"Limiting God", Michael Voris

[Elizabeth]

Haha. I don't think Voris' struggles with SSA are the reason that he doesn't like Christopher Ferrera.

What normal man would publicly accuse his fellow Catholic competitor of needing to be avoided, like pornography?

Alright, to be fair Voris didn't invent this.  CMTV adopted that position after they heard it in explained in a couple of Fr. Wolfe's sermons:  Christ is the Point and Spiritual Contraception.

Oh, that is sad.  Thanks.

[Miriam_M]

I think that Voris may have become paranoid and felt that it was better for him to release this information than for the archdiocese to do it first. Of course, I don't think that the archdiocese was going to do that at all.

I agree that Voris should not be playing the victim card and that it falls in with his general war on the hierarchy, which I find generally loathsome and imprudent.

But the particular issue which I have been posting about is the place of sinners who had in their past committed homosexual sins and whether they could speak publicly about the Faith.

In the post above this one there is a quite compelling citation from a Doctor of the Church which critiques those who would flatter themselves into thinking that the sin of masturbation is much less grievous or sodomitical than gay intercourse. When I tried to ask what separates these sins in regard to speaking publicly I was accused of red herrings or playing games. Someone claimed that masturbation is an "unrelated sin."

Well, in this regard, I can't help but to feel that St. Peter Damian has spoken quite forcefully.

Why has the argument strayed into this territory anyway? Diversion perhaps?

Naturally.  Par for the course.

[King Wenceslas]

I don't give a damn what anyone says (and that goes for you Gerald). Voris came into the Trad land and pooped all over. Trashing SSPX, the Remnant, and CFN. The gall of this homo after living almost 20 years as one. He comes and starts trashing what we suffered for and built up for the last 50 years.

Damn we are so gullible. (I must admit quite a few of you saw through him from the start)

Now we should all know why he was so way off half of the time. He is a very disordered individual. You have to be. Sleeping with men that long and doing all of the disordered things he must have done to them and had done to himself.

[nmoerbeek]

...masturbation, which, as St. Peter Damian has pointed out, is extremely similar to the sin of homosexual acts in gravity, depravity, and in its very nature.

I'm not sure he went that far.  While he says they spring from the same vice, he definitely makes distinctions in gravity (spoiler tags justified here?  Yeah.):

[spoiler]"Some pollute themselves, others are soiled by fondling each other's male parts, others fornicate between the thighs or in the rear, and these ascend by grades, such that each one is worse than the previous."[/spoiler]

The penances he recommends become more severe as you go up the ranks too.

He did go that far and it makes sense. These acts all share sterility, are sexuality out of place and go against mans nature.  Not to be vulgar but we are all talking about how a person is choosing to cause friction with one part of their body against another part of their or someone elses body.  This is if we look at just actions and not other things: corruption of young, rape, lustful thoughts, disordered desires, avoiding children etc, that multiply the evilness of an individual act.

Yes he does recommend stronger penances, the strongest being reserved for those who made the acts habitual.  With that being said he does not even suggest specific types of penances but periods of penance, this is what makes me believe he is talking about canonical penance.  What really throws a monkey wrench in the works (in my opinion) is he leaves the question of priests who have committed sodomy resuming their priesthood an open question for the Pope to decide.

As I stated earlier though he points out directly that those who masturbate should not think themselves better than those who commit sodomite acts with others.  It does not mean we cannot condemn sodomy forcefully, we should, and we do.

Also many houses of religion, and seminaries do interview candidates and ask them about self abuse and pornography use.  It is not unusual that a person who had this as a habit has to be completely clean from it for years before they will consider someone who has reformed there life, should they lapse while in seminary they are often times booted.  The FSSP I believe is particularly intense on this point.  You will find such observations also in older books as well, the ability to stay pure was viewed as as sign of a vocation and to not was a clear sign that person should marry less they burn.

[Miriam_M]

(1) There are gradations in perversity within disordered behavior of any kind.
(2) There are gradations in the level of moral severity as well.

But even that is not my argument.  Masturbation is private (unless one does it publicly), whereas sodomy -- hello -- involves a partner and thus makes one vulnerable to being "outed."  So no one would ever be outed (most likely) for masturbation; therefore it is not pertinent to this thread, which discusses MV and former sodomy, not former masturbation.

Neither is acceptable; both are gravely sinful.  Either may become habitual and thus poison the soul and mind even more by that fact, and make more permanent purity difficult.

MV is not seeking to become (it sounds to me) a crusader against the sod lifestyle.  However, since he has indeed repudiated the lifestyle, if he were to make that his personal Catholic mission, I would have much less problem with that than his continual ambivalence toward trads and his quasi-Ultramontanism.  Criticizing the Pope -- for which he reproaches trads -- is much less morally reprehensible than sodomy.  Criticizing the Pope is not One of the Four Sins.

[nmoerbeek]

(1) There are gradations in perversity within disordered behavior of any kind.
(2) There are gradations in the level of moral severity as well.

But even that is not my argument.  Masturbation is private (unless one does it publicly), whereas sodomy -- hello -- involves a partner and thus makes one vulnerable to being "outed."  So no one would ever be outed (most likely) for masturbation; therefore it is not pertinent to this thread, which discusses MV and former sodomy, not former masturbation.

Neither is acceptable; both are gravely sinful.  Either may become habitual and thus poison the soul and mind even more by that fact, and make more permanent purity difficult.

MV is not seeking to become (it sounds to me) a crusader against the sod lifestyle.  However, since he has indeed repudiated the lifestyle, if he were to make that his personal Catholic mission, I would have much less problem with that than his continual ambivalence toward trads and his quasi-Ultramontanism.  Criticizing the Pope -- for which he reproaches trads -- is much less morally reprehensible than sodomy.  Criticizing the Pope is not One of the Four Sins.

Thank you for your thoughts, but all the thoughts that I have prepared have more or less been to counter other posters points.  I started my contributions to this thread because I felt St. Peter Damiens work was being misrepresented, and to provide some historical context on things like years of penance, and to impress upon people the broadness of what is considered  sodomy because it was directly being suggested that all sodomites withdraw from the apostolate.  I also point out that nothing in Canon Law prevents Michael Voris from his work, and that it is frankly an exercise in hitting your fists against the table to insist he should not have the right to do so.  More importantly if you were to actually cause change here: that is require some approval from the Bishop for all teaching apostlates  almost all trad newspapers and similar apostolates would be shut down.

[Miriam_M]

(1) There are gradations in perversity within disordered behavior of any kind.
(2) There are gradations in the level of moral severity as well.

But even that is not my argument.  Masturbation is private (unless one does it publicly), whereas sodomy -- hello -- involves a partner and thus makes one vulnerable to being "outed."  So no one would ever be outed (most likely) for masturbation; therefore it is not pertinent to this thread, which discusses MV and former sodomy, not former masturbation.

Neither is acceptable; both are gravely sinful.  Either may become habitual and thus poison the soul and mind even more by that fact, and make more permanent purity difficult.

MV is not seeking to become (it sounds to me) a crusader against the sod lifestyle.  However, since he has indeed repudiated the lifestyle, if he were to make that his personal Catholic mission, I would have much less problem with that than his continual ambivalence toward trads and his quasi-Ultramontanism.  Criticizing the Pope -- for which he reproaches trads -- is much less morally reprehensible than sodomy.  Criticizing the Pope is not One of the Four Sins.

Thank you for your thoughts, but all the thoughts that I have prepared have more or less been to counter other posters points.  I started my contributions to this thread because I felt St. Peter Damiens work was being misrepresented, and to provide some historical context on things like years of penance, and to impress upon people the broadness of what is considered  sodomy because it was directly being suggested that all sodomites withdraw from the apostolate.

I didn't misrepresent Peter Damien; I didn't discuss him, but thank you for providing context to your own statements.  Unfortunately, they were also fuel for those who prefer digression to discussion.

I also point out that nothing in Canon Law prevents Michael Voris from his work, and that it is frankly an exercise in hitting your fists against the table to insist he should not have the right to do so.  More importantly if you were to actually cause change here: that is require some approval from the Bishop for all teaching apostlates  almost all trad newspapers and similar apostolates would be shut down.

Please do not use second person (direct address) where not indicated.  I, first person, have not alleged whether anyone in any medium should have the canonical "right" to engage in a self-appointed apostolate.

[dellery]

Any of this look familiar?

[emphasis added]

From the point of view of evolution, prejudice is an alerting signal, warning tribal mammals that a potentially dangerous alien mammal is in the vicinity, and should be fought or fled. Alerting mechanisms respond to novelties in the environment, because novelties represent change from the usual, and are, therefore, potentially important.

One of  two things can happen: (1) If the alerting mechanism is very strongly activated, it will produce an unendurable emotional state, forcing the tribal mammal to fight the novelty or flee it. (2) If, however, the novelty is either low-grade, or simply odd without being threatening, the alerting mechanism will be mildly activated, producing an emotional state that, if other environmental circumstances militate against it, will be too weak to motivate any actual behavioral response.

...

Turning Associative Conditioning and Direct Emotional Modeling against themselves, we Jam by forging a fresh link between, on one hand, some part of the mechanism, and, on the other, pre-existing, external, opposed, and therefore incompatible emotional response. Ideally, the bigot being subjected to such counterconditioning will ultimately experience two emotional responses to the hated object, opposed and competing. The consequent internal confusion has two effects: first, it is unpleasant --we can call it 'emotional dissonance' after Festinger-- and will tend to result in an alteration of previous beliefs and feelings so as to resolve the internal conflict. Since the weaker of the clashing emotional associations is more likely to give way, we can achieve optimal results by linking the prejudicial response to a stronger and more fundamental structure of belief and emotion.

...

Desensitization aims at lowering the intensity of antigay emotional reactions to a level approximating sheer indifference; Jamming attempts to blockade or counteract the rewarding 'pride in prejudice' (peace, Jane Austen!) by attaching to homohatred a pre-existing, and punishing, sense of shame in being a bigot, a horse's ass, and a beater and a murderer. Both desensitization and Jamming, though extremely useful, are more preludes to our highest --though necessarily very long-range-- goal, which is Conversion.
... Put briefly, if Desensitization lets the watch run down, and Jamming throws sand in the works, Conversion reverses the spring so that the hands run backwards.
Conversion makes use of Associative Conditioning, much as Jamming does-- indeed, in practice the two processes overlap-- but far more ambitiously. In Conversion, the bigot, who holds a very negative stereotypic picture, is repeatedly exposed to literal picture/label pairs, in magazines, and on billboards and TV, of gays --explicitly labeled as such!-- who not only don't look like his picture of a homosexual, but are carefully slected to look either like the bigot an dhis friends, or like any one of his other stereotypes of all-right guys.

...

When a bigot is presented with an image of the sort of person whom he already has a positive stereotype, he experiences an involuntary rush of positive emotion, of good feeling; he's been conditioned to experience it. But, here, the good picture has a bad label --gay! The bigot will feel two incompatible emotions: a good response to the picture, a bad response to the label. At worst, the two will cancel one another, and we will have successfully Jammed, as above. At best, Associative Conditioning will, to however small and extent, transfer the positive emotion associated with the picture to the label itself, not immediately replacing the negative response, but definitely weakening it. In Conversion, we mimic the natural process of stereotype learning, with the following effect: we take the bigot's good feelings about all-right guys, and attach them to the label 'gay' either weakening or, eventually, replacing his bad feelings toward the label and the prior stereotype.

Taken from, After the Ball by Kirk and Madsen

[LouisIX]

I made this point earlier, and it is absolutely crucial. A lot of the talk in this thread has played right into the LGBT playbook. The assumption is that one IS a homosexual, as if it is an identity that cannot be changed and is set apart from the identity of being straight. In reality, it is a perversion to be healed, a vice to be overcome with grace and redirected toward its natural end. Everyone is straight by nature and experiences some degree of perversion and disorder in regard to their sexual appetite.

It's similar to stating that someone with an addiction to pornography is in some way facing a static orientation rather than a perversion which can be untwisted and ordered appropriately given the human nature of the sinner.

Please, you're helping the homosexual agenda by making it look like a normal sin any ol' Joe is tempted to commit. Dunno about you Louis, but a person would have to kill me first.

I've got to leave for the night. Tomorrow I'll start quoting from that playbook you think you're familiar with.

1) I don't think that it's a sin which any ol Joe is tempted to commit. But I also do not think that it is a standalone orientation which can be set up next to a normal sexual appetite as if they are two separate realities. Homosexuality is a perversion of the normal appetite in the same way that other straight perversions are deviations from the norm. That doesn't mean that any random guy is going to fall into them, but I also think that any random could fall into them if he made many wrong choices, such as viewing pornography, engaging in orgies, etc. Perversion leads to further perversion. Of course, some people seem to be born or experience something in their youth which leads to a greater inclination to this or that sin, but Lady Gaga is incorrect. They are not "born this way" as if it's just who they are.

2) "Tomorrow I'll start quoting from that playbook you think you're familiar with."

I don't know to what you are referring (the Summa or the Bible?), but it's comments like this that make it seem very much that you're not discussing this in good will. This doesn't have to be personal. You shouldn't feel personally attacked just because I'm disagreeing with you on a forum.

[dellery]

1) I don't think that it's a sin which any ol Joe is tempted to commit. But I also do not think that it is a standalone orientation which can be set up next to a normal sexual appetite as if they are two separate realities. Homosexuality is a perversion of the normal appetite in the same way that other straight perversions are deviations from the norm. That doesn't mean that any random guy is going to fall into them, but I also think that any random could fall into them if he made many wrong choices, such as viewing pornography, engaging in orgies, etc. Perversion leads to further perversion. Of course, some people seem to be born or experience something in their youth which leads to a greater inclination to this or that sin, but Lady Gaga is incorrect. They are not "born this way" as if it's just who they are.

2) "Tomorrow I'll start quoting from that playbook you think you're familiar with."

I don't know to what you are referring (the Summa or the Bible?), but it's comments like this that make it seem very much that you're not discussing this in good will. This doesn't have to be personal. You shouldn't feel personally attacked just because I'm disagreeing with you on a forum.

1) I wouldn't say it's a separate sexuality or that homosexuals are born that way, but it is a disorder that many people can't control i.e. it was ingrained into a person some way some how, often-times as the result of child-hood abuse. Furthermore, one doesn't just develop homosexuality.
But your retort is better directed at Pope Benedict not me.

2) You claimed to know what was entailed in the homosexual "playbook, but you don't. This is a kind of arrogance. I'm not feeling personally attacked, but am incensed by the outright imprudence, and false-charity, that many of you are displaying. 

Maybe we can get back on topic and talk about Voris' "coming out".

[LouisIX]

1) I don't think that it's a sin which any ol Joe is tempted to commit. But I also do not think that it is a standalone orientation which can be set up next to a normal sexual appetite as if they are two separate realities. Homosexuality is a perversion of the normal appetite in the same way that other straight perversions are deviations from the norm. That doesn't mean that any random guy is going to fall into them, but I also think that any random could fall into them if he made many wrong choices, such as viewing pornography, engaging in orgies, etc. Perversion leads to further perversion. Of course, some people seem to be born or experience something in their youth which leads to a greater inclination to this or that sin, but Lady Gaga is incorrect. They are not "born this way" as if it's just who they are.

2) "Tomorrow I'll start quoting from that playbook you think you're familiar with."

I don't know to what you are referring (the Summa or the Bible?), but it's comments like this that make it seem very much that you're not discussing this in good will. This doesn't have to be personal. You shouldn't feel personally attacked just because I'm disagreeing with you on a forum.

1) I wouldn't say it's a separate sexuality or that homosexuals are born that way, but it is a disorder that many people can't control i.e. it was ingrained into a person some way some how, often-times as the result of child-hood abuse. Furthermore, one doesn't just develop homosexuality.
But your retort is better directed at Pope Benedict not me.

2) You claimed to know what was entailed in the homosexual "playbook, but you don't. This is a kind of arrogance. I'm not feeling personally attacked, but am incensed by the outright imprudence, and false-charity, that many of you are displaying. 

Maybe we can get back on topic and talk about Voris' "coming out".

1) I don't disagree with Pope Benedict. I'm trying to emphasize the fact that, while you and I might be disgusted by homosexuality, it is playing into the hands of the LGBT to state that this is because we are straight rather than homosexual as if they are separate orientations. One is natural and is held by all men. Some men have the universal male orientation twisted. I'm also not inclined toward, say, murdering people, but it's not because I simply have a different orientation than murderers.

2) I don't know what false charity I have shown. All I've stated is that I disagree that Voris shouldn't be allowed to speak about the Faith in public because he used to be a sodomite.

[Greg]

That's not the reason any of us are giving.

Voris's case is more nuanced than this and he does not merely "speak about the faith".

[dellery]

1) I don't disagree with Pope Benedict. I'm trying to emphasize the fact that, while you and I might be disgusted by homosexuality, it is playing into the hands of the LGBT to state that this is because we are straight rather than homosexual as if they are separate orientations. One is natural and is held by all men. Some men have the universal male orientation twisted. I'm also not inclined toward, say, murdering people, but it's not because I simply have a different orientation than murderers.

2) I don't know what false charity I have shown. All I've stated is that I disagree that Voris shouldn't be allowed to speak about the Faith in public because he used to be a sodomite.

Anything in order not to discuss the topic at hand --Voris "coming out". When you decide to get back on topic and dispense with the game-playing --that everybody can see might I add-- we can continue this conversation.

[LouisIX]

1) I don't disagree with Pope Benedict. I'm trying to emphasize the fact that, while you and I might be disgusted by homosexuality, it is playing into the hands of the LGBT to state that this is because we are straight rather than homosexual as if they are separate orientations. One is natural and is held by all men. Some men have the universal male orientation twisted. I'm also not inclined toward, say, murdering people, but it's not because I simply have a different orientation than murderers.

2) I don't know what false charity I have shown. All I've stated is that I disagree that Voris shouldn't be allowed to speak about the Faith in public because he used to be a sodomite.

Anything in order not to discuss the topic at hand --Voris "coming out". When you decide to get back on topic and dispense with the game-playing --that everybody can see might I add-- we can continue this conversation.

I've been trying to get you to explain why past homosexuals (and not swingers or masturbators or prostitutes) are uniquely unfit for public speaking about the Faith for at least the past 5 pages and you're only answer is to say that I'm "playing games."

[Kirin]

Now if only people put this much righteous condemnation into condemning the other sins that cry to heaven for vengeance; like unfair wages