jump to navigation

Dominican theologian: Aquinas places sodomite “love” above marital love! November 13, 2015

Posted by Tantumblogo in Basics, damnable blasphemy, different religion, disaster, error, General Catholic, horror, paganism, rank stupidity, Revolution, secularism, self-serving, sexual depravity, sickness, Society, SOD, the struggle for the Church, unadulterated evil.
trackback

They’re really coming out of the woodwork now. Just as Obama’s administration has resulted in every manner of wild progressive coming out of the woodwork, and the doubling and tripling down of their radical demands, Pope Francis’ pontificate has surely energized the radical heretics who claim membership in the Church, and encouraged them to reveal their utterly fantastic (and false) beliefs.  BTW, this author sets my gaydar off more than a fleet of Tu-160s coming over the North Pole sets off the North Warning System:

A Dominican friar, Fr. Adriano Oliva, has celebrated the 800th anniversary of his religious order with a book about “the Church, the divorced and remarried, and homosexual couples.”

Amours (“Loves”) is a study of St Thomas Aquinas’ definition of love and aims to show that the “Angelic Doctor” recognized the “natural” character of homosexuality. In the wake of the Synod on the family, Oliva pleads for new ways of welcoming divorced and remarried and homosexual couples into the Church and of recognizing their unions in civil law…..

…….“The highest of friendships: this is how St Thomas Aquinas calls the unique, faithful and gratuitous love between two spouses who give themselves to each other in consecrated union, as a sacramental sign of the love of Christ for the Church, His spouse. Should couples who are divorced and remarried, who live out their union in a responsible manner, be banned from this friendship? Could it be that homosexual persons, who live as a couple with responsibility, be banned?” reads the text accompanying the book on the Cerf’s web-shop. [There are so many false assumptions and leaps of illogic in these few sentences it would take pages to fully unpack them.  The entire argument is built upon an edifice of falsehood]

It goes on: “Does a theological assessment of the ‘naturality’ of the homosexual inclination, which St Thomas recognizes, not open the doors to new ways of welcoming same-sex couples within the Church? The anthropology of ‘naturality’ then demands that civil rights be accorded to such couples in national legislations.”…….[Too bad Aquinas several times in the Summa refers to this vice as “unnatural” and akin to bestiality]

…….From this Oliva deduces the thesis according to which “St Thomas places the principle of pleasure in sexual unions between persons of the masculine sex as coming from the soul and not from the body, where he had placed venereal pleasure, on the other hand.” He then proceeds to declare: “St Thomas considers homosexuality as an inclination that is rooted in its most intimate part, the soul, from where affections and love are expressed.” [And thus superior to male-female relations within the confines of marriage, which can be argued to come from lower faculties than the soul]

Contrary to what this self-serving pedant claims, here is what Aquinas really thought about sodomy and such unnatural lusts. BTW, his most thorough analysis of them compares them directly to bestiality, something so unnatural and beneath human dignity as to be unmentionable if fallen men were not capable of infinite evil:

Commenting upon Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (1:26-27), Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, explains why the sin of homosexuality is so grave:

“Given the sin of impiety through which they [the Romans] sinned against the divine nature [by idolatry], the punishment that led them to sin against their own nature followed…. I say, therefore, that since they changed into lies [by idolatry] the truth about God, He brought them to ignominious passions, that is, to sins against nature; not that God led them to evil, but only that he abandoned them to evil….

“If all the sins of the flesh are worthy of condemnation because by them man allows himself to be dominated by that which he has of the animal nature, much more deserving of condemnation are the sins against nature by which man degrades his own animal nature….

“Man can sin against nature in two ways. First, when he sins against his specific rational nature, acting contrary to reason. In this sense, we can say that every sin is a sin against man’s nature, because it is against man’s right reason….

“Secondly, man sins against nature when he goes against his generic nature, that is to say, his animal nature. Now, it is evident that, in accord with natural order, the union of the sexes among animals is ordered towards conception. From this it follows that every sexual intercourse that cannot lead to conception is opposed to man’s animal nature.9

We see in this case exactly how modernists work.  Exceedingly shoddy, self-serving “scholarship” completely twists, or takes radically out of context, stern condemnations of grave sins and by feats of intellectual sleight of hand turns them around to say the opposite of their true meaning. Even more, numerous modernists – like Cardinal Kasper – have been caught making up quotes from Saints out of whole cloth, or radically altering their statements to say something the exact opposite of what they really said: just like in the Synod’s final report, the notorious paragraphs 84-86 misquoted Familiaris Consortio by leaving out <cough> Saint John Paul  II’s statement that granting Communion to the divorced and remarried was impossible.

As for the sad character who wrote this:

Adriano_Oliva_810_500_55_s_c1

Funny how he only wears his habit when he wants to appear Catholic.  Most interviews show him in suit and tie.

Which is all of a piece.  A modernist simulates Catholicism when he wants to influence the Church, but when he presents himself to the world, he shucks the trappings of Catholicism.

Comments

1. glmcreations - November 13, 2015

How does he explain away these words of Thomas?: “Now, it must be known that, although some believe that adultery is a sin, yet they do not believe that simple fornication is a mortal sin. Against them stand the words of St. Paul: “For fornicators and adulterers God will judge.” And: “Do not err: neither fornicators, . . . nor adulterers, nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind shall possess the kingdom of God.” But one is not excluded from the kingdom of God except by mortal sin; therefore, fornication is a mortal sin. But one might say that there is no reason why fornication should be a mortal sin, since the body of the wife is not given, as in adultery. I say, however, if the body of the wife is not given, nevertheless, there is given the body of Christ which was given to the husband when he was sanctified in Baptism. If, then, one must not betray his wife, with much more reason must he not be unfaithful to Christ: “Know you not that your bodies are the members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them the members of a harlot? God forbid!” It is heretical to say that fornication is not a mortal sin.” Guy McClung, San Antonio, Texas

2. tg - November 13, 2015

You gaydar is good. This is so disgusting. St. Dominic and St. Thomas, pray for us.

Tantumblogo - November 13, 2015

He’s got at least 5 probable tells.. I’ve seen him move on video and I’m 90+% certain.

Baseballmom - November 15, 2015

Duh…. Why else write the book….

Al Henneberry - November 15, 2015

1. Mutual masturbation alone or with a friend it is considered very “hot.” it is more commonly practiced for its own sake by lesbians.
2. Both male and female homosexuals admit to oral sex with virtually every sexual partner. Among men, about half admit to ingesting semen during fellatio, incuring the same medical risk as drinking raw human blood. Vaginal fluids also contain germs.
3.Anal intercourse often causes tearing or bruising of the anus or rectal
wall which is only one cell thick. This increases the likelihood of the multitude of germs and viruses carried in saliva and semen
4. Anal penetration of the anus by hand, arms or foreign objects greatly increases tearing, bruising, and the risk of infection and debilitates the sphincter muscles
5. About 80 percent of homosexuals regularly use their tongues to stimulate the anuses of their partners which is associated with the high incidence among homosexuals of Hepatitis A and Hepatitis B.
5. About 30 percent of homosexuals admitted to having “showered” in the
urine of others, and about 20 percent said admitted to ingesting urine.
6. At least a quarter of homosexuals use physical force, violence, brutality and some times mutilation as a sexual stimulant.
MICHAEL S. BOWDEN

Tantumblogo - November 17, 2015

A bit explicit, but really valuable information. Thanks.

3. Chris - November 13, 2015

I looked at the various google images of him. In the most recent ones, as the one shown above, he’s lost weight, grown the little beard, gotten new glasses. To me his new look says I’m “in the life”, as the gays call it.

4. catholicguy - November 13, 2015

Interesting how modernists use St. Thomas when they can twist him, otherwise, Scholasticism is outdated, as Ratzinger suggested: http://www.traditioninaction.org/ProgressivistDoc/A_018_RatzingerScholasticism.htm

5. Jim the Tim - November 14, 2015

Looks like a Poofter to me talks like a Poofter to me probably is one then. What is it with these people they must know there astray or is he just looking for boyfriends.


Sorry comments are closed for this entry

%d bloggers like this: