There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-23-2011, 11:53 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-23-2011, 11:43 AM)James02 Wrote: You are very indirect.  If you believe a priest who commits sodomy can't confect the sacraments, just say it.

I've already said several times in this thread that they can - technically - but that they bring great scandal among the Faithful when it comes to confidence in the Sacramental economy.  Be careful of purely technical definitions unconnected to real, concrete circumstances.

You seem to contradict yourself.  You say a homosexual cannot be a Christian, and a non-Christian cannot be a priest.  Now you say they can confect valid Sacraments.

Don't you see the folly of your words?
Reply
(02-23-2011, 04:39 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: St.Cyril:
Quote: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.

St. Cyril here buttresses my position handily.  He says after enlightenment, you have no excuse to persist in wickedness.  It is a trap to couple the comtemporary nomenclature for sin against nature with personhood in the order of grace.  It is supremely uncharitible towards the [former] sodomite to do so.

St. Ireneus:
Quote: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?

St. Ireneus here demonstrates the freedom to change one's will on things - which cannot exclude the decision to self-identify as one who sins against nature.  This follows naturally from the renewing of the mind (cf Romans 12:2; Eph. 4-21-24)

St. Augustine:
Quote: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.
(emphasis yours)

How could this be any plainer, Quis?  He is clearly saying that those who have received the grace of conversion in the new birth are NOT CHRISTIANS (kingdom of heaven shut) if they TOLERATE abominable lusts in their own hearts?  And your position is that not only are they sodomites(homosexual persons), but that the Church tells them so!   How can this be a charitable position towards those that have been ensnared in this sinful pattern?

St. Augustine did not say they are "not Christians".  He challenged them on how they could consider themselves Christians if they still indulged in the same sinful thoughts and behaviors.  It was not an excommunication, it was given as pastoral consideration.  They were still Christians, but they were unworthy of the title.

The Church (and I, I will remind you) condemn both homosexual acts and the dwelling on them for pleasure (tolerating within one's heart).

I can make it plainer.  Here is a Catholic commentary on the Bible, not a Protestant one:

Quote:http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id167.html

Ver. 8-11. Defraud....your brethren. That is, you still make yourselves much more guilty by the injustices done to one another: for the unjust, and all they who are guilty of such crimes as I have mentioned, shall not possess the kingdom of God. And some of you were guilty of part of them, which have been washed off by your conversion, and your baptism, when you were justified. (Witham) --- And such some of you were. It is probable that this was added by the apostle, to soften his preceding words, lest he might seem to accuse all the Corinthians of each of these sins, and he likewise adds, such indeed you were, but now you are washed, &c. &c. (Estius; St. Thomas Aquinas)

That passage does not mean at all what you are reading into it.  I will say it again: you are depending on a Protestant (or NAB - same thing in practical terms) interpretation of those passages.  The reborn Christians love that passage - their heresy is based on it, and your statements are quasi-heretical or at least proximate heresy when you misunderstand what the "new man" is.  The man is new because he is washed in the laver of baptism, receiving remission of Original Sin and an indelible mark placed on his soul.

Unlike the Protestants, the Church teaches, as I am sure you are aware but I point out for completeness and clarity, our sins are obliterated, including Original Sin at baptism.  They are not snow covering a dung heap like certain Protestant sects think.  We suffer the temporal fallout from Original Sin, but we are no longer stained by it - that is the New Man.  As Haydock cites: "[the sins] which have been washed off by your conversion, and your baptism, when you were justified"; that is how they are made a New Man.  To state one still has same sex attraction problems, including by using the word "homosexual" in its proper sense,  is not a sin anymore than admitting one still has problems with impulsive impure thoughts or stealing or whatever.
Reply
Isn't believing that a priest who commited sodomy can't consacrate the Eucharist, basically, Donatism?
Reply
(02-23-2011, 11:33 AM)James02 Wrote: It seems that only point 4 is in dispute, though you deny being a Donatist, you put priest in quotes on you comments on item 3.  Getting back to the point in dispute:

Many Catholics go to hell.  Pope Pius XII was explicit on this point:
Quote:"23. Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness.

edit: Let me be more precise: Many of the Church Militant will end up in hell.  While living, even though they will end up in hell, they are still Catholic.  Once they die and receive their judgement, they are no longer Catholic.  Because among the dead, the only Catholics are the Church Suffering (purgatory) and the Church Triumphant. 

edit: I don't know the difference between a theological definition of a Catholic or an eschatological.  But eschatologically, we can say that in order to be saved,  it is necessary, but not sufficient , to be Catholic.

Dear brother James02:
We are obviously working with diverse definitions of "Catholic" here.  As St. Paul said in Romans,

For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly; nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh: [29] But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. Rom. 2:28-29

If we call Catholic anyone baptized in the Roman rite or inducted therein after a valid baptism in another communion, regardless of life, conduct, values, actions, etc... then most certainly uncountable souls will be in hell regardless of titular affiliation.  Christ our Lord teaches that "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be condemned."  (Mk. 16:16)  After baptism, we must persevere in faith and works, and the failure to do so most certainly constitutes the conditions whereby condemnation is justified. 

By theological:  a Catholic is a reborn by the grace of the Holy Spirit, living in communion with the Trinity and the universal Church.
By eschatalogical:  a Catholic is an overcomer of the world, living in the world but not of it, a citizen of the heavenly Jerusalem, awaiting the glorious and physical return of our Lord and King Jesus Christ.

Note Pope Pius XII uses "body of the Church" and not "body of Christ" here.  No one truly in the body of Christ (united vitally to Jesus, His passion and resurrection) can be in hell.  But just as Annanias and Sapphira joined themselves to the Church but were struck down at Peter's word for their perfidy, many have joined themselves to the Church in ways that fall short of true union with Christ. (Acts 5:1-10)
Reply
On Earth, a Christian can be in mortal sin.  The Pope has spoken on this.

I have already stated that no Catholic is in hell.  Once they pass through judgement, if they are condemned to hell, they cease to be members of the Church, which is the body of Christ.

Quote: If we call Catholic anyone baptized in the Roman rite or inducted therein after a valid baptism in another communion, regardless of life, conduct, values, actions, etc... then most certainly uncountable souls will be in hell regardless of titular affiliation.
There is no "we".  There is only Pope Pius XII.  And he has declared that members of the Church Militant go to hell.  I've already stated that once they are condemned, they are no longer Catholic, so quit with the red herring.  As far as the requirement that we reform our life, again, that is non-sequitur.  That is not in dispute.  I never said otherwise.
Reply
(02-23-2011, 07:18 PM)James02 Wrote: On Earth, a Christian can be in mortal sin.  The Pope has spoken on this.

I have already stated that no Catholic is in hell.  Once they pass through judgement, if they are condemned to hell, they cease to be members of the Church, which is the body of Christ.

Quote: If we call Catholic anyone baptized in the Roman rite or inducted therein after a valid baptism in another communion, regardless of life, conduct, values, actions, etc... then most certainly uncountable souls will be in hell regardless of titular affiliation.
There is no "we".  There is only Pope Pius XII.  And he has declared that members of the Church Militant go to hell.  I've already stated that once they are condemned, they are no longer Catholic, so quit with the red herring.  As far as the requirement that we reform our life, again, that is non-sequitur.  That is not in dispute.  I never said otherwise.

Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven.  Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name?  And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity.
Matthew 7:21-23

Perhaps it is a non-sequitur for you.  It seems germaine to this discussion to me, but then again, maybe I'm not Catholic?
Reply
(02-23-2011, 02:09 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-23-2011, 11:53 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-23-2011, 11:43 AM)James02 Wrote: You are very indirect.  If you believe a priest who commits sodomy can't confect the sacraments, just say it.

I've already said several times in this thread that they can - technically - but that they bring great scandal among the Faithful when it comes to confidence in the Sacramental economy.  Be careful of purely technical definitions unconnected to real, concrete circumstances.
You seem to contradict yourself.  You say a homosexual cannot be a Christian, and a non-Christian cannot be a priest.  Now you say they can confect valid Sacraments.  Don't you see the folly of your words?

Already addressed in previous replies.  Sacraments are valid ex opere operato.  Not dependent on the worthiness of the minister.  Those who cause scandal among the Faithful by presenting themselves unworthily for orders and they that ordain them commit mortal sin (Aquinas).  Scandal is a grave sin of such enormous proportions, Our Blessed Lord said they who cause His little ones to stumble would be better off at the bottom of the sea with a large millstone tied around their neck.  I take that very seriously.
Reply
Another red herring.  Everybody on this forum takes the scandal in the Church extremely seriously.  That is why we are trads.

By the way, if you are not Catholic, just say so.  Why be deceptive?
Reply
(02-23-2011, 07:52 PM)James02 Wrote: Another red herring.  Everybody on this forum takes the scandal in the Church extremely seriously.  That is why we are trads.

By the way, if you are not Catholic, just say so.  Why be deceptive?

James, of course I am Catholic - just not Catholic enough for some, apparently. 
Reply
(02-23-2011, 02:03 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: [Here's another document:

Quote:http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congre...ne_en.html

Instruction
Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Again:

Quote:http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_df86ho.htm

Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

How much more clear can it be than that last statement?

Really, other things aside, I think you are behaving dishonorably by purposefully misrepresenting what the Church has said to further your own ideas. 

Which makes it probably a good time to address the other bee in your bonnet: "homosexual persons"

Homosexual is an adjective.  It can be used substantively to be a noun ("a homosexual"), but it is at its root an adjective.  There is nothing nefarious about  the Church using "homosexual person" any more than "homosexual behavior" or "homosexual bar", or when it uses other terms such as "indigenous peoples".  "Homosexual person" merely spells out what "homosexual" used substantively means.  You cannot change "person" to "identity" with no basis other than your imagination, especially in light of the fact that the Church in the same documents you find fault with has clearly said it's a tendency, it's disordered, it's not an identity, etc.

I think the red text says enough.

Your dismissal of CCC 2333 is disappointing.  "2333. Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity."   Somehow in your reading of this passage, everyone does not mean everyone.  OK then!  ???
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)