Prof who refuses to use gender pronouns points to Catholicism as bulwark against extr
#11
(01-18-2018, 11:30 AM)GangGreen Wrote:
(01-17-2018, 01:25 PM)austenbosten Wrote: It's amazing how the likes of Jordan Peterson and sodomite public heckler Milo Yianananananapolis both on separate sides of the spectrum and yet on the same side against the Modern-Left leviathan, both point to the Catholic Church without actually seeking to become members.

Another note it is also amazing how Peterson effectively echos the exact same argument Catholic thinker E. Michael Jones has been plugging for decades about Logos.

Praise be to God that I know now in the few years of being a Catholic, that took Mr. Jordan Peterson (a man of immensely greater intellect, intelligence, and stamina) decades to figure out.

Milo is actually Catholic. Just a Catholic who cannot control his gayness. Sadly, he doesn't seem to be in a rush to correct that issue.

https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/arti...e-to-print

Milo is the same type of Catholic that Nancy Pelosi is. Although I appreciate his defense of the Church, I certainly am leery to make public acknowledgment of his Catholicism.

Also let's not fool ourselves. Milo is a man who does not want to control his gayness. He wholly embraces the sodomite lifestyle like a moth to a flame, and shows not even a flicker of remorse for his flagrant flamboyant flippancy of dogmatically defined Truth.

To also note, neither does he wish to suppress his vainglorious pride.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Reply
#12
[quote pid='1361151' dateline='1516293821']

Milo is the same type of Catholic that Nancy Pelosi is.  Although I appreciate his defense of the Church, I certainly am leery to make public acknowledgment of his Catholicism.

Also let's not fool ourselves.  Milo is a man who does not want to control his gayness. He wholly embraces the sodomite lifestyle like a moth to a flame, and shows not even a flicker of remorse for his flagrant flamboyant flippancy of dogmatically defined Truth.  

To also note, neither does he wish to suppress his vainglorious pride.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
[/quote]

I don't know if he still believes it, but I watched an interview he was doing with Joe Rogan and he said that if could choose to be gay or straight, he would choose to be straight, and implied it was because of the unnaturalness of homosexuality.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Melkite's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#13
Then let him take the first step by not bragging about having black boyfriends and showing up with dildo-shaped water bottles to speaking events. He's certainly not showing any struggle with his lifestyle.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
Reply
#14
I appreciate Milo. He's obviously not a Saint (at least not yet; it could happen), but he's sincere, intelligent, funny, and not only in the position of being able to say things others can't (because he's gay), is willing to say them, and does say them, thereby doing a lot of good.

I can't get behind dissing someone (or their efforts) because that person's a sinner, since I'm one of those, too. He takes the Truth seriously enough intellectually to not defend his particular poison, or try to say it's perfectly OK and normal or natural, which is key to me. And he's not a hypocrite about his weakness either, feigning sanctity while being a ho behind closed doors (that type of thing bothers me a lot more than "mere" flagrant sinning). He is what he is and is honest about it: a weak Catholic who takes the Faith seriously intellectually but fails to live up to its standards of perfection sometimes (as we all do, of course. But it seems that, often, active homosexuality is the only sin that matters to many). He's a public person, so who he is and what he does are well known, unlike most of us and our sins. 

That said, like Austen, I wish he weren't so flagrant about it. My sense is that he does struggle with it (it's clear he does know the Faith and takes it seriously), but his personality being how it is, he turns his struggle into a joke and cranks it up to 11. Wish he wouldn't, but oh well... "He that is not against you, is for you," etc. Making perfection an enemy of the good is a mistake, IMO -- which isn't to say we shouldn't, prudently and with charity, call out whatever's lacking, but allowing it to become an enemy is something else.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • IntoTheMystic, Melkite
Reply
#15
(01-18-2018, 06:28 AM)austenbosten Wrote:
(01-17-2018, 10:00 PM)VoxClamantis Wrote:
(01-17-2018, 05:24 PM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: I have enjoyed Peterson and much of what he says.  I'm grateful he is a good and strong proponent of free speech.

Two concepts he has have jumped out at me though:

1.  We must embrace the evil within us to balance the good.

2.  The serpent opened the eyes of Adam and Eve because they could not see before.

I'm not well versed and am only beginning to understand it, but this to me sounds like Kabbalah.

Instead of "embracing the evil within us" why not just exercise virtue.  Virtue can be courageous enough to fight when necessary without being evil.

In Kabbalah, the serpent is the friend of mankind who opened his eyes so he could become like God.  They were missing something before that the serpent helped them to find.
 
Peterson isn't saying we should "embrace evil" in any sense of doing evil; he is saying that we must face our shadow and be brutally honest with ourselves, face our fears, realize our sinful inclinations, etc., and recognize that concupiscence and tendency toward evil are a part of who we are as human beings. It has nothing to do with Kabbalah at all. And he's constantly "preaching" virtue; that's mostly what he does.

In the words of the ancient Greeks "Know thyself."

I have some wine and I'm ready to type so this may be a long post.  :cool:  :wine:

So let me preface my response by once again making it clear that I really do like Peterson and appreciate the positive effect he is having on people searching for greater meaning in their lives and especially his willingness to stand up for free speech.  

It is a bit painful to watch him struggle with such sweat and turmoil to get so close to what we have been given in our Catholic faith.  Like watching someone re-invent the wheel.  Boy do we have much to be grateful for!

I agree that we shouldn't make perfection the enemy of the good and I hate to be the bug in the ointment but I have had bad experiences with things that appeared to be good and relatively harmless but ended up causing great harm.  Small errors in the beginning can become large errors in the end and I've learned that the hard way.  

For one, shortly after our marriage I read a book called, The Power of Positive Thinking, by Norman Vincent Peale.  I vaguely remember someone warning me the Church didn't approve but after going through some traumatic experiences I was looking for something to help me adjust my thinking.  I felt I knew my faith well enough to recognize any problems the book might have.

While the book had some encouraging tips, I did recognize the problem the book espoused which was the belief that your thoughts can actually have an effect on outcomes.  On the one hand, a positive attitude towards ones' work can assume the form of hope, diligence, fortitude etc. and God willing, the goal is achieved.  On the other hand, if one thinks their thoughts will create the outcome in and of themselves, you have just made yourself God!  

Unfortunately my husband read the book and to this day I truly believe that he has more faith in positive thoughts than in prayer.  Not only that, but I've come to learn that Norman Vincent Peale is a 33 degree Freemason (and Donald Trump's "pastor" growing up).  The belief in the power of one's thoughts is a more button down packaging of the New Age method known as "The Secret" which Oprah Winfrey promoted.  It's actually Freemasonic-Kabbalah repackaged and recycled again and again.  

It's actually a demonic form of idolatry and I'm afraid it had a very, very bad effect on my husband who was all too eager to share the book with my oldest son even though I begged him not to. Fortunately for me a friend gave me the book, Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence for an even better understanding of why my hopes and dreams don't always turn out to my desired outcome.

Example B would be the charismatic movement/ecumenism.  My Dad loved the Catholic Church and had a burning faith and desire to bring it to others.  I'm grateful for my upbringing in a charismatic community because it gave me a stronger faith and better instruction than I would have received only from my parish.  However, it's clearly not enough formation and structure to hold people accountable and this error manifest itself in my Dad's later life whereby he flaunts his service in the Church while bending rules left and right.  It's the enthusiasm and spirit that matters most after all. ::P And as for ecumenism, now that I understand the plan for a one world religion (Freemasonry again) I can clearly see that it's not about evangelization but acquiescence.

Satan is subtle.

So back to Peterson.  It's very clear his hero is Jung who was deeply influenced by Kabbalah and Gnosticism.  

Knowing that, I have my ears pricked for those little errors that pop up amongst the oodles of goodness and truth.

So yes, he does talk about embracing our dark side in a way that's synonymous to our understanding of a deep examination of conscience, meditation on our concupiscence and potential for evil, performing a general confession, and understanding that anything good we have accomplished has come from grace because the only things we own are our sins being that we are mere food for worms.  As AustenBosten put it, "Know thyself."

Personally I gained a deeper understanding of this by watching all 7 years of episodes of "Women Behind Bars".  It was so clear to me as they described the childhood and circumstances that got these women to where they are today that I would have probably done just as bad if not worse in their shoes.  :(

So that's all good, but when he talks about not being a weak, naive doormat he says that we need to know how to be "a monster", "dangerous", or "mean" while keeping it in check.  His model is Kabbalistic and tries to find the alchemical balance or equilibrium between the evil and good within us utilizing a diagram of the tao or the ouroboros.

In contrast, as Catholics I don't believe we try to balance the good and evil within us, but instead try to overcome the evil with good.  It's probably because we live in a culture of acute niceness that he feels he must use the negative terms to describe what actually is described by Catholics as virtues, or perhaps it's because he is wedded to Jungian Kabbalistic dualism.

(Or perhaps, since as he indicates himself that it's mostly women who are "too nice", it's an attempt to accomplish what I believe the women's movement was originally trying to correct in the first place but manged to wayyyyyy over correct with disastrous results.)

In any case, instead of saying to people they should "develop their shadow side" he could tell them to work on the virtues of justice, fortitude, courage, and resolution.  Instead of balancing our light and shadow sides, he could tell his students to purge the evil through repentance and gain strength to stand up for ones' self through grace and virtue while striving for perfection....if he were Catholic that is.

He could also explain how the saints, while innately having one of the four temperaments, to those around them their particular temperament was undetectable because they had gained a perfect balance of the positive qualities exemplified by each one.

So anyway, it may be a small error but it could become large with some people.  We all look for excuses for our bad behavior after all, don't we? ;)

With regards to Adam and Eve, he states in one video that their eyes were closed until they gained consciousness after eating the apple which Jung teaches led to individuation.  This is a Kabbalist idea that implicates that things were less than perfect in the garden to begin with.  Again, it's a small error but could become larger.

As for Milo, well, he's a very likable fellow!  I like all sorts of people whose lifestyles I may not approve of simply because they are intelligent, articulate, or have charisma and charm.  (which he does)  :)

Unfortunately, he has actually "married" his black boyfriend, and is Jewish from his mother's side.  As a former editor of Breitbart, it's no surprise that he's a Zionist, which he flaunts at his "return party".  See the flag at 41 seconds:



And what's even more disturbing and sad, he is seen here taking part in what is known to be a satanic ritual.  He also frequently makes the 666 sign.  Now some may shew this away as not carrying a satanic meaning, and that may be true.  It's so hard to tell these days as "everyone's doing it".



So like all of us, Milo and Jordan are a mixed bag and I think it's important to recognize the bad while still appreciating the good.

So I pray, dear Lord, that You would reveal yourself clearly to both Jordan Peterson and Milo Yiannopoulos, that they might come to know the full truth and the love you have for them which surpasses any earthly knowledge or thing, and that they might come into the fold of the Catholic Church to share your love for all eternity!   :heart:
[-] The following 1 user Likes Sacred Heart lover's post:
  • austenbosten
Reply
#16
(01-19-2018, 06:36 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: So like all of us, Milo and Jordan are a mixed bag and I think it's important to recognize the bad while still appreciating the good.

So I pray, dear Lord, that You would reveal yourself clearly to both Jordan Peterson and Milo Yiannopoulos, that they might come to know the full truth and the love you have for them which surpasses any earthly knowledge or thing, and that they might come into the fold of the Catholic Church to share your love for all eternity!   :heart:

Oh this post just eloquently sums up all my feelings of Jordan Peterson and Milo Hamnanyamanahamana.

They are a mixed bag for me, I really do enjoy listening to Peterson, and to some extent Milo, though his delivery comes off as pretentious a bit. And while I see them as confederates on the same fight, I do see glaring errors in their thinking, or views, that make me very hesitant to call them a brother in the same manner I would call Michael Voris, or E Michael Jones (even though both are apparently not on speaking terms), or Raymond Arroyo, or even Jimmy Akin.

Still as SHL said, we can see the bad, as well as the good.
[-] The following 2 users Like austenbosten's post:
  • Melkite, Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#17
America Magazine interviewed Milo -- and then refused to print it. Here it is, from Milo's site:




[Image: DANGEROUS-PINK.png]






The Catholic Magazine Interview with MILO They Refuse To Print
ByStaff Writer
Posted on October 10, 2017


Over five weeks ago, I sent the following answers to questions I was asked by America magazine, a journal run by Jesuits. They have chosen not to publish it, perhaps out of compassion, fearing too many of their aging readers would suffer heart failure. Or perhaps they couldn’t stand my tweaking of their most famous contributor, Fr. James Martin, notorious for equivocating over any Church teaching that might cause a stir at an Anglican garden party.
 
Amusingly, while the Jesuits struggled to decide if they could bear to publish my answers, one of the Church’s highest ranking Cardinals called out Fr. Martin by name as “one of the most outspoken critics of the church’s message with regard to sexuality.” That means my side in this dispute enjoys support from a black prince of the Church raised on a continent where martyrdom is common, while the other side’s champion is a white bourgeois man in whose life the worst threat is that the wine is a bit off this week

Ask yourself:  Which of these men would you want to have your six?
 


———————————-

Although you grew up Catholic, you now say and do many shocking things in your public career which seem to be at odds with your childhood faith. In what sense do you still consider yourself a Catholic? 
 
Plenty of saints were shocking, to say nothing of our Lord, who got in a spot of trouble for His shocking claims, as you might recall. I am certainly no saint, but I don’t think “shocking” is a helpful way of approaching the question of Catholics in public life. It doesn’t settle much to say that the current Pope is shocking to many Catholics, including me. Or to note that I’m shocked by supposedly Catholic politicians who make laws in flat contradiction to the natural law, which you need no faith to grasp.
 
In my case, do you mean it’s shocking that a Catholic like me is loudly worried about Islam, which has waged war on Holy Mother Church for more than a millennium? 
 
Or that I say Planned Parenthood’s abortion crusade amounts to black genocide? 
 
Or that I’ve supported Pope Paul VI’s criticism of artificial contraception so strongly that Hillary Clinton attacked me for it in her presidential campaign? 
 
Frankly, what’s really shocking is that a poor sinner like me has spoken out more on contraception than 99% of our bishops, who seem too preoccupied with diversity and climate change to talk about God. 
 
Maybe you mean it’s shocking that I’m always joking about my lack of chastity and my fondness for black dudes, but I still call myself Catholic. And I don’t see what’s so shocking about that, either. One of the most famous saints of all time, sixteen centuries ago, prayed, “Lord, make me chaste, but not yet.” 
 
Anyone who grows up in Catholic cities like New Orleans and Rome emerges pretty unshockable — and certainly wouldn’t be alarmed by me.
 
I think it was a visit to New Orleans that inspired Evelyn Waugh to make an observation I often quote:  Protestants seem to think, I’m good, therefore I go to church, whereas Catholics think, I’m very bad, therefore I go to church. Waugh also said, when people asked how he could call himself a Catholic: You have no idea how bad I’d be if I weren’t.
 
Sins of the flesh, let us remember, are at the bottom of the scale. The Church says self-righteousness is at the top. Therefore, I’m in a lot better shape than some of my feminist and establishment Republican enemies. To say nothing of Islam! 
 
In life, I believe in aspiration. If you’re a poor kid, aspire to rise economically. If you’re shy, aspire to confidence, so you can defend your views in public. And if you’re a wretched sinner like me, aspire to end up better than you are now. Miracles do happen! 
 
 
Where do you experience tensions with Catholicism in your life?
 
Who says any Catholic should lack tension stoked by his weaknesses? We Catholics are better at clothes, food, and parties. Why shouldn’t we be better at guilt, too?
 
You don’t see me disputing the Church’s teachings on homosexuality. There’s no intellectual tension, because I wouldn’t dream of demanding that the Church throw away her hard truths just to lie to me in hopes I’ll feel better about myself. I love the truth, not lies, and I know no one’s feelings are the basis of truth. 
 
That’s why I don’t understand those Catholics — such as, if you’ll forgive my horrid impertinence, this magazine’s editor at large, Fr. Martin — who imply that if people don’t like what the Church says, maybe the Church is wrong or should apologize. The Church was founded on a rock and a cross, not on a hug.
 
Still, if you insist I talk about feelings, I’ve said before that I feel there’s something wrong with the fact that my lovemaking can’t produce the mini-Milo’s I’d like to have. How’s that for a subjective confirmation of the Church teaching that same-sex attraction is “objectively disordered” because it can’t lead to procreation?
 
Bottom line:  The Church says I’m not culpable for my temptations, but I shouldn’t sin. She’s right. And her founder said He came to heal those who knew they were sick, so I don’t despair.
 
 
What was the best thing about your Catholic upbringing?
 
One good thing was hearing Mary praised for her motherhood. Whatever my own mother’s shortcomings, I learned that motherhood is the greatest vocation, and one that God banned all men from. That’s why I think it’s sad that today’s feminists, as Chesterton observed, despise motherhood and all the other chief feminine characteristics. The idea that men and women shouldn’t be different — shouldn’t have different interests, strengths, and ways of relating to Creation — is insane, and it’s empirical fact that trying to deny these differences makes all of us less happy.
 
Growing up Catholic also taught me the value of humility, even if that’s not exactly a forte of mine. This virtue is important for society, because it teaches us to be tolerant of a diversity of opinions, rather than arrogantly trying to silence people we disagree with. And it’s important for me personally, because despite my vanity, I know I’m not as smart as Thomas Aquinas or as good as St. Francis. 
 
There’s a great line from the novelist Flannery O’Connor, who liked to shock and troll a bit herself: “I’m not limited to what I personally feel or think; I’m a Catholic.” She meant the same thing Chesterton did in his famous quip, “Tradition is the democracy of the dead.” Political correctness gives us thin gruel and loneliness. The Church gives us a grand party with red meat and red wine.
 
 
What was the worst thing about your Catholic upbringing?
 
Father Michael didn’t give as good head as he got. 
 
 
How do you pray?
 
On my knees.
 
 
Who are your role models, either living or dead, in the Catholic faith?
 
Pope Benedict XVI is still the wisest and most erudite man in Europe, though I’m sure he doesn’t deserve to have me hung around his neck as an admirer. He was also brave enough to declare publicly that Islam’s irrationalism is one of the world’s great problems. 
 
By the way, in the same Regensburg lecture he pointed out that secularists in the West are also dangerously unbalanced, because they’re as hostile to religion as Muslims are to rationality. I note that he credits my wild pagan ancestors in Greece for the West’s deepest rational roots.
 
My personal motto, “laughter and war,” comes from a passage in Chesterton’s Heretics. He should be the patron saint of Catholic journalists. And of course Hilaire Belloc was brilliant as a defender of the West. In the 1930s, when the Caliphate had collapsed and no one imagined Islam would ever come back, he prophesied that the West would again be threatened, because our superior money and technology can’t take the place of a devotion to your civilization.
 
I’ve already quoted St. Augustine, who had his own pelvic issues. I once tweeted out an illustrated page from his Confessions that began, “I will now recall my past foulnesses.” That’ll work for my memoirs someday, too.
 
Rabelais and the anonymous trolls who wrote the Carmina Burana are kindred spirits.
 
She wasn’t a Roman, but the conservative essayist Florence King earned a title I aspire to. A New York Timesbook reviewer said of her: “The mind of a Jesuit with the mouth of a truck driver.”
 
 
What’s your favorite Scripture passage and why? 
 
I’m tempted to go for the easy Waugh line from Ecclesiastes:  “Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”
 
 
You recently self-published the new book “Dangerous” after Breitbart fired you and your original publisher withdrew the contract. How do you respond to critics who say you are “hateful” and “hurtful” to others?
 
The truth often hurts, as the Church has always understood. That’s one reason she so often shows us a Man in agony on a cross. I don’t delight in others’ pain, but I’m not scared into silence by the fear someone somewhere will take offense.
 
The fact that so many of us think hurting people’s feelings is the greatest evil says all you need to know about the decline of our civilization. If I’m wrong about something, don’t whine; show me evidence and make rational arguments.
 
Or tell a good joke! A big part of what I do is playing the jester, telling the powerful the truths they don’t want to hear. Maybe that’s what you meant about my “shocking” aspect. A friend who’s a brilliant medievalist at the University of Chicago (and who was just received into the Church this Easter, Deo gratias), likes to embarrass me by writing about me as a holy fool.
 
I say embarrass, but of course it’s a great compliment and I am happy to receive any kind of attention. 
 
By the way, I wasn’t fired. 
 
 
In the book you mention that you made a mistake in the broadcast that got you fired. Looking back at your public career to date, what would you do differently if you could do it all over again?
 
I would change nothing. 
 
 
In 2011 and 2012, you were featured in Wired UK’s yearly top 100 most influential people in Britain’s digital economy, and the Observer once called you “the pit bull of tech media.” How is tech media changing the way we do journalism today?
 
I blame tech bloggers for the proliferation of “process journalism,” which means writing whatever appears to be true at that moment and fixing it later. Of course, they never bother. Tech journalism today has lower professional standards than a Detroit bordello, which is why I left to become famous for a living instead. 
 
  
You were one of the first tech journalists to cover the Gamergate controversy, criticizing what you saw as the politicization of video game culture by “an army of sociopathic feminist programmers and campaigners, abetted by achingly politically correct American tech bloggers.” How do you respond to critics who say you are supporting the tendency of video games to demean women?
 
Just as there was no evidence in the 1990s that rock music, heavy metal and video games caused violence, there is no evidence today behind the moral panic that video games make you sexist. It’s politics masquerading as well-meaning academic enquiry. Fortunately, we won, and the noxious feminists are on the defensive in gaming. 
 
 
What does masculinity mean to you?
 
It means a willingness to expose yourself to enemy fire, whether or not you wear a uniform, in order to defend the good — your family, your church, your country, your civilization. Now the men in uniform are much better men than I, but even I can do a bit to defend those things with the gifts God gave me.
 
Our Lord, as always, showed the way: He endured the horrors of the Passion to defend and redeem the whole world. I’m with Rod Dreher: Anybody who only preaches a namby-pamby God, and not the highly masculine God of Scripture, is leaving young men vulnerable to the monstrous false gods of race and ideology. 
 
Boys struggling to become men are always potential barbarians, because they hunger for masculinity but aren’t sure where to find it or how to productively express it. Our Lord revealed it to them, but too many in the Church keep masculinity hidden or the subject of shame.
 
 
As a gay Catholic, you’ve debated same-sex civil unions on television news programs, surprising some people with your perspectives. In a nutshell, what do you believe about this issue and why?
 
First, I’m with St. Thomas Aquinas: The civil laws can’t forbid everything the Church forbids, because utopianism does more harm than good, given how weak most of us are.
 
I was for a long time contemptuous of gay marriage. But then I fell in love, and now I don’t know what to think. 
 
I’d add that just as the Church doesn’t insist civil society require everyone to follow all her views of proper conduct, so civil society should follow the First Amendment and not bully believers into espousing whatever views politicians have enacted. It disgusts me when gay activists harass in the public square, much less in the courts, those simple believers who aren’t harming anyone while they bake pizzas and the like.
 
 
In 2008, the BBC featured you in media coverage of Pope Benedict XVI’s historic visit to the United Kingdom. From your perspective, what was most significant about his visit?
 
One major thing he did was to visit John Henry Newman’s Oratory and move him a step forward toward canonization. That’s great, given that Newman’s nemesis was liberalism in religion. He was not, as George Weigel has joked, a believer in an ice-your-own-cupcake world.
 
 
The Vatican has launched a commission to examine and overhaul the Holy See’s media communications strategy. If you could give any advice to Pope Francis about how to do journalism today, what would it be?
 
Stop talking. 
 
 
Any final thoughts?
 
 Pray for me. I need it.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 1 user Likes VoxClamantis's post:
  • Sacred Heart lover
Reply
#18
I will continue to pray for Milo. 

He certainly exemplifies Jesus' point of "Be ye hot or cold or I will vomit you out of my mouth."

Would that Father Martin might listen and adjust his temperature gauge.

Milo is so witty and well read that he can utilize his mental library in turning a phrase so that even the most mundane topics come alive! :)

I do wish Milo could be a bit more in line with Augustine by giving up his sinful ways before preaching to others.  Otherwise, it's a tossup as to which message he is sending is louder.

I hope he can reform before his body starts to give way.  As Joseph Sciambra has elucidated in painful to read details, the human body cannot pursue such sins for long before paying a physical price.  (Oh wait, that's a secret the culture warriors don't want let out.  shhhh....)


Quote:Sins of the flesh, let us remember, are at the bottom of the scale. The Church says self-righteousness is at the top.

Well, no doubt pride, the sin of satan is tops, but the Church also lists homosexual activity as one of the sins that cry out to Heaven and Our Lady of Fatima said that more souls go to Hell for sins of sexual immorality than any other.

So, it's nothing to make light of. :/


Quote:The Vatican has launched a commission to examine and overhaul the Holy See’s media communications strategy. If you could give any advice to Pope Francis about how to do journalism today, what would it be?
 
Stop talking. 

:D   Gotta luv this!



As for his praise for Pope Benedict, once again I'm again concerned that Milo is a Zionist as was the Pope.

Yes, Catholics need to wake up and realize that we are in a war with Islam since they have declared it so, but it's the Zionists who are fueling that war so they can sit back and watch their enemies destroy one another.
Reply
#19
(01-26-2018, 11:04 AM)Sacred Heart lover Wrote: Well, no doubt pride, the sin of satan is tops, but the Church also lists homosexual activity as one of the sins that cry out to Heaven and Our Lady of Fatima said that more souls go to Hell for sins of sexual immorality than any other.
 
Clarification: It's not homosexual activity that's one of the sins that cries out to Heaven; it's sodomy, which includes but isn't limited to homosexual activity, and also includes the misuse of the genitals by heterosexuals.
T h e   D u d e t t e   A b i d e s
[-] The following 2 users Like VoxClamantis's post:
  • Justin Alphonsus, Sacred Heart lover
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)