Matthew wrote:
In other words, don't dish it if you can't take it. If someone starts a thread shouting their opinion to the world, "I think Sedevacantists are lousy schismatics" they can't be surprised and clutch their pearls when a big fight ensues. They obviously KNEW that was going to happen. No one is that stupid.
(Meg, you are) prurient, disordered, rabid, ignorant, illogical people as you exemplify.
Matthew wrote:
In other words, don't dish it if you can't take it. If someone starts a thread shouting their opinion to the world, "I think Sedevacantists are lousy schismatics" they can't be surprised and clutch their pearls when a big fight ensues. They obviously KNEW that was going to happen. No one is that stupid.
My response parenthesis in red or bold. Don't know why red does not always show.
No, I am NOT "blatantly wrong". You are twisting my words, or at the very least misunderstanding me. (You misunderstand me because you do not see what language I am talking about. I am talking about the likes of a lady being called a piece of dung, or a low life useless piece of scuм. There, THAT is the language I am talking about. If someone said that to you, they'd be out of here in 1 second flat and rightly so.)
.....When you pick a fight, you must be able to deal with the fight that ensues. Or at least admit that YOU started it, and you're BOTH wrong for the ensuing brawl. If you go up to a couple and call the woman a whore, you are not blameless when the man punches you in the face.
(That's right, one picks a fight by calling another's wife a whore, which is what people here are doing, calling in clear words, nothing to misconstrue, when a lady is being called a piece of dung, or a low life useless piece of scuм. THAT is the problem, and not a heated debate back and fourth.)
Your examples aren't insults, they're just true statements. You perceive them as insults because you're so blinded by your own ego that you think they are. And proof of this is how you keep carrying on and on about how others have offended your fragile pride. Your ego is your own little idol and you become outraged when people dare criticize it.I have no problem with anything you eunuchs dish out. It is not pride, it is called self-esteem, of which you cowards who gang up on ladies like Viva and Meg, have none of. You come on this sight to vent your frustrations of an empty life. The two ladies Meg and Viva, each standup to your crowd of cowards like real men, that none of you are. Your types can only function with others like themselves to back them up. Viva and Meg stand for themselves. They are showing you all up for what you are, just little men behind a big screen.
Matthew was right. Don't dish out what you can't take.
I have no problem with anything you eunuchs dish out. It is not pride, it is called self-esteem, of which you cowards who gang up on ladies like Viva and Meg, have none of. You come on this sight to vent your frustrations of an empty life. The two ladies Meg and Viva, each standup to your crowd of cowards like real men, that none of you are. Your types can only function with others like themselves to back them up. Viva and Meg stand for themselves. They are showing you all up for what you are, just little men behind a big screen.Vain words and more speculation about our own lives, coupled with throwing insults you yourself made this thread to complain about. :laugh1:
.. it is called self-esteem, of which you cowards who gang up on ladies like Viva and Meg, have none of. You come on this sight to vent your frustrations of an empty life. Viva and Meg stand for themselves. They are showing you all up for what you are, just little men behind a big screen.So man up, own up to your erroneous ways, pull up your pants and go out into the world and make something of yourselves.
So man up, own up to your erroneous ways, pull up your pants and go out into the world and make something of yourselves.Again, another presumptuous statement about my state in life, of which you know almost nothing.
So man up, own up to your erroneous ways, pull up your pants and go out into the world and make something of yourselves.
I don't mind defending myself against the vile ... attacks of one particular member. I have thick skin. But it's not right that most other members are fine with such behavior.
It seems to me, LT, that if a man on the forum insults a woman (or man) it is because she (or he) deserves it.
And even in the real world, I doubt that many of the men here would do anything at all if they saw a man yelling vile things to a woman on the street or in a grocery store. They would just turn away, thinking that the woman probably deserves it. Because that's what tradition means, for many here.
I would mind my own business.
That is, unless I was above-average in my ability to fight, and by fight I mean fisticuffs, not debate.
I'll see your "yelling vile things to a woman" and rise you to something much worse. Let's say he's PHYSICALLY HITTING HER. HARD. REPEATEDLY.
I would mind my own business, and call 911.
Why? you might ask? Aren't you a trad? Aren't you the hero?
My answer: I would turn down such a fight, because I'm neither a bodybuilder nor ex-military nor do I know how to fight. Heroically jumping in just to get my @$$ kicked, after which point the wife-beater will resume beating his wife, does NOBODY ANY GOOD.
But if I DID jump in, to be a hero, I shouldn't WHINE later about my bruises, broken nose, black eye(s), punctured lung(s), etc. Because a man beating his wife is obviously convinced (by his emotions) that he's doing the right thing. If I tell him he's wrong and try to stop him, he's just going to physically attack me. Now I'm in a fight.
As I said above, THAT IS HOW LIFE WORKS in the universe. You can do whatever you want, but don't complain about the consequences. If you jump into a fight to save a damsel in distress (an honorable cause) even though you have no ability/strength to best someone in a fight, you ACCEPT the consequences that follow: failure to save said damsel, broken bones, bruises, time in the hospital.
Just to interject --
The kind of "vile" insults being discussed are already against the rules, and when reported, I generally delete them. I consider that going off the rails/stepping over the line, etc. So this whole discussion is a nothingburger, in that respect.
That's why I was talking about something totally different in my quotes above. As far as I'm concerned, calling someone "a piece of dung" is already going to get moderated, because it's against the rules. No need to discuss it, much less craft any additional rules.
I've stepped in a few times in the grocery store where I work, when someone was being bullied. My intervention helped, and I did not get hurt. But then, I'm not afraid of bullies.
Just to interject --What "rules" Matthew? I've asked before where to find them on this forum, and I never get an answer.
The kind of "vile" insults being discussed are already against the rules, and when reported, I generally delete them. I consider that going off the rails/stepping over the line, etc. So this whole discussion is a nothingburger, in that respect.
That's why I was talking about something totally different in my quotes above. As far as I'm concerned, calling someone "a piece of dung" is already going to get moderated, because it's against the rules. No need to discuss it, much less craft any additional rules.
Example in OP - "(Meg, you are) prurient, disordered, rabid, ignorant, illogical people as you exemplify".
Your examples aren't insults, they're just true statements.
It is very interesting to see that the two ladies never respond in kind to these eunuch cowards.Is that our insult of the day? :laugh1:
What "rules" Matthew? I've asked before where to find them on this forum, and I never get an answer.I don't blame Matthew for not formally posting the rules. Many, myself included, would be parsing and debating every single one. Might be fun for the forum members, but a lot of time for the moderator.
It is very interesting to see that the two ladies never respond in kind to these eunuch cowards. It is very enlightening for anyone with eyes to see. These cowards need to learn from the ladies instead of spewing out their frustrations at them. They are a good example to follow.
It seems to me, LT, that if a man on the forum insults a woman (or man) it is because she (or he) deserves it.
And even in the real world, I doubt that many of the men here would do anything at all if they saw a man yelling vile things to a woman on the street or in a grocery store. They would just turn away, thinking that the woman probably deserves it. Because that's what tradition means, for many here.
Thank you, LT, for being willing to go against that type of thinking.
these eunuch cowards .... These cowards need to learn from the ladies...
A couple of rhetorical questions:I think it is terrible for “traditional Catholic” young men to disrespect women online and in person. It happens. Many young men have an unhealthy attitude towards women.
I would like to ask you, LT, if you consider it a vile and bitter personal attack to call LD a eunuch?
And to ask Matthew if such is acceptable here?
edit
I see DL has been me to the punch.
I think it is terrible for “traditional Catholic” young men to disrespect women online and in person.
Go smoke cow dung cake.
In real life it’s difficult dealing with jealous women and rude creepy single young trad men. (We know the there is a problem with masturbation, pornography etc. ).
Only recently .. same sex couples are coming to mass. It is huge distraction.
What a very revealing and fruitful Lent this has been.
If the three of you (LT, Meg, VCR) had any humility you would recognize that and praise God rather than continue to cast stones as if you were without sin.
It's times like these where I am tempted to question Traditional Catholicism ... were it not for the solid theology and reason behind it.Satan works both sides of the road. The difficulty is maintaining oneself on the narrow path. Traditional Catholicism is true, just not this expression of it.
Satan works both sides of the road. The difficulty is maintaining oneself on the narrow path. Traditional Catholicism is true, just not this expression of it.
I have a fear that an extreme rigorism (read: Neo-Pharisaism) is going to be the outcome of this age of decadence which the Antichrist will offer a solution to by doing away with all Divine Law (which is what St. Hippolytus predicted, if I recall). Mirroring the reaction of the Israelites to the Babylonian captivity and the rise of the Pharisees and Scribes.
I can't understand how a Catholic, filled with sanctifying grace, can failed to be moved with charity and compassion for sinners. Our Lord went to the Cross for those "sodomites, masturbators, and potheads" ... that's how much He loved them. We see Him showing mercy to the adultress. He's only ever (righteously) angry with the Pharisees.I'm at a loss to understand it myself. But it really boils down to a lack of humility. Which is a difficult subject to talk about without coming across as proud, from what I've seen. All I can say is that not one of the saints looked at themselves as anything better than dirt (to put it mildly). They thought they were the lowest of the low and that everyone else was holier than they were. St. Margaret Mary thought she was the most vile sinner alive. Even Our Lady had this grace, if you believe the visions of Bl. Mary of Agreda.
I would like to send them here to explore some of our topics but after all of this uncharitable talk I would be afraid to tell them about us--embarrassment being the least concern.I wouldn't right now while this stupid spat is going on.
I don't blame Matthew for not formally posting the rules. Many, myself included, would be parsing and debating every single one. Might be fun for the forum members, but a lot of time for the moderator.Then he shouldn't be referring to "rules" that members can't refer to themselves. You can't hold people accountable for breaking rules they don't even know.
I'm just going by memory (I could be wrong) but, Viva, you are the only person I have noticed calling people dung. Yes, it is better to keep your language ladylike if you wished to be treated as a lady. Just saying...You are imagining things. I wasn’t the only one. You need rest. Guess what using “dung” was lady like and polite. especially about these cowards talking trash on my husband.
dung
(https://blog.collinsdictionary.com/the-history-of-cobuild/#collocations)
(dʌŋ)
UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
Dung is faeces from animals, especially (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/especially) from large animals such as cattle (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/cattle) and horses (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/horse).
Synonyms: manure (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/manure), compost (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/compost), fertilizer (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/fertilizer), droppings (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/droppings)
I can't understand how a Catholic, filled with sanctifying grace, can failed to be moved with charity and compassion for sinners. Our Lord went to the Cross for those "sodomites, masturbators, and potheads" ... that's how much He loved them. We see Him showing mercy to the adultress. He's only ever (righteously) angry with the Pharisees.You sound novus Ordo to the max.
I have been working with a protestant family that wants to convert. In addition to the catechisms I have given them they are asking if we traditionalists have any websites they could go to. I would like to send them here to explore some of our topics but after all of this uncharitable talk I would be afraid to tell them about us--embarrassment being the least concern. Have some here forgotten " In necessary things unity, in doubtful things liberty, and in all things charity"?I know. There were a few people with children that wanted to check out traditional max chapel but they wouldn’t their children to many flaunting their mortal sin.
You sound novus Ordo to the max.What a way to tell us that you've learned absolutely nothing from the past couple of pages of people trying to correct you.
Yes. Jesus said go and sin no more. Were you not a former seminarian?
Mercy for the sodomites but zero mercy for victims of sex abuse.
You talk like Bergolio.
"Fed up, Jacas emailed the Rev. Davide Pagliarani, the SSPX Superior General (https://angeluspress.org/blogs/tradition/first-english-interview-with-fr-pagliarani)
She said his assistant responded on Jan. 16, saying that Pagliarani “measures your sorrow” but that the decision was up to Wegner."
What kind of nonsense is that? The decision was up to Wegner? Is not Pagliarani the Superior General? He could have intervened. Overruled Wegner and used his authority as Superior General. He should have ordered that priest locked up in a monestery and proceeded to begin his expulsion from the Soceity. What a shameful lack of governance, fortitude, and responsibility.
You sound novus Ordo to the max.
Yes. Jesus said go and sin no more. Were you not a former seminarian?
Mercy for the sodomites but zero mercy for victims of sex abuse.
You talk like Bergolio.
Because those who are verbally attacking us are in a state of mortal sin with no plans of repenting.
It is very interesting to see that the two ladies never respond in kind to these eunuch cowards. It is very enlightening for anyone with eyes to see. These cowards need to learn from the ladies instead of spewing out their frustrations at them. They are a good example to follow."Punk" is not "in kind"?
Minnesota. You should stop posting. Mind your business. If anything, we learned many traditional Catholics condone mortal sin.
Last Trad, Meg, and Viva have been ganged up for by everyone else here by epitomizing the worst of Traditional Catholicism, extreme Pharisaical self-righteousness and judgmentalism, their God-given gift of reading souls, being able to judge people guilty of mortal sin in the internal forum, without any allowances for ignorance, good faith, or simple human weakness. Case and point is the thread about "who's to blame for [immodesty of dress]", which is something only God can know, and the appropriate question is "what's the cause of" it?Nail on the head!
Some of us are just completely fed up with and sick of this attitude. It's repulsive. Our Lord saved His harshest words for Pharisees. Newsflash: a kind-hearted girl who has issues with vanity or a humble teenager who smokes a joint from time to time, they displease Our Lord far less than hypocrites and Pharisees. I'd rather be in the company of a thousand such sinners than in that of a Pharisaical hypocrite. It takes special kind of audacity to have been (by one's own admission) a serial violator of the 6th commandment to bitterly and harshly denounce a girl who wears high heels to Mass basically as a whore.
Go smoke cow dung cake.How can a woman expect to get treated well when she speaks this way?
prurient
• constant harping on the “true intent” of medical patients to “get high,” piling on to LT’s habitual “leg spreader” obsession
“sins of the flesh, but they seem to believe that because they are trads and attend the TLM, that this will make them holy, and not subject to the laws and justice of Our Lord.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813628/#msg813628
disordered
• habitually reads the interior forum of medical patients, “true intent" to "get high"
• habitually reads the interior forum of opponents, true intent to "make Catholicism look bad," advance occultism/satanism, etc. [see the numerous insane accusations cited below]
• habitually reads the interior forum of strangers, including the Catholic word at large
“Fitting in with the world is a good thing to many trads… Most give in.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/pope-to-consecrate-russiaukraine-on-march-25!/msg813582/#msg813582
rabid, hysterical
“he seems mentally unbalanced… mentally unhinged” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/spewing-bitter-vile-personal-attacks/msg817027/#msg817027
“Mark 79 is a bully and a brute” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812838/#msg812838
“crusade … marijuana is snake oil disguised as a miracle substance given by God to save humanity… it has miraculous or supernatural powers, which is a little too close to believing in the occult. Such thinking is not of God. Marijuana cannot save humanity. Only Our Lord can do that.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/ban-marijuana-discussions-from-ci/msg817018/#msg817018
“on a crusade to show that pot can only be used for good” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/alasdair-crowley's-use-of-cannabis-in-occult-ritual/msg816837/#msg816837
“most pharisaical of all” https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/people-smoked-weed-before-mass/msg816400/#msg816400
“…Mark79 is intentionally and knowingly trying to make Traditional Catholicism look bad” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813886/#msg813886
“If [traditional Catholics] were truly looking for sanctity, they would not support someone like [Mark 7:9]. But they do. Meaning that they (at least on this forum) are not any better than Novus Ordo Catholics. …they are not Catholic.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813883/#msg813883
“…yes, the type of vitriol that Mark79 dishes out does reveal who he truly is; hence, perhaps, the recent posting by him on this thread - in order to make himself look like a really nice guy (which he clearly isn't). Trouble is, most of the forum members like it. They like (even the forum owner) the nastiness of Mark79. They can't get enough of it.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813878/#msg813878
“many of the forum members seem to enjoy it when he insults others in an extreme manner.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813875/#msg813875
“So pot isn't necessary for salvation? Are you sure about that?” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813676/#msg813676
“But then we do have a resident manipulator and bully on this forum who enforces this assumption, and who strives to ensure that NO ONE goes against his directives.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/what's-the-purpose-of-smoking-marijuana-for-recreation/msg813316/#msg813316
“You know, you needn't be afraid to admit that you have Zionist parents.” https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/world-war-3-folks/msg812657/#msg812657
Agreed with: “Mark 79, you're as phony as Obama's birth certificate … humiliate, demoralize and degrade the unfortunate catholic reader/ viewer. You're a crypto Jєω.” https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/this-whole-ukraine-thing-stinks/msg812416/#msg812416
ignorant
• ignores dozens of cited studies showing the safety and benefits of MJ
• relies on personal experiences, ignores large-scale, placebo-controlled double-blind studies
“I saw it when in high school in the '70's, and later with family members who smoked pot. One cannot improve their life if they smoke pot. Quite the opposite. And it leads to sin. “ https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/ban-marijuana-discussions-from-ci/msg817019/#msg817019
“I had pothead friends” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813641/#msg813641
“I cannot cite anything other than my personal experience with potheads (plural, not singular).” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812654/#msg812654
illogical
• pretends that the safety and benefits of MJ shown in medical studies is irrelevant to social use of MJ
• has not acknowledged the greater toxicity of alcohol
• cites a med school dropout for medical matters, denies peer-reviewed studies
• cites a pederast enabler who violated the law requiring reporting of sɛҳuąƖ abuse for moral theology, denies a moral theologian and canonist
insane straw man caricatures
“Everything should be legal, in your view, with no restrictions or special taxes.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/what's-the-purpose-of-smoking-marijuana-for-recreation/msg813665/#msg813665
“trads believe themselves to be above the law?” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813633/#msg813633
“saying that there's nothing wrong with smoking pot recreationally” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/what's-the-purpose-of-smoking-marijuana-for-recreation/msg813439/#msg813439
“traditional Catholics here find it offensive that some of us do not agree that recreational pot-smoking is a good thing, and not a problem at all.”
“Both Sedism and potheadism are novelities, supported by supposed trads.… The Bully are sedes.
” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812854/#msg812854
“Who is it that paid you to interview hundreds of MJ users?” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812649/#msg812649
connects MJ with sedevacantism
“…five downvotes, but I suspect that it's from Mark 79's fellow sedes. They don't want their boy to be 'dissed. “ https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812839/#msg812839
“If you were not a sede, would you really have that opinion [on MJ]?” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812838/#msg812838
connects MJ with abortion https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812837/#msg812837
"Bless me, Father, for VCR, Meg, and LT say I have sinned. You'll have to ask them what and how many those sins are because they can read my soul (and also how effective your advice will be)."
:laugh2:
You are imagining things. I wasn’t the only one. You need rest. Guess what using “dung” was lady like and polite. especially about these cowards talking trash on my husband.VCR, please go do something you MIGHT be good at: go bake a cake. Please.
They posted so much insulting inappropriate things to Meg, Tradhican and me because we know pot is a sin.
it’s a no brainer. You never say anything to them when they verbally attack us. You are silent and indifferent.
Instead of correcting me maybe you should be silent...
Why are we being called Pharisees?You are the worst of the worst trad Catholic I have ever read. Worse than Pablo, the lay exorcist.
Because those who are verbally attacking us are in a state of mortal sin with no plans of repenting. They are trying to make mortal sin acceptable in society and in traditional chapels. Like a liberal atheist, they will accuse Catholics as Pharisees etc.
They are smoking pot, watching porn, struggling with sodomy or waiting for it to be acceptable, adultery, etc. They have zero intentions of relenting for sins. We know for a fact per Pew survey that there are already 2 percent traditional Catholics in the pews who are pro same sex marriage and pro abortion. I don’t think Jesus had much love for sodomites who failed to repent.
Douay-Rheims Bible (https://www.biblehub.com/drbc/matthew/18.htm)
But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.
The Priest should have been ashamed of himself. He should have been defrocked and made to get a real job in secular world.
1. Athenagoras of Athens (2nd Century)Blah, blah, blah...nothing to do with the topic at hand. :sleep:
Athenagoras of Athens was a philosopher who converted to Christianity in the second century. He shows that the pagans, who were totally immoral, did not even refrain from sins against nature:
"But though such is our character (Oh! why should I speak of things unfit to be uttered?), the things said of us are an example of the proverb, 'The harlot reproves the chaste.' For those who have set up a market for fornication and established infamous resorts for the young for every kind of vile pleasure – who do not abstain even from males, males with males committing shocking abominations, outraging all the noblest and comeliest bodies in all sorts of ways, so dishonoring the fair workmanship of God." 1 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0205.htm)
2. Tertullian (160-225)
Tertullian was a great genius and apologist of the early Church. Unfortunately, after an initial period of fervor, he succuмbed to resentment and pride, left the Church and adhered to the Montanist heresy. Because of works written while still in the Church, he is considered an Ecclesiastical Writer and, as such, is commonly quoted by Popes and theologians. His treatise On Modesty is an apology of Christian chastity. He clearly shows the horror the Church has for sins against nature. After condemning adultery, he exclaims:
"But all the other frenzies of passions–impious both toward the bodies and toward the sexes–beyond the laws of nature, we banish not only from the threshold, but from all shelter of the Church, because they are not sins, but monstrosities." 2 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-04/anf04-19.htm)
3. Eusebius of Caesarea (260-341)
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine and the “Father of Church History,” writes in his book, Demonstratio Evangelica:
“[God in the Law given to Moses] having forbidden all unlawful marriage, and all unseemly practice, and the union of women with women and men with men.” 3 (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0882/_P19.HTM)
4. Saint Jerome (340-420)
Saint Jerome is both Father and Doctor of the Church. He was also a notable exegete and great polemicist. In his book Against Jovinianus, he explains how a sodomite needs repentance and penance to be saved:
“And Sodom and Gomorrah might have appeased it [God’s wrath], had they been willing to repent, and through the aid of fasting gain for themselves tears of repentance.” 4 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30092.htm)
5. Saint John Chrysostom (347-407)
Saint John Chrysostom is considered the greatest of the Greek Fathers and was proclaimed Doctor of the Church. He was Archbishop and Patriarch of Constantinople, and his revision of the Greek liturgy is used until today. In his sermons about Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he dwells on the gravity of the sin of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity:
"But if thou scoffest at hearing of hell and believest not that fire, remember Sodom. For we have seen, surely we have seen, even in this present life, a semblance of hell. For since many would utterly disbelieve the things to come after the resurrection, hearing now of an unquenchable fire, God brings them to a right mind by things present. For such is the burning of Sodom, and that conflagration!…
"Consider how great is that sin, to have forced hell to appear even before its time!… For that rain was unwonted, for the intercourse was contrary to nature, and it deluged the land, since lust had done so with their souls. Wherefore also the rain was the opposite of the customary rain. Now not only did it fail to stir up the womb of the earth to the production of fruits, but made it even useless for the reception of seed. For such was also the intercourse of the men, making a body of this sort more worthless than the very land of Sodom. And what is there more detestable than a man who hath pandered himself, or what more execrable? 5 (http://www.ccel.org/fathers/NPNF1-11/Chrysostom/Romans/Rom-Hom04.html)
6. Saint Augustine (354-430)
The greatest of the Fathers of the West and one of the great Doctors of the Church, Saint Augustine laid the foundations of Catholic theology. In his celebrated Confessions, he thus condemns ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity:
"Those offences which be contrary to nature are everywhere and at all times to be held in detestation and punished; such were those of the Sodomites, which should all nations commit, they should all be held guilty of the same crime by the divine law, which hath not so made men that they should in that way abuse one another. For even that fellowship which should be between God and us is violated, when that same nature of which He is author is polluted by the perversity of lust." 6 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110103.htm)
7. Saint Gregory the Great (540-604)
Pope Saint Gregory I is called “the Great.” He is both Father and Doctor of the Church. He introduced Gregorian chant into the Church. He organized England’s conversion, sending Saint Augustine of Canterbury and many Benedictine monks there.
"Sacred Scripture itself confirms that sulfur evokes the stench of the flesh, as it speaks of the rain of fire and sulfur poured upon Sodom by the Lord. He had decided to punish Sodom for the crimes of the flesh, and the very type of punishment he chose emphasized the shame of that crime. For sulfur stinks, and fire burns. So it was just that Sodomites, burning with perverse desires arising from the flesh like stench, should perish by fire and sulfur so that through this just punishment they would realize the evil they had committed, led by a perverse desire." 7
8. Saint Peter Damian (1007-1072)
Doctor of the Church, cardinal and a great reformer of the clergy, Saint Peter Damian wrote his famous Book of Gomorrah against the inroads made by ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity among the clergy. He describes not only the iniquity of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, but also its psychological and moral consequences:
"Truly, this vice is never to be compared with any other vice because it surpasses the enormity of all vices.… It defiles everything, stains everything, pollutes everything. And as for itself, it permits nothing pure, nothing clean, nothing other than filth.…
"The miserable flesh burns with the heat of lust; the cold mind trembles with the rancor of suspicion; and in the heart of the miserable man chaos boils like Tartarus [Hell]…. In fact, after this most poisonous serpent once sinks its fangs into the unhappy soul, sense is snatched away, memory is borne off, the sharpness of the mind is obscured. It becomes unmindful of God and even forgetful of itself. This plague undermines the foundation of faith, weakens the strength of hope, destroys the bond of charity; it takes away justice, subverts fortitude, banishes temperance, blunts the keenness of prudence.
"And what more should I say since it expels the whole host of the virtues from the chamber of the human heart and introduces every barbarous vice as if the bolts of the doors were pulled out." 8
9. Saint Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Commenting upon Saint Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (1:26-27), Saint Thomas Aquinas, the Angelic Doctor, explains why the sin of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity 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 sɛҳuąƖ intercourse that cannot lead to conception is opposed to man’s animal nature." 9
10. Saint Catherine of Siena (1347-1380)
Saint Catherine, a great mystic and Doctor of the Church, lived in troubled times. The Papacy was in exile at Avignon, France. She was instrumental in bringing the Popes back to Rome. Her famous Dialogues are written as if dictated by God Himself:
"But they act in a contrary way, for they come full of impurity to this mystery, and not only of that impurity to which, through the fragility of your weak nature, you are all naturally inclined (although reason, when free will permits, can quiet the rebellion of nature), but these wretches not only do not bridle this fragility, but do worse, committing that accursed sin against nature, and as blind and fools, with the light of their intellect darkened, they do not know the stench and misery in which they are. It is not only that this sin stinks before me, who am the Supreme and Eternal Truth, it does indeed displease me so much and I hold it in such abomination that for it alone I buried five cities by a divine judgment, my divine justice being no longer able to endure it. This sin not only displeases me as I have said, but also the devils whom these wretches have made their masters. Not that the evil displeases them because they like anything good, but because their nature was originally angelic, and their angelic nature causes them to loathe the sight of the actual commission of this enormous sin. 10
11. Saint Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444)
Saint Bernardine of Siena was a famous preacher, celebrated for his doctrine and holiness. Regarding ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, he stated:
"No sin in the world grips the soul as the accursed sodomy; this sin has always been detested by all those who live according to God.… Deviant passion is close to madness; this vice disturbs the intellect, destroys elevation and generosity of soul, brings the mind down from great thoughts to the lowliest, makes the person slothful, irascible, obstinate and obdurate, servile and soft and incapable of anything; furthermore, agitated by an insatiable craving for pleasure, the person follows not reason but frenzy.… They become blind and, when their thoughts should soar to high and great things, they are broken down and reduced to vile and useless and putrid things, which could never make them happy.... Just as people participate in the glory of God in different degrees, so also in hell some suffer more than others. He who lived with this vice of sodomy suffers more than another, for this is the greatest sin." 11
12. Saint Peter Canisius (1521-1597)
Saint Peter Canisius, Jesuit and Doctor of the Church, is responsible for helping one third of Germany abandon Lutheranism and return to the Church. To Scripture’s condemnation of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, he added his own:
"As the Sacred Scripture says, the Sodomites were wicked and exceedingly sinful. Saint Peter and Saint Paul condemn this nefarious and depraved sin. In fact, the Scripture denounces this enormous indecency thus: 'The scandal of Sodomites and Gomorrhans has multiplied and their sins have become grave beyond measure.' So the angels said to just Lot, who totally abhorred the depravity of the Sodomites: 'Let us leave this city....' Holy Scripture does not fail to mention the causes that led the Sodomites, and can also lead others, to this most grievous sin. In fact, in Ezechiel we read: 'Behold this was the iniquity of Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and abundance, and the idleness of her, and of her daughters: and they did not put forth their hand to the needy, and the poor. And they were lifted up, and committed abominations before me; and I took them away as thou hast seen' (Ezech. 16: 49-50). Those unashamed of violating divine and natural law are slaves of this never sufficiently execrated depravity." 12
What a way to tell us that you've learned absolutely nothing from the past couple of pages of people trying to correct you.Minnesota: VCR. LT and Meg are like the three stooges: they clown around all day but learn nothing. Unfortunately, their "clowing" is actually arrogant narcissism.
You are the worst of the worst trad Catholic I have ever read. Worse than Pablo, the lay exorcist.
How can you possibly know that "those attacking you" are on a state of mortal sin? Such detraction!!!
How can you possibly know They are smoking pot, watching porn, struggling with sodomy or waiting for it to be acceptable, adultery, etc. ??? More detraction!
Vcr, it really is time for you to take your leave.
Your hubris knows no bounds. "Mind your business"? Like you minded your business judging people guilty of mortal sin and watching to see whether they went to Holy Communion? Having compassion for sinners and reserving judgment about whether someone is in fact in mortal sin you now smear as condoning mortal sin. So now you slander us as condoning mortal sin.Yep!
1) You had no idea that either the young boys who smelled of pot OR the "sodomites" were in a state of mortal sin. You simply made that judgment based on what was at best circuмstantial evidence. That's a very serious thing you're doing.
2) Condemning mortal sin does not preclude sorrow and compassion for the soul of the sinner. When Our Lady came at Fatima to ask reparation for blasphemies committed against her, she did so out of her grief who are lost on account of committing such sins not out of outrage over the offense she had received.
YOU should stop posting. IMMEDIATELY. You are endangering your soul. Mind your own business and care for your own family. Get off the internet.
If I, then, were to ask, what is it to love our neighbor, the answer would be, The love of God causes us to love Him more than our wealth, our health, our good name, and even our life, and the love which we should have for our neighbor should enable us to love him as ourselves, so that all the good that we should wish for ourselves, we should wish for him. We must have this charity without which there is no heaven to hope for, and no friendship with God.
Now, what do we understand by the word, our neighbor? Nothing is easier of comprehension. Every one of our brother men, even those who have wronged us, who have injured our good name, and calumniated us, or who have even sought to take our life. We ought to love them as we love ourselves, and wish them all the good that we wish ourselves. It is not only forbidden for us to wish them ill, but we must also render them service if they require it of us, and we are able to do so. We ought to rejoice when our enemies are successful in business, and we should feel sorry when they meet with reverses or losses, and we must take their part when others speak badly of them. We should tell others the good we know of them, and not avoid their society. Behold, my dear friends, this is how God wills that we should love our neighbor. If we do not believe this, then we must admit that we neither love our neighbor nor do we love God. We are bad Christians, and we shall be lost!
Now, you will ask me, how may we know whether we have this beautiful and precious virtue, without which our religion is only a pretension? A person, dear brethren, who has brotherly love, in the first place, is not proud; he does not care to rule others. You will never hear him censure other people’s behavior, and he does not care to speak of what he does. A person who has brotherly love does not inquire into the motive of other persons’ actions. He never thinks that he behaves better than they do. He does not exalt himself above his neighbor. On the contrary, he thinks that everyone else is better than he. He is not cast down when people have a poor opinion of him. He is even contented, because he thinks that he deserves to be still more disesteemed.
A person who is charitable avoids as much as possible hurting the feelings of others, because Charity is a mantle used to conceal our brother’s faults. Those who have charity accept with patience and resignation to the will of God everything that happens to them, sickness and adversity, because they believe that all these things remind them that they are sinners, and that their life here below is not the eternal one.
When we impute something bad to our neighbor which he has not committed, a defect which he does not possess, we commit calumny; a most detestable act, which unfortunately, and in spite of its great wrong, is very common. This is not detraction, it is more sinful, but from detraction to calumny is only a small step. If we are honest, we must admit that we invariably add something to, or magnify the bad which we know of our neighbor. A slanderous story that has passed from tongue to tongue, no longer resembles that which was said at first, it has been so much engrossed and aggravated; from which fact we must conclude that a detractor is almost invariably also a calumniator, and a calumniator is a very wicked person.
We exaggerate as a rule the bad that our neighbor does. When you notice any one commit a fault what do you do? Instead of covering it with the mantle of charity, or at least trying to excuse it, you like to exaggerate it. St. Francis of Sales says: “Do not say this or that one is a drunkard, and a thief, because he once stole or was intoxicated; Noah and Loth were intoxicated once, and yet neither the one nor the other were drunkards.” St. Peter was not a blasphemer because he blasphemed once. A person is not vicious, because he once fell into sin, even not if this happened several times; therefore, we run danger of being guilty of detraction if we accuse them. When Simon saw Magdalen weeping at our Saviour’s feet, he said: “This man, if he were a prophet, would know surely that this woman at his feet is a sinner.” He was greatly mistaken: Magdalen was no longer a sinner, but a holy penitent, because all her sins had been forgiven her. Consider the proud Pharisee, who in the Temple praised his own good works, and thanked God that he was not like others, adulterers, extortioners, and thieves, or like the publican. He denounced the publican as a sinner, when at that very moment this publican was justified. “My dear children,” exclaimed St. Francis de Sales, “since God’s mercy is so great that one moment suffices for Him to pardon the greatest crimes, how dare we say, that a man who yesterday was a great sinner, is the same today!”
We invariably deceive ourselves if we think badly of our neighbor, no matter what reasons we have for our opinion. We are also guilty of detraction when without sufficient reason we disclose secret faults or bad actions of our neighbor. There are persons who think that if they know anything bad about their neighbor, they may tell it to others, and make it a subject of conversation. This is a grave error. Our faith enjoins upon us nothing so much as love of our neighbor. Reason itself tells us that we should not do to others, what we do not wish done to ourselves.
Sermons of the Curé of Ars: Sermons for all the Sundays and Feast Days of the Year, St. Jean Marie Vianney.^This right here is the key to charity. And it is one of the most difficult things to practice in our day and age.QuoteWe exaggerate as a rule the bad that our neighbor does. When you notice any one commit a fault what do you do? Instead of covering it with the mantle of charity, or at least trying to excuse it, you like to exaggerate it.
St. Ephraim:You: I like you.
“Lord, grant me to see my own failings, and not to judge my brother.”
“Do not mock or judge someone who has fallen into sin, but rather pray lest you fall into sin. Do not pamper anyone while he is alive and do not lose hope in him before he dies. Do not laugh at one who has sinned, rather set him on his feet.”
Saint John Chrysostom:
“Do not judge anyone, but try to overcome your own shortcomings—otherwise, you will deserve condemnation. Anyone will fall when the Lord does not support him; we cannot stand without Divine help. By condemning your neighbor, you make yourself worse than the one who listens to you. If he is a sinner, he becomes carefree as he has found a companion; if he is righteous, he will yield to pride and arrogance because another has sinned, and thus he has a reason to admire himself.”
St. Isaac of Nineveh:
“Conquer men by your gentle kindness, and make zealous men wonder at your goodness. Put the lover of justice to shame by your compassion. With the afflicted be afflicted in mind. Love all men, but keep distant from all men.”
She's also making it up that we were "trashing" her husband. Nobody knows what role he had in this entire matter other than that he was with her at the time. For all we know, he too objected to judging these people the way she did and may have been rolling his eyes as she ranted all the way home about sodomites and potheads.Wrong answer. My husband is a masculine Man. He was the one disgusted by the sodomites and by the ones coming in stoned. His reaction was what made me upset. He is right. It was a sacrilege. Again, pre Vatican II, sodomy, adultery and drug use was illegal in Church and society. People were arrested for sodomy, adultery and drug use.
Ghandi: "If you Christians were more like your Christ the whole world would become Christian."If Christians would stop quoting heretics and acting like them, the world would be Christian. All the evil in the world is because of lukewarm Catholics. Saint Pope Pius V.
You are the worst of the worst trad Catholic I have ever read. Worse than Pablo, the lay exorcist.Many priests and laity have talked about it on YouTube. Many exorcists have written books and had conferences about mortal sin. It isnt spiritually healthy to be in contact with people who could be possessed.
How can you possibly know that "those attacking you" are on a state of mortal sin? Such detraction!!!
How can you possibly know They are smoking pot, watching porn, struggling with sodomy or waiting for it to be acceptable, adultery, etc. ??? More detraction!
Vcr, it really is time for you to take your leave.
There is data per the pew survey confirming that there is two percent of Traditional Catholics who are for birth control, abortion and sodomy.
prurient
• constant harping on the “true intent” of medical patients to “get high,” piling on to LT’s habitual “leg spreader” obsession
“sins of the flesh, but they seem to believe that because they are trads and attend the TLM, that this will make them holy, and not subject to the laws and justice of Our Lord.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813628/#msg813628
disordered
• habitually reads the interior forum of medical patients, “true intent" to "get high"
• habitually reads the interior forum of opponents, true intent to "make Catholicism look bad," advance occultism/satanism, etc. [see the numerous insane accusations cited below]
• habitually reads the interior forum of strangers, including the Catholic world at large
“Fitting in with the world is a good thing to many trads… Most give in.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/pope-to-consecrate-russiaukraine-on-march-25!/msg813582/#msg813582
rabid, hysterical
“he seems mentally unbalanced… mentally unhinged” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/spewing-bitter-vile-personal-attacks/msg817027/#msg817027
“Mark 79 is a bully and a brute” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812838/#msg812838
“crusade … marijuana is snake oil disguised as a miracle substance given by God to save humanity… it has miraculous or supernatural powers, which is a little too close to believing in the occult. Such thinking is not of God. Marijuana cannot save humanity. Only Our Lord can do that.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/ban-marijuana-discussions-from-ci/msg817018/#msg817018
“on a crusade to show that pot can only be used for good” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/alasdair-crowley's-use-of-cannabis-in-occult-ritual/msg816837/#msg816837
“most pharisaical of all” https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/people-smoked-weed-before-mass/msg816400/#msg816400
“…Mark79 is intentionally and knowingly trying to make Traditional Catholicism look bad” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813886/#msg813886
“If [traditional Catholics] were truly looking for sanctity, they would not support someone like [Mark 7:9]. But they do. Meaning that they (at least on this forum) are not any better than Novus Ordo Catholics. …they are not Catholic.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813883/#msg813883
“…yes, the type of vitriol that Mark79 dishes out does reveal who he truly is; hence, perhaps, the recent posting by him on this thread - in order to make himself look like a really nice guy (which he clearly isn't). Trouble is, most of the forum members like it. They like (even the forum owner) the nastiness of Mark79. They can't get enough of it.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813878/#msg813878
“many of the forum members seem to enjoy it when he insults others in an extreme manner.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/please-pray-for-mark79/msg813875/#msg813875
“So pot isn't necessary for salvation? Are you sure about that?” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813676/#msg813676
“But then we do have a resident manipulator and bully on this forum who enforces this assumption, and who strives to ensure that NO ONE goes against his directives.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/what's-the-purpose-of-smoking-marijuana-for-recreation/msg813316/#msg813316
“You know, you needn't be afraid to admit that you have Zionist parents.” https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/world-war-3-folks/msg812657/#msg812657
Agreed with: “Mark 79, you're as phony as Obama's birth certificate … humiliate, demoralize and degrade the unfortunate catholic reader/ viewer. You're a crypto Jєω.” https://www.cathinfo.com/members-only/this-whole-ukraine-thing-stinks/msg812416/#msg812416
ignorant
• ignores dozens of cited studies showing the safety and benefits of MJ
• relies on personal experiences, ignores large-scale, placebo-controlled double-blind studies
“I saw it when in high school in the '70's, and later with family members who smoked pot. One cannot improve their life if they smoke pot. Quite the opposite. And it leads to sin. “ https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/ban-marijuana-discussions-from-ci/msg817019/#msg817019
“I had pothead friends” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813641/#msg813641
“I cannot cite anything other than my personal experience with potheads (plural, not singular).” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812654/#msg812654
illogical
• pretends that the safety and benefits of MJ shown in medical studies is irrelevant to social use of MJ
• has not acknowledged the greater toxicity of alcohol
• cites a med school dropout for medical matters, denies peer-reviewed studies
• cites a pederast enabler who violated the law requiring reporting of sɛҳuąƖ abuse for moral theology, denies a moral theologian and canonist
insane straw man caricatures
“Everything should be legal, in your view, with no restrictions or special taxes.” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/what's-the-purpose-of-smoking-marijuana-for-recreation/msg813665/#msg813665
“trads believe themselves to be above the law?” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/oxymoron-catholics-for-recreational-use-of-marijuana/msg813633/#msg813633
“saying that there's nothing wrong with smoking pot recreationally” https://www.cathinfo.com/catholic-living-in-the-modern-world/what's-the-purpose-of-smoking-marijuana-for-recreation/msg813439/#msg813439
“traditional Catholics here find it offensive that some of us do not agree that recreational pot-smoking is a good thing, and not a problem at all.”
“Both Sedism and potheadism are novelities, supported by supposed trads.… The Bully are sedes.
” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812854/#msg812854
“Who is it that paid you to interview hundreds of MJ users?” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812649/#msg812649
connects MJ with sedevacantism
“…five downvotes, but I suspect that it's from Mark 79's fellow sedes. They don't want their boy to be 'dissed. “ https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812839/#msg812839
“If you were not a sede, would you really have that opinion [on MJ]?” https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812838/#msg812838
connects MJ with abortion https://www.cathinfo.com/fighting-errors-in-the-modern-world/marijuana-use-sinful-for-catholics/msg812837/#msg812837
Well, that how we are treated here as well, when sounding the alarm about pot. Like we're just right-wing paranoids. Though the pot advocates here can't use that phrase, because it would give them away.No, you're acting like literal Pharisees and being called out for it. Quit playing the victim.
No, you're acting like literal Pharisees and being called out for it. Quit playing the victim.Amen.
Last Trad, Meg, and Viva have been ganged up for by everyone else here by epitomizing the worst of Traditional Catholicism, extreme Pharisaical self-righteousness and judgmentalism, their God-given gift of reading souls, being able to judge people guilty of mortal sin in the internal forum, without any allowances for ignorance, good faith, or simple human weakness. Case and point is the thread about "who's to blame for [immodesty of dress]", which is something only God can know, and the appropriate question is "what's the cause of" it?This has nothing to do with Traditional Catholicism. Half my family is Baptist and fanatics and misanthropes can be found everywhere.
Some of us are just completely fed up with and sick of this attitude. It's repulsive. Our Lord saved His harshest words for Pharisees. Newsflash: a kind-hearted girl who has issues with vanity or a humble teenager who smokes a joint from time to time, they displease Our Lord far less than hypocrites and Pharisees. I'd rather be in the company of a thousand such sinners than in that of a Pharisaical hypocrite. It takes special kind of audacity to have been (by one's own admission) a serial violator of the 6th commandment to bitterly and harshly denounce a girl who wears high heels to Mass basically as a whore.
All anyone has to do is look at immoral society and the pedophiles in the Church to realize maybe instead of calling people “Pharisees”, look how hardly anyone corrects sin. Silence and indifference is being lukewarm.
Calling other people “fanatics”
is judging people and calling them “Pharisees”is usually by lukewarm people who have accepted sin as the new normal in Catholic Churches and in society. This is repulsive to God. We are being punished. Look at the world ...all because of lukewarm Catholics.
I/we promote the appropriate and judicious medical use of MJ for people suffering serious, even life-threatening, diseases.
I/we tolerate the appropriate and judicious social use of MJ according to established moral theology principles.
I/we have been quite clear from my/our earliest posts that there are some people for whom MJ use is inappropriate (e.g., schizophrenics, people with susceptibility to substance abuse).
I have never, nobody here has ever, made "being stoned seem completely normal."
Quite the contrary to your layers of lies, I/we have consistently and repeatedly stated that to lose one's inhibition or reason is objectively sinful (except as moral theology allows for treatment of severe pain, etc.).
Instead of addressing these carefully circuмscribed positions, you have raged with bizarre caricatures as now, claiming I/we promote global use of MJ as the norm.
Quote verbatim where I or anyone here has "condoned sin."
You cannot because we have not.
You are a habitual liar.
Some of you who made various slanderous accusations should not dare to post again on the subject until making a retraction of the following (to the extent that you have posted these things). I will insist on this in the interests of justice.I have no problem not slandering people, I even started this thread on the subject and you and others on this thread said here that there's nothing wrong with slandering that if I can't take it, to not speak about controversial subjects. Do you think that the phases above are worse than I calling you an A-hole, a leg spreader, or accusing you of glorifying your sinful life with girls.... as you and others have used against me innumerable times. No, you have clearly stated many times that all name calling is Ok, because we are not real people. The problem here is that you can't take it.
1) calling us "dopers"
2) claiming that we have advocated "getting high for fun"
3) claiming that we "condone mortal sin"
4) asserting that we only defend these Catholic principles because we "like marijuana"
You will retract these statements, and apologize for making them, and acknowledge that the people arguing the opposite side are doing so in good faith, simply applying the Catholic principles enunciated by a large number of well-trained and highly-respected pre-Vatican II moral theologians whose works bore imprimaturs and nihil obstats.
I will keep reposting this in response to all subsequent posts until the retraction has been made.
I have no problem not slandering people, I even started this thread on the subject and you and others on this thread said here that there's nothing wrong with slandering that if I can't take it, to not speak about controversial subjects. Do you think that the phases above are worse than I calling you an A-hole, a leg spreader, or accusing you of glorifying your sinful life with girls.... as you and others have used against me innumerable times. No, you have clearly stated many times that all name calling is Ok, because we are not real people. The problem here is that you can't take it.
Making slanderous (libelous) statements is NOT ok.See I don't see it the way you do Matthew. To me it is very simple, a man should not call another man any names unless they want to get a fist in their face. To me calling someone names on the internet is no different than if it was face to face and anyone that does it is just a coward hiding behind a screen and no gentleman. I have no problem eliminating all insults here on CI, but what you write above is not eliminating all insults, it is just justifying one insult over another. I do not think anyone here on CI would say the insults that I Meg, Viva I and and others get regularly and continuously here on CI, that you appear to be justifying above, I do not think that they would say them if they were face to face with me. THAT is the way it should be on CI, talk should be as if we were face to face, two gentlemen.
But I have to agree with Last Tradhican on this one narrow point: calling names is not charitable. Mark79, every time you call LT a "leg spreader" you are *not* helping your case any. You are guilty of the classic blunder of "sinking to his level" and I know you are better than that.
Mark79 and Ladislaus (and others) are the sane ones -- THE ONES IN-THE-RIGHT -- in these MJ threads, and I completely agree with them. But name calling like that is wrong ON ANY SIDE. Don't let them bait you. Don't sink to their level. Keep the moral high ground.
I must point out, though, that calling someone a simple name is not quite as bad as making a specific slanderous accusation. Anyone who can't see the difference is beyond help:
A) "A**holes like you..." "Potheads and dopers"
B) "You are a Rabbi sent to infiltrate and undermine this forum."
A is just mindless name calling, obviously the result of emotion and uttered in the heat of an argument. Sometimes such names can even have a touch of wit/cleverness or biting critique.
B is a cold, premeditated, malicious effort to LIE and DESTROY a person's good name -- keeping in mind there is zero evidence for the accusations thrown out. The accuser *knows* they are false, but he utters them anyhow. That shows a certain premeditation and malice. Also, the accuser is in complete earnest about the accusation. He goes out of his way to show it's NOT just a name he's calling. He's taking it to the next level.
It may be sinful to call names, but it is *not* the same level of malice as telling a known lie to destroy someone's reputation.
Scripture talks about not blabbing your sins to the world, because others will "defend your sin as it were" and despise you for it. If LT hadn't told the world about his past life, Mark wouldn't have that ammo to use against him. I'm not saying throwing someone's past (presumably confessed?) sins in their face isn't wrong -- I'm just saying it's a much lower level of malice.
See I don't see it the way you do. To me it is very simple, a man should not call another man any names unless they want to get a fist in their face. To me calling someone names on the internet is no different and anyone that does it is just a coward hiding behind a screen.You absolutely cannot stand being unable to make a visual judgment of your opponent, can you? You really can't. And this is because you're simply faced with the argument as it is and can't attack the person posing it.
unless they want to get a fist in their face.I can also discern that you're pretty effeminate to be willing to resort to violence to defend your bruised ego. God help you.
You absolutely cannot stand being unable to make a visual judgment of your opponent, can you? You really can't. And this is because you're simply faced with the argument as it is and can't attack the person posing it.In a thread about eliminating insults the poster unloads with insults. Moreover, the poster is a newbie and has never composed a thought of his own, posting almost exclusively insults and parroting of others that he follows. I answer the leaders that pose what he follows, I do not have time to answer their followers. My answer is for leaders and followers.
I can also discern that you're pretty effeminate to be willing to resort to violence to defend your bruised ego. God help you.
You have never and can never quote anyone here for "condoning sin."
You are a habitual liar.
I/we promote the appropriate and judicious medical use of MJ for people suffering serious, even life-threatening, diseases. No sin.
I/we tolerate the appropriate and judicious social use of MJ according to established moral theology principles. No sin.
I/we have been quite clear from my/our earliest posts that there are some people for whom MJ use is inappropriate (e.g., schizophrenics, people with susceptibility to substance abuse). No sin.
I have never, nobody here has ever, made "being stoned seem completely normal."
Quite the contrary to your layers of lies, I/we have consistently and repeatedly stated that to lose one's inhibition or reason is objectively sinful (except as moral theology allows for treatment of severe pain, etc.). Recognizing and acknowledging the limits of sinless use.
Instead of addressing these carefully circuмscribed positions, you have raged with bizarre caricatures as now, claiming I/we promote global use of MJ as the norm. Serious sin—objectively.
I wonder why you believe this...
This is where women are better equipped than men for dealing with this "system" of CI for insults (really anything goes, like the wild West ) they have an innate natural system for shedding insults like a duck shed water, never insulting back in kind . A man's system is to beat the tar out of the insulter, but on the internet that is useless and so the cowards can say anything.
Why is it that you don't cite the horrible things that Mark79 has posted on this subject, towards those who disagree with him?
See I don't see it the way you do Matthew. To me it is very simple, a man should not call another man any names unless they want to get a fist in their face. To me calling someone names on the internet is no different than if it was face to face and anyone that does it is just a coward hiding behind a screen and no gentleman. I have no problem eliminating all insults here on CI, but what you write above is not eliminating all insults, it is just justifying one insult over another. I do not think anyone here on CI would say the insults that I Meg, Viva I and and others get regularly and continuously here on CI, that you appear to be justifying above, I do not think that they would say them if they were face to face with me. THAT is the way it should be on CI, talk should be as if we were face to face, two gentlemen.Putting your fist in someone's face due to an insult directed at you is not gentlemanly, nor is it Christ-like (i.e. Christian). It is narcissistic.
In a thread about eliminating insults the poster unloads with insults. Moreover, the poster is a newbie and has never composed a thought of his own, posting almost exclusively insults and parroting of others that he follows. I answer the leaders that pose what he follows, I do not have time to answer their followers. My answer is for leaders and followers.I thought you are the original poster of this thread. Am I blind?
See I don't see it the way you do Matthew. To me it is very simple, a man should not call another man any names unless they want to get a fist in their face. To me calling someone names on the internet is no different than if it was face to face and anyone that does it is just a coward hiding behind a screen and no gentleman. I have no problem eliminating all insults here on CI, but what you write above is not eliminating all insults, it is just justifying one insult over another. I do not think anyone here on CI would say the insults that I Meg, Viva I and and others get regularly and continuously here on CI, that you appear to be justifying above, I do not think that they would say them if they were face to face with me. THAT is the way it should be on CI, talk should be as if we were face to face, two gentlemen.
As Ladislaus said, why don't YOU cite these horrible things? I'd wager because they don't exist.
The burden of proof is on you. Come on, you have the Moderator's ear. Let's have it!
Time to put up or shut up.
You know full well about Mark79's vicious attacks towards me and anyone who strongly disagrees with him.
In a thread about eliminating insults the poster unloads with insults. Moreover, the poster is a newbie and has never composed a thought of his own, posting almost exclusively insults and parroting of others that he follows. I answer the leaders that pose what he follows, I do not have time to answer their followers. My answer is for leaders and followers.I don't know, given I've been a regular member here for 2 years, posted tons of my unique threads and am a "Hero" member kind of tells me I'm no longer a newbie.
Mark79, every time you call LT a "leg spreader" you are *not* helping your case any. You are guilty of the classic blunder of "sinking to his level" …
So... you can't produce even one example. Gotcha.
Can't blame me when the thing I'm supposed to moderate to maintain a good Catholic forum apparently doesn't exist...
Matthew, I was banned from Fisheaters ten years ago, because I wouldn't shut up about being against the pro-transgender contingent on that forum, which, as you know included the forum owner. Now it's the same thing here. I won't keep my big mouth shut about the pro-pot contingent here, a contingent which evidently includes you. I fully expect to be banned, and I'm only surprised that I haven't been banned before now.Matthew,
You know full well about Mark79's vicious attacks towards me and anyone who strongly disagrees with him.
Matthew,
How about instituting a Cathinfo "Micro-ban",
Set the post configurations to where Mark and Meg can't use each other's names in post.
Like Sr. Mary Oda once said: "It's good to separate those two in the classroom."
Sometimes the unadorned truth is "insulting."I remember that. Classic!
I am reminded of a comment made by former California State Senator Ross Johnson. During a campaign he called his opponent a political whore. His opponent demanded an apology, so Johnson scheduled a press conference for the next day. At the press conference, Ross said, "I am sorry he's a political whore."
That was a treasured moment. His opponent was apoplectic.
I fully expect to be banned, and I'm only surprised that I haven't been banned before now.
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2002/020718.shtmlExcellent!! Oh, how I miss Joe!
Sobran's from 20 year ago on "the English insult". The English were pretty good at insulting each other I guess.