There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
I said the sodomite repents, then goes to confession.  So you just wasted a bunch of typing.

So you agree that if a sodomite repents, then goes to confession, making a firm purpose of amendment, he is forgiven and sanctifying grace is restored.

Here is the deal, if this is the case, then before confession, he was still Catholic.  Otherwise, the priest would have had to lift excommunications, interdicts, and other censures, or in some cases, he would have to be referred to the bishop.  This is not the case for fornication or sodomy.

For example, if a woman obtains an abortion, she excommunicates herself.  She ceases to be Catholic.  And confession with a priest will not help, as the excommunication is reserved to the bishop.  However in many cases the bishop delegates this to the priest, and the priest may lift the excommunication by reciting a separate prayer.

The Church is consistent.  Pope Pius XII spelled it out.  Catholics in mortal sin, as long as they do not incur automatic excommunication, or apostatize, are still Catholic.  Though if they die in this state, they go to hell. 

All of  rest of the stuff you write is fine.  Yes we should admonish the sinners and treat scandal very seriously.  I doubt you find any disagreement with that on this forum.
Reply
Quote: Your definition, I hate to say it, but it's true, is Protestant in nature.

It has the savor of the "saving Faith" argument you hear from the Once Saved Always Saved crowd.  You point out bible believing "Christians" who ran off with the secretary.  Or one who leaves their sect and becomes an atheist.  And they say, "well he had faith, but it wasn't saving faith", trying to invent a non-biblical distinction.  This argument that a baptized Catholic never had the "true" faith appears similar.

What I don't understand, C.J., is why you feel it necessary to make this distinction.  An unrepentant sinner is supposed to be warned/counseled a few times, and then you are to separate yourself from him.  It is not like we are saying those wallowing in mortal sin should be welcome in our churches to receive communion.  Or that we should make excuses for them.  Or that they should be priests.

However, the Church has consistent teaching, that must be maintained.  This all revolves around sanctifying grace.

edit:  By the way, a hardened unrepentant sodomite will most likely apostacize from the Faith.  I believe if you don't make a worthy communion once per year, you are officially an apostate.  In which case you are no longer Catholic.  Others more knowledgeable can fill in the details.
Reply
(02-25-2011, 11:07 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: Your definition, I hate to say it, but it's true, is Protestant in nature.

It has the savor of the "saving Faith" argument you hear from the Once Saved Always Saved crowd.  You point out bible believing "Christians" who ran off with the secretary.  Or one who leaves their sect and becomes an atheist.  And they say, "well he had faith, but it wasn't saving faith", trying to invent a non-biblical distinction.  This argument that a baptized Catholic never had the "true" faith appears similar.

Yes, I was referring to that, and also to the fact that in some sects certain sins get one booted out.  Catholics can only get booted out for grave cases of heresy, schism, or what the Church proscribes excommunication for.

It's hard to get kicked out by design.  The Church exists to save us, not to damn us. Satan is the accuser, not the Church.  The Church gathers the sheep and sanctifies them.  Even excommunication is a salvific act in that it tells someone they need to change.  Excommunications are lifted as soon as the person changes.  They are never eternal unless the person doesn't repent his actions.  In fact, repentance isn't even required for excommunications to be remitted.
Reply
I just still don't get how the "church" can go about saying things like "homosexuals" can't be Catholics when I really don't see the sin in any of it. As well....honestly I know a priest should not be homosexual...but we can't say there is no such thing as a "homosexual" priest because with the amount of people who are "homosexual" I know that there has to be some priests out there who are "homosexual." Though because of fear, they most likely have not come out due to that one reason of fear, and fear alone. I do not blame them either for not coming out because the world in itself is not yet "fair" to the treatment of people who are "homosexual." I think that if there was a "homosexual" who wanted to be a priest he should not be denied...especially if he has been single and has lived in chastity...then I would not see the difference between him and a "regular" priest. Now these are just a few of my opinions.
Reply
(02-25-2011, 11:15 PM)Pomprincess Wrote: I just still don't get how the "church" can go about saying things like "homosexuals" can't be Catholics when I really don't see the sin in any of it.

She doesn't.  Johnny Catholic does.

If you can't see the sin in the actions, you can look in the Bible.  Homosexual acts are condemned.

Quote:As well....honestly I know a priest should not be homosexual...but we can't say there is no such thing as a "homosexual" priest because with the amount of people who are "homosexual" I know that there has to be some priests out there who are "homosexual." Though because of fear, they most likely have not come out due to that one reason of fear, and fear alone. I do not blame them either for not coming out because the world in itself is not yet "fair" to the treatment of people who are "homosexual." I think that if there was a "homosexual" who wanted to be a priest he should not be denied...especially if he has been single and has lived in chastity...then I would not see the difference between him and a "regular" priest. Now these are just a few of my opinions.

The Pope said no to homosexual priests.  That's the end of it.  If you want to read why, he wrote a lengthy document explaining it.

The Church isn't about "fair".  If we used "fair" it wouldn't be fair women couldn't be priests either or that as a layman I can't consecrate a host. It's not "fair" that a cripple can't be a priest either.  The Church is about Faith and Morals and a consistent theology.
Reply
(02-25-2011, 10:24 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-25-2011, 12:54 PM)James02 Wrote:
Quote: You maliciously distort my words.  My remarks are clear:  "Proper utilization of the most holy sacrament of penance and absolution can both regenerate an obstinate sinner and restore a fallen Catholic."

The sticks and twigs defense, with some ad hominem thrown in.  Your non-answer is called "begging the question".  We are trying to establish who is a Catholic.  Actually, the Pope has decided the matter.  What we are trying to establish is if you are professing heresy.

We are discussing if someone who commits sodomy or fornicates is Catholic.  

So I'll repeat my question, a Catholic fornicates or commits sodomy.  He repents and goes to confession.  Will a simple confession restore sanctifying grace to him?  If yes, then he was a Catholic before confession.

Simple question.

I did answer your question, James.  Let me just offer this with love and a pure intention.  Cradle Catholics sometimes lack the perspective of a convert or a revert when it comes to the Sacramental economy.  What I am reading here is an esteem for the efficacy of sacraments (which I have stated several times in this thread work ex opere operato), as a kind of blessing factory that magically works on the soul of the recipent without any willingness to cooperate with the grace offered. 

You say that simply because one is "Catholic" and makes a confession for his sodomy he is therefore absolved, even though the Church teaches that true contrition and amendment of purpose are also requirements of this sacrament.   The most enormous errors are presented here in the case of an unrepentant sodomite who wickedly presents himself for holy orders (Aquinas calls this a mortal sin) and who is reprobate concerning the Faith, whose every priestly action in this state is a mortal sin adding to his trespass (Aquinas), and you all rush to defend him as a valid Catholic!  As though faith and obedience has nothing to do with it!  Do you not hear our Blessed Lord Jesus?

Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of penance; and do not begin to say, We have Abraham for our father. For I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up children to Abraham.  For now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that bringeth not forth good fruit, shall be cut down and cast into the fire. Luke 3:8-9

And that it is sometimes justified, even required to treat obstinate sinners as nonCatholics:

But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.  And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican
.  Matthew 18:15-17

And we are not to call them brethren who persist in mortal sin:

But now I have written to you, not to keep company, if any man that is named a brother, be a fornicator, or covetous, or a server of idols, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner: with such a one, not so much as to eat.  For what have I to do to judge them that are without? Do not you judge them that are within?  For them that are without, God will judge. Put away the evil one from among yourselves.  1 Cor. 5:11-13

We must not perceive the sacraments as magical powers that operate completely independent of the will of the recipient.  The sacraments are always efficacious, that is, they operate by the reality of Christ's eternal priesthood and His presence in the form and matter.  But it is impious to insist that the individual recipient is helped, changed, edified, strengthened, graced, etc... if they are persisting in mortal sin with no intention of repentance.  If anything, they are culpable of a kind of sacrilege - abusing the sacraments which St. Paul solemnly warns the Faithful not to do:

For as often as you shall eat this bread, and drink the chalice, you shall shew the death of the Lord, until he come.  Therefore whosoever shall eat this bread, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and of the blood of the Lord.  But let a man prove himself: and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of the chalice.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord.  Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.  1 Cor. 11:26-30

In summary:  an unrepentant sodomite has repudiated his baptismal promises by his obstinate resistance of the graces offered in the new birth.  Aquinas teaches that holy orders presupposes baptism as the gateway to all the other sacraments.   He also teaches that presenting onseself for orders unworthily is a mortal sin for both the ordinand and ordinary.  This person, whatever titles he may arrogate to himself and flash as credentials, cannot be a Christian at all, much less an alter chrestus.   The sacraments he dispenses are valid ex opere operato but the sin of scandal and the false teaching he promulgates are enormous mortal sins. 

My firm opinion on this is that this crisis cannot be resolved in the Church by wielding unbiblical and untraditional language (neologisms) borrowed from scientific 'personality theory' to define in doctrine the state of such persons as homosexual persons.  Even if the term itself can be justified in theory, in praxis it provides an occasion for ruthless exploitation by the devil who delights in infiltrating the priesthood with reprobates who will facilitate the destruction of souls from within the Church, which Pope St. Pius X explained was the goal of the Modernist.

Hold on now! That is not the view that you have been promoting in this thread. No one disagrees that an unrepentant sodomite and he who knowingly ordains him both sin grievously. What appears to be causing the biggest brouhaha is your insinuation that a person who merely feels same sex attractions and for convenience sake is identified as a homosexual person (as opposed to an overt sodomite) is not a Christian.
Reply
OK, fellow Fish Eaters, I must retract my OP thesis based on the definition of who is Catholic, which, according to the multitude of posts here includes those in hell (!).

While this is the letter of the law as presented in certain citations, it is absurd prima facie and provides a definition of Catholic that makes addressing the current crisis of exploitation of the priesthood by reprobates nearly impossible.

I do thank you, one and all for your indulgence and instruction.  Apparently one can be nearly anything save a schismatic or a heretic or be formally excommunicated, be absolutely bereft of a shred of Christ's grace in his soul, repudiate his baptism, and still be a Catholic, nay!  a valid canonical Priest, another Christ!

Forgive me for impudently insisting that  a Priest cannot be a Catholic if he is a homosexual.  I see now that that is wrong.  I will not however, submit myself, my wife or children to the pastoral 'care' of a sodomitical priest, nor listen to his teaching, nor obey his heretical instructions, nor frequent sacraments offered at his hands, nor encourage others to do the same.

What truly grieves me after all this is that so little acknowledgment of the crisis has been afforded by the members of this forum.  I had hoped that I would find kindred spirits in the sacred battle against the apostles of Modernism, but instead I find every justification under the sun for sodmitical priests, and the validity of their ministry.

Once again, to all:  thanks for the brotherly instruction.  I stand corrected.

cj
Reply
(02-25-2011, 11:55 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: OK, fellow Fish Eaters, I must retract my OP thesis based on the definition of who is Catholic, which, according to the multitude of posts here includes those in hell (!).

While this is the letter of the law as presented in certain citations, it is absurd prima facie and provides a definition of Catholic that makes addressing the current crisis of exploitation of the priesthood by reprobates nearly impossible.

I do thank you, one and all for your indulgence and instruction.  Apparently one can be nearly anything save a schismatic or a heretic or be formally excommunicated, be absolutely bereft of a shred of Christ's grace in his soul, repudiate his baptism, and still be a Catholic, nay!  a valid canonical Priest, another Christ!

Forgive me for impudently insisting that  a Priest cannot be a Catholic if he is a homosexual.  I see now that that is wrong.  I will not however, submit myself, my wife or children to the pastoral 'care' of a sodomitical priest, nor listen to his teaching, nor obey his heretical instructions, nor frequent sacraments offered at his hands, nor encourage others to do the same.

What truly grieves me after all this is that so little acknowledgment of the crisis has been afforded by the members of this forum.  I had hoped that I would find kindred spirits in the sacred battle against the apostles of Modernism, but instead I find every justification under the sun for sodmitical priests, and the validity of their ministry.

Once again, to all:  thanks for the brotherly instruction.  I stand corrected.

cj

Well now I feel bad. Nearly without exception, I think everyone here truly admires your zeal to denounce the insidious influence of incorrigible sodomites on mother church and her clergy. What many have criticized you for--some more uncharitably than others--is getting carried away with your righteous indignation. As a matter of clarification, however, there are no Christians in Hell. Their membership in the Church terminates at death.
Reply
I don't feel bad for defending what the Church teaches over someone's personal indignation.  We may not like it, but it is what it is.  The Church gets to determine who her members are, not us.

I'm also tired of the twisting of words.  Really, I am very angry about it.  No one in this discussion justified sodomitical priests.  They shouldn't be ordained in the first place, and if they are ordained, they should be laicized.  I doubt anyone that has been involved in the discussion would not say that.

Someone thinking the teaching of the Church is absurd had better remove the plank from his own eye before condemning others.

You need to stop twisting things and misrepresenting what people said, as well as the Catechism.  That's lying and calumny.  Those, too, are sins.  And also stop with the personal interpretation of Scripture.  You should have given that up when you swam the Tiber.

What I feel bad about is anyone reading this thread who comes away with the thought that they can't be Catholic if they suffer from homosexual tendencies.  That's not true.  The Church calls sinners to join her and repent, to struggle against their sinful natures, and to bear their Crosses.
Reply
(02-25-2011, 11:07 PM)James02 Wrote: I believe if you don't make a worthy communion once per year, you are officially an apostate.  In which case you are no longer Catholic.  Others more knowledgeable can fill in the details.

I highly doubt that is true because one apostatizes by not believing what the Church teaches, not by missing Mass.  To miss the Easter Obligation is a mortal sin, not an excommunicable act.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)