Four in Five Vatican Priests are Gay, Book Claims

The Guardian (UK) ^ | 2/12/19 | Harriet Sherwood

[piusv]

The [JPII] Catechism falls short, because Romans 1 also condemns those without NATURAL affection, those who “[burn] in their lust for one another.

Agreed. Here is the full reading:

“Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened… who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error… they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”

Pius V understood the true Catholic teaching. With the JPII Catechism, we see the beginning of the slide away from traditional Catholic teaching. It focuses only on the "acts" and not the so-called "orientation". God did not create them this way.

[Elsie]

Well; millions and millions of PROTs have been ‘dissed’ by Rome; so it evens out.

[Elsie]

With the JPII Catechism, we see the beginning of the slide away from traditional Catholic teaching.

I think it started WAY earlier than that!!

---

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:

 • Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:

'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.

• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:

You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].

• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:

'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455

• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:

Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)

• Cyril of Alexandria:

When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.

• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):

“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'

“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)

• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):

Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.

[metmom]

In some cultures it still is or atleast was until fairly recently.

This guy is probably in his fifties.

[metmom]

With the JPII Catechism, we see the beginning of the slide away from traditional Catholic teaching.

I would posit that it started way before that.

VII is a symptom of that slide, not the cause. VII could not have been put in place if the leadership had not already gone far down that road.

VII just brought the laity down with it.

[mostly_lies]

Never read Tripp, though the stuff I read may have sourced him.
The salacious rumors about lincoln are not merely sourced in the papers you reference.... There were certainly whispers regarding this relationship during his life. Plus, having progeny is no more a dis qualifier of sexual perversion now than it was then. So he had sons.... So what.

I admit that I have a hostility towards Lincoln and thus a propensity to “believe bad stuff.” He was not noble, not a pacifier, not a great leader, and was a horrible man and one fo the worst presidents we ever had. I spit on the memorial and the entire web of lies it represented last time I was in DC.

The hagiographical web woven around this tyrannical monster and his freedom hating willingness to sell out everything for his agenda, and then the pathetic attempt to paint his history of murder as “liberating the slaves” produces a willingness in me -I admit- to believe the worst about him and then confirm later.

That acknowledged, sexual perversion fits with the general character of this lying, tyrannical, racist, corrupt, pusillanious villain of our past. Once I began reading about the real man, I became aghast at how nonsensical the beliefs are about him, and the whitewashed image of this ugly ugly man. My path began with this book https://www.amazon.com/Lincoln-Reconsidered-Essays-Civil-War/dp/0375725326?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=0375725326 and this one, https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0761536418/lrc18-20/?creativeASIN=0761536418&linkCode=w61&imprToken=ZJDmAA.TobY5JgjM4BVEJA&slotNum=1

This has “poisoned the well” for me, I admit, in my willingness to accept nasty accusations about the man, seeing how nonsensical the general image is about him, and how ridiculous the created myth about him is.

[Mrs. Don-o]

I doubt it. Lincoln made virulent political enemies over the course of his life who attacked him on any and everything, and none of them ever attacked him as a sodomite. They would not have hesitated one minute to do so, if they thought it were credible.

And --- quite free from that detestable vice ---sharing a bed with someone of the same sex was not uncommon in the 19th century (and for all times previous, for that matter) --- especially in public accommodations. Beds were large, rooms were cold, and sadly there were no electric blankets.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you for the ping. I wrote similarly a bit farther down the thread. You have a lot of valuable references/documentation I had never seen, so thanks for your interesting comments.

[Mrs. Don-o]

There are certainly chaste and honorable people out there whose heterosexual appetite is faint, only at rare intervals, or lapsed altogether. St. Paul does not condemn them as "without natural affections," which is a far broader thing than just sex drive. Elsewhere in the NT, for instance, Paul speak of those who are without love for father or mother.

You don't have to develop --- let alone act upon --- a heterosexual drive to please God.

[allwrong57]

yea, a friend knows a guy who was in seminary. That’s great to base a judgment on, lol!

[metmom]

And that’s different than this poll just how?

You read it in a book somewhere.

Yup, just as reliable.

[piusv]

Oh sure, I agree. However, I am focusing on when this slide was made official in Church documents.

To be clear, my other post was referring to JPII's Catechism entry on homosexuality, not Vatican II (although much of JPII's Catechism references Vatican II). I'm fairly certain that Vatican II did not deal with this.

[daniel1212]

I admit that I have a hostility towards Lincoln and thus a propensity to “believe bad stuff.” He was not noble, not a pacifier, not a great leader, and was a horrible man and one fo the worst presidents we ever had. I spit on the memorial and the entire web of lies it represented last time I was in DC.

That pretty much explains it. Thanks for your honesty.

[metmom]

Very interesting.