There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-22-2011, 03:02 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(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?

No, the fall did, just as it created inordinate lust, etc.
Reply
Quote: In any case, please show me where you cited a Catholic source with regards to 1 Cor.

I am sure you will consider St. Paul a Catholic source.  Dr. Chrys C. Caragounis merely gave a rendering of the Greek words without commentary.  I also referred to Papal Instruction, the CCC, the Confraternity for the Doctrine of the Faith documents, the foremost Catholic scholar on the subject of homosexuality, and current events facing the RCC.  You are still swallowing a camel while straining at a gnat.  You completely ignore the next phrase after "molle" which is liers with men, a reference to Lev. 18:22 and you still won't comment on "such were some of you."  But you will hear more from me on this!  However, there is way more to this extremely important topic than getting bogged down over the exegesis of a single word.  
Reply
(02-22-2011, 03:49 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
Quote: In any case, please show me where you cited a Catholic source with regards to 1 Cor.

I am sure you will consider St. Paul a Catholic source.  Dr. Chrys C. Caragounis merely gave a rendering of the Greek words without commentary.  I also referred to Papal Instruction, the CCC, the Confraternity for the Doctrine of the Faith documents, the foremost Catholic scholar on the subject of homosexuality, and current events facing the RCC.  You are still swallowing a camel while straining at a gnat.  You completely ignore the next phrase after "molle" which is liers with men, a reference to Lev. 18:22 and you still won't comment on "such were some of you."  But you will hear more from me on this!  However, there is way more to this extremely important topic than getting bogged down over the exegesis of a single word.  

Name one Catholic source you cited on the meaning of 1 Cor.  You haven't, and you know it.  You've danced around it citing all kinds of things, but not an interpretation of or evidence for your interpretation of that passage.

You can keep making speeches, but you know damn well that your whole argument hinges on St. Paul condemning homosexuals as an "identity".  You say so in your first post.  That's why you keep grasping at straws and avoiding the questions.

I didn't ignore the phrase "liers with men".  I stated quite clearly it condemns sodomitical acts.  The reason you don't care about it, as I stated above, is because it doesn't condemn homosexuals as "identity" - it condemns people who actually perform an act.  That doesn't help you prove your skewed and invented theology.

You haven't answered anything about the use of molles in other passages, about the use of malakos in the New Testament, you haven't countered St. Thomas' interpretation of the passage, nor the references the Fathers make to effeminate.

You're avoiding the problems with your interpretation even though they are right there in front of you, and you and I both know why you are: your whole calumny against the Church will fall like a house of cards if you have to admit St. Paul isn't condemning homosexuals as "identity" in that statement, but is condemning those who engage in homosexual acts.

Quote: However, there is way more to this extremely important topic than getting bogged down over the exegesis of a single word. 

Unfortunately for you, I have the bully pulpit and the ban button.  If you want to play to "our readers" and give them a show, fine, but you'll have to dance to my tune.  If you are going to make charges against the Church and Her Doctrine, you are going to have to defend every iota of it.

So, start defending your interpretation of 1 Cor using Catholic sources or at least the basic documents.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 03:43 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

This is really stretching it.

"Liers with men" is a noun modified by a preposition.  "Liers" denotes identity, although you want to recognize the act only, and refuse to acknowledge the condemnation of persons in Romans 1:32.  Vox and I are on the side of Tradition here, and you want to split hairs about effemenati and its broad application of meanings which you seem to be trying to canonically define for all of us.  "Liers with men" (Latin:  masculorum concubitores or male concubines, not male concubinage) is an explicit reference to Lev. 18:22 which is clear to anyone that can read:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

St. Paul:  
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.  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; ... 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.

Here the Apostle teaches that the desires (lusts), acts (working) and the identity (they that do such things) are all condemned. 

How you can come away with anything different than what I have consistently posted since the beginning is the product of ignoring the explicit evidence.
Masculorum concubitores will not inherit the kingdom of God.  That's what it says, that's what it means.  Paul extends this in Romans 1:32 to include not just those who do this (persons, not just acts) but even to those who approve the same.  

That is why I provided quotes from the Summa that show without any sophistry or wrangling over etymology that those who ordain men in an unrepentant state of mortal sin commit a mortal crime (St. Thomas Aquinas' words, not mine) which agree here 100% with St. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ.  No social scientist or psychiatric practioner will be able to deliver us from the Judge of All on that dreadful and fearful day.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 04:13 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 03:43 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: 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.

This is really stretching it.

"Liers with men" is a noun modified by a preposition.  "Liers" denotes identity, although you want to recognize the act only, and refuse to acknowledge the condemnation of persons in Romans 1:32.  Vox and I are on the side of Tradition here, and you want to split hairs about effemenati and its broad application of meanings which you seem to be trying to canonically define for all of us.  "Liers with men" (Latin:  masculorum concubitores or male concubines, not male concubinage) is an explicit reference to Lev. 18:22 which is clear to anyone that can read:

I'm not splitting hairs about effemenati.  I'm making a valid point: St. Jerome specifically chose to use that word in some places and not in others.  You still have not suggested any reason why that coincides with your interpretation

Your Latin is lacking.  Masculorum is genitive plural, concubitores is nominative.  The literal translation is "bedmates of mankind" where masculorum is objective genitive.  Objective genitive is used when the noun participates in an action as patient.  Masculorum is not an adjective nor is this a prepositional phrase. It doesn't denote any identity.    The Latin actually indicates the opposite: a participant in an action.

Be that as it may, let's continue:

Quote:Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

St. Paul:  
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.  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; ... 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.

How you can come away with anything different than what I have consistently posted since the beginning is the product of ignoring the explicit evidence.

I haven't come away with anything different than you on "liers with mankind" except that you need to brush up on your Latin.

Quote:Masculorum concubitores will not inherit the kingdom of God.  That's what it says, that's what it means.  Paul extends this in Romans 1:32 to include not just those who do this (persons, not just acts) but even to those who approve the same.  

The persons are only impugned when they act:  they either act immorally or act by approving of immorality.  For there to be a sin, there has to be an action (or lack of action when one is required).  Having a disposition to sin is not a sin, it is a weakness and a fault.

That said, I don't disagree with you that Masculorum concubitores will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But they are actually doing something - they are sleeping with other men just as fornicators and such do something.  The effeminate lack virtue necessary - they lack perseverance; that is why they are condemned, not for an identity.

Quote:That is why I provided quotes from the Summa that show without any sophistry or wrangling over etymology that those who ordain men in an unrepentant state of mortal sin commit a mortal crime (St. Thoas Aquinas' words, not mine) which agree here 100% with St. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ.  No social scientist or psychiatric practioner will be able to deliver you from the Judge of All on that dreadful and fearful day.

What St. Thomas said was those who were unworthy.  That doesn't mean necessarily in mortal sin.  It goes to safeguarding the Sacraments.  They can be unworthy in the fact they aren't intelligent enough, they lack virtues, they are blind, etc. It is actually broader than you are interpreting it.

But, I see no point here.  If a bishop ordains a known homosexual, the bishop sins.  So what?  No one is denying that homosexuals are not fit for the priesthood.

BTW, do you want to stop with the grandstanding and cartoonish flowery language?  I find it annoying and pretentious, and it distracts from the content.  If not, OK, but then I'll start.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 04:52 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The persons are only impugned when they act:  they either act immorally or act by approving of immorality.  For there to be a sin, there has to be an action (or lack of action when one is required).  Having a disposition to sin is not a sin, it is a weakness and a fault.

Not so. 
St. Paul: 
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.  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; ... 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.

Here the Apostle teaches that the desires (lusts), acts (working) and the identity (they that do such things) are all condemned. 

Quote:That said, I don't disagree with you that Masculorum concubitores will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But they are actually doing something - they are sleeping with other men just as fornicators and such do something.   The effeminate lack virtue necessary - they lack perseverance; that is why they are condemned, not for an identity.

What St. Thomas said was those who were unworthyThat doesn't mean necessarily in mortal sin.  It goes to safeguarding the Sacraments.  They can be unworthy in the fact they aren't intelligent enough, they lack virtues, they are blind, etc. It is actually broader than you are interpreting it.

Now you are just flat out contradicting the words of Aquinas.  On the condemnation of the ordinary:

Whether he who raises the unworthy to [Holy] Orders commits a sin?

On the contrary, It is worse to raise the wicked to the sacred ministry, than not to correct those who are raised already. But Heli sinned mortally by not correcting his sons for their wickedness; wherefore "he fell backwards . . . and died" (1 Kings 4:18). Therefore he who promotes the unworthy does not escape sin.

Further, spiritual things must be set before temporal things in the Church. Now a man would commit a mortal sin were he knowingly to endanger the temporalities of the Church. Much more therefore is it a mortal sin to endanger spiritual things. But whoever promotes the unworthy endangers spiritual things, since according to Gregory (Hom. xii in Evang.) "if a man's life is contemptible, his preaching is liable to be despised"; and for the same reason all the spiritual things that he dispenses. Therefore he who promotes the unworthy sins mortally.

I answer that, Our Lord describes the faithful servant whom He has set "over His household to give them their measure of wheat." Hence he is guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his measure: and whoso promotes the unworthy does this. Wherefore he commits a mortal crime, as being unfaithful to his sovereign Lord, especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine honor which is promoted by good ministers. For a man would be unfaithful to his earthly lord were he to place unworthy subjects in his offices.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, QQ 36.4 (emphasis mine)

and the priest:

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Ep. ad Demophil.): "It seems presumptuous for such a man, one to wit who is not enlightened, to lay hands on priestly things; he is not afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself; he thinks, by false pretense, to cheat Him Whom he falsely calls his Father; he dares to utter in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers, over the Divine symbols." Therefore a priest is a blasphemer and a cheat if he exercises his order unworthily, and thus he sins mortally: and in like manner any other person in orders.

Further, holiness of life is required in one who receives an order, that he may be qualified to exercise it. Now a man sins mortally if he present himself for orders in mortal sin. Much more therefore does he sin mortally whenever he exercises his order.
   Q 64.A6

Quote:But, I see no point here.  If a bishop ordains a known homosexual, the bishop sins.  So what?  No one is denying that homosexuals are not fit for the priesthood.

BTW, do you want to stop with the grandstanding and cartoonish flowery language?  I find it annoying and pretentious, and it distracts from the content.  If not, OK, but then I'll start.

So what?  That's what concerns me. 
Reply
(02-22-2011, 05:08 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 04:52 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The persons are only impugned when they act:  they either act immorally or act by approving of immorality.  For there to be a sin, there has to be an action (or lack of action when one is required).  Having a disposition to sin is not a sin, it is a weakness and a fault.

That said, I don't disagree with you that Masculorum concubitores will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But they are actually doing something - they are sleeping with other men just as fornicators and such do something.   The effeminate lack virtue necessary - they lack perseverance; that is why they are condemned, not for an identity.

What St. Thomas said was those who were unworthyThat doesn't mean necessarily in mortal sin.  It goes to safeguarding the Sacraments.  They can be unworthy in the fact they aren't intelligent enough, they lack virtues, they are blind, etc. It is actually broader than you are interpreting it.

Now you are just flat out contradicting the words of Aquinas.  On the condemnation of the ordinary:

Whether he who raises the unworthy to [Holy] Orders commits a sin?

On the contrary, It is worse to raise the wicked to the sacred ministry, than not to correct those who are raised already. But Heli sinned mortally by not correcting his sons for their wickedness; wherefore "he fell backwards . . . and died" (1 Kings 4:18). Therefore he who promotes the unworthy does not escape sin.

Further, spiritual things must be set before temporal things in the Church. Now a man would commit a mortal sin were he knowingly to endanger the temporalities of the Church. Much more therefore is it a mortal sin to endanger spiritual things. But whoever promotes the unworthy endangers spiritual things, since according to Gregory (Hom. xii in Evang.) "if a man's life is contemptible, his preaching is liable to be despised"; and for the same reason all the spiritual things that he dispenses. Therefore he who promotes the unworthy sins mortally.

I answer that, Our Lord describes the faithful servant whom He has set "over His household to give them their measure of wheat." Hence he is guilty of unfaithfulness who gives any man Divine things above his measure: and whoso promotes the unworthy does this. Wherefore he commits a mortal crime, as being unfaithful to his sovereign Lord, especially since this is detrimental to the Church and to the Divine honor which is promoted by good ministers. For a man would be unfaithful to his earthly lord were he to place unworthy subjects in his offices.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, QQ 36.4 (emphasis mine)

and the priest:

On the contrary, Dionysius says (Ep. ad Demophil.): "It seems presumptuous for such a man, one to wit who is not enlightened, to lay hands on priestly things; he is not afraid nor ashamed, all unworthy that he is to take part in Divine things, with the thought that God does not see what he sees in himself; he thinks, by false pretense, to cheat Him Whom he falsely calls his Father; he dares to utter in the person of Christ, words polluted by his infamy, I will not call them prayers, over the Divine symbols." Therefore a priest is a blasphemer and a cheat if he exercises his order unworthily, and thus he sins mortally: and in like manner any other person in orders.

Further, holiness of life is required in one who receives an order, that he may be qualified to exercise it. Now a man sins mortally if he present himself for orders in mortal sin. Much more therefore does he sin mortally whenever he exercises his order.
   Q 64.A6

Quote:But, I see no point here.  If a bishop ordains a known homosexual, the bishop sins.  So what?  No one is denying that homosexuals are not fit for the priesthood.

BTW, do you want to stop with the grandstanding and cartoonish flowery language?  I find it annoying and pretentious, and it distracts from the content.  If not, OK, but then I'll start.

So what?  That's what concerns me. 

Well, what concerns me is your quasi heresy and dependence on Protestants.  You can avoid the question if you want, but then your citation means nothing, doesn't it?

As far as contradicting Aquinas, no I'm not.  You need to read the whole section including the objections and responses:

Quote:Objection 3. Further, everyone is bound to avoid sin, as far as he can. If therefore a bishop sins in promoting the unworthy, he is bound to take the utmost pains to know whether those who present themselves for Orders be worthy, by making a careful inquiry about their morals and knowledge, and yet seemingly this is not done anywhere.

Reply to Objection 3. It is at least required that the ordainer know that nothing contrary to holiness is in the candidate for ordination. But besides this he is required to take the greatest care, in proportion to the Order or office to be enjoined, so as [b]to be certain of the qualifications of those to be promoted, [/b]at least from the testification of others. This is the meaning of the Apostle when he says (1 Timothy 5:22): "Impose not hands lightly on any man."

Holiness alone does not make a candidate worthy.  As the objection points out, the bishop should make an inquiry about their knowledge, and as St. Thomas agrees, the qualifications should be certain.  Note that this is a requirement besides knowing the holiness of the candidate.  As I said, you are interpreting St. Thomas too narrowly.  If a bishop grants holy orders to an idiot, knowing the person to be an idiot, the bishop sins mortally.

You will also find the same comments about the worthiness of a candidate in the Roman Catechism.

Be that as it may, even if the bishop promotes an unworthy person, as long as there isn't an impediment to orders, the person receives orders even if they are in a state of mortal sin at the time or are a wicked person.

So, I still don't understand your point, but if you don't care to explain it, whatever.


Reply
I do not prefer this translation, but all the Scripture quotes in the CCC are from the NAB:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.  That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  (emphasis mine)

NAB Footnote on 1 Cor. 6:9-11
[9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 05:08 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 04:52 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: The persons are only impugned when they act:  they either act immorally or act by approving of immorality.  For there to be a sin, there has to be an action (or lack of action when one is required).  Having a disposition to sin is not a sin, it is a weakness and a fault.

Not so. 
St. Paul: 
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.  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; ... 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.

Here the Apostle teaches that the desires (lusts), acts (working) and the identity (they that do such things) are all condemned. 

The burning in lust is an action, albeit an internal one.  Someone has to do something to sin (or not act when they should).  You don't sin because you have a fault.  You sin when you act on that fault.

They that do such things is not an "identity".  It condemns people who actually act.  They do something to be condemned; it isn't their disposition to sin that condemns them, or we'd all be damned since we all have a disposition to sin because of the fall.

You're attempting to single out a disposition to a particular sin and damn people for it.  Sorry, it doesn't work that way.  You have to actually do something, not just possess a disposition.   We don't go to Confession because of our fallen nature; we go to Confession when we do something wrong.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 05:29 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: I do not prefer this translation, but all the Scripture quotes in the CCC are from the NAB:

Do you not know that the unjust will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators nor idolaters nor adulterers nor boy prostitutes nor sodomites nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.  That is what some of you used to be; but now you have had yourselves washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.  (emphasis mine)

NAB Footnote on 1 Cor. 6:9-11
[9] The Greek word translated as boy prostitutes may refer to catamites, i.e., boys or young men who were kept for purposes of prostitution, a practice not uncommon in the Greco-Roman world. In Greek mythology this was the function of Ganymede, the "cupbearer of the gods," whose Latin name was Catamitus. The term translated Sodomites refers to adult males who indulged in homosexual practices with such boys. See similar condemnations of such practices in Romans 1:26-27; 1 Tim 1:10.

LOL, the NAB.  The only thing worse than the NAB is the Commentary which is full of heresy and Modernism.

Like this that says Christ didn't know what the future held for him or what He was doing. Only that it was "probable" that He foresaw suffering.

Quote: [21-23] This first prediction of the passion follows Mark 8:31-33 in the main and serves as a corrective to an understanding of Jesus' messiahship as solely one of glory and triumph. By his addition of from that time on (Matthew 16:21) Matthew has emphasized that Jesus' revelation of his coming suffering and death marks a new phase of the gospel. Neither this nor the two later passion predictions (Matthew 17:22-23; 20:17-19) can be taken as sayings that, as they stand, go back to Jesus himself. However, it is probable that he foresaw that his mission would entail suffering and perhaps death, but was confident that he would ultimately be vindicated by God (see Matthew 26:29).

I have to give you credit though, you did find a "Catholic" source.  My bad for not specifying a time before Protestantism crept into the Church.  I'll specify now:

Can you up the ante and find a traditional Catholic source?  Something written before Vatican II?  With 1700+ years of commentary on Scipture, you should be able to find something before V2 and Protestant advisors on translation, right?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)