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 - Catholic Johnny - 02-22-2011

(02-22-2011, 05:20 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So, I still don't understand your point, but if you don't care to explain it, whatever.

My point was clear.  Unrepentant effeminati, molle, masculorum concubitores, malakos, homosexuals, catamites, liers with men, WHATEVER you want to call them sin mortally by presenting themselves for holy orders as do they that ordain them.  And let's not pretend that the ordinaries in question do not know they are ordaining practicing/tending/approving homosexuals to the priesthood.  

Pope Benedict XVI:
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.

Instruction Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders



Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-22-2011

(02-22-2011, 05:31 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: They that do such things is not an "identity".  It condemns people who actually act.  They do something to be condemned; it isn't their disposition to sin that condemns them, or we'd all be damned since we all have a disposition to sin because of the fall.

You're attempting to single out a disposition to a particular sin and damn people for it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You have to actually do something, not just possess a disposition.   We don't go to Confession because of our fallen nature; we go to Confession when we do something wrong.

You are now misrepresenting my position, Quis.  I am not talking about mere concupiscience with which all the faithful must contend.  I am talking about a rejection of grace by maintaining that the properties of the new birth are of no effect.  I am not talking about mere flashes of transient temptation - I am talking about what Pope Benedict calls here 'deep seated tendencies.'  There are two possibilities here.

1.  The deep seated tendencies are confessed as disordered and a grave predisposition to mortal sin;
2.  The deep seated tendencies are attributed to God with no need of renunciation, mortification, or reorienting towards complimentary sexualty as God "created them, male and female."

The second category is what is most dangerous here in our own day and situation as the Modernists have ruthlessly exploited it to the destruction of our institutions and the wounding of uncountable souls.  Which I have yet to read your admission of to this point.  To maintain that one is a homosexual person even after the grace of the new birth accomplishes the second.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-22-2011

(02-22-2011, 05:40 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:20 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So, I still don't understand your point, but if you don't care to explain it, whatever.

My point was clear.  Unrepentant effeminati, molle, masculorum concubitores, malakos, homosexuals, catamites, liers with men, WHATEVER you want to call them sin mortally by presenting themselves for holy orders as do they that ordain them.  And let's not pretend that the ordinaries in question do not know they are ordaining practicing/tending/approving homosexuals to the priesthood.  

If you read back, you will note that not only do I not disagree with this point, I reaffirmed it.  That's why I don't understand what you're trying to prove by stating it.  No one said homosexuals should be priests.  No one said they are allowed to be priests.  That's not what we're debating here.  The problem is the arguments you are making along the way such as "homosexuals cannot be Christian".



Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-22-2011

(02-22-2011, 05:49 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:31 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: They that do such things is not an "identity".  It condemns people who actually act.  They do something to be condemned; it isn't their disposition to sin that condemns them, or we'd all be damned since we all have a disposition to sin because of the fall.

You're attempting to single out a disposition to a particular sin and damn people for it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You have to actually do something, not just possess a disposition.   We don't go to Confession because of our fallen nature; we go to Confession when we do something wrong.

You are now misrepresenting my position, Quis.  I am not talking about mere concupiscience with which all the faithful must contend.  I am talking about a rejection of grace by maintaining that the properties of the new birth are of no effect.  I am not talking about mere flashes of transient temptation - I am talking about what Pope Benedict calls here 'deep seated tendencies.'  There are two possibilities here.

1.  The deep seated tendencies are confessed as disordered and a grave predisposition to mortal sin;
2.  The deep seated tendencies are attributed to God with no need of renunciation, mortification, or reorienting towards complimentary sexualty as God "created them, male and female."

The second category is what is most dangerous here in our own day and situation as the Modernists have ruthlessly exploited it to the destruction of our institutions and the wounding of uncountable souls.  Which I have yet to read your admission of to this point.   To maintain that one is a homosexual person even after the grace of the new birth accomplishes the second.

That's where we disagree - the part in red.  One can mortify concupisence, but it never goes away, does it?  It is there because of the Fall; the same reason any perversion, disorder, inordinate desire, etc. is there.  We cannot get rid of desires per se, what we can do is exert our will over them.

This is why I pointed out an alcoholic.  You seem to think that someone who is an alcoholic can mortify the acquired predisposition to getting drunk out of them.  That isn't the case.  They can stop drinking just as a homosexual can stop sodomizing.  The predisposition to sin still exists.

Your claim - in so many words - is that anyone who hasn't "beat the gay" or "prayed the gay" (where "the gay" is the disordered attraction to members of the same sex) out of themselves can't be a Christian, right?

The intellectually honest conclusion of what you are saying is in fact this:  If someone has a pre-disposition to a sin for whatever reason (psychological, environmental, etc.) unless they get rid of that pre-disposition they can't be Christian because, according to you, of 1 Cor.  Take a fornicator.  If someone continues to be inordinately horny, they are necessarily rejecting the grace of Christ I suppose?  That sounds quasi-heretical to me, to be honest with you.  I'll be happy to explain why if you don't know.

If not, then why the special treatment of homosexuals and not fornicators or liars?  Aren't all those problems mentioned together?

And that's why I suspect we will have to go back to 1 Cor and why you are dependent on it.  The distinction you need for your argument to hold is that effeminate is a sin of "identity" whereas fornicator is not.  That's why you are insistent that St. Paul is condemning "homosexuals" instead of those lacking virtue when he refers to malakoi.

Maybe you'll surprise me though.  Maybe you won't make a distinction between those things.  It will be an interesting answer if you don't...


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-22-2011

From Roman Catholic Tradition:

St. Pius V
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss.
(Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

From the Douay Catholic Catechism of 1649
CHAPTER  XX -  The sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance

Q. 925. HOW many such sins are there?
A. Four.

Q. 928. What is the second?
A. The sin of Sodom, or carnal sin against nature, which is a voluntary shedding of the seed of nature, out of the due use of marriage, or lust with a different sex.

Q. 929. What is the scripture proof of this?
A. Out of Gen. xix. 13. where we read of the Sodomites, and their sin. “We will destroy this place because the cry of them hath increased before our Lord, who hath sent us to destroy them,” (and they were burnt with fire from heaven.)


The Third Lateran Council (1179) establishes:
Anyone caught in the practice of the sin against nature, on account of which the wrath of God was unleashed upon the children of disobedience (Eph. 5:6), if he is a cleric, let him be demoted from his state and kept in reclusion in a monastery to do penance; if he is a layman, let him be excommunicated and kept rigorously distant from the communion of the faithful.

The Code of Canon Law undertaken at the initiative and encouragement of Saint Pius X, and published in 1917 by his successor Pope Benedict XV:
So far as laymen are concerned, the sin of sodomy is punished ipso facto with the pain of infamy and other sanctions to be applied according to the prudent judgment of the Bishop depending on the gravity of each case (Can. 2357). As for ecclesiastics and religious, if they are clerici minoris [that is, of a degree lower than deacon], let them be punished with various measures, proportional to the gravity of the fault, that can even include dismissal from the clerical state (Can. 2358); if they are clerici maiores [that is, deacons, priests or bishops], let them ‘be declared infamous and suspended from every post, benefit, dignity, deprived of their eventual stipend and, in the gravest cases, let them be deposed’ (Can. 2359, par. 2).”

Tertullian:
All other frenzies of lusts which exceed the laws of nature and are impious toward both bodies and the sexes we banish . . . from all shelter of the Church, for they are not sins so much as monstrosities.”

Saint Augustine:
Sins against nature, therefore, like the sin of Sodom, are abominable and deserve punishment whenever and wherever they are committed. If all nations committed them, all alike would be held guilty of the same charge in God’s law, for our Maker did not prescribe that we should use each other in this way. In fact, the relationship that we ought to have with God is itself violated when our nature, of which He is Author, is desecrated by perverted lust.  
Your punishments are for the sins which men commit against themselves, because, although they sin against You, they do wrong in their own souls and their malice is selfbetrayed. They corrupt and pervert their own nature, which You made and for which You shaped the rules, either by making wrong use of the things which You allow, or by becoming inflamed with passion ‘to make unnatural use of things which You do not allow.’


Saint John Chrysostom:
All passions are dishonorable, for the soul is even more prejudiced and degraded by sin than is the body by disease; but the worst of all passions is lust between men. . . . The sins against nature are more difficult and less rewarding, so much so that one cannot even say that they procure pleasure, since true pleasure is only the one according to nature. But when God abandons a man, everything is turned upside down! Therefore, not only are their passions satanic, but their lives are diabolic. . . . So I say to you that these are even worse than murderers, and that it would be better to die than to live in such dishonor. A murderer only separates the soul from the body, whereas these destroy the soul inside the body. . . . There is nothing, absolutely nothing more mad or damaging than this perversity."  Commentary on Romans

Saint Gregory the Great:
Brimstone calls to mind the foul odors of the flesh, as Sacred Scripture itself confirms when it speaks of the rain of fire and brimstone poured by the Lord upon Sodom. He had decided to punish in it the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment emphasized the shame of that crime, since brimstone exhales stench and fire burns. It was, therefore, just that the sodomites, burning with perverse desires that originated from the foul odor of flesh, should perish at the same time by fire and brimstone so that through this just chastisement they might realize the evil perpetrated under the impulse of a perverse desire."

Saint Peter Damian [Book of Gomorrha]:
Just as Saint Basil establishes that those who incur sins [against nature] . . . should be subjected not only to a hard penance but a public one, and Pope Siricius prohibits penitents from entering clerical orders, one can clearly deduce that he who corrupts himself with a man through the ignominious squalor of a filthy union does not deserve to exercise ecclesiastical functions, since those who were formerly given to vices . . .
become unfit to administer the Sacraments
.” -Liber Gomorrhianus

St. Thomas Aquinas:
However, they are called passions of ignominy because they are not worthy of being named, according to that passage in Ephesians (5:12): ‘For the things that are done by them in secret, it is a shame even to speak of.’ For if the sins of the flesh are commonly censurable because they lead man to that which is bestial in him, much more so is the sin against nature, by which man debases himself lower than even his animal nature.”

Saint Catherine of Siena (speaking for Christ against the clergy of her day):
“They not only fail from resisting this frailty [of fallen human nature] . . . but do even worse as they commit the cursed sin against nature. Like the blind and stupid, having dimmed the light of their understanding, they do not recognize the disease and misery in which they find themselves. For this not only causes Me nausea, but displeases even the demons themselves, whom these miserable creatures have chosen as their lords. For Me, this sin against nature is so abominable that, for it alone, five cities were submersed, by virtue of the judgment of My Divine Justice, which could no longer bear them. . . . It is disagreeable to the demons, not because evil displeases them and they find pleasure in good, but because their nature is angelic and thus is repulsed upon seeing such an enormous sin being committed. It is true that it is the demon who hits the sinner with the poisoned arrow of lust, but when a man carries out such a sinful act, the demon leaves.”

cj


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-22-2011

Deleted(duplicate post, corrected version below)


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-22-2011

(02-22-2011, 06:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Your claim - in so many words - is that anyone who hasn't "beat the gay" or "prayed the gay" (where "the gay" is the disordered attraction to members of the same sex) out of themselves can't be a Christian, right?

The intellectually honest conclusion of what you are saying is in fact this:  If someone has a pre-disposition to a sin for whatever reason (psychological, environmental, etc.) unless they get rid of that pre-disposition they can't be Christian because, according to you, of 1 Cor.  Take a fornicator.  If someone continues to be inordinately horny, they are necessarily rejecting the grace of Christ I suppose?  That sounds quasi-heretical to me, to be honest with you.  I'll be happy to explain why if you don't know.

If not, then why the special treatment of homosexuals and not fornicators or liars?  Aren't all those problems mentioned together?

And that's why I suspect we will have to go back to 1 Cor and why you are dependent on it.  The distinction you need for your argument to hold is that effeminate is a sin of "identity" whereas fornicator is not.  That's why you are insistent that St. Paul is condemning "homosexuals" instead of those lacking virtue when he refers to malakoi.

Maybe you'll surprise me though.  Maybe you won't make a distinction between those things.  It will be an interesting answer if you don't...

You contradict yourself and continually misrepresent my position.  I am beginning to think you haven't even so much as read my previous posts in this thread because you ignore the arguments you can't refute and keep stating I expect all concupiscience to leave the true believer.

I have stated from the beginning:  there is no such theological category as a "homosexual person" and you cannot cite any proof to the contrary from Tradition.  You still have not addressed "such were some of you" and "they that do such things are worthy of death."  One must be either a Christian or a homosexual, but not both.  The issue is the properties belonging to the new birth, which you also artfully avoid over and over again.  One cannot be a homosexual if one is a new creature in Christ. He may struggle with temptations and great trials of nature and mortification, but he cannot BE a homosexual if he is a new creature in Christ. 

Quote:Take a fornicator.  If someone continues to be inordinately horny, they are necessarily rejecting the grace of Christ I suppose?  That sounds quasi-heretical to me, to be honest with you.  I'll be happy to explain why if you don't know.

Fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God and yet here you are claiming that they are receiving grace.  Not while they are practioners of this sin!   If I should say, "I am a fornicator and a Christian", St. Paul teaches that I am in mortal sin:

Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.   Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh.  But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.  Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor. 6:15-18

Again, you are either a Christian or a fornicator, and here you appear to join them together as though penance were unneccesary or that the Holy Spirit  would unite Himself to a practicing fornicator.  Now if he is no longer practicing, why did you call him a fornicator?  Again, "such were some of you."  The former fornicator may have grievous temptations and seasons of necessary mortification but he is a new creature in Christ Jesus, Who has made all things new.  Absolution most surely confers the gift of justice and innocence, and removes the guilt.  Therefore the Priest in the stead of Christ says in the absolution, "I forgive you all of your sins."  How then can you call him whom Christ has washed, sanctified and justified (1 Cor. 6:11) a fornicator?  Who is the accuser of the brethren?  Christ?  His Church?  His ministers?  No, the devil and his angels.  Therefore it is completey wrong to call an absolved and righteous man a fornicator and it is equally wrong to call an absolved person a homosexual, effeminate, molle, boy prostitute, _____________.

Even the CCC (2359) says "homosexual persons" are called to chastity.  Then listen to the CCC's definition of chastity:

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. (2337)
How then can one called to be conformed to the image of Christ integrate [homo]sexuality with his bodily and spiritual being, if even the CCC calls the acts of homosexuality "gravely disordered" and the Fathers and Doctors call it the sin against nature?  Does not the Eucharist divinize the faithful recipient? (2 Peter 1:4)

CCC 2333:
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

How then with this definition should we counsel a "homosexual person" to live chastely as a "homosexual person" if he is called to accept his sexual identity which is complimentary and not symmetrical?
[/quote]


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - James02 - 02-22-2011

We are Catholic.  If there is a dispute on scripture, more than likely a Pope has settled it already.  And Pope Pius XII has:

Quote: ....He supplied the Church with the means necessary to overcome countless dangers and to fill not only the whole world but the realms of heaven as well.

22. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. "For in one spirit" says the Apostle, "were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free."[17] As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith.[18] And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered—so the Lord commands—as a heathen and a publican.[19] It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit. 

23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior's infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.[20] For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.

A fornicator or sodomite is still a member of the Church, even when they are in mortal sin.  In order to be separated from the Church, they must be heretics, go into schism, or apostasize from the Faith.  Or, they have to be excommunicated (excluded) by legitimate authority for grave concerns.

This statement: "Again, you are either a Christian or a fornicator", is incorrect, as can be seen above.  Now if you are advocating that a sodomite who has repented and given up his acts, should no longer consider himself a sodomite, that is probably good advise.  If you are saying that a chaste sodomite will never feel tempted to sodomy again, you are incorrect.  Because by mixing sexual pleasure with the same sex attraction disorder, he has created a strong pleasure center in his brain.  If it is anything like smoking, it will be with him for a long time after he quits.  I quit smoking 5 years ago.  Am I a smoker?  No.  Do I still have an "attraction" to tobacco?  Yes, but it has diminished with time.  As far as the same sex attraction disorder, by belief is that it is a mix of a genetic trait, followed by environmental/psychological factors: the perfect storm.  I agree that for a person carrying this cross successfully, it would be very helpful to no longer call themselves homosexual.  If I went around calling myself a smoker, I probably would have gone back to smoking eventually.  It is just human nature to use an excuse to rationalize taking the easy way out, i.e. giving in.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Malleus Haereticorum - 02-22-2011

(02-22-2011, 06:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:49 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:31 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: They that do such things is not an "identity".  It condemns people who actually act.  They do something to be condemned; it isn't their disposition to sin that condemns them, or we'd all be damned since we all have a disposition to sin because of the fall.

You're attempting to single out a disposition to a particular sin and damn people for it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You have to actually do something, not just possess a disposition.   We don't go to Confession because of our fallen nature; we go to Confession when we do something wrong.

You are now misrepresenting my position, Quis.  I am not talking about mere concupiscience with which all the faithful must contend.  I am talking about a rejection of grace by maintaining that the properties of the new birth are of no effect.  I am not talking about mere flashes of transient temptation - I am talking about what Pope Benedict calls here 'deep seated tendencies.'  There are two possibilities here.

1.  The deep seated tendencies are confessed as disordered and a grave predisposition to mortal sin;
2.  The deep seated tendencies are attributed to God with no need of renunciation, mortification, or reorienting towards complimentary sexualty as God "created them, male and female."

The second category is what is most dangerous here in our own day and situation as the Modernists have ruthlessly exploited it to the destruction of our institutions and the wounding of uncountable souls.  Which I have yet to read your admission of to this point.   To maintain that one is a homosexual person even after the grace of the new birth accomplishes the second.

That's where we disagree - the part in red.  One can mortify concupisence, but it never goes away, does it?  It is there because of the Fall; the same reason any perversion, disorder, inordinate desire, etc. is there.  We cannot get rid of desires per se, what we can do is exert our will over them.

This is why I pointed out an alcoholic.  You seem to think that someone who is an alcoholic can mortify the acquired predisposition to getting drunk out of them.  That isn't the case.  They can stop drinking just as a homosexual can stop sodomizing.  The predisposition to sin still exists.

Your claim - in so many words - is that anyone who hasn't "beat the gay" or "prayed the gay" (where "the gay" is the disordered attraction to members of the same sex) out of themselves can't be a Christian, right?

The intellectually honest conclusion of what you are saying is in fact this:  If someone has a pre-disposition to a sin for whatever reason (psychological, environmental, etc.) unless they get rid of that pre-disposition they can't be Christian because, according to you, of 1 Cor.  Take a fornicator.  If someone continues to be inordinately horny, they are necessarily rejecting the grace of Christ I suppose?  That sounds quasi-heretical to me, to be honest with you.  I'll be happy to explain why if you don't know.

If not, then why the special treatment of homosexuals and not fornicators or liars?  Aren't all those problems mentioned together?

And that's why I suspect we will have to go back to 1 Cor and why you are dependent on it.  The distinction you need for your argument to hold is that effeminate is a sin of "identity" whereas fornicator is not.  That's why you are insistent that St. Paul is condemning "homosexuals" instead of those lacking virtue when he refers to malakoi.

Maybe you'll surprise me though.  Maybe you won't make a distinction between those things.  It will be an interesting answer if you don't...

I think I come down on the side of Johhny in this.  When you say we have , because of the fall ,  a predisposition to Sin , indeed we do - but that isnt defined by specific sins nor in your argument is found the fact that GOD doesnt allow any soul to be tempted beyond his strength and I  think that is the fatal flaw in your argument.    An alcoholic is an alcoholic not because he is weak but because he hasnt called upon the strength of GOD's grace sufficiently.  So it is his fault.  A sin is a willful act.  Yes we are Tempted to Sin - but in order to fall he must willingly ignore the Grace of GOD given us in suffient measure to avoid sin and we submit to sin.

Ther modernists are attempting to minimize the culpability for sin.  I agree with Johnny. 


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - James02 - 02-22-2011

I have read this thread and still can't understand what he is trying to say.  Someone accused him of playing with semantics, and it comes across that way.  Or maybe I am dense.

Let us take the alcoholic.  He is dry for years.  However, he can't ever drink alcohol again.  Now is it Johnny's position that because the alcoholic confessed his sins, he is now able to go and join in a toast?  That is the sin of presumption. 

Same with a fornicator.  He knows, for example, that if he goes to a party and has a few drinks, he'll start hitting on women and likely end up in bed with them.  Can he now say, after confession: "I am cured of this.  I shall not stay away from my friends.  I can now safely go to the party and I'll be safe."?  Again, that would be presumption.