SSPX and women in positions of authority

[cecilia97]

Too many priests are sissies naming themselves after Mary (instead of a masculine variant) a bad idea coming from France and Ireland and too many nuns are taking male names.

Gerard, I cannot believe I have just read this! There are many great men and holy priests who have taken the name of Our Lady in order to honor her and her Son. For anyone to judge them as being “sissies” for doing so is just mean.

:nope:

 

[system]

Third, where I disagree with Clement is his actual argument. He claims that wild hair and grey hair are part of the nature that God has given us. That doesn’t really hold since they are qualities of our Fallen nature, not our created nature.

My hair is BOTH:

Wild and grey!

If by chance or grace I get to heaven, I’ll have to sort this out with Clement. (assuming he made it)

 

[GerardP]

Gerard, I cannot believe I have just read this! There are many great men and holy priests who have taken the name of Our Lady in order to honor her and her Son. For anyone to judge them as being “sissies” for doing so is just mean.

:nope:

I didn’t say all men who follow this tradition are “sissies.” I said sissies are doing this as well.

 

[cecilia97]

I didn’t say all men who follow this tradition are “sissies.” I said sissies are doing this as well.

You said “Too many priests are sissies naming themselves after Mary”. I guess we should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you left out the “who” in front of the “are”. But you did also say the tradition is a “bad idea”…inferring that the tradition itself is the problem, not the alleged sissies who may follow it.

Most of the Fr. Mary Somethings I’ve come into contact with seemed to be manly enough, and all seemed to be devoted to their vocations. Certainly they are manly enough to give their lives to Christ. Manly enough to brave the derision of other men for the sake of their devotion to Our Lady.

I hope if you ever meet a group of Fr. Marys in a dark alley one night, they will only pray for you!

 

[Transformer]

GERARD: This is Fone Bone 2001; I accidentally posted under my brother’s screen name. Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’ve finally gotten hold of my copy of Good News About Sex & Marriage and will now be happy to correct what was said earlier, when Christopher West was falsely accused of encouraging heterosexual sodomy.

(Please note that some may consider parts of this quote to be quite blunt and/or graphic.)
Christopher West:

A husband should never intentionally ejaculate anywhere but in his wife’s vagina. …] The anus and rectum are simply not biologically designed to accommodate a penis. Penile penetration can cause trauma to the rectal wall (for example, tearing or bruising). Not a few people who engage in “anal sex” on a regular basis have bowel problems. Furthermore, the excretory function of the rectum raises some basic aesthetic questions. What does anal penetration symbolize? Is this an act of beauty? Is it truly loving to subject one’s wife to the health risks? Why would a couple want anal penetration to be part of their foreplay to normal intercourse on any kind of regular basis? What desire does it purport to satisfy? Since anal penetration is in so many ways a parody of vaginal intercourse, emphasis mine] I’d pose the following question to those who are attracted to it as a form of foreplay: Why not just skip that step with all its health risks and uncleanliness and enjoy the real thing with your spouse as God designed it?

The very next answer in the book - its format is question-and-answer - attacks a dualistic view of human sexuality and defends the notion that “which orifices” are involved in sex really, truly does make a real, objective, extremely spiritually significant difference.

As you can see, Christopher West in no way “encourages” sodomy or anal foreplay.

Actually, Gerard, I’m finding it difficult to understand your reservations about the theology of the body. Your criticisms don’t seem to stem from a disagreement with its basic philosophical approach - a potentially valid view to take - but rather (judging from your belief that one of JPII’s works inspired an acceptance of homosexual activity) from an inherent paranoia that the theology of the body is some kind of gateway into the Church for people who seek to justify sexual immorality.

That view is obviously unjustifiable, judging from the fact that the libertines who are aware of the theology of the body reject it and consider it nothing more than a new way of expressing the staunchly conservative morality that they despise.

And for what it’s worth, I agree with what you said earlier in this thread, when you suggested that the nature of Adam and Eve’s sexual union before original sin was probably completely different than that of sex today because of their state of innocence. Guess what? Christopher West expresses a similar opinion on pages 84-85 of Theology of the Body Explained.

 

[bobzills]

Living the SSPX life is just as silly as being Amish.

I don’t think that being Amish or living the SSPX life is silly. Quite the contrary. i think that living and attending the clown Masses, the rock and roll Masses, the monkey Masses, the Halloween Masses, the charismatic rolling on the floor Masses, is silly. What can be more silly than having a clown running around at the altar during Mass or having Eucharistic servers dressed in weird Halloween costumes? Not to mention the silly and lewd plays being shown at Catholic colleges. These are plays which mock and make fun of Catholic morality and attempt to prove that Catholic morality is silly.

 

[GerardP]

You said “Too many priests are sissies naming themselves after Mary”. I guess we should give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you left out the “who” in front of the “are”. But you did also say the tradition is a “bad idea”…inferring that the tradition itself is the problem, not the alleged sissies who may follow it.

If you don’t want to give me the benefit of the doubt, I can clarify it again.

And yes, I do hold that the tradition is a bad idea. Men taking feminine names is problematic. Manly men would not be affected by this, but the sissy sect that I’m talking about loves the idea for perverse reasons.

And where the Church had enough defense up years ago, the problem didn’t manifest itself. Nowadays when the Church’s defenses are low, the problem does manifest itself.

Most of the Fr. Mary Somethings I’ve come into contact with seemed to be manly enough, and all seemed to be devoted to their vocations.

I can cite a very famous example that contradicts this, but I don’t want to contribute to the scandal. If you really want to know, PM me.

Certainly they are manly enough to give their lives to Christ. Manly enough to brave the derision of other men for the sake of their devotion to Our Lady.

It’s not derision, it’s pointing out a misplaced application of devotion. There are whole orders of men devoted to Our Lady. What would you say if men started dressing like Our Lady in order to show their devotion? I don’t believe the Holy Ghost Fathers chose the name Fr. Holy Ghost Johnson. Jesuits don’t pick names like “Fr. Frank Jesus Christ.”

I hope if you ever meet a group of Fr. Marys in a dark alley one night, they will only pray for you!

What else would a group of Fr. Marys in a dark alley be doing?

 

[whatevergirl]

Gerard–I don’t think it’s very kind to say that men (priests) who select feminine saint/Biblical names are sissies, and are perverse. That is not charitable, and frankly, unless you can read minds–you have no idea why some priests choose ‘feminine’ names. I think of Father Francis Mary, from EWTN–he was not sissy whatsoever–I just think it’s wrong to say that priests would choose feminine names for ‘perverse’ reasons, as if you know.

I’m surprised this thread has remained open as long as it has, really. The charity level is so low, and really, it has gone so astray relating to the initial topic of women in authority positions.

 

[ASimpleSinner]

I’m surprised this thread has remained open as long as it has, really. The charity level is so low, and really, it has gone so astray relating to the initial topic of women in authority positions.

Amen. Amen. Amen.

 

[cecilia97]

If you don’t want to give me the benefit of the doubt, I can clarify it again.

And yes, I do hold that the tradition is a bad idea. Men taking feminine names is problematic. Manly men would not be affected by this, but the sissy sect that I’m talking about loves the idea for perverse reasons.

And where the Church had enough defense up years ago, the problem didn’t manifest itself. Nowadays when the Church’s defenses are low, the problem does manifest itself.

I can cite a very famous example that contradicts this, but I don’t want to contribute to the scandal. If you really want to know, PM me.

It’s not derision, it’s pointing out a misplaced application of devotion. There are whole orders of men devoted to Our Lady. What would you say if men started dressing like Our Lady in order to show their devotion? I don’t believe the Holy Ghost Fathers chose the name Fr. Holy Ghost Johnson. Jesuits don’t pick names like “Fr. Frank Jesus Christ.”

What else would a group of Fr. Marys in a dark alley be doing?

Maybe ministering to the homeless?

None of us can read minds. However you may have meant it, “sissy” does indeed SOUND like derision.

You have your opinions about this topic and that’s fine. You do not write doctrine or decide what is a “misplaced application of devotion”. As much as your opinions mesh with what’s in the catechism, devoted Catholics will tend to agree with you. Further than that and you’re on your own to convince.

But watch that you don’t paint with too broad a brush, please! Some of us have known respectable Fr. Marys, for one example. You make some good arguments…but when you use offputting slurs and offend people, those good arguments start to fall on deaf ears and your message is lost. It’s the old “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar” truism. The substance may be there but no one will listen closely enough to hear it if you’re spouting vitriol.

OK, I’ve exercised my female prerogative of lecturing and complaining for today. God bless.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard–I don’t think it’s very kind to say that men (priests) who select feminine saint/Biblical names are sissies, and are perverse.

I agree with you. Since I didn’t state that, why are you bringing it up? Do you think that priests who are devoted to Our Lady should display it by wearing head coverings and crowns of flowers?

That is not charitable, and frankly, unless you can read minds–you have no idea why some priests choose ‘feminine’ names.

I’m not talking about the why, that is incidental. It is the intrinsic wrongness of it, and that wrongness is more manifest in our day and age than years ago.

I think of Father Francis Mary, from EWTN–he was not sissy whatsoever–I just think it’s wrong to say that priests would choose feminine names for ‘perverse’ reasons, as if you know.

I don’t know his particular inner struggles that have lead him to go on sabbatical, but there is definitely a problem he’s got nowadays that is I would bet tangentially related to what we are discussing here.

Secondly, I know many priests, I’ve encountered some of the best and some of the worst. Some I’ve known since we were boys in school and I know about their very open pre-vocational gay lifestyles. I know that they don’t believe in the authority of the Pope at all. “We don’t bother to listen to him anymore.”

I’ve been to a wedding reception where the Jesuit that witnessed the marriage was indicating to the groom which men he thought were the most attractive.

Orders of nuns at a well known Catholic girls college are all paired up in lesbian couples. They re-write the rubrics of the mass to suit their agenda. A friend of mine attended the “private mass” and he showed me the “program.” He is related to one of the nuns and knows that the lesbianism is rampant among them.
He even posts on CA if he wants to back me up or add anything.

As I pointed out, Fr. John Trigilio got into trouble with his bishop for what he presented in “Goodbye Good Men.” in which men were giving each other female names in their open out of the closet behavior in the seminary.

I’m surprised this thread has remained open as long as it has, really. The charity level is so low, and really, it has gone so astray relating to the initial topic of women in authority positions

What I am most surprised at is the lack off foundational philosophical principals that many of the posters are displaying.

Situational ethics and subjectivism seems to be the standard by which any thing is judged. That is dangerous.

 

[GerardP]

Maybe ministering to the homeless?

We would hope. But it’s a tragedy and a crime that all too often, we’ve had cases of less than noble circumstances being discovered.

None of us can read minds. However you may have meant it, “sissy” does indeed SOUND like derision.

Those that are “sissies” in the priesthood are doing considerable damage. They should not have been ordained at all and pretending that they aren’t gravely disordered when it’s obvious wil do no one any good.

You have your opinions about this topic and that’s fine. You do not write doctrine or decide what is a “misplaced application of devotion”. As much as your opinions mesh with what’s in the catechism, devoted Catholics will tend to agree with you. Further than that and you’re on your own to convince.

How about if what I express is consonant with the teaching of the Magisterium and the teaching of St. Thomas. (the theologian of the Church)

The Catechism has numerous problems in it, especially as regards the commentaries that accompany it.

But watch that you don’t paint with too broad a brush, please! Some of us have known respectable Fr. Marys, for one example.

I will be careful, but it seems that some people are looking to misrepresent and to set up straw men from a more nuanced statement I or anyone agreeing with me might post.

A respectable Fr. Mary is a respectable man. That does not mean that he didn’t commit an imprudent act in choosing a female name.

A sissy who picks the name of St. Rocco will still be a sissy as well. But a sissy who picks the name of a female saint is deliberately underlining their lack of manliness.

You make some good arguments…but when you use offputting slurs and offend people, those good arguments start to fall on deaf ears and your message is lost

Some people want to be offended, and all of my clarifying won’t convince them otherwise.

It’s the old “you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar” truism. The substance may be there but no one will listen closely enough to hear it if you’re spouting vitriol.

I see your point and agree that prudence is called for. Sometimes an aggressive approach is necessary and sometimes a subtle approach.

When the honey is just taken advantage of and the conclusions are ignored in sound arguments, sometimes a little bee sting is necessary.

OK, I’ve exercised my female prerogative of lecturing and complaining for today. God bless.

Yes dear…whatever you say… uh huh…I’m listening

 

[GerardP]

GERARD: This is Fone Bone 2001; I accidentally posted under my brother’s screen name.

Okay. I gotcha. I’m replying to one of your previous posts, so your brother doesn’t think I’m addressing him out of the blue.

Anyway, for what it’s worth, I’ve finally gotten hold of my copy of Good News About Sex & Marriage and will now be happy to correct what was said earlier, when Christopher West was falsely accused of encouraging heterosexual sodomy.

That wasn’t what West is accused of. West is accused of failing to condemn it as an intrinsically evil act.

And there is one part of the quote you gave that made me think quizzically.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Christopher West, Good News About Sex & Marriage, p. 93

Why would a couple want ________to be part of their foreplay to normal intercourse **on any kind of regular **basis? What desire does it purport to satisfy?

The problem is not West’s attempt to discourage it on a natural level. The article criticizing West points out to his unwillingness to categorize it as intrinsically evil. Does West anywhere refer to it as one of the sins that cries to Heaven for Vengeance?

Actually, Gerard, I’m finding it difficult to understand your reservations about the theology of the body. Your criticisms don’t seem to stem from a disagreement with its basic philosophical approach - a potentially valid view to take -

They do. I don’t believe JPII understood the human body in its relation to God. He took a Darwinian influenced view and believed that there was a way to get to “original nakedness.” Not possible while our bodies are in this form. He viewed the body as an Eastern Catholic would view an Icon. It’s a focus of concentration and meditation in order to direct our thoughts heavenward. On it’s own that’s nothing bad. But it leaves out the intimacy with the Divine that every human can strive for whether involved in the marital bed or not.

but rather (judging from your belief that one of JPII’s works inspired an acceptance of homosexual activity)

It’s not my belief. It’s the belief of Stephen Hough.

from an inherent paranoia that the theology of the body is some kind of gateway into the Church for people who seek to justify sexual immorality.

And it’s not some kind of gateway…it’s a flawed, modernist influenced, overly romanticized and overly complicated and incomplete understanding of what Bishop Sheen could far more concisely express as “three to get married.”

That view is obviously unjustifiable, judging from the fact that the libertines who are aware of the theology of the body reject it and consider it nothing more than a new way of expressing the staunchly conservative morality that they despise.

That makes sense when one considers the methodology of modernism as expressed by Pope St. Pius X in Pascendi.

Hence, by those who study more closely the ideas of the Modernists, evolution is described as a resultant from the conflict of two forces, one of them tending towards progress, the other towards conservation. The conserving force exists in the Church and is found in tradition; tradition is represented by religious authority, and this both by right and in fact. By right, for it is in the very nature of authority to protect tradition: and in fact, since authority, raised as it is above the contingencies of life, feels hardly, or not at all, the spurs of progress. The progressive force, on the contrary, which responds to the inner needs, lies in the individual consciences and works in them – especially in such of them as are in more close and intimate contact with life. Already we observe, Venerable Brethren, the introduction of that most pernicious doctrine which would make of the laity the factor of progress in the Church. Now it is by a species of covenant and compromise between these two forces of conservation and progress, that is to say between authority and individual consciences, that changes and advances take place. The individual consciences, or some of them, act on the collective conscience, which brings pressure to bear on the depositories of authority to make terms and to keep to them.

The very fact that JPII was even remotely considered traditional or even conservative establishes the pattern that allows the modernists to step further down the line of liberalism. Anyone more conservative or traditional than JPII (eg. St. Pius X) is considered “extreme.”

And for what it’s worth, I agree with what you said earlier in this thread, when you suggested that the nature of Adam and Eve’s sexual union before original sin was probably completely different than that of sex today because of their state of innocence. Guess what? Christopher West expresses a similar opinion on pages 84-85 of Theology of the Body Explained.

In the interests of fairness, I will give West another look to see if I’m missing anything. I had seen him on television and liked about half of what I heard and was appalled by the other half. I’ve attended theology of the body seminars and I found them very faulting. (And I detest that Churches are being used as lecture halls in discussions about private matters and especially in front of the Blessed Sacrament–when Jesus should be our prime concern in His real presence and not added like a scented candle to enhance the atmosphere)

 

[whatevergirl]

Gerard said—>And yes, I do hold that the tradition is a bad idea. Men taking feminine names is problematic. Manly men would not be affected by this, *but the sissy sect that I’m talking about loves the idea for perverse reasons. *

That* is *what you said, Gerard.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard said—>And yes, I do hold that the tradition is a bad idea. Men taking feminine names is problematic. Manly men would not be affected by this, *but the sissy sect that I’m talking about loves the idea for perverse reasons. *

That* is *what you said, Gerard.

And what’s your point?

 

[whatevergirl]

And what’s your point?

Point is that one shouldn’t be categorizing our priests in such a degrading way…this priest is ‘manly,’ this one is ‘sissy.’ (your words) I guess if you don’t see the wrong in that, there’s really nothing else I can say about it.

 

[Brother_John]

Amen. Amen. Amen.

Whatever happened to the old adage, “If you’ve posted more than five times on a subject, you’re just arguing”

 

[GerardP]

Point is that one shouldn’t be categorizing our priests in such a degrading way…this priest is ‘manly,’ this one is ‘sissy.’ (your words) I guess if you don’t see the wrong in that, there’s really nothing else I can say about it.

“Manly” is a compliment. “Sissy” is a polite word used in place of the alternatives. And it’s more accurate since I don’t know the level of activity or the fidelity to celibacy a priest with SSAD may have. “Sissy” like “Fop” is a description of outward behavior.

I purposely haven’t given names in order to preserve them from the blush of shame.

A priest who is telling a groom which men he’s attracted to in the room can’t hide behind the collar. The sooner they realize that they aren’t going to be allowed to undermine their vocation, the less “out” they’ll be.

One of my classmates who is a priest and was known for his gay lifestyle in his pre-vocation days talked openly during a class reunion words to the effect of, “I hope I get her on her deathbed, I’m going to tell her a thing or two.”

 

[bobzills]

Whatever happened to the old adage, “If you’ve posted more than five times on a subject, you’re just arguing”

Off topic

 

[whatevergirl]

“Manly” is a compliment. “Sissy” is a polite word used in place of the alternatives. And it’s more accurate since I don’t know the level of activity or the fidelity to celibacy a priest with SSAD may have. “Sissy” like “Fop” is a description of outward behavior.

I purposely haven’t given names in order to preserve them from the blush of shame.

A priest who is telling a groom which men he’s attracted to in the room can’t hide behind the collar. The sooner they realize that they aren’t going to be allowed to undermine their vocation, the less “out” they’ll be.

One of my classmates who is a priest and was known for his gay lifestyle in his pre-vocation days talked openly during a class reunion words to the effect of, “I hope I get her on her deathbed, I’m going to tell her a thing or two.”

what does this have to do with the topic of women in positions of authority? What does the homosexuality problem that exists within the priesthood have to do with women? (I agree with you on some of what you say here, but not sure how it relates to women at all?) Can you help me to understand that?