There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-22-2011, 04:13 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 03:43 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: He can't live with "liers with men" since that obviously goes to an action that is sinful.  He has to have homosexuals in the Scripture or referring to it does nothing for his argument.  A "lier with men" doesn't have to be homosexual in the sense of identity.

This is really stretching it.

"Liers with men" is a noun modified by a preposition.  "Liers" denotes identity, although you want to recognize the act only, and refuse to acknowledge the condemnation of persons in Romans 1:32.  Vox and I are on the side of Tradition here, and you want to split hairs about effemenati and its broad application of meanings which you seem to be trying to canonically define for all of us.  "Liers with men" (Latin:  masculorum concubitores or male concubines, not male concubinage) is an explicit reference to Lev. 18:22 which is clear to anyone that can read:

I'm not splitting hairs about effemenati.  I'm making a valid point: St. Jerome specifically chose to use that word in some places and not in others.  You still have not suggested any reason why that coincides with your interpretation

Your Latin is lacking.  Masculorum is genitive plural, concubitores is nominative.  The literal translation is "bedmates of mankind" where masculorum is objective genitive.  Objective genitive is used when the noun participates in an action as patient.  Masculorum is not an adjective nor is this a prepositional phrase. It doesn't denote any identity.    The Latin actually indicates the opposite: a participant in an action.

Be that as it may, let's continue:

Quote:Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind, because it is an abomination.

St. Paul:  
And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error.  And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; ... Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.

How you can come away with anything different than what I have consistently posted since the beginning is the product of ignoring the explicit evidence.

I haven't come away with anything different than you on "liers with mankind" except that you need to brush up on your Latin.

Quote:Masculorum concubitores will not inherit the kingdom of God.  That's what it says, that's what it means.  Paul extends this in Romans 1:32 to include not just those who do this (persons, not just acts) but even to those who approve the same.  

The persons are only impugned when they act:  they either act immorally or act by approving of immorality.  For there to be a sin, there has to be an action (or lack of action when one is required).  Having a disposition to sin is not a sin, it is a weakness and a fault.

That said, I don't disagree with you that Masculorum concubitores will not inherit the kingdom of God.  But they are actually doing something - they are sleeping with other men just as fornicators and such do something.  The effeminate lack virtue necessary - they lack perseverance; that is why they are condemned, not for an identity.

Quote:That is why I provided quotes from the Summa that show without any sophistry or wrangling over etymology that those who ordain men in an unrepentant state of mortal sin commit a mortal crime (St. Thoas Aquinas' words, not mine) which agree here 100% with St. Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ.  No social scientist or psychiatric practioner will be able to deliver you from the Judge of All on that dreadful and fearful day.

What St. Thomas said was those who were unworthy.  That doesn't mean necessarily in mortal sin.  It goes to safeguarding the Sacraments.  They can be unworthy in the fact they aren't intelligent enough, they lack virtues, they are blind, etc. It is actually broader than you are interpreting it.

But, I see no point here.  If a bishop ordains a known homosexual, the bishop sins.  So what?  No one is denying that homosexuals are not fit for the priesthood.

BTW, do you want to stop with the grandstanding and cartoonish flowery language?  I find it annoying and pretentious, and it distracts from the content.  If not, OK, but then I'll start.

Messages In This Thread
Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - by Historian - 02-22-2011, 04:52 AM

Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)