Meet "Private Judgment Patricia."
(The name says everything. As you'll
see.)
Patricia is a regular at her local
traditional chapel.
Ten years of marriage. Several children. A
domestic life that has grown heavy.
And lately... she's been doing a lot of
reading.
Blog posts mostly.
The kind with titles like "5 Signs
Your Husband Is Controlling"...
And "How To Recognize Emotional
Abuse Before It's Too Late"...
She's also been seeing a counselor.
A modern one.
The kind who hands her a checklist on the
third session.
And suddenly...
Everything her husband does gets a label.
He expects order in the home? Controlling.
He requires obedience from the children? Authoritarian.
He demands respect as head of the
household? Emotionally abusive.
He leads with a firm hand according to the
laws God Himself established? Toxic masculinity.
Never mind that the Church has always
taught that the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the
Church.
(Ephesians 5:23)
Never mind that order, obedience, and
respect within the family are not abuses...
They are obligations.
Sacred ones.
But Patricia has a new vocabulary now.
And a new community to validate it.
In chapel community groups.
In private conversations after Mass and at
brunch.
In the quiet, incense-heavy circles where
bad ideas are not immune.
And somewhere in those conversations, a
conclusion forms.
"There's no bishop here. No
tribunal. No Ordinary to answer to."
"So I will judge this myself."
On a Tuesday morning, Patricia moves into
her own residence.
She sits her husband down.
Looks him in the eye.
And tells him she is not asking for a
divorce.
"I would never do that," she says.
"We're still married. I just cannot
live under your roof anymore."
"I cannot continue to submit to
your will."
Then she opens her Bible.
Ephesians 5:25.
"Husbands, love your wives as
Christ loved the Church."
She slides it across the table.
"You don't love me the way Christ
loved the Church," she says.
"Because I don't FEEL loved anymore."
And there it is.
The feeling.
The blog post.
The counselor's checklist.
All of it weaponized to justify walking out
the door...
While technically keeping her hands clean
of the word "divorce."
And she begins her new life as an
independent woman.
Patricia's story is not an isolated
incident.
It is a mirror reflecting a widespread and
growing error.
Many spouses in traditional circles have
come to believe that the current state of the Church grants them a "private
right" to separate on their own accord.
Especially when the modern world has handed
them a ready-made excuse wrapped in therapeutic language.
So long as nobody files paperwork... it
isn't really a sin.
This is a grave theological and canonical
mistake.
Catholic teaching is unequivocal:
Marriage is a public sacrament.
Its bond is indissoluble by any human
power.
And the right to separate is never a matter
of private whim — never a matter of hurt feelings — and never a matter of
therapeutic checklists...
Even, and perhaps especially, in a time of complete
modernism.
The Public Nature of the Sacramental
Bond
The foundational error in the
"self-separation" of some ill-informed Sede’s is the belief that
marriage is a private contract that can be rescinded when the parties feel it
has "failed." On the contrary, the Church teaches that marriage is an
intensely public act with profound social and sacramental consequences. The
contract of marriage between two baptized persons was raised by Christ Himself
to the dignity of a Sacrament (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1012; Moral and
Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 64). Because it is a
Sacrament, the marriage bond falls under the exclusive and independent
jurisdiction of the Church, not the state, and certainly not the private
judgment of the spouses (The Sources of Dogma, Heinrich Denzinger, n. 1500a;
Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh,
O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2785).
When a couple stands before a priest and
witnesses, they do not merely make a promise to each other; they enter into a
"lasting conjugal union... raised to the dignity of a Sacrament" (A
Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p.
4). This union is modeled on the relationship between Christ and His Church,
which is perpetual and unbreakable (Moral Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap.,
n. 744; Ephesians 5:22-32).
The Grave Obligation of the Common Life
and the Conjugal Debt
The Church’s law regarding the "common
life" is a rigorous obligation. Spouses are bound sub gravi (under
pain of grave sin) to live together and maintain the community of life (Moral
Theology, Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., n. 128; Moral and Pastoral Theology,
Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 147).
This "common life" or cohabitatio
is demanded by the very nature of the marriage promises (Moral Theology: A
Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles
J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2626).
Furthermore, we must recognize the gravity
of the marital obligations themselves. To separate means to refuse the marriage
debt, which is a mortal sin (A Catechism for Adults, Rev. William Cogan, 1958,
p. 143).
The rendering of marital dues is an
obligation of justice; to refuse marital relations for a whim or minor
inconveniences is to violate a grave contract and expose the partner to sin
(Moral and Pastoral Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 202). Leaving the
domestic roof without a legitimate and certain cause is defined as the
"delict of desertion" (Catholic Encyclopedia, "Divorce,"
Vol. 5).
The 1917 Code of Canon Law is explicit:
"Married people are bound to preserve a community of conjugal life unless
a just cause excuses them" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1128; Cohabitation
and Separation of Married Persons, Rev. Culvar Bernard Alford, p. 1).
The Strict Standard for Permanent
Separation (Adultery)
The Church allows for permanent separation
only in the case of adultery, and this is hedged with strict evidentiary
requirements. The adultery must be "morally certain" and not
"condoned" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1129; Moral and Pastoral
Theology, Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 149).
In this context, "certainty"
refers specifically to the carnal act itself. It is not sufficient to point to
"kissing" or even "fellatio" as grounds for permanent separation.
While these are grave sins of impurity, the legal ground for separation
requires the consummated act of infidelity (A Commentary on the New Code of
Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 225). "Moral
certainty" requires objective proof, such as:
- Direct Evidence: Witnessing the act
itself.
- Confession: A voluntary and
definitive admission.
- Biological Proof: The birth of a
child that cannot biologically be the husband’s (Moral Theology: A
Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, John A. McHugh, O.P. and
Charles J. Callan, O.P., Vol. 2, n. 2831; Moral Theology, Heribert Jone,
O.F.M. Cap., n. 763).
Unbearable Cruelty vs. Modern
"Incompatibility"
A frequent excuse for temporary separation
in traditional circles is "mental cruelty" or "misunderstandings."
However, the Church’s standard for saevitia (cruelty) is absolute. As
William J. Doheny notes:
“Unbearable Cruelty Which Renders Conjugal
Life Insupportable [is a ground for temporary separation …] The Latin term saevitia
means excessive or unbearable cruelty, harshness, extreme severity, fierceness,
and barbarity. What is called cruelty, by way of travesty, in modern divorce
courts could not be viewed as saevitia, in the sense of canon 1131 §1.
Hence, the so-called incompatibility of
temperament, divergence of views, and the like would not be considered
sufficient to invoke separation” (Canonical Procedure in Matrimonial Cases,
Volume II, Informal Procedure, William J. Doheny, 1944, p. 634).
Frequent quarrels are likewise
insufficient. Marion Gibbons clarifies that the Holy See does not regard them
as a "just cause":
“Frequent
quarrels, in themselves, are not regarded by the Holy See as a ‘just cause’
even for a temporary separation, as is clearly seen from a decision of the Rota
in the year 1928… In this case the alleged cause in modern parlance would have
been termed ‘incompatibility of temperament’… The Sacred Rota declared that the
frequent quarrels were due to avarice rather than ‘implacable hatred,’ and
refused to grant a temporary separation inasmuch as a ‘just cause’ was not
present” (Domicile of the Wife Unlawfully Separated from her Husband, Marion
Gibbons, 1947, p. 62-63, citing Roman Rota, coram Florczak, June 30, 1928).
The Roman Rota explicitly states that
“[L]ight injustices from abusive words or the incompatibility of the
personalities of the spouses which make cohabitation troublesome cannot be
considered as sufficient causes to separate the spouses” (Roman Rota, coram
Florczak, June 30, 1928, par. no. 2).
Physical and Spiritual Peril
Temporary separation is permitted for
"grave bodily or spiritual danger" (Code of Canon Law, Canon 1131,
§1). Physical peril includes severe beatings or threats to life, not merely a
"stern" husband. Spiritual peril involves being forced into mortal
sin, such as "onanistic" practices (contraception) or being forced to
provide children with a non-Catholic education (Moral and Pastoral Theology,
Henry Davis, S.J., Vol. 4, p. 147; The Kingship of Christ and the Conversion of
the Jewish Nation, Rev. Denis Fahey, p. 110).
Non-Catholic education refers to formal
acts like enrolling children in secular schools where "immoral
doctrines" like radical feminism are mandatory, or taking them to
heretical services (The Casuist, Vol. 5, p. 1; A Commentary on the New Code of
Canon Law, Charles Augustine, O.S.B., Vol. 5, p. 363). In these cases, the
spouse may separate only while the danger persists and must resume life as soon
as it ceases (Canon 1131, §2).
The Duty of Reinstatement and the
Restoring of Cohabitation
The modern "self-separation"
movement ignores the right of the deserted spouse to demand the restoration of
the union. When one partner leaves on their own authority, they commit a
"spoliation" (spolium) of the other’s rights.
“Either of the pair leaves the other of his
or her own authority; for the one who is thus left is unjustly deprived by the
other of his conjugal rights… the rule is, that the ecclesiastical judge, upon
due application by the injured party, should, speaking in general, forthwith decree
reinstatement—that is, restore him or her to his or her conjugal rights by
obliging the party that left of his or her own accord to return” (Elements of
Ecclesiastical Law: Vol. II, Fifth Edition, Rev. Sebastian Bach Smith, 1887).
This is not a matter of personal
"space," but of legal and moral restitution. The deserting consort
should be "entreated to return" and the judge may use judicial
actions to force that return if the reason for departure was unjust (Canonical
Procedure in Matrimonial Cases, Doheny, 1944, p. 659; The Canonical Procedure
in Separation Cases, James P. King, 1952, p. 90).
The Jurisdiction Trap: The Role of the
Ordinary and Civil Filing
The central error of
"self-separation" is the belief that a lack of an Ordinary grants a
wife jurisdiction over her own case. This is false. Even if a marriage were
truly invalid, "no priest, however certain he may be of the status of such
a case, can pass judgment on it" (The Casuist, Vol. 5, p. 15).
Furthermore, to file for civil divorce
without the Bishop’s permission is a grave sin. In the United States, Article
126 from the Third Plenary Council of Baltimore stated it was a "grave sin
to file for civil separation (or divorce) without first having the Bishop’s
permission". This requirement is maintained in Canon 1692 §2, which
specifies the Bishop "can grant permission to approach the civil
forum" only after weighing special circumstances. Without this, the party
is practicing "ecclesiastical anarchy."
Consequences: Custody, Support, and the
Harm to Children
When a separation occurs, the Church’s laws
on the effects are clear and prioritize the innocent party.
- Custody: "After the
separation, the children are to be placed in charge of the innocent
party" (The New Canon Law, Stanislaus Woywod, 1918, p. 231; Canon
1132).
- Support: If a husband causes the
separation, "he is bound to support her [the wife] for the rest of
her life... in the same manner he was supporting her before the separation
took place" (The Canonical Separation of Consorts, Rev. Eugene
Forbes, 1948, p. 239). The "guilty" party does not get to walk
away from their financial obligations. […] If the
mother were the cause, they [the children] were to be raised by the father
at the mother’s expense, especially in a case where she was wealthy” [pages 239, 241]).
The harm to children is the most
catastrophic consequence. Separation deprives them of the "stable
environment" necessary for moral development, often turning them into
"orphans of living parents".
Conclusion: Fidelity as a Counter-Revolutionary
Act
In an age of "no-fault divorce" and "fickle whim," the traditional Catholic family must be a sign of contradiction (Encyclical Letter Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII). The "story of Patricia" must end not in an apartment of her own, but in a humble return to the domestic roof. Fidelity in the desert requires a traditional obedience to the husband as head of the family and to the unbreakable laws of the Sacrament. To leave a husband on one's own accord is to follow the path of the world; to stay and carry the Cross of Matrimony is the only path to the Kingdom (Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas, Vol. 2, n. 2787).
Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this article. Divorce is no use in the Philippines because we are still Catholic despite the Novus Ordo scum here in the country.
Meanwhile, you may check out my post about the militant priest of Cebu, Father Julian Bermejo. Please always remember him in your prayer and mass intentions: https://tradmasscebu.blogspot.com/2026/03/prayer-for-cause-of-fray-julian-bermejo.html
Ryan,
DeleteThank you for sharing the link! I will remember Fr. Bermejo in my prayers and ask all my readers to do the same.
God Bless,
---Introibo
A good post to re-establish the truth on things becoming obscure. "Keep what you have" and don't disregard these things because of the weight of the current situation (Apoc. 2:25).
ReplyDeleteFr. Ojeka wrote something I consider to be a companion piece to this one: https://frtjojeka.blogspot.com/2026/03/womens-nagging-vs-mens-refusal-or.html
cairsahr_stjoseph
DeleteThank you for the link!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Don't forget about the relationship of the monster (mother) in law. I'm perfectly happy with my marriage, but my mother in law is a nut.
ReplyDelete@anon6:40am,
DeleteLOL! I laughed out loud when I read your comment. There are many people who are in the same boat as you. When Jesus said He came to bring the sword and he mentioned the various divisions among family members, I don’t think it was too hard for many people when he got to the part about a mother-in-law vs. a daughter-in-law. We could add son-in-law too. I feel for you my friend!
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior,
DeleteMy mother-in-law is the type who attempts to make you feel guilty when you don't do what she wants you to do. If you persist, she'll do one of two things: She'll go out her way to make an example of you out of spite or will act like a victim when you defend your actions.
Maybe I should write an article about dealing with the in laws, but I will say there is NOTHING wrong with being single for those who are single. Cherish it. If somebody wants a happy marriage, find a woman like I did which is through perseverance and being picky. I had a strict standard. #1 I will ONLY marry a sedevacantist who takes her faith seriously #2 She will not be apart of any clicky trad groups. #3 She will need to be willing to stay at home once we have kids (oops, I used a forbidden word) while I do my part in providing. #4 She must not be high maintenance and a rich snob.
Thankfully, I found what I was looking for even though it took awhile and I've been happily married going on 16 years.
@anon5:38am,
DeleteThank you for sharing that. I like your criteria. Those 4 items you listed are all good criteria. I am glad that you found what you were looking for.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
Divorce destroys children in ways untold. The fact that anyone would divorce their husbands on a whim is a level of evil I cant understand.
ReplyDelete@anon9:57am,
DeleteYes, you are correct. Children suffer from this sadly in so many ways. It is heartbreaking!
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Thanks Ozson for an outstanding writing . Our world is sinking fast and everything like marriage is coming apart. As an middle aged person who has never had any success of finding someone to marry, it breaks my heart to see how far things have gone. As Anon 9:57 AM stated , divorce destroys children in ways untold. The number of men and women choosing to stay single is on the uprise. God bless
ReplyDelete@anon11:20am,
DeleteYou are correct. The number of single people is skyrocketing. I came to terms with this a few years ago that I very likely could remain single for my entire life. It is sad with how far society has fallen.
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Traditional marriages, in The Catholic sense, are very difficult to come by today. They hardly exist. The three waves of feminism have created the modern day woman which is in complete rebellion against her nature. The first wave was about voting rights, which women should not have as a right. I’m against voting anyway, and support political systems that are closer to a Monarchy, Aristocracy, or Medieval style feudalism where Kings are totally guided by the Catholic Moral Law. You can have forms of democracy on the local level or in small groups deciding particular issues, but a democracy can’t function on a large scale where hundreds of millions of people with thousands of different identities are trying to gain political outcomes for their side. You have people in western liberal democracies debating things like infanticide, the morality of suicide, theft, and religious liberty, sodomite pride as a national religion and so on. There is no debate on certain moral issues only God’s Law. What about a Constitutional Republic? Well, that actually means nothing. The Constitutions of countries are just words on a piece of paper and the people in power can bend the Constitution to suit their interests anyway they want. This county’s Constitution is based on Freemasonic principles and Enlightenment ideals. The big corporations, foreign lobbying groups like AIPAC, and the banksters control things, not your vote. Besides, power comes from God above, not the people. We keep hearing “we the people”. Have you seen the people? Have you experienced what the fallen nature of man is capable of in this demented world controlled by the devil himself. Anyway, second wave feminism was about social equality and murdering ones own children and using contraception to snuff out life. Remember contraception is the earliest form of abortion and abortion is late stage contraception. Its grotesque and horrid. It’s very evil. Now the third wave feminists are all about ecofeminism, bizarre and delusional gender theories hatched in the dungeons of Hell, and other freakish and nightmarish ideas that their minds have been polluted with over the years. Look at the modern woman…..
ReplyDeleteCONTINUED……
ReplyDeleteActually don’t look. Have custody of your eyes since most are dressed like prostitutes and they have no respect for the nature God gave them. They have rejected their beauty and purpose for tattoos, immodest dress, promiscuity, vulgar tongues, materialism, barren wombs, wine sipping, careers, and being dog moms. This is the modern day female. No virtuous man wants to be anywhere near these women. It’s the weak backwards hat wearing, sports worshipping, effeminate men who allow these women to behave like this. Why are loud mouthed women, especially emaciated vegans having tantrums, allowed to control our society??Certain more powerful people let them of course, in order to destroy the traditional family. You also have The PUAs, gym rats, and muscle bound meatheads who think they are manly because they lift weights and satiate all of their carnal impulses. These are just men behaving like animals, weak men who are controlled by their carnal appetites. Saint Joseph is the model of real masculinity. Anyway, I’m not called to marriage. I’m very picky and will not risk divorce, my kids being damaged, and a train wreck marriage that has become all too common these days because of feminism and weak men who allow it. There are good women, but they are very hard to come by. Do not let false “trad” women fool you with their exterior piety that exists only on Sundays. Many of them have been infected with the modern day female ideology as well, maybe only on a level that not even fully aware of themselves.
@anon4:54
DeleteAs to forms of government, Aquinas (among other theologians) held that a Catholic Monarch (like King St. Louis IX) is ideal, but other forms of government are acceptable. The reason governments like ours don't work is --Vatican II. The number of Catholics is miniscule today and the V2 sect ruins everything. All Catholic countries are gone, and we are not getting them back.
Women should absolutely have the right to vote, and never did the Church condemn such.
There is much wrong with modern men and women. My wife is a high paid professional, modest, and God-fearing. She has better sense in many ways than me.
Don't fall into the "incel" misogyny trap.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I never said other forms of government aren’t acceptable. Read the comment before you start citing Saint Thomas Aquinas. I said that “I support” certain types of governments. I then wrote a concise critique of democracy/Constitutional Republics and why they don’t work well at all in pluralistic, individualistic, hedonistic societies. We all see how the failure of western liberal democracies right before our very eyes. Vatican II has played a major role in its demise but the cultural rot and political dysfunction and revolutionary malice against ordered society and The Church started long before Vatican II. The enemies of The Church have been plotting the downfall of The West and The Church for centuries. We know who the vectors Satan uses to spread chaos and depravity and moral corruption are in this world. They are Satan’s mercenaries and are behind things like The Protestant Revolt, Islamism, Heresies against The Church, The French Revolution, Communism, Counter Cultural Revolutions, Vatican II and more.
DeleteThe Church hasn’t spoken on every single moral issue known to society. Women didn’t have the right to vote until the early 20th century. In some places the late 19th century. By this time the modernists were almost in full control. Sadly, the forecast wasn’t made to see what women being able to vote leads to in western liberal democracies. Some vote “conservative”. What does that even mean the word “conservative”? It just means classical liberalism. An earlier form of liberalism that has turned into full blown liberalism. What do a substantial number of women vote for? Can you guess? Social equality, abortion on demand, readily available contraception, no fault divorce, more pay for less work in the workplace, unfettered immigration, sodomite degeneracy, and all the other demonic stuff that goes along with it with their emotional and irrational views of the world. The role of women is not in the workplace or politics. They have a specific purpose in the home, unless there is an extreme necessity for them to find a job. You use the language of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and other rabid feminists. The word “misogynist” is a loaded and weaponized term used by the radical left. Another buzz word to try and smother Truth and reality. It’s like when Mark Levin screams “antisemitism” over and over again for criticizing Zionism. The words are meaningless clap trap used by the left.
Don’t fall for the beta male, hen pecked trap. If you haven’t already.
Your wife is a high paid professional? This is totally disordered and modernist. For what reason does your wife need to work? There is clearly no necessity. Are you childless? If you are, why? Is there a legitimate reason? Women don’t belong in positions of power or superiority or doing jobs men were designed to do. It’s just common sense. Men and women are different. Women chasing careers and being high paid professionals is unnatural. They have to behave like men to do those things, and often times they are an occasion of sin for men when they are in the workplace. They also exhibit toxic traits that are not suited for the workplace like gossip, vindictiveness, pettiness, control hunger etc etc etc….I never take a female boss seriously because her domain is in the home. Women are not superiors, except in the modern world where harridans and screeching feminists on birth control pills try to control everything. Women should not be in the military, if I ever see two women getting onto my flight to go into the cockpit to fly the plane, I will get off that flight immediately. Why? Because I have common sense. There is a natural order of things.
DeleteWomen should never have been given the right to vote. This has been a bane to western civilization. Women are gullible and can be easily manipulated into groupthink. They were sold voting rights, careers, transient relationships, sterile relationships, and infanticide. They vote for all this evil stuff. Voting is useless anyway. It’s like smoking cigarettes to cure lung cancer. People lost their jobs, were doxxed, spent countless hours voting for the egomaniacal liar Trump. What did they get? Trump through his supporters under the bus a number of times. He supports abortion, LGBT filth, has started another Zionist war for Israel. He hasn’t hardly deported anyone here illegally because he is more worried about Israel first. Trump is a never Trumper. He is surrounded by the swamp. He is up to his neck in the swamp. Every major American city is an open air insane asylum that smells putrid where the dregs of humanity are roaming free committing unthinkable crimes. People can’t afford housing, wages haven’t kept up with inflation, jobs shipped overseas, Hb1 visas, gasoline through the roof, layoffs becoming part of the corporate world more and more. But people will keep voting for the uniparty. They’ll just vote ever few years and hope for the best as the uniparty gains more power and the middle class becomes impoverished. We’ll be told that The Church doesn’t condemn democracy explicitly. I agree, but we can certainly provide explanations on why democracy is a horrible political system. The Church also doesn’t hold it up as something great. The Church does condemn religious liberty, freemasonry, and Liberalism. Where do we find those things. If you guessed America, you are correct. The U.S. government and the social revolutions in this country, which come from Protestant Liberty of conscience and Freemasonry are undeniable condemnable.
Delete@ Nick Fuentes (or his kindred spirit above)
DeleteYou write: “I never said other forms of government aren’t acceptable. Read the comment before you start citing Saint Thomas Aquinas. I said that “I support” certain types of governments. I then wrote a concise critique of democracy/Constitutional Republics and why they don’t work well at all in pluralistic, individualistic, hedonistic societies. We all see how the failure of western liberal democracies right before our very eyes."
Reply: I never said you denied other forms of government were unacceptable. Every Traditionalist must work for a Catholic country. Modern governments are corrupt for certain.
You write,” The Church hasn’t spoken on every single moral issue known to society. Women didn’t have the right to vote until the early 20th century. In some places the late 19th century. By this time the modernists were almost in full control. Sadly, the forecast wasn’t made to see what women being able to vote leads to in western liberal democracies”
Reply: Yes, the Church has always spoken towards every major moral issue from 33 to 1958. If women voting was “immoral” or “wrong” you would have certainly read the condemnations from the likes of Pope Leo XIII, Pope St. Pius X, Pope Benedict XV, and Popes Pius XI & XII. Oh, but the “Modernists were almost fully in control.” You sound like a Vacancy Pusher or Diamondite that tell us that approved theologians are heretics since the “rot began before Vatican II.” Ask nutjob Richard Ibranyi who says the Vacancy began in 1130.
You write, “What do a substantial number of women vote for? Can you guess? Social equality, abortion on demand, readily available contraception, no fault divorce, more pay for less work in the workplace, unfettered immigration, sodomite degeneracy, and all the other demonic stuff that goes along with it with their emotional and irrational views of the world.”
Reply: No. Blame the Vatican II sect. Obama received 56 percent of the Catholic vote and 69% of U.S. Catholics have supported sodomite “marriage” since 2016 https://news.gallup.com/poll/322805/catholics-backed-sex-marriage-2011.aspx. Without Christ’s Church all goes to Hell, literally.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write, “The role of women is not in the workplace or politics. They have a specific purpose in the home, unless there is an extreme necessity for them to find a job. You use the language of Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and other rabid feminists. The word “misogynist” is a loaded and weaponized term used by the radical left. Another buzz word to try and smother Truth and reality. It’s like when Mark Levin screams “antisemitism” over and over again for criticizing Zionism. The words are meaningless clap trap used by the left.
DeleteDon’t fall for the beta male, hen pecked trap. If you haven’t already.”
Reply: Yes, women should shut up, have children, satisfy their husbands, and have no other useful purpose. Does that version of “Church teaching” make you happy? You already fell for the groyper insanity. “Misogynist” is a “person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.” That’s you.
You write, “Your wife is a high paid professional? This is totally disordered and modernist. For what reason does your wife need to work? There is clearly no necessity. Are you childless? If you are, why? Is there a legitimate reason? “
Reply: That’s none of your business. I keep my personal life private and anonymous. Everything I do is in keeping with Church teaching. My wife being a high paid professional is “disordered and Modernist”? Says who? The “groypers” “incels” and other misfits—not Church teaching.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write, “Women don’t belong in positions of power or superiority or doing jobs men were designed to do. It’s just common sense. Men and women are different. Women chasing careers and being high paid professionals is unnatural. They have to behave like men to do those things, and often times they are an occasion of sin for men when they are in the workplace.”
DeleteReply: Common sense is something you lack. Let’s see now:
1. Queen Blanche of France RULED the Kingdom as Queen Regent in the name of her saintly son (King St. Louis IX) from 1226-1235, and is considered one of the most cunning, and intelligent rulers by historians. Her shrewd diplomacy gave her son a stronger kingdom than ever when he took the throne at age 21. While she was doing “the job of a man” she raised her son to be a canonized saint (King St. Louis IX specifically credits his mother as the reason he was so devout in his practice of the Faith) and her daughter became Blessed Isabella of France. A total of 12 children.
2. Queen Margaret of France RULED the Kingdom when King St. Louis was fighting in the Crusades. She is also seen as an excellent ruler in addition to being the mother of 11 children. Her saintly husband’s motto was “All for God, all for France, all for Margaret”—putting his wife above all but God and country. He must’ve been a hen-pecked beta male, right?
3. St. Catherine of Siena advised popes and negotiated political peace treaties. How could a true pope suffer to be advised by a “gullible woman”??
4. St. Helena was Roman Empress who utilized her influence to spread Christianity and build churches. Mother of Constantine the Great
How did this happen without Church condemnation?? It’s “disordered and Modernist” remember? I KNOW!! The Modernism began in the 4th century during the time of St. Helena!!
Guess what these women did, Nick. They made the world a better place! They had children (except St. Catherine who was a nun) AND RULED WITH CATHOLIC DISTINCTION.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write, “Women are not superiors, except in the modern world where harridans and screeching feminists on birth control pills try to control everything.”
DeleteReply: I’m sure the women listed above would disagree and birth control pills weren’t around when they lived.
You write, “Women should not be in the military, if I ever see two women getting onto my flight to go into the cockpit to fly the plane, I will get off that flight immediately. Why? Because I have common sense. There is a natural order of things.”
Reply: You are devoid of many good traits, common sense being just one of them. Women don’t belong in the military? You mean like St. Joan of Arc who was CHOSEN BY GOD to lead the French to victory? She is considered a highly effective and innovative military leader for her proactive, offensive strategies, which dramatically reversed French fortunes during the Hundred Years' War. Too bad God didn’t know that women aren’t meant to be military leaders!!
Women should never think that motherhood is “inferior” to a career, nor should they shun it if they are called to marriage. Men should be the head of the household, and women the heart of the household. Women are precluded from Holy Orders.
Yet that does not mean women cannot contribute to society and the Church. They are every bit as important as men. I think of the good women who come here like Joanna from Poland who is a guest poster, and Poni who runs her own blog from Mexico.
I think of my beautiful wife (beautiful in soul as well as looks) who makes a difference for people every day improving their lives. She reminds me to say my night prayers and Rosary before it gets too late when I’m working, and joins me in dedicating my home and family to the Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. I have little together time with her and when I think of discontinuing this blog, she reminds me “the Church needs you, keep it up, I’ll be fine—I understand God must come first.”
And let’s not forget the greatest woman, nay, greatest human being in the universe (excepting the Human Nature of Jesus Christ) the Blessed Virgin Mary who gave us Our Savior, crushed Satan’s head, and REIGNS AS QUEEN OF HEAVEN!
No doubt if you are not Nick Fuentes, you are an incel like him, a bigoted, misogynistic creep who calls himself a “traditional Catholic.”
God save us from “men” like him and like you.
---Introibo
So your argument is to write “misogynist” a few times and call people who support gender roles and point out male/female differences Nick Fuentes. Like you, Nick Fuentes is a modernist degenerate heretic and not Catholic. You certainly have more in common with Nick Fuentes than I ever will.
DeleteYou’re comparing women who fight in unjust military battles for Israel and America and compare them with Joan of Arc. Why would an ordered society send their women to die in battle? They are supposed to child rear and support the future of the nation through motherhood. Here’s a biology lesson for you since you failed as a science teacher. Women can only have a certain amount of children their whole lives. If a nation sends them to wars to die and risk the lives of the men fighting there by not being able to perform the same duties, your nation will die. Men are more expendable and made for war. You picked Queens, and Saints like Saint Catherine of Siena, and Our Lady and compared them with modern day career women. What a horrible blasphemous comparison on your part. Joan of Arc was given a mission by God. I can tell you right now women voting for abortion, dying for wars in The Middle East and for Israel and leaving their children motherless, and working in boardrooms with men in big cities or anywhere, and running spreadsheets, is disordered. It’s not of God. You pick women in history who were ordered in their state and life and try to compare it with the modern women the “high paid professional”. Women are not natural born leaders. Are their exceptions? Like ruling a Catholic kingdom as a Queen? Yes. There are no Catholic Queens today. We are talking about modern women. You try to make historical exceptions the rule. The examples you gave are examples of ordered female states of life. A female marketing manager or lawyer who is childless and who chases money is not ordered. The Catholic Church has talked about male/female roles.
Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection womanis naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. - Saint Thomas Aquinas
Any man who lets his wife wander around offices as a “high paid professional” is not a real man, but a gutless effeminate man who has embraced the modern world and does not value the true nature of women. Tell your wife to stop wearing the pants and give them to you so you can wear them.
Nick Fuentes is CIA smh. I do believe, however, that doesn't mean Anon is a Fuentes fan.
DeleteYou’re comparing Saint Catherine of Sienna, Catholic Queens, and The Blessed Virgin Mary to women who leave their kids in day care centers to be HR managers? A virtuous woman advising or supporting a powerful man like Saint Catherine did with The Pope while in accordance with her state in life is not disordered nor is it a show of superiority. A Catholic Queen is not superior to her King/Husband or to God’s Law. It would still be ordered to be a Catholic Queen. It is not ordered for women to be in the modern workplace. Your arguments are disingenuous at best and serious offenses against The Faith at worst if you are comparing motherly Saints who led in an ordered way and with the heart, to modern day women who behave like men and have become totally depraved.
Delete@Nick 8:22
DeleteYou write, “You’re comparing Saint Catherine of Sienna, Catholic Queens, and The Blessed Virgin Mary to women who leave their kids in day care centers to be HR managers?”
Reply: Nice strawman! No, I’m comparing them to other women who are both Catholic and contributed to the world. The two are not mutually exclusive. Queen Blanche personally took care of many children AND personally attended to the affairs of the State. You seem to think all women fit the degenerate type. Says a lot about you—none of it is good.
You write, “ It would still be ordered to be a Catholic Queen.”
Reply: So Queens Blanche and Margaret were “disordered.” Were you born this stupid or do you practice?
You write, “It is not ordered for women to be in the modern workplace. Your arguments are disingenuous at best and serious offenses against The Faith at worst if you are comparing motherly Saints who led in an ordered way and with the heart, to modern day women who behave like men and have become totally depraved.”
Reply: No, I’m showing that being in the world but not of the world, raising children and being a professional are not mutually exclusive. Imagine if a misandrist said all men are like you. It’s not right to declare all men benighted pseudo-educated dolts because of some!
----Introibo
@Nick 7:45
DeleteYou write, “ So your argument is to write “misogynist” a few times and call people who support gender roles and point out male/female differences Nick Fuentes”
Reply: No, that’s your puerile strawman of what I wrote.
You write: “You’re comparing women who fight in unjust military battles for Israel and America and compare them with Joan of Arc.”
Reply: Nope. You claimed women should not be in the military. The statement was not qualified.
If women being in positions of power admits of ANY exception it cannot be precluded by Divine Positive or Natural Law, and is therefore permitted. Homosexuality is contrary to both Natural and Divine Positive Law. There can never be an exception.
You write, “Here’s a biology lesson for you since you failed as a science teacher.”
Reply: If I ever took a lesson from you, I shouldn’t be failed, I should be committed.
You write, “You picked Queens, and Saints like Saint Catherine of Siena, and Our Lady and compared them with modern day career women”
Reply: Another straw man. There are women who are Catholic AND help the world. They are NOT the stereotypical “modern career women.”
You write, “We are talking about modern women. You try to make historical exceptions the rule.”
Reply: Modern women can be sanctified all the same as women in the past. UNGODLY women have existed at all times and in all places. People (male and female) are more evil now than ever without the Church as it was before the Great Apostasy. Yes, women of today can be BOTH in a career and a great mother/wife—not the degenerate types of which you write. That’s always been the rule!
You write, “Any man who lets his wife wander around offices as a “high paid professional” is not a real man, but a gutless effeminate man who has embraced the modern world and does not value the true nature of women. Tell your wife to stop wearing the pants and give them to you so you can wear them.”
Reply: Lol My wife doesn’t work in an office, nor does she “wander around.” You don’t know what she does, and you make stupid assumptions. I’m a Traditionalist Catholic man making his best Catholic way through this life with the help of an amazing wife and family. You denigrate women as being all about evil, chasing money, etc. and then tell ME I “don’t value women” There’s a reason you’re not married and never will be. My wife doesn’t wear the pants, but she does own my heart—and my eternal respect and love. You sound like Fuentes and you “argue” like Fred and Bobby Dimwit. I was going to end this by saying my wife is one I look up to—but the real heroes are the people who have to tolarate you on a daily basis.
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteIf women can vote, be leaders, serve in the military, get equal pay, etc. then what was the point of St. Paul telling women to be silent in Church, to be subject to their husbands, to cover their heads, etc.?
Since you love quoting theologians wouldn't you agree with Frs. John McHugh and Charles Callan where they write in their “Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities”:
“Women should not be compelled to take up an occupation unsuited to their sex.”
St. Joan of Arc did not fight in hand to hand combat. When she advised it was because people believed that she was sent by God to save France based on the miracles and prophetic visions she was doing.
Women nowadays dictate, fight next to, and compete with men in a role which should be for men alone. In the old days the women and the children were suppose to be spared while the men had to run the risk of dying in their defense.
St. Catherine of Sienna did not command the pope to return to Rome. She urged and pleaded with him calling him "my dear pappa" and referred to him as little Jesus on earth.
Big difference compared to the women nowadays who are now as high up as judges that determine with their authority what legally happens to a person, specifically any man. It's also a big difference in general when women tell men off as if they have any authority.
Queens are not occupations that women go out and apply for. Neither is the mother who may order and command her adult son still living at home. Queenship and motherhood require a certain type of authority unlike any other authority, which exists out of necessity. Queen Blanche possessed a kingdom and had orders in place in the absence of a king. A woman today can possess a home or small business for a womanly purpose and there is nothing wrong with that because it naturally belongs to them but to be the President of a country or head of a construction site where all the construction workers are men is no place for a woman.
As far as women voting is concerned, your friend Steve Speray shows in his article about women holding public office how in 1906, Pope St. Pius X told an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, ‘The development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement’, pp. 11-30
and
In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909)
I'm a different anonymous person btw but I tend to agree with the anonymous person who is discussing these issues with you. Please refrain from inflating yourself by referring to others as Nick Fuentes followers and other derogatory phrases. It's not edifying and it doesn't make you look good.
@anon6:32
DeleteYou write, “If women can vote, be leaders, serve in the military, get equal pay, etc. then what was the point of St. Paul telling women to be silent in Church, to be subject to their husbands, to cover their heads, etc.?”
Reply: It was because women have to be the heart and not head of the home, and women must be modest in Church and have no role in Church leadership. Holy Orders are for men exclusively. One must understand Scripture as the Church does. That does not translate into “shut up and don’t contribute to the world.” St Paul also wrote, “ Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.” (Ephesians 6:5). Are you an advocate of bringing back slavery?
You cite theologians McHugh and Callan: ““Women should not be compelled to take up an occupation unsuited to their sex.”
Reply: I agree. No one should be COMPELLED to do something more suited for the opposite gender. It is not condemned or declared sinful.
You write, “St. Joan of Arc did not fight in hand to hand combat. When she advised it was because people believed that she was sent by God to save France based on the miracles and prophetic visions she was doing.”
Reply: Yet God chose a lowly disordered inferior woman. Why? He could have chosen a man. Yes, women should not be on the front lines when if possible.
You write, “St. Catherine of Sienna did not command the pope to return to Rome. She urged and pleaded with him calling him "my dear pappa" and referred to him as little Jesus on earth.”
Reply: Pope Gregory listened to an inferior woman giving advice! Imagine that! I never said she commanded him, for no one can command the pope.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write, “Big difference compared to the women nowadays who are now as high up as judges that determine with their authority what legally happens to a person, specifically any man. It's also a big difference in general when women tell men off as if they have any authority.”
DeleteReply: The female Judges I’ve had to litigate before were some of the most fair and intelligent. In the Old Testament, Judith acts as a leader and a figure of judgment against men who threaten Israel. God was wrong!
You write, “A woman today can possess a home or small business for a womanly purpose and there is nothing wrong with that because it naturally belongs to them but to be the President of a country or head of a construction site where all the construction workers are men is no place for a woman.”
Reply: Manual work is best suited for men—totally agree. If a woman can lead—and they have with Church approval (and some from God Himself) there’s no reason not to be a president.
You write, “As far as women voting is concerned, your friend Steve Speray shows in his article about women holding public office how in 1906, Pope St. Pius X told an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, ‘The development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement’, pp. 11-30
and
In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909)
Reply: Pope Benedict XV gave the Catholic women’s suffrage league his express approval. He told the leader of the movement that he would “like to see women electors everywhere.” (See Annie Christitch, "Yes, We Approve (Words of the Holy Father to a Member of the C.W.S.S.)," Catholic Citizen, July 15, 1919, pp. 51-52.).
Therefore, it was merely Pope St. Pius’s opinion. Where opinions differ one can adopt either opinion.
You write, “I'm a different anonymous person btw but I tend to agree with the anonymous person who is discussing these issues with you. Please refrain from inflating yourself by referring to others as Nick Fuentes followers and other derogatory phrases. It's not edifying and it doesn't make you look good.”
Reply: I think you are the same. Even if you are not, I will speak as I choose. Don’t dish it out if you can’t take it.
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI am not advocating bringing back slavery. It's my opinion that what you are suggesting is a type of modernism. It may come across as an insult but to me the reason why everything has gone to hell in a hand basket is because of our modern understanding of how men have allowed women to take over. What good has come out of it? I think it has ruined our society and been the cause of so many problems.
McHugh and Callan said what they said because they understand that it's not a woman's place to work in an environment that's not suited for their gender.
Again St. Joan of Arc did not command men. St. Catherine of Sienna did not command the pope. I have no problem with them being listened to. I listen to my wife and to nuns and I respect them. I don't respect women drill sergeants, police officers, and judges. It's not their place to be in those particular positions any more then it is for a man to be working at a beauty parlor or in a niccu. If you saw such men with such jobs you couldn't help question if they were fags. If you think women deserve a place where men should only be then we might as well say men should stay at home and take care of children while they do those jobs. Does that sound normal?
Either Pope St. Pius X opinion was right and Pope Benedict XV's opinion was wrong or vice versa. Both of them cannot be right. I can understand the Church allowing women to vote but to take office is a whole other story. Women taking office never happened back then.
I get it though, you used to be a teacher and now as a lawyer you work in an environment where you are forced to acknowledge women to be in control and therefore you have no reason but to defend it. You can have your opinions but I think we should agree to disagree.
I have heard that some of the Spanish republicans (communist) didn't want the women to vote because they thought their votes would be influenced by the clerics.
DeleteYes Poni, it is ironic that the Communists knew this. Yet the Reds and their allies had no problem handing out rifles to the gals too. BTW, today is the 87th Anniversary of their defeat. Viva Cristo Rey!
DeletePope Benedict XV DID NOT GIVE the Catholic women’s suffrage league his express approval. AND he DID NOT TELL the leader of the movement that he would “like to see women electors everywhere.” TOTAL BS. Another lie from the left that you're pushing. Gibbons denied the Pontiff said it: https://www.nytimes.com/1919/12/21/archives/neutral-on-suffrage-cardinal-gibbons-denies-pontiff-has-indorsed.html Cardinal Gibbons and Archbishop Henry Moeller of Cincinnati publicly denounced women's suffrage. Moeller told his priests to preach in church that their women parishioners sign anti-suffrage lists. Even if it were true that Pope Benedict said what you claim, it would NOT BE an acceptable opinion because it is contrary to the principle of authority with men and women according to the Bible and entire history of Catholic practice on the issue. The statement from Benedict would be feminist and modernist as it is modernist. The fact that you're pushing your modernist agenda of feminism demonstrate that you're no more Catholic than the dimwit brothers.
Delete@anon10:16
DeleteYou write, “I am not advocating bringing back slavery. It's my opinion that what you are suggesting is a type of modernism. It may come across as an insult but to me the reason why everything has gone to hell in a hand basket is because of our modern understanding of how men have allowed women to take over. What good has come out of it? I think it has ruined our society and been the cause of so many problems.
McHugh and Callan said what they said because they understand that it's not a woman's place to work in an environment that's not suited for their gender.”
Reply: Actually, what has caused the degeneracy in many women is Vatican II and the sect it spawned. Who were the Modernists? Exclusively MEN—as only men can be priests and bishops. McHugh and Callan were against women being compelled to do something not suited for their gender (e.g. hard manual labor) but not that it was sinful in itself or contrary to Natural or Divine Positive Law.
You write, “Again St. Joan of Arc did not command men”
Reply: There are reputable historians who claim she did, such as DeVries. She was armed for the battlefield and hit by arrows twice. I’m not defending women in battle outside of necessity, but women can command men, like Judith from the Old Testament, and Catholic queens. If it was against Natural Law (or Divine Positive Law) there is NO exceptions. Case in point: Women are barred by Divine Positive Law from Holy Orders. There were no (and can be no) exceptions.
You write, “ It's not their place to be in those particular positions any more then it is for a man to be working at a beauty parlor or in a niccu. If you saw such men with such jobs you couldn't help question if they were fags.”
Reply: I know a male beautician. Married with five kids. What about male nurses? Sodomites as well? Male elementary school teachers? Sodomites? This line of thinking comports with the trans- insanity. If a boy is sensitive, intellectual, and doesn’t like sports, he must be “made a girl.” My mother was a tomboy back in the 1930s until she was 16. Today, they would label her a “boy” and remove her breasts.
CONTINUED BELOW
You write, “ If you think women deserve a place where men should only be then we might as well say men should stay at home and take care of children while they do those jobs. Does that sound normal?”
DeleteReply: A man can be just as good of a parent as a woman. What of the young widower whose wife died from a disease very young and raises his kids alone. He’s “abnormal”? The children are doomed? Is it IDEAL? No. Is it bad? Also no.
You write, “Either Pope St. Pius X opinion was right and Pope Benedict XV's opinion was wrong or vice versa. Both of them cannot be right. I can understand the Church allowing women to vote but to take office is a whole other story. Women taking office never happened back then.”
Reply: You have an open question. The clergy were at odds with each other over women voting and holding office. Therefore, either opinion is acceptable. Just like Aquinas who denied the Immaculate Conception when it was up for debate.
You write, “I get it though, you used to be a teacher and now as a lawyer you work in an environment where you are forced to acknowledge women to be in control and therefore you have no reason but to defend it. You can have your opinions but I think we should agree to disagree.”
Reply: I am not forced to acknowledge anything. I could state here that I detest women being in certain places, but I do not. I defend it because I think it is accurate. Yes, we will agree to disagree.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@ Modernist lawyer
DeleteI will certainly not agree to disagree. Your boomer/Genx world view on women is appalling. It’s not in line with Catholic moral principles. Women should not be in the workplace unless in extreme and rare circumstances. Women should not be voting or making political decisions. The modern day woman is the most grotesque spiritual disfigurement in history. Chasing careers and murdering their offspring can’t be compared to what Saint Catherine of Siena as a holy women who led with her heart.. You made that horrific and sinful comparison and then lied about what I wrote. Be a man, not a coward.
@anon5:31
DeleteOh yes he did! It was well published and attested. Moreover, the hierarchy was at odds over the issue proving it was not settled. Pope Benedict XV never denied the numerous reports of his statement and approval. Moreover, it is a fact that two equally orthodox prelates, Cardinal Manning opposed women voting, and his successor, Cardinal Vaughn was in favor stating, “I believe that the extension of the Parliamentary Franchise to women upon the same conditions as it is held by men would be a just and beneficial measure, tending to raise rather than lower the course of national legislation.” The very Diocese of Westminster confirms this and the approval of Benedict XV (See https://rcdow.org.uk/news/votes-for-women-the-catholic-contribution).
You state, “The statement from Benedict would be feminist and modernist as it is modernist.” If it were, the saintly Cardinal Vaughn would be a Modernist heretic, as would be nearly half the hierarchy by the 1910s.
You write, :” The fact that you're pushing your modernist agenda of feminism demonstrate that you're no more Catholic than the dimwit brothers.”
Reply: The Dimwits no doubt agree with you! Fr. DePauw held the same view as me. His older sister, Mother Marie, was a missionary nun and a MEDICAL DOCTOR. Isn’t that a “man job”? This was in early 20th century Belgium which was solidly Catholic. I gladly place myself in the company of Fr DePauw, Cardinal Vaughn, and Pope Benedict XV---all “Modernists”
---Introibo
@Dimondite7:19
DeleteYour syntax is unmistakable. It's no wonder you believe as you do. I'm Gen X btw, and proud. If you think all women are "Chasing careers and murdering their offspring" you are even more off kilter than your cult masters. I was typing late and you wrote being a Catholic queen is ORDERED. Good for you! You finally got something right! Everything I stated stands, and it doesn't in any way detract from what I wrote.
I won't insult you back. After all, Calling you an idiot would be an insult to all stupid people.
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI'm sure St. Joan of Arc was armed on the battlefield. I'm all for women defending themselves, but this does not mean she made commands. Leading and making commands are two different things. Actually it was Jean d'Orléans (Count de Dunois), La Hire, and Jean Poton de Xaintrailles who were calling the shots while St. Joan of Arc assisted in the strategic decisions.
You say you know a male beautician married with five kids eh. I can't help but think, what a loser. A male niccu nurse (a person who handles taking care of newborns) is certainly a strange choice for a male occupation. I've never seen one but I'm sure many exist. Can they do these things? Sure they can. Should they do these things when there are so many other career paths for men? NO.
I'm a parent with my wife and if she has to go to the doctor or something and I am home I will watch the kids. That's different than saying I should permanently stay at home, while she goes out and becomes the bread winner. You don't seem to think there is something wrong with that.
You say "you have an open question (regarding the two opinions of Pope St. Pius X and pope Benedict XV). The clergy were at odds with each other over women voting and holding office. Therefore, either opinion is acceptable."
One of them is right and one of them is wrong. So one of them is not an acceptable opinion any more than when pope St. Leo IX said simoniac priests sacraments were invalid.
If you thinks its okay for women to have positions of power over men than you might as well be okay with women competing with men in sports. Why not right?
@anon4:51
Delete1. There are some historians that claim St Joan did more than just advise, and I'm against women in combat when it is not absolutely necessary.
2. If a man has a talent for styling hair and such, and he uses it to earn a good living and support his family, I would not call him a "loser" by any means. Working in Manhattan for a top salon where rich women tip very well he earns a six-figure salary.
3. Again, having the mother at home is ideal. There are times when the father must be at home (e.g. the mother passes away) and the man can (and have) done an outstanding job.
4. It is not necessarily one being right and one being wrong in the sense that either women must be denied the right to vote or it is sinful, or it is good. Let's take the example of clerical celibacy. The Eastern Rites (some) allow married men to be ordained. If a person were to argue that the Latin Rite should do the same, it is not heretical or sinful. If someone (like myself) says celibacy should be retained, that's also good.
Much of the fear regarding women voting was that they would become too worldly, to the detriment of the family. That is not necessarily the case. There are stay-at-home moms who vote and are Traditionalist Catholics.
5. Women should only be denied access to something where the Natural Law and/or Divine Positive Law forbids them. One example I gave was Holy Orders are denied to women by Divine Positive Law. There can never be (and never has been) a validly ordained female "priest."
In sports (I'm not a fan of sports for many reasons) women would be denied by Natural Law. Women are not as strong physically as men. Biology dictates it. Could women compete with men in a sport like bowling? That's a possibility.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteWhen you have the time please send me those historians who say St. Joan of Arc commanded the French Army. I think it would be important to know without any doubt that she did what you say she did.
I'm sure the man makes plenty of money in New York being a beautician but I don't think it's right. I used to work at a movie store when I was young and I came to the conclusion that what I was doing was immoral because I could not in good conscience solicit immoral movie rentals to people without being an accessory to their sin in watching certain films.
I'm not against men staying home with their children for certain circumstantial reasons such as the things you mentioned but I am against reversing the roles when the circumstances aren't necessary.
When women started voting in 1919 they then wanted more. It's kinda of like the gay marriage thing back in 2014 when it became legal. You give them a right to marry then they want more rights and pretty soon culture changes and there is no going back.
I believe it is against the Natural Law for women to be in certain positions where they command men around. Examples of this include the military. It's not wrong for women to be in the military if they are in a position to serve as something indirectly like being a secretary or nurse but to be a major general would be a joke and everybody would know it. The same goes for police officers etc.
If biology suggests that women and men should not compete in sports, then biology should also suggest that women shouldn't be telling men what to do in positions of power because that's the way it been up until modern times.
@anon9:26
Delete1. Historians who claim St. Joan of Arc commanded men:
I know of three and the first is a MAN too despite his first name:
(a) Dr. Kelly Robert DeVries (b. 1956) received his doctorate from the University of Toronto and is an expert in warfare of the Middle Ages. See his 1999 book entitled "Joan of Arc: A Military Leader."
(b) Dr. Regine Pernoud (1909-1998) received her doctorate from the Sorbonne in 1935. Read her book "Joan of Arc: Her Story" published in 1986.
(c) Jonathan Sumption (b. 1948) Was a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1971 to 1975, teaching and writing, before becoming a barrister. Historian Credentials: Despite lacking a PhD in history (doctorate in law) he is a renowned, award-winning historian (Wolfson History Prize winner) known for his five-volume history of the Hundred Years' War. He covers her extensively in "The Hundred Years War, Volume 5: Triumph and Illusion" published in (2023).
2. I understand your conviction against renting immoral movies, and I applaud the courage of your conviction. However, are you seriously comparing renting smut to being a man who has an honest job working as a beautician? Can you cite to any approved theologians or papal decrees declaring it sinful for a man to work as a beautician/hairdresser?
3. I agree with you that it is better for the mother to care for the children in most cases.
4. Women should be given all rights except those forbidden by the Natural Law and/or Divine Positive Law.
5. I disagree. As long as the woman can do the job as effectively as a man (no lowering the bar) she is not a "joke." Some of the best judges here in NY are female.
6. Biology does dictate that women should not compete in most sports (maybe bowling or billiards are exceptions). Biology has nothing to say about authority. Can a physically diminutive man have authority over a bigger, stronger man? Of course. The same holds true for women over men. "That's the way it's been" is not a good argument apart from ecclesiastical traditions, or there must be weighty reasons to support it.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI will have to see in what context those historians say St. Joan of Arc ordered men to do things including the French commanders because what I've read about her say she was humble, pious, and courageous because she led them holding her banner. Assisting them strategically is also different than being their superior.
I'm not questioning whether males or females CAN do certain roles. We know they can. The question is whether they SHOULD.
For example, let's take a woman president which in Mexico they have right now. Is she subject to her husband Jesús María Tarriba in the home? How can she be if she is more powerful than him in her country? It's absurd because it is pro feminism. The Church sets the example for Catholics to lead through the men in the home and in the Church and the world sets the antithesis. I don't understand why you are pro women in positions of authority when it contradicts a man's role. It's modern.
Introibo,
DeleteYou say "I disagree. As long as the woman can do the job as effectively as a man (no lowering the bar) she is not a "joke." Some of the best judges here in NY are female."
This contradicts Pope Leo XIII when he said, "Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family." Rerum Novarum #42
@anon7:10
DeleteYou state, "I'm not questioning whether males or females CAN do certain roles. We know they can. The question is whether they SHOULD."
Reply: Ok, so it is your position that the gentleman I know SHOULD NOT be a hairdresser/beautician even though he is talented at it, the job is perfectly legal, it involves no immoral activity, and makes him a good salary to support his wife and kids?
You write:" For example, let's take a woman president which in Mexico they have right now. Is she subject to her husband Jesús María Tarriba in the home? How can she be if she is more powerful than him in her country? "
Reply: Two separate domains. King St. Louis I would issue edicts that affected all--including clergy. The priests were subject to his laws regarding secular matters. Contrariwise, the priest who is subject to the King's laws was in charge of ecclesiastical matters in Church and King St. Louis dutifully obeyed the cleric.
"Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are God's." (St. Matthew 22:21).
You write, "I don't understand why you are pro women in positions of authority when it contradicts a man's role. It's modern."
Reply: It may be modern (as in recent) but not Modernist. I'll explain in detail below.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon6:37
DeleteYou write: "This contradicts Pope Leo XIII when he said, "Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family." Rerum Novarum #42"
You cite the passage correctly, but its application must be understood in light of the harsh economic and religious times in which we live during the Great Apostasy.
I discussed these moral matters with Fr. DePauw, an approved canonist. The restriction is an ideal, not one compelled and admits of no exception. Pope Leo wanted wanted to protect women from exploitation and dangerous working conditions prevalent at the time. He didn't want them taking manual labor jobs (women were not educated at the time--with rare exceptions) which would make them unable to raise children in the home.
Likewise, Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, stated fathers should earn enough to support the family which would make it unnecessary for women to work outside the home.
Has this happened? Obviously not. Try living in NYC on one income if you have a family. For a family of four, it takes almost $340,000 a year. (See smartasset.com/data-studies/salary-needed-live-comfortably-2026). To get by you need at least 200,000 unless you don't mind a roach infested one bedroom apartment.
I'm lucky enough to make as much on my own, but many are not.
Now let's consider the woman helping her family from necessity. Secretary and nurse don't make much. ("girly jobs") Secretary will be phased out with AI soon enough.
Think of vocations. Nuns are almost extinct thanks to V2. Not every women has a vocation to the few places left like the SSPV Daughters of Mary.
There has been much discussion here on how hard it is to find a spouse (it is). What of a woman who feels called to marriage but never finds a good man because all they want is sex, they are worldly in other ways, or they have no use for religion? What of women who are called to the single vocation?
Not every woman can be a beautician making real good money like the gentleman I know. A single person in NYC needs about $90,000 a year, unless the idea of her living in a tenement building with creeps who might rape her is something you would want for your daughter or sister.
CONTINUED BELOW
Woman can (and do) manage a career and family. They are not all raging feminists. Also unforeseen at the time; the incredibly high divorce rate. I know men who have walked out on their wives and kids--a rarity in the time of Pope Leo XIII---and it's commonplace today.
DeleteIf a woman is intelligent and can contribute to society, let her use her God given talents. A female lawyer, doctor, judge, etc. can always take off and return to work after the kids are grown up, if she wants to do so.
If her husband leaves, she can support herself and the kids without section 8 housing and food stamps in bad neighborhoods. Ditto if she is single or never finds a spouse.
If we were living in different times, I would be saying different things. If it were contrary to Natural or Divine Positive Law for woman to be restricted to certain occupations (or men), there could be NO EXCEPTIONS according to circumstances.
At the Ave Maria Chapel, there was a single woman who was a very successful attorney. Fr. DePauw never denied her Communion, which he would have to do if she were engaged in something "contrary to nature" or to God's Divine Positive Law. There was also a male nurse who was there many years, was single, and received Communion devoutly. He even helped out Fr. DePauw once when he got ill during Mass.
The SSPV, CMRI, and other Traditionalist societies do NOT declare that sending your daughter to college is evil, or that professional women are evil.
If we were living almost 200 years ago with a real pope in a Christian world things would be different. A Catholic Monarchy is ideal--but we need to live in a corrupt democratic republic with separation of Church and state.
Hence, while the ideal may be different, the reality is that woman can and should do anything a man can do that is not prohibited by Divine Positive or Natural Law. Pope Leo XIII never stated that women or men were excluded by such from certain occupations.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Are you seriously claiming that a person sending their daughter raised in the traditional Catholic Faith to college is not wrong or sinful? She will without a doubt be placed in an unnecessary near occasion of sin every day there. She will be fed women’s liberation propaganda, pressured into attending parties where she will inevitably sin. She will lose her innocence and for what a worthless piece of paper and so she can go out into the world to make money and to gain status. I have even heard one or two Novus Ordo “conservatives” speaking out against sending their daughters to college because they know it’s wrong. Parents will send their children to traditional Catholic schools only to send them to college afterwards? How is that not wrong. Children should be living with their parents until they fully discern their vocation. Going out into the world, to find yourself, is not the way to approach a Catholic life. Your line of thinking is clearly not in line with how Catholics should approach the modern world.
Delete@anon3:16
DeleteYou don't need to live at school. Commuting is best and does not lend itself to many problems. I have a bachelors degree, masters degree, and law degree---I never did anything immoral. Ditto for my wife who is more educated than me.
What about St. Mary's College run by the SSPX? That's an option too. If the young lady does not want to be a nun, and cannot find a husband (or is called to be single) how will she live on meager earnings?
The rotten world can get you everywhere. If she were to get a "girl job" by going to a cosmetology school for two years, she could meet disreputable girls there as well. Unless she becomes a nun, she must be prepared to be in the world but not of the world.
God Bless,
---Introibo
She can live with her parents and make scapulars and other sacramentals to sell online. That’s one example. She can find a husband while still living at home, or become a nun. More women need to become nuns and live the religious life. This option just had to be instilled in them as an option. College in the modern senses is not a beautiful state in life from a young age. College is to find a job in the world, women should only work if they are in a situation that be necessarily calls for it. Those are pretty much the only options. People can’t go along and conform to the modern world because it’s just too “hard and “difficult” to live a Catholic moral life according to some. People will be tested by God in these times and it is necessary to travel the thorny and narrow road to achieve eternal glory. It is hard sometimes, but with God we can do all things. Exposing women to college life is an unnecessary near occasion of sin.
DeleteIntroibo,
DeleteYou say, "Ok, so it is your position that the gentleman I know SHOULD NOT be a hairdresser/beautician even though he is talented at it, the job is perfectly legal, it involves no immoral activity, and makes him a good salary to support his wife and kids?
YES, because it sets the precedent that a man can and SHOULD do a profession that mostly involves something a woman would do. If you look it up only 7% of men are beauticians. I wonder how many of those men are fags.
Instead of doing that, why not be a barber or possibly a disguise specialist which involves making masks and the like? Good money does not give a man or woman a good reason to do something they are not meant to do.
Sometimes its hard to quit a job when you are getting paid good. I get it. I quit working at a lightbulb factory which paid great because they changed my shift where I was forced to work on Sundays and I refuse to work on Sundays. I was married and had one child at the time. Probably wasn't prudent of myself when I had no other job lined up, but luckily I found another good paying job two weeks later and that's because I trusted in the Lord and was responsible enough to know how to find other work. I also worked in the court house and I was responsible for typing out official court records of divorce decrees made by the judge. Once I realized what I was doing I quickly found a way out. I was also the one who said I worked at a movie rental store when I was young. I couldn't do it anymore. I don't want to hear excuses when I myself have been tested with the temptations of staying at places that I could have stayed for either comfort or good pay.
You say, regarding a woman president, "Two separate domains. King St. Louis I would issue edicts that affected all--including clergy. The priests were subject to his laws regarding secular matters. Contrariwise, the priest who is subject to the King's laws was in charge of ecclesiastical matters in Church and King St. Louis dutifully obeyed the cleric."
A Queen does not tell her King what to do. A woman president is considered the commander and chief and her husband is the "the first emasculated man"
I'm not against all the examples you bring up regarding women supporting themselves in certain circumstances. I'm simply against women taking on certain occupations not suited for them as Leo XIII pointed out and those primarily involve exercising their authority over men. Are you for a woman who is perfectly capable of being the captain of a ship full of men? Are you for women being in charge in the military? Are you for women being police chiefs? If you are, then I won't bother coming back on your website any more or bothering you about it. It already sickens me that you probably do.
@anon6:39
DeleteMen CAN (not should or must) be a beautician, nurse, or elementary schoolteacher. Only 7% of men are beauticians. I don’t see how you get to “they shouldn’t do it.” It is also a stereotype that they are sodomites. You know what has more sodomites? Vatican II sect “priests.” Growing up I had a friend who was mercilessly bullied because he wore eyeglasses and spoke with a lisp. He was called “faggot” and words I will not publish. He became a biology professor, married with three kids.
Why not a barber, or make masks? Because he likes what he’s doing.
While it’s commendable you quit so as to not work on Sundays, there are excusing causes. As Christ taught “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.” St. Mark 2:27
There are professsions that must work on Sundays and always have even in Catholic countries pre-Vatican II. Crime and fires don’t stop on Sundays. We need cops and firefighters on Sundays. What about doctors and nurses in hospitals? If someone wants to be a police officer you are required to work some Sundays. It is NOT sinful to do so or to want to be a policeman.
This is a good example of being overly strict and erring. In Medio stat Veritas. Working in a lightbulb factory (while not necessary like a cop or doctor) can be excused in a case of necessity, like needing to support your family.
Am I against women being in the positions you cited? I agree that they are not ideal, and men should be there as a rule, just like in war.
I think you are a good man who strives for being the best Traditionalist Catholic he can. I honestly admire your fervent devotion.
I also credit you as being intelligent and a gentleman. That’s why I had this exchange with you.
If you don’t agree with me, that is certainly your right. However, what I believe is in line with Church teaching. I wouldn’t believe it if it wasn’t.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
@anon5:23
DeleteMaking scapulars at home. She would be living off her parents while making very little money, and it might be a strain on the parents as she gets older if they are not well off.
I explained that she might not find a decent man to marry, or might be called to the single vocation. A nun is something you are called to do; it is not something to be done because “we need more of them.” Likewise, no one should get married unless called to that state in life.
Once more, this is a case of going too far and thinking its required by the Church.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
This is anon @ 5:23
DeleteThere was a typo on my last post. I just meant to say that college is not an option for women and that the religious life is a beautiful state in life and it’s a vocation women should know about. My writing got jumbled up there in the middle. To sum up, going to college is to pursue careers and money in the modern world and exposes women to near occasions that are not necessary. The nature and innocence of women should be protected by moral society and upright men. They have three vocations. Mother/wife, religious life, consecrated virginity and they support themselves out of extreme necessity without entering the modern world or revolting against their womanhood, like making scapulars as one example, living with parents, etc. other Catholic centered at home jobs.
Introibo,
DeleteYou say, "Am I against women being in the positions you cited? I agree that they are not ideal, and men should be there as a rule, just like in war."
You're not being consistent here. The question isn't whether it's ideal but whether it's okay for women to be in those positions? You say it's okay but that it's not ideal. It's not okay because it's contrary to the natural law as St. Paul says in 1 Tim 2:12-13. Explain to me why it is ideal for men to do those positions especially in light of the fact that you said some women do a better job than men.
I just stated that I personally refuse to work on Sundays. I completely understand the need of doctors/nurses and other professions needed on that day. My wife had a miscarriage on Sunday morning and we had to rush to the emergency room. I'm just using myself as an example to show that just because we like our good paying job, it's not necessarily right to keep it if there is something either immoral or out of place about it.
Wearing glasses and being nerdy is not the same as working in environment meant for women. I feel for your friend. I used to be called a faggot in my high school years (I went to public school/college all my life) all because I wanted a good Catholic woman and there were none and classmates thought I was weird because I wouldn't tell them why I didn't have a girl- friend. On one occasion I got so mad that I ended getting in a fight physically with a guy a little bigger than me over it. He didn't think I was a faggot any more. In fact, we became friends.
@anon8:36
DeleteSee my reply to you above. While what you say is nice it is seriously out of touch with the reality of today.
Unless the parents are super-wealthy and she never needs to work, good luck to that poor woman selling scapulars online.
I hope she enjoys living in a cardboard box and eating at the local soup kitchen. It’s also an incredible waste of talent when she could be in a profession helping people.
—-Introibo
The making of scapulars is just one example of how a woman living at home could help her parents and she could contribute to the household in other ways. Yes, the religious life is something people are called to do, but they have to know it exists and is why it should be taught to young girls as a possible vocation. Then there would be many more men and women discerning the vocation. I have heard Bishop Pivarunas say we need more priests, does that mean he just sends out applications and everyone who sends one back becomes a priest? Obviously not! Working outside the home is only an option as a last resort in serious circumstances, We can’t teach young girls to just go along with the ways of the modern world. Your hyperbolic cardboard box statement shows you are more concerned with her material state, than her spiritual state. A woman must always be dignified and in one of the three vocations mentioned before. No workplace jobs unless of necessity. There are Traditional Catholic clergy who agree.
DeleteYou say: It’s out of “touch with reality”, to expect a woman to live and behave as a woman in the modern world. It’s out of touch with modern expectations, but not reality. And as Catholics we are supposed to reject the world, and living in the world doesn’t mean going against our own natures because it’s easier to get by. We shouldn’t have the herd mentality of going along with what everyone else is doing. There are challenges and trials for all Catholics living as moral and practicing Catholics in the modern world but there is much merit to be gained when we do. We don’t go along to get along. We don’t conform to the immoral pressures of modernism. This is why community and living as Catholics is so important. If we started our own Catholic communities and supported each other, this would also help greatly in fostering true womanly vocations for our Catholic women so they don’t feel like they have to go out into the rat race and grind and become domineering and undignified bosses and sales reps. There are only three vocations for women. That is it. Work outside the home is only done out of necessity. That is the True moral teaching of The Church.
Delete@anon7:18
DeleteFirst, congratulations on giving that bully what he deserved! My point was that having certain traits or occupations does not necessitate being homosexual. Likewise, being a good fighter or being big and strong doesn't mean someone is NOT homosexual. Carl Nassib, a rough tough NFL player (6'7" and 245 lbs.) is openly a sodomite.
You ask, "Explain to me why it is ideal for men to do those positions especially in light of the fact that you said some women do a better job than men."
Reply: Yes, women are capable of doing the job. The reason it is NOT ideal is because I've known women who stated they wanted a family (felt called to do so), yet get caught up in the job and forego marriage and family. That's detrimental to society and having children is superior.
1 Timothy 2:12-13 is speaking of the Church. It is contrary to Divine Positive Law for women to have any ecclesiastical authority, I fully support this dogmatic teaching, and have repeatedly said so on this blog. Holy Orders are prohibited to women. Even a valid bishop using a valid rite could not validly ordain a woman as the female sex is an insurmountable obex to the reception of Holy Orders. Only baptized males can be validly ordained and it admits of NO EXCEPTIONS.
If women having authority over men were contrary to Natural and/or Divine Positive Law there could NEVER be a Catholic Queen, nor would God have called St. Joan of Arc to do what she did. Also, no Traditionalist priest could ever allow such a woman to receive Holy Communion--yet female attorneys, doctors, and women in business can and do receive Holy Communion from them.
Once, I mentioned to Fr. DePauw that someone in the V2 sect who worked for Planned Parenthood was being given "communion." With anger in his eyes he said, "No one who works for that Satanic baby-murdering organization will ever be given Holy Communion by me. They would have to stop working there, publicly repent, go to Confession, and do penance before I would even consider letting them in the door, let alone giving them Holy Communion. THERE IS NEVER A REASON TO BE AN ACCOMPLICE TO MURDER."
(From my memory and emphasis mine).
Are women in positions over men treated in this way? No.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon9:31 and 10:12
DeleteI'm not being hyperbolic at all. I'm being realistic. Yes there are three vocations for women: religious life (nun); marriage, or single. If the woman is not called to the religious state, we have marriage and single life.
First, she may not find a suitable man to marry in today's world, or she may want to be single as a vocation. If you think selling scapulars or these other "home jobs" where you make a pittance will provide for her, guess again. Unless the parents are VERY wealthy and leave her at least $4 million which at 2% would give her $80,000, she will be destitute.
These home jobs pay about 10K, if that. What about health insurance? She will be destitute on public assistance.
If she has a good job she can make the world a better place and take care of herself. Go to college and get a "girl job" like an elementary school teacher, registered nurse, etc. At least she can get by and not be in dangerous section 8 housing.
It's not a matter of "either be virtuous or care about material things"--that's a false dichotomy. You can do both as my wife and her best friend are but two examples. If the woman does gat married, and the husband abandons her (sadly, a common occurrence these days) , with a decent job she can support herself and the kids without being destitute.
No Traditionalist priest I know will deny a working woman Communion--which he must do if she is doing something contrary to Church teaching.
---Introibo
https://modernity.news/2026/04/04/gen-z-women-are-ditching-the-girlboss-lie-for-tradwife-life-putting-family-first/
Deleteis an online salvo released today (= April 4) by Steve Watson, also re-published at
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/gen-z-women-are-ditching-girlboss-lie-tradwife-life-putting-family-first
Contained therein is a somewhat amusing 11 minute YouTube video narrated by Paul Joseph Watson, dealing with some of the same themes found in this already very lengthy comment string. I am not the author of any comment in this particular string, prior to this one.
Introibo, you are every bit as good as -- or even much better than -- all the rest of us, at proofreading. But even so... the second to the last sentence of your 2:10 comment above, would look better if phrased, in relevant part, "... does git married..." . Git, gat, got, gut. WhatEvEr bE thE corrEct vowEl !
********* As a P.S. = Postscript
A special prayer of the Church for tomorrow is:
Regina Caeli, rejoice. Alleluia. For He Whom thou wast made worthy to bear. Alleluia. Hath arisen, as He said. Alleluia... O God, Who through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, hast vouchsafed to give joy to the whole world; grant us, we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may obtain the joys of eternal life. Through the same Christ our Lord. Amen.
Leave her at least $4 million dollars?! Where are you coming up with these numbers? If she inherited only a million dollars she could put it in a guaranteed income annuity, collect a monthly check for life, and sell scapulars and live just fine. Again a woman like this could work out of necessity but it would not be ideal. This would be the exception if marriage or the religious life weren’t her vocation. She would need to do a job where her dignity would be intact and occasions of sin would be remote. People think they need millions of dollars to retire or to inherit in order to live without working. It’s not true. People who live frugally, practically, and with the bear necessities and some leisure now and again, can retire quite early if they plan to do so. An inheritance from a house while having a small job at home could set you free from the rat race too. But in the meantime living at home should not be an issue for women who choose not to go out into the world or join a religious congregation. Her Catholic parents would certainly understand.
Delete@anon10:07
DeleteAs I cited in these comments, to live as a single person in NY requires $90k per year minimum.
You will not generate that off 1 million. Plus if the woman is on her own from 30 to 80, you must calculate for inflation, and insurance premiums.
I hope you have no daughter. What about men who want to get married or stay single? Can’t go to college? They have MORE temptation than women!!
Here’s the answer: bring them up strong in the Faith. Like my wife, like me.
Selling scapulars while on public assistance in a bad neighborhood should not be the fate of Traditionalists.
—-Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteFor goodness's sake, the anon with whom you've been engaged in discussion is pushing the insufferable Williamson narrative ad nauseam.
We need Traditionalists, men and women alike, in places of prominence in the world so that the true teaching of the Church can be heard once again. Much good can be done by our good example. Teach your children to be a success whatever they do as long as it's in accordance with the law of God and His One True Church. Granted, not all of us can and will be high-paid professionals and that's a cross that should be carried with dignity but not sought after unless God sends it.
As for the gentleman who's a top-notch six-figure-earning beautician. If I were married to a man like him, I'd let him know every single day he's my personal hero. BTW, there were male beauticians in the 50s. Go and watch an episode of "I Love Lucy" ("The Black Wig").
This thread is so informative, thanks to your excellent replies, Introibo, that it needs to be archived for future reference. Thank you for taking the time to respond in depth even in Holy Week and on Easter Sunday.
Please give my regards to your wife. She must be an extraordinary lady!
Happy Easter to All!
God Bless You,
Joanna
If there is temptation look to the ground imho.
DeleteJoanna,
DeleteThank you, my friend! My wife will certainly appreciate your comment.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Joanna,
DeleteThere are two of us anons. Not one. I'm the one who addresses Introibo whereas the other doesn't address him.
I'm not interested in what women can do. I know they can do things that men can do. I don't believe in reversing the sexes with positions that are not befitting to them. Women should not be in authority of men PERIOD. Over women yes. The only exception is Queens and you will find that in the Catholic Encyclopedia btw. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia says that women are not to be judges or hold public office. Don't believe me. Look it up.
Introibo has a modern belief for modern times. I believe what he's saying is modernist but he doesn't believe that he is being modernist but somebody who is in the middle which on this point I do not believe there is middle ground.
Pope Leo XIII whom I quoted was clear and the popes after them were not for the feminists agenda until Vatican II came along. In fact Benedict XV whom Introibo quoted as saying he was for women electors (for those who vote) also said "With the decline in religion, cultured women have lost their piety, also their sense of shame; many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men; others abandoned the duties of the house-wife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current of life." (Pope Benedict XV, Encyclical Natalis trecentesimi, (Woman in the Modern World), December, 27 1917
As for men, CAN they do certain jobs? Sure but it's not befitting for them to do certain jobs any more than it's befitting for women to do certain jobs.
The tangent that Introibo and the other anon is talking about is steering towards how to manage ones income. How about move out of New York City. If it takes 90K for a single person to live in conditions better than the slums than it's too expensive to live there. I only make 45K a year (two jobs), have a wife who doesn't work but who stays home and homeschools our children, and I have a modest house in the country with 2 acres and even though I don't live comfortably, I make it. In other words, I make half as less as a person who barely can make it in New York City because I don't live near that Communist/Dictator state in the U.S.
I'm not sure how you view any of this, put please consider my points from above.
@anon5:14
DeleteGlad you mentioned the Catholic Encyclopedia! Here’s what it says,
“ The Catholic Church has made no doctrinal pronouncement on the question of women's rights in the present meaning of that term. It has from the beginning vindicated the dignity of womanhood and declared that in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, according to the words of St.
Paul: "There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). The Church has also jealously guarded the sanctity of home life, now so disastrously infringed by the divorce evil, and while upholding the husband's headship of the family has also vindicated the position of the mother and wife in the household.
Where family rights and duties and womanly dignity are not violated in other fields of action, the Church opposes no barrier to woman's progress.”
What you propose is an opinion shared by many pre-V2 clergy, and so is my position. Either can be held. I’m 100% with Joanna, who is an excellent guest poster, btw.
I agree that NYC is run by a Communist and a moral cesspool. Yet good people live here and many cannot (for various good reasons) leave for a cheaper state—and the economic times is making even cheap states more expensive.
I admire what you do for your family and commend you for it. However, I will not be silent when people (I’m not talking about you here) tell me I’m not a good Traditionalist because my wife should be at home. She’s making the world a better place, and is not in any way going against Church teaching.
To tell your daughter (again not you) that she cannot be a lawyer, or your son that he can not be a beautician is not something compelled by the Church, and it’s sad to repress children like that.
The Church does not allow women to be ecclesiastical judges. Obviously, that is correct.
—-Introibo
"How about move out of New York City."
DeleteThat's unfortunately not always possible. Not to disrespect you Anon, but I believe that if those who live like you spent more time building a small Catholic sub-society, city or towns (like the accursed Amish) instead of fighting with bloggers online, many women would be more likely to work at home.
Introibo,
DeleteInteresting that you found that because this is what I was referring to:
Catholic Encyclopedia: “While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly. Consequently, it is only in exceptional cases that in Christian kingdoms the direct sovereignty is placed in the hands of woman, as is shown by the women who have ascended thrones.”
“I. Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: “Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.” Public offices are those in which public authority is exercised; civil offices, those connected otherwise with municipal affairs. The reason given by canonists for this prohibition is not the levity, weakness, or fragility of the female sex, but the preservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to woman.”
You say "What you propose is an opinion shared by many pre-V2 clergy." I don't know any who share your view of what I'm specifically talking about from back then because back then it was unheard of. It's a modernist belief.
I didn't say your wife should stay at home. I've only argued that women shouldn't be in positions of authority over men. They can have all kinds of good paying jobs if they want to. Even then they need to be careful not to be influenced by the world. It's so easy to lose ones faith in such a horrible world of ours especially in the business world.
My daughters already know that they will not be judges, captains, police chiefs, and other such jobs which are not befitting for their state in life. It's kind of like when God said you can eat of any tree, just not a specific one in the garden.
Introibo, I have no hard feelings. I consider you somebody who is doing his best to expose and inform your readers and I appreciate you allowing people like me to comment. I'm not a Fuentes or Tate follower. I can't stand them and it nauseates me that people waste their time listening to them. But many men are seeing right through this modern problem and it's unfortunate that they are so lost when it comes to the most important things pertaining to salvation. The Catholic Faith.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteAnon, I retract my 7:38 comment. What I was trying to say is that everybody should be seeking to build such town who CAN do so. That isn't necessarily you, and as such I don't think my comment applies as much as it did in my head.
DeleteThis has turned out to be a rather extraordinarily lengthy comment string or thread, stretching from March 30 to today (= April 5 = Easter). There is another comment string of July 25-28, 2025 found in this blog, following Introibo's July 21 "The Heresy of the Lay State" post. There is quite a bit of overlap in content, between that July 25-28, 2025 string, and this March 30 to April 5, 2026 string. Some of the same themes about "feminism" appear in both strings, as can be seen by comparing them.
DeleteThank you! It’s been an interesting exchange! I will end with this; the majority of canonists after the Code of Canon Law was published no longer held that opinion regarding women. WWI changed their minds when women went to work.
DeleteOk, enough said! Thank you for the exchange!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Don't callvyour children kids...baby goats and of the devil if not baptized.
ReplyDeleteDon't call anonymous people serious... they think everything is of the devil.
Deletehttps://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/C023cpKids.htm
DeleteThanks for the article but the same author believes Bob Prevost is the pope too. Does that mean I should take her criticism seriously?
DeleteThere are a lot of stupid slang words we use today such as bruh, boujee, groyper, red-pilled, simp, vibes, etc. but that doesn't mean it's wrong to use them. One can prefer not to use them like myself because it is my opinion they sound ridiculous, but who cares. Kids in modern language means children and everybody understands that. Marian T. Horvat opinion is as good as anybody else's.
Who do you take seriously I wonder? Just the very small group here who knows about pope but the whole world remains deceived? She had some good points is all. They do a great job Exposing V2. Yes, they didn't reach best conclusion but the majority will never. Go ahead...call your children baby goats as you please.
Delete@5:31 -- Methinks that the verbose and obtuse "N. Fuentes Impostor(s)" above, might benefit by seeing a simp-ish or red-pilled psycho-gynecologist shrink. So methink. Just my, um, two cents.
DeleteI certainly cannot take you seriously for worrying about something which is not important. Go ahead... scruple over trivial things that nobody cares about except those who look into things that don't matter.
DeleteBoth of you are angered over something that is somewhat trivial. It's embarrassing.
DeleteOzson,
ReplyDeleteThank you for this article and for joining this blog as a guest poster. I remember seeing your comments through the years and you write very well! If I didn’t know better, I could have thought that it was Introibo who wrote this. Very nice job! I look forward to future articles from you.
You article is a very timely one for today. It is a topic which many of us have commented on this issue before on this blog.
As I was reading your article, there are many questions and thoughts that came to mind. I welcome both you and Introibo to offer answers to them (or anyone else since this is a public forum).
1-Your article mentions that only the carnal act of adultery itself is grounds for a permanent separation, not kissing or other sexual acts. Yet if these other acts were redundant, what spouse would not want to seek an immediate separation from the other spouse, even if they could not prove that it led to the carnal act? These repeated offenses alone would be horrendous itself. This was from a commentary of the Code of Canon Law. If this commentary is itself reiterating what is already in the 1917 Code (and I don’t know if it is or not), then it is infallible, and would of course be required for all the faithful to give their assent. If not, then perhaps there is room here for disagreement with Charles Augustine who wrote the commentary. These acts themselves would be so damaging to a marriage that it is puzzling that only the carnal act is grounds for a permanent separation.
2-The article talks about how a stern husband and father is not grounds for a separation, only harshness, severity, barbarity, etc. This sounds fine on paper, but in reality, where does one draw the line? I have personally witnessed several times men at church with their wives and children who were so overly stern, that to me it bordered on abuse. Abuse can take many forms – emotional, verbal, physical, sexual, etc. I have seen this with traditional Sede men and traditional Novus Ordo men where the situations were very bad. I have even been in the homes of people where I witnessed this. While I never saw physical abuse, there was definitely verbal abuse in some cases, while there was “extreme” sternness in other cases. From both scenarios that I have witnessed (and this spanned several different cases), I could not be a wife and put up with that. I’m curious where that line is drawn. It’s one thing to see it on paper, but in practice it seems like the line is not very well defined where it starts and stops.
3-One of the reasons for a separation mentioned in this article is if one spouse sends their children to a secular school. Yet, many people do not have the home school option as a dual income is necessary in so many cases today. Two parents have to work with the rising cost of inflation, which has gotten completely out of control. Introibo has mentioned here before that a secular school would be better than a Novus Ordo school in many cases and I tend to agree, even though we both would agree that there is a lot of filth in secular schools today. There are no good options for many parents in many situations. This isn’t a “cookie cutter” scenario. There are many really good parents that have to send their children to a secular school because it literally is their only option. If time went by and one parent used that as grounds for a separation, what grounds would there be, when both parties admitted prior to the separation, that they literally had no other option here for educating their children?
CONTINUED…
ReplyDelete4-The article mentions that with the lack of an ordinary, no priest can pass judgment on a separation even if the marriage was invalid. Okay, say for example that a husband and wife get married. A few years go by and he says, “Oh honey, I just wanted you to know that I am gay. I have always been a homosexual, even at the time of the marriage. My family pressured me to marry you and I myself wanted to marry you to appear like everyone else, but I have always led this double life and I knew this when I said ‘I Do’ to you.” This is happening a LOT today! That right there is an obex, and would invalidate the marriage, along with the pressure from the family, since it wasn’t a free choice. There would be a double obex there, and even without pressure from the family, that still leaves an obex of him knowing he was an active homosexual, but he went along with this marriage. The priest cannot issue an act of separation here? She is not free to leave him, knowing he very likely could have infected her with HIV/AIDS? What about the children? I have seen many cases personally of couples divorcing after one spouse came out as a homosexual and it left the family in shambles. Again, this is happening a lot. There is no pope, so without a case of ordinary jurisdiction, an annulment it would seem is not possible, but a separation also would not be possible?
5-Only a bishop can grant permission for a separation in the civil forum, after the couple makes the bishop aware of the circumstances in their case and he weighs the evidence. This is also problematic. Sedevacantist Bishop “A” says “Yes” to this couple while Sedevacantist Bishop “B” says “No” to this other couple, when it comes to granting a separation. There has already been a warring between the Sede factions over the question if they can grant an annulment, but we can take that off the table and just keep this at the separation issue, and there will still be disagreements where one bishop says one thing, while another bishop says another thing. Hopefully, the couple goes to the right bishop! There is no higher authority to appeal to in this time of sedevacante. This is extremely problematic.
6-The article mentions that the children would be placed with the innocent party. Again, this is good on paper, but I personally witness a lot of dysfunction on a daily basis dealing with many people from all different backgrounds. I have seen so many cases of separation and divorces and I cannot share many of them here because it would make peoples heads spins with how bad these situations are. And there are a LOT of them I could easily share! Our world has become extremely morally depraved. What if both traditional Catholics have spiraled out of control? One becomes a drunk and the other is addicted to drugs? Sadly, (while not seen as much among traditionalists), there are many cases where both parents are so dysfunctional, or have become dysfunctional over time, that there is no longer an “innocent” party among them and the children have to go to a third party to raise them.
CONTINUED…
ReplyDelete7-The last points I made in #6 give rise to this scenario. There are many validly married Novus Ordo couples, as many marriages and baptisms are valid in the new rite. What if we have a scenario where we have a Sedevacantist married to a Novus Ordo? There are many couples like this today. Problems arise. One side appeals to the Sede bishop while the other party appeals to the Novus Ordo “bishop”. They want a resolution? Talk about a train wreck!
I’ll take it further. We are just talking about Novus Ordo’s now, MANY of whom have valid marriages. Let’s say for example we have a couple where the wife wants to separate due to physical abuse from the husband. The Novus Ordo “bishop” grants her this separation. Furthermore, he counsels her to obtain a civil divorce and she does. For good measure, he tells her to seek an annulment because it is certain that it will be granted in her case. She takes his advice and does this and she is awarded one (as almost everyone is today in the Novus Ordo). She later “remarries” a second man. This domino effect just continues with one thing after another after another, with a sincere Novus Ordo “bishop” who believes that he truly is guiding this woman spiritually in the correct direction. There are added problems here. He is not a true bishop, having invalid orders. This comes back to the question that has been raised on this blog throughout the years: Are those in the Novus Ordo bound by the canonical forum, the same way that Sedevacantists are? From everything that I have seen and read, there is no clear cut answer here and this is a giant question mark that cannot be resolved unless a true pope were to once again ascend the papal throne to declare the V2 Sect as Declared Heretics. For now, it is comprised of Undeclared Heretics and there is no solution to this mysterious dilemma.
Ozson, thank you again for this wonderful article. It really provides a lot of intriguing scenarios that we must seriously ask ourselves as we make our way through these uncertain times in which we are living. I look forward to reading more of your articles and your comments too. Great job!
God bless you,
-TradWarrior
Thank you so much for your kind words and for taking the time to read the article so thoughtfully. The application of the Church's law in our current times requires both a strict adherence to Catholic principles and a deep pastoral prudence.
DeleteHere are my best guesses to the specific scenarios and questions you raised. Of course, none of it can be truly certain until an Ordinary is established and can place a definitive judgment for each case. I would also like to state here that many of these principles are not just from Canon Law commentaries; they are taken from Roman Rota precedents as well.
1. You asked why only the complete carnal act of adultery allows for a permanent separation, while other horrendous sexual acts do not. The answer lies in the Divine Law itself. Christ explicitly stated, "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder", making the bond absolutely indissoluble. The only exception Christ gave for a permanent breaking of the common life (though not the bond itself) was fornication/adultery. Therefore, the Church cannot add to the Divine Law regarding permanent separation. However, this does not mean a spouse must endure severe sexual deviancy. If a spouse is committing other grave sexual acts (or demanding them of their partner), this easily falls under the category of leading a "criminal or disgraceful life" or endangering the other party in "soul or body". This gives the innocent spouse the right to a temporary separation. In practice, if the guilty spouse never repents or amends their life, that "temporary" separation may rightfully last until death. The distinction is primarily theological, but the innocent spouse is still protected from the abuse.
2. The canonical standard is whether a spouse "makes common life too hard by his cruelty, or endangers the other party in soul or body". The line is drawn at objective danger and intolerability, not subjective unhappiness. A husband who is gruff, strict, or lacks emotional warmth is a cross the wife must bear. But a husband who is verbally degrading to the point of destroying his wife's psychological health, or whose extreme "sternness" terrorizes the children, has crossed into saevitia (cruelty). If this cruelty endangers her mind, body, or soul, she may depart on her own authority if "the facts are certain and there is danger in delay".
3. Canon Law states that providing children with a non-Catholic education is grounds for separation. However, the law assumes malice or obstinacy on the part of one spouse against the will of the other. In your scenario, both parents agree that due to extreme financial necessity, a secular school is the only option. In moral theology, if there is no other choice, this is a tolerated evil, provided the parents actively supply the Catholic education at home and counteract the school's errors. Because both spouses agreed out of necessity, one spouse cannot later weaponize this shared decision as canonical "grounds" for separation. There is no delict (crime) of obstinately endangering the children's faith if they are doing the best they can under duress.
4. This is a tragic and increasingly common scenario. You are correct that force/fear from family and a lack of true internal consent (simulation) are impediments that render a marriage invalid from the start. However, as the law clearly states, "No priest, however certain he may be of the status of such a case, can pass judgment on it". A declaration of nullity belongs strictly to a Matrimonial Court. But here is the crucial distinction: The wife does not need an annulment to leave the house. Because he has admitted to an active homosexual lifestyle, he poses an immense "danger to the other party in soul or body" (e.g., the very real threat of HIV/AIDS). Under Canon Law, because the facts are certain and the danger to her physical life is immediate, she may "depart on his or her own authority". She must separate to protect herself. She remains bound to the appearance of the marriage bond until a proper tribunal can one day judge the nullity, but she is absolutely free to sever the common life immediately.
Delete5. This is the agonizing reality of our times. Without a Pope with ordinary jurisdiction to unify disciplines and handle appeals, confusion will happen. In times of such crisis, Catholics must rely on the traditional principles of moral theology. If a couple acts in good conscience, relying on the solid probable opinion of a valid, traditional bishop or a prudent confessor, they are morally safe before God, even if another bishop disagrees. We must navigate this crisis using epikeia (the equity of the law) and trust in God's mercy where the normal juridical structures have collapsed.
6. Canon law dictates that after a separation, "the children should be given to the innocent party, and their Catholic education safeguarded". But as you noted, what if neither is innocent? If both parents have spiraled into severe dysfunction (drugs, alcohol, mutual abuse), neither has a canonical right to claim the children on the basis of "innocence." In these horrific cases, the natural law takes precedence: the children must be protected. The intervention of extended family, godparents, or even the civil authorities becomes necessary because the parents have completely abdicated their primary marital duty: the proper rearing of offspring.
7. To answer your final point: The marriage bond of Christians is sacramental, and "the civil lawgiver has no right ever to dissolve the marriage tie". Furthermore, from the traditional perspective, the Novus Ordo tribunals lack the authority and the orthodox theology to validly sever these bonds. If a Novus Ordo spouse obtains a conciliar "annulment" and a civil divorce, and then "remarries," that person is living in a state of objective public adultery. For the traditional spouse left behind, this provides the exact canonical grounds required for a permanent separation. The traditional spouse remains bound to the marriage vows until death, but they are permanently freed from the obligation of the common life due to the other's adultery.
Thank you again for these outstanding questions. They highlight exactly why we must study these laws deeply, so we can apply them with both the firmness of truth and the charity of Christ.
Ozson,
DeleteThank you for providing all of those answers to my many questions. Your writing is excellent! I agree with everything you wrote. I look forward to future dialogues with you over a plethora of topics!
God bless,
-TradWarrior
TW -
DeleteThank you for positing these scenarios. I had some similar thoughts. Also, a belated thank you for your last article.
Ozson,
Thank you for a great article, and for your helpful responses.
God Bless you both, and a blessed end of Holy Week to all,
-S.T.
Good Job Ozson
ReplyDeleteAs a single person I would be interested to know what type of experiences have folk here had with prospective inlaws when dating? My drove me to despair and heartbreak. Never been treated so bad and never good enough even when I am in a professional job and own my own house.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 9:39,
DeleteI made a comment above about my mother-in-law. In my situation, I have the perfect wife for myself. Unfortunately and she agree with me, her family including her siblings are dysfunctional. Some of her siblings are generally good but nevertheless have serious flaws, while the others make us wonder where they came from. My family certainly isn't perfect either and my wife lets me know it as well but we both do the best we can to be there for them as they do us because we are family. When times get rough both of our families as irritating as they can be, come through when it's important. The moral of the story: Pray for your in laws and bear with them in patience. Take up the crosses and be thankful for the good things God has given us.
@anon9:39
DeleteMy mother-in-law is a wonderful person and I love her. I'm very blessed, and am sorry to hear of your situation.
@anon6:49
You give excellent advice!
God Bless you both,
---Introibo
A blessed and grace filled Holy Week Ozson.
ReplyDeleteWhat an amazing topic to write on that is needed so bad today. Marriage is under such attack and the world is sinking so far in Faith and morals.
I commend you TradWarrior and Introibo who
make good comments.
I am another middle aged single male who has come to accept that I will be single till the day I die. I too have suffered much disappointment , worry and heartbreak thinking I may of been called to Marriage. I would be intrigued to know what bad experiences you other readers(male/female) have had with becoming interested in the other sex in the view of dating/courtship. A number of young Traditional Catholic woman who I thought might be okay were so liberal in their mindset and played silly immature games. One turned up at church with her new boyfriend and sat right in front of me. The dad and mom were smirking. My heart sank and I thought another disappointment. Another one made a derogatory comment when I was at her home for lunch with the rest of the family saying did I go to daily Mass. I said yes, her reply with a stupid look said don't you think you are over doing it. Most are addicted to their phones, listen to crude and demeaning music, dress only on Sundays to go to Mass and the other six days are in indecent clothes that makes a serious virtuous man's skin crawl. They often sit and read immoral magazines. I remember once seeing a Traditional Catholic woman turn up at Mass with her mom wearing a tight mid driff top. She went up to Holy Communion and the priest gave it to her. My heart sank.
I could write pages of what I have seen in recent years regarding modern women. How long Lord do we put up with this trash society. God have mercy on us.
@anon1:45am,
DeleteThank you for sharing your testimony. I feel for you. It is definitely tough out there and I have had my share of heartbreaks too, as I have mentioned several times on this blog. Let’s keep each other in prayer, because in these trying times, we all need as much grace as possible!
God bless,
-TradWarrior
I too am a middle-aged and single male. It breaks - nay; it used to break my heart - however one gets used to it, as inconceivable as that may seem to someone in the midst of sadness over this. The hurt becomes less acute. It doesn't leave, but it lessens.
DeleteFor my own part, I was once good-looking and a rogue: a womaniser and hoar-monger (before I became Catholic) and perhaps this is the reward.
In any event, what I wanted to say was this: anyone struggling with purity, pray the St. Bridget 15 prayers daily for a year. I'm not going to speak of the alleged promises attached to these prayers - holy Church has condemned them - however I say to you: upon the completion of this devotion, chastity & constancy were, in essence, attained.
Obviously wear the Brown Scapular and pray the daily Rosary too.
@anon2:44
DeleteI also prayed those prayers and was deeply disappointed to find out the promises were condemned by the Holy Office.
I agree with you that the prayers themselves are good, and I am in awe of your conversion. You're in my prayers, my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon1:45
DeleteIt's rough, I know. These women are hardly "Traditionalist." "Heathens" is the accurate term. I can't believe a Traditionalist priest would give a woman immorally dressed Holy Communion. Can you say who he was so people can be warned?
I thought I would be single too, and I was Ok with it as God's Will. Then I met the woman who was to be my wife.
You never know. In all things, God's Will be done. You're in my prayers, my friend.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon2:44
DeleteSamson was a whoremonger too, as proven by Judges 16:1 and other verses. However, he later repented, and eventually ended up being 'canonized as a saint' by the human author and Divine Inspirer of Hebrews 11:32-34.
Can't we presume possibly Introibo that those of us who prayed indulgence prayers (condemned), went to daily Mass (in novus disordo) etc before finding the Truth...that the Lord still grants us His Grace because we loved Him...as none of us would have found this Truth without love? A billion are still fooled right?
DeleteThe Anglican Org now has a popess.
ReplyDeleteHer Holiness Sarah Elisabeth Mullally.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Mullally
Will a V2 Org popess ever reign from Rome?
Hello. Have you written anything on baptism.
ReplyDeletePoni,
DeleteYes.
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2015/11/a-laver-of-regeneration-no-more.html
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/05/sins-of-omission.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
Thanks.
DeleteIntroibo, sorry, off-topic, have you written on why you regard Sedeprivationism as 'possible'?
ReplyDeleteIf not, could you encapsulate why? And based on the writings of which theologians?
Thank you.
11:18, you are indeed way off Ozson's topic. Introibo has already answered your questions. FYI, all you (or others) need to do to see his answers, is simply to type "sedeprivationism" into the tiny search box located in the far upper-left corner of this webpage, and then click on the magnifying glass search icon, or depress the "enter" key on your keyboard. The two primary results of such a search, are his blog posts of Nov. 10, 2014 = "Sedeprivationism" ; and June 22, 2020 = "Contra Catholicism". They contain the answers to your questions, insofar as Introibo is/was able to figure them out. Moreover,
Deletehttps://grokipedia.com/page/Sedeprivationism
contains what is probably, at the moment, the most expansive online discussion about this subject. That page currently has 44 endnotes, numbers 5 and 31 of which refer to Introibo's Nov. 2014 blog post.
You're welcome, 11:18. And God Bless.
Thank you most kindly, nine-one-nine.
Delete@anon11:18
DeleteSorry for not responding sooner. @anon9:19, thanks for picking up on my slack!
God Bless,
---Introibo
To continue this thread by quoting from Introibo's words from his June 22, 2020 "Contra Catholicism" post mentioned above, with my own comments added in brackets = [ ] :
Delete"Three [= actually four!] possibilities for getting a pope back are:
Sedeprivationism -- [= either, option ONE] the material pope renounces his heresy and becomes a formal pope or [option TWO =] the material cardinals elect a real Catholic.
[Option THREE = an] Imperfect General Council...
[Option FOUR =] Divine Intervention [ = miracle.]"
^*^*^*
I would submit that there is no such thing as "sedeprivationism" as a singular entity. What I see are various sorts of theories or theses (= plural) grouped under this singular heading word. In my opinion, option 2 is correct, and the other three options are in error.
And more needs to be noted about option 4, which can be understood to be regarded as EITHER a subset of options 1 and 2, OR as some sort of supernatural miracle akin to making-hundreds-of-stage4-lung-cancer-tumors-disappear-in-five-seconds-in-a-Lourdes-style-cure. Divine intervention (of a sort!) WILL be involved with arranging things in certain ways, to pave the way for the intended option 2 outcome, BUT nothing in violation or circumvention of the conclave laws of the RCC, or anything in Lourdes miracle style, will (need to) take place.
The Sanborn thesis? If it supports option 2, it is on the right track, although some things about it, would need to be corrected or amplified upon.
Today is Good Friday (2026) = Golgotha Day.
And I just happen to be, Anon-Golgotha777333.
Thank you; could you please re-post the links you have regarding the alleged Montini 'double'?
DeleteI have only seen people who believe in fraudulent Our Lady of Roses apparition believe there is a Montini double, assuming from false apparition message. Introibo, did Fr DePauw mention a Montini double? I bet not.
Delete@anon6:04
DeleteFr. DePauw thought the “Montini double” was laughable. He had nothing but condemnation for both Bayside AND Palmar de Troya who also taught the “Montini double” nonsense.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
This is 777333, finally responding to 6:26PM :
DeleteFirst off, could you please do me a favor from now on, and pick a blog comment identifier name to use at the endings of your comments? Any made-up name will do, be it Sally or Sarah or Sue. Or Delilah! Or are you a male (vagabond) ?? I am using, and you can refer to me as, 777333. I don't need to know your real name. Not now, and maybe never. I thought that I might get a response from "Leo" about my 3PM comment, but instead, it's you again, repeating your request from Introibo's prior blog post. What does Montini and his alleged look-alike, have to do with Sampson (sic) in your mind?
https://preacherwin.com/2009/02/04/samson-or-sampson/ (by Win Groseclose)
And "chap" ?? (Blimey. Oh my giddy aunt. Oh my days. Good heavens. In other words, what prompteth thee to use that word?!?!) Maybe you have lived part of your life in places like Scotland or Ireland or Nova Scotia?
I am open to further discussion about your request, as a continuation of this comment thread, in the following week. I'll keep looking back at this thread, to see if you have anything more to say.
Awaiting your response, I am, 777333. Today is
Ostern = Auferstehung Sonntag, in ARSH 2026.
Do you have anything about women wearing pants? Are interior clothes cut like pants, permitted?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.traditioninaction.org/search.html
DeleteType in "pants" & click on "search". 163 results.
I just went there, many thanks. Very useful, but I would like more information. God bless.
DeleteAlso, just type in "pants women" into the small search box in the far upper left hand corner of this webpage, as indicated in the 9:19PM comment above. The result of such a search, is Introibo's Nov. 19, 2018 post "The Disregarded Virtue". Mario's Novus Ordo Watch wire blog, has a search box function too, which would almost certainly give you useful results. So why do so many of you Anons bother Introibo with questions, the answers to which you can easily find yourself???
DeleteI suppose pantyhose or leotards would be "interior clothes cut like pants." If worn underneath an appropriate dress, why would that be a problem, unless one spends too much money purchasing such? Wearing nothing other than pantyhose or leotards, below the waist, out in public, would obviously be grossly immodest. In the USA, walk into just about any Walmart, when there isn't cold weather outside, and you're almost guaranteed to see scores of women, wearing only leotards below the waist.
This is 9:15PM once again, with a clarification. I just searched the terminology Wikipedia uses, and found that the Wikipedia articles "Yoga pants" ; "Tights" ; "Skin-tight garment" ; "Leggings" ; "Jeggings" ; "Treggings" ; and "Unitard" (at least as pertains to below the waist) , best describe what I had in mind. "Leotard(s)" is NOT the best word to use to describe feminine attire sometimes seen in Walmart stores and in other shopping (mall) types of locations, and in "gym clubs" too. I apologize for my terminological or vocabularic shortcomings and/or related ignorance.
DeleteIn general, shape-concealing or loose-fitting "sweatpants" are obviously more in accord with Catholic norms of modesty in dress, than "yoga pants". The TIA archive dealing with this subject, is extensive and of high quality, but evidently that didn't satisfy you, to judge from your 9:03 response. You are not very specific, about what exactly you are looking for. At any rate, may God abundantly bless you too, with grace and peace and wisdom and understanding. Take care.
All right. I will keep looking for further information. Theology is fascinating. Blessings
DeleteMany priests, even NO, have done sermons re women wearing pants. Don't do it. It is feminist and women should imitate the Blessed Mother in dress. Yes, no one wantts to hear this and change their ways. Lost many "friends" trying to explain this. Just because everyone wears these disgusting polyester unhealthy and completely immodest yoga pants, even to Church, does not mean it is right or good. The path is narrow He said, and few find it.
DeleteHere is a sede priest speaking on modesty and women wearing pants and sspx resistance article re women should not wear pants, for resources to further research.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/zEOdhLI7qTw?si=hwroyrufUwBcpB2o
https://catholiccandle.org/2024/03/07/women-should-wear-dresses-and-skirts-not-pants-part-2/
Just saw another sede view on women wearing pants...
Deletehttps://youtu.be/7o4rWDEscYQ?si=iUcwZzHQ0zNDb-_J
5:49
DeleteI am NOT entering "Catholic Candle" for theological information.
Thanks everybody for the links. My research deepens
DeleteAnon 5:42
DeleteI don't wear them, I just want to get as much information as possible.
Not trying to stir the pot but I do always see the comment of "women should dress like the Blessed Virgin Mary" on traditional catholic forums and nobody who calls themselves a traditional catholic actually lives up to this standard. Not a single traditional catholic women I have ever seen wears a burka like attire only showing hands and face like our Blessed Mother besides nuns.Is it an ideal to strive for? Yes as modesty in dress is paramount to purity. But the same is true of men then. Why would men be allowed to wear "loose"fitting pants if women are not allowed? Shouldn't men be dressing like our Lord wearing multiple layers to cover everything but hands, face and feet? A women is admonished for wearing womens pants(which may in fact be non form fitting), but men can wear jeans and a t-shirt? Im not an expert on Church teaching on the subject and I could be way off base here but just my thoughts on this topic.I understand wanting modesty and a women's body produces more temptation than a man's but how about we just have some humility and not label every person on earth immodest when we are living in a time when people genuinely think 2+2=5? People have zero concept of modesty and for most people its probably not entirely their fault. Just some food for thought. Have a blessed Easter everyone. As always thank you Introibo.
DeleteI think your comment is reasonable David M. I like to think I dress like BVM with long skirts and modestly. Sure, not veiling in summer but winter often headdress etc. I often get so many compliments on my outfits even though I do not come close to BVM standards. Yes, the world is far from Christ, His Church and His commandments but they are in force regardless so we are in trouble no matter what people think and do sadly. God bless all! Holy Easter!
Deletehttps://padreperegrino.substack.com/p/the-ends-dont-justify-the-jeans (Nov. 20, 2025)
DeleteCan you give me your email for a private question?
ReplyDeletePoni,
DeletePlease send me your email via these comments. I will respond with a private email I use to protect my anonymity.
God Bless,
---Introibo
What are three or four signs that one is called to marriage ?
ReplyDelete@anon5:29
DeleteCommon signs I've seen from Church sources include:
1. The desire for children and to be a good father/mother.
2. Willingness to sacrifice for others, as you must do things you would otherwise not do for the sake of your spouse and/or children.
3. You feel you would be good in the married state. You have prayed to God and feel that the priesthood and/or religious state is not your calling. You feel you would be better suited as a married man/woman rather than single.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I had those three signs regarding the call to marriage but never had any luck finding someone after disappointments ,etc. I am middle age. Does that mean I did not have a calling or only thought I did. Thanks Introibo
ReplyDelete@anon4:09
DeleteFirst, who’s to say you won’t get married? I was middle aged when I got married. Only God knows the future, my friend!
Second, it could be that you would make a good spouse, but God (for reasons known but to Him) keeps you in the single state because it is for the best.
Happy Easter tomorrow, my friend!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
Pray the Litany of Saint Joseph 9 days consecutive and go to Confession on the 8th or 9th day. It's been known to work for finding a spouse.
Delete-Andrew
Dear blog (post guest) author Ozson,
ReplyDeleteOksana Grigorieva became quite famous, and wealthy too, to the tune of $750,000, somewhat derived from profits generated by the 2004 blockbuster movie "The Passion of Christ", the movie director of which, it is sometimes claimed, is a sedevacantist. Robyn (Moore) Gibson, the mother of Mel Gibson's first seven (out of nine) children, might well be, in a certain sense (or become, in eventual reality) a saint, for all we know, especially in light of what she probably has had to endure. Obviously, since neither of us is God, we don't know all the details of why Robyn's marriage fell apart, but tons of details are known to us, via tabloid media and the Internet. From the Wikipedia page devoted to Mel, we learn that he only recently broke up with the mother of his ninth child, and is now apparently a single dude once again. In light of the contents of your blog post above, do you think that Robyn (if she is still single and/or unattached to a man, at the moment) should try to reunite with Mel as a spouse? He is clearly guilty of notorious public adultery, which, as you note above, is grounds for permanent separation, and so Robyn seemingly has no Catholic-related obligation to do so. Maybe Robyn is (and would be) doing more to help Mel get to heaven, by remaining divorced and separated from him?