That response is not the best example of brotherly love.

Imagine being such a retard that you think that love is about being sweet all the time.

Did I offend you princess with my harsh language? Maybe it struck a nerve?

So, the best advice I can give is ...

MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS

... by which I mean this.

With regard to those people that are not relevant to your business, which would appear to involved seeking out a prospective wife, and then of course the overall business of saving and sanctifying your own soul ... IGNORE THEM.  Nobody's forcing you to seek out young ladies who are obese or of a different race than you.  If other people think differently, ignore them ... unless you happen to hear someone making a good point that might cause you to reconsider some of your opinions.  So what if 80% of your chapel were clinically obese?  To the extent that they are not eligible for you to marry (wrong gender, wrong age, already married, wrong race) ... how does that have any effect on you?  If it's because you're limited in prospective wives, then you can either relax your standards, look elsewhere, or accept the fact that it's not God's will for you to be married, at least not at this time.  At the SSPX chapel I often attend, there are many young ladies, and not a one of them is the least bit obese, and, as far as I can tell, they're of my own race.  Of course, I am married, so it wouldn't matter to me if they all weighed in at over 300 pounds.  None of my business.  If we do see people who are overweight, we do not judge.  Doesn't mean you have to ask them out, but you also don't judge them.  There can be reasons people are overweight short of lacking virtue or self-discipline.  You can rule them out as prospective wives for any reason, but outside of that, ignore them, and mind your own business.

Same goes for other criteria, such as race, or morals, etc.  Cross them off your list, but them outside of that consideration ... do not judge them, assume the best, and don't look down on them.  So, the saints almost universally considered themselves the worst of sinner.  Why?  Was it pious hyperbole or even a kind of pride?  Absolutely not.  That would be inimical to sanctity, and true humility is truth.  Then how could they believe they were the worst sinners, as in REALLY believe that?  Despite outward appearances, and even actions that are sinful, these saints knew all the graces they had received and failed to correspond with, and knowing this flood of graces they had received, and knowing that they were a hair's breadth away from committing any sin whatsoever that they see others committing, if only God left them to themselves even for a split second, they did not know how many graces others had received, and in fact concluded that they could not possibly have received as many as they themselves had, since they were keenly aware of the latter.  In addition, just consider that if you had been born into the same family, in the same circuмstances, in the same body, with the same genes, with the same temperament, with the same experiences ... that anybody else in the world might have been placed into by God, would you have done any better?  Those with a modicuм of humility would realize that the answer is almost certainly not, and that we could easily have ended up doing much worse than these others, and we should therefore realize in fear and trembling how thankful we are that God put us where we are rather than where these others were put, through absolutely no merit of our own.

So, keeping all that in mind, not judging anyone, and even just paying no attention to anyone with whom you needn't interact due to either charity, or your pursuit of a wife, etc. ... since sometimes just interacting with them can be demoralizing, and nobody is forcing you to do so ... just MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS.

As for dogma and doctrine, paying mind to the fact that short of things that have been taught by the Church, there has always been disagreement, long before Vatican II, some liberalism / Modernism, some heretical inclinations, lots of error everywhere ... and that it's not your duty to correct everyone and convert them all by preaching from on top a soap box, nor are you required to intermingle with them more than you're required by either your duties or by charity, since there too it could be demoralizing and frustrating to spend too much time talking to them, just keep to yourself.

So, basically, combine these two ...

1) avoid judging and making it your business to judge other
2) avoid interacting or mingling or socializing with those who do not live they way you believe Catholics should (while not judging them) ... since that can be demoralizing

and focus primarily on God and yourself.  What you think about others doesn't matter (unless you're uncharitable and then it's sinful), what others think about you doesn't matter, and what you think of yourself doesn't matter.  Only God's "opinion" matters, since it's Truth and Reality.

Your 2 last posts in this thread were very edifying to read. Thankyou, Ladislaus. 

Oh, no need to thank me.  I just think it's very important not to judge people, and I think passing judgments on people as being "fake" and "lukewarm" has contributed to OP's consternation.  If you go in with the attitude of "everyone here is better than I am", then you will not be distrubed or upset or tired of other people as much as you will be upset with yourself.

Now, the Conciliars go to the opposite extreme where they say you can't judge actions, and you basically have to say because "Who am I to judge?" this means I cannot judge that sodomy is a grave sin?  No, you can and you must.

BUT ... while judging sodomy to be a grave sin, it's very important to not judge the internal forum of the one committing these sins, meaning, the degree of culpability before God.  I think that people mistake this also for how we can't judge people's motives.  Well, sometimes we actually can, and very often they leak out into the external forum.

What it means that we cannot judge the internal forum is illustrated by what I wrote above where ... just imagine you were born in the same family, the same circuмstances, the same genes, the same temperament, had all the exact same experiences, and received and did not receive the same graces ... would you actually have done better?  They've done stories on identical twins separated at birth where they end up having lived almost identical lives, where they ended up in the same jobs, picked spouses who were incredibly similar, not only in personality but even in looks, etc. ... just remarkable similarities.

Nor does this mean you have to like everyone.  I might not like how they think, what they talk about, maybe it doesn't suit me, or as with OP, this doesn't mean he must find everyone he meets attractive and/or that he's required to give them equals consideration as prospective spouses.

And that's where I think the extremes are on both sides .... where the Conciliars go to the extreme in refusing to judge objective right and wrong, where people on either side (Conciliar or Traditional) feel guilty as if they commit sins against charity simply because they don't like some people, don't see eye to eye with them, don't want to be friends, but then on the other side where people overreact to the Conciliar error on "do not judge" by getting incredibly harsh with people who have fallen into sin, doing things like calling sodomites "dirty fαɢs".

While Bergoglio confirms them in their sin, where charity requires that we rebuke them, those Prots that carry around signs like "God hates fαɢs" (that one particular group), that just doesn't draw the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs toward Christianity or conversion, and those would have been the ones to cast the first stones at Mary Magdalene.

Our Lord shows the perfect balance.  He does not condone the sin, but calls it out, tells the sinner to sin no more ... but then He shows such great Mercy that a Mary Magdalen became converted to one of the greatest saints due to the love that was born from gratitude for His Mercy.

Conciliars give various predators slaps on the wrist and allow ... and practically encourage ... them to reoffend, etc.  But then Traditional Catholics overreact in the opposite direction by often being extremely cruel, sometimes vicious ... in judging their internal forum.  I actually feel sorry for the perpetrator as well.  I feel sorry for even for serial killers, and even Satanists.  Yes, they're objectively evil, but you can read the stories of some of these people, who they were perhaps abused as children, sometimes sɛҳuąƖly, where they were exposed to evil, like pornography, at a very young age, where they were mistreated, and then developed cruel streaks, where maybe they had a psychological problem and started by torturing an animal, and then stepped up from there ... with very little exposure to the faith.  I see these stories, say of a serial killer, where maybe he assaulted and murdered 100 people, and then realize that, were it not for the grace of God, if I had been in his shoes, I could easily have killed 200.  As far as even Satanists, just take the case of a Bartolo Longo.

We are nothing except by the sheer mercy and grace of God.

Sometimes you have to be a bit harder, of course ... such as when the Lord denounced the Pharisees as a brood of vipers, painted sepulchers, ets.  Why?  Even that was out of charity, since He knew that they were beyond where kind words would turn them around AND He had to make it clear to everyone else to avoid such attitudes like the plague, where that kind of stubborn pride is actually worse than sins of weakness, which He was always very compassionate towards, admitting that while the spirit may be willing, the flesh is weak.  But the proud and arrogant are the most impervious to converting, since conversion requires humility ... and those who sin by weakness are invariably humbled by those falls.

And this is actually where the Church has been strong and forceful ... in condemning bad ideas and bad doctrine.  Bishop Williamson often spoke about this how there's this modern notion that being "nithe" and "chawitable" means that we cannot reject and condemn bad ideas, errors, bad doctrine.  That is completely false.  In fact, in this day and age, it's all the more imperative to CONDEMN THEM IN THE STRONGEST TERMS.

If you FAIL to do so, then what you're doing is effectively giving the impression that it's OK, that's it's perfectly fine fo a Catholic to hold certain ideas, and that it's contrary to charity, and it's proud to condemn someone's ideas.  So, for instance, I will not hesitate for one second to call a spade a spade and I openly call out Father Paul Robinson for Modernist Heresy.  People will say, but "that's not nice" and "it's disrespectful".  So ... if a child is about to eat a spoonful of sugar that you know has been laced with poison, are you going to say something mealy-mouthed like "well, I'm not so sure about that sugar ... may not be all that good for you", or are you going to shout poison and slap the spoon out of the child's hand.  You do the former since you don't wish to hurt the child's feelings, or cause some distress, or worry ... but you do that latter to save the child's life.  Similarly with heresy, if I just mealy-mouthed it on what I now to be heresy, saying, "Well, Father Robinson, I respectfully disagree with your point of view."  Absolutely not.  That is not going to get anyone thinking, neither him, nor anyone who might be reading what he wrote and sucking it up because, well, a Traditional priest who uses lots of nice-smelling inense and chants Latin said it.  This makes it even that much more necessary to be very direct, and very blunt.  If I unhestitatingly calle it what it is, MODERNIST HERESY, at the very least it'll have the shock value of getting him to think about it a bit, and also send out a warning to those who might otherwise be deceived by it, or even if they don't buy it entirely, have their own faith weakened by thinking it's within the range of "acceptable".  If you even consider a heresy acceptable or tenable, then it's corrupting your sense of the faith just to hold that.  It's like when +Fellay walked into Rome holding a cruxifix and people claiming he was witnessing to the truth.  Was he?  Or was he saying that "hey, these LGBTQ+ guys that are right behind us on the itinerary next week ... yeah, we belong to the same religion, and the same Church", and thereby corrupting the truth?  When Wojtyla stood on stage at Assisi with his cruxifix, next to the Buddhist, was he witnessing to the faith ... or denying it, by promoting the idea that, yeah, these guys here, they're OK too, and we're really all on the same team?

That was why the "Dubia" from those Conciliar Cardinals was actually very harmful.  So, when faced with blatant heresy like in Amoris Laetitia ... there's no doubt whatsoever that it's heretical, if you couch your concerns as "doubts" and "uncertainties" and confront them in such a mealy-mouthed fashion, then you're saying that ... holding such an opinion does not make you non-Catholic, i.e. that one can be a Catholic and hold the opinion taught there.  Rather than testifying tot he truth with that, they actually undermined it.  And, one is a heretic not only for rejecting Church dogma, but also for doubting it.  So when you claim that you are not certain that a heresy is heretical, then this means that you're not certain about the dogma it contradicts, and therefore doubt it also.  So the "Dubia" was actually giving testimony to the acceptability of the heresy, and then they did nothing about it.  These "Dubia" Cardinals were required before God to ACCUSE BERGOGLIO OF HERESY berfore God and before the Church, as witness to the truth.  At that point, perhaps even Bergoglio would get the message and ... maybe repent if there's any good will left? ... or at the very least you would be in fact witnessing to the truth.  That's one of their chief jobs as bishops and cardinals, mentioned in the Rite of Consecration ... to uphold the truth.  But they are failing in that by not emphatically calling heresy heresy.  Perhaps St. John the Baptist should have said about Herod, "well, we should investigate the status of your marriage and make a determination about whether or not you're really committing adultery in the internal forum".

Anyway ... long digression, but these are important things to think about.

Oh, no need to thank me.  I just think it's very important not to judge people, and I think passing judgments on people as being "fake" and "lukewarm" has contributed to OP's consternation.  If you go in with the attitude of "everyone here is better than I am", then you will not be distrubed or upset or tired of other people as much as you will be upset with yourself.

Now, the Conciliars go to the opposite extreme where they say you can't judge actions, and you basically have to say because "Who am I to judge?" this means I cannot judge that sodomy is a grave sin?  No, you can and you must.

BUT ... while judging sodomy to be a grave sin, it's very important to not judge the internal forum of the one committing these sins, meaning, the degree of culpability before God.  I think that people mistake this also for how we can't judge people's motives.  Well, sometimes we actually can, and very often they leak out into the external forum.

What it means that we cannot judge the internal forum is illustrated by what I wrote above where ... just imagine you were born in the same family, the same circuмstances, the same genes, the same temperament, had all the exact same experiences, and received and did not receive the same graces ... would you actually have done better?  They've done stories on identical twins separated at birth where they end up having lived almost identical lives, where they ended up in the same jobs, picked spouses who were incredibly similar, not only in personality but even in looks, etc. ... just remarkable similarities.

Nor does this mean you have to like everyone.  I might not like how they think, what they talk about, maybe it doesn't suit me, or as with OP, this doesn't mean he must find everyone he meets attractive and/or that he's required to give them equals consideration as prospective spouses.

And that's where I think the extremes are on both sides .... where the Conciliars go to the extreme in refusing to judge objective right and wrong, where people on either side (Conciliar or Traditional) feel guilty as if they commit sins against charity simply because they don't like some people, don't see eye to eye with them, don't want to be friends, but then on the other side where people overreact to the Conciliar error on "do not judge" by getting incredibly harsh with people who have fallen into sin, doing things like calling sodomites "dirty fαɢs".

While Bergoglio confirms them in their sin, where charity requires that we rebuke them, those Prots that carry around signs like "God hates fαɢs" (that one particular group), that just doesn't draw the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs toward Christianity or conversion, and those would have been the ones to cast the first stones at Mary Magdalene.

Our Lord shows the perfect balance.  He does not condone the sin, but calls it out, tells the sinner to sin no more ... but then He shows such great Mercy that a Mary Magdalen became converted to one of the greatest saints due to the love that was born from gratitude for His Mercy.

Conciliars give various predators slaps on the wrist and allow ... and practically encourage ... them to reoffend, etc.  But then Traditional Catholics overreact in the opposite direction by often being extremely cruel, sometimes vicious ... in judging their internal forum.  I actually feel sorry for the perpetrator as well.  I feel sorry for even for serial killers, and even Satanists.  Yes, they're objectively evil, but you can read the stories of some of these people, who they were perhaps abused as children, sometimes sɛҳuąƖly, where they were exposed to evil, like pornography, at a very young age, where they were mistreated, and then developed cruel streaks, where maybe they had a psychological problem and started by torturing an animal, and then stepped up from there ... with very little exposure to the faith.  I see these stories, say of a serial killer, where maybe he assaulted and murdered 100 people, and then realize that, were it not for the grace of God, if I had been in his shoes, I could easily have killed 200.  As far as even Satanists, just take the case of a Bartolo Longo.

We are nothing except by the sheer mercy and grace of God.

Sometimes you have to be a bit harder, of course ... such as when the Lord denounced the Pharisees as a brood of vipers, painted sepulchers, ets.  Why?  Even that was out of charity, since He knew that they were beyond where kind words would turn them around AND He had to make it clear to everyone else to avoid such attitudes like the plague, where that kind of stubborn pride is actually worse than sins of weakness, which He was always very compassionate towards, admitting that while the spirit may be willing, the flesh is weak.  But the proud and arrogant are the most impervious to converting, since conversion requires humility ... and those who sin by weakness are invariably humbled by those falls.

And this is actually where the Church has been strong and forceful ... in condemning bad ideas and bad doctrine.  Bishop Williamson often spoke about this how there's this modern notion that being "nithe" and "chawitable" means that we cannot reject and condemn bad ideas, errors, bad doctrine.  That is completely false.  In fact, in this day and age, it's all the more imperative to CONDEMN THEM IN THE STRONGEST TERMS.

If you FAIL to do so, then what you're doing is effectively giving the impression that it's OK, that's it's perfectly fine fo a Catholic to hold certain ideas, and that it's contrary to charity, and it's proud to condemn someone's ideas.  So, for instance, I will not hesitate for one second to call a spade a spade and I openly call out Father Paul Robinson for Modernist Heresy.  People will say, but "that's not nice" and "it's disrespectful".  So ... if a child is about to eat a spoonful of sugar that you know has been laced with poison, are you going to say something mealy-mouthed like "well, I'm not so sure about that sugar ... may not be all that good for you", or are you going to shout poison and slap the spoon out of the child's hand.  You do the former since you don't wish to hurt the child's feelings, or cause some distress, or worry ... but you do that latter to save the child's life.  Similarly with heresy, if I just mealy-mouthed it on what I now to be heresy, saying, "Well, Father Robinson, I respectfully disagree with your point of view."  Absolutely not.  That is not going to get anyone thinking, neither him, nor anyone who might be reading what he wrote and sucking it up because, well, a Traditional priest who uses lots of nice-smelling inense and chants Latin said it.  This makes it even that much more necessary to be very direct, and very blunt.  If I unhestitatingly calle it what it is, MODERNIST HERESY, at the very least it'll have the shock value of getting him to think about it a bit, and also send out a warning to those who might otherwise be deceived by it, or even if they don't buy it entirely, have their own faith weakened by thinking it's within the range of "acceptable".  If you even consider a heresy acceptable or tenable, then it's corrupting your sense of the faith just to hold that.  It's like when +Fellay walked into Rome holding a cruxifix and people claiming he was witnessing to the truth.  Was he?  Or was he saying that "hey, these LGBTQ+ guys that are right behind us on the itinerary next week ... yeah, we belong to the same religion, and the same Church", and thereby corrupting the truth?  When Wojtyla stood on stage at Assisi with his cruxifix, next to the Buddhist, was he witnessing to the faith ... or denying it, by promoting the idea that, yeah, these guys here, they're OK too, and we're really all on the same team?

That was why the "Dubia" from those Conciliar Cardinals was actually very harmful.  So, when faced with blatant heresy like in Amoris Laetitia ... there's no doubt whatsoever that it's heretical, if you couch your concerns as "doubts" and "uncertainties" and confront them in such a mealy-mouthed fashion, then you're saying that ... holding such an opinion does not make you non-Catholic, i.e. that one can be a Catholic and hold the opinion taught there.  Rather than testifying tot he truth with that, they actually undermined it.  And, one is a heretic not only for rejecting Church dogma, but also for doubting it.  So when you claim that you are not certain that a heresy is heretical, then this means that you're not certain about the dogma it contradicts, and therefore doubt it also.  So the "Dubia" was actually giving testimony to the acceptability of the heresy, and then they did nothing about it.  These "Dubia" Cardinals were required before God to ACCUSE BERGOGLIO OF HERESY berfore God and before the Church, as witness to the truth.  At that point, perhaps even Bergoglio would get the message and ... maybe repent if there's any good will left? ... or at the very least you would be in fact witnessing to the truth.  That's one of their chief jobs as bishops and cardinals, mentioned in the Rite of Consecration ... to uphold the truth.  But they are failing in that by not emphatically calling heresy heresy.  Perhaps St. John the Baptist should have said about Herod, "well, we should investigate the status of your marriage and make a determination about whether or not you're really committing adultery in the internal forum".

Anyway ... long digression, but these are important things to think about.

Thank you for this very interesting and helpful comment. A priest said to me love the sinner hate the sin. I’ll read your comment again when I’ve more time. Thank you for taking the time to post all this. I think you’re right about the difference between how modern Catholics and trads approach others. We don’t know the suffering someone has been through to cause their actions. 

The other guy here.

See when I read his comment, I saw one or two things that I didn't agree with. And I was tempted to say something.

But then I reasoned to my self "you know what, I'm not going to say something, because that's not what this guy needs right now. What he needs is support for the good things he is saying, and I know that if I were to post like that, the last thing I would want is somebody picking me up on something and dragging the whole conversation down"

Treat others as you yourself would like to be treated. Remember that part of the Gospel folks? Seems like a lot of you don't. 


This is why I am genuinely believing more and more that huge numbers of trads are actually autistic. Because it is a characteristic of autistic people to be so socially disconnected, so unable to read the room, that they don't stop to think before saying something. Impulsive, selfish, rash behavior. 


So many of you need to get off the internet (yes I see the irony here), and go touch grass. Literally. Go for a walk. Don't press that reply button until you have actually thought out WHAT that person was posting for. What did they want. What's a nice thing to say that might help them. And not "How do I feel" "What frustration do I want to take out on this person"

I am not the OP.

I am the other guy commenting.

Laddy and Jen. Saying "mind your own business" is a distraction.

He's judging mostly of what COMES OUT OF PEOPLE'S MOUTHS.

So when people say things which excuse bad behavior, that IS objectively scandalous.

So I revert to what I said earlier.

IF YOU CANNOT SAY SOMETHING HELPFUL, SHUT YOUR MOUTH.

So, it's evident from this comment that you lack reading comprehension ... where I distinguished between 1) judging action and 2) judging the internal forum, and the degree of culpability.  It's in the latter that you have no business passing any judgments.  This is why the saints could legitimately judge that they were the worst of sinners.  Let me guess ... you don't consider yourself to be inferior to those others whose behavior your are judging.  You seem incapable of separating the judgment of actions from the judgment regarding degrees of culpability in the internal forum.

So that's the first thing you clearly missed.  Reread my post where I explain that difference.

After this distinction, which was intended to set the stage for why OP should just ignore the bad behavior and mind his own business because, in case you missed it ... the main point OP was making is that his issue is getting frustrated with all the bad behavior and getting "sick of it", and that's where I suggest that in addition to not judging the internal forum, to simply mind his own business and and IGNORE the behavior of people that does not affect him or pertain to him, where you do not make it your business to run around like a busybody ... looking at what this person does, or that person does, or what another person says, etc.  Just keep a custody of your mind (and in some cases your eyes) ... where it does not pertain to you.  Nobody made you their judge.  Nobody made you the morality police.  You might occasionally find yourself in a situation where charity and prudent require a rebuke of the sinner, but it's relatively rare.

And that's ESPECIALLY true of non-moral considerations, such as obesity or the individual's race.  Nobody's forcing OP to seek out women who are obese or of a different race.  There's no reason to judge obesity either, since you know nothing about its causes.  And in so far as those considerations DO affect OP, i.e., by limiting the pool of prospective wives, then what does thinking about it and getting frustrated accomplish.  Is he going to melt away the fat or change a woman's race by thinking about it, getting frustrated by it, and then venting?

But the hostility in this post suggests that the comments we made struck a nerve, so you need to examine your own conscience for judgmental and Pharisaical attitudes ... since Our Lord expressed far more indignation about those than he did about any sins of weakness, such as a weakness for eating too much pie or candy bars.  Someone with such a weakness offends God FAR LESS, and could even please God if it humbles them ... whereas the types who "thank God they are not like these others", those are the ones who are not justified and forgiven before God.