There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
#21
(02-18-2011, 11:01 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: You are confusing the distinction between the acts of sin and self-identifying with the sin.  If I was an adulterer, but have been washed by Christ's priestly action, I do not self-identify as an adulterer anymore.  I may still suffer severe temptations, but as St. James teaches, I am to overcome those through faith and not attribute the sinful desires to God.   Why then does someone who has been given the grace of conversion by the Holy Spirit still self-identify as a homosexual?  St. Paul teaches, "such WERE some of you." You cannot be self-identified with a sin any longer.  The only purpose for such a self-identification would be to justify the presence of homosexual priests in the Church.  If I am washed, sanctified and justified as 1 Cor. 6:9-11 teaches, why then do I self identify with my sin?

You're making a presumption that isn't in fact.  Your presumption is that being a homosexual - i.e., attracted to people of the same sex is a sin.  That is the only way you can conclude that identifying one's self as a homosexual is identifying with sin.  It is not.  Nor is identifying one's self as a heterosexual identifying with righteousness.

Quote:A former homosexual must self-identify as a heterosexual and renounce his former conduct and identity as a homosexual.  There is no third category of personhood: "male and female He created them."  The reality is that homosexuals are the ones resisting the Summorum Pontificum because they know that the Novus Ordo is their vehicle to keep the Modernist destruction of Sacred Tradition steaming along.  Show me a "gay" priest who is for Tradition (in theology as well as liturgy).

If a person who experiences same-sex attraction and no opposite sex attraction identifies themselves as a heterosexual they would be a liar, and they would also be denying what would be an occasion of sin to them.  Both of which are spiritually dangerous.
Reply
#22
(02-18-2011, 11:37 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben16/Instructions.htm

"In the light of such teaching, this dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question(9), cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practice homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture."(10)

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies
."

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

Funny how with one hand you condemn certain statements by the Holy See on homosexuals, then with another present other statements as evidence of your position's correctness.

Be that as it may, what it says is they are unfit for the priesthood, not that they are not Christians nor are they invalid matter for Holy Orders.  There are lots of dispositions and reasons why men are unfit for the priesthood.
Reply
#23
(02-18-2011, 11:40 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: I submit to the teaching of the Church.  However, it must be admitted that no such anthropological category as the "homosexual person" existed before the Pontificate of John Paul II.  In my opinion, it is an antbiblical novelty that is fraught with every kind of danger and cannot be reconciled with previous Catholic teaching.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, if anything.  Originally, homosexuality was seen as a psychopathology and appeared in the DSM.  Because of homosexual advocacy, it was removed from the DSM.

So, let's go back to pre JP2 and even before V2 and for the sake of argument say that it is a psychopathology.  In that case, saying the "homosexual person" is not an anthropological category any more than the "manic depressive person" or the "narcissistic person" or the "chronically morose person", is it?

Part of the problem, I think, is you're falling for the propaganda of those who advocate a "homosexual lifestyle".  It is one thing to identify one's self correctly as a homosexual in that they experience same-sex attraction.  It is something altogether different to identify one's self as a homosexual as a way of living.  Not everyone who is a homosexual - who experiences same-sex attraction - is an advocate of the "homosexual lifestyle".

It is the "lifestyle" that needs to be left behind to avoid sin.  Unnatural acts, improper relationships, etc.  Assuming it is a psychopathology, one cannot leave behind homosexuality as same-sex attraction any more than someone who suffers manic depression can leave that behind. 

Really, what you are saying they have to leave behind is a form of concupiscence.  A disordered form, sure, but all of us who have any kind of libido suffer from concupiscence.  None of us can just leave it behind and identify as non-concupiscent.  What we do is struggle against it, if we fail we go to Confession.  We are still Christians even though we have that struggle, and even though we acknowledge that fault by using some categorizing term.

I think you're doing a grave disservice to the good of souls by implying that people aren't "good enough" to be called Christian even if they are doing the right thing by bearing their Cross and living chastely. A proper understanding and respect of fighting the good fight will also enable those who suffer this Cross realize and accept that the priesthood isn't for them (as it isn't for many of us for different reasons).  Someone who struggles and perseveres against sinful inclinations and succeeds attains a higher degree of sanctity than those of us who struggle and constantly fail.  God bless them, and I hope they pray for me because I can use the help from those more sanctified than myself.  And I'll pray and root for anyone that's fighting the good fight, too, no matter what their Cross is.
Reply
#24
(02-18-2011, 10:09 PM)Melkite Wrote: So, are you saying that baptism in the beginning had the power of destroying same sex attraction and immediately replacing it with a fully developed and functional opposite sex attraction?

I am saying that a Baptized person should not assume the identity of a person habitually committing mortal sin.  St. Paul:  "such were some of you.  But you are washed, you are sanctified, you are justified by the Spirit of God in Christ Jesus..."  The desires must be combatted in spiritual warfare, mortification of the sinful nature, prayer, accountability, penance, avoidance of the near temptation to sin.  We do the exact opposite by telling them they are (in identity) homosexual persons.  Please tell me where in Catholic tradition such an anthropological category existed before the 1960s.  We should affirm them as heterosexual persons and support their spiritual, intellectual and physical orientation to the mystery of Christ and His will.  We are all made in the image and likeness of God and it would be cruel of the Lord to command us to repent if it were not possible.  The reality is we condemn people with this temptation by consigning them to an unbiblical, untraditional status as homosexual persons.

If I am wrong about this, I am willing to receive correction.   
Reply
#25
(02-19-2011, 01:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-18-2011, 11:40 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: I submit to the teaching of the Church.  However, it must be admitted that no such anthropological category as the "homosexual person" existed before the Pontificate of John Paul II.  In my opinion, it is an antbiblical novelty that is fraught with every kind of danger and cannot be reconciled with previous Catholic teaching.

I'm not sure what you're getting at, if anything.  Originally, homosexuality was seen as a psychopathology and appeared in the DSM.  Because of homosexual advocacy, it was removed from the DSM.

So, let's go back to pre JP2 and even before V2 and for the sake of argument say that it is a psychopathology.  In that case, saying the "homosexual person" is not an anthropological category any more than the "manic depressive person" or the "narcissistic person" or the "chronically morose person", is it?

Part of the problem, I think, is you're falling for the propaganda of those who advocate a "homosexual lifestyle".  It is one thing to identify one's self correctly as a homosexual in that they experience same-sex attraction.  It is something altogether different to identify one's self as a homosexual as a way of living.  Not everyone who is a homosexual - who experiences same-sex attraction - is an advocate of the "homosexual lifestyle".

It is the "lifestyle" that needs to be left behind to avoid sin.  Unnatural acts, improper relationships, etc.  Assuming it is a psychopathology, one cannot leave behind homosexuality as same-sex attraction any more than someone who suffers manic depression can leave that behind. 

Really, what you are saying they have to leave behind is a form of concupiscence.  A disordered form, sure, but all of us who have any kind of libido suffer from concupiscence.  None of us can just leave it behind and identify as non-concupiscent.  What we do is struggle against it, if we fail we go to Confession.  We are still Christians even though we have that struggle, and even though we acknowledge that fault by using some categorizing term.

I think you're doing a grave disservice to the good of souls by implying that people aren't "good enough" to be called Christian even if they are doing the right thing by bearing their Cross and living chastely. A proper understanding and respect of fighting the good fight will also enable those who suffer this Cross realize and accept that the priesthood isn't for them (as it isn't for many of us for different reasons).  Someone who struggles and perseveres against sinful inclinations and succeeds attains a higher degree of sanctity than those of us who struggle and constantly fail.  God bless them, and I hope they pray for me because I can use the help from those more sanctified than myself.  And I'll pray and root for anyone that's fighting the good fight, too, no matter what their Cross is.

QuisUtDeus,
Thanks for the counterpoint.  I am glad you are taking this issue on.  It is extremely difficult and dire for the Church today which has been successfully infiltrated by a substantial number of practicing homosexuals - whom St. Paul says have been given over by God to a depraved mind.  We must take that seriously!  How can one given over to a depraved mind be an alter Chrestus?

Your points.
1.  Psychopathology is not a theological category.  Even the CCC (pp 2357) admits that it cannot identify the psychological genesis of this 'disorder.'
2.  'Lifestyle' is not a theological category.  Attraction is human desire (see James 1:12-16).  It should not define a person.  God created two sexes only.
3.  Pennance, faith, mortification of concupscient desire, and growth in grace and holiness are the lot of all Christians.  No exception should be made for the homosexual.  You are adopting a medical theory and not a Gospel position on this.  The medical theory is "once sick, always sick" (cf alcoholism) and therefore the compassionate response is to help the "alcoholic" (another nonbiblical identity designation with widespread acceptance in the Church) cope with his 'disease.'  The Gospel calls us to "overcome the world" (1 John 5:4). 
4.  I never said anyone wasn't good enough to be called Christian.  I said the opposite: that the sacred and exalted title of Christian was too holy to be hyphenated with a mortal sin. 

I think you are obscuring my point.  Because Catholics are confused about something that the Apostles have made clear (and the Fathers and Doctors in Tradition), we uncritically allow homosexual "Priests" to "minister" in the RCC and they are destroying it from the inside out.  Peripheral discussions about psychology and pseudo-medical theories may help to clear the air as they are dispelled by sound doctrine, but the issue I am raising is the status of those who claim to be Priests and homosexuals at the same time. 

I still haven't seen anyone here on this thread yet address St. Paul's teaching in 1 Cor. 6:9-11 and Romans 1:24-28. 
Reply
#26
I'm astounded that anyone would spend this much time assembling an argument that comes down to subjective semantics.
Reply
#27
(02-19-2011, 04:47 AM)St. Drogo Wrote: I'm astounded that anyone would spend this much time assembling an argument that comes down to subjective semantics.
That is how humans communicate.
Reply
#28
The Congregation [for the Doctrine of the Faith] reminds us that we are made to the image and likeness of God and that there is no way that our mysterious complexity can be reduced to a sexual orientation.  Thus, the Church asks all persons to get beyond the superficial identities of being "heterosexual" or "homosexual" and contemplate one's fundamental identity as a creature of God, and, by grace, His child and heir to eternal life.
John F. Harvey, O.S.F.S.
The Homosexual Person:  New Thinking in Pastoral Care Igantius Press

While Fr. Harvey has done a magnificient job in dealing with this difficult subject matter, he adopts a nomenclature for those afflicted with same-sex attraction as homosexual persons.  In the above quote, he would seem to not favor the elevation of this necessary nomenclature to a doctrinal level which the 1992 CCC does, in contrast with previous Church teaching.  The 1975 Declaration on Certain Questions Concerning Sexual Ethics uses the nomenclature homosexuals (as does St. Paul in 1 Cor. 6:9-11) but the 1986 PASTORAL CARE OF HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith uses homosexual persons

My objection to this terminology is as follows:
1.  It invites the noncanonical status of a human being into a third category after men and women.
2.  It precludes the properties of supernatural conversion by the new birth by washing of water and the Word.
3.  It capitulates to the power of stubborn and resistant concupiscience.
4.  It traps those afflicted with this temptation with a false sense of identity which deprives them of the hope of full recovery by grace.
5.  It leaves the door open for maliciously motivated individuals to exploit the status of "chaste homosexual persons".

The fifth proposition above is the subject of the OP.  This is of grave concern to all Catholics for the following reasons:
1.  St. Paul teaches that persistance in homosexual acts is caused by a darkening of reason resultant from the abandonement of God in the mind (Rom. 1:21)
2.  These individuals are deprived of the natural functions of conscience and reason. (Rom. 1:28)
3.  God has "given them over" (Douay-Rheims "delivered them up") to a depraved mind according to their own rebellious wills.  (Rom. 1:24-28)
4.  Pope Benedict XVI has forbidden even those with "deep seated inclinations or who support the so-called gay culture" to be admitted for seminary instruction or ordination (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 Congregation for Catholic Education - November 4, 2005).
5.  Currently there are scores of homosexual 'priests' already ordained which are reprobate concerning the Faith (Rom. 1:24-28) and therefore are neither Christians nor valid Priests.  The teaching, preaching, governing and example of such persons should be regarded with the greatest circumspection and carefulness.  Their sacraments may be valid by virtue of the law of ex opere operato (the operation is valid by virtue of its operation through the power and spirit of Christ) but even this may be doubted in good conscience.   Persons living in defiance of the Law of God and the governance of the Supreme Pontiff are not to be followed nor obeyed. 

If anyone doubts the seriousness of this crisis, let him examine the superabundance of evidence in both the pedophile priest scandals which have offended millions and cost the Church in the US $3.2 billion or the abysmal scandal of contemporary Catholic seminaries chronicled in Michael S. Roses' Goodbye Good Men.  As self-identified Traditionalists, I would assume your concern over such a sorry estate would be more intense than the Novus Ordo Catholics.

Reply
#29
(02-19-2011, 05:53 AM)Rosarium Wrote:
(02-19-2011, 04:47 AM)St. Drogo Wrote: I'm astounded that anyone would spend this much time assembling an argument that comes down to subjective semantics.
That is how humans communicate.

I meant to suggest that the original posterś semantics were purely subjective. Bottom line is that a priest is a priest forever regardless of the magnitude of his sins or imperfections.
Reply
#30
(02-18-2011, 11:01 PM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: Show me a "gay" priest who is for Tradition (in theology as well as liturgy).

There have been gay priests in the SSPX, I think a few were expelled after they came onto some seminarians. They then formed the Society of St. John before being suppressed by the diocese (I think..)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)