Benedict XVI on whether homosexuals can have vocations to the priesthood
#21
(08-13-2011, 09:35 PM)St. Drogo Wrote:
(08-13-2011, 10:43 AM)Gorgondie Wrote:
(08-13-2011, 06:32 AM)St. Drogo Wrote:
(08-13-2011, 12:02 AM)Gorgondie Wrote:
(08-12-2011, 10:27 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: I never quite understand what's meant by these terms. There are straight men who have committed the sin of sodom with no sense of "attraction." Assuming these men have truly converted, made penance, and amended their wayward lives, are they to be considered as "homosexuals" with "deep-seated" tendencies?

why wouldn't it be deep seated he is obviously susceptible and was willing to act on homosexual tendencies whether he considers himself homosexual or not
Men can act on many things toward which they have no particular tendency. For example, I loathe peanut sauces. However, when a friend of mine presents me with a peanut Thai sauce I eat it despite having no disposition toward it in and of itself.

-.- comparing engaging in homosexual sex to eating peanut sauce really....

Engaging in such sex is so greatly disordered i doubt it would be the same as simply choosing peanut sauce in your scenario
You have utterly failed to make an argument.

well that might be because i dont understand yours at all you seem to think choosing to eat peanut sauce is the same and as choosing to have homosexual sex...which clearly it is not
there is a lot more spiritual and physically that goes into choosing to have homosexual sex then there is that goes into choosing to eat peanut sauce
Reply
#22
The nature of the act towards which one is disposed--whether good or ill--in the argument is irrelevant. Think harder.
Reply
#23
(08-13-2011, 10:34 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: The nature of the act towards which one is disposed--whether good or ill--in the argument is irrelevant. Think harder.

First off your tone lateley has been very condescending and there is no reason for it to be we are just having a discussion. I wouldn't even say its an argument im not trying to argue anything just discuss.

And one does not merely choose to have sex with another man like one chooses to eat peanut sauce it has nothing to do with the fact one is morally evil and the other isn't. It has to with the fact
that one is because of disorder, whether a physical disorder that causes one to have sexual attraction to another man which must mean the problem is deep seated Or a disorder that is spiritual
where one is willing to commit the act for the sake of commiting evil or w.e other reason

And either way i highly doubt someone can choose to engage in such gravely disordered activity without some sort of deep seated problem, i wouldn't know the persons motive for commiting such a sinful
act when they werent attracted to it but I dont think it is as simple as commiting the sin of Sodom one time and then you never have to worry about it agian. We are a beings that are a lot more complicated then that, both physically and spiritually

how about instead of comparing the sin of sodom to peanut sauce compare it to something it can actually be compared with. Take willful murder for example both are sins that cry to the Heavens for vengeance. I also dont think someone can commit murder like that without some sort of deep problems whether spiritual or physical...
Reply
#24
(08-13-2011, 06:32 AM)St. Drogo Wrote:
(08-13-2011, 12:02 AM)Gorgondie Wrote:
(08-12-2011, 10:27 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: I never quite understand what's meant by these terms. There are straight men who have committed the sin of sodom with no sense of "attraction." Assuming these men have truly converted, made penance, and amended their wayward lives, are they to be considered as "homosexuals" with "deep-seated" tendencies?

why wouldn't it be deep seated he is obviously susceptible and was willing to act on homosexual tendencies whether he considers himself homosexual or not
Men can act on many things toward which they have no particular tendency. For example, I loathe peanut sauces. However, when a friend of mine presents me with a peanut Thai sauce I eat it despite having no disposition toward it in and of itself.

St. Drogo are you referring to a situation such as a "straight" man engaging in the sin of Sodom in prison or something?

While it's true that sex in prison can be used as a display of power or punishment of some sort, it is still a disordered action which a normal person would not engage in.

If a person like that did decide to amend his life and regret his mistake and repent for it and was attracted to women and possibly went on to marry and so on, then no I wouldn't call him a homosexual. He still messed up big time at one point, but like all other sins it can still be forgiven.

Would someone like this be a good candidate for the priesthood? I don't know. I'd say it's a case by case thing.

I also tend to be more on the homosexuality is a major spiritual problem/extreme perversion side of this then it's just something people are born with side, if that matters.
Reply
#25
(08-13-2011, 09:45 PM)St. Drogo Wrote: Unless you can start defining your damn terms

The problem is the Vatican isn't defining its terms. who gets to decide what "deep seated homosexuality" is...

It is probably not best to leave it up to the person with the problem to decide whether or not he has problem
Reply
#26
(08-13-2011, 11:36 PM)Gorgondie Wrote: It is probably not best to leave it up to the person with the problem to decide whether or not he has problem

Isn't that up to his spiritual director?
Reply
#27
(08-14-2011, 05:37 AM)ecclesiastes Wrote:
(08-13-2011, 11:36 PM)Gorgondie Wrote: It is probably not best to leave it up to the person with the problem to decide whether or not he has problem

Isn't that up to his spiritual director?

That didnt even cross my mind, you are probably right on that
Reply
#28
The thing is, that if someone has consensual homosexual sex, there is obviously homosexual tendencies present.  Whether he identifies as an homosexual is more or less irrelevant.  I would never have sex with another man for the simple fact that I find the very notion repulsive (this isn't a boast on my behalf, I surely struggle with many other temptations), if I were to engage is such acts, it would be either because I found the idea and/or the act itself pleasurable on some level, in which case it would be pretty hard to deny that I had homosexual tendencies, or, if not that, then it would be because I was so morally bankrupt that I sin simply because I can.  Either way, it would make me an unsuitable candidate for the priesthood.

-Steve
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)