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

(02-23-2011, 10:08 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: 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?)

I can say I have detected this throughout Quis' posts.  He seems very orthodox, Traditional, until it comes to this isue, and suddenly the Modernists are right and Tradition is wrong.  A revealing case study on how deeply the Modernists have made their infiltration.

Quote: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.

Gay is an outworking of the pseudo-technical term, homosexual.  I refuse to use it, ever, unless quoting or mocking.  Sodomy is the correct (English) technical term, which obviously links it to the wrath of God.  That is what it is, and where it belongs.  Mind-screw, while a vulgar colloquial description, is apt as a non-technical definition of this wicked sophistry.

Quote: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".

Concur - the problem - as with Vatican II - is that there are many solid, orthodox concepts explained therein.  This is the deviousness of the Modernist - to mix orthodoxy with error.  Its a horrible predicament to put the Faithful in - and the architects of this confusion will have to answer to an angry God one day soon.

Quote: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?
 That's one way of explaining it, Vox.  My explanation was that no one born again in baptism can be identified by a mortal sin.  But you are on solid footing.  


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

[quote='James02' pid='703466' dateline='1298472871']
[quote] 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 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.

[/quote]

1.  Yes, but do not conflate a sin against the moral law (adultery/fornication) with a sin that is against both the moral law and nature (sodomy and it's disordered patterns of desire).  These are different degrees of sin as pertains to the requirements of penance, new life, and renewal of the mind.

2. No, and if you have read my remarks in this thread, you could not come to such a conclusion.

3.  No, but a "priest" ordained unworthily is in mortal sin as is his ordinary.  He presents a monstrous opportunity for scandalizing the faithful, and is a brother to him that destroys Christ's work in the Church.  Such a one is contributing to doubt in the efficacy of the entire sacramental economy, a horrific sin.

4.  This only makes sense if you consider that one can be "Catholic" and yet not "Christian", ie, in a state of grace.  Anyone baptized as a Catholic can be considered culturally or socially 'Catholic', but under the wrath of God.  Is that your definition of Catholic?  Pope St. Pius XII would disagree.  The issue is not whether he commits sodomy (and then repents and receives absolution), but whether he self-identifies "as a sodomite (homosexual by nature)".  Unless you clarify your definition, you are saying that many Catholics are going to be in hell, in which definition, the term "Catholics" assumes only a sociological meaning and is robbed of its theological and eschatalogical meanings.


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

It seems that only point 4 is in dispute, though you deny being a Donatist, you put priest in quotes on you comments on item 3.  Getting back to the point in dispute:

Many Catholics go to hell.  Pope Pius XII was explicit on this point:
Quote:"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.

edit: Let me be more precise: Many of the Church Militant will end up in hell.  While living, even though they will end up in hell, they are still Catholic.  Once they die and receive their judgement, they are no longer Catholic.  Because among the dead, the only Catholics are the Church Suffering (purgatory) and the Church Triumphant. 

edit: I don't know the difference between a theological definition of a Catholic or an eschatological.  But eschatologically, we can say that in order to be saved,  it is necessary, but not sufficient , to be Catholic.


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

(02-23-2011, 11:33 AM)James02 Wrote: It seems that only point 4 is in dispute, though you deny being a Donatist, you put priest in quotes on you comments on item 3.  Getting back to the point in dispute:

Many Catholics go to hell.  Pope Pius XII was explicit on this point:
Quote:"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.

Donatist?  Because I insist that a Catholic Priest must first be a Christian?  Let them who give you this belief be your judges.  Sacraments are not simply services rendered by a mechanical heirarchy with no connection to Faith.  Go ahead, support 'priests' who are not even Christian, and you will partake of their capital sins.  We are NOT called to bless sin!


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

You are very indirect.  If you believe a priest who commits sodomy can't confect the sacraments, just say it.


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

And where have I said I support sodomite priests?  Now you are being plain dishonest.


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

(02-23-2011, 11:43 AM)James02 Wrote: You are very indirect.  If you believe a priest who commits sodomy can't confect the sacraments, just say it.

I've already said several times in this thread that they can - technically - but that they bring great scandal among the Faithful when it comes to confidence in the Sacramental economy.  Be careful of purely technical definitions unconnected to real, concrete circumstances.


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

Precision is needed to avoid heresy.  Yes, sodomite priests (no quotes) are very scandalous.  No argument there.

Now let's get back to many of the Church Militant ending up in hell.


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

(02-23-2011, 06:19 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(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

You know what you call "tri-unity" is condemned heresy, right?

The simplest way to answer you is to show you are taking the CCC out of context.  2333 is not about homosexuals.  It doesn't even imply homosexual should embrace their identity.

Here is what the CCC says about homosexuals:

Quote:Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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.


Do they say "this identity"?  No, they say "this inclination".  They call them "tendencies".

This is what bothers me most about you.  You seem to be willing to bring disrepute upon the Church with textual machinations and misrepresentations to further an agenda.  The fact that your agenda is (I hope) to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood may be laudable, but the way you are going about it is disturbing and not laudable at all.

Here's another document:

Quote:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20051104_istruzione_en.html

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

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

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.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.

Again:

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

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.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered.

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases

Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

How much more clear can it be than that last statement?

Really, other things aside, I think you are behaving dishonorably by purposefully misrepresenting what the Church has said to further your own ideas. 

Which makes it probably a good time to address the other bee in your bonnet: "homosexual persons"

Homosexual is an adjective.  It can be used substantively to be a noun ("a homosexual"), but it is at its root an adjective.  There is nothing nefarious about  the Church using "homosexual person" any more than "homosexual behavior" or "homosexual bar", or when it uses other terms such as "indigenous peoples".  "Homosexual person" merely spells out what "homosexual" used substantively means.  You cannot change "person" to "identity" with no basis other than your imagination, especially in light of the fact that the Church in the same documents you find fault with has clearly said it's a tendency, it's disordered, it's not an identity, etc.



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

(02-23-2011, 10:57 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: I can say I have detected this throughout Quis' posts.  He seems very orthodox, Traditional, until it comes to this isue, and suddenly the Modernists are right and Tradition is wrong.  A revealing case study on how deeply the Modernists have made their infiltration.

It has nothing to do with Modernists vs. Tradition.  It has to do with the way you misrepresent things, etc.

BTW, the fact that you imply I am infected with Modernism further justifies the question I asked of you that you haven't answered:  are you an ex-Protestant?