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 - 02-20-2011

Catholic Johnny: Do you still stand by the statement that a homosexual cant be a christian, or do you wish to make the Statement more precise?( such as homosexual-ITY and Christian-ITY cannot be practiced at the same time)
And do you reject the teaching that a person is a priest forever once anointed as such by proper authority.

And can a wicked priest confect the sacraments within his authority as priest.?

And do you have any personal bias against homosexual priests, or homosexuals?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-20-2011

(02-20-2011, 05:36 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Very interesting thread.
Quis and Johnny.
Ive been tracking both sides and I have questions for both to keep this going (of course you dont have to answer)
I tend to side with Johnny so far even though it is hard because I am biased in Quis' favor as a general rule.

Johnny: Do you still stand by the statement that a homosexual cant be a christian, or do you wish to make the Statement more precise?( such as homosexual-ITY and Christian-ITY cannot be practiced at the same time)
And do you reject the teaching that a person is a priest forever once anointed as such by proper authority.

And can a wicked priest confect the sacraments within his authority as priest.?

And do you have any personal bias against homosexual priests, or homosexuals?

1.  Yes, and let me explain.  My thesis is intentionally provocative, mainly because Catholics have uncritically swallowed a decidedly Modernist convention on this issue.  A crude syllogism:
a.  A homosexual, that is, one who self-identifies as a same-sex oriented person, is 'deeply disordered' in his affective life.
b.  The New Testament (NT) clearly teaches that homosexuals cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
c.  The New Birth in Christ infuses the soul with grace and makes us new creatures.
d.  Christians are called to conversion (Eph.4:21-24 and see my above reply to Quis).
e.  God commands all men everywhere to repent (Acts 17:30).  Homosexuals must repent.  If this is not possible, God is cruel.
f.   Repentance = renunciation of sin and the mortification of the sinful nature.  It also includes putting on the new man renewed by grace in Christ.
g. Choosing to self-identify as a homosexual person is a capitulation to deep-seated concupiscience and a denial of the properties inherent in the new birth.
h. Denial of the properties of the new birth is a resistance of grace.
i.  The individual person may not be culpable for this as it flows from unsound doctrine.

2. In my judgment it is uncharitable to consign such a person to permanent status as a homosexual person.  It deprives them of the hope of full conversion and complete renewal of the mind.  It denies the possibility of a complete healing of nature.  It also creates a category of personage unknown in the Catholic Church until the 1980s.  This artificial creation of homosexual personhood (and the notion that he may be chaste but still homosexual) has been ruthlessly exploited by Modernists for two generations. 

No discussion of this complex topic should ignore or minimalize St. Paul's teaching in Romans 1 about intellectual depravity.  The homosexual mind is ravaged by an abuse of conscience, nature and sins against reason.  The renewal of the mind in men (and women) whom have fallen prey to this diabolical condition is a very, very difficult process requiring intense discipleship, education, spiritual formation, mortification, and encouragement.  It is selling out to sin to admit that because it is difficult it is therefore impossible.  "There is a kind that goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." (Mt. 17:20)

3.  I am not convinced that ordaining someone to the Priesthood who is not even a Christian is a valid ordination.  That is ludicrous prima facie.

4.  Sacraments operate ex opere operata - by virtue of the operation - and as such are not dependent on the worthiness of the celebrant.  However, the sin of scandal can destroy faith in Christ's work in and through the sacramental economy, and this is a very grave evil.

5.  I have a personal bias against Satan and his apostles, the Modernists.  Recall that Pope St. Pius X, the only Pope canonized in the last 500 years called Modernism "the synthesis of all heresies" that "annhilates all religion." (Pascendi Dominici Gregis)  We cannot take this lightly if we are to be alert and sober Soldiers for Christ in these wicked times.  I cannot think of a more effective way to destroy the Roman Catholic Church than to corrupt its holy priesthood by the infiltration of reprobate men who are not even converted.

Shalom in Christ,
cj


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-20-2011, 10:38 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-20-2011, 10:18 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-20-2011, 05:36 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Quis: Do you think people are born with homosexual tendency's?

My personal opinion is that it is a mixed bag.  Some people are born that way, others come to be that through their environment, and for others it's a kink or fetish.  I don't think there is a single reason people are attracted to the same sex.

Quote:And do you have a personal bias you wish to reveal  that might make it hard for you to concede certain points? (ie / a friend , acquaintance or family member who self Identifys as a homosexual)

I know people who identify as homosexual but they aren't close friends - more like acquaintances.  As far as in the family, no, I don't know anyone who is - not in the immediate family, cousins, etc.

To answer your quesiton, I don't think that biases me any more than the fact I know people who are Protestants, thieves, Zoroastrians, liars, etc.  Right is right, wrong is wrong, and Catholic theology is what it is.  We can't make the theology say what we want to fit our own biases.
fair enough, so then those you say are born with these desires are made by God that way, therefore having sex with their own gender is no sin?

No, I would not say that.  First of all, that would be heresy.  Secondly, to use a similar example, being born horny doesn't make lust not a sin, does it?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-20-2011, 10:41 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
Quote:Why would St. Paul be condemning homosexual behavior twice?  I.e., "effeminate" and "liers with mankind"?  He's not.

Yes he is.  Effeminate refers to those who are passive in the sodomitic act (receive penile penetration) and liers with mankind refers to those who are active (perpetrate the penetration).  

First, that's ridiculous.  To justify that, you would have to assuming that St. Paul is thinking someone is going to split hairs and claim it's OK to take it but not to give it if he left out "effeminate".

Quote:The Fathers you quote do not deny this; they go further into the causes of this perversion in perfect agreement with St. Paul's doctrine in Romans 1 that the rejection of God in the mind leads to depravity of life.  This also agrees with the Lord's proclamation through the Prophet Ezekiel on the causes of the outrageous perversions in Sodom and Gomorrah:

The Fathers I quote do not deny homosexual acts are sinful, no.  But they use effeminate to mean other than that, don't they?  Or does wearing fine clothes only apply to homosexuals?

Quote:
Quote:"Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom thy sister, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and to the poor. [50] And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me: and I took them away as thou hast seen."  Ez. 16:49-50

Douay-Rheims Bible alsoadds this commentary:
[49] "This was the iniquity of Sodom"... That is, these were the steps by which the Sodomites came to fall into those abominations for which they were destroyed. For pride, gluttony, and idleness are the highroad to all kinds of lust; especially when they are accompanied with a neglect of the works of mercy.

Surely you won't argue that the men of Sodom were not depraved homosexuals!

We're not talking about Ezechial, we're talking about 1 Cor.  There is no dispute that sodomitical acts are condemned in the Bible.  That's not the question.  The question is does the Protestant translation you are using to argue your point reconcile with Catholic teaching on what effeminate means.  The answer is that it doesn't.

Quote:In any event, it is the New Birth in Christ that is the issue here.
"If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus: To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who ...is corrupted according to the desire of error. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth." Eph.4:21-24

How can the new man created by God in justice and holiness of truth be defined by a proclivity to mortal sin? And what is the renewing of the mind?

That's a different topic.  We need to finish with 1 Corinthians first.  You clearly don't understand what is meant by "effeminate".

First of all, the Latin word used, molles, has nothing inherent to do with homosexuality.  Second, if you look in a dictionary the English word effeminate doesn't mean homosexual either.  It means:

: having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
: marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement <effeminate art> <an effeminate civilization>

Which is exactly how the Church Fathers use it and how St. Thomas uses it.  It means being unmanly or delicate.  I.e., "molles" - soft or womanly.

The other problem with your argument using 1 Cor is that even if you are correct, which you aren't, you state that the sins are tied to acts.

Catholic Johnny Wrote:Effeminate refers to those who are passive in the sodomitic act (receive penile penetration) and liers with mankind refers to those who are active (perpetrate the penetration).

By your own definition, no act, no sin.  If someone isn't taking it from or giving it to another guy they are neither effeminate or liers with men according to your definition, right?

I would also like to answer your challenge about "homosexual persons" appearing before 1988, but you need to answer my question:

Quis Wrote:do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?  Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?





Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-21-2011

(02-20-2011, 11:30 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: As far as "homosexual persons", before we go into what I believe is an unnecessarily labored interpretation of the phrase on your part,  do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?  Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?

By all means, please do.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

Quote:3.  I am not convinced that ordaining someone to the Priesthood who is not even a Christian is a valid ordination.  That is ludicrous prima facie.

Define "not a Christian".  Do you mean not baptized, or baptized and apostatized?  I'm sure you're willing to admit that baptism is indelible.


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Historian - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 12:52 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-20-2011, 11:30 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: As far as "homosexual persons", before we go into what I believe is an unnecessarily labored interpretation of the phrase on your part,  do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?  Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?

By all means, please do.

I'd love to try if you'd answer my questions.

Do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?
Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 12:49 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-20-2011, 10:41 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
Quote:Why would St. Paul be condemning homosexual behavior twice?  I.e., "effeminate" and "liers with mankind"?  He's not.

Yes he is.  Effeminate refers to those who are passive in the sodomitic act (receive penile penetration) and liers with mankind refers to those who are active (perpetrate the penetration).  

First, that's ridiculous.  To justify that, you would have to assuming that St. Paul is thinking someone is going to split hairs and claim it's OK to take it but not to give it if he left out "effeminate".

[The Fathers I quote do not deny homosexual acts are sinful, no.  But they use effeminate to mean other than that, don't they?  Or does wearing fine clothes only apply to homosexuals?

We're not talking about Ezechial, we're talking about 1 Cor.   There is no dispute that sodomitical acts are condemned in the Bible.  That's not the question.  The question is does the Protestant translation you are using to argue your point reconcile with Catholic teaching on what effeminate means.  The answer is that it doesn't.

Quote:In any event, it is the New Birth in Christ that is the issue here.
"If so be that you have heard him, and have been taught in him, as the truth is in Jesus: To put off, according to former conversation, the old man, who ...is corrupted according to the desire of error. And be renewed in the spirit of your mind: And put on the new man, who according to God is created in justice and holiness of truth." Eph.4:21-24

How can the new man created by God in justice and holiness of truth be defined by a proclivity to mortal sin? And what is the renewing of the mind?

That's a different topic.  We need to finish with 1 Corinthians first.  You clearly don't understand what is meant by "effeminate".

First of all, the Latin word used, molles, has nothing inherent to do with homosexuality.  Second, if you look in a dictionary the English word effeminate doesn't mean homosexual either.  It means:

: having feminine qualities untypical of a man : not manly in appearance or manner
: marked by an unbecoming delicacy or overrefinement <effeminate art> <an effeminate civilization>

Which is exactly how the Church Fathers use it and how St. Thomas uses it.  It means being unmanly or delicate.  I.e., "molles" - soft or womanly.

The other problem with your argument using 1 Cor is that even if you are correct, which you aren't, you state that the sins are tied to acts.

Catholic Johnny Wrote:Effeminate refers to those who are passive in the sodomitic act (receive penile penetration) and liers with mankind refers to those who are active (perpetrate the penetration).

By your own definition, no act, no sin.  If someone isn't taking it from or giving it to another guy they are neither effeminate or liers with men according to your definition, right?

I would also like to answer your challenge about "homosexual persons" appearing before 1988, but you need to answer my question:

Quis Wrote:do you want me to find a pre-1986 use of the word homosexual in Catholic theology, or the exact phrase "homosexual persons"?  Since the word homosexual didn't even really exist before the late 1800's, can I find equivalent phrases such as "sodomitical person", or would those not count?

LOL, OK, you continue to strengthen my argument, Quis.   :laughing:
If you wish to define molle in accordance with the body of quotes you supplied, you actually widen the scope of those acts and persons who are condemned in 1 Cor. 6:9-11.   For by your own definitions it is not merely those who practice sodomitical acts but also those who betray their God-given sexual nature by an exaggerated effeminate affectation.  And then the passage immediately refers to liers with mankind (an obvious referral to Lev. 18:22) - which is explicit:
Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

and St. Paul, condemning both acts and persons:
Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.  Rom. 1:32 D-R

Quote:The other problem with your argument using 1 Cor is that even if you are correct, which you aren't, you state that the sins are tied to acts.
You are just being obstinate now, Quis.  How then can St. Paul say in the Spirit of Christ, "such were some of you" (identity) and not "such did some of you (acts) if he is only referring to acts and not identity?

You are obscuring the entire construction of the NT doctrine of the new birth and conversion.  How can a new creation "be" a "homosexual person"?  This either makes God the author of sin in natural creation or Christ the author of sin in the new creation, both concepts that are untenable for a Roman Catholic.






Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - Catholic Johnny - 02-21-2011

(02-21-2011, 01:07 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
Quote:3.  I am not convinced that ordaining someone to the Priesthood who is not even a Christian is a valid ordination.  That is ludicrous prima facie.
Define "not a Christian".  Do you mean not baptized, or baptized and apostatized?  I'm sure you're willing to admit that baptism is indelible.

1.  That baptized persons can apostasize need not be addressed here. 
2.  No one can be a Christian who is not converted, which is to say, made a new creature in Christ through the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the spirit (Titus 3:5).  Individuals who persist in mortal sins should not be considered in a state of grace.  To self-identify as a homosexual person is a denial of the properties of the new birth and a resistance of grace.  Again, the individual in this circumstance may not be fully culpable as it flows from unsound doctrine.
3.  Do not exclude the neccesity of Faith for the baptized:
He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.  Mark 16:16


Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - voxxpopulisuxx - 02-21-2011

Are you saying Babys baptisms dont count Catholic Johnny?