There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(03-03-2011, 12:16 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: Why do their rights supercede my right to adhere to the teachings of my religion as guaranteed by the first amendment to the constitution?     

The constitution and bill of rights, indeed the very idea of human rights, are modern humanist doctrines constructed by free-masons and deists.  It's silly to use them in a theological discussion of Traditional Catholicism.

I agree with Mithrandylan -- just because we use a term to describe some aspect of us doesn't mean that we are defined by that term.  In fact, in a sense, ultimately almost all of our definitions of our self are false, since the true self we are, the self that stands naked in front of God, is greater than the sum of all our parts (see St. John of the Cross).  However, we do live in a world of language and therefore we live in a world of terms and some of those terms apply to us.

It appears to me that you object to the term homosexual because you think that the use of the term justifies homosexuality.  In other words, what I think you believe is that if we call someone a homosexual then we are saying that homosexuality is ok.  Is that an accurate assessment of your stance?  If so, I'd like to point out that we can use terms and we can even identify with those terms without glorifying or excusing them.  The example that Mithrandylan uses to point this out is "sinner."  If calling myself a term justifies and glorifies that term, then I shouldn't call myself a sinner.  In any case, however, we can use the term homosexual to refer to someone that has same-sex attraction without condoning same-sex attraction.  The classic example, of course, are alcoholics in AA who identify themselves as alcoholics NOT to justify their drinking but to strengthen themselves against it and against the denial that goes with it.

In the end, however, I don't feel like the idea of whether or not we should use the term homosexual is all that important.  Lovingly and charitably helping those who have same-sex attraction find the Church and the grace of the Sacraments is much more important.  And that is quite hard to do if we say without qualification a homosexual cannot be a Catholic, because the vast majority of people will interpret that as meaning that those with same-sex attraction cannot be Catholic.  And that is simply not true, because ALL sinners who struggle with ALL types of sin are called to Holy Mother Church for the grace to carry their crosses.

Pax,
Jesse
Reply
So define homosexual.
Reply
(03-03-2011, 02:14 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So define homosexual.

Someone who has same-sex attraction.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual

World English Dictionary
homosexual  (ˌhəʊməʊˈsɛksjʊəl, ˌhɒm-) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

— adj
2. of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
3. of or relating to the same sex
Reply
(03-03-2011, 02:25 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 02:14 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So define homosexual.

Someone who has same-sex attraction.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual

World English Dictionary
homosexual  (ˌhəʊməʊˈsɛksjʊəl, ˌhɒm-) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

— adj
2. of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
3. of or relating to the same sex
what would cause a person to have a same sex attraction and if they act on that attraction what would the activity be called.
Reply
(03-03-2011, 03:48 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 02:25 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 02:14 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: So define homosexual.

Someone who has same-sex attraction.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/homosexual

World English Dictionary
homosexual  (ˌhəʊməʊˈsɛksjʊəl, ˌhɒm-) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

— n
1. a person who is sexually attracted to members of the same sex

— adj
2. of or relating to homosexuals or homosexuality
3. of or relating to the same sex

what would cause a person to have a same sex attraction

I'm sure there are a lot of reasons that would cause it.  I am not an expert in theology or psychology so I don't know why some people have same sex attraction while others do not, just as I do not know why some people are attracted to stealing or lying or any other sin, while others are not.  We each have our individual crosses to bear, our individual sinful inclinations that we have to suffer and fight against, our "thorns in the flesh," as St. Paul called them.  There is, however, one easy obvious answer that is true not only for same sex attraction, but also for any sin:  original sin and our fallen nature.

Quote:and if they act on that attraction what would the activity be called.

The activity would be called homosexual activity or sodomy or sin.

Pax,
Jesse
Reply
You see there is the rub. The willingness to engage in Sodomitic acts is not part of original sin. The sin of theft or anger is. Homosodomy is the result of previous lesser sins till gradually a sin addiction is developed. The only way "sex" occurs as properly defined requires a man and a woman. Two men cannot actual have sex any more then a dog and a man. So imo homesexual acts are misnomers a fataly imprecise.
Reply
(03-03-2011, 05:12 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: You see there is the rub. The willingness to engage in Sodomitic acts is not part of original sin. The sin of theft or anger is. Homosodomy is the result of previous lesser sins till gradually a sin addiction is developed. The only way "sex" occurs as properly defined requires a man and a woman. Two men cannot actual have sex any more then a dog and a man. So imo homesexual acts are misnomers a fataly imprecise.

got a cite or is this something of your own creation?
Reply
(03-03-2011, 05:12 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: The willingness to engage in Sodomitic acts is not part of original sin.

Quis already asked the question in general but I'm going to focus it on this in particular.  Under whose authority do you state this theological position? 
Reply
(03-03-2011, 06:22 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 05:12 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: The willingness to engage in Sodomitic acts is not part of original sin.

Quis already asked the question in general but I'm going to focus it on this in particular.  Under whose authority do you state this theological position? 
On the churches
Original sin makes us suceptable to falling into actual sin
Homosodomy is an actual sin
A baby unbaptised has or original sin but can never be homosexual
Reply
(03-03-2011, 07:17 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 06:22 PM)Jesse Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 05:12 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: The willingness to engage in Sodomitic acts is not part of original sin.

Quis already asked the question in general but I'm going to focus it on this in particular.  Under whose authority do you state this theological position? 
On the churches
Original sin makes us suceptable to falling into actual sin
Homosodomy is an actual sin
A baby unbaptised has or original sin but can never be homosexual

But theft and anger are actual sins, and this is what you said about them:

(03-03-2011, 05:12 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: The willingness to engage in Sodomitic acts is not part of original sin. The sin of theft or anger is.

So what's the difference?  And under what authority do you draw that difference?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)