This week I continue my once-per-month series of posts regarding an informal study I undertook in the early 1990s regarding rock and pop music. The purpose of my study (and the background to it) can be read in the first installment of August 7, 2017. If you have not read that post, I strongly encourage you to do so before reading this installment. I will only repeat here the seven (7) evil elements that pervade today's music:
1. Violence/Murder/Suicide
2. Nihilism/Despair
3. Drug and alcohol glorification
4. Adultery/ Fornication and sexual perversion
5. The occult
6. Rebellion against lawful superiors
7. Blasphemy against God, Jesus Christ in particular, and the Church
The exposing of the bands/artists continues.
Duran Duran
Although never critically acclaimed like the other groups and artists I've covered, "Duranomania" swept the United States and England in the late 1970s to the late 1980s. Formed in 1978, this British quintet had young girls swooning over them. The band consisted of founders Nigel John Taylor (b. 1960) on bass guitar,and Nick Rhodes (b. Nicholas James Bates in 1962) on keyboards. The two worked together in an English nightclub, and wanted to form a band. They enticed three more to join them: Roger Taylor (b. 1960) on drums, Andrew Taylor (b. 1961) on guitar and back-up vocals, and the most famous member Simon Le Bon (b. 1958) as songwriter and lead singer. Interestingly, none of the three Taylors were related to each other.
In December of 1980, after opening for some other acts, they caught the attention of the major record companies and signed with EMI Records. Their eponymous debut album was released in 1981, and it was met with moderate success thanks to the band's ability to make well-cast videos that appeared on the nascent MTV. In May of 1982, they launched their second album entitled Rio, which made them superstars. By 1983, the British press dubbed them the "Fab Five" because of their popularity with women, just like when The Beatles came out (who were called the "Fab Four"). They produced 14 singles in the top 10 of the UK Singles Chart and 21 in the US Billboard Hot 100, and have sold over 100 million records worldwide. Duran Duran also won two Grammy Awards, an MTV Video Music Award for Lifetime Achievement, and a Video Visionary Award from the MTV Europe Music Awards. They were given a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.
Peddling Sex and the Occult
The band is sinister from the very beginning. They take their name from a character in the 1968 science fiction movie Barbarella. Here is a synopsis of the (sickening) movie taken from the Internet Movie Database (IMDB.com):
The year is 40,000. After peaceful floating in zero-gravity, astronaut Barbarella lands on the frozen planet Lythion and sets out to find renowned scientist Durand Durand [the band dropped the last letter "d"] in the City of Night, Sogo, where a new sin is invented every hour. There, she encounters such objects as the Excessive Machine, a genuine sex organ on which an expert artist of the keyboard, in this case, Durand Durand himself, can drive a victim to death by pleasure, a lesbian queen who can make her fantasies take form in her Chamber of Dreams, and a group of ladies smoking a giant hookah which dispenses Essence of Man through a poor victim struggling in its glass globe. You can not help but be impressed by the special effects crew and the various ways that were found to tear off what minimal clothes our heroine seemed to possess. (Emphasis mine).
A movie that is pornographic (perverted with sodomites as well-- very controversial for the time) was the inspiration for the band's name. Their album Seven and the Ragged Tiger is full of occult symbolism. Below is a shirt that was sold in the 1980s when the album came out showing off the symbols on the cover of Seven and the Ragged Tiger.
The band assures their fans that the name of the album is derived from the five members and two managers (seven) who were pacing around like tigers in a cage one day ("ragged tiger"). In fact, it is an occult reference in some forms of Eastern mysticism and yoga. There are at least three unmistakably occult and Satanic symbols used.
- On the top right of the shirt we see the Crescent Moon and Star. This has two denotations.The first is for the evil and false religion of Islam. The second is its use in Wicca (witchcraft). It is a fertility symbol of Diana (also known as Artemis) the pagan goddess of the heavens, moon, and earth. In Acts 19: 23-34 we read, About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: "You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty." When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!" Soon the whole city was in an uproar. The people seized Gaius and Aristarchus, Paul’s traveling companions from Macedonia, and all of them rushed into the theater together. Paul wanted to appear before the crowd, but the disciples would not let him. Even some of the officials of the province, friends of Paul, sent him a message begging him not to venture into the theater.The assembly was in confusion: Some were shouting one thing, some another. Most of the people did not even know why they were there. The Jews in the crowd pushed Alexander to the front, and they shouted instructions to him. He motioned for silence in order to make a defense before the people. But when they realized he was a Jew, they all shouted in unison for about two hours: "Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!"
- The weird looking number "4" below it is the Egyptian symbol for the occult practice of reading people's palms. All forms of fortune telling are called divination. It is condemned by both the Bible and Church teaching. "Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft,or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD; because of these same detestable practices the LORD your God will drive out those nations before you." (See Deuteronomy 18:10-12; Emphasis mine.)
- The symbol below that--the cross with two horizontal bars and the eternity sign below it--is used in the Satanic Bible above the Nine Satanic Statements (an evil and blasphemous mockery of the Ten Commandments--thankfully, Satan always comes up short and God wins!). The large bar below the shorter bar is symbolic of Satan cutting off the grace of the cross to save people throughout time (eternity).
Shake up the picture the lizard mixture
With your dance on the eventide
You got me coming up with answers
All of which I deny
I said it again
Could I please rephrase it
Maybe I can catch a ride
I couldn't really put it much plainer
But I'll wait till you decide
Send me your warning siren
As if I could ever hide
Last time La Luna
[Chorus]
I light my torch and wave it for the
New moon on Monday
And a firedance through the night
I stayed the cold day with a lonely satellite
[Verse 2]
Breaking away with the best of both worlds
A smile that you can't disguise
Every minute I keep finding
Clues that you leave behind
Save me from these reminders
As if I'd forget tonight
This time La Luna
It's about the second coming of or just the coming of a Christ like figure. The lyrics are esoteric and symbolic. The coded message is for the character to whom they are speaking. The New Moon on Monday is a reference to an astronomical and week day alignment that creates a deeply emotional and caring characteristic in the individual. Due to the compounding effect of Moon energy, since Monday is the day of the moon and the moon is in a conjunction with the Sun which darkens the face and represents a more emotional state. It's a lonely Satellite. The satellite refers to a little Saturn. A cold day is a winter day.Saturn is a Winter planet and rules the sign of Capricorn. Capricorn is the sign in which the biblical Jesus/messiah character was born. Jesus was killed on a full moon. [Note the astrological pagan nonsense throughout]
Their song Save a Prayer from their album Rio is about a woman who wants a one night stand with a man. He tells her not to worry and just fornicate, so "save a prayer" for him "'till the morning after."
You saw me standing by the wall corner of a main street
And the lights are flashing on your window sill
All alone ain't much fun so you're looking for the thrill
And you know just what it takes and where to go
Don't save a prayer for me now
Save it til the morning after
No don't say a prayer for me now
Save it til the morning after
Feel the breeze deep on the inside look you down into the well
If you can you'll see the world in all his fire
Take a chance like all dreamers can't find another way
You don't have to dream it all, just live a day
Don't say a prayer for me now
Save it 'til the morning after
No don't say a prayer for me now
Save it 'til the morning after
Save it 'til the morning after
Save it 'til the morning after (Emphasis mine)
The video to this song has children dressed as Buddhist pagans being mesmerized, and they follow the group to bow to an idol of stone. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uxc9eFcZyM)
The song Hungry Like The Wolf is about a man performing oral sex on a woman. At the end of the song, a woman screams repeatedly as if she is having an orgasm.
Dark in the city night is a wire
Steam in the subway earth is afire
Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo
Woman you want me give me a sign
And catch my breathing even closer behind
Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo
In touch with the ground
I'm on the hunt down I'm after you
Smell like I sound I'm lost in a crowd
And I'm hungry like the wolf
Straddle the line in discord and rhyme
I'm on the hunt down I'm after you
Mouth is alive with juices like wine
And I'm hungry like the wolf
Stalked in the forest too close to hide
I'll be upon you by the moonlight side
Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo
High blood drumming on your skin it's so tight
You feel my heat I'm just a moment behind
Do do do do do do do dodo dododo dodo
The video features Simon Le Bon hunting down a woman (like a wolf) with a highly sexually suggestive ending, extremely risque for 1983. (See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJL-lCzEXgI)
Their Present Confirms the Past
All of these bands I've written about deny any connection to the occult and promoting immorality. Duran Duran provides especially good proof that leopards (or in this case "ragged tigers") don't change their spots (or stripes).
Consider:
- Simon Le Bon claims he is now an atheist. He has written a contribution to The Atheist's Guide to Christmas. Many occultists will claim no faith as a guise to hide their real beliefs. It's also possible that he's lost all faith, having put himself at the service of evil, leaving him disillusioned. (See https://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/12/simon-le-bon-on-losing-faith/).
- Mr. Le Bon was accused of sexual assault in 1995, which allegation came out last year. According to The Guardian, Simon Le Bon has denied sexually assaulting a fan in 1995. Shereen Hariri alleged that the Duran Duran singer groped her while signing autographs at the Los Angeles record store where she worked. She accused Le Bon of grabbing and "massaging" her "right butt cheek" and "making his way down my butt to my genitals."(See https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jul/12/simon-le-bon-duran-duran-shereen-hariri). I'm the last one to give such "years later" claims automatic credence, especially in light of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, but this guy's a certified sleazebag. I don't know the current disposition of the claim against him, but would it surprise me if he's found guilty? Not in the least.
- Nick Rhodes started a band in 2002 called The Devils. It's full of pagan/occult songs, the worst being Dark Circles which openly speaks of black magic:
You're moving in dark circles
Dark circles show me your eyes
It's black magic with no perfume
You're all TV & white lies
Move move move move
No rainbow all snow storm A trans lunar Jezebel
Your Stockhausen with pictures
Ulysses in ugly shoes
Move move move move
Dark circles
Black magic
Dark circles
And white lie
Black magic
Dark circles
Black magic
And white lies
Dark circles
Black magic (Emphasis mine)
Conclusion
The "pretty boys" of the early to mid-1980s, Duran Duran, were seen as relatively "clean" and "wholesome" at the height of their fame. It's been conclusively proven they are neither. Seeped in occultism and pushing sexual perversion, the band is evil; just as wicked and perverted as the movie from which they got their name. How could people be so gullible about these music artists? How could parents let them listen to this garbage? Thanks to Vatican II, this was the result when the true Mass, sacraments, and doctrine were taken away from the world in the Great Apostasy. Without God's grace to preserve us, and His Church to guide us, we are lost. The Vatican II sect does not speak for God, and leads people away from Him. "He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God." (St. John 8:47).
Will you ever do one on The Cure? I have to admit, I was a really big fan of them since middle school, and I still listen to their two albums Disintegration and Faith sometimes. :)
ReplyDeleteI know this isn't the best advice, but my suggestion is just simply quit listening to them. How? Mind over matter. If you won't mind, it won't matter. I used to be a disgusting individual when I think back at my youth, but I pondered the eternity of hell in exchange for so many years of this life of pleasure to the senses and it's a no brainer. When I started to realize why this stuff outraged God so much, I would ask myself why do I get outraged when somebody insults me whether in front of my face or behind my back? He teaches us to treat others the way we wished to treated so why should we not treat Him badly? All kinds of alternatives didn't work for me except simply just making myself stop. Keep your mind busy with things that matter in the temporal life as well as eternal life so long as it's pleasing to God. Anyways that was my sermon for today. Forgive me if I sounded to preachy.
DeleteI never researched The Cure. My research notes are nearly done. I’ll probably finish this series in August. I leave open the possibility of writing about one or more bands in the future—but not as a regular series.
DeleteGod Bless,
—-Introibo
@anon7:56
DeleteIt’s good advice!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo, thank you for the reply! Yep, don't worry about it, just thought it might be interesting because they're surprisingly wholesome for their era.
DeleteAs for the advice, I don't think taking the puritanical or Jansenistic route is the best way, to be quite honest. Poverty of the spirit does not mean that we all must sell everything we have and eat nothing but cabbage soup, although a few saintly souls are called to such a life. Jesus did not change water into wine so that nobody would drink and enjoy himself. I can't imagine that the Ancient Jews didn't listen to any carefree, "popular" music during their wedding parties.
Now, if my music listening were unreasonable in any way, because of the content or the frequency of it, to the detriment of my spiritual life or duties of my state, that would be a different issue. I actually hadn't listened to The Cure for many years until quite recently, and I wouldn't be too sad if I could never hear them again. I usually only listen to certain classical composers, or modern instrumental music. I was reminiscing on my younger days and expected my younger self to have worse taste, but on a second listen, they're actually not that bad. Some songs are too heathenistic for my taste now (I am a convert) but I would say the majority of their songs are innocent. Some even have quite the Catholic aesthetic. Some are love songs written to the wife of the singer, who was apparently the only girl he ever dated since he was 14. It's not the kind of mind-rotting, blasphemous junk they play in horrible dance clubs.
Anyway, I am all for mortification of the senses, but all within reason. Even St. Joan of Arc was pleasantly delighted when she was gifted fine clothes and four beautiful horses; she didn't sell the clothes to give to the poor and dress herself in rags. On the other hand, there were many heresiarchs with gnostic tendencies who preached against any sort of sensual delight. I think it is a dangerous route to stray too far to the left or to the right.
And that is my sermon. Thank you :)
@anon10:07
DeleteI agree with you that we need not live like monks or hermits to be good Traditionalists. You make a good point. However, be careful! I didn’t research The Cure, but MANY (if not virtually ALL) of the bands I thought were “harmless” and carefree” were anything but that. Case in point, Hall and Oates, whom I covered in one of these posts. I thought they just sang sappy love songs. Boy was I wrong! When I researched them I was aghast.
The only two music artists I researched and found to be mostly harmless were Air Supply and Christopher Cross. This is not an endorsement of either, just that I didn’t find anything seriously wrong. Maybe The Cure is like them.
My only point is that in this age of Great Apostasy, one cannot be too careful!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Thank you Introibo. Anonymous 10:07 Thank you for your sermon but I wouldn't say I was being Puritanical or Jansenistic. At least I didn't mean to be. Go read the book Purgatory by Fr. F.X Shouppe. A priest went to purgatory for a long time because he simply enjoyed good tasty food on a frequent basis. It will scare the purgatory out of you, let alone Hell. If I was puritanical and Jansenist in my advice you would be implying that my own approach to myself (which in the first comment I scolded myself a bit) would have been just that. When I read the lives of the saints its true they had enjoyments from time to time but most of their lives were a life a sacrifice and prayer. Whether it be a married saint like St. Rita or a mystic like St. Catherine of Sienna or doctor of the Church such as St. Alphonsus Ligouri or even somebody like St. Dominic Savio, they all suffered and voluntarily gave up things including small enjoyments because they loved God and believed it to be necessary. I'm sure if they were living today and saw the worldwide nonsense they would die of horror. They put us to shame, but they teach us a lesson about not being self indulgent, something even traditional priest hardly if ever talk about on the pulpit today.
DeleteI'm glad you have converted to the Catholic Faith (true Faith), but remember we are always converting (even as members) so long as we are willing to. You sound reasonable and good willed and wish you all the best.
John Taylor was in a band with Steve Jones of the -ex Pistols in 1996.
ReplyDeleteTheir first & only LP had a single that didn't appeal to the masses because 1996 was the year
"Alternative Rock" nosedived.
This song and video showed young girls slam dancing with boys and clips of girls punching and slapping boys to suggest they were even tougher and more masculine than boys.
Can't help but think this is related to "Barbarella" and lesbian queen.
Our Blessed Lord demands Men and Women act as their assigned Sex.
It's almost as if these rock bands spend their lives subverting natural order for so long and get too old to know any other way.
As if they're on auto pilot.
-Andrew
Andrew,
DeleteWell stated. They’re on autopilot to crash into society and do as much damage as possible.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
You are either Catholic or you are not. All non-Catholic institutions work against God, the Church and family. Masonry, Communism, false religions, schools, doctors, Hollywood, the media, sports, music, everything for public consumption. All individuals outside the Church, wittingly or not, are also working against God, the Church and the family.
ReplyDeleteJohn,
DeleteYou are correct. However, some work against the Church deliberately and inflict greater harm to souls. These bands do just that; they’re “Singing For Satan.”
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Amen my friend. I very much enjoy your work. These bands seem to play innocent like the false popes. Like they don't know better. Because they almost always deny outright satan worship. And pretend the evil they do is something good. And people fall for it. Very easily.
DeleteThe way in which they received their name was bad enough. The 80's were ripe with reprobates.
ReplyDeleteIndeed! And things have only gotten worse with time.
DeleteGod Bless,
—-Introibo
“I’m the last one to give such “year’s later” claims automatic credence, especially in light of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, but the guy’s a certified sleazebag”.
ReplyDeleteI assert that such claims not be automatically dismissed as false just because they occurred “years later”. The Kavanaugh hearings should not be the standard by which claims made “years later” are presumed to be false. To do so revictimizes the real victims and is an injustice. There are some false claims made by women “years later”, just as there are some false claims made against Priests “years later” for child sex abuse. Is it ok that the child sex abuse victims are presumed to be telling the truth? Could it be because the majority of child sex abuse victims are male and not female that they are so readily believed and validated - “years later”?
Joann,
DeleteI’m not advocating claims of sexual harassment and/or sex crimes to be automatically dismissed because they happened years ago. However, I’m also against the scary idea that any claim of sexual abuse against someone should make that person ipso facto guilty. I believe in the presumption of innocence. Yes, that includes even Vatican II sect “priests” for whom I have no respect. Because the Vatican II sect allowed sexual predators to be hidden, there are some who might see an easy settlement check by claiming “Fr X abused me.” That doesn’t make him automatically guilty.
We have to competing interests: the right of victims to get justice; the right of the accused to be presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty. We must be careful to balance these rights. Victims should not be made to suffer and innocent parties should not have their lives and reputations ruined by a mere accusation.
The current climate is scary, when you consider Justice Kavanaugh. Christine Ford:
1. Didn’t remember how she got to the party when the alleged attack by Kavanaugh occurred.
2. Didn’t remember how she got home afterwards.
3. Had no corroboration from any witness; as a matter of fact, even a friend of hers said she didn’t remember her being the least upset or of anything happening to her.
4. Went to a therapist and complained about a sexual assault years later but never said the alleged attackers name.
Yet, in the media we were treated to large signs that said “Believe Women.” No! We should, and must “Believe Evidence” of which Ford had NONE.
In the instant case of Simon Le Bar, the woman had no witnesses or any tangible evidence (to the best of my knowledge and belief) of this attack by Le Bar. He has claimed innocence. He’s also got a net worth of approximately 60 million dollars. He has deep pockets for a settlement. Is Le Bar a sleaze? Yes. Would it surprise me if he did it? No. BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT WE CANNOT SAY HE IS GUILTY(unless he confesses to it).
Suppose some woman you worked with 30 years ago says, “Joann made lesbian advances to me when we worked together.” Should we believe it? Where is the presumption of innocence? What about YOUR good name and reputation?
So, yes, Joann, we should not automatically dismiss years later claims, but neither should we shift the burden of proof on to the alleged attacker to “prove you DIDN’T do it.”
I hope that clarified what I wrote.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Could it be because the majority of child sex abuse victims are male and not female that they are so readily believed and validated - “years later”?
DeleteYes. The answer is yes.
Please allow me one last comment, then I'm done, because this topic infuriates me to no end.
DeleteLet's demonstrated how biased not only the public, but also the "justice" system is against female victims of sexual crimes:
About ten years ago, some young men decided to seek out homeless men and pay them to perform humiliating and dangerous stunts on film. There was immediate outrage, immediate apologies by the producers, who immediately paid reparations to the homeless men. The videos are banned in several countries. But when pimps seek out homeless and vulnerable young women for the same purpose (but in a way many times more violent, humiliating, and dehumanizing) it becomes a $100 billion-dollar industry and a "human right" to "free speech". Because who cares about these porn whores? They're to blame for their "choice" of being "indecent". They don't deserve reparations. The pimps can profit from the films indefinitely. The male-dominated "justice" system has no interest in fixing the harm done, and male-dominated culture either enjoys or ignores it.
Oh but let's fight the phantom of an impending threat of a total upheaval of the justice system that suddenly starts sending thousands of innocent good men to jail all because of the empty accusations of a woman. Like that would ever happen. You are all out of your minds.
Ah I forgot, the name of the films of homeless men were called "Bum Fights", so you can look this up.
Delete#mentoo
Deletejust kidding.
This is an interesting discussion. In the justice system you're innocent until proven guilty. Understood. In Church law are you guilty until proven innocent? For example: Paul VI or John XXIII were manifest heretics. They automatically separated themselves from being head of the Church without any need of a declaration because the sin of heresy separated them by its very nature. Do we not presume they were guilty of usurpation through their manifest heresy until they abjured by renouncing their heresies and repudiation of the Catholic religion? If it's different in the American law system (which sounds reasonable because we need evidence for proof to convict) why is it different in the case of a pope through manifest heresy? Is it because nobody is above him and cannot declare him something he already isn't be default, since he is the highest in authority and office? What do you say Introibo?
@anon6:28
DeleteIn the case of clerics, their theological training means they are presumed to know what constitutes heresy. Hence, they are presumed guilty unless proven innocent.
In the case of the pope, he is above Canon Law and has no superior. He can be judged heretical based on actions and/or words that clearly demonstrate a denial of the truths of Faith.
—-Introibo
Thanks Introibo for clearing that question up for me. I'm Anon 6:28
DeleteI don't really care about the Kavanaugh issue because I believe a lot of these big media stories are staged. I just want to say that, IN REALITY, men get away with rape even when there is a ton of evidence against them. And about their reputation, it is usually only the victim who tries to seek justice whose reputation is ruined.
ReplyDeleteMen in general will ignore this reality, so I won't bother bringing up loads of anecdotal evidence. Just like the evidence of rape, it will be discredited, ignored, and explained away.
But God forbid any male be wrongly accused by a woman. You know, false rape accusations are just as common as false accusations of ANY crime, but they're the only one men freak out and write long diatribes about, citing the need for a properly running justice system. But when you point out that in modern days the majority of males WORKING in the so-called justice system have a HOBBY of getting sexual pleasure from videos of women being financially coerced into rape and torture (pornography), and therefore have an extreme bias against female victims of sexual crimes.... SILENCE ENSUES. But yes, God forbid we touch a hair on an innocent man's head. We're all in agreement on that.
Notice how JoAnn never said that those accused of sexual crimes should be automatically convicted without a fair trial and without evidence. That's a strawman and a very dishonest one.
ReplyDeleteShe is pointing out that the POPULAR OPINION always favors MEN who come forth with allegations of abuse, whereas WOMEN are met with skepticism and accusations of ulterior motives BY THE PUBLIC. If you don't see this pattern, you are blind. And going into some lecture about the need for evidence in a trial is, not only a dishonest strawman, but an insult to JoAnn's intelligence.
But men always get all scared about the need for justice when you talk about the very rare occurrence of false rape accusations. Not when you point out the high frequency of rapists that go unconvicted. Not when you point out that we have a multi-billion dollar pornography industry that is de facto legalized rape. Nope, these are just evils that we have to live with. No use fighting it, no use writing long internet comments about. But we MUST put a stop to even the first motions of a movement that might cause a few innocent men to go to jail. PRIORITIES.
On what planet?
DeleteI have often wondered what would have happened in the confirmation hearings if Kavanaugh would have been a woman with men accusers. Would we have been admonished to just "believe men". The woman would have been labeled a "lush induced whore" who was taking "advantage of the poor guy". Needless to say, but the woman would not have been confirmed as Kavanaugh was.
DeleteLet a male come forward years later "and claim sex abuse by a "Priest" and they are automatically believed and validated. Let a woman come forward regarding sex abuse by a "priest" and right away she is accused of "asking for it", "leading the guy on", or "seducing him". Women are raped everyday and I would say that the majority don't report the rape for fear of the above accusations, being revictimized and invalidated. But we must as a society ensure that the men are not falsely accused of rape above and beyond the plethora of women who actually are raped and never report it. Men are to believed in this society, protected against false claims where women are revictimized, invalidated, humiliated, and shamed by a society that discounts them and the violations they have endured.I would say the biggest deterent of women reporting is due to a court system, mostly male dominated, who rapes them again.
Anyone accused by anyone else should be considered innocent until proven otherwise.
DeleteTom,
DeleteI agree with you. What I don't understand is why men who accuse others of abuse such as "Priests" are readily believed and validated compared to women who make such claims.
JoAnn
@Joann,
DeleteThank you for the clarification. I know you to be a fair minded person. I consider myself to be one as well. Your point is well taken.
@anon3:38
There was no straw man. I said that evidence needs to be believed to satisfy real and competing interests. I stand by that.
Woman are less likely to be believed than men? And your evidence is....???
The Kavanaugh case proves the exact opposite—-a woman with no evidence nearly derailed his confirmation precisely because she was believed without evidence.
Go see the movie “Deliver Us from Evil” a documentary about “Fr” Oliver O’Grady was repeatedly raped boys and girls. It was the girls testimony that was most damning and he confessed on tape.
Women are more likely to be believed. If you doubt me consider:
Tawana Brawley From 1987.
Clarence Thomas From 1991
Jackie Coakley infamously told Rolling Stone that she had been gang-raped by fraternity members at the University of Virginia. In reality, no such gang-rape occurred, and Coakley invented a rapist and used a fake text messaging service to convince her friends he existed in order to make one of them jealous. The accusation was a black mark for the magazine and led to three settlements with those defamed by Coakley’s accusation.
K.S. and C.S. claimed a male classmate sexually assaulted them, and their friends, Megan Villegas, E.S., and H.R. backed up their claims. Three of the girls admitted they lied, but the boy had to leave school after being bullied as a “predator.” One of the girls said she accused him simply because she didn’t like him.
One of the women claimed that Kavanaugh had harassed her. She later admitted that she lied under oath because she didn’t want a pro-lifer on the Court. Was she prosecuted for perjury? NO!!
For more see https://www.dailywire.com/news/37090/35-times-men-were-falsely-accused-sexual-assault-kassy-dillon.
The Kavanaugh case was “rigged” says a commenter above. Really? And your evidence is what?? Notice my articles are always well sourced. I don’t accuse Duran Duran of being Satanic without evidence to back up my claims.
That a man could be derailed from a Court appointment based on no evidence proves the opposite of what you assert— Women are believed. Even to the point of no evidence. African-Americans are more likely to be presumed guilty of crimes. Hence, the need for evidence and not blaming “white privilege.”
—-Introibo
I don't pay attention to things like Kavanaugh because a bunch of media stuff is staged psychological operations on the public, but I would assume that most people only believed his accuser because they didn't want someone with his political background in the Supreme Court. These same nuts don't treat the accusations against Bill Clinton the same way. It was actually popular among conservatives to call Bill Clinton a rapist during the 2016 election, even though he was never convicted. So it's really just using alleged rape victims as political pawns and is practically irrelevant to the question of whether or not rape victims get justice or not.
ReplyDeleteIf you have to dig up cases of false accusations from over thirty years ago, that just proves my point. Women are raped and assaulted every single day, and barely any of the perpetrators are ever brought to justice. We even have a pornography industry which is commercialized, legalized de facto rape of financially desperate women, a nearly 100 billion dollar industry. But who cares about that.
I won't waste any more time.
@anon8:52
DeleteNor will I waste time on someone who obviously didn’t read what I wrote. Accusations “from over 30 years ago”? Most were within a couple of years ago. Who said no one cares about the porn industry? However, what about the women who pose for Playboy? Who operate phone sex lines talking to men for $5 per minute. Poor victims?
If it helps you to cope thinking that all men are evil perpetrators, all women are victims, and we don’t need to believe evidence, go right ahead. Clinton is slime, but cannot be called a rapist unless convicted. Didn’t Monica Lewinski consent?
It’s this kind of thinking that leads to the “Jewish conspiracies.” Everything—-And I mean EVERYTHING is the result of an evil cabal of Jews. So that’s who’s behind the victimizing of all women—all the Jews. Doesn’t everyone realize that??
—-Introibo
"all men are evil perpetrators, all women are victims, and we don’t need to believe evidence,"
ReplyDeleteWow. If it helps you to grossly misrepresent your opponent, then go ahead. Keep on revealing your level of integrity.
And you must care a whole lot about the victims of pornography pimps by lumping them together with phone sex operators in an attempt to trivialize what should be the clearest evidence that men are violently abusing women every day with impunity.
A justice system that allows women to be brutalized on film, and for it to grow into a hundred billion dollar industry, on the basis of "consent", but immediately penalizes and corrects the attempted filmed exploitation of financially desperate MEN, is a justice system biased against women. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out, but I guess it does take a genius to distract, deflect, and cover it up with logical fallacies.
No logical fallacies here. You make assertions based on no cited evidence. I care quite a lot about victims of porn. The reason we have porn is the separation of Church and State, a Masonic concept, and the Great Apostasy. That’s why this blog exists—to warn and proselytize.
DeleteAs to the instant case, I merely asserted that we need to believe evidence. In law school we were taught it’s better for 100 guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to go to prison.
I provided a citation to THIRTY recent cases where men were falsely accused. You bypassed that nicely. Are women abused by men? Yes. Do they always get justice? No.
The same can be said of African Americans who are disproportionately incarcerated. That doesn’t make them automatically innocent. We need EVIDENCE. Al Sharpton will tell us the public won’t believe black people and the system is controlled by whites.
However, every man, every person is entitled to the presumption of innocence, and no justice system is perfect.
The porn industry could be shut down if it was made illegal. How many women legislators are introducing such legislation? Ask Nancy Pelosi.
The answer is a truly Catholic government which presupposes the restoration of the Church with a true pope.
Until then we must balance our interests.
—-Introibo
What a fascinating subject! And one which won't be solved on this blog by ex-novus ordo women whom smell faintly of feminism, nor by those whom think that American jurisprudence is without taint. (Just ask OJ how to buy a not guilty verdict.)
ReplyDeleteThe entire problem stems from the fact that "America the beautiful" is a myth, at least culturally. America was founded by Freemasonic WASPS. "As you sow, so shall you reap."
You are correct. The problem stems from Modernists and Masonry—the Great Apostasy. The cure is the True Church and we need to make converts
Delete—-Introibo
Anon @10:10 - "ex-novus Ordo women who smell faintly of feminism". I am not a feminist by any means, nor have I ever been. However, you seem to be sexist as are the majority of trad men that I have encountered. It is almost Sharia law like. Do you need to be sexist in order to feel powerful?? By the way "the truth stands in the middle".
DeleteHowever, I did like your Freemason WASP comment!!
JoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteLet me explain to you precisely where you've gone wrong.
You started by saying I "seem" to be sexist, followed by your pronouncement that the majority of trad men you've encountered also seem sexist and that it's reminiscent of Sharia Law. In the next breath I'm suddenly DOUBTLESS "sexist" as you pose the question, "Do you need to be sexist in order to feel powerful??" I'm sorry to say, but this is the typical dishonest method of retaliation one gets from feminists. Can you see that the way you set up your question was disingenuous?
You probably don't even realize that you smell of feminism. You probably don't realize how offensive it is to be linking Moslem law to good, traditional Catholic men. Or do you? There's no docility about you, my good woman. I made a comment about you smelling slightly of feminism because you DO. Suddenly I'm a sexist, but craftily made to be one in a two-step process.
You're probably a nice lady too. You probably, like the other lady, don't realize you come across as having a chip on your shoulder insofar your dislike of the treatment you've received from these mean, old, trad men. My advice: offer it up.
Let me assure I'm an "equal opportunity" "spade is a spade" caller. I'm certainly no sexist.
I'm glad you liked part of my comment.
Joann,
DeleteIs it sexist for women to wear a head covering at Mass and on top is the pain of sin attached even more sexist for not wearing it? The point is men and women especially now have lost their sense of responsibility and duty as far as their gender goes. It's a shame. Men are turning more homo soy boyish because women want to be their boss in the workplace, whether it be in the police force, government, military etc. It's beyond sickening. Men are becoming more panzi like and the good ones still left aren't able to control the abusive ones because of sin and no morality in society. I think its a scourge from God punishing us for this among many other things by allowing the Muslims to slowly take over our world.
JoAnn, remember
Delete"He that is angry without cause, shall be in danger; but he that is angry with cause, shall not be in danger: for without anger, teaching will be useless, judgments unstable, crimes unchecked." Therefore to be angry is not always an evil.
From the Summa.
It would be a crime not to be angry at this level of unprovoked hatred and satanic dishonesty.
Anon @1:29 - I agree with everything you say. I don't think it is sexist for women to wear headcoverings. I always wear a veil. I also do not approve of women working in the police, military, etc. We are in a gender identity crisis lead by the LGBT, in my opinion.
DeleteJoAnn
Anon @12:45 - Why is it ok for you to call me a "feminist", but when I call you a "sexist" for calling me a "feminist" it is suddenly not ok? You assert you are not a sexist, and I assert I am not a feminist. Why should I believe you when you say you are not a sexist, when you won't believe me that I am not a feminist? You wanting everything "your" way. Smells of sexism to me.
DeleteJoAnn
Anon @12:45 - You presume to know so much about me and my "feminism". I, therefore, presume that you perceive any woman who exercise critical thinking and voices an opinion as automatically being "feminist". You probably think all women should be docile and not comment on blogs such as this one. After all women who voice opinions and actually think are all lumped together as big, bad FEMINISTS. That is MY presumption! Presumption can work both ways!
DeleteBy the way, I am NOT ex-Novus Ordo as you presumed me to be.
JoAnn
I have never been Novus Ordo in my life.
ReplyDeleteIt's funny how speaking critically about modern male violence and trickery makes one a "feminist" (or at least smell like one) but critical commentary on modern women makes one a "conservative".
I'm glad you've never been Novus Ordo in your life. (Not that you were being accused.) That's fantastic! Same here. Thanks for the info. So I am to assume you're a trad who smells slightly of feminism?
ReplyDelete"It's funny how speaking critically about modern male violence and trickery makes one a "feminist" (or at least smell like one) but critical commentary on modern women makes one a "conservative"."
It's not funny/strange in the slightest, my good woman, because you were doing nothing of the sort. What you were doing was a whole lot of ranting and raving without making any distinctions and without considering all of the angles. You were promptly pulled into line by Introibo, and you've since said nothing that counters his points.
So, it's more a case of you smelling slightly of "feminism" and Introibo giving off an odor of "objectivity."
You're probably a nice lady, and well-meaning, so may the good Lord bless you!
I also find it funny how I am accused repeatedly of having a victim complex, by men who are terrified of this fantasy future in which women can just send any man to prison based on nothing... who whine about white Christian males being vilified.
ReplyDeleteAnd why? Because I point out that of course the culture and legal system is biased against women, in a country that allows a gigantic violent porn industry to thrive.
I said nothing at all feminist. I never suggested that putting women in authority was a solution. I never said we should convict men on trumped up charges. I did say society is male dominated (this is just acknowledging reality) but I never said that it SHOULDN'T be. I am simply pointing out facts.
But yes, please keep lecturing me on the importance of evidence in criminal trials. I came in here to say "DON'T USE EVIDENCE IN COURT! JUST SEND ALL MEN TO JAIL!" But I stand corrected, and I could use some more wisdom on the importance bowing down to the white male idol.
Do you not realize that most women that are in porn WANT to be there? You're raging against it like men are forcing all these girls to do this for free when the women in porn make a lot more money than the men in porn so it's lucrative for them. These women CAN say no and work "normal" jobs and make a more honest living. I can't believe you can't see that and no one has brought it up. Porn is a nasty industry and shouldn't exist but it does unfortunately but acting like it's all the mens fault when women choose this "profession" is ignorant and biased. These women are victims alright....victims of their own greed and lust.
DeleteOf*
ReplyDelete"Al Sharpton will tell us the public won’t believe black people and the system is controlled by whites."
ReplyDeleteEven Al Sharpton tells the truth sometimes, even if he is just using it to push a harmful agenda. The system definitely isn't run by blacks, and I don't see them getting a lot of genuine sympathy either.
There's no need to go to extremes to avoid "smelling" like liberation theology or communism. Barking down any woman who points out the ways that men really do mistreat us, with false accusations of feminism. Feminism is a communist ideology where traditional sex roles are "transcended". Unless you believe that the sex role of males in the Catholic Church is to systematically abuse women, then I don't see where these accusations of feminism are coming from. And I think it is a sin to deny the obvious truth with your sheisty lawyering. You know very well that rapists getting away with their crimes is astronomically more common than men getting falsely convicted, and that Catholic men tend to automatically believe any accusation of abuse FROM A MALE VICTIM, while they are skeptical of females.
Go on, keep lecturing against the argument that I never made, that ALL MEN SHOULD GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL. It shows how honest and Christ-like you are, against the crazy atheistic feminists lol
“Catholic men tend to automatically believe any accusation of abuse FROM A MALE VICTIM, while they are skeptical of females.”
DeleteI have no idea where you get this statistic. I am EQUALLY prepared to believe both males and females; and my male Traditionalist friends feel the same.
My blog is one wherein I welcome the comments from ladies such as Joann, Barbara, and Michelle—as well as those who comment anonymously.
I made a statement in my post that I will not automatically give credence to someone who claims abuse years later. I need to know the person and hear the evidence.
From this I’m now reading about how men mistreat women and likening Traditionalist men to Mohammedans. The answer to the ills of our day is the Traditionalist Catholic Faith.
It is the restoration of the Church to Her former glory that we should strive to achieve. Even then, the aphorism holds true, “Life isn’t fair.” I had to overcome extreme poverty and many hardships as did my wife (a doctor). We are both successful by our hard work cooperating with God’s grace. Neither of us claim victim status.
Competing interests are hard to balance and while it’s true that more criminals get away, if you were the one innocent person to be calumniated and have your life and reputation ruined, you’d be glad we must have a presumption of innocence. It’s not a perfect system, but it’s currently the best on Earth.
Instead of African Americans wanting reparations from people who had nothing to do with slavery, and women claiming male domination of society, I suggest that for real improvement you “Seek ye first the Kingdom Of God...” which is what this blog tries to do, and help others to do the same.
—-Introibo
"I had to overcome extreme poverty and many hardships as did my wife (a doctor). We are both successful by our hard work cooperating with God’s grace."
DeleteThat's wonderful! I'm sincerely happy for you.
But if you were as poor as a church mouse and cooperating with God's grace that'd be the definition of success too.
@anon2:14
DeleteI agree with you 100%. I wasn’t referring to money. We are successful insofar as we help others in the way we feel called by God and didn’t blame others in overcoming obstacles to do what needed to be done to get here.
Now it’s our prayer to do the best we can fot Him. To whom much is given, much is expected. Money often gets in the way. St. Francis of Assisi embraced poverty and is more successful—in the true sense you mentioned—than I will ever be!
—-Introibo
Introibo - I was not “likening Catholic men to Mohammendans”. However, when I am being accused by Trad men as being a “feminist”, and last week I was told “not to get my apron strings in a knot”. What do you call that? It sounds Sharia Law like to me, that is all. Never mind the Trads that argue over the height of a woman’s heel on her shoe, the length of the skirt one wears and how much makeup is ok. I have never disparaged a person on this blog unless they disparaged and attacked me first. I guess they can dish it, but can’t take it. I will keep my mouth shut for now so I don’t further offend anyone else, or my comments misinterpreted.
DeleteJoann,
DeleteIt was disrespectful to make comments like the one you received last week. It’s not “Sharia Law” however. I respect you and your opinions. I always have and you know that. Realize that no two people will agree on everything. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t comment. The whole point is to share ideas, debate, and learn from each other.
No one should disparage you or anyone else. I have made a concerted effort this Lent to be more charitable in my remarks and expecting the same from everyone else.
Your many contributions to this blog have helped a lot of people. I hope you will continue to comment and speak your mind.
—-Introibo
@JoAnn
Delete"Never mind the Trads that argue over the height of a woman’s heel on her shoe, the length of the skirt one wears and how much makeup is ok."
I know what you mean, but there's really no argument. We have common sense, sensus Catholicus and clear guudelines.
Have you ever seen the Marian Dress Code of Pius XI?
THE MARYLIKE STANDARDS FOR MODESTY
IN DRESS
“A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers
breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to
the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses
of transparent materials are improper.” (The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI).
1. Marylike is modest without compromise, “like Mary,” Christ’s mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending at least to the elbows; and skirts
reaching below the knees.
[N.B. Because of impossible market conditions quarter-length sleeves are temporarily
tolerated with Ecclesiastical Approval, until Christian womanhood again turns to
Mary as the model of modesty in dress.]
3. Marylike dress requires full coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders and
back; except for a cut-out about the neck not exceeding two inches below the
neckline in front and in back and a corresponding two inches on the
shoulders.
4. Marylike dresses do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics —
laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. — unless sufficient backing is added.
However, their moderate use as trimmings is acceptable.
5. Marylike dresses do not admit the use improper of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do
not unduly emphasize the parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage — even after the jacket, the cape or
the stole are removed.
8. Slacks or ‘jeans’ are not to be worn to church.
Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible
rather than reveal it. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as
tight fitting slacks or ‘jeans’, sweaters, shorts; shorts which do not reach down
at least to the knees; sheer blouses and sleeveless dresses, etc. These Marylike
standards are a guide to instill a sense of modesty. Women and girls who
follow these standards and who look to Mary as their ideal and model will
have no problem of modesty in dress. She who follows these standards will
not be the occasion of sin nor a source of embarrassment or shame to others.
----------------------
Jacqueline Kennedy, née Bouvier adhered to these rules (at least when she attended Mass), She'd have looked fashionable and elegant no matter what the era.
"women claiming male domination of society". Are you saying that society isn't male dominated? Because that is insane. I didn't say it shouldn't be male dominated. But to say that it is male dominated is just to recognize objective reality. I guess women pointing out reality is on the same level as Africans demanding slavery reparations, according to you. And yet you claim to be objective and unbiased.
DeleteI could go without your patronizing platitudes.
Anon @4:42 - Thanks much for the Marylike standards! I have always tried to dress modestly even before I found Tradition. I just get upset when I encounter people getting dogmatic concerning dress, etc. to new people coming into Tradition. Thanks again!
DeleteJoAnn
I am not a "trad", I am Catholic. What is trad? SMELLS LIKE HERESY TO ME
ReplyDeleteShort for Traditionalist. That’s how True Catholics distinguish themselves from the counterfeit “Catholicism” of the V2 sect. It’s also a great proselytizing tool. When people ask me, “What’s your religion l?” I respond “Traditionalist.” The inevitable follow-up qurery is “What’s a Traditionalist?” This allows me to talk about the One True Church!!
Delete—-Introibo
I see what you are saying. I call myself a sedevacantist Catholic and if asked what sedevacantist means I tell them. If you say you are a Catholic or Roman Catholic people automatically associate you with Bergoglio and the entire novus ordo religion. If you say you are a traditionalist, people usually think you are a latin mass goer or part of the SSPX. I don't want myself associated with any of them either since they are in some way already in union with it or trying to be in union with it. That's just me though.
DeleteIf you think referring to a Catholic who adheres to tradition as a "trad" smells like heresy, your olfactory system needs a factory reboot.:D
ReplyDeleteYou mean the "tradition" of setting up for yourself a sacramental system outside of the juridical order of the Church using de facto Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology? The "tradition" of usurping papal authority under the pretense of a 60-year long "interregnum"? The "tradition" of Simon Magus where any man can grab his Orders by hook or by crook and exercise their powers outside of the jurisdiction of St Peter and his successors?
Delete@Unknown
DeleteYou mean you believe proselytizing is solemn nonsense? There is no Catholic God? God uses false sects as a means of salvation?
If Bergoglio is pope, then he is your rule of faith. If you believe what he says even atheists go to Heaven so what do you care about our “tradition”?
Go save the environment and leave the “small minded rules” about saving souls to us!!
—-Introibo
Look, I don't go to Novus Ordo mass, I don't even think Bergoglio or the others are legitimately elected. They probably aren't. It's not my place to declare it. However, that doesn't give any man the right to set up a solution or system of sacraments outside of the juridic order of the Church. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what kind of men show up for holy orders when you set up a free-for-all like that.
DeleteNone of the Vatican Two popes taught heresy ex cathedra. They never bind anyone to obey their twisted teachings, on the contrary, they throw off all authority. That's the name of the Modernist game. To say that Catholics must assent to every private opinion of the pope, or all of his public statements, even those that are heretical, is actually a heresy. You're twisting the teaching of Vatican One.
Yes, these Vatican Two popes are infiltrators. They're heretics. Their elections probably weren't even legitimate. This is the Great Apostasy. We must flee our own parishes to save our faith. But guess what? People who set up schismatic churches as a "solution" to what God Himself ordained are fools. God said He would send an operation of error, that he would strike the shepherd, etc. There is no "solution" to that, only resignation to God's will.
Worry about your own soul first. You can't even save yourself.
@anon6:03
Delete1. Set up a system of Sacraments? It’s a continuation of the Church
2. We don’t declare someone not legitimately the pope, we recognize the fact. No one declared the local abortion doctor a murderer, nor could he be declared such under Roe, but we recognize that’s we he is de facto.
3. The Traditionalist priests I know have been very holy. We never had to post bail, unlike the V2 sect!
4. No pope could teach heresy ex cathedra. The Holy Ghost wouldn’t permit it. However, Vatican II declares in Unitatis Redintegratio that non-Catholic sects are a “means of salvation” (para #3). It is an expression of the Universal Ordinary Magisterium which is equally infallible. Either the Church defected (heresy) or the pope fell from office as a private Theologian so it did not emanate from the Church. All approved theologians and canonists taught this could happen.
God would never allow us not to have the means of salvation. Are you a Home Aloner or some version of R&R?
—-Introibo
A continuation of what Church? A Church without need for the papacy. Where all you need are bishops "doing their own thing". It's Eastern Orthodoxy.
DeleteYes, Vatican II didn't come from the Church. Neither do these "trad" priests. The Church doesn't work like that, where you can just throw off the papacy and have a bunch of rogue bishops and priests with universal jurisdiction (which only the pope could have), seminaries, chapels, etc. outside of the authority of the Church. Each one "doing his own thing". The Great Apostasy doesn't give priests special rights to make their own rules and set up their own chapels. You can claim they're "holy", but their disdain for obedience and authority proves otherwise.
You don’t know Church teaching.
DeleteAccording to theologian Dorsch, "The Church therefore is a society that is essentially monarchical. But this does not prevent the Church, for a short time after the death of a pope, OR EVEN FOR MANY YEARS, from remaining deprived of her head. [vel etiam per plures annos capite suo destituta manet]. Her monarchical form also remains intact in this state.…
Thus the Church is then indeed a headless body.… Her monarchical form of government remains, though then in a different way — that is, it remains incomplete and to be completed. The ordering of the whole to submission to her Primate is present, even though actual submission is not…
For this reason, the See of Rome is rightly said to remain after the person sitting in it has died — for the See of Rome consists essentially in the rights of the Primate.
These rights are an essential and necessary element of the Church. With them, moreover, the Primacy then continues, at least morally. The perennial physical presence of the person of the head, however, [perennitas autem physica personis principis] is not so strictly necessary." (de Ecclesia 2:196–7; Emphasis mine)
Second, according to theologian Salaverri, instead of being a "primary foundation… without which the Church could not exist," the pope is a "secondary foundation," "ministerial," who exercises his power as someone else’s (Christ’s) representative. (See De Ecclesia 1:448)
See my post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/02/shameful-misrepresentations-of.html?m=1
—-Introibo
Yeah, except there actually is someone sitting in the papal chair, which the Church never deposed. Dorsch was talking about an actual interregnum, not Antichrist sitting in the papal chair, changing all laws.
Delete"It has been the neatest of diabolic tricks to get both the blindly obedient followers of Paul 6 and the Traditionalists to equate Paul 6 with the papacy. The first group does this by approving, or at least taking part in, the destructive program of Vatican II and Paul 6, erroneously taking it to be the Law. The second group looks for a Solution and Leader outside the papacy, and sets aside such laws of the Church as are found to be opposed to Traditionalist initiatives. One enterprising young Traditionalist priest comes up with "Necessity knows no law," grossly misrepresenting this from St. Thomas Aquinas, who applies it to a dying man's need for absolution. This twist of St. Thomas's "Necessity knows no law" is in complete harmony with Montini's action in completely "revising" Canon Law. The Traditionalists see themselves as the Church, with the law as an obstacle or advantage, depending upon the Traditionalist requirements of the day."
https://w-f-strojie-letters.webnode.com/l/upon-this-rock-no-18/
There is no need to depose a false pope. Who would depose him? False Cardinals with invalid orders?
DeleteYou’re Home Alone! See my post:
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-church-can-supply-jurisdiction-but.html?m=1
—-Introibo
Also, tell me how the monarchical form of the Church stays intact when none of your bishops have an actual diocese, none of the priests are bound to obey them but only choose them as their boss, like a hireling?
DeleteI know that monarchical form remains intact despite there being no pope, so if the Vatican II popes are false popes, that the juridic system still remains under their authority. The whole system is infiltrated by heretics, but it remains nonetheless. And the federation of sedevacantist simoniacs is clearly outside of this headless institution full of modernists, where only a few bishops and priests with valid orders remain.
You sedes twist everything, it's like talking to Satan himself.
Just because there is no solution, doesn't make your proposed "solution" Catholic.
DeleteOf course there is a need to depose a false pope. The Church has always deposed false popes so that we can move on, and it didn't declare every action from the papal chair null and void afterward, and especially not BEFORE he is even deposed.
Just because at this point, 60 years later, it is humanly impossible to depose these heretics, doesn't mean your simoniac priests and bishops have the right to do what they do.
You cannot read the signs of the times. The Great Apostasy is the work of God. There is no man-made solution to what God ordained. There are no human saviors of the Church that God himself allowed to be destroyed in fulfillment of apocalyptic prophesy.
Also, it's funny how you point out that the Church supplies jurisdiction -- not to the Modernist infiltrators, but to your "Traditionalist" priests, even though the common error is that the Modernists are the ones with jurisdiction.
Delete"Here is St. Robert Bellarmine's doctrine made Canon Law, that a heretic retains jurisdiction until his heresy becomes notorious and he is deposed by lawful authority. This law contradicts those who say that the Bishops have lost jurisdiction, and that, therefore, the Church will supply this authority to certain Traditionalist priests, most certainly to a Traditionalist Bishop if one comes along, acting on their own initiative. Quite definitely, Canon 209 indicates the opposite, that the Bishops retain their authority."
https://w-f-strojie-letters.webnode.com/l/upon-this-rock-no-18/
If you want to speak to Satan himself, call Frankie at the Vatican! The First See is judged by no one. Canon Law 101. Divine Law supersedes Canon Law. Hence, jurisdiction can be granted outside canonical norms. That’s why you don’t need a papal mandate to consecrate a bishop, since it is an Ecclesiastical Law rendered null because it would harm the Church.
DeleteAccording to Abp Purcell who inquired as to the possibility of a heretical pope, here was the reply:
According to the response given to an inquiring cardinal at the First Vatican Council, as related by Abp. Purcell:
No Pope has ever been a heretic.
If a Pope were to become a manifest heretic, he would immediately cease to be Pope because he would immediately cease to be a member of the Church
He would be deposed not by the Church, which has no authority over the Pope, but by God Himself, who has made membership in the Church dependent upon profession of the true Faith, on which the Church’s unity
depends (see Pope Pius XII, Encyclical Mystici Corporis, n. 22)
The Church’s bishops could declare the former Pope to have deposed himself — something that would enable them to remove the non-Pope
The very idea of a heretical Pope who nevertheless remains Pope is “injurious” to the papacy and thus to Catholic dogma
The declaration of a non-pope is much different than deposing a real pope WHICH HAS NEVER HAPPENED!! Including the R&R favorite of Pope Honorious.
I can read the signs of the times: it says “Don’t stay home alone!!” Otherwise you wind up electing a “pope” on a farmhouse with Theresa Benns!
—-Introibo
I already said they are fake popes. That doesn't give anyone the right to set up a new church outside of the juridical system of the Church where validly (?) consecrated bishops automatically have unlimited, universal jurisdiction, and apparently so do the valid (?) priests.
Delete"The Church’s bishops could declare the former Pope to have deposed himself — something that would enable them to remove the non-Pope"
Something which HASN'T HAPPENED and probably never will. And until it happens, the fake bishops including the fake pope retain their authority, because of common error. A heretic retains jurisdiction until his crimes are NOTORIOUS, meaning legally proved, by legal action. We have the right to avoid heretical clergy, we don't have the right to set up a new Church of Chaos.
I don't see the connection with Theresa Benns. It's actually your schismatic clergy who are talking about electing an antipope in the future. I have repeated several times that there is no human solution to this. This is the Great Apostasy, also known as The Apocalypse. There is no reversing what God has done. It's the end.
Anyway, very interesting how you accuse me of wanting to elect an antipope when it is the sedevacantist bishops who are talking about doing that very thing in the unforeseen future. It is always sedevacantists who do this. I don't declare sede vacante. I am declaring the Apocalypse.
V2 sect have set up a new sect.
DeleteAs far as being notorious, The public notice (notitia publica) required for notoriety is also present when the existence of an offence is “established in a public way” (constat publico modo).
This occurs, canonist Michels says, when it “is established through authentic public documents... because such documents of their nature are open to inspection by many people, and therefore necessarily bring with them public notice.” (De Delictis 1:140)
The authentic public digest for all the documents of the Holy See is the Acta Apostolicae Sedis. (See canon 9.) Publishing heretical decrees, pronouncements and encyclicals in the Acta would therefore render heresy notorious.
As the great Doctor Of The Church, St Alphonsus Liguori wrote, “If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.” Oeuvres Complètes. 9:232
The fall from office is the SIN of heresy, not the crime. Common error in no way allows a heretic to retain supreme jurisdiction as pope. No theologian or canonist has ever taught this novelty. I don’t know if any Sedevacantist bishops talking about an imperfect general council. That is an option. It is not necessary for a non-pope to be declared such in order for the Church to continue. He has no authority or valid orders (Bergoglio).
You question the validity of Traditionalist orders with question marks, yet valid conferral Of orders does not require ANY jurisdiction. To claim they are “illicit” is one thing—invalid is another.
Your contention that a heretic retains his authority until a legal procedure happens is shown false.
—-Introibo
You also don’t understand the very Apocalypse you seek to declare! According to Theologian Berry:
DeleteThe prophecies of the Apocalypse show that Satan will imitate the Church of Christ to deceive mankind; he will set up a church of Satan in opposition to the Church of Christ. Antichrist will assume the role of Messias; his prophet will act the part of Pope, and there will be imitations of the Sacraments of the Church. There will also be lying wonders in imitation of the miracles wrought in the Church.” (The Church of Christ, 119)
“There seems to be no reason why a false Church might not become universal, even more universal than the true one, at least for a time.” (ibid. 155)
An imitation Church with a false pope and false Sacraments! More universal than the True Church for a time. That presupposes a vital Church still existing.
Finally, here’s what canonists teach:
X. Wernz, P. Vidal (1943): “Through notorious and openly revealed heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgment of the Church…” (Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian 1943. 2:45.)
Udalricus Beste (1946): “Not a few canonists teach that, outside of death and abdication, the pontifical dignity can also be lost by falling into certain insanity, which is legally equivalent to death, as well as through manifest and notorious heresy. In the latter case, a pope would automatically fall from his power, and this indeed without the issuance of any sentence, for the first See [i.e., the See of Peter] is judged by no one. (Introductio in Codicem. 3rd ed. Collegeville: St. John’s Abbey Press 1946. Canon 221)
—-Introibo
"...therefore, the sedevacantist bishops and priests that I approve of constitute the hierarchy of the Church, each possessing unlimited, universal jurisdiction over the whole world."
DeleteOK. Believe this at your own peril, dear Catholics.
No. They have supplied jurisdiction. Big difference. As you have amply demonstrated you don’t understand basic teaching on notoriety, validity of Sacraments, or even Church teaching on the Apocalypse. Therefore you throw up a straw man in quotes which I never wrote. I’d much rather believe the approved theologians and canonists, then a self-styled “theologian” who would have us stay under spiritual house arrest.As for my readers and me, we will avail ourselves of the true Mass and Sacraments more necessary now then ever before.
Delete—-Introibo
Go ahead and avail yourselves of true (?) Mass and Sacraments, because OF COURSE jurisdiction would be supplied to any man of whatever background who obtains Holy (?) Orders by any means. The necessity situation calls for such opportunists -- ahem, I mean True Roman Catholic Remnant Savior Clergy (TM), excuse me. And the prophesy about the cessation of the sacrifice? Well, as True Roman Catholic Remnant Sedevacantists, we are special enough to bypass that. Just like Eastern Orthodox. But that doesn't mean we're schismatics. It's just a weird coincidence.
DeleteIntroibo, I appreciate you allowing me to use your platform even though we disagree strongly on many things. But let's call it a night. God bless you.
Delete*the necessity OF THE situation
Deletetypo
Hi Introibo,
DeleteIntroibo: "I can read the signs of the times: it says “Don’t stay home alone!!” Otherwise you wind up electing a “pope” on a farmhouse with Theresa Benns!"
No. All Home Aloners don't necessarily wind up electing a "pope." Some MAY do so, but it's NOT a given.
Do you agree?
@anon5:55
DeleteI agree.
—-Introibo
Maybe Theresa Benns thought she had supplied jurisdiction to become an elector. I agree with you 99% of the time Introibo, but you cant give a pass to one sede to consecrate a priest or bishop claiming supplied jurisdiction and declare someone elses claim of supplied jurisdiction to be silly. There is no authority to take this problem too at the moment. While I for not a minute believe David Bawden is Pope Michael, he has done what the remaining Catholics should have done a long time ago, elect a true Pope. The supplied jurisdiction that the sede bishops use to ordain others can also be used to appoint electors. Elections of Popes has always been a political issue in its essence, not a canonical procedural issue. That is why Michael Bawdens's election is to be shunned, not because it was in his mothers kitchen, it is to be shunned because of the questionable legitimacy of the electors. Put together a group of respected sede clergy and hold a conclave. The faithful will accept the results and the Church will be on its way to restoration.
DeleteYou are a very patient man Introibo. As I read your replies to this unknown home aloner you demonstrate everything very crystal clear. In my opinion that person is badly mislead. Feenyism and Home alonism (regarding jurisdiction) is an obsession and a sickness. I feel sorry for these people because I used to be a Feeneyite and at one point I realized that if I continued believing what he believed and what his extreme followers believe that I would be a heretic for continuing to believe it with nothing to support my position. It was unsettling. I wish those of the home alone persuasion would see through their own arguments.
DeleteTomA: "Put together a group of respected sede clergy and hold a conclave. The faithful will accept the results and the Church will be on its way to restoration."
DeleteThe naivety of the above is staggering.
So, are the SSPX included in "the faithful"? Will they participate in the proceedings? Good enough to hear their. Masses, good enough to participate, eh Introibo?
There is so much wrong with your statement that I don't even know where to begin.
In case you haven't noticed, sedes are in the extreme minority, and probably can't agree on which day of the week it is.
Actually, I'm sorry Tom, I'm being a bit negative. Join me in singing a verse of the Imperfect Council's theme song.
"Somewhere over the rainbow
Skies are blue
And the dreams that you dare to dream
Really do come true!"
@Tom,
DeleteAn imperfect general council is the way to go. However, sedeprivationism may prove true or perhaps Divine Intervention (small minority view). We must proceed with much caution.
See my post http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/09/when-can-we-say-habemus-papam-again.html?m=1
@anon8:42
Thank you for the kind words and I agree that Feeneyites and Home Aloners have a sickness of soul. You cooperated with God’s grace and had the intelligence to renounce your error. God Bless you!
@anon8:43
I don’t appreciate the nasty tone you take with Tom. Disagree strongly if you like but keep it civilized.
Traditionalists (Sedevacantism) is the extreme minority compared to R&R or the V2 sect? Please quantify “extreme minority.” Even so wasn’t the Church on Pentecost composed of less than 100 people in the world? That didn’t make them wrong did it? Pro-lifers are a minority in NY State. Doesn’t make them wrong either.
As long as your in the mood for singing, why not sing the theme song for R&R, Feeneyites and Home Aloners—-“Still Crazy After All These Years”
—-Introibo
Introibo -
DeleteLol I WAS keeping it civilized. You don't appreciate my nasty tone, followed by taking a "nasty tone" with me. What the...? :D
I'm sorry, but your song is HERETICAL. In conscience I can't sing it because I'm a Mass-attending Catholic whom believes the Apostolic See is currently vacant. See, you prove my point - suspicion, false conclusions, rash judgment etc. have prevented us from even agreeing on the council's theme song! ;)
We're not talking about right and wrong. Rather, about the very real potential for another "papal," sede debacle. Again, the sede clergy are a small mess, divided and prone to scandalous bickering. I was merely pointing out to Thomas, in a humorous way, that in this climate yours and his dreams of an Imperfect Council are a pipe dream/pineapple pie in the sky.
I think that Tom is far tougher than you give him credit for. I highly doubt my comments would faze him. But if you were offended I apologize. However, I do think that lately that you're being a bit of a mother hen.
But I don't want to rain on your parade, so by all means dare to dream, Introibo! Dare to dream! :)
P.S. If you don't want me posting here, just say the word. I'm not wedded to reading or posting on this blog.
All the best!
@anon10:23
DeleteAll are welcome to post as long as its civil with no blasphemy or vulgarity. You were, in my opinion, pushing the limit, hence my response to make a point. My apologies to you for misunderstanding where you were coming from—you’re not R&R. Yes, I do dream big dreams. I realize that an imperfect general council is difficult but nothing is impossible for God!!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
To the Anon with sacrastic tone, as a sede I am used to far worse than you dished out. And no I am not naive in the least bit. Yes we sedes are very small, but who cares. Lets hold that imperfect council with or without the SSPX. I do not think the SSPX or most R&Rers will ever wake up from their stupor and see the light of reason. So its time to move on. They have adopted a gallican view of the papacy and have held it way too long to come back now. The current crop of sede clergy have many differences but they can be worked out since none of them touch on dogma or doctrine. It can be done and by the faithful I mean the very very small number of sede faithful. We need a Pope. I truly wish the Dolans and Sanborns and Kellys of the sedes would bury their hatchets and sit down and elect a Pope. I would follow whomever they elected in a heartbeat. But until then they have absolutely no authority over me whatsover. Also, home aloners (I am not one) have a very good argument to stay home. Please dont lump them into the same camp as Feenyites. Feenyism has nothing to do with sedevacantism.
DeleteThis is anonymous @ 10:23 am.
DeleteIntroibo -
A big part of the problem (at times) here is that you are flying blind, as it were. A possible solution could be to put a notice at the bottom of every one of your posts which would read along the lines of: "Attention All Anonymous Posters! Please include your theological position or religious affiliation along with your message (e.g. R&R, Indult, SSPX, MHT, CMRI, Sedevacantist etc.). Failure to do so may result in your message not being published, at the blog administrator's discretion."
It should make your life easier knowing with whom you deal at the outset of conversations.
All the best!
@ Tom
DeleteIt's your favorite anon here. :)
Of course you're used to far worse - I only served you a dish of mild chili.
Tom: "I do not think the SSPX or most R&Rers will ever wake up from their stupor and see the light of reason."
I see. Ok. I disagree. I fall into Introibo's camp on this question, i.e., Introibo: "..but nothing is impossible for God!!"
I wouldn't be acknowledging whomever Kelly, Dolan and Sanborn elected in a fit. Btw, what about the CMRI? Do they get to help produce the white smoke?
I think you're mistaking me for someone else --- I never lumped Home Aloners in with Feeneyites. I never even made any comment about Feeneyites.
There possibly could be circumstances that would justify one staying home, but I suspect that I would disagree with your reasoning for doing so.
Yea sure CMRI could join the party too.
Delete@anon11:57
DeleteThat’s a very interesting idea! I’m going to seriously consider it.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo, With all the Anonymous posters, it does get very confusing. May I suggest that instead of Anonymous being used, if people don't want to use their real first names that they use bogus ones. But to be consistent about the name used so we know which person we are conversing with.
DeleteJoAnn
Thought this bible verse to be appropriate: Galatians 3:28-29
ReplyDeleteThere is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.
That’s a good quote!
Delete—-Introibo
JoAnn,
DeleteI along with Introibo love that quote as any quote from Scripture but since you brought up sexism to that other Anon. would you consider 1 Corinthians 3-15 sexist? Here is the what it says: "But I would have you know that the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man: and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven. For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head: because he is the image and glory of God. But the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels. But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge. Doth it become a woman to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering."
In other words if trad men are considered "sexist" would you consider St. Paul and the inspired Word of God "sexist?" Point is we live in a time where "gender studies" have been so perverted that the genders themselves are doing the opposite of what God and His Church commands them. Women should not act like they are the head of men which is what the head covering in Church represents. As abominable and evil as Islam is at least they don't laugh at the idea (as does most of the modern world) that men shouldn't be ruled by women. It's true that men and women are equal in some things like the quote you quoted regarding the eligibility of salvation being open to all because of the merits Christ's death and Resurrection.
Feminist want "the Church" to "ordain" women priests, they want men to stop being so "authoritarian," they want more women to have positions in authority in the workplace, military, and government. Most men nowadays are so de-sensitized or so soy boyish that they let it happen because they either don't care, like the idea, or just don't want to compete with any female because they're afraid of getting in trouble in many more ways than one. I've even been guilty of that before because I don't want to be in the dog house if you know what I mean.
I don't believe you are a feminist nor that you want to be, but when the word sexism is brought up, that is a word feminist like to use. Just sayin'
I do like many of your comments though.
Anon@9:46 - I agree with everything you say regarding the genders. Why is it ok for men on here to call me a feminist" but. When I reply by calling them sexist", they get all up in airs? It seems they can dish it out, but can't take it.
DeleteAlso, the verse you quoted, doesn't it also say right after it, "men love you wives as Christ loves the Church, and gave himself for it". Hardly anyone quotes that, but will quote about women and submission. Why is that?
JoAnn
Anon@9:46 - Everything you say about men being the head is right and good. However, what are women to do when the husband shirks his responsibilites, is a philanderer, addicted to drugs or alcohol, etc. Women in these instances and against their wills have been forced into taking on roles other than they were created.
DeleteJoAnn
It's not okay for them to call you that, but when you call a man a sexist it's like calling you a feminist or a feminazi. Both are simply not a good thing to say unless either gender is for sure certain and then if it is it's usually on like donkey kong. I know you aren't a feminist and I know you didn't mean it when you said it. If a lady calls me a male Chauvinist I tend to think its funny, but if I'm not in the mood I might call her something I shouldn't say or think. Men are typically highly competitive because it's in their nature (sometimes the fallen part of it shows).
DeleteThe verse I quoted I believe is separate from what you are thinking Ephesians 5:25, but I know what you mean.
Anon @12:38 - Well, why don't men quote and why didn't you respond to "men love your wives as Christ loves the Church and gave himself for it"??
DeleteJoAnn
If a woman has to work, then there is nothing wrong with it. I'm just saying that women nowadays are programmed to use the equal opportunity excuse in order to be in high places in the workplace, military, and government. Angela Merkel, women judges, women in high combat ranks etc. It's not that I don't think they can do it, it's just not their place according to God's design. Just like it doesn't look right when men are Mr. Moms and have wedding showers and cry during a lunatic chick flick.
DeleteI don't know why men don't quote Ephesians 5:25 often. It's beautiful. Men should love their wives as Christ loved His Church and unfortunately its at the point of no return because Satan is in control it seems.
Why don't trad women ever quote what came before that quote which states "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: Because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the church. He is the saviour of his body. Therefore as the church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Ephesians 5: 22-24
Anon @1:53 - I agree with everything you say. However, please tell what a wife is supposed to do if the "head" is a philander, drug addict, alcholic, etc.,and shirking their responsibilities? This kind of behavior by the "head" is hardly Christ like?
DeletejoAnn
It's a general question. How much is the husband into these kinds of things? Does the couple have any children and does he do it in front of them or alone? Can he control it to a certain point or is he out of control? Is he a control freak in a way in which he manipulates things to cover them up or is he open about it? Is he careless or does he know he has a problem and wants help? It just all depends. If your question is a worse case scenario then is it possible for the woman to seperate (not divorce and re-marry) for her safety sake or is it not? If it's not and the man is just outright abusive, foul, and unreasonable and the woman can't do anything about it, then all I can say is she should pray to St. Monica, St. Rita, and the Most Blessed Virgin Mary and do everything she can to slowly wean him off his addictions and if that isn't possible she could always call the police.
DeleteIs that a bad answer?
Anon 8:04 - Given any of the above case scenarios, how is a wife supposed to be subject and submit to such a husband?
DeleteJoAnn
Different anon here.
DeleteThere's a problem in the above post. Separation is only allowed for specific reasons, and it's ALWAYS with a view to reconciliation. If a husband is a chronic alcoholic, beats his wife and is an adulterer, for ecample, and just won't correct himself, there'd be justification for an ongoing separation. But you're getting into a very complex area of the law with all this.
Intoibo should have the manuals - why don't you ask him to look it up for you?
Clearly, in scenarios where the situation is severe, the wife does not have to be subject and submit - she's too busy fleeing to safety with the kids. In milder situations she just has to put up with the loser and pray that he corrects his behavior. But it's all there in the books. And what's in the books must be followed.
Thank you Anon 3:00 AM
DeleteIt is complex, but it all depends on each individual case. I think JoAnn is talking about the extreme cases. In most other cases I agree with you that the woman would mostly have to suffer. Consider a purgatory on earth.
There is a flip side as well. What if a man is married to a crazy woman and she is squanders everything that the man works for? I'm of the mindset that the man would have to suffer and offer up his sufferings because until death do them part they cannot divorce. Believe me, I know more men married to lunatic women then I do women married to total losers. I know one saintly woman who has husband who has abandoned her and she pretty much has to get help from her family to continue functioning. I also know some men who have wives that wont let them do anything (even if it is legitimately fun) without making him feel guilty for everything he does, even going to Church!
Introibo - IF a husband is an unbeliever, shirks his responsibilites, is a philanderer, alcoholic, drug addict, etc.,is the wife supposed to be subject and submit to the husband in those instances?
DeleteJoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteThe best remedy to having a happy marriage is not saying I do, until death do us part, until the person getting married is absolutely without a doubt certain of what he or she is getting themselves into. In other words, a person (either man or female) should not marry a loser in the first place thinking that it will work itself out in the future. If so, than the person who carelessly does that deserves what they get in the end and will have to suffer the consequences. The Sacrament of Marriage should be looked at the same way one is about to receive Holy Communion. You wouldn't dare receive Communion if you were in mortal sin or outside the Church, why should it be any different for a to be married couple to make any less preparations since it could be for a life time?
To Joann and all those in this comment thread:
DeleteI am at work and don’t have access to my library but I will gladly supply citations later if anyone asks.
If a spouse is abusive (husband or wife) and refuses to amend his or her life, the wronged spouse may separate bed and board. They must remain celibate and try to reconcile. The wronged spouse should consult with a Traditionalist priest.
Serious matters include (but are not limited to)
Adultery, physical abuse, mental cruelty, abuse of children, refusing to allow the practice of the Faith, substance abuse, etc.
While I agree with the comment that we should be morally certain before marriage, sometimes people change for the worse in a very serious way.
—-Introibo
It's anon @ 3.00 am here responding to anon @ 6.20 am.
DeleteYes, I agree, the individuality only adds to the complexity.
As for the rest of what you've written: I couldn't possibly agree more.
Likewise, thank you for your post.
Anon 6:37 - What you say is all well and good, but unfortunately we are imperfect people, living in an imperfect world. There are countless women who were deceived by deceiving men whose real selves don't manifest until after they say "I do". What you are saying is the ideal, but not reality, unfortunately. Many women are labeled as usurping the man's role when the man won't assume his role for various reasons and shirks their responsibilities. Many men get involved with things they shouldn't years after the marriage also. (I suppose that would be the woman's fault, also). There are many different scenarios and many women have been left to "Take charge" in a home situation because the man won't for many various reasons. You sound like you want to judge and blame the "women", or "blame the victim" for not being perfect in an imperfect world. It takes two - man and woman. However, I am glad you are not my judge, or any woman's judge for that matter.
DeleteI am, however, glad you are perfect. I, however, am far from it.
I hate to say or even think this, but with your kind of mentality, the NO is beginning to look good.
FYI - I just celebrated a 31 year wedding anniversary May 5th.
JoAnn
Thanks, Introibo, you've basically confirmed what I wrote earlier as anon @ 3.00 am.
DeleteAt your convenience, can you please give me the specifics of what you've got regarding "mental cruelty"?
Thanks
Introibo -
DeleteWhat anon @ 6:37 wrote IS all well and good.
There was zero offense in what he wrote.
"JoAnn," in her reply, starts out being reasonable but as her post progresses she becomes totally out of order.
It's about time you cautioned her, lest you lose readers due to her running roughshod over people with her rash-judging and sarcastic, condesceding tone.
No one is answering my question about submitting and being subject to a husband who is an unbeliever, who shirks their responsibilites, became a drug addict, etc. Is the woman to be subject and submit in such instances to a "diseased head"??
DeleteJoAnn
Anon 6:20 - Yes, it does work both ways. You probably know more men married to "lunatic" women than women married to "losers" because you are a guy and I know more women because I am a woman. In any event, thanks for the comments.
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteHe is a direct response: a woman is not bound to submit to a husband who is abusive. With the right to separate bed and board, comes the right not to submit until reconciliation.
—-Introibo
If a Trad woman is accused by her spouse of being in a "cult" and told she has to attend the NO should she submit and be subject to him since he is the head?
DeleteJoAnn
All those in this comment thread:
DeleteI will try to get a definition of mental cruelty from the theology manuals.
I think Joann is correct that being an abusive person is “equal opportunity.” Men will tend to find more abusive women from their experience and from their friends—-Vice-versa for women. Trust me, as a man I know quite a few sleaze bags among men. There is good and evil in both genders.
Let’s all keep sweeping generalizations out of this discussion. That can only rightfully lead to hurt feelings.
The tone for everyone (male and female) should be charitable. Disagree strongly but with charity towards all.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
@Joann 9:52
DeleteNo, she MUST NOT submit.
—-Introibo
Unfortunately we have no authority to bring these problems before.
DeleteHere's another direct answer, JoAnn.
DeleteLet's say a woman saw her husband steal a sizable amount of money from her best friend's purse. It's a sin. She still is bound to submit.
Unbeliever = sin. (If you marry an atheist he's still the head of the family.)
Shirker = sin.
Drug addict = sin.
He's still the head of the family. You're still bound to submit. (That answer is based strictly on the limited information you've allowed.) I alluded in an earlier post that Catholic marriage law is very complex. Within my family is a library about 5 times the size of Introibo's. If I had the time and inclination I'd delve right into this with you, even if your interest was only academic. If someone was in trouble (practical) I'd probably bend over backwards to assist.
If someone does need practical help, I'd suggest, just like Introibo suggests, you go to a trusted, traditional cleric and lay down all the details and curcumstances. He'll ask questions and then give advice.
Hi Introibo,
DeleteIntroibo: "All those in this comment thread:
I will try to get a definition of mental cruelty from the theology manuals."
Thanks. That would be useful. But what I'm primarily after is where and what it says in the manuals about "mental cruelty" being grounds for separation.
Anon @7:58 I perceived I was being condescended to by Anon @6:37 and didn't appreciate the tone. It works both ways. But before this big, bad "FEMINIST", (as I have been wrongly called more than once) is accused of driving people away from this great blog, you men can have the floor all to yourselves as I am bowing out.
DeleteIntroibo, thank you for everything!
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThank you for always bravely speaking up and commenting. You’re always welcome here.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
JoAnn,
DeleteI'm the one who defended you by saying you shouldn't be called a feminist but explained why you shouldn't call trad men in general sexist. You seemed to agree. I also tried to answer your question but it was a general question and not easy to answer. Another Anon 3:00 AM came in and I mentioned the flip side of things. The point I was making was men have it hard sometimes with lunatic women, just like women have a hard time with men who are total losers in life because of sin. How is that bias against women when I mentioned both? Just be patient and wait for Introibo to get off work and he'll explain what the theologians and Church says. His answer was better than mine the first time anyways.
I'm not a Mr. perfect in an imperfect world so #1 I forgive you. #2 I was fair #3 I'm glad you are happily married for so many years and hope you continue to have many more years to come. #4 Believe it or not I'm happily married #5 a.) Soy boys are a disgrace b.) Feminist are nauseating c.) LGBTQXYZ are an abomination. Is that bias or what?
I like to think of that song in the 70's from the show "All in the family"
Boy the way Glenn Miller played
Songs that made the Hit Parade.
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days.
And you knew who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.
Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days.
@anon3:00
DeleteHere is the answer to your query regarding separation of bed and board by reason of mental cruelty. Without any resources in front of me at work, I was basically correct but used the verbiage of a lawyer (occupational hazard I guess!).
According to Theologian Davis a permissible reason for separation is “When one party makes life intolerable for the other by savagery and cruelty. Constant quarreling (not merely bickering) and deeply rooted aversion and hatred are sufficient reasons.”
(See “Moral And Pastoral Theology” [1935], 4:226). It must be duly noted that separation must end as soon as the reason ceases, or can be reasonably expected to stop due to both parties working to repair the relationship.
What was described theologically would be commonly referred to as mental cruelty in the law of most states here in the USA.
—-Introibo
Is it also true that one needs permission from one's pastor or bishop to seperate from one's spouse?
DeleteIntroibo,
DeleteThanks. The reason for my inquiry was because I've never seen the term "mental cruelty" used (by the Church) as a reason for separation. It's terminology used by the Novus Ordites as a reason to annul marriages. I understand why you used it - you're forgiven. :)
"Constant quarreling (not merely bickering) and deeply rooted aversion and hatred are sufficient reasons.”
Constant quarreling can involve one or both parties becoming enraged, which can lead to murder. Making someone's life intolerable can lead to that person lashing out and killing the tormentor. It's pretty clear that it has got to be heavy-duty psychological abuse which is so bad it could have dire consequences should there be no separation. And, of course, separations must necessarily always involve a view to the parties reconciling.
Have you looked at other sources or just Davis?
Anon @6:37 - I wish to apologize to you for the "NO" comment I made in the above post. It was a rash statement and I am sorry. I do tend to get way to upset when I perceive people not seeing what I call "the big picture" so to speak. In any event, I was way out of line with the NO comment and I am sorry I made the comment and wish I could take it back. I would be absolutely mortified if I chased any people away from this great blog. Introibo, please accept my apologies also. I am very sorry. I in no way would ever want to do anything determental to this blog or to you personally. Please accept my apologies, I am sincerely sorry.
DeleteJoAnn
@anon6:12
DeleteI was able to look at Theologian Sullivan, but his work deals mainly with brother/sister relationships in invalid marriages. A fascinating study, and I’m sure there are principles to be extrapolated but I just don’t have the time. Next, I consulted Davis and found what he taught was directly on point. If I have time, I’ll try other sources, but I cannot make any promises with my time demands this month.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
@Tom,
DeleteNo, permission is not required, but it is highly advisable to seek competent advice from a Traditionalist cleric.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
@Joann,
DeleteApology accepted, but not necessary. We all get frustrated at times. You’ve been commenting here long enough that I know you’re a person of good character. I’m sure the anonymous commenter appreciates your sentiment.
I thank you for generating such great discussions! Never have I had these many comments on a “Singing For Satan” post!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteNo, it's ok, I understand you're time poor. I was just wondering if you'd looked at any other sources. I just looked at a book I had close at hand (a pre-VII Catholic marriage manual); it covered separations quite thoroughly. I may post some info from it when I get the chance.
I think Tom may be referring to the days when you definitely did need permission from the diocesan bishop to separate. Impossible now, hence your answer.
Introibo, What about abuse such as gaslighting, isolating one from family and friends. Constant belittling ones accomplishments and their person? Spending money vicariously and not being able to buy food as a result? Are situations such as the above considered mental cruelty?
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteI think it could be safely categorized as “deeply rooted aversion.” It’s a real danger if you cannot buy food. That and isolating the person from their family while denigrating them is highly abusive behavior.
—-Introibo
Introibo, I don't think there are any guarantees when one Weds, regardless of how careful one may be, that the marriage is not going to go south, or the wedding vows wouldn't include the words "for better or worse". The Church in her wisdom took this into consideration and implemented separation from bed and board in such cases as mentally cruelty. Just my 2 cents.
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteExactly right!
—-Introibo
Introibo and all else -
DeleteBut not to forget that the Church has specific laws and advice when it comes to separation, which in all cases must be looked at as not being permanent, meaning: one must, if possible (and to make it possible one has to work towards making it possible), work towards reconciliation, even in cases where the separation was due to extremely bad behavior. In other words, reasons for separation are not to be used to separate in a kind of de facto divorce. The Catholic Church doesn't allow divorce.
@anon3:03
DeleteYou are correct.
—-Introibo
Anon @7:38 - If you get time, it would be appreciated if you could post some info from your pre-Vatican II Marriage Manual. Also, could you post the name of the Manual? Perhaps it would be something that could be purchased. Thanks much.
DeleteJoAnn
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteWhat is your opinion on Country Music?
Thanks!
JoAnn
Joann,
DeleteMost country music today is decadent. There is an old joke “What happens when you play a country song backwards?” Answer: You get your wife, your dog, and your job back!”
—-Introibo
Introibo, If I ever listen to Country Music, I will make sure not to "play it backwards"!!
DeleteJoAnn
Stick with classical music.
Delete
ReplyDeleteHi...it seems we have gotten pretty far afield from the original topic, but it has been interesting reading.
To the most recent comments from readers who have named the Sedevacant theory as "satanic", "simoniac" and other such claims, may I say we have to have faith that God does as He wills for our spiritual necessity? Introibo says rightly that Divine Law is not trumped by Church Law. Unfortunately we have an absence of a true pope and prelates - due to their manifest heresies - whose job is to keep us mindful of the Divine Law and our duties to God, but we have what was established by the true hierarchy over 1,900 some years to be our beacon in the darkness. That is what the Sede profession basically is. In God's great mercy He has provided the faithful with a way of saving their souls through the continuation of the Sacraments that the V2 sect attempted (albeit unsuccessfully) to take away. Our good God would not leave us orphaned with no Church or He would not be good, but as bad as the heretics of V2! That's a blasphemy.
The events of these times can be very discouraging, so much so that the consciences of some may dictate that they stay home rather than attend the TLM and receive the Sacraments. No one can condemn them for their opinion and choice, but we Sedes have the right to our opinion as well. God doesn't make things more complicated than the average mind can grasp. All of us, no matter how bad or confused we feel, have access to prayer, especially the Rosary. Our Lady will protect us all if we go to her like children.
We need Faith in times of faithlessness, Hope in times of hopelessness, and Love more than anything.
Jannie,
DeleteThis is one of the best comments I’ve ever read! Thank you for sharing!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
That was a well written comment Jannie. It's strange how discussions can lead from one thing to the next. What I like about Introibo's website is that he generally lets a person post just about anything unless it's foul language and being civil. It's amazing that he with such a busy work schedule he has time to keep this site running while doing his normal work duties and putting up with our frustrations. Thank you Introibo for all you do.
Delete@anon4:23
DeleteIt’s comments like yours my friend that keep me writing! It is very tough indeed to keep this up with my job and family but I feel called by God to do something in this time of Great Apostasy.
I do allow comments to go where they will with few restrictions. The free and open exchange of ideas makes us all the wiser as we consider the perilous times in which we live. It’s interesting how informed readers like Joann can make the comments section better reading than my post! This started out with Duran Duran and went many places (I like it!)
Thank you again. On long workdays like today, a comment like yours means a lot to me. God’s work is being promoted through an unworthy person like me.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Keep writing as long as you can. I like your direct, to the point, no wasting time, get the crux of the issue style. It must be the New Yorker in you (I'm from the south). Plus you're informative as are many of the commenters. The only thing I can criticize is how when I post a comment at times I will have typos, sentences that make no sense etc. and I can't go back and correct even though I sit there and proof read it 3 or 4 times before I post it. So irritating when I still see goof ups. Oh well I think people will generally know what I mean. I'm sure with this kind of blog you can't help that. All is good though.
Delete@anon6:04
DeleteDon’t feel bad; many of my responses in the comments have typos. Proof-reading your own writing is difficult! With the exception of one comment that was written in part-English and part-some other language, I’ve never had any problems with understanding anything a reader has written.
Thank you for the encouraging words! I’ll keep writing as long as I can by the grace of God.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Anon @1:53 - You asked why women don't quote Ephesians 5:22-24. We don't need to quote it as the men quote it all the time and use it as a weapon against us. Sometimes, I think men would take the vote away from women if they could.
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteThis is not anon @ 1:53.
Could please follow Introibo's advice and not make "sweeping generalizations," like you've done in your above post @ 2:48 pm?
(Ref: Introibo: "Let’s all keep sweeping generalizations out of this discussion. That can only rightfully lead to hurt feelings.")
P.S. There are no "hurt feelings," this is just a reminder that you need to obey the rules just like everyone else.
I don't even know what you mean by "sweeping generalizations". Please clarify?
DeleteJoAnn
Anon @3:19 - Time and again I have been referred to as a "Feminist". Isn't that a generalization?
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
ReplyDeletePlease consult the information in the link provided for an understanding of what I mean, and what Introibo means, by a "sweeping generalization."
https://firmitas.org/logic-generalization.php
Joann: "We don't need to quote it as ***the men*** quote it all the time and use it as a weapon against us. Sometimes, I think ***men*** would take the vote away from women if they could."
The above are classic examples of sweeping generalizations.
The first assertion seems to apply to ALL traditional Catholic men whereas the second assertion is directed to ALL men, period!
No. Referring to you as a feminist is a ***specific charge/allegation*** against you. There's nothing sweeping or general about it.
I hope this assists your understanding.
Anon @10:14 I could sit here and quote loads of "sweeping generalizations" made by others on this blog. For some reason, however, you are targeting me as the sole perpetrator of "sweeping generalizations". I don't understand why a "sweeping generalization" is any worse than a "personal (false) allegation" which seems to be no big deal?
DeleteJoAnn
JoAnn,
DeleteThis is the Anon who defended you and who asked you the question about Ephesians after you asked me about the second half of Ephesians. I like your spunk and come to think of it, if men weren't such pansies in the past up to the present, we probably wouldn't be dealing with what we are seeing today. Although one can make the argument that if feminism didn't take off like it did we also wouldn't be seeing what we see today. Point is both genders have a lot to answer for in some ways. If my wife does something wrong and realizes it later, I'll say something like "you just had to have the fruit of tree" and then when I do something wrong and realize it later she'll say something like "you just had to eat the fruit which you thought would be good." In other words, we keep each other humble.
Interesting how you brought up about men taking away the vote from the women if they could. I don't have the quotes in front of me, but I know Pope St. Pius X on two occasions privately believed that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. However Pope Pius XII was for women voters so long as their vote counted towards preventing a greater evil. If I can find the quotes I will post them. If I'm wrong anybody out there feel free to correct me.
Honest, some of my favorite saints were women such as St. Catherine of Sienna and St. Joan of Arc. What's beautiful about them is that they knew their place and still were able to put men to shame in their day. It took great courage for St. Catherine of Sienna to go to Avignon and tell the true pope to return to Rome. It also took great courage for St. Joan of Arc a mere teenager to make France great again (no pun intended).
Anon @3:46 - Thank you for being so gracious. I agree that both genders have a lot to answer for. That was interesting what you shared regarding the 2 Popes. I worked as a Legal Secretary for years. For some reason the feminist Secretaries would not make or serve coffee when the attorneys asked them. I was the only Secretary that would make coffee and serve it to clients. I took a lot of grief from the other Secretaries for doing so. Also, I was the only Secretary who would run errands for the attorneys. I could never understand the feminist mindset behind these kinds of behaviors. Maybe, that is because I am not a feminist!!
DeleteJoAnn
Pope Pius XII spoke on women voting in an address called Questa Grande Vostra Adunata. He stated that Catholic women voting is a matter of satisfying conscience, that governance must be just, and that class warfare can lead to actual warfare and must be avoided.
Deletehttp://catholictradition.org/Encyclicals/questa1.htm
Infallible?
I am unsure whether he was endorsing women's suffrage as a matter of general principle or whether he is saying that, because women's suffrage is an accomplished fact, Catholic women must vote as a matter of defending Catholic principles. (Kind of like the 1917 Code of Canon Law stated a Catholic can collect interest at the prevailing rate, even though a world under the Rule of Christ the King would not permit such a thing, absent the extrinsic titles spelled out in the previous Papal documents.)
Representative government, is, and always has been, of course, a farce.
Anon @5:04 - Thanks for posting the above info. Very interesting!!
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
ReplyDeleteSo, you could you quote loads of sweeping generalizations made by others on this blog, eh? I wouldn't waste your time digging them up/making a career of showcasing them because it's irrelevant.
Now, SINCE Introibo has requested that blog contributors keep sweeping generalizations out of THIS discussion (in the last 2 days or so), can you show me a single example (other than your own)? Answer: No.
(Ref: Introibo: "Let’s all keep sweeping generalizations out of this discussion. That can only rightfully lead to hurt feelings.")
No. I'm NOT targeting you. There's NO ONE ELSE in the frame but YOU.
No one is saying that a sweeping generalization is worse than a false allegation? (Shall we talk about "strawman arguments" next?) And Introibo has supported you to the hilt. In return you're not adhering to his simple request. Those are the FACTS.
No offense, but my patience is beginning to run thin. Rather than acknowledging that you were making sweeping generalizations or after being told you were remaining silent, you've chosen to ask a question about sweeping generalizations (answered), ask whether being called a feminist is a generalization (answered), and lately accused me of targeting you (answered) and then concluded by deflecting with a strawman argument where you juxtaposed making sweeping generalizations with being called a feminist when that was never and is not issue.
Let's get back to square one.
1. Introibo made a request.
2. You were in violation of that request.
3. I pulled you up on it, ever so politely asking you to correct yourself.
Since then it appears that you are refusing to "own it."
Introibo in his wisdom has made his request because in his estimation sweeping generalizations can only rightfully lead to hurt feelings. They can also lead to anger, ill will, arguments and animus.
My original request still stands.
Thank you.
I couldn't "own it" as I didn't know what a "sweeping generalization" was. I wasn't aware "I was remaining silent". I thought the problem was saying too much. It seems nothing I say or do will be ok. If this is Introibo speaking, please let me know. I will just silently go away "no hard feelings", I promise. Sad yes, but that is to be expected. I am a big girl and will get over it.
DeleteJoAnn
Joann,
DeleteI never post anonymously. I post as "Introibo Ad Altare Dei" just like this comment. I respect my readers and their opinions. I will allow comments to go where they will with only a few restrictions:
1. No vulgarity
2. No blasphemy
3. Keep it civil
I do not want you or any of my readers to go away or stop commenting (unless they habitually violate the rules I just enumerated, and all my readers should know them by now). Your comments have sparked a lively and interesting discussion.
A "sweeping generalization" is the fallacy of applying a belief to a larger population than he should based on the information he has at hand. Many bigoted remarks are the result of this fallacy. Let's suppose I meet a Hispanic gentleman and he lies to me. Based on this experience I conclude "All Hispanic people are liars." This is obviously FALSE. The other ethnic and racial stereotypes come in this form:
* All African-Americans are criminals
*All Italian-Americans belong to an organized crime syndicate
Obviously, there's good and bad in all people, so some African-Americans are criminals, and some Italian-Americans belong to organized crime--but not ALL of them!
To bring this back to the instant discussion, when someone says "Men want to deny women the right to vote"--or verbiage to that effect, it is patently false. I'm a man, and I think women have a right to vote just as much as do men. When you are accused of being a feminist, that is hurtful to you because I know you are not. This is a personal attack on your character. However, anon@1:57 is NOT accusing you of such.
Keep the comments coming Joann, I've never had this many on a "Singing For Satan" post! Remember, that when you comment on a post (by "you" I mean anyone), there will be people who push back and disagree. You can push back at them as well. All well and good. Let's just keep out sweeping generalizations about men, and no one should make personal attacks on another. It was wrong, for example, when a commenter made a disparaging remark against you in a prior post because you're a woman. I will warn anyone who does so against it.
We are in the time of the Great Apostasy. Let's learn from each other and agree to disagree agreeably. We need unity more than ever, even when we disagree.
As the blog owner, I'm not immune from personal attacks. One enraged commmenter (whose comment was so "out there" I wouldn't dignify it by publishing it) said I was a "secret Jew" acting as "controlled opposition" trying to take people "out of the Church" from the R&R and into the "heresy of sedevacantism." His "proof"?
1. I'm a lawyer
2. I live in NYC
3. I don't like Adolf Hitler
You can't make this stuff up! Speak your mind and stick to the arguments. Don't let what others say get to you personally. Let it serve as a badge of honor--if someone has nothing to offer but personal attacks, they have no argument and you have been vindicated as to your position.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo, The reason I thought it might be you commenting was because Anon @1:57 was spelling my name "Joann" just like you do instead of JoAnn. (The real spelling of my name on my Birth Certificate is Jo Ann). So I guess my real first name is "Jo"!! Thanks for the explanation and examples of "sweeping generalizations".
DeleteJo a/k/a JoAnn, Joann!!
Joann,
ReplyDeleteNo. I am not Introibo. He would not come on here as an anonymous.
You could've owned it after I explained what a "sweeping generalization" is. You could've looked it up on the Net rather than asking me. But it's ok now. After all the back and forth I'm sure you now acknowledge what I originally wrote. Case closed, yes?
You misunderstood me. I was saying you could've simply typed "Ok. I forgot about Introibo's request." Or whatever. Or you could've just not responded, i.e., remained silent.
No. It seems PLENTY you say is ok. I notice Introibo often responding to you n a friendly, encouraging way.
I don't want you to go. Introibo has made it crystal clear he likes having you around.
The only thing I'd like is to be able to reason with you and other people here in a way which isn't so tedious.
If that's not possible I'll be leaving. Lol But I know it is possible. The only thing I don't like is being put through the paces over matters which should be met with a simple. "Ok. I understand."
Anyhow, I'm sure you'll continue to enjoy Introibo's articles and the ensuing debate here for some time to come.
@anon4:46
DeleteI hope you will continue to comment as well! Your comments are both intelligent and charitable. I'm glad to have such knowledgeable and thoughtful readers. I've learned a lot from my readers over these past nine years, and I'm truly grateful.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Re: "anon4:46
DeleteI hope you will continue to comment..."
Introibo,
Thank you very much for your message. It's appreciated.
Yours in J.M.J
Anon @4:46 - Yes, case closed!
DeleteJo a/k/a JoAnn, Joann!!
Joann,
ReplyDeleteI understand your confusion over the remaining silent comment. That's my fault. Bad punctuation. My only defense is that I'm using my cell phone to comment. Sorry about all the typos too. Again, I blame tne cell phone - it predicts and adds words etc. It's deplorable. I kid you not! Lol
Excellent article! We will be linking to this particularly great content on our
ReplyDeletewebsite. Keep up the good writing.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete