There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(03-03-2011, 05:27 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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?
be fair i said IMO
Reply
Yeah your right that was poorly stated.
Mea culpa
Reply
(03-03-2011, 07:25 PM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote:
(03-03-2011, 05:27 PM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(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?
be fair i said IMO

Sure, this part was clearly your opinion; as you point out you did say imo:  "So imo homesexual acts are misnomers a fataly imprecise."

But that seems to be a conclusion drawn from the previous sentences.  Are the previous sentences your opinion, too?  Like this:  "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.  "  That seems to be a statement of doctrine about the effects of original sin not extending to unnatural acts, and one of two things I was really asking about.  We can stick with that one first.

Do you have a theological citation for that?  If not, what are you basing your belief that original sin, the fall from grace, is not part of all sin?
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.

Do you have a degree in theology?  If not, please refrain from defining what is and what is not a result of original sin.  Your desire to dehumanize those with same sex attractions issues because of your own subjective lack of security are uncharitable and uncatholic.
Reply
Nevermind.  I didn't see your retraction before I wrote that.
Reply
(03-03-2011, 03:40 AM)MeaMaximaCulpa Wrote: I decided to drop into the fishtank, and I saw this topic on the forum.  I know I'm awfully late to the discussion, but I just wanted to say its the most absurd thing I've ever seen in my life.

I know priests in my diocese who are probably homosexual (although the ones who are still allowed to celebrate the Sacraments are chaste), and there are a few who have been caught in public and removed from public ministry.  I would say that most of the priests in any given diocese are heterosexual, and simply trying to live a chaste life like any Christian male.  Additionally, the Michael Rose-esque rumors that most of today's seminaries are infested with homosexuals and a secret pro-gay culture are patently false. (Although there was certainly such a culture in the past, but the priests I've talked to said that the majority of the seminarians in those days were not involved, and most of those that were involved subsequently left the priesthood). I live in a seminary, and I couldn't "out" ANY of my brothers with certainty (most likely because most are like my self, and heterosexual males simply trying to grow in virtue and learning how to integrate our ever-present sexuality into our lives before we take promises as deacons).

Really?  Perhaps you should have gone back to the OP and grabbed this quote:

"...one priest volunteered to me (with absolutely no prompting on my part) the fact that "if the new Holy Father [i.e., Pope Benedict XVI] were to get rid of every gay priest, this Archdiocese could run maybe . . . ten parishes." The [Miami, FL] Archdiocese, at the time, operated at least 121 parishes and/or missions".  http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giunta/090921

Quote:While its true that the Church doesn't ordain homosexuals,

Dear brother in Christ, where did you get this idea? Or are you trying to agree with those of us who support tradition in that no homosexuals are supposed to be ordained?

Quote:...the Church's reasoning is not the reasoning that the OP uses.  The Church doesn't ordain homosexuals with deep-seated tendencies, because they couldn't relate well with men or women and assume proper spiritual fatherhood.  However, the OP seems to think there is something offensive about having disordered sexual tendencies in themselves that precludes one from ordination.

Actually, it is Pope Benedict who thinks that as his Instruction on this very subject states as much.  (see previous replies in this thread)

Quote:However, I'll tell you now, that all improper sexual tendencies (even heterosexual ones), are somewhat disordered from the way God wants us to be.  And I'll tell you now: Every heterosexual priest struggles with the same desires that heterosexual males do.

Oh come now, Mea!  There is a huge difference between a sin against our own bodies and a sin against nature.  This is a symptom of our generation:  conflating normal, natural sexual reations with mutual masturbation and calling it "sex."  As Voxpopulusuxx points out, this is absurd and cannot be considered equal with or comparable to real marital relations as God intended it.  Look at the reaction of the faithful from the same article quoted above:

""The Priest, the Stripper, and Their Baby"

Yes, yet another sex scandal in the Miami Archdiocese — but take heart! The stripper Father David Dueppen's been having an affair with . . . is a woman! Praise be to God! Te Deum Laudaumus!  By the standards of the Miami Archdiocese, this good Father is an ultra-conservative rad-trad! Maybe he will tapped to be Archbishop Favalora's new coadjutor!  For my non-Catholic readers, I'm joking, but only in part. Let me let you in on a little in-house secret: I promise you that when most practicing Catholics in South Florida hear a priest has had an affair with a mistress, the first thing that comes to their minds is, Phew! Thank God it's a woman! Once that novelty sets in, then we bemoan yet another scandal for our local church.  A sad, sad state we're in
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/giunta/090921

Quote:You don't magically become asexual on the day of your ordination, and if a priest has repressed his sexuality that much (and lives the life of a stoic), then I fear for that priest's vocation and am sorry for the people in his care.  John XXIII once addressed a large group of priests and cardinals, and  told them that: "We should be gentle with penitents who confess sexual sins, because know more than anybody the struggles with commandments six and nine."

And I suggest that the OP read up on Thomas Aquinas's account of virtue.  His posts seems to indicate that virtue is something that happens spontaneously (as if a true Christian would lose any and all sinful tendencies on the day of his conversion).  That ideal isn't situated in reality, and even Thomas was acutely aware of that.  Grace doesn't wipe out vice, it helps us slowly overcome it.  Your "traditional" teaching is foreign to how Catholics have understood the human person and morality (its certainly foreign to most people's experience of their own sexual struggles).


I didn't say that anywhere in this entire thread, Mea.  What I repeatedly said is that the identity (ie, essential personhood) of a Christian should not be linked with a mortal sin ("homosexual persons") and I correctly pointed out that such a designation has zero precedent in tradition.

Quote:But of course, I don't know anything about the Thomas Aquinas or Catholicism, given the fact that I'm in a modern seminary, and therefore certainly a modernist...Regardless, I wish all my friends in the fish tank the best.  I ask for your prayers as I continue to discern my vocation.  (And continue to try to live a chaste life!  Just like all of you, whether married, single, or consecrated!  We're all together in that fight, and surely will be for the rest of our lives.) 

I also ask for your prayers as I work on my Masters Thesis.  I'm actually doing it on the Thomistic Renewal, and the problems that beset it after it was instituted.  I have this theory that the reason why so many priests from the 1960s rejected Thomism was because they were getting bad interpretations of Thomas in their manuals.  I think there's something to that.  Wish me luck, and I'll let you know the results of investigation (Ideally, I hope the paper can be published at some point down the road.)  If there are any neo-Thomists familiar with the subject who'd be interested in critiquing my work (and I only want people who could give me legitimate criticism, not ideology), then private message me, and I'll send you a copy of the paper for commentary once I turn out a rough draft.

God be with you and grant you His favor in your studies.  I believe you will make a fine and holy priest. 
Reply
(03-03-2011, 10:49 AM)James02 Wrote: Uh, this is the opposite of Rand, who was for precision, and  a great admirer of Aristotle and Aquinas.

Think of this statement: I won't let X "define" me.  What the heck does that mean?  It is a dadaism of the modern world.  A meaningless feel good phase. 

No, anyone using such language around Rand would probably have been slapped.  The term "homosexual" does not define someone.  It merely states that someone has a same-sex attraction.  That is all.

Then why this language in the CCC?

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

Answer:  because the DSM-II eliminated homosexuality from its list of serious mental disorders in 1973 (though no science supported such a change and much was relegated to the ash heap in deference to it).  Nothing theological there.  In 1975, official church documents still used the term homosexuals (itself a neologism with no real scientific or etymological roots before Freud) but added "persons" in 1986, which language surfaced here in the 1992 CCC creating a new category of personhood that confusingly calls the "homosexual person" to chastity and then defines chastity only in "heterosexual" terms.

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.

and

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.

The virtue of chastity therefore involves the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift
.

This is swallowing the 'science' of personality theory hook, line and sinker.  It creates a new category of personhood unknown in Catholic tradition before the 1980s.  And it is manifestly a gateway for Modernists to exploit by ordaining "homosexual persons" to the priesthood who claim to be living in chastity as homosexual persons, which, even by the imprecise language of the 1992 CCC would be impossible.
Reply
(03-01-2011, 05:39 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: I object to their use at all.  I am not DEFINED by my sexuality.   And no one is defined by an abomination.  My question would be - why the need at all to use terms such as these in a Catholic context?

Exactly.  There is no precedent for it in tradition.  Another Conciliar Church innovation that has had disastrous consequences for the Church.
Reply
(03-04-2011, 08:21 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(03-01-2011, 05:39 PM)Malleus Haereticorum Wrote: I object to their use at all.  I am not DEFINED by my sexuality.   And no one is defined by an abomination.  My question would be - why the need at all to use terms such as these in a Catholic context?

Exactly.  There is no precedent for it in tradition.  Another Conciliar Church innovation that has had disastrous consequences for the Church.

I completely concur and support the position you so aptly stated - well done.
Reply
There is a difference between actual sin and original sin. Meaning no one can avoid original sin. Everyone can avoid devient sexual behavior. The behavior causes the homosexual lust not the other way around.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)