There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-23-2011, 02:58 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:55 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:40 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-22-2011, 05:20 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: So, I still don't understand your point, but if you don't care to explain it, whatever.

My point was clear.  Unrepentant effeminati, molle, masculorum concubitores, malakos, homosexuals, catamites, liers with men, WHATEVER you want to call them sin mortally by presenting themselves for holy orders as do they that ordain them.  And let's not pretend that the ordinaries in question do not know they are ordaining practicing/tending/approving homosexuals to the priesthood.  

If you read back, you will note that not only do I not disagree with this point, I reaffirmed it.  That's why I don't understand what you're trying to prove by stating it.  No one said homosexuals should be priests.  No one said they are allowed to be priests.  That's not what we're debating here.  The problem is the arguments you are making along the way such as "homosexuals cannot be Christian".

Aha!  I think we are near a possible agreement, Quis.
You agree that:
1.  Homosexuals should not be priests;
2.  Bishops who knowingly ordain such sin mortally;
3.  These 'priests' become vehicles for all the errors of Modernism to be promulgated in the Church;
4.  Great and grave evils are perpetrated by this system.

1.  The systemic weakness in the Church that allows this to occur must be identified;

And that's about as far as we agree, though to be sure, on those points we agree.  Except, of course, for #3 there are plenty of "straight" priests who are modernists as well.

Quote:2.  The admittance of the existence of "chaste homosexual persons" provides a gateway;
3.  This gateway is ruthlessly exploited by both ordinands and ordinaries through the ordination of practising homosexuals;
4.  Modernism becomes mainstreamed and the faithful are wounded.

Now (full disclosure) I am a professional Soldier and view this problem from a military mindset:  locate the enemy's modus operandi, identify his tactics, plan accordingly, and destroy his center-of-gravity (engine of will-to-fight).

I am an armchair philosopher / theologian, and view this problem from the fact that we must honor the truth and follow the philosophy and theology to the bitter end, the chips falling where they may.  ;D

First, I have understood the whole time where you are coming from.  My point is that it is problematic, and also that we shouldn't configure the theology to combat the problem.  Rather we should strictly follow the theology, and therein will lay the answer to the problem.

"The admittance of the existence of "chaste homosexual persons" provides a gateway;"

No, not really.  What provides a gateway is seminary directors and bishops in the past purposefully ordaining homosexuals, and continuing to do so in the face of a mandate not to.  Even if your arguments in this thread are correct, which I don't think they are, they are unnecessary.  The only argument we need is the Pope saying no homosexuals can be priests.  Further, if "chaste homosexual persons" do exist, gateway or not, we are obligated to admit that they do even if it is a dangerous admission.  We don't serve the Truth by hiding the truth.  Again, I know you don't agree on the concept; I'm just saying if we "run the numbers" and the result is +1 in the chaste homosexual column, we have to honor that result.

"This gateway is ruthlessly exploited by both ordinands and ordinaries through the ordination of practising homosexuals;"

I disagree.  What they are doing, currently, is ignoring the Pope's directive.  Really, if you look at the huge amount of pedophiles in recent times, many of them were ordained long before V2 and for sure long before the Catechism came out.  What gateway was there then?  The same that there is now: bad bishops, bad vocations directors, etc.  People either with an outright agenda to flood the Church with gay priests and fellow pedophiles / hebephiles, or Modernists who believed the Church should change and didn't care if there were subversives or people who shouldn't be priests in the ranks,  Then more of these fellow rise to bishop and promote more of the same problem.

"4.  Modernism becomes mainstreamed and the faithful are wounded."

I hate to be the one to tell you there is no Santa Claus, but Modernism is already mainstream.  Cafeteria Catholicism is a form Modernism, and you can't get more mainstream than that.

I agree with your goal, and the goal is laudable, but I think your methodology is deficient, and I think you are missing the target.  Let me explain why:

If there is a person who suffers same-sex attraction and therefore calls himself a "homosexual" as a convenient label while at the same time trying to be a faithful Catholic, live chastely, etc., he is not a threat, is he?  In fact, he counterbalances the threat by returning the real meaning to the word "homosexual", and by "real meaning" I mean the dictionary definition of it.

He bears witness to the fact that regardless of whether he is born that way, became that way, etc., his response as a Catholic is required to be the same: flee the sin, live chastely, do not become a priest.  He bears a great witness that way by saying to the "gay community", "I am a homosexual, and a Catholic, and it's wrong for me to be a priest."  The same way a Catholic woman would go to the "womynpriest movement" and say "I am a woman and a Catholic, and it's wrong for me to attempt to be a priest."

Such a man (or woman) would in effect be an "Uncle Tom" to the "gay community".  He would be a martyr of sorts, and he would truly be giving up what he knew before for Christ since the homosexual activists and ideologues would have nothing to do with him.  He would be their enemy.

If you don't buy into my methodology as outlined above, fair enough.  But there is one more consideration. I think it is unjust to marginalize the efforts of people who battle same-sex attraction in order to be good Catholics by saying "homosexuals cannot be Christians".  Regardless of your goal, and regardless of how you want to nuance the definition of "homosexual" the reality is that a "homosexual person" is a person who experiences same-sex attraction.  Do modern philosophers and activists play Orwellian word games?  You bet.  But the best way to diffuse them is not to fall for their nuanced word games but rather demand clear definitions, clear answers, etc.

Oh, they can change "global warming" to "climate change" so they don't look like fools now that we're buried in snow.  They can change "murder of the unborn" to "choice" but it still is what it is.  And they can make a "homosexual person" into a strange mish-mash of psychology and a third category of gender, but at the end of the day, the Doctrine is clear: you can't engage in sodomy; the order of the Pope is clear: you cannot ordain someone who has a deep-rooted version of this disorder or supports a pro-homosexual agenda.

That's all that needs to be said to those willing to listen.  Those people who suffer same-sex attraction and want to be good Catholics will listen.  Those Catholics who do not have same-sex attractions will listen.  Those who have an agenda and want to rationalize behavior and flood the Church so they can change it aren't going to listen to anything.  Not to the Pope, not to Dogma, not to your arguments about language.  In the meantime, to the casual reader, you have just condemned all people who have same-sex attraction issues to hell because "homosexuals cannot be Christians".

The basic message of Catholicism with regard to sin is the same for everyone: you cannot do whatever you want, you have to do what God wants.  Fight the good fight, and if you fail, go to Confession, pray more, and try harder.  Sometimes the simplest messages are the best.  They cut through the Orwellian sophistry and rhetorical bullshit with a knife.

It's a sin; don't do it.  If you do, you'll go to hell.  Simple, and to the point.

We need to get the bad bishops out.  That's the key to most of this.  Unfortunately, that means getting a clone of Pope Pius V in the Throne of Peter, which will be difficult.

Messages In This Thread
Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - by Historian - 02-23-2011, 04:52 AM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)