[alaric]

Great posts, PereJoseph! You really get to the core of it.

Yes, I have to admit, PJ nailed it on that one.

[LaramieHirsch]

I didn't know Melkite was still around.  

I recall a hot discussion with him and a pagan, where they both were defending evolution.  It was a thread about how Bill Nye thought Creationism is bad for children.  

His description of how evolution can be reconciled with the idea of original sin really was bizarre and nebulous.

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and effeminate behavior is wrong.  Effeminacy is a vice.

[alaric]

I didn't know Melkite was still around.  

I recall a hot discussion with him and a pagan, where they both were defending evolution.  It was a thread about how Bill Nye thought Creationism is bad for children.  

His description of how evolution can be reconciled with the idea of original sin really was bizarre and nebulous.

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and effeminate behavior is wrong.  Effeminacy is a vice.

I believe the medical community up until a few years ago described it as a mental disorder......

This is the problem with much of  illiberalism and political correctness, it's purely unscientific and on the verge of insanity.

What do you expect from a group of people who claim that grown men having anal sɛҳuąƖ intercourse with one another or many others should be classified as "normal".  :rolleyes:

[Graham]

As a corollary, shouldn't this sick FE thread be seen as evidence that the entire Indultarian neo-Trad hipster/dork culture that is invading Anglophone Catholic circles is from the devil ?

To be fair, many of the hipsters and dorks in that thread are taking a harder line, and are in fact SSPX-goers.

And after 18 pages or so, decency and common sense seem finally to be winning out, thanks in large part to their efforts.

But FE is rotting, rotting, rotting. It won't be long until I quit going there entirely.

[wallflower]

If we were to believe the general consensus that seems to inform the comments of the neo-Trad women's knitting circle, we would conclude the following : Real men (who didn't exist before we discovered the modern type) were leaders, that is why they wanted women to boss them around and manipulate them.  Real men were so straight that they loved spending time around sodomites; the straighter they are, the more they enjoy the company of perverts.  Real men hate ancient laws and moral philosophy and instead love an aesthetic approach to life, one of balance and spontaneity, the sort of environment that can be found on Oprah or at a woman's book club over martinis.  Fighting, organising, exploring, commanding, disciplining, hunting, conquering -- these are just the product of boyish insecurity.  Real men have no time for these puerile pursuits, which are worthy of being smirked at.  Women have seen them in their boys at the playground.  They understand the pathetic and animalistic silliness of what drives the world of men.  Real men, who know what these women have intuited, want to be liberated from these arcane pressures on the mind, so that they can spend time with "ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ" fetishists, talk about the meaning of their romantic affairs and how they make them feel over a cocktail, or allow themselves to be led by the level-headed vision of their wives.  

That's exactly it. An aspect I thought of but didn't get around to was if I'm going to understand what true male friendship and/or behavior is, I will take the word of straight men who have no reason to deceive themselves over that of a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who has all the reason in the world to want to bend the rules. It just doesn't make sense to allow them to instruct, re-educate, the rest of us on what normal male behavior is. How do they know?? Normal male behavior is at the core of their struggles!

   

[Pius IX]

As a corollary, shouldn't this sick FE thread be seen as evidence that the entire Indultarian neo-Trad hipster/dork culture that is invading Anglophone Catholic circles is from the devil ?

To be fair, many of the hipsters and dorks in that thread are taking a harder line, and are in fact SSPX-goers.

And after 18 pages or so, decency and common sense seem finally to be winning out, thanks in large part to their efforts.

But FE is rotting, rotting, rotting. It won't be long until I quit going there entirely.

I am not a hipster, but I know who they are, and I associate with them, and this is true.

They are quite hardline, and attempt to push the pro +Williamson line when they can.

[Pius IX]

I don't really care what motivated you to post it here, but why not join in and offer a little fraternal correction?  Spiritual works of mercy and all...

Haha. What if I told you he did just that?

[Sigismund]

Not surprised to see Vox on that thread. I've always thought of her as a fag in a woman's body. If that makes sense. She's as bent as they come.

Do you think that's an acceptable way for a Christian to talk about someone else? Love thy neighbour and all that...

Oh, please, this woman is an unrepentant public mortal sinner who proudly identifies herself with some of the worst scandalous revolutionary women (Simone Weil).  She is no friend of Tradition, despite some of the materials on her website.  She has been actively pursuing the destruction of the Faith for several years now and is too proud to restrain herself.  She's a disgusting person with evil fruits.  When somebody is publicly harming the Faith, Christians are obliged to combat that person's errors, even by attacking that person's credibility through assaults on her person.  It is false charity to suggest that we are obliged to assume she has good motives for publicly defending her sin and her insane ideological attacks on the purity of the Faith and of Catholic morals and culture.  We are only obliged to assume good motives until we have a probable reason to conclude otherwise.  We are well past that point with her.  Like most ferocious old damaged feminist shrews, she deals in self-righteous psychological manipulation and self-centered indulgence in observations that are mere products of her own twisted desires.  That evil forum needs to be shut down and she needs to make public reparation for her public crimes.

You can be orthodox, and defend Catholicism, without using playground language like "fag".

[Graham]

You can be orthodox, and defend Catholicism, without using playground language like "fag".

I thumbed this down, not because you're actually wrong, but because I see nothing wrong with colourful and earthy language. If, somewhere, some fag is offended by it, that's probably because he's a fαɢɢօt looking for an excuse to be offended, and not cause he's a pious Catholic man afflicted with unnatural desires and humbly bearing his cross.

[Telesphorus]

I thumbed it down because we don't need to be enforcing PC speech codes that forbid derogatory language towards men who are like "wild beasts"

[MaterDominici]

In case you missed Matthew's 2 cents from another thread:

That's why I think "fαɢɢօt" is a surprisingly appropriate term for sodomites.

Because they are just waiting to be thrown in the fire (when death comes).

While it could be argued that "gαy" is concise and does the trick (refer to my posts where I prefer "Black" to refer to those of African descent), it also means "happy" and that is misleading.

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is nice and scientific, I suppose. But it doesn't carry with it any implication that there is something wrong with them.

Sodomite certainly implies that something is morally wrong with their behavior.

Queer works well, because their inclinations are against nature.

[Sigismund]

I thumbed it down because we don't need to be enforcing PC speech codes that forbid derogatory language towards men who are like "wild beasts"

I understand, but it isn't about being PC.

Look, I agree completely with the Church about ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and every other aspect of its moral teaching on sɛҳuąƖ matters.  I also believer that, as St. Francis de Sales said, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.  Out principal concern should be converting sinners, all of them, Of whom I am the first.  Language like this will not convert anyone.  

[Sigismund]

In case you missed Matthew's 2 cents from another thread:

That's why I think "fαɢɢօt" is a surprisingly appropriate term for sodomites.

Because they are just waiting to be thrown in the fire (when death comes).

While it could be argued that "gαy" is concise and does the trick (refer to my posts where I prefer "Black" to refer to those of African descent), it also means "happy" and that is misleading.

ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ is nice and scientific, I suppose. But it doesn't carry with it any implication that there is something wrong with them.

Sodomite certainly implies that something is morally wrong with their behavior.

Queer works well, because their inclinations are against nature.

I did see it, and I think he is wrong too, for the reason stated above.

[Kaesekopf]

Intriguing.

From Vox:
That isn't an actual example, but it's the sort of thing I'm talking about. I see that and want to throttle someone. I seriously do. It's more personally infuriating now that ad money is all I have to live on, too. "Gee, THANKS, pal!" is what I think when I see that sort of thing. Man, it makes me mad. "Yeah, we're gonna sell traditional Catholicism like THAT, ya idiot!" "Nevermind me; I don't need to eat!" Grrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php/topic,3454922.msg33828472.html#msg33828472

[Graham]

How many politically correct SWPL types are there interested in Catholicism? Maybe there are some attracted by the smells and bells. As I've said before, for every one of those, there's someone else who's put off Catholicism by uptight political correctness.