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