Ok.

Earlier I mentioned that we need to back up anything we say that might be considered "negative" when talking about someone in their absence.

In the spirit of leading by example, here goes.

I found this post of Vox to be objectionable, and typical of what she posts these days. This post is only a few months old, so it's quite recent.

In the thread where a transsɛҳuąƖ boldly "came out of the closet", here was Vox's first post on the matter:

Wow, she did it. Gutsy, Impy! Very, very gutsy, especially at a place like this!

My two cents:  I think it'd be bizarre if there weren't congenital, genetic, and hormonal anomalies that can produce a syndrome in which one's chromosomal sex is masculine, while the apparent and/or "felt" sex is feminine (and vice versa, though the former would likely by a lot more common because of the "Androgen push" that's necessary for a fetus to become masculine with regard to secondary sex characteristics). There've been hermaphrodites that the Church has known about forever, there are chromosomal problems (XO, XXO, etc.), and there are hormonal issues (many of which can take place in utero, such as the failing of that "androgen push," for ex/, which likely affects brain-wiring itself) that can do a lot of weird things. Someone going through such a thing is likely living in a sort of Hell, especially given that so many people just lack the imagination enough or have the charity enough to even begin to empathize.

I think that because of the nature of some of these anomalies, the Church just hasn't caught up (i.e., because some of these problems are rooted in problems that Science couldn't touch until recently, the Church simply didn't have the tools to deal with them.)  But to imagine enduring this, just imagine being the sex you are chromosomally, right now -- and then imagine having your body not match up. Imagine being a man, feeling like a man, emoting (or not) like a man, thinking like a man, knowing you are a man -- but having [explicit references to genitalia removed]. Or if you're a woman, imagine knowing you're a woman, sɛҳuąƖly responding as a woman, feeling absolutely like a woman -- but having a [explicit reference to genitalia removed] (the more common scenario). Think about it!

These folks have all the sympathy I got. I pray that anyone suffering this tries his/her best to please God always, never gives up on Christ, never leaves the Church because of mistreatment by some of Her less charitable members, and finds peace, love, and happiness.

Thanks for your honesty, Impy. You might be a woman, but you've got a, um, set!

And then she stubbornly sticks to her position:

Quote from: Wallflower

Vox it is offensive for you to continue to equate medical treatment for children with genetic or chromosome defects to a man getting a sex change. Please stop.

The preponderance of the evidence is that Impy is a man. He was born a man, raised a man, lived as a man, has male chromosomes, male body parts and even his condition is male. If his brain says otherwise, there is something wrong with his brain. He is not a hermaphrodite choosing between two sexes either. He is one and choosing to become another. The attempts to explain it away using other examples that are not applicable are not working. But seriously, keep the kids with true genetic disorders out of it.

It is not "offensive" to equate medical treatment for a genetic or chromosome defect with medical treatment for a genetic or chromosome defect. You're not making sense and are only begging a couple of questions.  Please stop.

You don't know the preponderance of evidence, quite frankly. Have you seen his medical records or examined her genitals or checked out his chromosomes, etc.? This is a medical decision between Impy, her doctors, and her priests. She announced her decision. You have stated your mind. You've done your job.

And in this case (as in most others), the strong opinions of the leader are certainly going to affect what is considered "acceptable" to post there. Whether the views of the moderator make it into the actual RULES or not (usually a lot of them do), it will affect what IS posted, what is NOT posted, and what kind of person will stick around and feel welcome. That is undeniable.

Gandalf wasn't really a Wizard proper, and the abilities he had and the means he used to achieve them were not witchcraft in the usual sense.  He was Istari, which basically means he was an angel delegated to earth by Iluvitar (sp?).  A guardian angel of sorts.  Tolkien had a rich Catholic sense that he filled Middle Earth with.

[...] I'd like to bring up something that's been bothering me. I'd like to honestly consider the charge that FE is liberal [...]

I mean, how can you make such a broad generalizations [...] ?

An odd post, Matthew, and not doing you any favours.

CI is a longshot from FE - keep it that way!

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Gandalf wasn't really a Wizard proper, and the abilities he had and the means he used to achieve them were not witchcraft in the usual sense.  He was Istari, which basically means he was an angel delegated to earth by Iluvitar (sp?).  A guardian angel of sorts.  Tolkien had a rich Catholic sense that he filled Middle Earth with.

Tolkien  :gandalf: used to answer in Latin when the Novus Ordo in English made its debut, probably irritating the clueless people around him who had simply surrendered.

But to turn to the thread, I think that FE should exist but should be wary of closet modernists  :devil2: who play the trad game.

CI has closet modernists.  FE has loud and proud modernists.  It's a serious stumblingblock for those looking for the truth.

Quote from: Tridentine MT

Quote from: Mithrandylan

Gandalf wasn't really a Wizard proper, and the abilities he had and the means he used to achieve them were not witchcraft in the usual sense.  He was Istari, which basically means he was an angel delegated to earth by Iluvitar (sp?).  A guardian angel of sorts.  Tolkien had a rich Catholic sense that he filled Middle Earth with.

Tolkien  :gandalf: used to answer in Latin when the Novus Ordo in English made its debut, probably irritating the clueless people around him who had simply surrendered.

But to turn to the thread, I think that FE should exist but should be wary of closet modernists  :devil2: who play the trad game.

CI has closet modernists.  FE has loud and proud modernists.  It's a serious stumblingblock for those looking for the truth.

Well, the game is to "out" them using Catholic doctrine. It will be good for the rest of us. Look what happened to the SSPX! They apparently forgot what Modernism is, and how bad the Novus Ordo is.

Soldiers need to continually train. This is a war we're in.

Generally speaking, on a forum like CI you're not going to slip in too much error of any kind without a pile-on ensuing. We simply have "too many" well informed Catholics here for a Modernist to get away with much heretical talk.

After carefully re-considering it, yes. It's accurate.

Words mean things. When you say, "Fisheaters is a liberal forum", one assumes that liberalism generally dominates there.

And I believe that's simply the truth.

For example, if you were to start a thread entitled "Should I go to public beaches?" most people are going to tell you to go for it, and the few people who point out the occasion for sin will be booed off the stage, castigated, etc.

As further evidence, countless anti-Liberals have been banned from the forum. Not just one individual (which might be explained as a personality issue or conflict -- a problem with the individual rather than his position), but dozens of good Catholics have been booted from that forum.

So although I wish it weren't true, I must conclude that FE is indeed a liberal-leaning forum. You just can't have a forum that's diametrically opposed to its owner.

(That's why I always tell people to not worry about CathInfo becoming liberal!)
 

How can it possibly be nasty over there??

Now that all the meanies and elitists have left or been banned it ought to be the mecca of niceness!

 :smile:


Seriously I would not doubt that she is overwhelmed. It really isn't the job for a woman and she has openly admitted that a lot depends on her mood. From her own posts she is a pretty emotional woman, (not necessarily in a bad way). Put that and liberal-leaning together and it's nearly impossible to keep order.

At the bottom of the admission is likely also a creative way to get people to put their money where their mouth is. She is right, she needs to be providing for herself and if FE doesn't do it then she has to put her energy elsewhere. I am not opposed to people making money off their websites although she likely didn't start out with that intention. I think the main website was a burst of generosity rather than a plan to make a living. Now that she needs it though, it's hard to turn it around into a profitable endeavor. Not to mention there's so much controversy on serious issues that it makes people wary of donating. I considered donating long ago but held off and in time realized it wasn't a cause I could support. This seems like a last call for those who are still there.



 

Every once in a while I see Matthew post something that I think is liberal, but it is not very often. I called another poster here a liberal the other day, but thinking about it more I thought I was wrong and apologized.

Huh?

I'd like to know what you're referring to. I don't have a liberal bone in my body.

You know, if a person (or a group of two dozen people) starts throwing the word "liberal" around to all and sundry, it begins to lose its meaning...

You did right in apologizing.