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 - voxxpopulisuxx - 03-05-2011

(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?
Ive been sloppy with my terms.
And so you keep equating all lusts
Which makes sense.
Homosodomitic sexual desire is not the same as normal sexual attraction or do you hold all sexual desire is lust.
My position is that somthing happens in the childs latency period that triggers the devient desire, sexual abuse, abuse in general;  abandonment neglect, over baring parent etc...or a sodomite initiates and seduceses them.
Concupisense And original sin leave us open to sin
But it does not cause us to sin as far as I can deduce from common sense.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 03-06-2011

(03-05-2011, 11:43 PM)voxpopulisuxx 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?
Ive been sloppy with my terms.
And so you keep equating all lusts
Which makes sense.

No, I don't equate them, but they do all fall under lust.

Quote:Homosodomitic sexual desire is not the same as normal sexual attraction or do you hold all sexual desire is lust.

I hold that all inordinate sexual desire is lust, and that most sexual desire resides in concupisence.

Quote:My position is that somthing happens in the childs latency period that triggers the devient desire, sexual abuse, abuse in general;   abandonment neglect, over baring parent etc...or a sodomite initiates and seduceses them.

I've heard that theory before, but there are several problems with that to explain all homosexuals. It may explain some, even a large percentage, but not all.  First, not everyone who is sexually or otherwise abused has same-sex attraction issues.  Second, not everyone who is a homosexual has been subjected to that type of stuff.

Quote:Concupisense And original sin leave us open to sin
But it does not cause us to sin as far as I can deduce from common sense.

It doesn't cause us to sin, because sin is an act of the will, but it make us tend toward sin.  St. Thomas described it as us being like a pile of wood and the Fall drying us out, making us inflammable.  All it takes is a spark if we're not careful.

So, looking at it this way, can you see that all tendency to sin is rooted in the fall, including unnatural sexual acts?  In other words, if it weren't for the fall, we wouldn't be susceptible to lust, natural or unnatural.  It may be that a particular even triggers the unnatural desire, but the fact we are susceptible to these things comes from Original Sin.

Here is the actual quote from St. Thomas:

Quote:I answer that, One thing can be the cause of another in two ways; directly and indirectly. Indirectly as when an agent is the cause of a disposition to a certain effect, it is said to be the occasional and indirect cause of that effect: for instance, we might say that he who dries the wood is the cause of the wood burning. In this way we must admit that the devil is the cause of all our sins; because he it was who instigated the first man to sin, from whose sin there resulted a proneness to sin in the whole human race: and in this sense we must take the words of Damascene and Dionysius.

But a thing is said to be the direct cause of something, when its action tends directly thereunto. And in this way the devil is not the cause of every sin: for all sins are not committed at the devil's instigation, but some are due to the free-will and the corruption of the flesh. For, as Origen says (Peri Archon iii), even if there were no devil, men would have the desire for food and love and such like pleasures; with regard to which many disorders may arise unless those desires are curbed by reason, especially if we presuppose the corruption of our natures. Now it is in the power of the free-will to curb this appetite and keep it in order. Consequently there is no need for all sins to be due to the instigation of the devil. But those sins which are due thereto man perpetrates "through being deceived by the same blandishments as were our first parents," as Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii).

Presented that way, do you agree or not, and if not, why not?




Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Bakuryokuso - 03-06-2011

(03-05-2011, 11:43 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Homosodomitic

:dictionary:



Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 03-06-2011

(03-06-2011, 01:00 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(03-05-2011, 11:43 PM)voxpopulisuxx 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?
Ive been sloppy with my terms.
And so you keep equating all lusts
Which makes sense.

No, I don't equate them, but they do all fall under lust.

Quote:Homosodomitic sexual desire is not the same as normal sexual attraction or do you hold all sexual desire is lust.

I hold that all inordinate sexual desire is lust, and that most sexual desire resides in concupisence.

Quote:My position is that somthing happens in the childs latency period that triggers the devient desire, sexual abuse, abuse in general;   abandonment neglect, over baring parent etc...or a sodomite initiates and seduceses them.

I've heard that theory before, but there are several problems with that to explain all homosexuals. It may explain some, even a large percentage, but not all.   First, not everyone who is sexually or otherwise abused has same-sex attraction issues.  Second, not everyone who is a homosexual has been subjected to that type of stuff.

Quote:Concupisense And original sin leave us open to sin
But it does not cause us to sin as far as I can deduce from common sense.

It doesn't cause us to sin, because sin is an act of the will, but it make us tend toward sin.   St. Thomas described it as us being like a pile of wood and the Fall drying us out, making us inflammable.  All it takes is a spark if we're not careful.

So, looking at it this way, can you see that all tendency to sin is rooted in the fall, including unnatural sexual acts?  In other words, if it weren't for the fall, we wouldn't be susceptible to lust, natural or unnatural.  It may be that a particular even triggers the unnatural desire, but the fact we are susceptible to these things comes from Original Sin.

Here is the actual quote from St. Thomas:

Quote:I answer that, One thing can be the cause of another in two ways; directly and indirectly. Indirectly as when an agent is the cause of a disposition to a certain effect, it is said to be the occasional and indirect cause of that effect: for instance, we might say that he who dries the wood is the cause of the wood burning. In this way we must admit that the devil is the cause of all our sins; because he it was who instigated the first man to sin, from whose sin there resulted a proneness to sin in the whole human race: and in this sense we must take the words of Damascene and Dionysius.

But a thing is said to be the direct cause of something, when its action tends directly thereunto. And in this way the devil is not the cause of every sin: for all sins are not committed at the devil's instigation, but some are due to the free-will and the corruption of the flesh. For, as Origen says (Peri Archon iii), even if there were no devil, men would have the desire for food and love and such like pleasures; with regard to which many disorders may arise unless those desires are curbed by reason, especially if we presuppose the corruption of our natures. Now it is in the power of the free-will to curb this appetite and keep it in order. Consequently there is no need for all sins to be due to the instigation of the devil. But those sins which are due thereto man perpetrates "through being deceived by the same blandishments as were our first parents," as Isidore says (De Summo Bono ii).

Presented that way, do you agree or not, and if not, why not?
i absolutly aggree with that
I do not however aggree that some people just naturally have homosodomitic desires without some kind of outside influence or trauma.  It is unproven by both of us because you say that some people with this deviency have had no outside influence and still have this unnatural desire. That just doesnt make sense. Concupisense leaves open to abuse our natural desires but it does'nt introduce us to completely foreign desires to our nature.
Useing St Thomas's pile of wood, were all born with this pile of wood. Homosodomy is adding thermite to the pile.
What it comes down to is God created us and gave us the normal craving for food, gluttony for food is the result of our actions made possible by original sin. But if I hungered for broken glass something unnatural has entered the equation. That what im thinking. What do you think.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - justlurking - 03-06-2011

I think homosexuality is a cerebral issue because I notice in homosexuals certain non sexual tendencies, certain over representations of them in certain areas that can't be explained with conspiracies or calling it deliberated behaviour


For example, I am sure that if I go to the Opera to watch Madame Butterfly or Carmen, homosexuals in the audience will be extremely over represented in comparison to the real % of homosexuals in the regular population of the country.

Like that I can think of many other things, and I don't think they read some book on how to be a stereotypical homosexual. Basically, homosexuality affects them beyond their sexuality.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Marc - 03-06-2011

(03-06-2011, 01:30 PM)justlurking Wrote: For example, I am sure that if I go to the Opera to watch Madame Butterfly or Carmen, homosexuals in the audience will be extremely over represented in comparison to the real % of homosexuals in the regular population of the country.

Maybe so. Only there is nothing gay about Madama Butterfly. Carmen maybe. But not Madama Butterfly... :huh-uh:


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - frerejacques - 03-06-2011

(03-06-2011, 04:14 PM)Marc Wrote:
(03-06-2011, 01:30 PM)justlurking Wrote: For example, I am sure that if I go to the Opera to watch Madame Butterfly or Carmen, homosexuals in the audience will be extremely over represented in comparison to the real % of homosexuals in the regular population of the country.

Maybe so. Only there is nothing gay about Madama Butterfly. Carmen maybe. But not Madama Butterfly... :huh-uh:

Carmen's not gay, it's Spanish.  The gayest opera ever (so far) is Britten's Death in Venice. 


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 03-06-2011

this thread is swerving madly


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 03-06-2011

(03-06-2011, 08:09 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: I do not however aggree that some people just naturally have homosodomitic desires without some kind of outside influence or trauma.  It is unproven by both of us because you say that some people with this deviency have had no outside influence and still have this unnatural desire. That just doesnt make sense. Concupisense leaves open to abuse our natural desires but it does'nt introduce us to completely foreign desires to our nature.

I don't necessarily agree.  St. Thomas says this as well:

Quote:Objection 3. Further, lust regards acts directed to human generation, as stated above (Question 153, Article 2): Whereas the unnatural vice concerns acts from which generation cannot follow. Therefore the unnatural vice is not a species of lust.

Reply to Objection 3. The lustful man intends not human generation but venereal pleasures. It is possible to have this without those acts from which human generation follows: and it is that which is sought in the unnatural vice.

In other words, concupisence causes the desire for venereal pleasures whether natural or unnatural.  Some people seek these pleasures in an unnatural way such as sodomy, masturbation, etc.

Quote:Useing St Thomas's pile of wood, were all born with this pile of wood. Homosodomy is adding thermite to the pile.
What it comes down to is God created us and gave us the normal craving for food, gluttony for food is the result of our actions made possible by original sin. But if I hungered for broken glass something unnatural has entered the equation. That what im thinking. What do you think.

I think you have a good solid point there, but I don't know if the conclusion is the necessary one.  For example, biological misfunction can cause people to want to eat glass (or dirt - ever hear of dirt-eaters?).  In this sense, people can be "born this way" in that they have a birth defect.  Some of the other things you point out as an event go to psychological trauma.

All those things, those problems such as biological and psychological, are still rooted in original sin.  The fact that we suffer disease, etc., all go back to original sin.  How falling to the tendencies of original sin is different in different people: lying, fornication, sodomy, bestiality, masturbation, etc. given their particular personalities, disposition to grace, strength of will, etc.  But they all come from original sin.

Again, my position is the cause is irrelevant.  Certain acts are forbidden and always sinful.  It doesn't matter the cause of the desire; we still can't do them.  But it's not inherently a sin to have a tendency towards certain acts.  It's the unfortunate reality of our fallen nature, and some people have tendencies towards graver things such as sodomy.  They have a bigger burden to bear and it's more important that they resist because that sin is graver than lying or what-have-you.



Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 03-06-2011

(03-06-2011, 06:08 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: this thread is swerving madly

It's Fish Eaters. What did you expect?  :laughing: