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, 06:33 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(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

Yep, I've giving back to you what you're handing to me.  Word games.

Quote:
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

Sure, I did.  The definition didn't.  We're talking about the definition that you object to as "cherry picked".

Quote:
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

My bad.  I didn't realize you were talking about a different word.  All I have to say is: so?  That's a different word.  Sodomy refers to an act as well.

Quote:
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

Really, you are a trip.  You complain I use a dictionary definition of homosexual, then you use a dictionary definition, and when I point out you are misunderstanding it you claim we shouldn't be using cultural definitions.

Hello, earth to voxp.  I AM using the proper definitions, you are the one arguing for cultural ones, especially about "homosexual".


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

I used the dictionary because you seem to hold it as the end all of the matter. (Do dictionary s hold the charism of infallibility???)
And please dont ad hominum... whether I am a trip or not is irrelevant. I may not be communicating well but sarcastically attempting to bring my intelligence to contempt is hardly necessary. (Look to see if I have treated you such?....I offered you personally nothing but respect)

so Forget everything I wrote and let me start fresh then so I can refocus
What is the definition of sex in the context of our discussion?


what is the definition of HOMO- in the context of our discussion?

Can Homo- and sexual be joined to form a coherent word that means anything beyond a cultural slang?


I assert it cannot.

Therefore following my assertion there can be no such being as A HOMOSEXUAL. The word was brought forth to promote naturalism and dismiss the notion of sin, and in these latter days it now holds political meanings. Therefore the only way to meaningfully discuss it is to use the terms sodomy and sodomite. I contend that the word homosexual deliberatly clouds the real issue and as you see from this thread has everybody chasing their tails over semantics, while the devil makes away with the truth.


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

(02-21-2011, 06:39 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: 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?


Yes and no.

Have you read the directive from the CDF?  If not, please do.  If you did, why do you think there are mixed signals?  Because some bishops and priests ignore it and march in "gay pride" parades is not relevant to what CJ is saying which is the Church itself, through her Catechism, etc., is sending mixed signals.

She is not sending mixed signals in the Magisterium.  The directive is very clear:

Quote:Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage.

That same prefect laid down the norm that homosexuals are not to be admitted to the priesthood.

I don't think it's a question of "mixed signals" as much as flipping around the dial.

What the Church has said through the Magisterium is clear and consistent:  homosexual acts (even if the person doesn't identify themselves as a homosexual and wants to make some quick coin working in gay porn, for example) are always wrong and culpable within the considerations of culpability that goes to any other sin.  E.g., it is willful, etc.

People who don't like that channel just switch to the Cdl. Fairycake channel.  Or, in CJ's case, switch to the Protestant one that condemns individuals instead of acts.

ETA: "and culpable" for clarity


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

(02-21-2011, 07:03 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: I used the dictionary because you seem to hold it as the end all of the matter. (Do dictionary s hold the charism of infallibility???)
And please dont ad hominum... whether I am a trip or not is irrelevant. I may not be communicating well but sarcastically attempting to bring my intelligence to contempt is hardly necessary. (Look to see if I have treated you such?....I offered you personally nothing but respect)

so Forget everything I wrote and let me start fresh then so I can refocus
What is the definition of sex in the context of our discussion?


what is the definition of HOMO- in the context of our discussion?

Can Homo- and sexual be joined to form a coherent word that means anything beyond a cultural slang?


I assert it cannot.

Therefore following my assertion there can be no such being as A HOMOSEXUAL. The word was brought forth to promote naturalism and dismiss the notion of sin, and in these latter days it now holds political meanings. Therefore the only way to meaningfully discuss it is to use the terms sodomy and sodomite. I contend that the word homosexual deliberatly clouds the real issue and as you see from this thread has everybody chasing their tails over semantics, while the devil makes away with the truth.

I think what you should do is look up the original derivation of homosexual and where and why it was used if you want to understand why they put "homo" and "sexual" or even "hetero" and "sexual" in the same word and why it makes sense.

The fact that people are chasing their tails over semantics is why there are dictionaries.  We don't have to guess or argue what a word means.  We look it up.  Is it infallible?  No, of course not.  But it's a lot better than pulling something out of one's ass, isn't it?


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

no pun intended im sure rofl lol  ;D :laughing: ;D :laughing:


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

(02-21-2011, 07:08 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: no pun intended im sure rofl lol  ;D :laughing: ;D :laughing:
:P  :fish:



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

In terms of the OP then this is worth posting from the CCC if indeed it hasn't already:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.


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

(02-21-2011, 07:19 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: In terms of the OP then this is worth posting from the CCC if indeed it hasn't already:

Yeah, like I said, I don't see mixed signals from the Church on this issue.  I think some people are just ignoring it, and that includes some bishops and priests.


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

(02-21-2011, 07:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:19 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: In terms of the OP then this is worth posting from the CCC if indeed it hasn't already:

Yeah, like I said, I don't see mixed signals from the Church on this issue.  I think some people are just ignoring it, and that includes some bishops and priests.

Indeed they are:




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

All concerned:
I don't have time right now to respond to each post that I was specifically addressed in or mentioned by name, but let me clear the air about Quis' accusations:

1.  I used the NKJV for the Scriptural quotes in the OP because (a) not everyone is comfortable with the archaic English in the D-R (my personal Bible) and (b) the NAB is not trustworthy.  In deference to Quis, I then dealt exclusively with the D-R.

2.  I have quoted extensively from the Sacred Scriptures, the Summa, CFD and Papal Instruction documents, the CCC, the Church's foremost expert on homosexuality, and referred to contemporary Catholic situations.  The only "Protestant" sources I have otherwise made use of were a Greek Scholar and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to get at the original Hebrew and Greek tongues, as Divino Afflante Spiritu allows.   If anyone can refer me to a "Catholic" resource for a Hebrew and Greek Concordance, I am willing to use it instead.  I doubt seriously that the Hebrew and Greek words themselves carry a Catholic or Protestant meaning.  I have not referred to any Protestant commentary.

3.  As other members of this forum are eruditely pointing out, the category of homosexuals and homosexual persons has no roots in Tradition.

More to follow...

cj