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 - 02-23-2011

(02-22-2011, 03:18 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 08:03 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: From Roman Catholic Tradition:
Please don't spam the discussion with random quotes.  Either expound upon them or insert them contextually.   When you do this, again, I miss your point.  Is your point sodomy is a mortal sin?  Well, great, but I don't think anyone is denying that.

YOU demanded that I provide evidences from Tradition, Quis.  I was already on very solid footing with the argument from the Bible (Sacred Scripture is the Soul of Theology) but your aspersion that I was milking "Protestant" resources, however unfairly, required an answer.  I would be happy to provide comment and analysis on these quotes from the Popes, Doctors and Fathers, but I could not possible improve upon them.  The common denominator?  Nearly all these witnesses defined sodomy as the "sin against nature."  To counsel a "homosexual person" that they must accept that their identity is based on their proclivity towards the sin against nature cannot possibly be a Catholic position. 


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-23-2011

This post is in reference to reply #175 (which is too long to quote in its entirety).

Quote:As far as "homosexual persons", before we go into what I believe is an unnecessarily labored interpretation of the phrase on your part,  do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?  Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?
If you aren't going to give me the parameters of your request, I'm not going to attempt it.  In fact, there is an inherent problem in your request because Tradition with a capital T means those things that are handed down.  I'm going to assume you mean Magisterial, but I'm probably going to regret making even that assumption...
While I'm waiting though, here is another question for you: what is a "theological category" in your mind?  To me that would be: Sacraments, vices, virtues, etc.  "male" and "female" are not theological categories in my mind.  Can you give me some examples of other "theological categories"?

1.  I already answered this several replies ago - please find the catamitical, sodomitical person or whatever nomenclature you can locate in tradition.
2.  Theological category = pertaining to the Faith, and not unduly influenced by science.  Homosexual persons is clearly language informed by an undue relience on pseudo-scientific 'personality theory' and not on revelation.
3.  I admit to using Tradition and tradition interchangeably.  My point is can we locate this line of thinking in RC theology with some extended continuity, ie, not just since Vatican II.

St.Cyril:
Quote:Paul also is witness, saying, Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the rest, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but you were washed, but you were sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 He said not, such are some of you, but such were some of you. Sin committed in the state of ignorance is pardoned, but persistent wickedness is condemned.

St. Cyril here buttresses my position handily.  He says after enlightenment, you have no excuse to persist in wickedness.  It is a trap to couple the comtemporary nomenclature for sin against nature with personhood in the order of grace.  It is supremely uncharitible towards the [former] sodomite to do so.

St. Ireneus:
Quote:And such were some of you; but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified in the name of our Lord. 1 Corinthians 6:11 If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others?

St. Ireneus here demonstrates the freedom to change one's will on things - which cannot exclude the decision to self-identify as one who sins against nature.  This follows naturally from the renewing of the mind (cf Romans 12:2; Eph. 4-21-24)

St. Augustine:
Quote:Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 After reading these, I charged them to consider how believers could hear these words, but you are washed, if they still tolerated in their own hearts— that is, in God's inner temple— the abominations of such lusts as these against which the kingdom of heaven is shut.
(emphasis yours)

How could this be any plainer, Quis?  He is clearly saying that those who have received the grace of conversion in the new birth are NOT CHRISTIANS (kingdom of heaven shut) if they TOLERATE abominable lusts in their own hearts?  And your position is that not only are they sodomites(homosexual persons), but that the Church tells them so!   How can this be a charitable position towards those that have been ensnared in this sinful pattern?

Your comment on St. Augustine's quote:
Quote:These people are not free of their faults, their struggles, etc.  They WERE that way because 1) they are now baptized, 2) they exert their will to not commit those acts anymore.  Fornicators stop fornicating, condemn it, and flee from that sin.  Sodomites stop sodomizing, condemn it, and flee from that sin.  Nowhere does it mean an ex-fornicator stops having an overactive libido or an ex-sodomite stops being attracted to other men.

Attraction here goes to affectivity. 
CCC:  The integrity of the person
2338 The chaste person maintains the integrity of the powers of life and love placed in him. This integrity ensures the unity of the person; it is opposed to any behavior that would impair it. It tolerates neither a double life nor duplicity in speech.

2339 Chastity includes an apprenticeship in self-mastery which is a training in human freedom. The alternative is clear: either man governs his passions and finds peace, or he lets himself be dominated by them and becomes unhappy
.

Chastity precludes a "double life" (hello?) and demands governance of the passions.  How then can the Church admit to a category of personage that presents the individual with integral barriers to chastity as defined by the CCC?  If we are defined by our passions (homosexual persons), we are certainly capitulating to them, which the CCC calls dominance.

Quis:
Quote:A fornicator describes someone engaging in actual acts.  A homosexual describes someone who has a predisposition towards a particular sin.  You're comparing apples and oranges.  If you want an accurate comparison, compare what drives the person to perform particular sinful acts.  A person with an over active libido and a homosexual person would be an appropriate comparison.

1.  Fornication is a sin against the moral law, but not against nature.
2.  Sodomy is a sin against the moral law and against nature.
3.  Therefore, the desires to do either cannot be conflated.
4.  This is finally determinate upon the effects each sin has on the sinner.  For the unrepentant fornicator, condemnation without being deprived of the properties of conscience.  For the unrepentant homosexual, condemnation due to depravity of mind(cf. Romans 1:24-27).
5.  This means that in a post-Baptismal condition, the work of repentance, conversion and progress in chastity is much more difficult for the former homosexual because of the damage done against both conscience and nature.
6.  Conflation of the two states is uncharitable to the penitent former homosexual.
7.  Consigning the penitent former homosexual to perpetual status as a homosexual person presents (a) a formidable occasion of stumbling for him; and (b) a gateway for Modernists to exploit this situation for the ruin of souls, as is plainly evidenced by the crisis in the RCC today.

I am speaking in Christ's love for those afflicted with same-sex attraction.  Those who deprive them of the hope of full conversion, complete healing, inner freedom and the prospects of complimentary sexual relationship by consigning them to perpetual status as homosexual persons do them no favor. 

I am speaking in Christ's love for His holy bride the Church.  For to allow this seemingly harmless caveat (homosexual persons) to excuse the forbidden practice of ordaining homosexual men to the holy priesthood is to facilitate the ruin of the Church at the hands of ruthless and demonically-inspired Modernists whom Pope St. Pius X called purveyors of "the synthesis of all heresies" which "anhillates all religion" (Pascendi Dominici Gregis).

These two considerations are at the crux of the matter, which is the explict will of God:

Our Father "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." He "is forbearing toward you, not wishing that any should perish." His commandment is "that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another." This commandment summarizes all the others and expresses his entire will.  CCC 2822


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-23-2011

(02-23-2011, 02:58 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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".

Aha!  I think we are near a possible agreement, Quis.
You agree that:
1.  Homosexuals should not be priests;
2.  Bishops who knowingly ordain such sin mortally;
3.  These 'priests' become vehicles for all the errors of Modernism to be promulgated in the Church;
4.  Great and grave evils are perpetrated by this system.

Therefore,
1.  The systemic weakness in the Church that allows this to occur must be identified;

And that's about as far as we agree, though to be sure, on those points we agree.  Except, of course, for #3 there are plenty of "straight" priests who are modernists as well.

Quote:2.  The admittance of the existence of "chaste homosexual persons" provides a gateway;
3.  This gateway is ruthlessly exploited by both ordinands and ordinaries through the ordination of practising homosexuals;
4.  Modernism becomes mainstreamed and the faithful are wounded.

Now (full disclosure) I am a professional Soldier and view this problem from a military mindset:  locate the enemy's modus operandi, identify his tactics, plan accordingly, and destroy his center-of-gravity (engine of will-to-fight).

I am an armchair philosopher / theologian, and view this problem from the fact that we must honor the truth and follow the philosophy and theology to the bitter end, the chips falling where they may.  ;D

First, I have understood the whole time where you are coming from.  My point is that it is problematic, and also that we shouldn't configure the theology to combat the problem.  Rather we should strictly follow the theology, and therein will lay the answer to the problem.

"The admittance of the existence of "chaste homosexual persons" provides a gateway;"

No, not really.  What provides a gateway is seminary directors and bishops in the past purposefully ordaining homosexuals, and continuing to do so in the face of a mandate not to.  Even if your arguments in this thread are correct, which I don't think they are, they are unnecessary.  The only argument we need is the Pope saying no homosexuals can be priests.  Further, if "chaste homosexual persons" do exist, gateway or not, we are obligated to admit that they do even if it is a dangerous admission.  We don't serve the Truth by hiding the truth.  Again, I know you don't agree on the concept; I'm just saying if we "run the numbers" and the result is +1 in the chaste homosexual column, we have to honor that result.

"This gateway is ruthlessly exploited by both ordinands and ordinaries through the ordination of practising homosexuals;"

I disagree.  What they are doing, currently, is ignoring the Pope's directive.  Really, if you look at the huge amount of pedophiles in recent times, many of them were ordained long before V2 and for sure long before the Catechism came out.  What gateway was there then?  The same that there is now: bad bishops, bad vocations directors, etc.  People either with an outright agenda to flood the Church with gay priests and fellow pedophiles / hebephiles, or Modernists who believed the Church should change and didn't care if there were subversives or people who shouldn't be priests in the ranks,  Then more of these fellow rise to bishop and promote more of the same problem.

"4.  Modernism becomes mainstreamed and the faithful are wounded."

I hate to be the one to tell you there is no Santa Claus, but Modernism is already mainstream.  Cafeteria Catholicism is a form Modernism, and you can't get more mainstream than that.

I agree with your goal, and the goal is laudable, but I think your methodology is deficient, and I think you are missing the target.  Let me explain why:

If there is a person who suffers same-sex attraction and therefore calls himself a "homosexual" as a convenient label while at the same time trying to be a faithful Catholic, live chastely, etc., he is not a threat, is he?  In fact, he counterbalances the threat by returning the real meaning to the word "homosexual", and by "real meaning" I mean the dictionary definition of it.

He bears witness to the fact that regardless of whether he is born that way, became that way, etc., his response as a Catholic is required to be the same: flee the sin, live chastely, do not become a priest.  He bears a great witness that way by saying to the "gay community", "I am a homosexual, and a Catholic, and it's wrong for me to be a priest."  The same way a Catholic woman would go to the "womynpriest movement" and say "I am a woman and a Catholic, and it's wrong for me to attempt to be a priest."

Such a man (or woman) would in effect be an "Uncle Tom" to the "gay community".  He would be a martyr of sorts, and he would truly be giving up what he knew before for Christ since the homosexual activists and ideologues would have nothing to do with him.  He would be their enemy.

If you don't buy into my methodology as outlined above, fair enough.  But there is one more consideration. I think it is unjust to marginalize the efforts of people who battle same-sex attraction in order to be good Catholics by saying "homosexuals cannot be Christians".  Regardless of your goal, and regardless of how you want to nuance the definition of "homosexual" the reality is that a "homosexual person" is a person who experiences same-sex attraction.  Do modern philosophers and activists play Orwellian word games?  You bet.  But the best way to diffuse them is not to fall for their nuanced word games but rather demand clear definitions, clear answers, etc.

Oh, they can change "global warming" to "climate change" so they don't look like fools now that we're buried in snow.  They can change "murder of the unborn" to "choice" but it still is what it is.  And they can make a "homosexual person" into a strange mish-mash of psychology and a third category of gender, but at the end of the day, the Doctrine is clear: you can't engage in sodomy; the order of the Pope is clear: you cannot ordain someone who has a deep-rooted version of this disorder or supports a pro-homosexual agenda.

That's all that needs to be said to those willing to listen.  Those people who suffer same-sex attraction and want to be good Catholics will listen.  Those Catholics who do not have same-sex attractions will listen.  Those who have an agenda and want to rationalize behavior and flood the Church so they can change it aren't going to listen to anything.  Not to the Pope, not to Dogma, not to your arguments about language.  In the meantime, to the casual reader, you have just condemned all people who have same-sex attraction issues to hell because "homosexuals cannot be Christians".

The basic message of Catholicism with regard to sin is the same for everyone: you cannot do whatever you want, you have to do what God wants.  Fight the good fight, and if you fail, go to Confession, pray more, and try harder.  Sometimes the simplest messages are the best.  They cut through the Orwellian sophistry and rhetorical bullshit with a knife.

It's a sin; don't do it.  If you do, you'll go to hell.  Simple, and to the point.

We need to get the bad bishops out.  That's the key to most of this.  Unfortunately, that means getting a clone of Pope Pius V in the Throne of Peter, which will be difficult.



Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-23-2011

(02-23-2011, 03:06 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 03:18 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 08:03 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: From Roman Catholic Tradition:
Please don't spam the discussion with random quotes.  Either expound upon them or insert them contextually.   When you do this, again, I miss your point.  Is your point sodomy is a mortal sin?  Well, great, but I don't think anyone is denying that.

YOU demanded that I provide evidences from Tradition, Quis.  I was already on very solid footing with the argument from the Bible (Sacred Scripture is the Soul of Theology) but your aspersion that I was milking "Protestant" resources, however unfairly, required an answer.  I would be happy to provide comment and analysis on these quotes from the Popes, Doctors and Fathers, but I could not possible improve upon them.  The common denominator?  Nearly all these witnesses defined sodomy as the "sin against nature."  To counsel a "homosexual person" that they must accept that their identity is based on their proclivity towards the sin against nature cannot possibly be a Catholic position. 

I have no problem that you cited Catholic sources.  I had no idea what you were getting at because there was a post of citations with no explanation.  Now I have one: "Nearly all these witnesses defined sodomy as the "sin against nature."  To counsel a "homosexual person" that they must accept that their identity is based on their proclivity towards the sin against nature cannot possibly be a Catholic position. "

To which I will obviously disagree.  No one is saying that a homosexual person has to accept his identity.  If someone can switch teams back, great.  What I am saying, to only speak for myself, is that while they still suffer from same sex attraction, they must accept the reality of their proclivity.  They must live a chaste life, not become priests, etc.

You keep referring to "homosexual" as an identity which means you are actually buying into the anthropological re-defining of the word.  "Homosexual" is no more an identity than over-libidinous or xenophobic is.  Sure, some people want to make it that way, but it isn't.

That's what's kind of oxymoronic with your argument.  I said before you had a lot of contradiction, and here's a huge one:

Regardless of what some Modernists say, and even regardless of what the CCC says or implies, Catholic teaching is that "homosexual" is not an identity.  It is theologically a pre-disposition to certain disordered and unnatural sins.  But to undo the homosexual activists' dirty work, you're buying into the "identity" notion and trying to define the identity of "homosexual" as a sin against nature rather than the act being a sin against nature.  In other words, you've come to identify people by the act whether you realize it or not simply because you're saying that such an identity is sinful.

There is no "identity", which is why St. Paul didn't - and couldn't - condemn "homosexuals" as an identity.  He condemned people who commit unnatural acts.




Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-23-2011

(02-23-2011, 04:52 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I am an armchair philosopher / theologian, and view this problem from the fact that we must honor the truth and follow the philosophy and theology to the bitter end, the chips falling where they may.   ;D

Agreed.  I have aspired to just that, with a firm reliance upon the Scriptures primarily, and the Tradition/tradition secondarily.  

Quote:First, I have understood the whole time where you are coming from.  My point is that it is problematic, and also that we shouldn't configure the theology to combat the problem.  Rather we should strictly follow the theology, and therein will lay the answer to the problem.

Of course it is problematic - almost no one addresses this subject in the depth that all we have these past few days in this forum.  It is problematic because of what Pope Benedict calls the "hermenuetic of discontinuity" which I insist is what we are dealing with here by the modifying of the 1975 Homosexualititatis problematicus' terminology homosexuals to the 1986 Pastoral Instruction's terminology homosexual persons which wound up in the 1992 CCC (pp 2357-2359).  There is simply no precedent in tradtion for treating these people in a special way with special categories, although our contemporary culture (to include what most Catholics believe) is saturated with it.  So if one reaches back before 1986 to reconnect with tradition, he is therefore 'problematic.'  I'm used to it, believe me.  ;D

Quote:"The admittance of the existence of "chaste homosexual persons" provides a gateway;"

No, not really.  What provides a gateway is seminary directors and bishops in the past purposefully ordaining homosexuals, and continuing to do so in the face of a mandate not to.  Even if your arguments in this thread are correct, which I don't think they are, they are unnecessary.  The only argument we need is the Pope saying no homosexuals can be priests.  Further, if "chaste homosexual persons" do exist, gateway or not, we are obligated to admit that they do even if it is a dangerous admission.  We don't serve the Truth by hiding the truth.  Again, I know you don't agree on the concept; I'm just saying if we "run the numbers" and the result is +1 in the chaste homosexual column, we have to honor that result.

They could only act that way if they believed they were justified by some adulteration of Catholic teaching, which again,is evident (SEE:  Michael S. Rose, Goodbye!  Good Men).  They (homosexual persons) do not exist if we follow the tradition of the Church!  This is a capitulation to modernity and its pseudo-scientific conventions.  And what of the fruits?  Does not our Blessed Lord clearly instruct us that by their fruits ye shall know them?  What then of the fruits of admitting to the existence of homosexual persons?  Has it helped the Church?  Does not the site of priests marching in Gay Pride parades scandalize the faithful?  Please do not call it the truth if that cannot be firmly established in tradition.

Quote:"This gateway is ruthlessly exploited by both ordinands and ordinaries through the ordination of practising homosexuals;"

I disagree.  What they are doing, currently, is ignoring the Pope's directive.  Really, if you look at the huge amount of pedophiles in recent times, many of them were ordained long before V2 and for sure long before the Catechism came out.  What gateway was there then?  The same that there is now: bad bishops, bad vocations directors, etc.  People either with an outright agenda to flood the Church with gay priests and fellow pedophiles / hebephiles, or Modernists who believed the Church should change and didn't care if there were subversives or people who shouldn't be priests in the ranks,   Then more of these fellow rise to bishop and promote more of the same problem.

There was no formal gateway then (as there is now) but homosexual candidates for ordination presented themselves for orders unworthily, which, as Aqunias clearly explained in Summa is a mortal sin.  So what follows then (as I believe you pointed out earlier) is the Modernist tactic of breaking the rules and then reworking the rules to accomodate the sin.   Which shows beyond a doubt that this entire infiltration is the smoke of satan entering the temple, whether by deceit or by permission (advent of the category chaste homosexual persons).  

Quote:"4.  Modernism becomes mainstreamed and the faithful are wounded."

I hate to be the one to tell you there is no Santa Claus, but Modernism is already mainstream.  Cafeteria Catholicism is a form Modernism, and you can't get more mainstream than that.

No need to be unkind, Quis.  By using the verb 'becomes' I was speaking abstractly.  You cannot apply the cure if you refuse to acknowledge the root and source of the illness.

Quote:I agree with your goal, and the goal is laudable, but I think your methodology is deficient, and I think you are missing the target.  Let me explain why:

If there is a person who suffers same-sex attraction and therefore calls himself a "homosexual" as a convenient label while at the same time trying to be a faithful Catholic, live chastely, etc., he is not a threat, is he?  In fact, he counterbalances the threat by returning the real meaning to the word "homosexual", and by "real meaning" I mean the dictionary definition of it.

"He" may be only a minor threat individually but the invention of an untraditional category of personage is a breach that is ruthlessly exploited to the destruction of God's people daily.  "Convenient label" is acceptable in nondoctrinal settings, but it is now enshrined in the CCC, which even the Holy Father quoted from in his instruction against ordaining homosexuals.  On the tactical level, he counterbalances the threat but on the strategic level he is easily exploited by creating a standard whih cannot be defended against once it becomes doctrinal.

Quote:He bears witness to the fact that regardless of whether he is born that way, became that way, etc., his response as a Catholic is required to be the same: flee the sin, live chastely, do not become a priest.  He bears a great witness that way by saying to the "gay community", "I am a homosexual, and a Catholic, and it's wrong for me to be a priest."  The same way a Catholic woman would go to the "womynpriest movement" and say "I am a woman and a Catholic, and it's wrong for me to attempt to be a priest."

No.  Absolutely not.  No one under the effects of grace in the new birth should self-identify with a mortal sin.  Period.  cannot be countenanced in any dimension.  And the comparison between homosexuals and women is disturbing.

Quote:Such a man (or woman) would in effect be an "Uncle Tom" to the "gay community".  He would be a martyr of sorts, and he would truly be giving up what he knew before for Christ since the homosexual activists and ideologues would have nothing to do with him.  He would be their enemy.

Granted, but by maintaining that even after conversion he is still a "homosexual person" he invites all kind of irrational and militatnt arguments and action from the depraved homosexual contingent that exploits his clinging to a homosexual identity.  

Quote:If you don't buy into my methodology as outlined above, fair enough.  But there is one more consideration. I think it is unjust to marginalize the efforts of people who battle same-sex attraction in order to be good Catholics by saying "homosexuals cannot be Christians".  Regardless of your goal, and regardless of how you want to nuance the definition of "homosexual" the reality is that a "homosexual person" is a person who experiences same-sex attraction.  Do modern philosophers and activists play Orwellian word games?  You bet.  But the best way to diffuse them is not to fall for their nuanced word games but rather demand clear definitions, clear answers, etc.
 

I disagree.  Capitulation to this definition can lead only to dangers as is clearly evident in our time.  "Homosexual persons called to chastity" is fraught with many contradictions, concessions, a capitulation to concupiscience, presents barriers for full conversion and complete healing, etc...  It plays directly into the hands of sophists who wish to exploit it for their unjust and immoral purposes.  

Quote:Oh, they can change "global warming" to "climate change" so they don't look like fools now that we're buried in snow.  They can change "murder of the unborn" to "choice" but it still is what it is.  And they can make a "homosexual person" into a strange mish-mash of psychology and a third category of gender, but at the end of the day, the Doctrine is clear: you can't engage in sodomy; the order of the Pope is clear: you cannot ordain someone who has a deep-rooted version of this disorder or supports a pro-homosexual agenda.

That's all that needs to be said to those willing to listen.  Those people who suffer same-sex attraction and want to be good Catholics will listen.  Those Catholics who do not have same-sex attractions will listen.  Those who have an agenda and want to rationalize behavior and flood the Church so they can change it aren't going to listen to anything.  Not to the Pope, not to Dogma, not to your arguments about language.  In the meantime, to the casual reader, you have just condemned all people who have same-sex attraction issues to hell because "homosexuals cannot be Christians".

If that's all that needs to be said, why is not having an effect on the problem?  Even among trads and conservatives?  To the casual reader I have employed a sensationalist tactic to grab their attention (I admit that is not scholarly, nor am I a scholar  ;)).  My point?  Choose one or the other.  "Such were some of you."   To persist this way is a denial of the properties of the new birth and tantamount to a rejection of grace.  It is a capitulation to "deeply disordered tendencies" and a compromise with the mystery of Christ in redemption and sanctification.

Quote:The basic message of Catholicism with regard to sin is the same for everyone: you cannot do whatever you want, you have to do what God wants.  Fight the good fight, and if you fail, go to Confession, pray more, and try harder.  Sometimes the simplest messages are the best.  They cut through the Orwellian sophistry and rhetorical bullshit with a knife.

It's a sin; don't do it.  If you do, you'll go to hell.  Simple, and to the point.

My point exactly!

Quote:We need to get the bad bishops out.  That's the key to most of this.  Unfortunately, that means getting a clone of Pope Pius V in the Throne of Peter, which will be difficult.

I believe we are in violent agreement on this point.  However, as with many other innovations of Vatican II, we must recover precise and definitive language about sacred things as much as is possible.  If there were not a major apostasy underway in the RCC being spearheaded by so-called homosexual clergy, I would aquiesce to most of your propositions without an argument.  But it is absolutely entrenched and decaying at this point, and until one admits with the Apostle Paul that these are depraved individuals (Rom. 1:24-27) reprobate concerning the Faith (2 Tim. 3:8 ), we soft-sell the actual dangers at work here.  Pope St. Pius V actually advocated the death penalty for this crime!


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-23-2011

(02-23-2011, 05:05 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: To which I will obviously disagree.  No one is saying that a homosexual person has to accept his identity.  If someone can switch teams back, great.  What I am saying, to only speak for myself, is that while they still suffer from same sex attraction, they must accept the reality of their proclivity.  They must live a chaste life, not become priests, etc.

Yes someone is, Quis:

"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."  (italics in the original 1992 CCC)

This is why it is duplicitous to infer that a third sexual identity exists, e.g., homosexual persons, when the same CCC restricts sexual identity to "male and female, created He them." (Gen. 1:27)

Quote: You keep referring to "homosexual" as an identity which means you are actually buying into the anthropological re-defining of the word.  "Homosexual" is no more an identity than over-libidinous or xenophobic is.  Sure, some people want to make it that way, but it isn't.

All due respect dearest brother in Christ, you forced this strained and contrived quibble about terminology much earlier in the thread.  The above quote from the CCC shows that it is an identity.  Otherwise St. Paul's quote from 1 Cor. 6:9-11 would read "such did some of you" instead of "such were some of you."   I even conceded that effemenati was broadly applied but not exclusive of sodomitic behavior and encouraged that we move along to masculorum concubitores but you remained bogged down on molles.  Neither could you admit to the historical setting in 1st century Corinth which I found most unfortunate. 

Quote:That's what's kind of oxymoronic with your argument.  I said before you had a lot of contradiction, and here's a huge one:

Regardless of what some Modernists say, and even regardless of what the CCC says or implies, Catholic teaching is that "homosexual" is not an identity.  It is theologically a pre-disposition to certain disordered and unnatural sins.  But to undo the homosexual activists' dirty work, you're buying into the "identity" notion and trying to define the identity of "homosexual" as a sin against nature rather than the act being a sin against nature.  In other words, you've come to identify people by the act whether you realize it or not simply because you're saying that such an identity is sinful.

There is no "identity", which is why St. Paul didn't - and couldn't - condemn "homosexuals" as an identity.  He condemned people who commit unnatural acts.

Well, hopefully CCC #2333 will shed more light on that, Quis.  "Homosexual persons" is not only enshrined in the CCC, but the Holy Father quoted from it in his Instruction on....priesthood.   Not that I agree with all this Pope's explanations! 

If you really unpack what is meant by 'nature' in the Fathers' statement, "sin against nature" you will see that this is not mere quibbling over terminology.  The fate of countless souls is at stake here.  At least that is the view from my foxhole.

Finally, a short explanation from the Catholic doctrine of the tri-unity of man (cf. 1 Thess. 5:23):

And may the God of peace himself sanctify you in all things; that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Spirit: I am a spirit (essential being, intellect + will)

Soul:  I have a soul (rational properties, emotions)

Body:  I live in a body ("shortly I must put off this tabernacle..." 2 Peter 1:14)

In light of this explanation, to confess, "I am a homosexual person" is a most grave and definitive statement.

Pax Christi,
cj


[/quote]


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 02-23-2011

That was very well put.
Folowing the thread so far can it be said that the term homosexual person is dangerous because it is such a subtle but substantial change from previously understood meanings of sodomy?
Just as subtle as the "pro-multis" controversy about "for many" or "for all" in the roman rite NO Mass
Or probebly MORE subtle


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-23-2011

(02-23-2011, 08:54 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: That was very well put.
Folowing the thread so far can it be said that the term homosexual person is dangerous because it is such a subtle but substantial change from previously understood meanings of sodomy?
Just as subtle as the "pro-multis" controversy about "for many" or "for all" in the roman rite NO Mass
Or probebly MORE subtle

Vox, I think that is a valid comparison,  although one may nuance the Eucharistic prayer (wrongly so), but this one seems to move boldly and unequivocally in a direction alien to tradition.  I think it is worth noting that the same "priests" in favor of "for all" are the same aggregation in favor "homosexual personage..."  Coincidence?  Doubtful.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 02-23-2011

Yes but does the danger lie in its subtlety. Because it may seem to you as an obvious break from traditional (small t) Church understanding, but as you can see from this thread that very well informed Catholics (and Quis is an extremely well informed and Rock solid Catholic) dont see what your getting at, and even feel you are being a hater or judgmental (more subtle flawlessly undetected modernist  indoctrination?)
Ever since I woke up to my faith I noticed a the grace given to me to see subtle subtext and agendas in the way people, politicians, etc  and the mass media uses words. The very term Homosexual and Gay etc being political nomenclature hoisted on society to promote naturalism and in the 20th century out in out support FOR sodomy. I wont even use the word Gay unless absolutely necessary and as I posted above the very term homosexual is an Orwellian mind screw word. Its like a clever script virus, that every time it is used your mind becomes desensitized to the ugliness of the sin of sodomy, till you come to a point your watching Will and Grace (ever think about the title of that show about two sodomites and a fornicating woman) and laughing out loud looking forward to the next installment. A modern equivalent  is a show called Modern Family which features two sodomites who adopt a child.
Me personally (and this is another thread) I feel the Modern CCC is completely shot through with modernist heresy disguised in just the kind of subtlety at discussion here.
The Term Homosexual Persons...taken on its face...clearly denotes (again its subtle to many) a new form or third kind of person. One proof is there is no corrallary term for anyone addicted to other sins...we dont see "thieving persons" or "Non Mass attending Persons" etc  Should abortionists who repent of their bloody trade be considered "murdering persons".

In short I would like to put a sentance out there and tell me if Im right.
Homosexuals cant be Christians for the same reason Unicorns cant be Christians, there is no such species.
Does that make sense?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - James02 - 02-23-2011

Quote: James02,
You have fallen into the trap presented earlier in this thread of using medical and not Catholic theological models.  This allows for Modernist exploitation, and I am sure you have done this quite innocently as it is in the air we breathe today.  "Alcoholic" is not a Catholic theological term.  It is a medical term based on medical theories that exclude the properties of the new birth in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) and the supernatural properties of conversion (Ephesians 4:21-24).  The Magisterium does not teach that a person who is "alcholic' will always be an alcoholic.  St. Paul teaches very clearly in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 that "such were some of you, but you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in Christ and by the Spirit of God."  This passage includes both sodomites and drunkards. 

The world says "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" and the Church teaches "if any man is in Christ, [he is] a new creation."  (2 Cor. 5:17)  St. Paul teaches we are to put off the old man and put on the new (Ephesians 4:21-24).   In Romans 12:1-2, St. Paul teaches us to be wary of the world's way of thinking about these things:

You are brushing up against heresy, if not outright crossing over.  Let's get down to application.  If you don't like talking about alcoholics, then we'll use adulterers. 

1.  Are you saying that it is incumbent upon a homosexual to RENOUNCE his sodomy and even his same sex attraction?  If so, I agree.  This attraction is disordered.  It exists for him, just as an adulterer has an attraction (though natural) for his mistress.  But in both cases they must RENOUNCE it.  No problem.

2.  Are you saying that after confession, a person with a same sex attraction should no longer be tempted by this?  If so, this is an heresy of Puritanism.  It would deny the whole concept of "near occasion for sin".  It applies to the adulterer as well as the sodomite.  The adulterer can still fall.

3.  Are you saying that a priest who commits sodomy can not validly confect the sacraments?  If so, then this is the heresy of Donatism, already rejected by the Church.

4.  Are you saying that a person who commits sodomy is no longer Catholic?  This is an heresy that contradicts what Pope Pius XII has authoritatively taught in Mystici Corporus Christi, already sited.  The Church is precise, because she is 2000 years old.  If a person who commits sodomy is no longer Catholic, then a simple confession would not restore him to the Church.  He would need to have the excommunication lifted.  However, this is not what happens.  Someone who commits sodomy is in mortal sin and loses Sanctifying Grace.  However, per Pope Pius XII, he is still Catholic, he is just a sinner.  Now if he were to (formally) profess that there is nothing wrong with sodomy, then he would be an heretic, and would indeed excommunicate himself.   There is a difference, however, and this distinction must be kept.

edit: by the way, I did not choose the example of the alcoholic.  I was replying to a post by M.H.