I’ll be honest, while I have been familiar with the name Steven Greydanus for some time, I had no firsthand knowledge of anything he has ever said or written until yesterday.
Evidently, he is a film critic whose work is published by the neo-conservative National Catholic Register.
His bio on their website states that he is “the creator of Decent Films, a permanent deacon in the Archdiocese of Newark, and a member of the New York Film Critics Circle.”
He also provides film reviews via a program entitled “Reel Faith” that is aired by “NET TV Catholic,” which is, according to its website, “the communications and technology arm of the Diocese of Brooklyn.”
Yesterday, I happened upon Greydanus’ “Reel Faith” review of a film entitled, “Call me by your name,” which apparently is Hollywood’s latest attempt to “normalize” homosexual deviance.
So, what did the deacon have to say to Catholics who may have been looking for insight into how this particular “reel” measures against the “faith”?
Rather than simply providing the transcript of Greydanus’ review, I would encourage you to watch the roughly 1 minute episode for yourself as the written word cannot possibly do justice to what you’re about to witness.
Having watched Greydanus’ glowing review of a film set in Italy that, according to him, “wants to seduce the viewer” by telling the story of “a young man (a 17 year old minor, that is) … in a relationship with an older man,” the actors of which, he gushes, are “attractive and often winsome,” I have an idea.
How about we call Greydanus by his name. (HINT: It ain’t “Reverend Mr.”)
In keeping with the Italian theme, a more appropriate moniker would be something like: mezzo finnoch’
For those who aren’t familiar with the term, it describes a testosterone-free male who, although not a self-identified practitioner of homo-deviance, is just this side of full-blown, out-of-the-closet, gay as-the-day-is-long.
Those of you who suffered through the video cannot but concur thanks as much to his cringeworthy effeminate persona as to his drooly description of the film as “a decadent ode to desire and celebration of male beauty.”
Seriously, what kind of man, never mind “clergyman,” speaks that way?
Oh, yeah, a guy whose NCR bio states, “Steven and his wife Suzanne have seven children.”
How proud they must be.
And let us not forget that this particular review bears the “imprimatur” of the Diocese of Brooklyn.
Let’s be honest, folks; the Catholic Church in our day, or better said, the conciliar creation presently passing itself off as the Catholic Church, is overrun by homos (like James Martin and Battista Ricca), homo-sympathizers (like Francis and Rheinhard Marx), and pseudo-males (like Steven Greydanus and what by all indications is the preponderance of Novus Ordo clergy in parishes worldwide).
If anyone ever needed proof that Satan has indeed infiltrated the Church even to the highest places, this is it.
As I wrote in a post entitled “It all comes down to the males” back in 2015:
It’s rather clear that attacking the male of the species has always been among Satan’s highest priorities; undermining maleness in such a way as to tempt men into rejecting the God-given attributes that define “masculinity.”
So, you want to read the signs of the times relative to the approaching final confrontation?
Keep an eye on the state of males both in the culture at large and in the Church – their strength, their manliness and their godliness – as you can be certain that this is precisely where Satan is determined to pile up the most casualties.
If Steven Greydanus is any indication, the excrement is just a hair away from the fan.
Louie, I’ve talked to good priests who say that at least 50% of priest are homo. In many places, I bet it is quite higher. The bishops know this and do nothing about it but then again how many of them are homo? Of course, this situation is beyond what man can solve but not beyond what God can solve. And He will. I hope soon.
Sexual ambiguity in the wake of theological ambiguity…
Seriously, what kind of man, never mind “clergyman,” speaks that way?
Until you examine the changes in the NO Ordination Rites, these sorts of homoerotic displays in the clergy will continue to baffle you. Once you realize that none of these “men” are priests due to improper form and intent (and maybe matter ie not real men to begin with), then it will all make sense.
I seem to remember this guy doing movie reviews on EWTN years ago. There were no rainbow flags raised at that time. He seems to either have changed or has been emboldened by the homosexual powers that be in the Church today. That clip is creepy. In the old days films like he’s describing were on the Church’s forbidden list but he can hardly contain himself as he pushes it. I pity his poor wife.
This article could also be titled “Why Fr. James Martin, S.J. Is So Popular.”
The author has decided to trash a guy he’s never met because he, the arbiter of masculinity, has deemed him effeminate. However, realizing that his target could very well lose his job for being a practicing homosexual, he correctly figured that the subject would have a case for libel should that happen. So because he, the author, does not “avare i coglioni” (in keeping with the Italian theme) to face such a lawsuit, he uses a phrase in another language that stops just short of outing the subject.
Let’s apply Tradition Catholic perspective to this. Assume for a moment that the author’s premise that Greydanus has homosexual inclinations is true (I do not, but play along). He suppresses these inclinations and marries a woman and has seven (!) children and is a Deacon. Is he celebrated for this? Nope, he’s smeared and emasculated. In print. By those who have decided that he is worthy of their public contempt. For following exactly what the Catholic Church teaches.
Now, imagine for a moment that you have homosexual inclinations. You’re Catholic. Do you choose this sort of treatment? Or do you find Fr. Martin’s tone and position of compassion a perhaps just a bit more appealing?
I’m not stating my personal beliefs here. I’m merely applying Trad logic and hoping that perhaps one or two of you readers see how awful this sort of attack is and perhaps stop hating gay people so much. I know quite a few who are far more compassionate and do far more good in this world than quite a few Trads I know.
Nauseating. I used to read his reviews about a decade ago. I abandoned him because I suspected that he was yet another stinking sodomite. He may indeed be. But he’s most definitely yet another pitiful gamma male.
It’s funny, I went to a CatholiCuck (neo-Cath) school for graduate school. More than a few of the CatholiCuck intellectuals there talked like stinking sodomites, even though they were (apparently) straight. This is quite fashionable today.
In any event, let’s recall St. Paul’s searing judgment of both sodomites AND those who applaud them:
“Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
Somehow that last part is never mentioned today.
Wow. Upwards of 50%. Could be. It stinks to high heaven.
Yet another manifestation of diabolical disorientation.
Once again you’ve got it all figured out from atop your comfortable, high and mighty sedevacantist perch. It’s all black and white. The mystery of iniquity be damned. Those of us baffled, nauseated, confused by such diabolical madness are mere unwashed, ignorant plebs bereft of your superabundant sedevacantist gnosis.
Will you ever give it a rest?
Come to think of it, I do recall seeing him on EWTN years ago. You’re right, he wasn’t nearly as effeminate then. I won’t be at all surprised if he soon “discovers” his “true self” and comes out as “gay.”
Degenerate, you’re not going to convert us to your depraved Conciliar religion. Get lost.
“Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
The spirit of gayness just permeates the Novus Ordo. Looking back, growing up was there anything gayer that we were exposed to in our lives? It’s creator, Paul VI, being gay would be a likely reason for this all encompassing “spirit”. Had I gone on to the priesthood, I too would have likely turned gay. That’s just what the new Rite is designed to accomplish.
Anyone read Barnhard’s article “That doesn’t go there”? I found it delightful that her inbox was inundated by “trad” Catholics outraged that she would dare criticize heterosexual oral sodomy. Good for her! At least she walks the walk instead of just talking the talk.
Does anyone doubt that if we were to search the browser history of AlphonsusJr with his talk of “cuck” we would find a pathetic hypocrite indulging in pornography? I learned that’s where the word originated when I googled it to find out what it meant.
One of the best things about Catholic religious truth is that ALL will be revealed at the Final Judgment. Everyone posting here will know what everyone else posting here has done. Your porn watching and masturbation and heterosexual sodomy will be revealed before the whole world. Can’t happen soon enough.
Where did Tom mention sedevacantism? You do realize that not just sedes question the validity of the Paul VI new rites, correct?
“Does anyone doubt that if we were to search the browser history of AlphonsusJr with his talk of “cuck” we would find a pathetic hypocrite indulging in pornography? ”
Alphonsus is not my favorite poster here with his rabid anti-sede hate, but this comment crosses a line.
Agreed. How about someone banning him.
I know of several non sedes who question the validity of these new rites and, to avoid a doubtful sacrament (at least to them), they seek out traditionally ordained clergy with a traditional “pedigree.”
I am wondering why Al Jr., is so hypersensitive to Tom A. Tom is hardly nasty and seems intelligent and fair minded. Leaves me wondering what’s really behind this. But alas, this is off topic.
Is it possible that the video Louie posted constitutes for some an unnecessary occasion of sin and/or temptation?
As for my last comment, I am referring to scenes from the movie, not the commentary by the deacon.
You’re right. Creepy as … As to calling Greydanus by his name, I would use stronger terminology than Louie did — ‘St—zo’
You’re talking too much. You should sit quietly and consider what effect this man’s positively glowing endorsement of this film is going to do to impressionable Catholic minds – and souls.
And wallowing in carnality has never been part of Catholic Tradition – not now or ever. For the true Catholic position on these matters I suggest you read the Book of Gomorrah (Liber Gomorrhianus) by a saint – St Peter Damian. Now there’s Catholic Tradition for you!
Here is a Catholic priest dealing with homosexuality according to Catholic Tradition – Fr John O’Connor
Compare and contrast Steven Greydanus’s endorsement of the film with Joseph Sciambra’s calling it out for what it is, summed up by a commentator as “slicked-up” gay “Daddy-Son” porn, true sleaze.
Gangenelli is crudly reminding us to remove the beam in our eye before dealing with the splinter in our brother’s.
Ganganelli’s filthy Conciliar mind goes straight to pornography. Typical.
In fact, “cuck” as used in cuck and species of cucks such as cuckservatives, CatholiCucks, and EvangeliCucks comes from the relationship between the Cuckoo bird and the European Warbler bird. See:
“Cuckservatism: the Cuckoo in the Conservative Movement’s Nest”
I don’t recommend doing it as what you will find is a near occasion of sin but if you want to know the truth about the disgusting word “cuck” google it and see what filth comes up.
My comments were aimed against the slander of a man (and a fellow Catholic, to boot) who deserves his good name like everyone else.
The attitude that prompted this outburst of a blog post as the same one that makes Fr. Martin’s extremely liberal position very appealing to a lot of people who know gay folks who are nice, upstanding citizens.
If the choice is between ISIS-style throwing gays off of rooftops and Fr. Martin, most people – most normal people – think it would be far better to be on the Fr. Martin side of things (remember, murder also calls out to heaven for vengeance). Frankly, so would I, if those were my two choices, as I’m not a murderer. So the more y’all go pushing the rooftop option, the more you push people to the other extreme. Of course, that’s not really the choice back here in the real world, but y’all are trying really hard to make it so.
They’re doubtful at the very best Alphonsus. Have you looked at the issue in any depth for yourself, and not just relied on what some novus ordo cleric with a large statek in the issue thinks?
Many, many non-sede SSPX faithful doubt the new Orders and never go to the novus ordained clergy too.
You make it out to be only those two choices. Not so.
I looked it up and didn’t find anything like you seemed to stumble across. I understand it to mean the same as Alphonsus. How’s your novus ordo bread-and-wine-offering-without-a-Victim celebration going by the way?
Dear Louie: Sorry for being O/T but I’d like to say that I truly appreciate your blog, your thoughts, and your commenters. That being said, while it’s your blog and yours to handle as you see fit, I will say that I sure wish you had a simple rule to commenters to BE BRIEF and to STAY ON THE TOPIC. Especially to be brief. I get so annoyed and end up just closing the blog after the first couple of commenters expounding on soapboxes. Really, really tiresome.
Mundabor has a couple of nice rules….no sedavacantism, period. no tiresome lectures, period. He doesn’t dialog about it. He just tosses them in the Trash. Problem solved. Makes reading his commenters much more enjoyable. Just a suggestion from a fan. 🙂
Louie already addressed this and if you truly are a regular here you would know that. But thanks for sharing your anti-sedeness. Whatś one more uncharitable anti-sede poster!
I’d rather be in a room with a sede than a diabolical “real” pope.
I have just re-read Louie’s “On Francis and Sedevacantism”. Am I misunderstanding or has Louis proclaimed himself to be a “neo-sede” with regard to the Francis?
I welcome clarification from Louie if this is incorrect. P.S. I think many Catholics would agree with this position.
Lizfitz, perhaps you should just read the author’s article and avoid the comments Problem solved.
Uh, so many of the Prelates have said or act like they did not know child sex abuse was a crime.
Apparently they are also unaware that sodomy is a sin, much less one of the four that cry out to heaven for vengeance. That makes me wonder if any of them are Catholic.
Abp Lefebrve doubted the validity of the NO sacraments himself.
Maybe you have a content filter on your browser (good for you), but I found plenty of explicit meanings when I looked it up.
Astute readers will notice that when referring to the likes of Tom A, I always qualify the word “sedevacantist” with adjectives like “rabid,” “foaming,” “monomaniacal,” “hysterical,” “puffed up,” “muliebral,” “weak,” “effeminate,” “high and mighty,” and “gnostic.” This is the type of sede I attack. Otherwise, I find the sede position quite understandable. It need not be rabid, monomaniacal, etc.
That last message was supposed to go somewhere else up above.
First, truth is an absolute defense to every form of defamation, whether slander or libel.
Second, St. Paul taught us that not only are stinking sodomites worthy of death, but so are those who support stinking sodomites. As a wretched, effeminate Conciliarist, you of course reject St. Paul’s teaching.
Notice how Tom A yet again takes the side of filthy Conciliarist Ganganelli. Recall that Tom A previously informed goon Ganganelli that they agree on just about everything. Sad!
Sadly, foaming monomaniacal sedevacantists won’t stop; even in that very thread where Louie told them to cool it, they wouldn’t stop. Such is their effeminate lack of self-control. In any event, because other readers are either also sedes or because they’re cowards, very few of us will step up against them.
Notice that hysterical, Oprahist sedes are–being modern conformists–impervious to reason. Hence, having long since learned the total futility of attempting to argue with those impervious to reason (such as those white ethnomasochists now known as cuckservatives), I rarely resort to anything behind mockery when addressing them. As puppets of the devil, bloated sedes cannot endure being mocked.
Even so, notice that Louie doesn’t display any of the muliebral hysteria of this forum’s resident wretched sedes.
Ah… so following up from last time Ol’Blunderbuss has finally outed himself formally as to where he stands.
Blunderbuss doth protest too much about someone’s sexuality. I guess it makes sense considering how given the current sort of priests running around being gay these days that birds of a feather flock together.
I’m sure this along with the Theology where everyone can follow whatever religion they want was very very attractive to Blunderful.
“If the choice is between ISIS-style throwing gays off of rooftops and Fr. Martin, most people – most normal people – think it would be far better to be on the Fr. Martin side of things (remember, murder also calls out to heaven for vengeance).”
So according to Blunderdogh, it’s okay to go to Hell for homosexuality and encouraging people to be homosexual, and to receive the Body of Christ with your homosexual partner before the congregation?
This is what Fr. I-refuse-to-Disclose-my-sexual-preference Martin promotes in case Blunder missed it because he gets his Catholic news from The Advocate.
Hey BLunder… remember that Book called The Revelation to St. John. Where God, that extreme fella, separates the Sheep and Goats to two separate extremes and one extreme goes to Hell and the other goes to Heaven?
You might want to check which side you’re on.
Because you’re either with God or with the faggots.
If the choice is between God and Martin-style encouraging gays to jump into Hell, and Francis-style ecumenism encouraging ISIS to hold fast to their Korans, most people – most Catholic Holy people – think it would be far better to be on the side of God on these things (Remember, “When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. (Ezekiel 33:8).
Frankly, that’s where I’d stand if those were my two choices, as I’m not a murderer – of souls! So the more Blunder encourages gay people to be gay, then God will require Blunder will be directly responsible, and Blunder and Fr. Martin will suffer in Hell for their refusal to save their brother suffering in sodomy.
That’s the real-world scenario as well as the next-world scenario, which apparently it seems Blunder does not believe in alongside Martin and Francis.
Does Blunder actually believe in Hell? Or is Blunder merely tossing out the word because he imagines using it will magically scare us into adopting his warped and evil secular worldly view?
Another off-topic virtue-signalling Ganganelli(tm) post where he/she/non-binary-ze? is trying to subtly inform us all about how Gags is completely immune from sins of the flesh.
Like the braggart in the temple Gag is informing the public –
“God, I thank You that I am not like the other men—swindlers, evildoers, adulterers—or even like these “trad” guys. I feel nothing when I look at the opposite sex, but I’m no homo.” (The Gnostic Book of Pride According to Gag 1:1)
Gag, were you immaculately conceived too?
Tell us! So that we can petition Francis to consecrate the sodomite priesthood to your cartoon heart.
It’s obvious that Ganganicuck already googled it very very thoroughly for us! So we should trust his recommendation not to do so!
Perhaps gag would also like to google for us AlphonsusJr’s history too?
You know, to prove his witnessing against Alphonsus, rather than just slanderous allusions to common sins?
Please share with us what you found Gag! time to put up or shut up.
I’m certain Gaghub has a pretty big number of beams clogging up his internet cache too.
They’re probably bookmarked right above his Protestant sources about the Catholic papacy.
That’s because you probably have your search engine filter turned off.
That’s funny Gags… practically search engines have the filter on or set to moderate by default to avoid bringing up XXX-related content.
Why is yours off?
Even some in the secular medai saw it for what it was. A film promoting sodomy with the under-aged.
“Because you’re either with God or with the faggots.”
Well said indeed.
Blunderbuss, you are right, and your point needed to be made: many comments about this reviewer (as a human being) were uncharitable and inappropriate. I’ll address those comments in a moment. Regarding the movie, Call Me by Your Name: several (non-religious) people whose opinions I respect have told me it is a well made film, so I may watch it when it is on cable.
How movies should be reviewed by Catholic publications is a difficult question. Obviously, films can be superb as far as writing, acting, directing, cinematography, etc., yet be entirely antithetical to Catholic values. I have found the National Catholic Register to be a good paper, and more orthodox than many posters on akacatholic consider it to be. However, I was startled that the NCReg — I never write “NCR”, because I am loathe to have the National Catholic Register confused with the execrable National Catholic Reporter — would review “Call Me by Your Name”, given its plot concerns a homosexual love affair between a teenager and a man in his twenties. I was even more surprised that the reviewer didn’t touch the morality of homosexual behavior or the morality of an affair — either hetero or homo — between a teenager and an adult. (I’ll assume the movie was, indeed, well made and deserved being praised as such, with which I have no problem.)
As I wrote above, the comments about the reviewer himself were uncalled for, even cruel, and I do not condone them. However, I suspect posters were as confused as I was about why a reviewer for the National Catholic Register didn’t devote even a few seconds to note that, while giving thumbs up to the production itself, he wouldn’t also give the thumbs down to the movie’s values. What is the point of running movie reviews in a Catholic publication if there is no Catholic perspective to those reviews? And in trying to figure out why this movie reviewer was so delighted by this movie that he neglected to note that our culture isn’t enhanced by yet another film that glorifies male homosexuality, perhaps the posters noticed that the reviewer himself seems, well, to have homosexual mannerisms. Should they have pointed that out? No. Do such mannerisms necessarily mean anything about his inclinations, never mind how he actually leads his life? No. However, perhaps the posters’ unkind remarks about the reviewer’s mannerisms indirectly make a case for decrying the values the movie itself promotes: Hollywood is working so hard to blur the lines between the genders that masculinity is being erased. So, when a Catholic man — say, a married father of seven who is a Deacon — fails to stick up for something when we expect him to, we are disappointed and, as if we were once again children on the schoolyard, we call him names that we think will hurt him into acting as he should.
Sodomites and their sympathizers must be rigorously, brutally, relentlessly, systematically driven out from the Temple. No quarter can be given. In a healthy society, the full force of civil law would facilitate this.
Maybe next Ganganelli can tell us how Francis knows the word ‘coprophilia’ enough to use it in everyday language?
In fact, the majority of men and young boys who indulged in internet porn wouldn’t know the word or even click on any links suggesting it.
And perhaps Gags is too stupid to know, that many of us can figure out the meaning of words based solely on their etymology and familiarness with language to put 2 and 2 together. That’s because some of us are smarter, whereas Gags can only rely on Google.
I wonder if Gag’s bought an Alexa to help him in everyday life.
Hey Gags, ask Alexa who Jesus Christ is. Tell us what comes up.
Yet another sodomite sympathizer full of false, toxic compassion. Pitiful. Just pitiful. And straight from the pit of Hell.
Against False Compassion
I don’t see the problem.
First because Louie is not calling him an actual sodomite, but states quite plainly that it’s men like this, who are castrated from fear of the prevailing secular weltanschauung, that are in places of importance, and who refuse to call a spade a spade.
This is in complete contrast to the historic Church and the brave saints and martyrs and inquisitors and kings and soldiers who would not for one second throw a fragment on incense to such things.
It’s one thing to watch films with bad content. I myself watch films with gangsters, murderers, war, adultery, racism and all kinds of sinful conflict. But usually in those films it’s understood that such things are bad. Crime is bad. Prostitution is bad. Murder is bad. Rape is bad. Unjust Prejudice is bad. etc. The context always treats wrong things as wrong. The Good guys win. Or sometimes the Bad Guys get away with it, but providentially are still punished with some loss that deprives them of what they originally wanted. The moral line still exists even when the gangsterism is glorified by the ill-gotten gains and status.
Then there are films designed to make what is wrong seem right. And this is the case with practically most of these LGBT films. Sure they’ll portray some of the side-effects, as every film needs conflict. But overall it’s about making it normal and acceptable and treating it JUST LIKE ANY OTHER male-female relationship. THAT’S A PROBLEM.
As far as film reviews go, naturally there it is the job of a SECULAR film critic to be “unbiased” as regards the subject matter. Though arguably, this also falls into the error of “freedom of speech.”
But what the hell is a Catholic Newspaper and a supposed Catholic Reverence Reviewer working for Catholic Newspaper doing reviewing a film with a clear pro-immoral message from an unbiased secular viewpoint?
Why does the Register just drop the ‘Catholic’ from the name then?
You think these guys will ever stand up for actual Catholic Truth in the face of the LGBT onslaught?
Louie’s overall message then is VERY pertinent. It’s NOT POLITICALLY CORRECT. But it’s time we stopped giving a damn! The “fey” behaviour and mannerisms are perfectly apt for the limp-wristed coo-cooing attitude of the majority of the Churchmen in 2018.
This has to stop. And you bet it’s going to require that no small amount of people get run over in the process. So if you’re not going to be part of the solution, might I suggest that you get out of the way. The time to play nice and offer benefits of the doubt are long over. We’re long into a crisis and unless someone starts beating people on the head to get in line and on the straight and narrow path, there’s going to be a downward stampede over the cliff.
While many of us accept is that Francis is demonstrably a formal heretic and therefore isn’t Catholic and therefore cannot remain the Pope….
The questions still to be sorted out are –
a) Was Francis ever the Pope? Was Benedict’s resignation and splitting of the Papal functions valid? Is Benedict XVI still the Pope?
b) Assuming Francis was validly elected Pope, even if he has now demonstrably a formal heretic and logically not Catholic, and logically cannot be Pope, what is to be functionally done? (Other than that we outwardly ignore or oppose him?)
In my opinion there’s no reason to even entertain b, until we can actually answer a. And currently it seems that nothing short of actually kidnapping him and getting him to talk unrestricted before a LIVE camera feed will give us an answer any time soon.
This is different from the ‘traditional’ sede position that there have been no Popes or even most if any clergy supposedly from John XXIII onwards when practically all apostasied following Vatican II. Except for the sedes of course, though as with b they also have no idea what to do about it and are just sitting around criticizing the rest of us for not doing the same nothing they’re doing.
I don’t entirely agree with all of your points, but they are fair and definitely made me think. This is a refreshing change. I initially criticized slandering someone and said that militant persecution of gays is not a Catholic attitude and fosters a liberal backlash. Several here responded by calling me gay and saying that gays should be murdered. Kind of at a loss on what to say to that…if they don’t see the irony, nothing I say will help. Thank you for being a rational, actual Catholic.
lizfitz–Mundabar refers to the Supreme Pontiff and Vicar of Christ on earth as the “evil clown” and other derogatory names. Makes no sense.
Cultural Marxist propaganda has promoted the use of the word “gay” to describe those who embrace the sodomite perversion and commit acts crying to heaven for vengeance. This word formerly denoted happiness, brightness, cheerfulness, positivity. It’s been diabolically inverted.
And Blunderbuss and the rest of his Conciliar ilk embrace this diabolical inversion. Such is the diabolical “compassion” of Conciliarists. They don’t even say “homosexual,” which was introduced before the inversion of “gay” to morally neutralize the sharp blade of the word “sodomite” (the movement of modern “progress” was from stigma [“sodomite”] —>>> moral neutrality [“homosexual”] —>>> inversion [“gay”]).
The stigma against this wretched sin crying to heaven for vengeance, and against those who embrace it OR support it, must be brutally and ruthlessly reintroduced.
Yet far from seeking this justice, Blunderbuss and his ilk routinely cast aspersions on those who reject this filthy depravity and even, perfectly obeying their processing by modern toxicity, adopt the feculent Freudian propaganda that those who vigorously reject this filth are themselves dirty secret sodomites. Such is diabolical disorientation.
Yes Virginia [Dare], There Is A “Cultural Marxism”
Hi, Blunderbuss. Thx for your post, if it was to me. (And hello, even if your post wasn’t to me.) AlphonsusJr definitely did post to me, calling me “yet another sodomite sympathizer”. AJr plays straight into the hands of Fr. James Martin, SJ, which is a shame, since Fr. Martin is doing such damage to the Church. You and I are on the same page, I believe. There is no excuse for cruelty. I Suspect some of the nuttier posts on this (and other) sites are trolls who want orthodox Catholics to look bad. Keep fighting the good fight.
Johnno, as you’ll see in my post above, I agree that there is no point to running movie reviews in a Catholic periodical if the reviews do not have Catholic perspectives. That was exactly my point, especially when the reviewer is giving a rave to a movie such as Call Me by Your Name. I have a more positive view of the National Catholic Register overall than you do. It is well written and fairly orthodox. It’s certainly worth saving.
The commentator in the video is a diabolical narcissist effeminate in every sense of Ann Barnhardt’s definition.
It seems to me that you think all sedes on this forum should be described with such vitriol. I don’t understand it given the sedes who do post here have generally been charitable to the non-sedes.
“this forum’s resident wretched sedes”
I do hope Louie addresses this sort of unCatholic behavior.
Hey Alphonsus, I’m not a Sedevacantist, but I am member of an SSPX Chapel. As such, I have weathered my fair share of challenges from the Sedevacantists as well. Importantly, however, almost always their criticisms are at an academic level. You, however, consistently and unnecessarily level almost personal attacks on these traditional Catholics. To be quite frank, it is downright offensive even for some non-Sedevacantists. These men and women are struggling like the rest of us to seek out the truth and share their views with others who are interested in listening. Louie was right in suggesting that they reign in that specific issue, and for the most part I believe they have.
For your information, I am old enough to have served as an Altar Boy during the 1940’s, so I can speak first hand that the Church is remarkably different than it is today. At that time the pope, the bishops and all priests spoke with one voice. We only knew one truth. Today, there are as many “truths” as there are episcopal conferences––if not dioceses. The leaders of the Church have abandoned the true faith and abandoned their sheep as well. So for that reason, those of us who are wise and diligent enough to seek the truth that is no longer taught by the Modernist leaders of the Church often come up with different conclusions.
Maybe you really are the smartest and most knowledgable guy on this forum, and maybe everything you have to say is the truth. But then again, maybe you aren’t. Nevertheless, while I do respect many of your opinions, much of what many of the Sedevacantists have to say deserves equal respect. I’m sure there are many readers of this site who rarely if ever comment, but they come on here to learn the truth––not how little respect you have for some traditional Catholics who do not share your views.
Finally, in spite of how you may decide to take my missive, it is not intended in any way as a personal attack on you. As I said, I respect much of your Catholic thought. This note is only intended to remind you that if we are all not careful on how we treat each other we will seriously degrade this site into nothing more than a shouting match. Today it is a site that many of us believe is one of the most worthwhile traditional Catholic sites on the internet. I’d like to keep it that way.
“Fairly” orthodox. Thus a certain amount of heresy is acceptable to utahagen.
Madness. Such is diabolical disorientation.
Typically cuckservative. Burning with unquenchable lust for mainstream respectability, cucks of every kind constantly coddle and suck up to those bent on destroying them. The feculent likes of James Martin, being in league with the devil, need public and severe, most severe, punishment. Martin and his filthy devil scum allies want resistance to them to be quite mild, respectable, and most virtuously irrelevant (virtuous irrelevance is a specialty of cuckservatives, as is concern-trolling, pathological altruism, and virtue-signaling). Instead, they must simply be opposed, and opposed without any ambiguity or false compassion whatsoever. But of course those processed by the Judas Council love ambiguity and false compassion.
Homosexual men sometimes marry women, better known as “beards”. They act as cover.
We have to come to terms with reality. The culture has gone gay, the Church has gone right along with it.
I was watching an old Mickey Rooney film last night, Strike Up the Band. He was about 5’2″, but Mickey was a lot more masculine than what passes for men these days. Sheesh, what a sorry lot, then again, the women are pretty much awful too. Then again, in public schools today, boys are being feminized and girls are encouraged to be brutes, and I’m not kidding in the least. Many boys are without good dads, and that leaves a boy completely vulnerable to any women in his life and the feminized male culture. Trust me it shows in today’s boys. Men are badly needed in their boy’s lives, and it’s amazing how many boys have dads who walked away. Actually now many have moms who did the same.
Poor kids today. This is their culture.
Stop pushing your wretched monomania and he won’t have to. Do you understand at all how twisted and disrespectful it was to continue to push sedevacantism in that very thread where Louie said not to? And to then continue? No, you don’t, because you’re diabolically disoriented and thus blind.
irishpol–You bring up a good point. The enemies of Christ will win many battles (not the WAR) because those who say they are Soldiers of Christ are too busy fighting one another.
For the reasons stated elsewhere above, my counter-attacks on rabid sedevacantists are indeed almost entirely ad hominem. This is entirely calculated.
Too true. Well said indeed!
My comment disappeared. Try again.
Attempts to shame us for applying logic and common sense won’t work here. Try an NO website and you might have luck. We aren’t buying that 2 + 2 = 5, and here, ducks are expected to quack. I can’t speak for others, but trying to tell me that it’s judgmental or some other nonsense for identifying what we are hearing, when we hear a so-called clergyman look, sound, and act effeminate AND, hype a homosexual movie in which a minor is seduced by another man (which is an outrage, by the way), is not unfair or any other pejorative you can come up with, it’s right, sensible, and Catholic. It is NOT Catholic to abandon Natural Law and the moral order in order to go along with a lost culture. Sorry, spin again.
I dislike personal attacks as well. He did not deserve that in the least. Way harsh and undeserved. Judgmental too. What anyone does is none of our business, as long as we aren’t being asked to cast aside Catholicism for it, like homosexuality. Then it becomes our business.
I’ll do it from here, lol. Ganganelli, thou art banned!
My bad, I have no powers.
None of the sedes “pushed” sedevacantism on that thread. Some folks had questions about it, including what Louie’s position was on it. The only person that perseverated on it and continued to attack those who hold the position was….you.
Regarding sedevacantism, are you more of an opinionist like Fr William Jenkins from the SSPV, or a “dogmatic” sedevacantist like Fr. Cekada?
Also, where do you stand on the Thuc consecrations?
Please write and let the Jeanette DeMelo, the NC Register editor, know what you think of Steven Greydanus being the NC Register film critic. Though Deacon Greydanus’ homosexualist review of “Call Me By Your Name” does not yet appear to have been published by the NC Register and may never be, this is not enough. Clearly this man (whether he has same sex attraction or not and whether he is effeminate or not) is a homosexualist; i.e., someone who is pro-gay. This is evident by his use of words/phrases such as “heteronormativity” and “toxic masculinity culture.” It is also evident by his omission of any negative critique of homosexuality per se or of the film’s pro-gay propaganda. Furthermore, his omission of any negative critique extends even to the failure of denouncing the homosexual sex/abuse of the 17 year old young man by the older (20 something) man. That this man is a deacon and a Catholic film critic is unacceptable. I urge everyone here to contact his editor as well as his bishop and let them know who this man is (which they may already know and agree with) but also to let them know that Catholics are also aware and will not accept this. I also urge everyone here to let other Catholic blogs know so that a large public protest can be made and action can be taken to remove this homosexualist from his positions of Catholic authority and influence. Deus Vult.
Jeanette DeMelo (firstname.lastname@example.org), Editor of the National Catholic Register
Joseph Cardinal Tobin, C.S.S.R. (email@example.com), Archbishop of Newark
” I have weathered my fair share of challenges from the Sedevacantists as well. Importantly, however, almost always their criticisms are at an academic level. You, however, consistently and unnecessarily level almost personal attacks on these traditional Catholics. To be quite frank, it is downright offensive even for some non-Sedevacantists. ”
Thank you irishpol. Hopefully Louie agrees that it is offensive and does damage to his blog..and puts a stop to Alphonsus’ attacks.
It’s amazing and appalling how CatholiCucks, not to mention avowed liberals and cuckservatives in general, have lost any true sense of horror regarding the sodomite perversion. Instead, they’re more concerned that our opposition to peddlers of this sin crying to heaven for vengeance be respectable. They have no understanding that war is raging, raging all around us, and that there’s no avoiding being spattered with blood and guts on the battlefield.
Rabid sedevacantists have waged ceaseless war on this site for some time now by turning the comment sections into platforms for their puffed up monomania. Those who don’t embrace their foaming sedevacantism are routinely sneered at, often in diabolically subtle ways, as benighted souls in desperate need of sedevacantist enlightenment. Have you no compassion for their victims?
I’ve done so. Here’ the letter I sent:
I recently had the most extreme displeasure of viewing a video of National Catholic Register film critic Steven Greydanus approvingly reviewing a sodomite propaganda film called “Call Me By Your Name.”
This pathetic, nauseating, diabolically disoriented man is quite possibly a sodomite (with his marriage as a cover; stinking sodomites often do this). Greydanus is certainly a sodomite sympathizer. You’ll be held accountable in the hereafter for giving him a platform and thereby promoting the sodomite perversion. Or have you, with Greydanus, forgotten that sodomy is one of the four sins crying to heaven for vengeance?
“[Sodomites], having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
Yes I know Ann is equally concerned that there are Catholics, especially Prelates , who seem to be clueless and or carefree about the gravity of the sodomite scandals.
“In one of his very first acts as pope, Pope St. Pius V in Cum Primum on April 1, 1566 ordered that sodomites be executed by the secular authorities.+
When writing and/or calling Deacon Greydanus’ editor and bishop please mention the lack of criticism of pederasty in the deacon’s film critique. Let’s face it, the deacon’s pro-gay views are likely shared by his supervisors and superiors but certainly most of them are still unwilling to openly embrace pederasty. This is because their credibility would be compromised in the secular culture if they are seen to be enablers of sex abuse. The deacon’s film critique was a subtle first shot across the bow in the promotion of the next item in the gay agenda; pederasty. First came the repeal of anti-sodomy laws, then the push for employment “anti-discrimination”, followed by the push for same sex unions and “marriage”, and most recently the embrace of transgenderism and non-binary gender theory. Pederasty (adolescent boy/man love) is next. The deacon chooses to review this disgusting film, where the 17 year old character (portrayed by an actor who looks more like a 14 year old boy) and his 24 year old male lover/abuser (portrayed by an actor who looks more like a 35 year old man), and while never explicitly praising the relationship never condemns it either. This is a strategy that is often used to undermine moral values; a taboo subject is brought up and discussed in a “non-judgmental way” in order to normalize it. In case anyone catches what is going on there’s always plausible deniability by asserting that one never voiced approval for the aberration. We’re not falling for it but we need to let the deacon, the bishop, and the editor know this. We also need to let them know that we will publicly call out their hypocrisy in appearing to condemn sex abuse and enacting all kinds of supposed policies to protect minors while giving tacit approval of pederasty in a film review and not taking disciplinary action against the film reviewer.
For a thorough exposition of the evil inherent in this film check out: http://josephsciambra.com/call-me-by-your-name-and-the-perpetuation-of-boy-love-in-gay-male-culture/
It’s thorough and at times even explicit so take caution but it exposes the evil machinations going on in his film and by it’s promoters such as purported Catholic (but in fact homosexualist) film critics.
Good grief; please stop these mischaracterizations of the sedes on this site. None that I see foam or go into rage, or do anything close to hysterics.
That post by Ann was a dynamite reminder of the posture of holy church toward this matter.
I’m wondering if the fact that he is a deacon, and hence, a “factory-man” doesn’t play into his soft-pedaling the moral repulsion of this movie. He doesn’t want to offend his religious superiors lest they sideline his career. I think it’s been demonstrated that this publication is in the back pocket of the USCCB.
Oh Johnno boy you make this so easy. But let’s just cut to the chase then. Do you agree with Ann Barnhardt that heterosexual sodomy is a disgusting mortal sin that will land you in Hell?
For the honest sedevacantists here, I need to explain to you WHY there is so much anti-sedevacantist hate. In a word, it’s about POWER. Men like Johnno boy and Adolphonsus know that the papacy is a world power able to shape opinion on dozens of issues.
If they were to accept that the last true Pope died in 1958, they know the world would pay them no attention. They believe that if a man to their liking was elected to the throne of Peter, their culture war enemies would be condemned and that, and that alone, is the goal they seek.
To that end, your pointing out that St. John Paul II taught that non-Catholics can receive communion, his prayer that John the Baptist “protect Islam”, his kissing of the Koran, his Assisi meeting with every weird religion in the world, etc. is very inconvenient for achieving their goals.
You muddy the waters for them and that is why they can’t stand you.
Slander wasn’t enough, was it? You’re going to go after the employment of a Catholic father of 7. Not tell him what was wrong with his review. Nope, you’re going to skip that and go after his job. The same people who think gays should be put to death – shining, wonderful Catholics. You should be ashamed of yourselves, as should the author of this blog, who claims himself to be a victim who was run out of Catholic media, for whipping all of you into this vicious frenzy.
Opinionist and dont know.
Nonsense. Those of us who reject monomaniacal sede hysteria fully acknowledge and deplore the perfidious actions of Judas popes like JP II.
Yet more fully diabolical pretended occupation of the moral high ground by this Blunderbuss Conciliarist. Have you nothing to say against the vile sodomite propaganda spewed in the Greydanus video? Nothing serious, certainly nothing proportionate to the horror of that sin crying to heaven for vengeance. We see through you, devil. Take your false compassion elsewhere.
“But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth.”
Blunder, what was wrong with the review was what the “deacon” did not say about the subject matter of the film. Since he professes to be Catholic, he should have addressed the Catholic teaching on sodomitic relationships. Even the conciliar church manages to condemn the practice on paper. Instead the guy gushed over a film that should have repulsed him. Now I am not at all surprised this happened in a NO publication since they are infested with sodomites.
Are you surprised? These are the same people pushing a book called “the Dictator Pope”. Make no mistake, they have no problem with papal dictatorship. They just want THEIR dictator pope to purge their culture war enemies.
These hypocritical “trads” are impervious to appeals to good nature. They must be treated as the demonic enemies they are.
Yet you call him Pope. You call faithless the man you believe Christ gave authority to govern, instruct, and sanctify. If he is Pope, it is your duty to assent to his authority. You can’t have it both ways. You want to resist the modernists? Then take away what they need the most. Legitimacy. Stop recognizing them and giving them the legitimacy they need to continue their destruction.
It’s my duty to assent to his legitimate authority. And since the salvation of souls is the supreme law of the Church, it’s also my duty to resist any of his attempts to exercise illegitimate authority, such as those flowing from the errors, ambiguities, and novelties of the Judas Council.
Just as Lucifer didn’t cease being an angel when he descended into the pit and became Satan, so a pope remains a pope when he becomes a Judas pope.
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” (Galatians 1:8)
Such an angel keeps being an angel, but one to be fought rather than obeyed.
So you set yourself up to be the arbiter of what is legitimate and what is illegitimate. Can you not see that in practice you have no need of a teaching authority over you since you have placed your own intellect above all others. You may not call yourself a sede but in practice you are no different. So ironic.
Not ironic at all, Tom. What you should have done instead was this: pause and reflect on those words. Instead, you spewed typical knee-jerk sedevacantist sophistry.
In truth, the boundaries of a pope’s legitimate authority have already been defined by previous competent authorities. Possessing the gifts of eyes, ears, and above all reason, I then use those gifts to determine whether a particular pope is operating within those boundaries.
By the way, people, notice that Tom A is yet again using this comment thread to evangelize sedevacantism.
My own letter.
(To Editor or Archbishop)
I am writing to inform you of a most scandalous film review by Deacon Greydanus, the film critic at the National Catholic Register and a deacon of the Archdiocese of Newark. The film in question is “Call Me by Your Name.” This is not only a pro-gay film but also a pro-pederasty one. In his film review, Deacon Greydanus has caused grave scandal to Catholics and other moral people and you as his editor or archbishop need to take immediate disciplinary action to prevent further scandal and to ameliorate the damage to souls already done. The scandalous film review is due to:
1. Choosing to review “Call Me by Your Name” in the first place and then treating the subject matter of homosexuality/pederasty in a “non-judgmental” values-free critique is a way to normalize the abominations of sodomy and sex abuse while maintain plausible deniability that that is exactly what one is doing.
2. This is a film about the homosexual relationship between a 17 year old character (played by an actor who looks more like a 14 year old boy) and his 24 year old male lover/abuser (played by an actor who looks more like a 35 year old man).
3. Deacon Greydanus utters not one word against homosexuality/pederasty but uses plenty of words to praise the film such as: “A decadent ode to desire and celebration of male beauty.“The bucolic Italian landscape is exquisite, the meals delectable” and the actors “are attractive and often winsome.” So many words and turn of phrases yet not one is ever employed to denounced the grave injustice of an underage young man who is seduced and sodomized by an unconscionable adult male nor the boy’s father who not only fails to protect his son but in fact encourages the debauchery. Lest we forget, St. Paul says of sodomites and those who enable them: “Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.”
4. Speaking of words, Deacon Greydanus does manage in his brief review of the aforementioned abominacle film, to virtue signal his sympathy for queer ideology and its newspeak by employing the word “heteronormativity” and the phrase “toxic masculinity culture.” Look, we all know what is going on here.
5. Of course, some might argue that our dubious deacon/film critic never explicitly approves of the sexual relationship between the boy and the man yet by NOT explicitly condemning it he has tacitly endorsed it for as St. Thomas More reminded his persecutors, the maxim is “Qui tacet consentit.” (Silence equals consent).
Obviously the failure by a Catholic clergyman to denounce in the strongest terms any and all sexual abuse is a grave scandal and you must exercise your authority over Deacon Greydanus to correct his false beliefs and offensive behavior by having him retract his disgusting film critique and to apologize to faithful Catholics and other people of good will for his subtle attempt to undermine morality. Deacon Greydanus has engaged in a very serious and reprehensible attempt to normalize pederasty and if you do not take disciplinary action towards him then your own credibility will be compromised and Catholics and other moral people will take the opportunity to organize against you and to publicly denounce your enabling of this defender of pederasty. The days of the laity remaining silent while ecclesiastical leaders engage in, or enable the, sexual abuse of minors is long gone; there will be no silence by the laity to be misconstrued as consent.
No additional comment needed.
What Blunderbuss means is that my comments there triggered his Pavlovian conditioning to shriek RAAAAAACCCCIIIISSSSTTTT whenever confronted with one who ISN’T a simpering, pitiful, suicidally xenophilic white ethnomasochist oikophobe.
Yes, it was to you, and hello to you as well. Your alias suggests a familiarity with the theater. Perhaps that explains the “sodomite sympathizer” remark from AdolphusJr lol.
I really do hope you’re right about them being trolls.
You’re confused. This is the thread where you hate gays. The thread where you hate dark people is somewhere else.
I’ll bite. “oikophobe” = afraid of that Dannon Greek yogurt? I’m not a fan, but not afraid of it either. What do you mean? lol
Good catch Blunderbuss. And note that Adolphonsus the snowflake just protected his comments. Do you need a safe space?
I’m delighted that the two Conciliarist cucks here–Blunderbuss and Ganganelli–disapprove of me. Continue, please. A tremendous endorsement!
Your courageous remarks have suddenly been set to private. Perhaps there are things in there that aren’t quite Catholic? Like hating gays and minorities and Jews? Of course, I’m just speculating. Can’t remember everything I’ve seen in the last hour.
No, Ganganelli, but I don’t wish to needlessly shock the female traditional Catholics here or the girly-men like you and Blunderbuss. Things tend to get rough in secular comments sections, and sometimes I have to go nuclear–especially when dealing with pitiful white ethnomasochists desperate to be eternally and publicly gang raped by Paco, Jamal, and Abdul as the ultimate form of virtue-signaling. No need to subject the good women here to my other battles with worldling conformists like yourselves.
But if you really are interested in race realism, I urge you to start reading excellent sites like Vdare. They enjoy the great distinction of being branded a “hate site” by the (((perfidious))) SPLC.
Let’s cut to the chase!
You folks want to know what’s in this filthy movie, praised by a Catholic?
It is not with joy I share this.
READ ON, BUT BE WARNED, it is SEXUALLY GRAPHIC!!!!! IT WILL TURN YOUR STOMACHS!!!
SEX/NUDITY -A teen boy and a teen girl kiss and caress each other, she touches his clothed crotch and remarks at his erection and we see his bare back to the boxers top as he thrusts on top of her briefly (they both moan) and he climaxes. A teen boy and a teen girl wearing swimsuits go to a room where the boy puts a mattress on the floor and he removes her top (we see her bare breasts as he caresses them), he kisses her abdomen and unties her swimsuit bottoms with his head between her legs (oral sex is implied). A man touches a teen boy’s hand and his face, they hug and caress each other, they kiss and sit on a bed, the teen straddles the man’s lap and they kiss as they remove their shirts (we see bare chests, backs and abdomens), the man unfastens his belt and they lie on the bed (we hear moaning and breathing as the camera pans out the window) and we see them sleeping fully nude later (we see their buttocks, abdomens and chests). A man wakes a sleeping teen boy and performs oral sex on him briefly; the man sees a peach and touches what we understand is semen (the teen had used it to masturbate).
► A man and a teen boy lie on a bed, they kiss and roll over and we later see them each wiping something off their chests (presumably semen). A man tells a teen boy to take off his trunks and the teen does so; the man kneels on the floor and performs oral sex on the teen (we hear rhythmic sounds). A teen boy pushes the pit out of a peach and puts the peach in his pants; he rubs briefly and climaxes. A shirtless teen boy lies in bed wearing boxers (his bare chest and abdomen are seen), he slips his hand into his boxers and rubs briefly until he is interrupted by a man coming into the room and they talk. A teen boy grabs his clothed crotch in a couple of scenes.
► A teen boy and a teen girl undress to their underwear and go swimming (we see her cleavage, bare abdomen, back and legs and his bare chest, abdomen, back and legs). A man changes into swim trunks and we see his bare buttocks and legs. A teen boy changes into swim trunks and we see his bare buttocks and legs. Young men and woman are shown wearing swimwear that reveals bare shoulders, cleavage, bare abdomens and, backs and legs of women and bare shoulders, chests, abdomen and legs of men in a few scenes. A teen boy is shown shirtless in several scenes and wearing swim trunks, shorts of boxers. A man is shown shirtless in several scenes with swim trunks (his bare chest, abdomen, back and shoulders are seen). A woman’s dress is low-cut in the back and reveals her bare back. A woman wears a low-cut top that reveals cleavage. Teen girls and young women wear low-cut dresses that reveal cleavage in several scenes. Several scenes show nude male statues that show genitals. A fresco shows a female figure with bare breasts.
► A teen boy moves toward a man, the man touches the teen’s lips, they kiss tenderly and caress each other; the man pulls away, the teen grabs the man’s clothed crotch and the man tells him not to. A man and a young woman dance in a crowd of other people dancing and they kiss.
► A teen boy kisses a teen girl on the shoulder after they undress to their underwear and prepare to go swimming. A teen boy and a teen girl kiss each other on the cheeks. A man rubs a teen boy’s feet and kisses one foot. A man and a teen boy hold hands. A teen boy and a teen girl swim together and he picks her up and they spin around. A teen boy and a man talk with veiled allusions to interest in each other. A teen boy picks up a man’s swim trunks and puts them on his head (there’s a sexual implication). A clothed teenage girl (she’s wearing shorts and we see her bare legs to the thighs) is shown lying on a bed in a teen boy’s room. A man touches a teen boy’s shoulder and massages him; the boy pulls away. A teen girl rubs a teen boy’s shoulder and he walks away. A teen boy lies across the laps of two teen girls.
► Two men are identified as a couple and we see them embracing at a dinner party. A man and his teen son speak frankly about the teen’s relationship with a man and the father seems to imply that he nearly had a similar relationship with a man. A teen boy says, “We almost had sex last night,” (speaking of himself and a teen girl) and his father asks why they did not. A teen girl asks if a man is trying to “Get it on” with a young woman as they dance close together. A teen girl tells a teen boy, “I think you are going to hurt me and I don’t want to be hurt.” A teen boy tells a man that he saw a young woman naked on a night swim and that she has a great body. A statue is described as a “voluptuous Venus.” A woman reads a passage from a book about a knight being in love with a princess. Two men look at slides of male statues and discuss their forms, referring to sensuality. A man and a teen boy speak on the phone and they say, “I miss you.”
Read more: http://www.kids-in-mind.com/c/callmebyyourname.htm#ixzz56g0DT6QV
Under Creative Commons License: Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives
Dude, you realize Louie is married to a (((Jew))) right?
1) I fully agree with St. Paul and Pope St. Pius V, who instructed that sodomites are worthy of death.
2) Regarding “minorities,” I fully agree with Fr. James Wathen’s teaching in Chapter 10, entitled “The Myth of Equality,” of his book Who Shall Ascend. It goes along the lines of this by Bp. Williamson:
“Any inequality today is a horror. For the Catholic Church [the actual Catholic Church, not the post Second Vatican Council abomination represented by the perfidious likes of Pope Francis], it’s not at all a horror. God has designed everything unequal, practically everything: the flowers, the animals, the plants, the mountains, the nations, the peoples, the races, the sexes, the individuals, everything in God’s creation is unequal. What God plans is a great variety, and an order in the variety, with some things higher and some things lower. And St. Paul says in the Epistle to the Romans, ‘Don’t start questioning God on why he put this lower and put that higher.’ It’s like a building, that stone is lower than that stone and that stone is higher…. Compare blacks with whites, broadly speaking, blacks will be superior in some things and whites will be superior in others. But generally speaking, the blacks are lower down on the wall and the whites are meant to be higher up on the wall. That’s just the way it is. That’s the reality. When the whites stopped doing what they should be doing, which is leading the blacks, then….”
-Bp. Richard Williamson (2008 lecture on The Sillon, No. 3 in the Stockholm Conferences 2008 audio series at the St. Marcel Initiative website)
Also see things like John Derbyshire’s famous “The Talk: Nonblack Version” essay, which caused him to be purged from the cuckservative National Review. Here it is: http://takimag.com/article/the_talk_nonblack_version_john_derbyshire/print#axzz56g1a68YT
Don’t let that twist your panties, Blunderbuss.
3) As for the Jews, I fully agree with statements like this:
“Crucifiers of Christ ought to be held in continual subjection.”
-Pope Innocent III
“Ungrateful for favours and forgetful of benefits, the Jews return insult for kindness and impious contempt for goodness. They ought to know the yoke of perpetual enslavement because of their guilt. See to it that the perfidious Jews never in the future grow insolent, but that they always suffer publicly the shame of their sin in servile fear.”
-Pope Gregory IX
“It would be licit to hold Jews, because of their crimes, in perpetual servitude, and therefore the princes may regard the possessions of Jews as belonging to the State.”
-St. Thomas Aquinas
“Poor Jews! You invoked a dreadful curse upon your own heads in saying: ‘His blood be on us and our children’; and that curse, miserable race, you carry upon you to this day, and to the end of time you shall endure the chastisement of that innocent blood.”
-St. Alphonsus Liguori
“If someone should kill the beloved son of a man, and then stretch forth their hands still stained with blood to the afflicted father, asking for fellowship, would not the blood of his son, still visible on the hand of his murderer, provoke him to just anger instead? And such are the prayers of the Jews, for when they stretch forth their hands in prayer, they only remind God the Father of their sin against His Son. And at every stretching forth of their hands, they only make it obvious that they are stained with the blood of Christ.”
-St. Basil the Great
I know, all this makes me a Badthinker in the eyes of today’s world. But you’re a Goodthinker. I just don’t give a damn.
Is Louie aware of your opinion of Jewish people?
Ganganelli, I don’t know if Louie is aware that I adhere to actual Catholic teaching about the perfidious Jews. And I just don’t give a damn.
Will things change?
“By the way, people, notice that Tom A is yet again using this comment thread to evangelize sedevacantism.”
No, TomA is defending his position against attacks from you…..yet again. If we go back to who first mentioned sedevacantism in this thread, we would find that that was YOUR doing.
Blunderbuss, your hypocrisy and faux-charity is becoming more and more apparent. As is your virtue-signalling. You accuse Louie and others here of ‘inciting’, yet you yourself, mealy-mouthed, incite Catholics to betray their Faith by taking a soft line on one of the sins that cry to Heaven for vengeance.
It is you who should be ashamed. True Catholics will ignore your “butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth” promptings and listen instead to what the saints of the Church have said.
“Non draco sit mihi dux.”
Al jr, when Francis proclaims his encyclical Amoris Laetitia is magesterial, is that within his bounds of his authority? Or do you reject his teaching on divorced and remarried in addition to all the other papal conciliar teachings that you reject? What if Ganganelli and Blunder apply their gifts of eyes, ears, and reason and come up with a different conclusion than you do? Does the whole Church need to check with Al Jr first before they assent or reject a papal teaching? You simply have no use for a Pope and will spend your days raging at the internal contradictions which plague your mind.
Tom, because we live in a fallen world, our rational faculties are subject to error. Our vision of the sun requires constantly sweeping away the constantly forming clouds of error in this fallen world. This sweeping requires training. Sadly–having received poor formation, or rejecting any sound formation they received, or simply through ignorance–wretched Conciliarists like Blunderbuss and Ganganelli are mired in error. Notice that, once again, you’re allied with them. Pitiful. Just pitiful.
It’s sad seeing how your infantile incapacity to handle the darkness, the murkiness of this fallen world, constantly trips you up. “He’s either the pope or he isn’t!” rabid sedevacantists scream between pacifier sucks. Even though they sometimes progress to permanent adolescence at best, foaming sedes just can’t handle the notion that popes, being mere men and thus subject to all the errors and depravity of this fallen world, might side with Judas rather than Jesus. Such are the post-conciliar popes. Having embraced all of the error, novelties, ambiguities, false compassion, and wretched sentimentality of the Judas Council, they’re all Judas popes. Francis is simply the latest and most obvious Judas pope.
Popes are not gods, Tom. It’s time to jettison your pitiful papolatry.
Finally, here’s an excellent book to start your training:
Being Logical: A Guide to Good Thinking
“I gave you milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet. But neither indeed are you now able; for you are yet carnal.” (1 Corinthians 3:2)
“You need milk, not solid food; for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, for he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their faculties trained by practice to distinguish good from evil.” (Hebrews 5:12-14)
Notice the use of the word “papolatry” by Al jr. All through history it is always been the enemies of the Church who used this word against faithful Catholics. Al, you are simply peddling a modern version of Gallicanism.
Sadly, Tom, the shoe fits. And long before Gallicanism, your fixation on the papal office would have stuck Catholics as most strange. This shrieking sedevacantist fixation is really quite a modern phenomenon, no older than 500 years or so and thus yet another toxic product of toxic modernity. The devil of course loves this idée fixe of foaming sedes.
IMHO, arguing over sedevacantist position or not, does NOTHING to sweepouthefilth
reform the seminaries so future priests get a real Catholic Theological education or re establish the True Faith. Forgive me, but I do not think we sheep can rectify a damn thing in the Vatican . We can make people aware of the attitude of non caring among the Prelates regarding pederasty . We can point out the abuses regarding the Holy Sacrifice, the continual changes in the Liturgical Prayers, the welcoming of the sodomites into the priesthood BUT aside from these, we have zero authority with exception of our own donations. Holy mother told us what to do…………..Pray the Rosary daily, try to find and attend First Saturday devotions to attend ,obey the Commandments to the best of our ability and read the Scriptures.
Pray for the church of darkness to leave Rome and pray that all peoples are enlightened through the power of the Holy Ghost with true Godly moral certitude.
The good deacon gives the distinct impression of being one match short of flame ignition.
As to this Combox?….Out of Control…Self Righteous vs Holier Than Thou….NOT
Two words come to mind….”Boring Punks”….pretending to be adults.
Long before Gallicanism was the Eastern schismatic notion of a limited papacy which Al jr is now apparently promoting. Sort of a figurehead not to take too seriously.
So much rot up in the northeast. The filthy devil is really on the rampage up there. Here’s an account of perfidy in the Archdiocese of NY regarding a teacher fired for violating Cultural Marxist orthodoxy:
Crucified by the Church
Louie, the comments are out of control and are a total embarrassment. They serve no purpose in the fight against the enemies of Christ.
Really? “Holier than Thou?
Are you even religious ? Aside from the Rosary and educating people ,tell us please your solution to the mess we have in the Church ….please.
“Self Righteous” ? Excuse me but if protected sodomites and pederasts in the clerical ranks aren’t an abomination than what is?
Educate yourselves how the perfidy grabbed hold of the Catholic Liturgy.
Educate yourselves how the Marxists who worked in conjunction with them infiltrated the clergy.
Then tell us what you propose to do about it.
2Cents, I heartily agree.
…………and furthermore at least the public exposure of these clowns on the blogs of real Catholics is somewhat embarrassing to them .It looks like the Dumb Deacon here is backtracking.
“There’s more to Deacon Steven D. Greydanus than meets the eye”
Yes absolutely, for the sake of their immortal souls and also because anal sex has a number of harmful medical consequences. You do not hurt someone you love.
Translation: “My rabid sede allies lost, therefore I want these comments flushed down the memory hole.”
I’ve just reviewed a few things. Particularly:
1) 27 Bible Verses About the Tongue
2) Discernment of Spirits (taken from Antonio Royo Marin, O.P.’s The Theology of Christian Perfection, except for the introductory “Historical Notes” section) http://nebula.wsimg.com/d809052f76e241999374bcfd1bdddfe2?AccessKeyId=C2057F426D77725ABA68&disposition=0&alloworigin=1
It’s now clear to me that my2cents is right. This comment section, and many others, are infused with the either the dread spirit of the devil, a combination of choleric temperament and bad character in the offending participants, or all combined: the devil + choleric temperament + bad character. This latter combination is my guess.
Therefore, without renouncing a grain of truth I’ve spoken here, I do renounce any gratuitous viciousness used in speaking those truths.
Having no confidence in my or my combatants’ ability to control ourselves in the future, at least through this coming Lent I won’t be participating in any comments section.
Likewise, it is impossible to satisfy all men. Although Paul tried to please all in the Lord, and became all things to all men, yet he made little of their opinions. He labored abundantly for the edification and salvation of others, as much as lay in him and as much as he could, but he could not escape being sometimes judged and despised by others. Therefore, he committed all to God Who knows all things, and defended himself by his patience and humility against the tongues of those who spoke unjustly or thought foolish things and lies, or made accusations against him. Sometimes, indeed, he did answer them, but only lest his silence scandalize the weak.
Imitation of Christ
“Therefore, without renouncing a grain of truth I’ve spoken here, I do renounce any gratuitous viciousness used in speaking those truths.”.
I agree with this statement completely. I think that it is truly Catholic; commitment to both Truth and Charity.
“Having no confidence in my or my combatants’ ability to control ourselves in the future, at least through this coming Lent I won’t be participating in any comments section.”
But I disagree with this decision:
-1. You are an intelligent, informed, articulate, zealous and courageous apologist for Catholicism. The Church always needs people like you to defend and promote Her.
-2. How your combatants choose to express themselves is not your responsibility.
-3. You can choose to express yourself in a truthful and charitable manner by:
–a. Go to Confession and repent for all “gratuitous viciousness used in speaking those truths.”.
–b. In the Act of Contrition we pray “I firmly intend with the help of Thy grace to confess my sins, to do penance, and to amend my life. Amen.” It’s not about us trusting ourselves not to sin but about us trusting Him and relying on His grace not to sin.
–c. Choose not to react (reading and writing back immediately) to another poster’s comment but take some time to reflect and then to respond not to the poster (don’t make it personal) but rather to his comment.
I think that all of us who believe that the Catholic Church is the one true religion but that heretics, apostates, and unbelievers have usurped Her institutions, become rightfully angry at this situation. We need to pray and work for an end to this usurpation. Your comments, apart from any “gratuitous viciousness,” are insightful and bold. You help to persuade the confused or naïve by providing well researched information as to the Church’s true teachings and traditions and to confront the duplicitous by calling out their fake compassion and subversive mercy. If you stop commenting altogether this will be lost.
Please remember the Spiritual Works of Mercy:
•To instruct the ignorant;
•To counsel the doubtful;
•To admonish sinners;
•To bear wrongs patiently;
•To forgive offences willingly;
•To comfort the afflicted;
•To pray for the living and the dead.
If you stop commenting altogether you will have been silenced and the enemies of Christ and His Church will have won one more battle.
I’ll leave you with this question: Can fear of possible, even probable, polemical excess, keep us from joining the crusade to defend the Church and to oppose Her enemies?
“Therefore, without renouncing a grain of truth I’ve spoken here, I do renounce any gratuitous viciousness used in speaking those truths.”
Unfortunately, truth for you does not appear to always be the Truth of the Catholic Church, but the truth according to AlphonsusJr as evidenced by your condemnation of many good Catholics who hold the sedevacantist position. I do hope that when you return you will be more charitable and truthful when speaking to and of these Catholics.
Al jr is a zealot for the Church. I admire him for that. I do hope he will see some day that we are all on the same side against the modernists.