What People are Commenting
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Siri, Links & Patrick Coffin Media Attack
Patrick Coffin Media Attacks Tradition in Action
Re: Bare Legs Are Revolutionary
Boy howdy, why would anyone think Trads are kooky puritans obsessed with sex in general, "feminine purity" in particular? (see red arrow below)
______________________
The Editor responds:
Mr. Patrick Coffin,
If I understood your short sarcastic comment well, it could be translated as:
"Such a condemnation of bare legs is an example of why many have the impression that Traditionalists are crazy Puritans obsessed with sex and 'feminine purity.'"
If I am mistaken, please correct me.
However, if am right, let me analyze what is behind your affirmation.
Are you, Mr. Coffin, defending that all the women in the past who covered their legs were "crazy Puritans obsessed with sex"?
If so, you would be criticizing almost all the women saints – both religious and lay – who were models of virtue. You would also be going against 20 centuries of Christian Civilization, which presented women who covered their legs as civilized and modest.
It seems that you would not be so radical as to stand against that huge stretch of History, or it would be difficult for you to present yourself as Catholic.
Thus, let me suppose that you accept all of that exemplary Catholic past and are only referring to the last 70 years, when, in the 1950s, women started to adhere to Feminism, rebel against that past, and gradually adopt bolder immoral fashions and social behaviors.
In this case, you would approve how in the '50s women started to wear pants; in the '60s they sported mini-skirts; and in the '70s they appeared in tights with psychedelic colors etc., until you would go so far as to accept the punk fashions, so long as they were accepted by the mainstream fashion moguls.
Today that mainstream current considers Catholic ladies who dress well to be too radical, and you make fun of them and compare them to Puritans.
Why are you so terrified to step outside the mainstream? Because you do not follow Catholic doctrine; you are moved by human respect.
When a lady writer fearlessly defends the authentic Catholic teaching on modest dress and takes the opportunity to bring others to that position, you immediately try to sabotage her position, not with arguments but with sarcasm: "She is a crazy Puritan obsessed with sex."
If this criterion of human respect would prevail, you should:
- not be against homosexuality so as not to look like a fanatical Muslim;
- not be against Communism so as not to look like a rotten capitalist;
- not be against vulgar customs so as not to look like a decadent aristocrat;
- not be against pedophilia in the clergy so as not to look like an
atheistic anti-Catholic,
- not be against immoral fashions on the beaches and streets to not look like a crazy Puritan.
Your indignation against Dr. Horvat is because she is a lady who takes a position consistent with what Catholic doctrine teaches. She does not care if a woman who covers her legs is considered a Puritan, a Muslim, an Hindu etc. If it is the Catholic position, she defends it.
Why it is so difficult for you to understand this simple application of a principle to its daily practice? It is because you are blinded by human respect.
Similar to a cork on a river, as long as you float everything is fine with you, but if a lady goes against the stream, stirs the waters and the cork runs the risk of sinking, then you panic and discourteously offend and ridicule her.
I hope you change your attitude, Mr. Coffin. Until this happens, I wish that, at least, you will read a manual of good manners.
Cordially,
Atila S. Guimarães
Posted June 24, 2021
______________________
The opinions expressed in this section - What People Are Commenting - do not necessarily express those of TIA
______________________
______________________
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
This is a question about your article True and False Right: Bird's Eye View of the News. How do I find the true "Right"? I am finding VII influences in the byzantine churches. For example: altar girls, dancing on the altar etc. It may be too far gone there too.
So, I was looking at the links you have listed. One of the links titled "stgemma.com" has its own links. One link in particular titled Gregory XVII "Siri" The Pope in Red, is claiming that there is a hidden pope (Pope Gregory XVIII) Have you looked into this? If so, what is your take on this?
I know that you must have a daily contact list that is overwhelming! So, I am willing to wait a while. Thank you for looking into this for me when you can.
In Christ,
N.Q.
The Editor responds:
Dear N.Q.,
The true right is not difficult to find. If you are visiting our website, you are in the right place. Without pretending that TIA is the only true right, we are clearly one.
You may distinguish the true right from the false right by looking at the compromises made in the latter. The true right does not make compromises.
Our Page of Links is not as overwhelming as you imagine. It is very outdated. Our policy is to exchange links with the sites that had the courtesy of offer to link our website on theirs. There is no commitment on our part to support everything those websites feature. It reflects a loose friendship based on sharing general points without paying close attention to specifics.
Regarding the "Siri theory," I believe that it is baseless. I do not have any problem to admit that Cardinal Giuseppe Siri was elected Pope in the 1958 conclave in a first vote, but he then renounced the office and accepted the election of Cardinal Angelo Roncalli as Pope.
The documents we posted on our website with both John XXIII and Card. Siri side-by-side do not leave room for doubt about the full acceptance of Card Siri of the election of Roncalli (here); Siri also wrote a letter praising John XXIII, which he would not have done if he considered himself to be the legitimate pope (here).
Then, he accepted as valid Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, as you can see here and here.
So, the "Siri theory," with the consequent affirmation that Card. Siri became Gregory XVII and that after his death he left a successor, Gregory XVIII, are fabrications with no basis in reality.
This is what I think about the topics you mentioned. I hope I was sufficiently clear to dissipate your doubts.
Cordially,
Atila S. Guimarães