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 - 03-04-2011

(03-04-2011, 02:24 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: There is a difference between actual sin and original sin. Meaning no one can avoid original sin. Everyone can avoid devient sexual behavior. The behavior causes the homosexual lust not the other way around.

So, you're saying homosexual lust only results from acts, but heterosexual (i.e., normal) lust only results from original sin?  It that it?

If so, my question still stands:

Quote:Do you have a theological citation for that?  If not, what are you basing your belief that original sin, the fall from grace, is not part of all sin?

My counterargument, if that's your contention, is that it seems to me that Church teaching is all sin comes from our fallen nature, and that would include even unnatural acts such as masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, etc.  St. Thomas (ST II-II Q 154) argues that unnatural lust is a species of lust, and lust obviously comes from our fallen nature, therefore, I would argue, so do unnatural acts and lust.

Self-abuse is an unnatural act.  Do you think that comes from our fallen nature or from behavior?  If you say from fallen nature, what makes sodomy special since both are unnatural acts?  How would you answer St. Thomas?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Malleus Haereticorum - 03-04-2011

(03-04-2011, 04:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-04-2011, 02:24 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: There is a difference between actual sin and original sin. Meaning no one can avoid original sin. Everyone can avoid devient sexual behavior. The behavior causes the homosexual lust not the other way around.

So, you're saying homosexual lust only results from acts, but heterosexual (i.e., normal) lust only results from original sin?  It that it?

If so, my question still stands:

Quote:Do you have a theological citation for that?  If not, what are you basing your belief that original sin, the fall from grace, is not part of all sin?

My counterargument, if that's your contention, is that it seems to me that Church teaching is all sin comes from our fallen nature, and that would include even unnatural acts such as masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, etc.  St. Thomas (ST II-II Q 154) argues that unnatural lust is a species of lust, and lust obviously comes from our fallen nature, therefore, I would argue, so do unnatural acts and lust.

Self-abuse is an unnatural act.  Do you think that comes from our fallen nature or from behavior?  If you say from fallen nature, what makes sodomy special since both are unnatural acts?  How would you answer St. Thomas?

Well the answer lies in the guilt of actual sin , rather than in our propensity to sin due to Original sin.  Yes , we all have a fallen human nature - but we also have the Grace of GOD in sufficient measure to overcome that fallen human nature.  As no man is tempted beyond his strength.  Like it or not all sin remains a willful act against the morality of GOD.    So all sin actually comes from our refusal of GOD's sufficient grace and that temptation is possible because of our fallen human nature.  Lust remains a temptation and if given in to willfully  then a Sin.    But no man is tempted beyond hisa strength.  That is key.  If that were not true - we would not face judgement day.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 03-04-2011

(03-04-2011, 04:53 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote:
(03-04-2011, 04:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-04-2011, 02:24 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: There is a difference between actual sin and original sin. Meaning no one can avoid original sin. Everyone can avoid devient sexual behavior. The behavior causes the homosexual lust not the other way around.

So, you're saying homosexual lust only results from acts, but heterosexual (i.e., normal) lust only results from original sin?  It that it?

If so, my question still stands:

Quote:Do you have a theological citation for that?  If not, what are you basing your belief that original sin, the fall from grace, is not part of all sin?

My counterargument, if that's your contention, is that it seems to me that Church teaching is all sin comes from our fallen nature, and that would include even unnatural acts such as masturbation, sodomy, bestiality, etc.  St. Thomas (ST II-II Q 154) argues that unnatural lust is a species of lust, and lust obviously comes from our fallen nature, therefore, I would argue, so do unnatural acts and lust.

Self-abuse is an unnatural act.  Do you think that comes from our fallen nature or from behavior?  If you say from fallen nature, what makes sodomy special since both are unnatural acts?  How would you answer St. Thomas?

Well the answer lies in the guilt of actual sin , rather than in our propensity to sin due to Original sin.   Yes , we all have a fallen human nature - but we also have the Grace of GOD in sufficient measure to overcome that fallen human nature.   As no man is tempted beyond his strength.   Like it or not all sin remains a willful act against the morality of GOD.    So all sin actually comes from our refusal of GOD's sufficient grace and that temptation is possible because of our fallen human nature.   Lust remains a temptation and if given in to willfully  then a Sin.    But no man is tempted beyond hisa strength.   That is key.   If that were not true - we would not face judgement day.

Well, I was asking voxp, but OK, we can have another parallel debate besides the one we are having.

Quote:Well the answer lies in the guilt of actual sin

The answer to what?  Here are the questions I asked:

Quote:If not, what are you basing your belief that original sin, the fall from grace, is not part of all sin?
Do you think that comes from our fallen nature or from behavior?
If you say from fallen nature, what makes sodomy special since both are unnatural acts?
How would you answer St. Thomas?

I don't see you answering any of those.  Your statement is a pious commentary on nothing being talked about; it's a random commentary on grace being able to overcome our sinful natures.

The questions I asked go to voxp's distinction between the sin of sodomy and other sins including other unnatural acts.  Namely his statements:

The behavior causes the homosexual lust not the other way around.
The willingness to engage in Sodomitic acts is not part of original sin. The sin of theft or anger is.


I believe they are theologically erroneous, I have stated why, and I asked him to answer my questions in defense of his statements.

If you want to answer those questions, that would be interesting.  Even if you don't want to answer questions, but make a statement on the nature of sodomy vs. other sins, at least it would be relevant.  What you offered is nothing more than a regurgitation of the Catechism on the efficacy of grace.  It's just a soliloquy that's being done out of context.



Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 03-04-2011

It may be helpful to look at tradition here.  In reply #164 http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3436552.160.html I provided several quotes from the Fathers and previous Popes on the subject of clergy who behaved this way while under orders.   The ancients spoke of this as "the sin against nature" which I find consistent with both the Sacred Scriptures and tradition.  That is precisely the way St. Paul describes it in Romans 1 where he condemns the acts, the desires and those that approve the same.  "Same sex attraction" is a 20th century euphemism with zero mooring in tradition.   "Sin against nature" defines it as a double trespass, that is to say, a trespass of the moral law and a trespass of nature itself. 

No such category as "homosexual persons" exists in tradition.  We have "liers with mankind" (1 Cor. 6:9, D-R) which is a reference to Lev. 18:22 which cites this sin as "an abomination." 

Now magnify this trespass exponentially for one who knowingly submits himself for orders, and multiply THAT for his ordinary (Aquinas).  And we wonder how the Church could have been co-opted by its enemies from within!


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 03-05-2011

If I may, vox may be referring to process whereby cultivation of unnatural desires through habitual sin leads to moral depravity and a frustration of true repentance.  St. Paul explicitly refers to the sin against nature in Romans 1 when he refers to it leading to depravity:

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents
, Rom. 1:26-30

Douay-Rheims commentary on this passage:

[26] "God delivered them up"... Not by being author of their sins, but by withdrawing his grace, and so permitting them, in punishment of their pride, to fall into those shameful sins.

"Reprobate sense" here along with similar citations (ie, "darkened hearts") must not be taken as the ordinary hardness of heart that is the state of every person that rejects the grace of God.  Reprobate refers to a failure, a rejection of reason, eg, that which even nature teaches us. 

Cardinal Biffi takes this position as well:

The word of God, as we know it in a page of the letter to the Romans by the apostle Paul, offers us on the contrary a theological interpretation of the rampant cultural aberration in this matter [homosexuality]: such an aberration – the sacred text affirms – is at the same time the proof and the result of the exclusion of God from the collective attention and from social life, and of the refusal to give him the glory that he is due (cf. Romans 1:21).

The exclusion of the Creator determines a universal derailing of reason: "They became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:21-22). The result of this intellectual blindness was a fall, in both theory and practice, into the most complete dissoluteness: "Therefore, God handed them over to impurity through the lusts of their hearts for the mutual degradation of their bodies" (Romans 1:24).

And to prevent any misunderstanding and any accommodating interpretation, the apostle proceeds with a startling analysis, formulated in perfectly explicit terms:

"Therefore, God handed them over to degrading passions. Their females exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the males likewise gave up natural relations with females and burned with lust for one another. Males did shameful things with males and thus received in their own persons the due penalty for their perversity. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God handed them over to their undiscerning mind to do what is improper" (Romans 1:26-28).

Finally, Paul takes pains to observe that the greatest abjection takes place when "the authors of these things . . . not only do them but give approval to those who practice them" (cf. Romans 1:32).

It is a page of the inspired book, which no earthly authority can force us to censor. Nor are we permitted, if we want to be faithful to the word of God, the pusillanimity of passing over it in silence out of concern not to appear "politically incorrect."

We must on the contrary point out the singular interest for our days of this teaching of Revelation: what St. Paul revealed as taking place in the Greco-Roman world is shown to correspond prophetically to what has taken place in Western culture in these last centuries. The exclusion of the Creator – to the point of proclaiming grotesquely, a few decades ago, the "death of God" – has had the result (almost like an intrinsic punishment) of the spread of an aberrant view of sexuality, unknown (in its arrogance) to previous eras.

The ideology of homosexuality – as often happens to ideologies when they become aggressive and end up being politically triumphant – becomes a threat to our legitimate autonomy of thought: those who do not share it risk condemnation to a kind of cultural and social marginalization
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345582?eng=y  (emphasis mine)


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 03-05-2011

Are you still here?  I thought we parted ways.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Melkite - 03-05-2011

(03-04-2011, 02:24 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: There is a difference between actual sin and original sin. Meaning no one can avoid original sin. Everyone can avoid devient sexual behavior. The behavior causes the homosexual lust not the other way around.

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard.  Who'd tap another guy's ass if he wasn't lusting after it first?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 03-05-2011

(03-05-2011, 01:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Are you still here?  I thought we parted ways.

Does this mean I am disinvited from the FE Forum? 


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 03-05-2011




Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 03-05-2011

(03-05-2011, 08:24 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(03-05-2011, 01:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Are you still here?  I thought we parted ways.

Does this mean I am disinvited from the FE Forum? 

No, not at all.  The PM you sent me gave me the impression you were leaving.  I was just confuzzled.