There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest
(02-27-2011, 01:57 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-27-2011, 01:10 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: Amazing how the DSM suddenly become relevant when it fits someone's argument, otherwise it is peripheral.   ::)

(02-19-2011, 03:09 AM)Catholic Johnny Wrote:
(02-19-2011, 01:35 AM)QuisUtDeus Wrote: I'm not sure what you're getting at, if anything.  Originally, homosexuality was seen as a psychopathology and appeared in the DSM.  Because of homosexual advocacy, it was removed from the DSM....

It is the "lifestyle" that needs to be left behind to avoid sin.  Unnatural acts, improper relationships, etc.  Assuming it is a psychopathology, one cannot leave behind homosexuality as same-sex attraction any more than someone who suffers manic depression can leave that behind. 

1.  Psychopathology is not a theological category.  Even the CCC (pp 2357) admits that it cannot identify the psychological genesis of this 'disorder.'
...
3.  Pennance, faith, mortification of concupscient desire, and growth in grace and holiness are the lot of all Christians.  No exception should be made for the homosexual.  You are adopting a medical theory and not a Gospel position on this.  The medical theory is "once sick, always sick" (cf alcoholism) and therefore the compassionate response is to help the "alcoholic" (another nonbiblical identity designation with widespread acceptance in the Church) cope with his 'disease.'  The Gospel calls us to "overcome the world" (1 John 5:4). 

...
Peripheral discussions about psychology and pseudo-medical theories may help to clear the air as they are dispelled by sound doctrine, but the issue I am raising is the status of those who claim to be Priests and homosexuals at the same time. 

Sorry, CJ, you already said the DSM claims are "dispelled by sound doctrine".  You aren't going to be taken seriously if you can't be intellectually honest and consistent.

This thread is a great example of sophistry in action.

I have been 100% consistent.  My entire point was that the Church should never have inserted a neologism based on changing/changeable scienctific theory into a doctrinal statement.  All this reference to the DSM does is show that even by the standards of science the redefining of people as homosexual persons is fraught with all kinds of problems.   It shows that Canon law accepts psychiatry as an evidence of fitness for orders and by Canon Law's standards "homosexual persons" had a mental disorder until it magically disappeared from the DSM in 1973. 

I have been saying the same thing all along - but now I have a little bit more ammo to oppose those who want to argue in favor of sodomitic priests from the perspective of science.  Personally, I believe science is close to a non-factor on this issue as the Scriptures and tradition are crystal clear until you get to the 1970s and 80s and all this new pseudo-scientific language gets injected into Catholic doctrinal statements. 

:laughing:

Anyhow, you have another problem.  Since it's not in the DSM, it's not a psychological malady.  The Church, imprudently, tied the fitness of a candidate to the whim of the medical establishment which is really a political organization at this point.  The DSM changes almost annually -- almost as often as the Novus Ordo Missae.  It's a moving target.  Homosexual candidates after it was removed in 1973 did not suffer from a psychic illness therefore were legitimate candidates for the priesthood by that measure.

You also have the small problem that you said homosexuality as an illness is "dispelled by sound doctrine".  Therefore, the DSM was obviously (har) incorrect to diagnose homosexuality as a mental illness.  Why? Because of your personal interpretation of scripture that identifies it as a condemned "identity" rather than an illness such as alcoholism.  Why? Because you were afraid of the consequences of that - you knew your argument hinged on 1 Cor and it would fall like a house of cards otherwise.

You aren't chasing the truth.  You're chasing "the best argument" to get what you want.

Homosexuals cannot be priests because the Church says so and she has the sole right to determine, by whatever measure she chooses, who gets to be a priest.  That's the bottom line.  You don't need any other arguments.  If someone wants to know why, they can read the CDF statement.

All this other crap you've spewed about how homosexuals can't be Christians and your mental gymnastics about the efficacy of Holy Orders on a homosexual only weakens your standing and your right to be taken seriously.  The best way to make a convincing argument is to use the truth, and to use it consistently.

Anyhow, I'll keep watching you and voxp run in circles trying to outthink the Doctrine and come up with a better argument.  It's tilting at a windmill, though.  If they don't listen to the CDF saying "no homosexual priests" they sure as heck aren't going to listen to you with your inconsistent and inscrutable arguments.  I'll just add color commentary from time to time.

Carry on.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
Re: There is No Such Thing as a Homosexual Catholic Priest - by Historian - 02-27-2011, 02:39 AM



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)