There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
Guitars at Mass.
I keeed Ikeeed! :P
Reply
(02-24-2011, 09:07 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-24-2011, 05:13 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-24-2011, 02:56 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: BTW, I only said you were influenced by Modernism on this one issue.   ;)

Fair enough.  And, I'm glad you're a Catholic. :)

You were subverted subliminally, not your fault, Quis.
Quote:Confirmed by Cdl. Joseph Bernardin according to the new form. 
  I feel ya, bro!   :laughing:

Yeah, that's probably the source of the "infection"...  :laughing:
Reply
Can someone please recapitulate the purpose of this thread? I have read through 20 or so pages and I still have no idea what the author is getting at. For a while I thought he was asserting that the orders of homosexuals who receive the priesthood are automatically invalid. Did he ever renounce that error or clarify his intention? Has he adduced any argument to corroborate his claim that St. Paul was deliberately making a tautology when he referred to the effeminate and liers with mankind?
Reply
(02-24-2011, 11:40 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: Can someone please recapitulate the purpose of this thread? I have read through 20 or so pages and I still have no idea what the author is getting at. For a while I thought he was asserting that the orders of homosexuals who receive the priesthood are automatically invalid. Did he ever renounce that error or clarify his intention? Has he adduced any argument to corroborate his claim that St. Paul was deliberately making a tautology when he referred to the effeminate and liers with mankind?

I never denied the sacramental validity of the orders per se; I showed from Scripture and Tradition where they that present themselves for orders unworthily sin mortally as do the ordinaries who ordain them (Aquinas).  I showed how anyone persisting in mortal sin cannot properly be considered a Christian at all because of their rejection of grace.  I demonstrated that while the orders are efficacious and their sacraments valid, they overthrow any good they may do by the enormity of the scandal they cause among the Faithful.  St. Paul considers them reprobate (Romans 1:28) and therefore completey unfit for any service in Christ's Church.  The point of controversy is over the possibility of the existence of "homosexual persons" as enumerated in the 1992 CCC.  Some of the partisans of tradition on this thread say no; the partisans in support of contemporary nomenclature innovation say yes.  (my categories - not those of the actual participants). 
Reply
I still don't understand the point of contention. Since the word homosexual is itself a neologism (invented by the Hungarian physician Benkert in the 1860s), it's very difficult to give any precise definition for it. Benkert defines it thus: "In addition to this normal sexual urge in man and woman Nature in her sovereign mood has endowed at birth certain male and female individuals with the homosexual urge, thus placing them in a sexual bondage which renders them physically and psychically incapable even with the best intention--of normal erection. The urge creates in advance a direct horror of the opposite sex, and the victim of this passion finds it impossible to suppress the feeling which individuals of his own sex exercise upon him." My only substantial objection to this definition is Benkert's conviction that homosexuality is a congenital trait--NARTH is an excellent resource for information on the psychogenesis of homosexuality. Is this--taking or leaving the possible hereditary aspects--the definition of homosexual you are working with? If so, are you claiming that sanctifying grace alone will cure a homosexual's psychological imbalance when they become a Christian? If so, you are definitely conflating categories. I see you've already brought in some curious and incomprehensible language about "theological categories" and "anthropological categories." Man, woman, and orthosexual are not theological categories so I do not see why it should be any different in the case of homosexuals. When the CCC refers to "homosexual persons" I think it is strongly implied, albeit in excessively polite terms, that it is referring to a psychological imbalance. It's not all that different from the classic genera of the four temperaments. As a "melancholic person", I have a definite predisposition to despair and there are many activities--not sinful in themselves--that I must avoid if I am to avoid sin. Does having an appropriately regulated melancholic temperament make me any less of a Christian? If not, I do not see how an appropriately regulated (i.e. chaste) homosexual inclination is any more of an impediment to being a Christian.
Reply
(02-25-2011, 12:35 AM)St. Drogo Wrote: I still don't understand the point of contention. Since the word homosexual is itself a neologism (invented by the Hungarian physician Benkert in the 1860s), it's very difficult to give any precise definition for it.
 
And this is a good argument for not using it in a Catholic doctrinal document.  But it is in CCC 2357-59.

Quote:Benkert defines it thus: "In addition to this normal sexual urge in man and woman Nature in her sovereign mood has endowed at birth certain male and female individuals with the homosexual urge, thus placing them in a sexual bondage which renders them physically and psychically incapable even with the best intention--of normal erection. The urge creates in advance a direct horror of the opposite sex, and the victim of this passion finds it impossible to suppress the feeling which individuals of his own sex exercise upon him." My only substantial objection to this definition is Benkert's conviction that homosexuality is a congenital trait--NARTH is an excellent resource for information on the psychogenesis of homosexuality.

There is no support in Scripture or tradition for it being caused by anything other than concupiscience and lust (James 1:12-16).  And no antidote for it other than faith, repentance, grace through the Word and Sacraments, and renewing of the mind (Eph. 4:21-24; Rom. 12:1-2)

Quote:Is this--taking or leaving the possible hereditary aspects--the definition of homosexual you are working with? If so, are you claiming that sanctifying grace alone will cure a homosexual's psychological imbalance when they become a Christian? If so, you are definitely conflating categories.

No sir.  I am taking the position that the properties belonging to the new birth in Christ by water and the Word (Baptism) do not allow for a Catholic to self-identify as a "homosexual person."  They may and often do battle persistent tendencies, but my position is that it is wrong for a Church authoritative document to insert [what you rightly called] a neologism into a doctrinal statement when that neologism is based on personality theory (psychology) and not theology as defined by the traditional, consistent teaching of the Church on this issue (I provided many quotes from Tradition on this issue in reply #164).  That this is exploited by Modernists to disastrous proportions to great hurt of the Faithful is beyond question.  No one can be a "homosexual person" if they are new creatures in Christ (2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15), else they make God the author of sin in creation or Christ the author of sin in the new creation. 

Quote:I see you've already brought in some curious and incomprehensible language about "theological categories" and "anthropological categories."


All due respect, sir, the confusion is caused by the introduction of theologically unsound  terminology into a body of doctrine.  Prior to 1986, there was no such thing as a "homosexual person" in any Magisterial teaching documents.  So what changed?

Quote:Man, woman, and orthosexual are not theological categories so I do not see why it should be any different in the case of homosexuals. When the CCC refers to "homosexual persons" I think it is strongly implied, albeit in excessively polite terms, that it is referring to a psychological imbalance.

You doctors and scientists deal in psychology.  The CCC is supposed to deal in solemn pronouncements and explanations of Catholic doctrine that will benefit us in the salvation of our souls and those of others.  This requires precise terms, definitions and explanations as we have seen in past catechisms, syllibi, Papal encyclicals, and concilliar documents with anathemas, decisions, approved terminology, etc...  "Male and female created He them..." (Gen. 1:27)

Quote:It's not all that different from the classic genera of the four temperaments. As a "melancholic person", I have a definite predisposition to despair and there are many activities--not sinful in themselves--that I must avoid if I am to avoid sin. Does having an appropriately regulated melancholic temperament make me any less of a Christian? If not, I do not see how an appropriately regulated (i.e. chaste) homosexual inclination is any more of an impediment to being a Christian.

Respectfully disagree.  Sacred Scripture never condemns a personality type or a proclivity towards nonvolitional mood swings (temperament).  An "appropriately regulated (i.e. chaste) homosexual inclination" would not necessitate identifying oneself as a homosexual person.   Please consider how this very thing is ruthlessly exploited in religion, society and politics to the great detriment of each.
Reply
I appreciate the clarification, and with that in mind I am returning to my original assessment of this thread that it is pedantic gainsaying and scrupulous semantics.

Quote:And this is a good argument for not using it in a Catholic doctrinal document.  But it is in CCC 2357-59.
While it is true that Catholic doctrine should never be bound by secular conventions, the Church has a sacred duty to respond to and rebuke any novelties that threaten to undermine its God-given mission. You are perfectly right that the introduction of the words "homosexual" and "homosexual person" into the modern lexicon were accompanied by a perverse agenda to justify sexual deviance, which is the very reason why it is so incumbent on the church to respond in a manner that is consistent with sacred scripture and tradition. For all of its equivocation on the nature of true ecumenism, the CCC did effectively disarm and reroute the immoral suggestion contained in these words.

Quote:2357Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This is an unambiguous statement made on behalf of tradition.

Quote:2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated [sic] homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial....
2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.
"Homosexual persons" here is likely used for brevity's sake. It is obvious that the catechism is addressing the same "men and women who have deep-seeded homosexual tendencies" in the previous paragraph. Based on these passages alone, there is no reasonable cause for scandal. The world tells these "homosexual persons" that the Church's teachings impose inordinate and unfashionable constraints on his or her sexuality, and like a devoted and just parent the Church must patiently explain her unwavering position. Moreover, the catechism seems to be actually attacking the open-ended ambiguity of these neologisms by imposing one herself.
Quote: "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," Cardinal Ratzinger
4) In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
8) Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage. [Here Cardinal Ratzinger cautions those who minister to persons who suffer from these disordered tendencies to beware of the grave danger of contamination in and out of the Church]

9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda [Though the Church should not dilute the deposit of faith to accommodate overt heretics, charity obliges her to protect the spiritual welfare of her flock. Luke 15:4 "What man of you that hath an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after that which was lost, until he find it?"]. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
10)But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered [Yet again, Cardinal Ratzinger addresses a probable logical fallacy]. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right [I'm seriously impressed with the Holy Father for making this statement and surprised that I've never heard liberals try to discredit him with it], neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

12....Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life [Does not setup a unique category of chastity for the homosexual]. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.

14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful [You are alleging that Cardinal Ratzinger is himself being misled]. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.

15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

[color=black]The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation. Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. 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./color]

All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.
The above is an adequate rebuttal to all of your objections. Like I said, semantics.
Reply
This is more reform of the reform typical of post vat2 confusion. A mixture of clear and traditional and modernist and pliable. A little leavening leavens the whole loaf.  The then Cardinal Ratzinger rightly points out the state of things while missing the cause of the state of things. As you pointed out (to my very great appreciation) the source of the term homosexual has no source in the faith. Created to explain as natural that which the Church always properly defined as a horrible sin. Its like bemoaning the fact that there are so many hornets flying around while you hold the nest in your hand. If the modern cccs compilers want to defeat the sin then stop using terminology that masks its true discription. Alice or Deitrich Von Hildebrande had the same opinion of the term (although for the life of me I cant locate the quote on the web, but Im sure I read it in a Remnant article)
The term homosexual should be expunged and replaced with a clearer term or go back to sodomitic.
QUEstion:
Is there a Latin word for this?
Reply
Quote:  I showed how anyone persisting in mortal sin cannot properly be considered a Christian at all because of their rejection of grace.
  Are they apostate or excommunicated?  Here is your contradiction.  It must be your position that a simple confession will not suffice to bring these people back into the Church.  Is that your position?
Reply
(02-25-2011, 06:31 AM)St. Drogo Wrote: I appreciate the clarification, and with that in mind I am returning to my original assessment of this thread that it is pedantic gainsaying and scrupulous semantics.

Quote:2357Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
This is an unambiguous statement made on behalf of tradition.

Sir: Please hear me out; I do not mean to be obstinate.  You have brought much light and technical clarity to this discussion.  Now I must object in that the entire premise that "the Church has always distinguished between homosexual acts and homosexual persons" is a bald invention with no precedent in tradition.

Quote:2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated [sic] homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial.... 2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity.

This is more open-ended ambuguity.  Whose figures are they using?  Those of discredited charlatan Maynard Keynes who alleged that 10% of the US population were by nature sodomitic?  More credible studies have halted the estimate at 4% on the high end.  The Church is most unwise to endanger her faithful over such spurrious demographics, among which (let me indulge social science here), of the 4%, less than 1% would claim to be Catholic even as a social grouping, and a fraction of THAT figure would be willing to live "chastely" as a "homosexual person."  So the CCC is calling "not negligible" a calculus of less than half a per cent of the population!

Quote:"Homosexual persons" here is likely used for brevity's sake. It is obvious that the catechism is addressing the same "men and women who have deep-seeded homosexual tendencies" in the previous paragraph. Based on these passages alone, there is no reasonable cause for scandal. The world tells these "homosexual persons" that the Church's teachings impose inordinate and unfashionable constraints on his or her sexuality, and like a devoted and just parent the Church must patiently explain her unwavering position. Moreover, the catechism seems to be actually attacking the open-ended ambiguity of these neologisms by imposing one herself.

Unwavering?  Then why did the Church not teach about the "pastoral care of homosexual persons" prior to the 1980s?  What changed?  What was her position for the previous 1950 years?  Why all the tip-toeing and careful language about sensitivity and dignity?  Where was that prior to Vatican II?  Again, sir - I am not trying to be confrontational - I am alarmed and deeply concerned about the crisis facing the Church (a) because of the mainstreaming of Modernism; and (b) because its apostles are disproportionatley comprised of "homosexual persons" who cannot be trusted to live in "gay chastity" as pastors (Pope Benedict's Instruction on Ordination...Homosexual....Priesthood).

Quote: "On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons," Cardinal Ratzinger
4) In the discussion which followed the publication of the Declaration, however, an overly benign interpretation was given to the homosexual condition itself, some going so far as to call it neutral, or even good. Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.
8) Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity. Those within the Church who argue in this fashion often have close ties with those with similar views outside it. These latter groups are guided by a vision opposed to the truth about the human person, which is fully disclosed in the mystery of Christ. They reflect, even if not entirely consciously, a materialistic ideology which denies the transcendent nature of the human person as well as the supernatural vocation of every individual.

The Church's ministers must ensure that homosexual persons in their care will not be misled by this point of view, so profoundly opposed to the teaching of the Church. But the risk is great and there are many who seek to create confusion regarding the Church's position, and then to use that confusion to their own advantage. [Here Cardinal Ratzinger cautions those who minister to persons who suffer from these disordered tendencies to beware of the grave danger of contamination in and out of the Church]

9. The movement within the Church, which takes the form of pressure groups of various names and sizes, attempts to give the impression that it represents all homosexual persons who are Catholics. As a matter of fact, its membership is by and large restricted to those who either ignore the teaching of the Church or seek somehow to undermine it. It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour. One tactic used is to protest that any and all criticism of or reservations about homosexual people, their activity and lifestyle, are simply diverse forms of unjust discrimination.

This statement is confusing prima facie:  " It brings together under the aegis of Catholicism homosexual persons who have no intention of abandoning their homosexual behaviour."  Homosexual persons = those defined by and self-identifying as being in bondage to the sin against nature or decisively engaged in battle with the cupiscient desires that flow from the sin against nature.  So if this is "what I am", why do I need to struggle against my identity?  And should you doubt the necessity of defining personal identity, read the CCC 2333:

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.

So, the CCC calls the homosexual "person" a person (identity), and then presents an imperative that everyone (yes, even homosexual persons) should accept their sexual identity.  As what?  Fish?  Fowl?  Neither?  Both?   I mean, am I a homosexual PERSON or not?  And if so, as one called to live in chastity, whose sexual identity am I called to accept?


Quote:There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved.

The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda [Though the Church should not dilute the deposit of faith to accommodate overt heretics, charity obliges her to protect the spiritual welfare of her flock. Luke 15:4 "What man of you that hath an hundred sheep, and if he shall lose one of them, doth he not leave the ninety-nine in the desert and go after that which was lost, until he find it?"]. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy.
10)But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered [Yet again, Cardinal Ratzinger addresses a probable logical fallacy]. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right [I'm seriously impressed with the Holy Father for making this statement and surprised that I've never heard liberals try to discredit him with it], neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable.

Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well. As in every conversion from evil, the abandonment of homosexual activity will require a profound collaboration of the individual with God's liberating grace.

Ahhh... let's talk about conversion, indeed!  Because the New Testament talks not only of reborn spirits, but renewed minds (Rom. 12:1-2; Eph. 4:21-24).  It speaks of "putting off the old man" and "putting on the new man" renewed in the image of the mystery of Christ.  St. Paul in 1 Cor. 6-9-11:  "effeminate, sodomites... shall not inherit the kingdom of God... such were some of you, but you are washed, you are are sanctified, you are justified..."  And what is end of God's liberating grace?  A chaste homosexual?  Or a man glorified in the image of Christ Jesus with perfect complimentary sexual idenity?

Quote:12....Christians who are homosexual are called, as all of us are, to a chaste life [Does not setup a unique category of chastity for the homosexual]. As they dedicate their lives to understanding the nature of God's personal call to them, they will be able to celebrate the Sacrament of Penance more faithfully and receive the Lord's grace so freely offered there in order to convert their lives more fully to his Way.


By now you know I disagree with this statement.  It should simply say that Christians are called to a chaste life.  The invention of an unbiblical and antitraditional category of personhood in a Catholic doctrinal publication accomplishes much confusion and a grave evil towards the very people it is designed to help on the way to salvation.  Regardless of the editor's intent, their words have been ruthlessly exploited to sanction homosexuality as a category of personhood that requires no contrition, penance, renewal of mind, etc... but only an acceptance of the so-called homosexual condition.  This is an abject denial of the properties of the new birth and is tantamount to a rejection of grace.  Moreover, St. Paul teaches that those whom God has "given over" (D-R "delivered up") to persue this sin are of a reprobate mind which is neither able to reason adequately nor respond to conscience with repentance (Rom. 1:28).  Will we in Christ's name assist them in this capitulation to concupiscience and consequent consignment to a depraved mind and then (God forbid!) accept them as valid priests (alter Chresus)?  But that is precisely what is going on in the Church today!

Quote:14. With this in mind, this Congregation wishes to ask the Bishops to be especially cautious of any programmes which may seek to pressure the Church to change her teaching, even while claiming not to do so. A careful examination of their public statements and the activities they promote reveals a studied ambiguity by which they attempt to mislead the pastors and the faithful [You are alleging that Cardinal Ratzinger is himself being misled]. For example, they may present the teaching of the Magisterium, but only as if it were an optional source for the formation of one's conscience. Its specific authority is not recognized. Some of these groups will use the word "Catholic" to describe either the organization or its intended members, yet they do not defend and promote the teaching of the Magisterium; indeed, they even openly attack it. While their members may claim a desire to conform their lives to the teaching of Jesus, in fact they abandon the teaching of his Church. This contradictory action should not have the support of the Bishops in any way.

Whatever Cardinal Ratzinger has written, Pope Benedict XVI has forbid the acceptance to seminary or holy orders anyone who is "homosexual, has deep-seated tendencies, or supports the so-called gay culture."  "Studied ambiguity" aptly dscribes many of the most salient documents of Vatican II which normalized the kind of verbose explanations as are found in the 1992 CCC, and this instance serves well to demonstrate.  Paul VI and JPII seemed to have looked the other way while scores of reprobates were ordained, some to the episcopacy!  B16 has at least tried to stop new reprobates from entering but has not yet summoned their rooting out and dismissal.  Problematic at best.  A Godly intention, but lacking the disciplinary mechanism to effect real change.  Until that is repaired, the Modernist agenda will be advanced with impunity by homosexual priests who are bent on changing the Church (dogma, discipline and liturgy) from the inside out.  Josiah, King of Judah removed catamites from the Temple, razed their dwellings, and expelled them from Judah (4 Kings 23:7).  Josiah is praised by the Bible thusly:  

There was no king before him like unto him, that returned to the Lord with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with ail his strength, according to all the law of Moses: neither after him did there arise any like him.  4 Kings 23:25


Quote:15. We encourage the Bishops, then, to provide pastoral care in full accord with the teaching of the Church for homosexual persons of their dioceses. No authentic pastoral programme will include organizations in which homosexual persons associate with each other without clearly stating that homosexual activity is immoral. A truly pastoral approach will appreciate the need for homosexual persons to avoid the near occasions of sin.

We would heartily encourage programmes where these dangers are avoided. But we wish to make it clear that departure from the Church's teaching, or silence about it, in an effort to provide pastoral care is neither caring nor pastoral. Only what is true can ultimately be pastoral. The neglect of the Church's position prevents homosexual men and women from receiving the care they need and deserve.

16. From this multi-faceted approach there are numerous advantages to be gained, not the least of which is the realization that a homosexual person, as every human being, deeply needs to be nourished at many different levels simultaneously.

The human person, made in the image and likeness of God, can hardly be adequately described by a reductionist reference to his or her sexual orientation.

[color=blue]"However, we will proceed to do it anyway in this very document which establishes Catholic doctrine on the subject."  Madness!

Quote:Every one living on the face of the earth has personal problems and difficulties, but challenges to growth, strengths, talents and gifts as well. 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./color]

Refuses?  Then why the previous paragraphs of discourse to the opposite end?

[quote]All support should be withdrawn from any organizations which seek to undermine the teaching of the Church, which are ambiguous about it, or which neglect it entirely. Such support, or even the semblance of such support, can be gravely misinterpreted. Special attention should be given to the practice of scheduling religious services and to the use of Church buildings by these groups, including the facilities of Catholic schools and colleges. To some, such permission to use Church property may seem only just and charitable; but in reality it is contradictory to the purpose for which these institutions were founded, it is misleading and often scandalous.

All support should be withdrawn or what?  The Pope will be disappointed?  God will frown?  The 'dignity of man' will be 'misrepresented?'  Why no condemnation or appropriate disciplinary action?  There are NO TEETH here, people.  Our Lord is not shy about this:

"And if thy right eye scandalize thee, pluck it out and cast it from thee. For it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell.  And if thy right hand scandalize thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is expedient for thee that one of thy members should perish, rather than that thy whole body be cast into hell."  Mt. 5:29-30


The above is an adequate rebuttal to all of your objections. Like I said, semantics.

Peace be with you, St. Drogo.
cj
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)