them to EMBRACE this false identity as something special or UNCHANGABLE, so they make this horrible sin PART OF WHO THEY ARE it is a damnable trap which is why it is of more heinous nature then standard adamic weakness.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 06:17 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:51 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:05 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.

Did you read the OP?  It isn't my opinion, its the clear teaching of the New Testament.

Its a bit like saying you can't be a horse and Christian (which is true) but that's only if you buy into the modern naturalistic anthropological definition of Homosexuality rather than accepting it is a highly disordered tendency to certain forms of sin which can of course be conquered.
Yes but to be clear the OP refers to Priests not the individual person in the pew who is struggling. What Johnny is saying I think is that priests who are told they ARE homosexuals, and they the Priests say yes fine I AM a homosexual is not struggling against but condoning sin...by changing its definition. Nothing to repent of in the first place. Further let us not forget that engaging in a venial sin to many times can turn into a habit which then blooms to mortal sin  WHICH THEN CAUSE A DESIRE THAT ALMOST SEEMS PART OF THE PERSONS NATURE-Sin has made a home in them..... Also there is the problem that we see melkite getting appoplectic about in that there is this modernism that places  this sin along side the simple sins of so called heterosexuality ( a redundantly structured word created for a political agenda) dumbing down the definition of sodomy to that of mere lack of charity to strangers.
It all comes down to this question are HS's BORN that way. Quis is of the opinion that some some indeed are born that way...which again there has never been and can never be proven and still hold God as just. IMO .....I assert  Some where along the line when theyre very young -the person becomes developmentally disordered by evil caused to them, either sexual abuse, or just abuse in general or neglect. They then grow up with this evil seed living inside them...which causes disordered desires--and sadly for them they live in a brave new world that tells them to EMBRACE this false identity as something special or UNCHANGABLE, so they make this horrible sin PART OF WHO THEY ARE it is a damnable trap which is why it is of more heinous nature then standard adamic weakness.

I'm still stuck on homosexuals can't be Christians and his use of Protestants to back up his argument.

If you want to make a 12 paragraph speech nuancing the definition of "homosexual" to justify his quasi-heresies, be my guest, but right now I apparently have to spend my time to convince him not to listen to heretics even when there is evidence they are wrong in their translation.

His argument starts with 1 Cor.  There is no point continuing on to the rest of the argument if he doesn't interpret the Scriptural passage his argument hinges on in a Catholic manner, is there?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Habitual_Ritual - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 06:16 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:13 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:09 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:03 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Thanks,your making my point. Homoism is a highly disordered sin and as such can be conquered through prayer,fasting and the salvivic nature of Our Lords Passion and death....as is the case with sin in general,some of course being worse than others.Homoism is  not a fixed anthropological state of being as society would have us believe

Is that a new word?  Homoism?

I don't think anyone on this thread has said homosexual acts are not gravely sinful.  That's not the question.  The question at hand is if one can be a Christian and a "homosexual" by the dictionary definition of the term.  CJ claims they cannot.

Yes,homism is a new word.I cant be bothered to type the other one...too long.

Should the dictionary really be the final arbitrator in this matter??

In the matter of this thread?  Absolutely.

We should assume the Church publishes documents using the correct meaning of words, not transient cultural ones.  If the term "homosexual" is used in a Church document, it should be assumed the dictionary definition is meant unless it is clearly otherwise from context.

ETA, and if CJ ever answers my question on what he would find acceptable, we will get into why it says "homosexual persons" and why the meaning of words are important.

Ah,ok then....
Well,if indeed the Church is using the anthropological definition(the OP suggests this is the case,i need to verify)  than the Church in this instance is quite wrong to do so imo and as such the limited naturalistic parameters of debate almost make it a futile one.Do I have it correct that the Church has indeed adopted this naturalistic definition? Apologies if wrong in advance.

[edit] In this age of "diabolical disorientation" (Sister Lucy) I really can't presume to accept at face value ,how the Church defines much of anything these days unless upholding already defined Dogma etc....but that's just me...


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 06:24 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Well,if indeed the Church is using the anthropological definition(the OP suggests this is the case,i need to verify)  than the Church in this instance is quite wrong to do so imo and as such the limited naturalistic parameters of debate almost make it a futile one.Do I have it correct that the Church has indeed adopted this naturalistic definition?

The Church has said they don't know the root of it, whether it is anthropological, biological, etc.  I suspect the reason is that the root is irrelevant in that the behavior is sinful regardless of the cause.  They have also repeatedly said it is disordered.  I don't think "disordered" can make an anthropological category.

Given that the Church has said that, it seems to me when the Church uses "homosexual" they specifically mean people who have a predisposition to lust after members of their own sex.  If you find something different where She gives a clear definition of what She means is different than that, please post it.

ETA: You may want to start with a relevant document.

On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 1, 1986

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm




Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 06:01 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:34 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:21 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:15 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: this your opinion and a cherry picked definition with all due respect.

I don't think so, but I'll be happy to defend myself if you are willing to back up your claim.

Give me another definition from any reputable dictionary.  That was from Merriam-Webster for the word "homosexual".

Here it is from the Oxford dictionary:

Quote:adjective
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:
homosexual desire

noun
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
since the term is recent novelty circa 1892 according to your own source.... it can not hold the test of the traditional definition which is what is in this debate I think.

If the word didn't exist until 1892, how could it have a traditional definition?now your just playin games

Quote: It also presumes the existence of a naturally born homo-sexual....a complete novelty and an affront to the creator IMO

The definition does no such thing.  It makes no claim where this attraction is rooted.You said yourself some are born with this disposition

Quote:Further the second definition from websters defines homosexuality as an act.

Really?  Websters must be really messed up if they put the definition of a noun (an act) in with the definition of an adjective.  Or could it be you aren't reading it properly?
homosexualITY...ITY
Quote:Further still if one defines the word SEX at websters we find : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females

Therefore HOMO or singular gender genital  stimulation (really shared masturbation) cannot be defined as sex or sexual at all by any definition, there for the term HS is a misnomer, more like orwellian newspeak

Talk about cherry picking a definition.   ::)    You're also reading the definition wrong.  Sexual as opposed to asexual.  Only organisms that reproduce sexually have a sex (duh).  That's why it qualifies it with reproduction.  One still has a sex if they are chaste, don't they? Or if they are non-sexual, or asexual, etc.

There's a thinker for ya, voxp.  If someone is asexual, they don't have an interest in sex, and don't reproduce, so obviously the word is orwellian newspeak, right?
No there can only be ONE definition for sex or sexuality or sexual intercourse that is pertinent to this discussion. not slang terms or cultural definitions. sexuality pertains to that power or gift in man and woman it cannot pertain to man and man or woman and woman....love? maybe...Friendship..of course! but sexuality...IMPOSSIBLE
[/quote]


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Habitual_Ritual - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 06:30 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 06:24 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: Well,if indeed the Church is using the anthropological definition(the OP suggests this is the case,i need to verify)  than the Church in this instance is quite wrong to do so imo and as such the limited naturalistic parameters of debate almost make it a futile one.Do I have it correct that the Church has indeed adopted this naturalistic definition?

The Church has said they don't know the root of it, whether it is anthropological, biological, etc.  I suspect the reason is that the root is irrelevant in that the behavior is sinful regardless of the cause.  They have also repeatedly said it is disordered.  I don't think "disordered" can make an anthropological category.

Given that the Church has said that, it seems to me when the Church uses "homosexual" they specifically mean people who have a predisposition to lust after members of their own sex.  If you find something different where She gives a clear definition of what She means is different than that, please post it.

ETA: You may want to start with a relevant document.

On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons

Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
October 1, 1986

http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

I tend to agree that  use of the term disordered is a disqaulifier for adoption of the naturalistic definition.The real issue then is that Officials appear to send mixed signals with regard Homosexuality,what it is and how it is to be dealt with.Would this be fair?