There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-21-2011, 05:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:08 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.
,

You've answered your won question. Homosexuality is an act of the will,a sin, a thing and not a state existential ontology....

Going back to basics, let's look up what the word homosexual means:

http://m-w.com
of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

That's all it means.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It doesn't mean someone acts on it or is their sine-qua-non.  It means they have sexual desires towards members of the same sex.

And this relates to "homosexual persons" and why I think it was used, but we aren't that far in the discussion yet.  At least I'm not.  I'm trying to get Johnny Catholic to stop using Protestant sources.
this your opinion and a cherry picked definition with all due respect.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:14 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:10 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 10:22 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: Re: 1 Corinthinas 6:10, a very simple and practical translation from the Koine Greek:

ADULTERERS,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G3120
μαλακοι
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES AS WOMEN,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G733
αρσενοκοιται
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MEN,

http://christianisrael.freevar.com/1+Corinthians+6:9

:deadhorse:

Stop using Protestant sources and we won't have to beat the horse.

We have a Doctor of the Church explaining that the effeminacy referred to is a strike against perseverance.  We have the fact that St. Jerome used molles instead of effeminati.  We have the fact that malakos when used elsewhere in the NT is referring to fine clothing and a delicate lifestyle.

Why do you want to reject Catholic commentary on the passage and cling to Protestant interpretation?

Are you an ex-Protestant?
Ad Hominum

It's a fair question, just as the questions you asked me or as CJ asked Melkite.

He constantly refers to Protestant material when looking at that passage.  Has he referred to any Catholic material yet?  Any of the Fathers, any Catholic Concordance, etc.? He doesn't even use a Catholic Bible.

I can prove lots of nutty stuff such as Lutheran Justification using Protestant sources.  We're talking about the Catholic priesthood here and Catholic understanding of Scripture.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:15 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: this your opinion and a cherry picked definition with all due respect.

I don't think so, but I'll be happy to defend myself if you are willing to back up your claim.

Give me another definition from any reputable dictionary.  That was from Merriam-Webster for the word "homosexual".

Here it is from the Oxford dictionary:

Quote:adjective
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:
homosexual desire

noun
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
Reply
The Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium (Part I)
by Alice von Hildebrand
Belgium is a small country whose geographical location led to her involvement in many European wars. Her climate is mild; her rich soil, rightly considered a prized possession, was fought over for centuries. She has access to the North Sea, and is the cradle of great Catholic culture: Bruges is one of the architectural gems of the world; Ghent (the birthplace of King Charles V) has magnificent buildings; Brussels's Grand Place is known the world over. Her painters are among the greatest. The Belgians were mentioned by Caesar in his Commentaries on the Gallic War. He praises them as the strongest of the various tribes he had conquered: Horum omnium fortissimi sunt Belgae.

He who knows the history of Belgium knows much about the history of Europe. Belgium belonged to the Dukes of Burgundy, and then through marriage, she came into the hands of the Habsburgs, first to its Spanish branch under Charles V, then later to the Austrian branch. The French Revolution conquered Belgian territory, and most of the Napoleonic wars were waged to keep the French flag flying over her. This was unacceptable to the British. They achieved their goal at Waterloo (about 14 miles south of Brussels), when Napoleon was finally defeated in 1815. The Congress of Vienna then decided that Belgium should be united to the Netherlands. This turned out to be a very unhappy marriage for the Belgians (the Dutch were Protestants and occupied all the key positions in the government), and the Belgians revolted 15 years later, and became independent in 1830. The country is now a constitutional monarchy.

The Catholic University of Louvain (Leuven in Flemish, a Dutch dialect) is one of the glories of Belgium. It was founded in 1425 at the request of Jean IV of Brabant by Pope Martin V. From that time on the University acquired an international reputation for its scholarship, the quality of its faculty, and its orthodoxy. Indeed, it was the Catholic University par excellence.

Its fidelity to the teaching of the Holy Catholic Church kindled Martin Luther's ire, who called the theologians of Louvain "coarse donkeys, cursed sows, bellies of blasphemers, epicurean swine, heretics and idolators, putrid puddles, the cursed broth of Hell" (quoted in Jacques Maritain's Three Reformers, p. 44). Apart from his Teutonic vulgarity, the Reformer did not realize that he was in fact paying a compliment to a university whose pride was to be faithful to the teaching of Holy Church.

The University's reputation continued through the centuries. Particularly talented young men studying for the priesthood were sent to Louvain. The late Bishop Fulton Sheen was one of its most brilliant students.

In the 1960s the Catholic University of Louvain broke up into two branches: One kept the old buildings in the beautiful Flemish town of Leuven; its courses are taught in Flemish, and it is called Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. The second one, of French expression, "emigrated" to the French-speaking part of the country, south of Brussels, and is called University Catholique de Louvain. Godfried Cardinal Danneels, Primate of Belgium, is Chancellor of both branches of the University.

The question I wish to address is this: Does the University of Louvain still deserve the title "Catholic"?

My report is based on official University documents from the early 1980s to the present. What follows in this first installment is devoted only to the attitude adopted by members of the University (both the Flemish and French branches) toward homosexuality. The reader can reach his own conclusions.

Students registering for living quarters at the University are given a pamphlet titled "Questions: Some Answers," which they are told to peruse. Here is a brief summary of it:

— Homosexuality has always existed. But thanks to scientific advancement, new discoveries in the area of sexology now enable us to reexamine the question with a fresh approach.

— The question of homosexuality, we are told, is very complex. The use of homosexual stereotypes does not do justice to the issue, and are often contradictory. Homosexuals are described as both effeminate and aggressive.

— To ask whether one is homosexual because one has had a negative heterosexual experience can be counteracted by asking: Is one heterosexual because one has had a homosexual experience that was disappointing?

— In order to demonstrate that heterosexuality is "normal" but homosexuality is not, the theory has been advanced that most adolescents go through a period of homosexuality, characterized by narcissism. According to this theory, those who mature overcome this stage whereas homosexuals are those who remain "stuck" in it, and therefore homosexuals must be helped to outgrow this stage of persistent adolescence. However, according to the pamphlet, to ask whether homosexuality is normal or natural is inadequate when one realizes that what characterizes human beings is their capacity to do things that are not "natural," such as "eating with a fork, knitting a pullover, making motors, riding a bicycle, and cleaning one's behind with flowered toilet paper," which "un-natural practices" are nevertheless fully endorsed by society. (I would note that this pamphlet confuses acts that are morally relevant and those that are not. It does not bode well for the teaching of ethics at Louvain.)

— A common objection to homosexuality is that something about it just "does not click" But why isn't the same objection made about heterosexuality? Why create a "hierarchy" among different types of sexuality?

— Homosexuals are accused of thinking about nothing but sex. But what about heterosexuals? Are they any different? Homosexuals are also accused of being unfaithful. But are heteros always faithful?

— Another major argument leveled against homosexuality is that homosexual unions are inevitably sterile. But heterosexual couples can also be sterile. (This leads to the endorsement of allowing homosexual couples to adopt children.)

— People speak of the complementarity of heterosexual parents (male and female). But this complementarity can also be found among homosexuals.

— Why condemn homosexuality when it can lead to "so much happiness"? There are couples who "blossom" in a homosexual relationship. Why condemn what for them is a source of so much joy? A young homosexual declares, "for me, homosexuality is happiness."

— A traditional argument leveled against homosexuality is a misreading of the biblical text concerning Sodom and Gomorrah. According to the pamphlet, today we know that these two towns were destroyed, not because they were practicing a "horrible vice" contra naturam, but because they had gravely sinned by refusing hospitality to those who needed it. Homosexuality is a prohibition that need no longer be observed by Christians, just like the eating of pork. (A dreadful confusion is made here between the moral law and a positive law which is indeed subject to change — e.g., the prohibition of meat on Fridays, which was abolished by Pope Paul VI.)

That these arguments are spread at a Catholic university is amazing. One is reminded of the prophetic words of Chesterton: "He who abandons the supernatural will inevitably fall into the un-natural."

When he became Primate of Belgium in 1983, Godfried Cardinal Danneels opened, for the benefit of homosexuals, the Center of Welcome for One and All at the Catholic University of Louvain. When asked by a group of young people what he thought about homosexuality, Cardinal Danneels answered: "The question is not what one thinks about it; it is simply a fact. To be homosexual is a natural disposition, just as being heterosexual. One chooses neither one nor the other. The question is rather: 'What do I do with it?' I know excellent priests who are homosexuals; I also know excellent priests who are heterosexuals. Celibates are not 'nothing' — that is, 'neuter.' We are always one or the other. But it cannot be denied that homosexuals are deprived of certain dimensions of existence: the distinction between man and woman, between parents and children. This clearly distinguishes them from heterosexuals. But this is no reason for excluding them . . . "

When asked whether he thought that a child adopted and raised by homosexuals would be less happy than one raised by heterosexuals, Cardinal Danneels responded: "A heterosexual marriage is richer because it can procreate its own children. [But] a lesbian couple can have children, thanks to artificial insemination, though this is a technical act. Psychologists will tell us whether this can create a problem . . . "

Note that the Cardinal, who received a Doctor Honoris Causa from Georgetown University in March 2003, carefully sidesteps the moral issue of whether homosexual practices are morally licit.

Two faculty members of the University of Louvain (Olivier De Shutter and Jean-Yves Carlier), together with six professors of the Free University of Brussels (which is anything but Catholic), published an article in Le Soir (a newspaper of socialist tendencies) defending the thesis that "marriage" between homosexuals should be allowed. But they never raise the issue of morality. (Just recently, Belgium passed a law allowing homosexuals to "marry.")

At this point, readers are entitled to ask with deep grief: Is the Catholic University of Louvain still Catholic?
Reply
(02-21-2011, 03:22 PM)Anastasia Wrote: Malakoi, on the other hand, is a little trickier. I found examples in several of the Greek historians, but mostly Thucydides, that use that word to mean "cowardly, a man who ran from the battle". That would support Quis' exerpts from the Fathers which interpret that word to mean someone overfond of luxuries and ease.

Thank you!  And, as I pointed out, it is used to mean the same thing - luxurious, unmanly, etc.  - everywhere else it is used in the NT.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:08 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.
,

You've answered your won question. Homosexuality is an act of the will,a sin, a thing and not a state existential ontology....

Going back to basics, let's look up what the word homosexual means:

http://m-w.com
of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

That's all it means.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It doesn't mean someone acts on it or is their sine-qua-non.  It means they have sexual desires towards members of the same sex.

And this relates to "homosexual persons" and why I think it was used, but we aren't that far in the discussion yet.  At least I'm not.  I'm trying to get Johnny Catholic to stop using Protestant sources.

I would have described "directing sexual desire toward another" as an act in the true meaning of the word just as Christ tells us that merely fantasizing over another woman is indeed Adultery...
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:21 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: The Catholic University of Louvain in Belgium (Part I)
by Alice von Hildebrand

What's your point?  And do you have a better definition of "homosexual" than two respected dictionaries give?
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:24 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:14 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:08 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.
,

You've answered your won question. Homosexuality is an act of the will,a sin, a thing and not a state existential ontology....

Going back to basics, let's look up what the word homosexual means:

http://m-w.com
of, relating to, or characterized by a tendency to direct sexual desire toward another of the same sex

That's all it means.  Nothing more, nothing less.  It doesn't mean someone acts on it or is their sine-qua-non.  It means they have sexual desires towards members of the same sex.

And this relates to "homosexual persons" and why I think it was used, but we aren't that far in the discussion yet.  At least I'm not.  I'm trying to get Johnny Catholic to stop using Protestant sources.
over an
I would have described "directing sexual desire toward another" as an act in the true meaning of the word just as Christ tells us that merely fantasizing over another woman is indeed Adultery...

Sure, but it talks about a tendency to direct.  It is a pre-disposition to a certain kind of sin.  In the theological sense, a homosexual person is a person whose pre-disposition to sin is that of desiring members of the same sex.  A lustful person is a person whose pre-disposition to sin is that of desiring unlawful sex.

If a homosexual thought or a hot smoookin' lassie pops up in our minds it is a sin if we derive pleasure from it, not if we push it away.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:13 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:08 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:02 PM)Melkite Wrote: Why can't someone 'be' a homosexual and also a Christian?  Afterall, a sin isn't something you 'are,' it's something you do.
,

You've answered your won question. Homosexuality is an act of the will,a sin, a thing and not a state existential ontology....
its not just any sin, its a sin that cries out to God for vengeance.

I've already explained before why the whole 'sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance' thing is a bogus cop-out.  The phrase plays a part in the stories they are used in, they were never meant to set aside four particular sins as being worse th an other sins.  This is an example of eisegesis.  If there were truly anything to it, people would be equally vociferating against the other three, but they don't.  The fact that you and others use this excuse to rail against sodomy but not the other three shows that you are using it as a crutch for your subjective revulsion, not any pious revulsion from a rational, objective viewpoint.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:21 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 05:15 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: this your opinion and a cherry picked definition with all due respect.

I don't think so, but I'll be happy to defend myself if you are willing to back up your claim.

Give me another definition from any reputable dictionary.  That was from Merriam-Webster for the word "homosexual".

Here it is from the Oxford dictionary:

Quote:adjective
(of a person) sexually attracted to people of one's own sex.
involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex:
homosexual desire

noun
a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
since the term is recent novelty circa 1892 according to your own source.... it can not hold the test of the traditional definition which is what is in this debate I think. It also presumes the existence of a naturally born homo-sexual....a complete novelty and an affront to the creator IMO
Further the second definition from websters defines homosexuality as an act.
Further still if one defines the word SEX at websters we find : the sum of the structural, functional, and behavioral characteristics of organisms that are involved in reproduction marked by the union of gametes and that distinguish males and females
Therefore HOMO or singular gender genital  stimulation (really shared masturbation) cannot be defined as sex or sexual at all by any definition, there for the term HS is a misnomer, more like orwellian newspeak

Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)