There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
#81
Csth Johnny.
Yes you did reply in #61 sorry about that.
I concur with most everything your positing. (Shalome notwithstanding )
Two things you have been accused of holding a Donatist position would you care to respond (if i mispelled remember im on my phone)
Also are you asserting that a man who has a disordered sexual identity has a defect of matter or intent or both so as to make the operation of the sacrament of holy orders impeded or null?
Also I think a definition of terms would be helpfull. Ie
Like you I reject the notion in toto that human beings are born with disordered or unnatural sexual appitites, beyond normal original concupiscence. Hence i only define as a sodomite one who is actively engaged in the activity. I actually reject the term homosexual outright as a misnomer since sexuality like marriage is an activity that can only be engaged in by a man and a woman.
Quis wisely however tries to limit the use of sodomite as possibly hurtfull to those who struggle with this depravity. And I respect his wishes, his forum, his nickel.  His rules.
That being said since this is an intelligent disspassionate debate For my purposes I will use the term HS to denote the sin we are discussing. So, concuring with you I think, HS is a viscious sin not a type of person. Therefore if one repents of HS one is no longer estimable as HS.
Reply
#82
horologion - go for it dude!
Reply
#83
(02-21-2011, 07:58 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Csth Johnny.
Yes you did reply in #61 sorry about that.
I concur with most everything your positing. (Shalome notwithstanding )
Two things you have been accused of holding a Donatist position would you care to respond (if i mispelled remember im on my phone)
Also are you asserting that a man who has a disordered sexual identity has a defect of matter or intent or both so as to make the operation of the sacrament of holy orders impeded or null?
Also I think a definition of terms would be helpfull. Ie
Like you I reject the notion in toto that human beings are born with disordered or unnatural sexual appitites, beyond normal original concupiscence. Hence i only define as a sodomite one who is actively engaged in the activity. I actually reject the term homosexual outright as a misnomer since sexuality like marriage is an activity that can only be engaged in by a man and a woman.
Quis wisely however tries to limit the use of sodomite as possibly hurtfull to those who struggle with this depravity. And I respect his wishes, his forum, his nickel.  His rules.
That being said since this is an intelligent disspassionate debate For my purposes I will use the term HS to denote the sin we are discussing. So, concuring with you I think, HS is a viscious sin not a type of person. Therefore if one repents of HS one is no longer estimable as HS.

Brother voxpopulisuxx:
Peace be with you.
To answer you accordingly:
1.  Donatism refers to a system of ethical rigorism based the circumstances of the Diocletian persecution of the early 4th century AD.  They held that a Priest who had surrendered copies of the Sacred books during the persecution could not be restored to the priesthood.  From this flowed an entire taxonomy of priestly requirements more rigorous than that established by Rome.  The main thrust of the accusation leveled at me as Donatism is that I appear to be insisting on a standard of moral, religious and theological requirements that is higher than that of the RCC.  Let me explain the differences.
a.  The issue I have raised is the pernicious and deadly progress advanced by Modernists working from within the Church through reprobate 'priests' which are neither Catholic nor valid canonical priests due to explicit persistance in mortal sin.
b.  I have utilized the minimum standard for a baseline requirement to be ordained and in right standing with the Church: a priest must at least be a Christian as defined by Scripture and Tradition.
c.  Donatists eventually formed a conclave and ended up schismatic and condemned.  Nowhere have I advocated schism or the formation of a cult apart from Rome. 
d.  I have also raised the issue of St. Paul's doctrine of the moral and intellectual depravity of the homosexual (cf Romans 1:28-32) and the dangers that  'priests' so disposed present to the Church.
e.  In summary, the Donatists required standards higher than the Church did; I am only advocating for the absolute minimum standard, i.e., that a Priest be an actual Christian.

2. 
Quote:...are you asserting that a man who has a disordered sexual identity has a defect of matter or intent or both so as to make the operation of the sacrament of holy orders impeded or null?

I am merely repeating the clear teaching of the Apostles and St. Thomas Aquinas (please see reply #77 and 79).  The following are at risk in such a circumstance:
a.  The Bishop who ordained such a candidate has committed a mortal crime (St. Thomas' words, not mine) bringing his episcopal see into tremendous moral and spiritual danger;
b.  The person who presented himself for ordination has also committed a mortal sin in presenting himself for orders and each time he takes action as a priest (again, Aquinas, not me);
c.  While the sacraments he dispenses are valid ex opere operato, he gives enormous opportunity to scandalize the faithful, embolden the enemies of the Lord, and bring the entire sacramental economy into doubt among the faithful, especially the weak;
d.  He casts great doubt and aspersion upon the priestly vocation and (along with his consecrating ordinary) the entire process of contemporary priestly formation, thereby discouraging pious and wholesome young men from answering their heavenly call.

Pax Christi,
cj
Reply
#84
(02-21-2011, 07:58 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Also I think a definition of terms would be helpfull. Ie
Like you I reject the notion in toto that human beings are born with disordered or unnatural sexual appitites, beyond normal original concupiscence. Hence i only define as a sodomite one who is actively engaged in the activity. I actually reject the term homosexual outright as a misnomer since sexuality like marriage is an activity that can only be engaged in by a man and a woman.

II Cor. 5:17:  If then any be in Christ a new creature, the old things are passed away, behold all things are made new.

Q: How can a new creation "be" a "homosexual person"?  This either makes God the author of sin in natural creation or Christ the author of sin in the new creation, both concepts that are untenable for a Roman Catholic.  Quis chose not to field this Q, his preroggative.


Reply
#85
Keep up the good work, your position is very clear and well elucidated. I think your cause noble and most needed and spot on for the most part. I have a son that I dare to hope might actually have a calling to the priesthood, and yet the terror of the pink seminarys  gives me great pause as a father as you point out.
[-] The following 1 user Likes voxxpopulisuxx's post:
  • Catholic Johnny
Reply
#86
Re: 1 Corinthinas 6:10, a very simple and practical translation from the Koine Greek:

ADULTERERS,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G3120
μαλακοι
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES AS WOMEN,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G733
αρσενοκοιται
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MEN,

http://christianisrael.freevar.com/1+Corinthians+6:9

:deadhorse:
Reply
#87
Quis, what words are used for effemenati and molles in the Greek text?  Does the word translated effeminate have the same connotations in Greek, that it is someone who is soft and enjoys pleasure over pain?

Ok, so as someone who fits this category, here's what's offensive and what's not: faggot - no brainer here, obviously unacceptable
Sodomite - not as offensive as faggot, due to its archaity (or whatever the noun form of archaic is), but still comes across as pejorative.
Homosexual - not offensive, but theologically feels a little weird since it refers more to actions than feelings
Same-sex attracted - a little awkward but ok as far as not being derogatory

Probably the best term to use is homosexual, since even though the understanding is wrong, technically, when the word is used, what is commonly understood is a person who is attracted to the sam sex, not only people who have sex with the same sex.
Reply
#88
(02-21-2011, 10:15 AM)voxpopulisuxx Wrote: Keep up the good work, your position is very clear and well elucidated. I think your cause noble and most needed and spot on for the most part. I have a son that I dare to hope might actually have a calling to the priesthood, and yet the terror of the pink seminarys  gives me great pause as a father as you point out.

Thank you, dear brother and yokefellow in Christ.  I have 2 sons who served for years as altar boys in the NO Mass.  I have the same hope as you.  However, they as you rightly point out must be innoculated against Modernism by family catechism.  I am confident that you have done and are doing just that.  God be with you and your sons!  :pray2:
Reply
#89
(02-21-2011, 10:22 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote: Re: 1 Corinthinas 6:10, a very simple and practical translation from the Koine Greek:

ADULTERERS,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G3120
μαλακοι
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES AS WOMEN,
G3777
ουτε
NOR
G733
αρσενοκοιται
ABUSERS OF THEMSELVES WITH MEN,

:deadhorse:

That's interesting.  In modern Greek slang, faggot is malakas.  Is the greek word for abusers of themselves with men etymologically related to arsonist?
Reply
#90

That's interesting.  In modern Greek slang, faggot is malakas.  Is the greek word for abusers of themselves with men etymologically related to arsonist?
[/quote]
Before I answer you, can you clarify this statement?

Quote:Ok, so as someone who fits this category...
Are you someone with a homosexual orientation?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)