There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-21-2011, 07:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:19 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: In terms of the OP then this is worth posting from the CCC if indeed it hasn't already:

Yeah, like I said, I don't see mixed signals from the Church on this issue.  I think some people are just ignoring it, and that includes some bishops and priests.
Like Vat 2 deliberately vague while at the same time pretending to be authoritative. The Modern CCC is a modernist contraption and a whole thread could be started about whether catchicisms are always infallible. Seems mixed up pussy footing around to me. Homosexual persons? what is that and around we go again. ::)
Reply
(02-21-2011, 07:54 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:19 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: In terms of the OP then this is worth posting from the CCC if indeed it hasn't already:

Yeah, like I said, I don't see mixed signals from the Church on this issue.  I think some people are just ignoring it, and that includes some bishops and priests.
Like Vat 2 deliberately vague while at the same time pretending to be authoritative. The Modern CCC is a modernist contraption and a whole thread could be started about whether catchicisms are always infallible. Seems mixed up pussy footing around to me. Homosexual persons? what is that and around we go again. ::)

I didn't read any ambiguity into the current CCCs definition and opinion of Homosexuality.Yes,the 1980s CCC has ambiguity in relation to other matters (secret societies for example) however
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:34 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: 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.

Concur.  There are only two choices -
1.  God is the author of sin by making them that way in natural creation;
2.  Christ is the author of sin by allowing them to remain that way in the new creation (cf: 2 Cor.5:17, Gal.6:15)

Neither position is supportable for Tradition.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 05:51 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 10:05 PM)Catholic Johnny 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.

Did you read the OP?  It isn't my opinion, its the clear teaching of the New Testament.

Its a bit like saying you can't be a horse and Christian (which is true) but that's only if you buy into the modern naturalistic anthropological definition of Homosexuality rather than accepting it is a highly disordered tendency to certain forms of sin which can of course be conquered.

My point exactly.  To admit of the existence of homosexual persons is a capitulation to concupiscience and a rejection of the properties of the new birth.

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.  Ephesians 4:21-24

And is most uncharitable to deprive such persons of the hope of full conversion, complete healing and the freedom that the Holy Spirit desires to bring them.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 07:54 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:19 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: In terms of the OP then this is worth posting from the CCC if indeed it hasn't already:

Yeah, like I said, I don't see mixed signals from the Church on this issue.  I think some people are just ignoring it, and that includes some bishops and priests.
Like Vat 2 deliberately vague while at the same time pretending to be authoritative. The Modern CCC is a modernist contraption and a whole thread could be started about whether catchicisms are always infallible. Seems mixed up pussy footing around to me. Homosexual persons? what is that and around we go again. ::)

A homosexual person is a person who feels attracted to people of the same sex and not of the opposite sex. If a person with that problem dies virgin, he is still a homosexual, just one who refrains from following his sexual impulses.
Reply
The advent of the category 'homosexual persons' who can remain that way albeit as "chaste" homosexual persons (!) is a capitulation to concupiscience:

That henceforward you walk not as also the Gentiles walk in the vanity of their mind,  Having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God through the ignorance that is in them, because of the blindness of their hearts.  Who despairing, have given themselves up to lasciviousness, unto the working of all uncleanness, unto covetousness.  But you have not so learned Christ;

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
.  Ephesians 4:17-24, emphasis mine

The Apostle teaches in this passage:
1.  Unbelievers capitulate to lasciviousness;
2.  Believers overcome their former life patterns (conversation here is archaic English for conduct);
3.  Believers are to be continually converted in the pattern of the mystery of Christ's perfection;
4.  The mind is to be renewed in both values and attitude;
5.  The new man is created in justice and holiness of truth.  Read:  not disordered in the affective life.

To admit to the existence of homosexual persons is to capitulate to concupiscience.  Its is a surrender to (or more aptly, a treaty with) sin.  It is a status that impededs the victim of this invention from hoping for full conversion, healing and freedom. 
Reply
(02-21-2011, 07:49 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: All concerned:
I don't have time right now to respond to each post that I was specifically addressed in or mentioned by name, but let me clear the air about Quis' accusations:

1.  I used the NKJV for the Scriptural quotes in the OP because (a) not everyone is comfortable with the archaic English in the D-R (my personal Bible) and (b) the NAB is not trustworthy.  In deference to Quis, I then dealt exclusively with the D-R.

2.  I have quoted extensively from the Sacred Scriptures, the Summa, CFD and Papal Instruction documents, the CCC, the Church's foremost expert on homosexuality, and referred to contemporary Catholic situations.  The only "Protestant" sources I have otherwise made use of were a Greek Scholar and Strong's Exhaustive Concordance to get at the original Hebrew and Greek tongues, as Divino Afflante Spiritu allows.   If anyone can refer me to a "Catholic" resource for a Hebrew and Greek Concordance, I am willing to use it instead.  I doubt seriously that the Hebrew and Greek words themselves carry a Catholic or Protestant meaning.  I have not referred to any Protestant commentary.

If you look at what I wrote, I'm specifically talking about what you cited specifically regarding the passage in 1 Cor., not about the rest of your claims.

You:

1) Use a Protestant Bible to show it says "homosexuals"
2) Cite a Protestant scholar (one who has openly written denying the primacy of Peter) - Chrys C. Caragounis
3) Use a Protestant translation of the Greek  http://christianisrael.freevar.com/1+Corinthians+6:9
4) As far as Strong goes, there is nothing wrong with using it solely as a Concordance (i.e., where words appear in Scripture), but you are also adopting meaning from it.

Here is a Catholic concordance if you want to do more than find out what words appear where:

https://www.tanbooks.com/index.php/page/...ncordance/

But for finding the appearance and frequency of words, a concordance is largely unnecessary since there are searchable texts.

In any case, please show me where you cited a Catholic source with regards to 1 Cor.
Reply
(02-21-2011, 11:17 PM)justlurking Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:54 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:29 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-21-2011, 07:19 PM)Habitual_Ritual Wrote: In terms of the OP then this is worth posting from the CCC if indeed it hasn't already:

Yeah, like I said, I don't see mixed signals from the Church on this issue.  I think some people are just ignoring it, and that includes some bishops and priests.
Like Vat 2 deliberately vague while at the same time pretending to be authoritative. The Modern CCC is a modernist contraption and a whole thread could be started about whether catchicisms are always infallible. Seems mixed up pussy footing around to me. Homosexual persons? what is that and around we go again. ::)

A homosexual person is a person who feels attracted to people of the same sex and not of the opposite sex. If a person with that problem dies virgin, he is still a homosexual, just one who refrains from following his sexual impulses.
Then God created the sodomitic impulse?
Reply
Why does it matter the definition of effeminate? Right after it condemns men lieing with men. A clear allusion to sodomitic relations.
The point is
IS THERE SUCH A THING AS A HOMOSEXUAL PERSON priest or not. If I am a thief or addicted to porn, I do not create a special class of human that is for some unknown reason drawn to these particular sins.
Further why does a person have sodomitic cravings to try and complete oneself sexually in an impossible way? If a priest says I am bill and I AM---AM operative word-- a homosexual...what in the hell is he really saying? Either I have copulated with my own gender, or I WANT to copulate with my own gender...no other choices are available. Therefore if he self Identifys before the priesthood he has a defect in intention and or matter. If he begins to have these unnatural desires after ordination and then alligns his identity with his perversion, he has made a shipwreck of his faith and must repent, if he is to be restored to normal.
man with man copulation is such a core violation of an obvious and basic TRUTH it shows almost complete depravity to remain active to this evil hunger.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 03:17 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Why does it matter the definition of effeminate? Right after it condemns men lieing with men.

That would be a good question for CJ, don't you think?  I mean, after all, he's digging in his heels in the face of Catholic interpretation.

But, I will tell you why it matters in this discussion, at least for me.  In the first post, CJ said this:

Quote:Follow carefully.  St. Paul does not write "people who commit homosexual acts."  He says, "homosexuals."  He uses that as an identity.  Such WERE some of you... but you were sanctified..."  You are no longer homosexual anymore than the forgiven adulterer is still an adulterer or Saul who became Paul is still a persecutor of Christians.  What saith the Word of the Lord?

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new.  II Corinthians 5:17

The cornerstone of his argument is based on a Protestant translation and interpretation of Scripture.  He claims that St. Paul is calling them, literally, homosexuals in an anthropological identity.

He can't live with "liers with men" since that obviously goes to an action that is sinful.  He has to have homosexuals in the Scripture or referring to it does nothing for his argument.

A "lier with men" doesn't have to be homosexual in the sense of identity.  As I stated before, someone could prostitute themselves to other men just for money, not because they like it.  "Lier with men" would cover that.  But he wants to condemn people to hell because they suffer the disorder of same-sex attraction whether they act on it or not.  Remember what he said: a homosexual cannot be a Christian. The only way he can justify that is if St. Paul condemns homosexuals, i.e., people who suffer the disorder of same-sex attraction, which St. Paul does not.  He is condemning a lack of virtue, a virtue need to remain Christian: perseverance.

If he is going to say people who suffer a predisposition to a certain kind of sin cannot be Christian unless they somehow get rid of that predisposition, it opens a hold handbag of heresies and theological problems, not to mention quasi-schism in that he is denying people membership in the Church that have never been denied membership before.

Have you ever heard someone told by the Church they cannot be a Christian for sodomitical acts let alone for having a pre-disposition to that or any other sin? If you have, please provide a citation.  CJ is making up his own religion like Cdl. Mahony did when he said Bishop Williamson could not be a Catholic based on some criteria of his own devising.

He's doing, in a sense, exactly what Luther did.  Grabbing on to his own interpretation of Scripture (which is coincidentally shared by Protestants) and creating a theological novelty from it.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)