Soon-to-become Catholic priest kicked out for selfie with a homo

tractor

Woodpecker
Filme-41-2340x1208-c-default.jpg



Saw this article in my LinkedIn feed the other day. I checked whether it is available in English but it hasn't broken the internets in the U.S yet.

So, the story is that the Catholic seminary student has been kicked out of the seminary because of a selfie with a star of a German [email protected] "dating" show. The supervisor of this seminarist argued that this selfie shows solidarity with and approval of the homo lifestyle (deathstyle according to Pastor Anderson :squintlol:).

Well, you may think, he just didn't know that he was taking a selfie with a homo... Okay, let's keep going. Then it sais "in order to fulfill his dream to become a priest, Henry ended the relationship with his boyfriend and entered celibacy". It's funny how the reader learns about our hero's homosexuality only halfway through the text. Our verdict: as a homo, this dude knew pretty well who he takes a selfie with.

Well, you may think, apparently, he repented of his mortal sin and turned to Christ. A sinner like this deserves a second chance (as the tax collector and the harlot), including becoming a Catholic priest. And why should we judge him based on his picture? Maybe, he was trying to convert another [email protected] to Christianity. That's goooood. Maybe. Okay, let's skip to the final paragraph. It sais "Inspite of all this, he won't live the church. Instead, he wants to change it from inside."

Wait, what? Wasn't it his plan in the first place?

The comments under the LinkedIn post were of course "OMG, another reasons to leave this church", "OMG, how intolerant". I felt the urge to leave a biblical comment but preferred to leave the cesspit.
 
When I was in the process of converting, that The Catholic Church was infested with, and under attack from all sides by such filth, actually helped me make the decision to join the Body of Christ.

"Why aren't they trying to change other institutions? Why don't they try to infiltrate islam? Or Hinduism? Or anything else? There must be something in this Catholic Church that is worth changing." I thought to myself.

Look around the world today, this is what happens when Catholics are lukewarm.

Good that he didn't become a priest.
 
Few folks realize how much Germany parallels the US in internal political and religious schisms (RINOs versus conservatives, “Episcopalians” versus Episcopalians/Anglicans, etc.). The same is true of France.

German Catholicism, both theologically and politically, is full of silly contradictions. Pope Benedict XVI was probably the best thing to happen to global Catholicism, let alone German Catholicism, for decades. Pity he retired. But the Christian Social Union leader, Bavarian Ministerpräsident Markus Söder, has long endorsed gay marriage. Söder is good on immigration and attacking Merkel, but to call him “conservative” in a general, rather than relative sense is a joke.

This quasi-defrocking case involving the student seminarian is a boon for conservatives but at the same time one prominent German bishop is insisting on blessing same-sex relationships. He is so liberal that even liberal Pope Francis will not back him.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
Filme-41-2340x1208-c-default.jpg



Saw this article in my LinkedIn feed the other day. I checked whether it is available in English but it hasn't broken the internets in the U.S yet.

So, the story is that the Catholic seminary student has been kicked out of the seminary because of a selfie with a star of a German [email protected] "dating" show. The supervisor of this seminarist argued that this selfie shows solidarity with and approval of the homo lifestyle (deathstyle according to Pastor Anderson :squintlol:).

Well, you may think, he just didn't know that he was taking a selfie with a homo... Okay, let's keep going. Then it sais "in order to fulfill his dream to become a priest, Henry ended the relationship with his boyfriend and entered celibacy". It's funny how the reader learns about our hero's homosexuality only halfway through the text. Our verdict: as a homo, this dude knew pretty well who he takes a selfie with.

Well, you may think, apparently, he repented of his mortal sin and turned to Christ. A sinner like this deserves a second chance (as the tax collector and the harlot), including becoming a Catholic priest. And why should we judge him based on his picture? Maybe, he was trying to convert another [email protected] to Christianity. That's goooood. Maybe. Okay, let's skip to the final paragraph. It sais "Inspite of all this, he won't live the church. Instead, he wants to change it from inside."

Wait, what? Wasn't it his plan in the first place?

The comments under the LinkedIn post were of course "OMG, another reasons to leave this church", "OMG, how intolerant". I felt the urge to leave a biblical comment but preferred to leave the cesspit.
This is a complete embarrassment, but not to the Catholic faith but the wicked Novus Ordo Vatican II sect which gets more aggressively woke by the day. It is driving Catholics either semi-trad, sede or Orthodox.

I want to make a general comment about trad Catholics lamenting that the German “trad” Benedict XVI is gone and replaced by the “much worse” Francis. Some even go as far as saying that he is still the Pope! (Neither are)

In some ways Francis is a lot better than Benedict because his outward extreme left wing behavior is so out in the open that it is making more Catholics go trad by the day.

Benedict XVI on the other hand is much more dangerous. He lures in trad Catholics and then promptly betrays them with extremely radical ecumenism. He’s one of the chief villains of Vatican II, and was rightly condemned as a heretic at the time by real trad Catholics. He is an ecumenist of the most extreme variety. He throws trads a bone with the Latin mass but guts the faith completely with radical ecumenism. Don’t be fooled by this man!
 
Last edited:

Fenaroli

Sparrow
I'm a traditional ecumenist. Christ is going to return soon, I don't see infighting be any useful in these times.
Well, respectfully I just will say that ecumenism is contrary to the Catholic faith. At least, it’s a different religion. There are so many writings in the past warning us about “praying with other faiths”, indifferentism (all religions lead to one God), and preaching against conversion (which Benedict has done) that it should be concerning to any Catholic. I just want trads to be aware of what this man has done.
 

Joe316

Robin
Well, respectfully I just will say that ecumenism is contrary to the Catholic faith. At least, it’s a different religion.

If people deliberately use "Catholic" in place of Christ, then it's indeed a different religion.

There are so many writings in the past warning us about “praying with other faiths”, indifferentism (all religions lead to one God), and preaching against conversion (which Benedict has done) that it should be concerning to any Catholic. I just want trads to be aware of what this man has done.

Just as Benedict I'm not concerned with "converting" Christians to the Catholic church, as converting unbelievers to Jesus Christ is a much more pressing issue. I have no time to waste with pharisees of whatever denomination.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
If people deliberately use "Catholic" in place of Christ, then it's indeed a different religion.

Just as Benedict I'm not concerned with "converting" Christians to the Catholic church, as converting unbelievers to Jesus Christ is a much more pressing issue. I have no time to waste with pharisees of whatever denomination.
Okay, you've made your position clear.. I'll finish my point in this discussion by saying I don't know when Jesus Christ will return, though it does feel like it will be soon, although no one really knows. I'm not convinced that lip service to Jesus Christ while not following his specific commands through his divine, unchanging instutition constitutes salvation or that seeking clarity on matters of faith is behaving like a Pharisee but we'll have to leave it here.

Image below: numerous sects who all believe in Jesus Christ but are condemned by the Catholic Church. Are they all correct?

Screen Shot 2021-05-05 at 6.51.59 AM.png
 

Joe316

Robin
What the Catholic church condemns, I don't care about, because I stick to John 14:6. And I reserve my right to discern every believer myself.

From my perspective many people here are concerned with saving a church, while I'm concerned with saving souls, which I'm not going to feed to homosexual priests. That's why I set my standard for clergy to be married with fruit (children, gifted by God). That's incompatible with celibacy "tradition" of some churches including Vatican, but that's not my problem.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
What the Catholic church condemns, I don't care about, because I stick to John 14:6. And I reserve my right to discern every believer myself.

From my perspective many people here are concerned with saving a church, while I'm concerned with saving souls, which I'm not going to feed to homosexual priests. That's why I set my standard for clergy to be married with fruit (children, gifted by God). That's incompatible with celibacy "tradition" of some churches including Vatican, but that's not my problem.
Okay, I get it. You’re not Catholic.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
1 Timothy 3:2

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”
Arguing that priestly celibacy should be abolished because of sinful, homosexual priests makes as much as sense as arguing for priestly celibacy because married priests sleep with their parishioners and cheat on their wives.

Considering that the Roman Catholic Church already considers sodomy a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance; that pre-Vatican II Catholics all deplore it and that priestly celibacy draws from venerable Early Church traditions, careful exegesis from holy scripture and inspiration from the ascetic foundations of monks who helped build Western Civilization, I think one needs to seriously reconsider the implications of abolishing priestly celibacy. Accusations of behaving like Pharisees is not going to reasonably cut it.

The Roman Catholic Church is as strict as it gets with regard to sexuality. No sex outside of the purpose for procreation! Even "Natural Family Planning" is another modernist, watering-down of the faith. Are we judging this divine institution because of the wretched sinners who inhabitat it that struggle to live up to God's exacting standards?

May I remind that Jewish pornographers like Al Goldstein made it a point to state that, "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged."

Also, how is a good priest, extremely busy as he should be, going to tend to his flock when he has to tend to a family at home? I'm a father and your whole life is centred around raising your children properly.
 
Last edited:

Fenaroli

Sparrow
Arguing that priestly celibacy should be abolished because of sinful, homosexual priests makes as much as sense as arguing for priestly celibacy because married priests sleep with their parishioners and cheat on their wives.

Considering that the Roman Catholic Church already considers sodomy a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance; that pre-Vatican II Catholics all deplore it and that priestly celibacy draws from venerable Early Church traditions, careful exegesis from holy scripture and inspiration from the ascetic foundations of monks who helped build Western Civilization, I think one needs to seriously reconsider the implications of abolishing priestly celibacy. Accusations of behaving like Pharisees is not going to reasonably cut it.

The Roman Catholic Church is as strict as it gets with regard to sexuality. No sex outside of the purpose for procreation! Even "Natural Family Planning" is another modernist, watering-down of the faith. Are we judging this divine institution because of the wretched sinners who inhabitat it that struggle to live up to God's exacting standards?

May I remind that Jewish pornographers like Al Goldstein made it a point to state that, "The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don't believe in authoritarianism. Pornography thus becomes a way of defiling Christian culture and, as it penetrates to the very heart of the American mainstream (and is no doubt consumed by those very same WASPs), its subversive character becomes more charged."

Also, how is a good priest, extremely busy as he should be, going to tend to his flock when he has to tend to a family at home? I'm a father and your whole life is centred around raising your children properly.
I feel obliged to correct myself here: My sede priest just told me that while artificial birth control is forbidden, natural intercourse between a validly married husband and wife is not forbidden. As a part of marital relations, both parties have rights to marital intimacy in a mutual way. On an individualistic level, sexual intercourse within marriage for the expressed purpose of pleasure over procreation could be no greater than a venial sin, akin to gluttony. So it's not strictly "sex is only for pro-creation".
 
Last edited:

Watchman72

Sparrow
Also, how is a good priest, extremely busy as he should be, going to tend to his flock when he has to tend to a family at home? I'm a father and your whole life is centred around raising your children properly.
Requiring priests to be celebate contradicts the biblical rules regarding church leaders.
Being capable of leading his own family is a requirement if one wants to be a priest/pastor because it proves leadership skills.
Maybe the bible is wrong, and the catholic church is right?
I believe the bible is right, and organised religion is more often than not wrong.

When the bible was written, most if not all churches were house churches.
In this context the verse makes a lot of sense.
Single guys were not allowed to lead churches.
 
Filme-41-2340x1208-c-default.jpg



Saw this article in my LinkedIn feed the other day. I checked whether it is available in English but it hasn't broken the internets in the U.S yet.

So, the story is that the Catholic seminary student has been kicked out of the seminary because of a selfie with a star of a German [email protected] "dating" show. The supervisor of this seminarist argued that this selfie shows solidarity with and approval of the homo lifestyle (deathstyle according to Pastor Anderson :squintlol:).

Well, you may think, he just didn't know that he was taking a selfie with a homo... Okay, let's keep going. Then it sais "in order to fulfill his dream to become a priest, Henry ended the relationship with his boyfriend and entered celibacy". It's funny how the reader learns about our hero's homosexuality only halfway through the text. Our verdict: as a homo, this dude knew pretty well who he takes a selfie with.

Well, you may think, apparently, he repented of his mortal sin and turned to Christ. A sinner like this deserves a second chance (as the tax collector and the harlot), including becoming a Catholic priest. And why should we judge him based on his picture? Maybe, he was trying to convert another [email protected] to Christianity. That's goooood. Maybe. Okay, let's skip to the final paragraph. It sais "Inspite of all this, he won't live the church. Instead, he wants to change it from inside."

Wait, what? Wasn't it his plan in the first place?

The comments under the LinkedIn post were of course "OMG, another reasons to leave this church", "OMG, how intolerant". I felt the urge to leave a biblical comment but preferred to leave the cesspit.
was an article in Latin mass magazine some years back that the seminary Rector as recently as 1962 had a speech the first day of every seminary class, "if you're gay you don't belong here. Leave! Whether you think you can control it or not it doesn't matter. Leave. We don't want you."
 

Joe316

Robin
Okay, I get it. You’re not Catholic.

Yes, we're in the International News Section portraying the RCC of Germany as gay. I'm obviously not part of that church.

1 Timothy 3:2

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;”

This goes further:

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; 4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; 5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

And that one is especially important for our converts:

6 Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil.

Arguing that priestly celibacy should be abolished because of sinful, homosexual priests makes as much as sense as arguing for priestly celibacy because married priests sleep with their parishioners and cheat on their wives.

Considering that the Roman Catholic Church already considers sodomy a sin that cries out to Heaven for vengeance; that pre-Vatican II Catholics all deplore it

"Pre-Vatican II Catholics" don't exist, just as "Pre-Indulgence Catholics" don't exist. That's just mental gymnastics. The RCC has the sole authority to define what "Catholic" is, all others are Protestants, regardless how many hundred years ago they started to deviating from the Holy See. Making up your own definitions based on Scripture or other records is Protestant by nature and usually called "heretic" by the normative power.

Requiring priests to be celebate contradicts the biblical rules regarding church leaders.
Being capable of leading his own family is a requirement if one wants to be a priest/pastor because it proves leadership skills.
Maybe the bible is wrong, and the catholic church is right?
I believe the bible is right, and organised religion is more often than not wrong.

Church rules like these were changed (to prevent inheriting ministries) and can be changed again. But with the current leadership it's more likely that one day we see "celibate" (read: lesbian) female clergy, than priests married to one wife as the Bible demands.

When the bible was written, most if not all churches were house churches.
In this context the verse makes a lot of sense.
Single guys were not allowed to lead churches.

Single guys tend to submit to female lead (most often their own mother). Not someone you want to lead a church.
 
It has been known for a long time that the masons have been infiltrating the Holy Church. We fight on. We will not give up for Christ is our King and he will win the war no matter how many battles are lost along the way.
 

Fenaroli

Sparrow
"Pre-Vatican II Catholics" don't exist, just as "Pre-Indulgence Catholics" don't exist. That's just mental gymnastics. The RCC has the sole authority to define what "Catholic" is, all others are Protestants, regardless how many hundred years ago they started to deviating from the Holy See. Making up your own definitions based on Scripture or other records is Protestant by nature and usually called "heretic" by the normative power.
To be sure, there is only the Roman Catholic Church, that has existed for 2,000 years. Terms like "Pre-Vatican II" are just descriptive to describe those of us who utterly reject that heretical council, obviously it's not a doctrinal term. The Roman Catholic Church has defined what the Catholic faith is, just read any catechism before Vatican II. Why do we get to reject Vatican II? I mean, just read the doggone council documents. The preceding Popes of the previous century warned us about everything in Vatican II and it came to fruition. It's a completely different religion from Catholicism.

When I quote from a Catechism, I'm not redefining anything, I'm just repeating Church teaching that hasn't changed for 2,000 years.

Why would this be "Protestantism"? This is throwing around the term loosely. Am I introducing new theological novelties like Luther or Calvin that are contrary to Roman Catholicism? Who is actually changing the faith, Vatican II or sedevacantists?

You are aware that Protestant ministers were invited to reform the Catholic Mass at Vatican II, right? "In the spirit of ecumenism"

Church rules like these were changed (to prevent inheriting ministries) and can be changed again. But with the current leadership it's more likely that one day we see "celibate" (read: lesbian) female clergy, than priests married to one wife as the Bible demands.

Single guys tend to submit to female lead (most often their own mother). Not someone you want to lead a church.
It would have to be issued from a valid pope in order for it to matter. I'm a musician and as an example, Pope Pius X's motu propriu was a valid pronouncement on sacred music because he was a real pope. Otherwise, currently we just have to follow tradition.

Finally, I want to apologize for saying "you're not a Catholic", I had thought you were arguing from me from a Orthodox or Protestant position. I scrolled up and saw you said you were Catholic, I got confused who you were. I didn't mean it as an insult at all too.
 
Last edited:
Top