There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
So the problem is with the catechism?
Reply
[26] For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, [27] But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. [28] A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: [29] How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.  [[31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.   Hebrews 10:26-31

Douay-Rheims commentary on this passage:
[26] "If we sin wilfully"... He speaks of the sin of wilful apostasy from the known truth; after which, as we can not be baptized again, we can not expect to have that abundant remission of sins, which Christ purchased by his death, applied to our souls in that ample manner as it is in baptism: but we have rather all manner of reason to look for a dreadful judgment; the more because apostates from the known truth, seldom or never have the grace to return to it.

Pope St. Pius V:
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss
.(Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

St. Paul's response to impunity with regard to sexual perversion in the Church:
[1] It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father's wife. [2] And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. [3] I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; [5] To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.  2 Cor. 5:1-5

Sometimes it may be necessary to condemn in order to save.




Reply
(02-23-2011, 08:48 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So the problem is with the catechism?
Are you a Donatist Catholic Johnny....?
Reply
(02-23-2011, 08:48 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So the problem is with the catechism?

Well, I see a problem there - maybe I'm just dense.  But the CCC says "homosexual persons are called to chastity."  Then it defines chastity as integration of the inner life with the body.  Then it says everyone is called to accept their sexual identity and this imperative is presented in the context of complimentarity, as in matrimony.   So it says that a homosexual person is called to chastity as a homosexual person which would be impossible by the definition of sexual identity as presented in the CCC.

???
Reply
(02-23-2011, 09:49 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-23-2011, 08:48 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So the problem is with the catechism?

Well, I see a problem there - maybe I'm just dense.  But the CCC says "homosexual persons are called to chastity."  Then it defines chastity as integration of the inner life with the body.  Then it says everyone is called to accept their sexual identity and this imperative is presented in the context of complimentarity, as in matrimony.   So it says that a homosexual person is called to chastity as a homosexual person which would be impossible by the definition of sexual identity as presented in the CCC.

???
Another time bomb from VAT 2 explodes
Reply
(02-23-2011, 09:48 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(02-23-2011, 08:48 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So the problem is with the catechism?
Are you a Donatist Catholic Johnny....?

:laughing: No, not at all.  I just want Holy Mother Church purged of clergy who are persistant in Mortal sin.  If that makes me a donatist, oh well!  I replied to this charge earlier in the thread.  Apparently if you are not in favor of apostate, reprobate priests living in mortal sin, you are a donatist these days.
Reply
Pope St. Pius X on the actions to be taken when Modernist clergy are detected:

48. All these prescriptions and those of Our Predecessor are to be borne in mind whenever there is question of choosing directors and professors for seminaries and Catholic Universities. Anybody who in any way is found to be imbued with Modernism is to be excluded without compunction from these offices, and those who already occupy them are to be withdrawn. The same policy is to be adopted towards those who favour Modernism either by extolling the Modernists or excusing their culpable conduct, by criticising scholasticism, the Holy Father, or by refusing obedience to ecclesiastical authority in any of its depositaries; and towards those who show a love of novelty in history, archaeology, biblical exegesis, and finally towards those who neglect the sacred sciences or appear to prefer to them the profane. In all this question of studies, Venerable Brethren, you cannot be too watchful or too constant, but most of all in the choice of professors, for as a rule the students are modelled after the pattern of their masters. Strong in the consciousness of your duty, act always prudently but vigorously.

49. Equal diligence and severity are to be used in examining and selecting candidates for Holy Orders. Far, far from the clergy be the love of novelty! God hates the proud and the obstinate. For the future the doctorate of theology and canon law must never be conferred on anybody who has not made the regular course of scholastic philosophy; if conferred it shall be held as null and void. The rules laid down in 1896 by the Sacred Congregation of Bishops and Regulars for the clerics, both secular and regular, of Italy concerning the frequenting of the Universities, We now decree to be extended to all nations. Clerics and priests inscribed in a Catholic Institute or University must not in the future follow in civil Universities those courses for which there are chairs in the Catholic Institutes to which they belong. If this has been permitted anywhere in the past, We ordain that it be not allowed for the future. Let the Bishops who form the Governing Board of such Catholic Institutes or Universities watch with all care that these Our commands be constantly observed.
  Pascendi Dominici Gregis, 1907

While Pope Benedict XVI has appropriately and sharply forbid the ordination of sodomites/molle/effeminati, there don't appear to be any disciplinary measures in the heirarchy to remove those already in office.  This is a problem in my judgment.  No one should be compelled to receive pastoral leadership from a reprobate just because the sacraments he dispenses are valid ex opere operato.   How anyone can refuse to admit that this is a horrific scandal is beyond me.  When you get so focused on technical legitimacy that you miss the entire bigger point, you may fall prey to a form of 'Modernistic' Phariseeism.
Reply
(02-23-2011, 08:19 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(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.

Again, appropriating things things out of context.  The first "today" refers to current problems that have come up with a misinterpretation.  The second "today", with the cultural situation that is amoral.

Quote: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!  ???

Yes, my reading of the passage is assuming good will on the part of the Catechism and the Church.  Yours assumes bad will.  Yours also assumes that "homosexual" is a sexual identity.  I do not, and neither does the Church as evidenced by the comment on Identity in the other document.  For a homosexual to embrace his sexual identity means for a man to embrace being a man and not engage in homosexual acts.
Reply
(02-23-2011, 09:46 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: [26] For if we sin wilfully after having the knowledge of the truth, there is now left no sacrifice for sins, [27] But a certain dreadful expectation of judgment, and the rage of a fire which shall consume the adversaries. [28] A man making void the law of Moses, dieth without any mercy under two or three witnesses: [29] How much more, do you think he deserveth worse punishments, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament unclean, by which he was sanctified, and hath offered an affront to the Spirit of grace? [30] For we know him that hath said: Vengeance belongeth to me, and I will repay. And again: The Lord shall judge his people.  [[31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.   Hebrews 10:26-31

Douay-Rheims commentary on this passage:
[26] "If we sin wilfully"... He speaks of the sin of wilful apostasy from the known truth; after which, as we can not be baptized again, we can not expect to have that abundant remission of sins, which Christ purchased by his death, applied to our souls in that ample manner as it is in baptism: but we have rather all manner of reason to look for a dreadful judgment; the more because apostates from the known truth, seldom or never have the grace to return to it.

Pope St. Pius V:
That horrible crime, on account of which corrupt and obscene cities were destroyed by fire through divine condemnation, causes us most bitter sorrow and shocks our mind, impelling us to repress such a crime with the greatest possible zeal.

Quite opportunely the Fifth Lateran Council [1512-1517] issued this decree: "Let any member of the clergy caught in that vice against nature, given that the wrath of God falls over the sons of perfidy, be removed from the clerical order or forced to do penance in a monastery" (chap. 4, X, V, 31).

So that the contagion of such a grave offense may not advance with greater audacity by taking advantage of impunity, which is the greatest incitement to sin, and so as to more severely punish the clerics who are guilty of this nefarious crime and who are not frightened by the death of their souls, we determine that they should be handed over to the severity of the secular authority, which enforces civil law.

Therefore, wishing to pursue with greater rigor than we have exerted since the beginning of our pontificate, we establish that any priest or member of the clergy, either secular or regular, who commits such an execrable crime, by force of the present law be deprived of every clerical privilege, of every post, dignity and ecclesiastical benefit, and having been degraded by an ecclesiastical judge, let him be immediately delivered to the secular authority to be put to death, as mandated by law as the fitting punishment for laymen who have sunk into this abyss
.(Constitutionn Horrendum illud scelus, August 30, 1568, in Bullarium Romanum, Rome: Typographia Reverendae Camerae Apostolicae, Mainardi, 1738, chap. 3, p. 33)

St. Paul's response to impunity with regard to sexual perversion in the Church:
[1] It is absolutely heard, that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as the like is not among the heathens; that one should have his father's wife. [2] And you are puffed up; and have not rather mourned, that he might be taken away from among you, that hath done this deed. [3] I indeed, absent in body, but present in spirit, have already judged, as though I were present, him that hath so done, [4] In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, you being gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus; [5] To deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.  2 Cor. 5:1-5

Sometimes it may be necessary to condemn in order to save.

Again, I'll ask you not to spam the discussion with citations out of context.  If you don't know what it means, I'll make it clear:  regurgitating documents with no context and no explanation is spamming the discussion.  It is pontificating, not discussing.  This isn't a soapbox - it's a roundtable.

Anyhow, you are preaching to the choir in this case.  No one is saying homosexual acts are OK or that clerics who engage in them shouldn't be punished or laicized.
Reply
(02-23-2011, 09:49 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-23-2011, 08:48 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So the problem is with the catechism?

Well, I see a problem there - maybe I'm just dense.  But the CCC says "homosexual persons are called to chastity."  Then it defines chastity as integration of the inner life with the body.  Then it says everyone is called to accept their sexual identity and this imperative is presented in the context of complimentarity, as in matrimony.   So it says that a homosexual person is called to chastity as a homosexual person which would be impossible by the definition of sexual identity as presented in the CCC.

???

I'm beginning to notice a certain lack of integrity on your part, and to be hones with you, it is making me angry.

The CCC does not present it as you are characterizing it.

First it says:

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.

The fact you can come up with it saying someone should embrace their homosexual tendencies given that the next sentence explains the identities are oriented towards the goods of marriage shows either a lack of comprehension or malice on your part.

After that it defines chastity:

2337 Chastity means the successful integration of sexuality within the person and thus the inner unity of man in his bodily and spiritual being. Sexuality, in which man's belonging to the bodily and biological world is expressed, becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman.

Again, you either suffer from a lack of ability to comprehend or outright malice.

It clearly states that sexuality is only related to the "complete and lifelong mutual gift of a man and a woman".  How you can then apply this definition of integration to disorder is beyond me.  And don't say the CCC is doing it - it is not.  The most one can read into it while being intellectually honest is that this, too, is a goal for someone suffering from the homsexual burden - eventually, hopefully, the disorder will be conquered and the person will experience a normal sexuality within the confines of marriage or remain chaste according to his station in life.

And never mind the following sections entitled "Integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift of self" which clearly hammer out (for once in the CCC) what they mean by integrating one's identity.

Only after that, in a completely different section, does it talk about homosexuality and it explains exactly how they are called to chastity:

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

Self-mastery is explained in 2339-2343.

Really, I think you're being disingenuous and purposefully so.  Why, I'm not sure.  Maybe you actually believe what you're saying and don't realize you are twisting words like pretzels and misrepresenting what the Church says.  Maybe you do, and if you do, I'd like to at least give you the benefit of the doubt by saying that you're doing something intellectually dishonest at least to achieve a greater good.  But, really, I don't believe that.

In any case, it doesn't matter what I believe about what's going on in your head, but I thought I'd mention it since you imply I'm infected by Modernism when really I'm just infected by intellectual honesty.  What counts is what you are posting.  You are clearly and deliberately twisting things, selectively citing Scripture, ignoring questions, etc.

I am going to ask you to proceed in an intellectually honest manner or stop posting.  There is plenty to criticize in the Church without making stuff up or misrepresenting things.  The fact that there are openly and practicing homosexual priests still in ministry is a good place to start legitimate criticism.




Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)