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

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-27-2011

Amazing how the DSM suddenly become relevant when it fits someone's argument, otherwise it is peripheral.  ::)

(02-19-2011, 03:09 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-19-2011, 01:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm not sure what you're getting at, if anything.  Originally, homosexuality was seen as a psychopathology and appeared in the DSM.  Because of homosexual advocacy, it was removed from the DSM.

...

It is the "lifestyle" that needs to be left behind to avoid sin.  Unnatural acts, improper relationships, etc.  Assuming it is a psychopathology, one cannot leave behind homosexuality as same-sex attraction any more than someone who suffers manic depression can leave that behind. 

1.  Psychopathology is not a theological category.  Even the CCC (pp 2357) admits that it cannot identify the psychological genesis of this 'disorder.'
...
3.  Pennance, faith, mortification of concupscient desire, and growth in grace and holiness are the lot of all Christians.  No exception should be made for the homosexual.  You are adopting a medical theory and not a Gospel position on this.  The medical theory is "once sick, always sick" (cf alcoholism) and therefore the compassionate response is to help the "alcoholic" (another nonbiblical identity designation with widespread acceptance in the Church) cope with his 'disease.'  The Gospel calls us to "overcome the world" (1 John 5:4). 

...
Peripheral discussions about psychology and pseudo-medical theories may help to clear the air as they are dispelled by sound doctrine, but the issue I am raising is the status of those who claim to be Priests and homosexuals at the same time. 

Sorry, CJ, you already said the DSM claims are "dispelled by sound doctrine".  You aren't going to be taken seriously if you can't be intellectually honest and consistent.

This thread is a great example of sophistry in action.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-27-2011

(02-27-2011, 01:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Amazing how the DSM suddenly become relevant when it fits someone's argument, otherwise it is peripheral.   ::)

(02-19-2011, 03:09 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-19-2011, 01:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm not sure what you're getting at, if anything.  Originally, homosexuality was seen as a psychopathology and appeared in the DSM.  Because of homosexual advocacy, it was removed from the DSM....

It is the "lifestyle" that needs to be left behind to avoid sin.  Unnatural acts, improper relationships, etc.  Assuming it is a psychopathology, one cannot leave behind homosexuality as same-sex attraction any more than someone who suffers manic depression can leave that behind. 

1.  Psychopathology is not a theological category.  Even the CCC (pp 2357) admits that it cannot identify the psychological genesis of this 'disorder.'
...
3.  Pennance, faith, mortification of concupscient desire, and growth in grace and holiness are the lot of all Christians.  No exception should be made for the homosexual.  You are adopting a medical theory and not a Gospel position on this.  The medical theory is "once sick, always sick" (cf alcoholism) and therefore the compassionate response is to help the "alcoholic" (another nonbiblical identity designation with widespread acceptance in the Church) cope with his 'disease.'  The Gospel calls us to "overcome the world" (1 John 5:4). 

...
Peripheral discussions about psychology and pseudo-medical theories may help to clear the air as they are dispelled by sound doctrine, but the issue I am raising is the status of those who claim to be Priests and homosexuals at the same time. 

Sorry, CJ, you already said the DSM claims are "dispelled by sound doctrine".  You aren't going to be taken seriously if you can't be intellectually honest and consistent.

This thread is a great example of sophistry in action.

I have been 100% consistent.  My entire point was that the Church should never have inserted a neologism based on changing/changeable scienctific theory into a doctrinal statement.  All this reference to the DSM does is show that even by the standards of science the redefining of people as homosexual persons is fraught with all kinds of problems.  It shows that Canon law accepts psychiatry as an evidence of fitness for orders and by Canon Law's standards "homosexual persons" had a mental disorder until it magically disappeared from the DSM in 1973. 

I have been saying the same thing all along - but now I have a little bit more ammo to oppose those who want to argue in favor of sodomitic priests from the perspective of science.  Personally, I believe science is close to a non-factor on this issue as the Scriptures and tradition are crystal clear until you get to the 1970s and 80s and all this new pseudo-scientific language gets injected into Catholic doctrinal statements. 


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-27-2011

Psychiatric evaluations for priest candidates is likely to stand science on its head, not to mention flagrantly show contempt for the Faith:

[quote]The next morning, said Carrigee, he met with his vocations director, concerned about where he stood now in light of his "mental illness."  It didn't take long into this meeting, he recalled, before he was told that he was "not what the archdiocese is looking for."

"I was told that I was 'too rigid' and 'too focused' to be a priest," he said.  "But I innocently pursued the issue.  I wanted to know exactly what my problem was.  After a lengthy pursuit I was then told that 'too rigid' meant that I took the Pope too seriously, and 'too focused' referred to my devotion to the Blessed Mother and my practice of St. Louis de Monfort's Marian spirituality."

Goodbye!  Good Men, page 77, Michael S. Rose © 2002 Aquinas Press


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-27-2011

(02-27-2011, 01:57 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-27-2011, 01:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Amazing how the DSM suddenly become relevant when it fits someone's argument, otherwise it is peripheral.   ::)

(02-19-2011, 03:09 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-19-2011, 01:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm not sure what you're getting at, if anything.  Originally, homosexuality was seen as a psychopathology and appeared in the DSM.  Because of homosexual advocacy, it was removed from the DSM....

It is the "lifestyle" that needs to be left behind to avoid sin.  Unnatural acts, improper relationships, etc.  Assuming it is a psychopathology, one cannot leave behind homosexuality as same-sex attraction any more than someone who suffers manic depression can leave that behind. 

1.  Psychopathology is not a theological category.  Even the CCC (pp 2357) admits that it cannot identify the psychological genesis of this 'disorder.'
...
3.  Pennance, faith, mortification of concupscient desire, and growth in grace and holiness are the lot of all Christians.  No exception should be made for the homosexual.  You are adopting a medical theory and not a Gospel position on this.  The medical theory is "once sick, always sick" (cf alcoholism) and therefore the compassionate response is to help the "alcoholic" (another nonbiblical identity designation with widespread acceptance in the Church) cope with his 'disease.'  The Gospel calls us to "overcome the world" (1 John 5:4). 

...
Peripheral discussions about psychology and pseudo-medical theories may help to clear the air as they are dispelled by sound doctrine, but the issue I am raising is the status of those who claim to be Priests and homosexuals at the same time. 

Sorry, CJ, you already said the DSM claims are "dispelled by sound doctrine".  You aren't going to be taken seriously if you can't be intellectually honest and consistent.

This thread is a great example of sophistry in action.

I have been 100% consistent.  My entire point was that the Church should never have inserted a neologism based on changing/changeable scienctific theory into a doctrinal statement.  All this reference to the DSM does is show that even by the standards of science the redefining of people as homosexual persons is fraught with all kinds of problems.   It shows that Canon law accepts psychiatry as an evidence of fitness for orders and by Canon Law's standards "homosexual persons" had a mental disorder until it magically disappeared from the DSM in 1973. 

I have been saying the same thing all along - but now I have a little bit more ammo to oppose those who want to argue in favor of sodomitic priests from the perspective of science.  Personally, I believe science is close to a non-factor on this issue as the Scriptures and tradition are crystal clear until you get to the 1970s and 80s and all this new pseudo-scientific language gets injected into Catholic doctrinal statements. 

:laughing:

Anyhow, you have another problem.  Since it's not in the DSM, it's not a psychological malady.  The Church, imprudently, tied the fitness of a candidate to the whim of the medical establishment which is really a political organization at this point.  The DSM changes almost annually -- almost as often as the Novus Ordo Missae.  It's a moving target.  Homosexual candidates after it was removed in 1973 did not suffer from a psychic illness therefore were legitimate candidates for the priesthood by that measure.

You also have the small problem that you said homosexuality as an illness is "dispelled by sound doctrine".  Therefore, the DSM was obviously (har) incorrect to diagnose homosexuality as a mental illness.  Why? Because of your personal interpretation of scripture that identifies it as a condemned "identity" rather than an illness such as alcoholism.  Why? Because you were afraid of the consequences of that - you knew your argument hinged on 1 Cor and it would fall like a house of cards otherwise.

You aren't chasing the truth.  You're chasing "the best argument" to get what you want.

Homosexuals cannot be priests because the Church says so and she has the sole right to determine, by whatever measure she chooses, who gets to be a priest.  That's the bottom line.  You don't need any other arguments.  If someone wants to know why, they can read the CDF statement.

All this other crap you've spewed about how homosexuals can't be Christians and your mental gymnastics about the efficacy of Holy Orders on a homosexual only weakens your standing and your right to be taken seriously.  The best way to make a convincing argument is to use the truth, and to use it consistently.

Anyhow, I'll keep watching you and voxp run in circles trying to outthink the Doctrine and come up with a better argument.  It's tilting at a windmill, though.  If they don't listen to the CDF saying "no homosexual priests" they sure as heck aren't going to listen to you with your inconsistent and inscrutable arguments.  I'll just add color commentary from time to time.

Carry on.



Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-27-2011

(02-27-2011, 02:39 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: :laughing:

Anyhow, you have another problem.  Since it's not in the DSM, it's not a psychological malady.  The Church, imprudently, tied the fitness of a candidate to the whim of the medical establishment which is really a political organization at this point.  The DSM changes almost annually -- almost as often as the Novus Ordo Missae.  It's a moving target.  Homosexual candidates after it was removed in 1973 did not suffer from a psychic illness therefore were legitimate candidates for the priesthood by that measure.

You also have the small problem that you said homosexuality as an illness is "dispelled by sound doctrine".  Therefore, the DSM was obviously (har) incorrect to diagnose homosexuality as a mental illness.  Why? Because of your personal interpretation of scripture that identifies it as a condemned "identity" rather than an illness such as alcoholism.  Why? Because you were afraid of the consequences of that - you knew your argument hinged on 1 Cor and it would fall like a house of cards otherwise.
 

As far as I'm concerned Mr. Quis, you lost that argument [identity].  I get it - your forum, your rules of debate - can't embarass the host.  Please however, do not delete this thread without a warning as I would like to archive it for all the valuable resources cited and lively exchanges contained therein.

Quote:You aren't chasing the truth.  You're chasing "the best argument" to get what you want.

I don't believe I have tried to attribute motives to your POV, Mr. Quis, and I respectfully ask you not to do that with me.

Quote:Homosexuals cannot be priests because the Church says so and she has the sole right to determine, by whatever measure she chooses, who gets to be a priest.  That's the bottom line.  You don't need any other arguments.  If someone wants to know why, they can read the CDF statement.
 

Well yes - but they are, and you have not begun to unpack the reasons for this.  You have gone even further than that by saying they receive grace from the sacrament of orders even when they commit mortal sin by submitting themselves for the sacrament.  Aquinas said they increase their trespass by every action of their office.  Seems like a strange effect of grace to me.  But I digress.

Quote:All this other crap you've spewed about how homosexuals can't be Christians and your mental gymnastics about the efficacy of Holy Orders on a homosexual only weakens your standing and your right to be taken seriously.  The best way to make a convincing argument is to use the truth, and to use it consistently.

When I offer authoritative proof texts from the Bible in a Catholic sense and meaning, you dismiss me as a Protestant or accuse me of private interpretations.  Its all good.  Its your website.  I'm just a guest.  We tackled all this previously.  The record is out there.

Quote:Anyhow, I'll keep watching you and voxp run in circles trying to outthink the Doctrine and come up with a better argument.  It's tilting at a windmill, though.  If they don't listen to the CDF saying "no homosexual priests" they sure as heck aren't going to listen to you with your inconsistent and inscrutable arguments.  I'll just add color commentary from time to time.

Carry on.

You do that, sir.  Have a great Lord's Day and pray for us neo-heretics and quasi-protestants.   ;D


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-27-2011

(02-27-2011, 02:58 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-27-2011, 02:39 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: :laughing:

Anyhow, you have another problem.  Since it's not in the DSM, it's not a psychological malady.  The Church, imprudently, tied the fitness of a candidate to the whim of the medical establishment which is really a political organization at this point.  The DSM changes almost annually -- almost as often as the Novus Ordo Missae.  It's a moving target.  Homosexual candidates after it was removed in 1973 did not suffer from a psychic illness therefore were legitimate candidates for the priesthood by that measure.

You also have the small problem that you said homosexuality as an illness is "dispelled by sound doctrine".  Therefore, the DSM was obviously (har) incorrect to diagnose homosexuality as a mental illness.  Why? Because of your personal interpretation of scripture that identifies it as a condemned "identity" rather than an illness such as alcoholism.  Why? Because you were afraid of the consequences of that - you knew your argument hinged on 1 Cor and it would fall like a house of cards otherwise.
 

As far as I'm concerned Mr. Quis, you lost that argument [identity].  I get it - your forum, your rules of debate - can't embarass the host.  Please however, do not delete this thread without a warning as I would like to archive it for all the valuable resources cited and lively exchanges contained therein.

:laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

I don't delete threads here without grave reason.  I suffer from intellectual honesty.  It's a sickness not found in the DSM either.

Quote:
Quote:You aren't chasing the truth.  You're chasing "the best argument" to get what you want.

I don't believe I have tried to attribute motives to your POV, Mr. Quis, and I respectfully ask you not to do that with me.

I'm not attributing motives.  Your motive may be the good of the Church and the love of Christ.  I'm commenting on your actions.  You are pursuing the best tactic even if it excludes intellectual honesty and the reading of Church documents in good faith.

Quote:
Quote:Homosexuals cannot be priests because the Church says so and she has the sole right to determine, by whatever measure she chooses, who gets to be a priest.  That's the bottom line.  You don't need any other arguments.  If someone wants to know why, they can read the CDF statement.
 

Well yes - but they are, and you have not begun to unpack the reasons for this.  You have gone even further than that by saying they receive grace from the sacrament of orders even when they commit mortal sin by submitting themselves for the sacrament.  Aquinas said they increase their trespass by every action of their office.  Seems like a strange effect of grace to me.  But I digress.

The reason for this is simple: there are homosexual and homosexual-sympathizing bishops and vocations directors.  Probably also pedophile bishops who are blackmailed into things.  They flooded the seminaries with homosexuals and people sympathetic to them.  This isn't rocket science.

I can explain the rationale how they receive grace and at the same time cause disgrace and increase their trespass.  It goes to the indefectibility of the Church and her Sacraments.  If someone receives a Sacrament in a state of mortal sin, the grace of the Sacrament is withheld until they are cleansed of mortal sin.  It doesn't matter if the guy is a homosexual or just had a dirty thought about the blond in pew 1.  If that's the case, then they would not receive the efficacy of the Sacrament of Holy Orders until such a time, and all the Sacraments they confected that are dependent on that would be invalid.  Instead the person receives Sanctifying Grace in Holy Orders that the Sacrament takes effect.

Quote:Objection 1. It would seem that goodness of life is not required of those who receive Orders. For by Orders a man is ordained to the dispensation of the sacraments. But the sacraments can be administered by good and wicked. Therefore goodness of life is not requisite.

Reply to Objection 1. Just as the sinner dispenses sacraments validly, so does he receive validly the sacrament of Orders, and as he dispenses unworthily, even so he receives unworthily.

Since we're on Aquinas, you also have this problem:

Quote:Reply to Objection 3. So long as a minister of the Church who is in mortal sin is recognized by the Church, his subject must receive the sacraments from him, since this is the purpose for which he is bound to him

The Church does not punish the parish for the priest's bad actions or sin.  The priest heaps coals upon his head by acting as a priest while in a state of mortal sin.


Quote:
Quote:All this other crap you've spewed about how homosexuals can't be Christians and your mental gymnastics about the efficacy of Holy Orders on a homosexual only weakens your standing and your right to be taken seriously.  The best way to make a convincing argument is to use the truth, and to use it consistently.

When I offer authoritative proof texts from the Bible in a Catholic sense and meaning, you dismiss me as a Protestant or accuse me of private interpretations.  Its all good.  Its your website.  I'm just a guest.  We tackled all this previously.  The record is out there.

You can whine about the bully pulpit, but I've let you say whatever you wanted.

If you want to complain I've stifled the conversation unfairly by demanding you use Catholic sources, here's an idea.  Take your original post and post it at Catholic Answers  http://www.catholic.com.  Really, please try it.   Let us know the results.

Quote:
Quote:Anyhow, I'll keep watching you and voxp run in circles trying to outthink the Doctrine and come up with a better argument.  It's tilting at a windmill, though.  If they don't listen to the CDF saying "no homosexual priests" they sure as heck aren't going to listen to you with your inconsistent and inscrutable arguments.  I'll just add color commentary from time to time.

Carry on.

You do that, sir.  Have a great Lord's Day and pray for us neo-heretics and quasi-protestants.   ;D

Great, and you can pray for us quasi-modernists.  :tiphat:


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-27-2011

LOL!  I'm banned for life from Catholic Answers!  :laughing:

Hey brother, no hard feelings.  I've really enjoyed our exchanges (and those of all those intrepid souls who waded into this wild one) and can truly say I have learned something from you and the others who post here.  I'm in a desert with VERY few trads around, although most NO Catholics in the military barely know that there is such a thing as tradition (in this sense).  So this is my refuge, a virtual community. 

Sincerely, may the Lord bless you tomorrow and always,
Johnny


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-27-2011

Yeah, no hard feelings.  An Ave for you and your family and your brothers in arms.  :pray:

P.S.  CAF bans everyone eventually.  :laughing:


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 02-27-2011

I
(02-26-2011, 11:40 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: The problem here is many have violated a simple rule of thumb Catholic Johnny included....................... K-I-S-S
Keep it simple stupid
Johnny was trying to say I believe (and I fully concur with) that there is no such thing as a "homosexual person" and even the term homosexual is a misnomer and neologism. And therefore a homosexual person can no more be a Christian then could  a unicorn.
The second point which showed its apparent truth in the way this thread played out.....that by inserting the term homosexual persons into the teaching documents on the subject a modernist time bomb was put in place. While many here at FE are well informed and strong enough catholics to be able to cull a orthodox meaning to the term homosexual persons be it on the basis of simple practicality so as to use modern words, or an appeal to common sense,etc...you have forgotten that FE posters are the exception. The Vast majority of people who are the face of modern catholicism will read the term homosexual persons and homosexual in the way the worldlings read it, as a special class of person who can not be justly discriminated against. And men who glom on to this term in its worldy meaning will gladly present themselves as worthy of the priesthood as any other TYPE of person. No need to deny who you are, or even who you were, you are simply a homosexual person. Just like the funny guys on that TV show you and your friends love so much, or that great pop singer whos songs you have enjoyed your whole life.
Catholic Johnny over reached ...so what...his motives were Catholic
Many of you over reacted to him or his argumentation....so what...your motives were Catholic
BUT THE SWINE who invented and inserted the term homosexual persons into the teaching lexicon of Holy Mother Church...well their motives were TO SOW DISCORD AND CONFUSION which this thread clearly shows...worked.
KISS conclusion?
The term Homosexul persons (and all its loaded implications)
and the term homosexual
need to be expunged from the lexicon of the Church
IMO
I repost this quis because im not twisting anything. This is the point.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-28-2011

I'm past done with this conversation to be honest with you.  Maybe someone with more patience than I have can decipher the problems here for you.