Wednesday, June 6, 2012

FATHER CHARLES CURRAN MAKES ME SO NOSTALGIC FOR THE 1970'S!--NOT!




This kind of stuff makes me so nostalgic for the 1970's; I mean really, it does.--Not! This gives me more of a high than the EF Mass and the 1950's nostalgia it gives me, no really.--Not! Of course, no one celebrates the EF Mass for 1950's nostalgia do they? And no one really has nostalgia for the 1970's, do they? Or is it just me?--Not!

READ FATHER CHARLES CURRAN'S TAKE ON SEX, IT'S THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD, JUST AS HE WAS, NO CHANGE SINCE THE 1970'S. BUT IT GIVES YOU A VIEW OF THE 1970'S IN 2012! I bet that Father Curran and his good buddy, Fr.Hans Kung who is now a sedevacanist are really cool friends and talk and talk about the good old days from their rocking chair.

11 comments:

ytc said...

But you don't agree with him, do you?

Frankly, as a self-described traditionalist, it IS a high to read all the liberal crap. It is, it makes you feel good. I agree. But it's still absolute trash. I know that in my intellect.

William Meyer said...

ytc, I can't agree. Reading such nonsense makes me livid, especially when it comes from someone who, by his ordination, cannot be excused for lack of training.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Yep, I agree with Meyer. Completely nauseating.

ytc said...

What I mean, more clearly, is that on an emotional level, if not actually thinking, it makes one feel good.

No, I don't go on NCR to get my socks knocked off. I'm just saying,if I wanted to be a mindless emotional zombie, I would rather read liberal things.

rcg said...

This mess offends me intellectually. I am not easily offended, nor intellectual, but 'epistemic humility' should demand that these people provide some sort of proof that love is letting someone else in your knickers. This is the same sophomoric claptrap twelfth year philosophy students throw at that first year cuties. This sort of drivel is clinical proof of how addicts spend their time validating their addictions, in this case, to sex. And it angers me that people will grasp this as a valid Catholic argument.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

No, no RCG, love is not "letting someone into your knickers" (although I did not know you wore knickers). Love is never having to say you're sorry...LOL! (I always thought that was arrogance.)

rcg said...

Pin, I have not since Ft Benning. I go commando.

Anonymous said...

As the conversation has now turned to address the topic of apparel (socks, knickers, and so on), and with absolutely no disrespect or irreverence intended, just an attempt at levity, I am reminded of the Latin aphorism: “semper ubi sub ubi,” which is not a line from a Roy Orbison ballad.

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

RCG, I could have lived a lot of years without that information...

Gene W. (formerly Pin) said...

Anon, Yes, but it seems that RCG prefers "totum dependeat"...LOL!

kalbertini said...

Oh Please, read the Early church Fathers & popes on sex.Pope gregory the great taught sex in marriage was a necessary evil tolerated for procreation but with sin still involved.Innocent III hailed this too,Pope Sixtus & Gregory 16th.In the medeval ages theologians all agreed sex in marriage was dirt,the debate was how much dirt was involved.Aquinas hailed priests should be celibate because sex in married priests defiled them.Look up the celibate,neurotic,psychotic church fathers like Jerome,Augustine,Ambrose & see their takes on the "pollution" of sex. Paul the apostle was right when he said doctrines of demons would arise(I bet he had those people in minf not curran)