jump to navigation

Homosexual priest attacks Church…… August 16, 2013

Posted by Tantumblogo in asshatery, Basics, Bible, disaster, error, foolishness, General Catholic, sadness, scandals, self-serving, sexual depravity.
trackback

…..but also points out the problems with the current catechism’s equivocations on the subject.  Fr. James Alison is a self-professed homosexual priest (and, frankly, I would be shocked if he is chaste), who tok part in some pointless festival of leftists pretending to the Christian.  However, I think some of this arguments deserve some parsing, because they point out some broader problems.  Via CMR, with my emphasis an comments:

Catholic teaching about the “intrinsic evil” of homosexual acts was inconsistent, Alison argued, with the understanding that the attractions themselves were not sinful. [This man manages to get quite everything wrong.  He could have made a valid point, but missed it.  No, it is not a sin to be tempted.  But those temptations are disordered, and, even more, if they form part of what has become the homosexual “lifestyle,” they probably are very sinful.  More below.]

“Most Catholic bishops know being gay is a regularly occurring non-pathological variant condition,” Alison asserted, equating homosexuality with being left-handed. [He doesn’t know this at all. He may be right, I pray he is not, but even if he is, so what?  The Church has always had lousy bishops, and always will. We simply happen to be in a very low period for the Church, which has cycled through many periods of glory and depravity in her history.] The evil, Alison maintained, is how the left hand is used, not the using of the left hand itself. Listing group rape and pagan orgies resulting in self-castration, Alison suggested that these were in fact what scripture warned against when forbidding homosexual practice.  [Bulls–t. I just found another denunciation of homosexual acts in Judges earlier this week. Judges chapter XIX is all about homosexual depravity, not forced group rape. This is ludicrous, and anyone with even a semblance of HONEST, unbiased, un-agendized Scripture knowledge would know this.  Haydock goes through the Greek very clearly in his exegesis on Judges, and, let me tell you, the Greek is clear.  It is the act of SODOMY that Scripture describes repeatedly as profoundly depraved, a sin described in Judges XIX as WORSE THAN MURDER.]

Fr. Alison, who appears to normally wear secular clothes, could have made a point about the lack of clarity in the current catechism, which is much better than the 1990 catechism on this subject.  First of all, we have to note that a catechism is not an authoritative statement of Dogma, but is a compendium, an explanation of Dogma for the use of the faithful.  It is useful, but not authoritative.  The 1990 catechism equivocated over homosexuality rather badly, seeming to imply that homosexual acts themselves were only disordered, not sinful, and further stating that the lifestyle itself was just peachy.  Thank goodness, then Cardinal Ratzinger got that at least somewhat fixed, and put more back in line with the perennial belief of the Church, in the 1997 version. This version describes homosexual acts – sodomy – as always and everywhere sinful (yes, for male-female couples, too), while claiming the inclination towards acts of sodomy (the attraction) disordered.

The problem is, that disorder can cross over into sin very easily.  And I think the less than completely clear statements in the recent catechisms, even the “cleaned up” version, has caused a lot of confusion, especially over regarding what constitutes “inclination” or even “lifestyle.”  To further add to the confusion, the US bishops issued their own document, “Always Our Children,” which equivocated even more, and went even beyond equivocation into seeming to have so much “compassion” for sodomites that their acts were tolerated, at least with a wink and a nudge.

Historically, there was no homosexual “lifestyle.”  There were sodomites, and acts of sodomy, and all were roundly, rightly condemned.  Those with a temptation to such acts were counseled to live lives of strict chastity.  I don’t think the Church has, yet, responded well enough to this notion of a homosexual lifestyle, and whether such can be condoned only so long as one does not partake in acts of sodomy.  That is to say, I’m not sure a pronouncement that the lifestyle is “disordered” is enough. I’m not sure people know what that means.  I think, in the tradition, even the lifestyle would have been condemned as sinful, as well.

In closing, I must make plain that there is a significant difference between those who are afflicted with temptations of lust for those of the same sex, and who do all in their power to resist those, and those who sort of play around with those temptations, partaking in some aspects of homosexual culture while resisting (maybe) acts of sodomy.  There is a certain writer at First Things I have in mind when envisioning the latter, but I can’t recall her name at the moment.

Gots to go.

 

Comments

1. Terry Carroll - August 16, 2013

Melinda Selmys is the writer at First Things whose name you can’t remember.

tantamergo - August 16, 2013

I knew you’d come through, TC. You doing OK? Did not see you at Mass.

2. Brad Lifto - August 16, 2013

2 same cupcakes do not have sex with each other as same with to unmarried person of any sex..


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: