There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-23-2011, 06:19 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-23-2011, 05:05 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: To which I will obviously disagree.  No one is saying that a homosexual person has to accept his identity.  If someone can switch teams back, great.  What I am saying, to only speak for myself, is that while they still suffer from same sex attraction, they must accept the reality of their proclivity.  They must live a chaste life, not become priests, etc.

Yes someone is, Quis:

"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."  (italics in the original 1992 CCC)

This is why it is duplicitous to infer that a third sexual identity exists, e.g., homosexual persons, when the same CCC restricts sexual identity to "male and female, created He them." (Gen. 1:27)

Quote: You keep referring to "homosexual" as an identity which means you are actually buying into the anthropological re-defining of the word.  "Homosexual" is no more an identity than over-libidinous or xenophobic is.  Sure, some people want to make it that way, but it isn't.

All due respect dearest brother in Christ, you forced this strained and contrived quibble about terminology much earlier in the thread.  The above quote from the CCC shows that it is an identity.  Otherwise St. Paul's quote from 1 Cor. 6:9-11 would read "such did some of you" instead of "such were some of you."   I even conceded that effemenati was broadly applied but not exclusive of sodomitic behavior and encouraged that we move along to masculorum concubitores but you remained bogged down on molles.  Neither could you admit to the historical setting in 1st century Corinth which I found most unfortunate. 

Quote:That's what's kind of oxymoronic with your argument.  I said before you had a lot of contradiction, and here's a huge one:

Regardless of what some Modernists say, and even regardless of what the CCC says or implies, Catholic teaching is that "homosexual" is not an identity.  It is theologically a pre-disposition to certain disordered and unnatural sins.  But to undo the homosexual activists' dirty work, you're buying into the "identity" notion and trying to define the identity of "homosexual" as a sin against nature rather than the act being a sin against nature.  In other words, you've come to identify people by the act whether you realize it or not simply because you're saying that such an identity is sinful.

There is no "identity", which is why St. Paul didn't - and couldn't - condemn "homosexuals" as an identity.  He condemned people who commit unnatural acts.

Well, hopefully CCC #2333 will shed more light on that, Quis.  "Homosexual persons" is not only enshrined in the CCC, but the Holy Father quoted from it in his Instruction on....priesthood.   Not that I agree with all this Pope's explanations! 

If you really unpack what is meant by 'nature' in the Fathers' statement, "sin against nature" you will see that this is not mere quibbling over terminology.  The fate of countless souls is at stake here.  At least that is the view from my foxhole.

Finally, a short explanation from the Catholic doctrine of the tri-unity of man (cf. 1 Thess. 5:23):

And may the God of peace himself sanctify you in all things; that your whole spirit, and soul, and body, may be preserved blameless in the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Spirit: I am a spirit (essential being, intellect + will)

Soul:  I have a soul (rational properties, emotions)

Body:  I live in a body ("shortly I must put off this tabernacle..." 2 Peter 1:14)

In light of this explanation, to confess, "I am a homosexual person" is a most grave and definitive statement.

Pax Christi,

You know what you call "tri-unity" is condemned heresy, right?

The simplest way to answer you is to show you are taking the CCC out of context.  2333 is not about homosexuals.  It doesn't even imply homosexual should embrace their identity.

Here is what the CCC says about homosexuals:

Quote:Chastity and homosexuality

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

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.

Do they say "this identity"?  No, they say "this inclination".  They call them "tendencies".

This is what bothers me most about you.  You seem to be willing to bring disrepute upon the Church with textual machinations and misrepresentations to further an agenda.  The fact that your agenda is (I hope) to keep homosexuals out of the priesthood may be laudable, but the way you are going about it is disturbing and not laudable at all.

Here's another document:


Concerning the Criteria for the Discernment of Vocations
with regard to Persons with Homosexual Tendencies
in view of their Admission to the Seminary and to Holy Orders

From the time of the Second Vatican Council until today, various Documents of the Magisterium, and especially the Catechism of the Catholic Church, have confirmed the teaching of the Church on homosexuality. The Catechism distinguishes between homosexual acts and homosexual tendencies.

Regarding acts, it teaches that Sacred Scripture presents them as grave sins. The Tradition has constantly considered them as intrinsically immoral and contrary to the natural law. Consequently, under no circumstance can they be approved.

Deep-seated homosexual tendencies, which are found in a number of men and women, are also objectively disordered and, for those same people, often constitute a trial. Such persons must be accepted with respect and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. They are called to fulfil God's will in their lives and to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter[8].

In the light of such teaching, this Dicastery, in accord with the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, believes it necessary to state clearly that the Church, while profoundly respecting the persons in question[9], cannot admit to the seminary or to holy orders those who practise homosexuality, present deep-seated homosexual tendencies or support the so-called "gay culture"[10].

Such persons, in fact, find themselves in a situation that gravely hinders them from relating correctly to men and women. One must in no way overlook the negative consequences that can derive from the ordination of persons with deep-seated homosexual tendencies.

Different, however, would be the case in which one were dealing with homosexual tendencies that were only the expression of a transitory problem - for example, that of an adolescence not yet superseded. Nevertheless, such tendencies must be clearly overcome at least three years before ordination to the diaconate.



Nevertheless, increasing numbers of people today, even within the Church, are bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Church to accept the homosexual condition as though it were not disordered and to condone homosexual activity.

But the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered.

11. It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases

Today, the Church provides a badly needed context for the care of the human person when she refuses to consider the person as a "heterosexual" or a "homosexual" and insists that every person has a fundamental Identity: the creature of God, and by grace, his child and heir to eternal life.

How much more clear can it be than that last statement?

Really, other things aside, I think you are behaving dishonorably by purposefully misrepresenting what the Church has said to further your own ideas. 

Which makes it probably a good time to address the other bee in your bonnet: "homosexual persons"

Homosexual is an adjective.  It can be used substantively to be a noun ("a homosexual"), but it is at its root an adjective.  There is nothing nefarious about  the Church using "homosexual person" any more than "homosexual behavior" or "homosexual bar", or when it uses other terms such as "indigenous peoples".  "Homosexual person" merely spells out what "homosexual" used substantively means.  You cannot change "person" to "identity" with no basis other than your imagination, especially in light of the fact that the Church in the same documents you find fault with has clearly said it's a tendency, it's disordered, it's not an identity, etc.

Messages In This Thread
Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - by Historian - 02-23-2011, 02:03 PM

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)