I post this only for the unbelievable nature of what is allowed on FE. Sensitive souls read no further.

Cyracius responds appropriately to GMan's post:

I'm fairly certain any website with "porn" in its name is at least an occasion of sin, my dear friend, regardless of whether the content is ostensibly Catholic.

Domain names can be full of innuendo, but be completely innocent.

Completely safe for work. I couldn't find one with "porn", but you get the picture.

http://www.wintersexpress.com/

http://www.therapistfinder.com

http://www.webone.com/

Unbelievable, just unbelievable.

And Caminus, Luigi, angelofmercy and I are the ones banned.

Cheerleader quickly tries to comes to the rescue trying to shamelessly increase his chances of staying on the forum while marginalizing (shaming) veritas...

I don't think it's necessary to ask that kind of question in public instead of in private message, unless Quis wants to answer it publicly.

True. We'll see how it ends up.

It has always been my impression that this woman "Vox" is emotionally or mentally unstable.  And her grasp of Catholic theology and moral philosophy is questionable at best.  Then we have a man "Quis" who seems otherwise decent enter into Vox's "world" via internet dating and becomes entangled in her confused world.  We have it on record that he supposedly already married one "mentally unstable" woman.  It seems fitting that he would find another to settle down with.

In reference to their understanding of annulments and cohabitation, someone should remind them that the first principle of sacramental marriage is that they are to be presumed valid until the contrary judgment by competent authority is rendered.  They have usurped this judgment in favor of pursuing their desires of the flesh, injuring children in the meantime.  Furthermore, I see that Quis is relying upon the new personalist definition of marriage in the hopes of freeing himself from the bond of a cuмbersome marriage.  Poor, foolish souls.  This is all very sad.    

Obviously.

I'm responding to WRC here, by the way, not Caminus.

Ok, Quis tries to get in a petty semantical jab here, directed at me so I must address it.

One last item: someone e-mailed me and asked me where Solimanto admitted he wasn't banned for saying something about the marriage because apparently someone is denying it (not Solimanto, but you can probably guess who).

Here you go:


Quote:
Originally Posted by "MikeSolimanto" on CathInfo

I thought it was more important for people to give you support in changing your life, to give good recommendations on how to do it, and show support that they were happy you understand your situation and that they were there to help lovingly give advice.

Yes, for that I was banned, but that's what I said.



That's all.

I previously quoted Mike as saying, in that same thread:

This is what happened...

I posted on the website about their marriage, shortly after I replied to another post in another thread totally unrelated about 15 minutes after I posted about her marriage. Then when I looked to reply to what was said I was deleted. The entire time elapsed from me sending the original reply about marriage their marriage to posting on the other thread was about 15 minutes.

Five minutes later I was banned and they removed the posts they banned me for. The entire time from me posting about the marriage, to posting about the other woman lasted 20 minutes from start to end. I would only find the assessment fair if they said it was for the other post if they left it up. It was conveniently deleted.

Clearly this is Mike's view on the matter. His saying "for that I was banned", in Quis' quote obviously refers to Vox's official reason for banning him. It sure doesn't mean he agrees that that is the true reason. He couldn't be clearer as to what he sees as the true reason.

Therefore Quis' claim about Mike is disingenuous. This is an example on a small point but know that he uses the same tactics in all arguments including major theological ones. Just ask Caminus.

He then states Mike isn't denying it.   Is Mike even commenting on this board anymore? His words are left to speak for themselves and they clearly do.

Again Chant is correct in that he is the master of propaganda.

It really is sad and beyond the pale. Misrepresenting a man's words from '07 to try to win a minor point? Come on now, Quis. It's all simply a distraction from the major point; that Q&V should not live together until annulments are in hand.

Looks like they have created a new forum for discussing the "banned" that is now private and accessible to registered users only!

Looks like we will have to rely on stealth FE posters for any more updates as to whether "the banned" or CathInfo is being slandered behind closed doors.

In any case, God sees. And He doesn't need to register!