There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-22-2011, 01:27 PM)James02 Wrote: I have read this thread and still can't understand what he is trying to say.  Someone accused him of playing with semantics, and it comes across that way.  Or maybe I am dense.

Let us take the alcoholic.  He is dry for years.  However, he can't ever drink alcohol again.  Now is it Johnny's position that because the alcoholic confessed his sins, he is now able to go and join in a toast?  That is the sin of presumption. 

Same with a fornicator.  He knows, for example, that if he goes to a party and has a few drinks, he'll start hitting on women and likely end up in bed with them.  Can he now say, after confession: "I am cured of this.  I shall not stay away from my friends.  I can now safely go to the party and I'll be safe."?  Again, that would be presumption.

No the "Sin of Presumption" is presuming yourself to be saved no matter what.  As to a Vice and curing it  we can look no farther than  the Sacrament of Penance , if one partakes of it and repents his sins - he then meets one of the requirements by trully repenting.  Confession is only one aspect of the Sacrament.    Remember , vice doesnt happen overnight.  Think about it this way - When Jesus said "we must become as little children " his call is for a return to innocence.  How many Five year olds do you know that are Alcoholics?  Or Homosexuals?  NONE?  Right answer.  So these Vices are not the result of a single sin and I'll bet if the person thought back to the first time they got Drunk  - they would remember how guilty they felt about it.  But they were no longer Innocent any longer.  And in time with repeated Sins the Gravity of Sin  became so dull , they no longer see themselves as capable of innocence.  So what we are talking about is overcoming Vice - not merely a sin or two.    Not only is it possible - But necessary.  Certainly if one makes up their mind to Go and sin no more - because they have repented - then they do so , no matter what.  The Temptation is exactly that , Temptation.  Now as for Occasions of sin - Certainly if one has trully repented - they avoid occasions of sin out of their Will.  When a person trully repents - they repent by will.    Remember - Temptation to Sin can come in Three ways - by Act - but also by Thought and by Word.  Therefore - repentance in all three is required to overcome Vice. So a person who once was an Alcoholic but has since repented - must repent in all ways at all times.  How sorry for your sin to GOD have you been if after going to Confession and making a firm Act of Amendment of life , confessing your Sins to the Priest , doing the penance , you stop off at the corner bar for a beer or twelve the next night?    You see , the Sacrament isnt mocked.    Confession alone will not save you.  Every aspect of the Sacrament must be present for sin and vice to dissipate.  So in that regard , I side with Johnny in the argument.  It is a mtter of Will power and Desire to not offend the laws of GOD and in that Temptation takes a back seat to GOD'S Grace in that no man is tempted beyond his strength.  If he gives in to temptation - he hasnt asked for the Hlep of GOD sufficiently.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Malleus Haereticorum's post:
  • Catholic Johnny
Reply
(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?

We live in a fallen world, some people are born hermaphrodites, others retarded, some blind, without some limb or with deadly diseases. I think homosexuality in some cases is something like a case of brain hermaphroditism, that would be the case of little kids who have normal brothers, and were raised normally, but when they are 3 or 4 years prefer to play with dolls, with girls, wear their mothers clothes and make up and end up as homos when they are old.

In other cases it is learned, for example, the rape of males in prison or among ancient greeks were pederasty was rampant. It was an institution.


Even if they are born that way, they still have intellect and reason and can deduce that homosexual sex in an irrational act that is an abomination, a grotesque imitation of real sex (between a man or a woman) that serves no purpose because you can't have offspring through those acts and is also dangerous for their health.

They just have to live with their cross.
Reply
Quote:  How sorry for your sin to GOD have you been if after going to Confession and making a firm Act of Amendment of life , confessing your Sins to the Priest , doing the penance , you stop off at the corner bar for a beer or twelve the next night?

Don't know.  You could be truly sorry, and have a firm purpose of amendment, then fall.  If you went to the confessional soley because of the fear of hell, it is enough to be valid. 
But how about if he makes it 2 months, and then falls?  What then?  Actually, why pick an arbitrary date?  Suppose he slips up at ANY future point.  Are you claiming his confession was invalid?

And you didn't answer the question.  Is this person required to avoid bars?  Is he required to avoid drinking again?  I say yes, because he is an alcoholic.   

Now, to be clear, if he falls, he is responsible for that.  He has the choice to avoid these near occasions of sin.  God does not ask the impossible.  But he is free to choose the evil.

I will also grant that over a long period of time, it is possible that a near occasion of sin ceases to become a near occasion of sin, because pleasure centers in the brain go away after a period on non-use. 
Reply
(02-22-2011, 08:03 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: From Roman Catholic Tradition:

Please don't spam the discussion with random quotes.  Either expound upon them or insert them contextually.  When you do this, again, I miss your point.

Is your point sodomy is a mortal sin?  Well, great, but I don't think anyone is denying that.
Reply
Quote: No the "Sin of Presumption" is presuming yourself to be saved no matter what.

Assuming that you will be saved no matter what is "a" sin of presumption.  It appears any sin that immoderately depends on God's mercy is the sin of presumption.  From the summa:

Quote: I answer that, Presumption seems to imply immoderate hope. Now the object of hope is an arduous possible good: and a thing is possible to a man in two ways: first by his own power; secondly, by the power of God alone. With regard to either hope there may be presumption owing to lack of moderation. As to the hope whereby a man relies on his own power, there is presumption if he tends to a good as though it were possible to him, whereas it surpasses his powers, according to Judith 6:15: "Thou humblest them that presume of themselves." This presumption is contrary to the virtue of magnanimity which holds to the mean in this kind of hope. But as to the hope whereby a man relies on the power of God, there may be presumption through immoderation, in the fact that a man tends to some good as though it were possible by the power and mercy of God, whereas it is not possible, for instance, if a man hope to obtain pardon without repenting, or glory without merits. This presumption is, properly, the sin against the Holy Ghost, because, to wit, by presuming thus a man removes or despises the assistance of the Holy Spirit, whereby he is withdrawn from sin.

So putting yourself in a near occasion of sin, and saying, "well I went to confession, so I can do this.  God won't let me fall" appears to be a sin of presumption.  You are basically demanding a miracle.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 08:46 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 06:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Your claim - in so many words - is that anyone who hasn't "beat the gay" or "prayed the gay" (where "the gay" is the disordered attraction to members of the same sex) out of themselves can't be a Christian, right?

The intellectually honest conclusion of what you are saying is in fact this:  If someone has a pre-disposition to a sin for whatever reason (psychological, environmental, etc.) unless they get rid of that pre-disposition they can't be Christian because, according to you, of 1 Cor.  Take a fornicator.  If someone continues to be inordinately horny, they are necessarily rejecting the grace of Christ I suppose?  That sounds quasi-heretical to me, to be honest with you.  I'll be happy to explain why if you don't know.

If not, then why the special treatment of homosexuals and not fornicators or liars?  Aren't all those problems mentioned together?

And that's why I suspect we will have to go back to 1 Cor and why you are dependent on it.  The distinction you need for your argument to hold is that effeminate is a sin of "identity" whereas fornicator is not.  That's why you are insistent that St. Paul is condemning "homosexuals" instead of those lacking virtue when he refers to malakoi.

Maybe you'll surprise me though.  Maybe you won't make a distinction between those things.  It will be an interesting answer if you don't...

You contradict yourself and continually misrepresent my position.  I am beginning to think you haven't even so much as read my previous posts in this thread because you ignore the arguments you can't refute and keep stating I expect all concupiscience to leave the true believer.

I've read all your posts. What you are missing is the logical consquences of what you are saying.  As far as contradicting myself, hmm.  Maybe?  I do know you have made several glaring contradictions that I've glossed over because it would be futile to present you with them.

Quote:I have stated from the beginning:  there is no such theological category as a "homosexual person" and you cannot cite any proof to the contrary from Tradition. 

Not that I cannot, but that I haven't tried.  I haven't tried because you haven't answered my questions on what you mean by that.  For the third time:

Quote: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?

If you aren't going to give me the parameters of your request, I'm not going to attempt it.  In fact, there is an inherent problem in your request because Tradition with a capital T means those things that are handed down.  I'm going to assume you mean Magisterial, but I'm probably going to regret making even that assumption...

While I'm waiting though, here is another question for you: what is a "theological category" in your mind?  To me that would be: Sacraments, vices, virtues, etc.  "male" and "female" are not theological categories in my mind.  Can you give me some examples of other "theological categories"?

Answer those, and I'll be happy to try.  If I can't find anything, I will admit as much.

Quote: You still have not addressed "such were some of you" and "they that do such things are worthy of death."  One must be either a Christian or a homosexual, but not both.  The issue is the properties belonging to the new birth, which you also artfully avoid over and over again.  One cannot be a homosexual if one is a new creature in Christ. He may struggle with temptations and great trials of nature and mortification, but he cannot BE a homosexual if he is a new creature in Christ. 

This is really rich, you know, demanding I address your thoughts when you completely ignore a bunch of mine.  I haven't "artfully avoided it".  I've clearly stated that cannot be addressed if you think malakos refers to homosexuals as identity because your premise is wrong.

But I'll play your game.  Since you demand we move forward, we will, but on my terms not yours.  If you don't want to finish discussing the premise, I'll assume my premise is correct and yours is wrong -- just as you have been doing.  I'll address it assuming malakos / molles / effeminate refers to those who have vices opposed to perseverance rather than "homosexuals" as you are assuming.

Really, it seems simple to me what he is saying:  You wallowed in these sins before, you were cleansed with Baptism, you are to refrain from them as Christians - you know better now; you are not to delight in them, approve of them, or partake of them.

Quote:Cyril of Jerusalem
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310103.htm

8. What then must you do? And what are the fruits of repentance? Let him that has two coats give to him that has none Luke 3:11: the teacher was worthy of credit, since he was also the first to practise what he taught: he was not ashamed to speak, for conscience hindered not his tongue: and he that has meat, let him do likewise. Would you enjoy the grace of the Holy Spirit, yet judgest the poor not worthy of bodily food? Seekest thou the great gifts, and impartest not of the small? Though you be a publican, or a fornicator, have hope of salvation: the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you. Matthew 21:31 Paul also is witness, saying, Neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor the rest, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but you were washed, but you were sanctified. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 He said not, such are some of you, but such were some of you. Sin committed in the state of ignorance is pardoned, but persistent wickedness is condemned.

Quote:St. Irenaeus
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103437.htm

4. No doubt, if any one is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself, it is in his power [to reject it], but it is not expedient. For it is in man's power to disobey God, and to forfeit what is good; but [such conduct] brings no small amount of injury and mischief. And on this account Paul says, All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient; 1 Corinthians 6:12 referring both to the liberty of man, in which respect all things are lawful, God exercising no compulsion in regard to him; and [by the expression] not expedient pointing out that we should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness, 1 Peter 2:16 for this is not expedient. And again he says, Speak every man truth with his neighbour. Ephesians 4:25 And, Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor scurrility, which are not convenient, but rather giving of thanks. Ephesians 4:29 And, For you were sometimes darkness, but now are you light in the Lord; walk honestly as children of the light, not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in anger and jealousy. And such were some of you; but you have been washed, but you have been sanctified in the name of our Lord. 1 Corinthians 6:11 If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

Quote:St. Augustine
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102029.htm

Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 After reading these, I charged them to consider how believers could hear these words, but you are washed, if they still tolerated in their own hearts— that is, in God's inner temple— the abominations of such lusts as these against which the kingdom of heaven is shut.

These people are not free of their faults, their struggles, etc.  They WERE that way because 1) they are now baptized, 2) they exert their will to not commit those acts anymore.  Fornicators stop fornicating, condemn it, and flee from that sin.  Sodomites stop sodomizing, condemn it, and flee from that sin.  Nowhere does it mean an ex-fornicator stops having an overactive libido or an ex-sodomite stops being attracted to other men.

The meaning of that passage is best summed up by St. Irenaeus:

Quote: If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things, and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will from the beginning, and God is possessed of free will, in whose likeness man was created, advice is always given to him to keep fast the good, which thing is done by means of obedience to God.

It is specifically about doing things including: approving / disapproving, enjoying that which is forbidden, etc. by exertion of our free will upon our passions whether they be disordered or just inordinate.

Quote:
Quote:Take a fornicator.  If someone continues to be inordinately horny, they are necessarily rejecting the grace of Christ I suppose?  That sounds quasi-heretical to me, to be honest with you.  I'll be happy to explain why if you don't know.

Fornicators will not inherit the kingdom of God and yet here you are claiming that they are receiving grace.  Not while they are practioners of this sin, which unfortunately is ubiquitous and accepted by many priests.  If I should say, "I am an adulterer and a Christian", St. Paul teaches that I am in mortal sin:

Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.   Or know you not, that he who is joined to a harlot, is made one body? For they shall be, saith he, two in one flesh.  But he who is joined to the Lord, is one spirit.  Fly fornication. Every sin that a man doth, is without the body; but he that committeth fornication, sinneth against his own body. 1 Cor. 6:15-18

Again, you are either a Christian or a fornicator, and here you have again joined them together as though penance were unneccesary or that the Holy Spirit  would unite Himself to a practicing fornicator.  Now if he is no longer practicing, why did you call him a fornicator?  Again, "such were some of you."  The former fornicator may have grievous temptations and seasons of necessary mortification but he is a new creature in Christ Jesus, Who has made all things new.  Absolution most surely confers the gift of justice and innocence, and removes the guilt.  Therefore the Priest in the stead of Christ says in the absolution, "I forgive you all of your sins."  How then can you call him whom Christ has washed, sanctified and justified (1 Cor. 6:11) a fornicator?  Who is the accuser of the brethren?  Christ?  His Church?  His ministers?  No, the devil and his angels.  Therefore it is completey wrong to call an absolved and righteous man a fornicator and it is equally wrong to call an absolved person a homosexual, effeminate, molle, boy prostitute, _____________.

A fornicator describes someone engaging in actual acts.  A homosexual describes someone who has a predisposition towards a particular sin.  You're comparing apples and oranges.  If you want an accurate comparison, compare what drives the person to perform particular sinful acts.  A person with an over active libido and a homosexual person would be an appropriate comparison.

Quote:Even the CCC (2359) says "homosexual persons" are called to chastity.  Then listen to the CCC's definition of chastity:

Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. (2337)
How then can one called to be conformed to the image of Christ integrate [homo]sexuality with his bodily and spiritual; being, if even the CCC calls the acts of homosexuality "gravely disordered?"

How can someone who is extremely horny integrate his inordinate concupisence within the person?  By bearing his Cross, applying his will, and acting as God intended.  By assuming an ordered and ordinate lifestyle.

Quote:CCC 2333:
Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity. Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the way in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out.

How then with this definition should we counsel a "homosexual person" to live chastely as a "homosexual person" if he is called to accept his sexual identity which is complimentary and not symmetrical?

His sexual identity is that as he was born: a male or female.  He accepts that identity be refraining from acts that are unnatural.  He accepts that identity by not becoming a priest because his sexuality is unfit for the priesthood as is one who cannot remain chaste.  The sexual identity here refers to more than just coitus partners.  It refers to gender roles, the roles of the male in the priesthood, etc.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 02:05 PM)justlurking Wrote:
(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?

We live in a fallen world, some people are born hermaphrodites, others retarded, some blind, without some limb or with deadly diseases. I think homosexuality in some cases is something like a case of brain hermaphroditism, that would be the case of little kids who have normal brothers, and were raised normally, but when they are 3 or 4 years prefer to play with dolls, with girls, wear their mothers clothes and make up and end up as homos when they are old.

In other cases it is learned, for example, the rape of males in prison or among ancient greeks were pederasty was rampant. It was an institution.


Even if they are born that way, they still have intellect and reason and can deduce that homosexual sex in an irrational act that is an abomination, a grotesque imitation of real sex (between a man or a woman) that serves no purpose because you can't have offspring through those acts and is also dangerous for their health.

They just have to live with their cross.

Actually there is no such thing as a True Hermaphrodite - because in order to be a true Hermaphrodite one would have to produce offspring which of course has never existed.  Therefore - they are merely born with defects just as there are Siamese twins etc.  And one cannot say thet GOD Has created them as such - because there are defects - some due to pollutants or caused by exposure to Chemicals or Drugs in a prenatal situation where the embryo fails to develope -  so who is to determine if Man caused the Defect by failing to respect the environment or care of the mother.  Its a reach to say GOD alone creates a hermaphrodite.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Malleus Haereticorum's post:
  • Catholic Johnny
Reply
(02-22-2011, 04:32 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: Actually there is no such thing as a True Hermaphrodite - because in order to be a true Hermaphrodite one would have to produce offspring

What's your source for that?  AFAIK, a hermaphrodite is a creature has both male and female reproductive organs.  Whether it produces offspring or not is irrelevant to being a hermaphrodite.

It's not a big deal, I've just never heard this understanding of the word before.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 03:13 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote:  How sorry for your sin to GOD have you been if after going to Confession and making a firm Act of Amendment of life , confessing your Sins to the Priest , doing the penance , you stop off at the corner bar for a beer or twelve the next night?

Don't know.  You could be truly sorry, and have a firm purpose of amendment, then fall.  If you went to the confessional soley because of the fear of hell, it is enough to be valid. 
But how about if he makes it 2 months, and then falls?  What then?  Actually, why pick an arbitrary date?  Suppose he slips up at ANY future point.  Are you claiming his confession was invalid?

And you didn't answer the question.  Is this person required to avoid bars?  Is he required to avoid drinking again?  I say yes, because he is an alcoholic.    Now, to be clear, if he falls, he is responsible for that.  He has the choice to avoid these near occasions of sin.  God does not ask the impossible.  But he is free to choose the evil.

I will also grant that over a long period of time, it is possible that a near occasion of sin ceases to become a near occasion of sin, because pleasure centers in the brain go away after a period on non-use. 

James02,
You have fallen into the trap presented earlier in this thread of using medical and not Catholic theological models.  This allows for Modernist exploitation, and I am sure you have done this quite innocently as it is in the air we breathe today.  "Alcoholic" is not a Catholic theological term.  It is a medical term based on medical theories that exclude the properties of the new birth in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17) and the supernatural properties of conversion (Ephesians 4:21-24).  The Magisterium does not teach that a person who is "alcholic' will always be an alcoholic.  St. Paul teaches very clearly in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 that "such were some of you, but you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified in Christ and by the Spirit of God."  This passage includes both sodomites and drunkards. 

The world says "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic" and the Church teaches "if any man is in Christ, [he is] a new creation."  (2 Cor. 5:17)  St. Paul teaches we are to put off the old man and put on the new (Ephesians 4:21-24).   In Romans 12:1-2, St. Paul teaches us to be wary of the world's way of thinking about these things:

I BESEECH you therefore, brethren, by the mercy of God, that you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, pleasing unto God, your reasonable service.  And be not conformed to this world; but be reformed in the newness of your mind, that you may prove what is the good, and the acceptable, and the perfect will of God.

This agrees with the properties of the new birth and conversion:

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).   

The difference here is in identity.  Am I a new creation in Christ?  Or am I a homosexual person?  You can't be both, regardless of the intensity of temptation.  Without the renewing of the mind, your thinking will be hopelessly dominated by the logic of this world, and you will end up rejecting grace.  To accept what some psychiatry study teaches above the word of God is the very definition of Modernism (Pascendi). 

Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy, and vain deceit; according to the tradition of men, according to the elements of the world, and not according to Christ:  For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;  And you are filled in him, who is the head of all principality and power...  Colossioans 2:8-10

The end of the matter is this: no such category of personage as the "homosexual person" exists in Tradition.   The pseudo-scientific term itself did not come to exist in scientific journals until the late 19th century (Freudianism).  It is cruel to tell someone struggling with this awful temptation that that is "what they are."  This deprives them of the hope of full conversion, complete healing, and the inner freedom that the Holy Spirit brings to believing hearts.
Reply
(02-22-2011, 05:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:40 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:20 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So, I still don't understand your point, but if you don't care to explain it, whatever.

My point was clear.  Unrepentant effeminati, molle, masculorum concubitores, malakos, homosexuals, catamites, liers with men, WHATEVER you want to call them sin mortally by presenting themselves for holy orders as do they that ordain them.  And let's not pretend that the ordinaries in question do not know they are ordaining practicing/tending/approving homosexuals to the priesthood.  

If you read back, you will note that not only do I not disagree with this point, I reaffirmed it.  That's why I don't understand what you're trying to prove by stating it.  No one said homosexuals should be priests.  No one said they are allowed to be priests.  That's not what we're debating here.  The problem is the arguments you are making along the way such as "homosexuals cannot be Christian".

Aha!  I think we are near a possible agreement, Quis.
You agree that:
1.  Homosexuals should not be priests;
2.  Bishops who knowingly ordain such sin mortally;
3.  These 'priests' become vehicles for all the errors of Modernism to be promulgated in the Church;
4.  Great and grave evils are perpetrated by this system.

Therefore,
1.  The systemic weakness in the Church that allows this to occur must be identified;
2.  The admittance of the existence of "chaste homosexual persons" provides a gateway;
3.  This gateway is ruthlessly exploited by both ordinands and ordinaries through the ordination of practising homosexuals;
4.  Modernism becomes mainstreamed and the faithful are wounded.

Now (full disclosure) I am a professional Soldier and view this problem from a military mindset:  locate the enemy's modus operandi, identify his tactics, plan accordingly, and destroy his center-of-gravity (engine of will-to-fight).

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God unto the pulling down of fortifications, destroying counsels,  And every height that exhalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every understanding unto the obedience of Christ;  And having in readiness to revenge all disobedience, when your obedience shall be fulfilled. 2 Cor. 10:3-6
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)