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 - Aragon - 02-28-2011

(02-27-2011, 11:58 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: 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.

I'm interested to know why some people take issue with the term "homosexual". Do you object to the term "heterosexual"? Both are just words that describe the sexual inclinations of a person.


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

Its a agitprop word. Created (like the term pro-choice, or even abortion) to soften undermine and legitimize what should be instead castigated and despised activity.
The term Hetero-sexual is a redundency and created as a bookend to homosexual. If hetero sexual is normal (and of course it is), well then so is homosexual. Problem is, sexual can only refer to that which occurs between a man and a woman, if speaking of coitus. If speaking of gender, there is no other genders but female heterosexuals or male heterosexuals. Another way to look at it. If I told you I had a glass of wet water you'd think that was silly because what other kind of water can there be.



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

Umm, dry water, duh!!!!!


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

(02-28-2011, 10:28 AM)Melkite Wrote: Umm, dry water, duh!!!!!
lol cat-dog
gelatonous concrete


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Malleus Haereticorum - 03-01-2011

(02-28-2011, 12:40 AM)Aragon Wrote:
(02-27-2011, 11:58 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: 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.

I'm interested to know why some people take issue with the term "homosexual". Do you object to the term "heterosexual"? Both are just words that describe the sexual inclinations of a person.

I object to their use at all.  I am not DEFINED by my sexuality.  And no one is defined by an abomination.  My question would be - why the need at all to use terms such as these in a Catholic context?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 03-03-2011

I decided to drop into the fishtank, and I saw this topic on the forum.  I know I'm awfully late to the discussion, but I just wanted to say its the most absurd thing I've ever seen in my life.

I know priests in my diocese who are probably homosexual (although the ones who are still allowed to celebrate the Sacraments are chaste), and there are a few who have been caught in public and removed from public ministry.  I would say that most of the priests in any given diocese are heterosexual, and simply trying to live a chaste life like any Christian male.  Additionally, the Michael Rose-esque rumors that most of today's seminaries are infested with homosexuals and a secret pro-gay culture are patently false. (Although there was certainly such a culture in the past, but the priests I've talked to said that the majority of the seminarians in those days were not involved, and most of those that were involved subsequently left the priesthood). I live in a seminary, and I couldn't "out" ANY of my brothers with certainty (most likely because most are like my self, and heterosexual males simply trying to grow in virtue and learning how to integrate our ever-present sexuality into our lives before we take promises as deacons).

While its true that the Church doesn't ordain homosexuals, the Church's reasoning is not the reasoning that the OP uses.  The Church doesn't ordain homosexuals with deep-seated tendencies, because they couldn't relate well with men or women and assume proper spiritual fatherhood.  However, the OP seems to think there is something offensive about having disordered sexual tendencies in themselves that precludes one from ordination.  However, I'll tell you now, that all improper sexual tendencies (even heterosexual ones), are somewhat disordered from the way God wants us to be.  And I'll tell you now: Every heterosexual priest struggles with the same desires that heterosexual males do.  You don't magically become asexual on the day of your ordination, and if a priest has repressed his sexuality that much (and lives the life of a stoic), then I fear for that priest's vocation and am sorry for the people in his care.  John XXIII once addressed a large group of priests and cardinals, and  told them that: "We should be gentle with penitents who confess sexual sins, because know more than anybody the struggles with commandments six and nine."

And I suggest that the OP read up on Thomas Aquinas's account of virtue.  His posts seems to indicate that virtue is something that happens spontaneously (as if a true Christian would lose any and all sinful tendencies on the day of his conversion).  That ideal isn't situated in reality, and even Thomas was acutely aware of that.  Grace doesn't wipe out vice, it helps us slowly overcome it.  Your "traditional" teaching is foreign to how Catholics have understood the human person and morality (its certainly foreign to most people's experience of their own sexual struggles).

But of course, I don't know anything about the Thomas Aquinas or Catholicism, given the fact that I'm in a modern seminary, and therefore certainly a modernist...Regardless, I wish all my friends in the fish tank the best.  I ask for your prayers as I continue to discern my vocation.  (And continue to try to live a chaste life!  Just like all of you, whether married, single, or consecrated!  We're all together in that fight, and surely will be for the rest of our lives.) 

I also ask for your prayers as I work on my Masters Thesis.  I'm actually doing it on the Thomistic Renewal, and the problems that beset it after it was instituted.  I have this theory that the reason why so many priests from the 1960s rejected Thomism was because they were getting bad interpretations of Thomas in their manuals.  I think there's something to that.  Wish me luck, and I'll let you know the results of investigation (Ideally, I hope the paper can be published at some point down the road.)  If there are any neo-Thomists familiar with the subject who'd be interested in critiquing my work (and I only want people who could give me legitimate criticism, not ideology), then private message me, and I'll send you a copy of the paper for commentary once I turn out a rough draft.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Vetus Ordo - 03-03-2011

(03-03-2011, 03:40 AM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: But of course, I don't know anything about the Thomas Aquinas or Catholicism, given the fact that I'm in a modern seminary, and therefore certainly a modernist...

Victimhood doesn't suit you well.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Mithrandylan - 03-03-2011

Quote:I object to their use at all.  I am not DEFINED by my sexuality.  And no one is defined by an abomination.  My question would be - why the need at all to use terms such as these in a Catholic context?

What are you defined by?  Your race?  Your humanity?  Your religion?  As a child of God?  This sounds like some serious Rand-esque proposition- the denial of terms and colloquials simply because they don't make up 100% of the pie.

I mean, I agree we should not be <i>defined</i> by our sexuality.  Or our race.  There are many things we should not be defined by.  But does that mean we are not  X? 

If only for the sake of clarification and communication in discourse we should use these terms.  Most social and political issues revolve around X group not being treated fairly.  How do we then approach that subject if we can't call "X"  X?

I guess I'm not seeing how anyone is really being defined by anything here.  Unless when you say define you mean "referring to as" or "referring to oneself as."  But referring to someone as something isn't defining them.  Do you object to the term sodomite?  Adulterer?  Or to put it more plainly, do you object to the term "sinner?" 


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - James02 - 03-03-2011

Uh, this is the opposite of Rand, who was for precision, and  a great admirer of Aristotle and Aquinas.

Think of this statement: I won't let X "define" me.  What the heck does that mean?  It is a dadaism of the modern world.  A meaningless feel good phase. 

No, anyone using such language around Rand would probably have been slapped.  The term "homosexual" does not define someone.  It merely states that someone has a same-sex attraction.  That is all.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Malleus Haereticorum - 03-03-2011

(03-03-2011, 10:39 AM)Mithrandylan Wrote:
Quote:I object to their use at all.  I am not DEFINED by my sexuality.   And no one is defined by an abomination.  My question would be - why the need at all to use terms such as these in a Catholic context?

What are you defined by?  Your race?  Your humanity?  Your religion?  As a child of God?  This sounds like some serious Rand-esque proposition- the denial of terms and colloquials simply because they don't make up 100% of the pie.

I mean, I agree we should not be <i>defined</i> by our sexuality.  Or our race.  There are many things we should not be defined by.  But does that mean we are not  X? 

If only for the sake of clarification and communication in discourse we should use these terms.  Most social and political issues revolve around X group not being treated fairly.  How do we then approach that subject if we can't call "X"  X?

I guess I'm not seeing how anyone is really being defined by anything here.  Unless when you say define you mean "referring to as" or "referring to oneself as."  But referring to someone as something isn't defining them.  Do you object to the term sodomite?  Adulterer?  Or to put it more plainly, do you object to the term "sinner?" 

Look at the post that was submitted immediately after mine for your answer. The individual identifies a Priest as being a Homosexual.  Just how ludicrous is that.  And the point you then raise about identifying myself as a sinner - that I completely agree with.  Are we to glory in our sins or are we to glory in our repentance from them?  Which gives honor to GOD and which gives scandal to neighbor.  To me - its a fundamental issue.

As for how you deal with sin and with sinners - are we to not abide by any morality or are we to take a position.  Certainly if being politically correct is more important than being moral - then use the term.  We are taught to hate the sin but to love the sinner.  In my view - no one is identified by their sexuality.  We are all children of GOD.  If in civil society , a segment wishes to be identified by Sin - then they are a scandal to the rest of society.  The mere fact that they choose scandal for their moniker and then whine about the ramifications of choosing that title for themselves is part of the problem.  Why then are we forced to use their terminology?  Is it simply because they insist on it?  It is for that reason , I object to it.  I too can insist that the terminology not be a scandal to my children who likewise share this society.  Why do their rights supercede my right to adhere to the teachings of my religion as guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution?