No, thanks

Hate Mail

donate Books CDs HOME updates search contact

Conservative Annoyance & Pro-Russia Ire

You Are Accusers as Satan Was

Re: John Paul II the Moral-Free Pope

After reading Pope Pius Encyclical Evangelii Praecones, on the Church’s missions and approach to indigenous rituals, suddenly all of your photos of Pope John Paul II with indigenous garb and rituals, are not shocking, instead they become proof that your website is misleading and only ends up slandering the Vicar of Christ. Always remember that Satan’s name itself means “the accuser” and he’s a slanderer.

The problem is that people are being misled by your website. You are not evangelizing, you are misleading…



You Promote Abusive Songs

Dear Sir,

Re: Song about Fox Hunting

Fox hunting in "jolly old England" was fun for the aristocrats but abusive to the poor peasants. When twenty wealthy people on horseback galloped through your garden, trampling your green beans and tomatoes that you were hoping to sell at market, simply because they were chasing a fox for the sheer fun of it, you had no legal recourse.




Re: JPII imitating a wolf

A bridge too far with the John Paul II "wolf" critique. Not a good move. Not a good move at all.



Pharisaical Pomposity

You mob seem intent on subtly portraying Christ and Christianity as being just as the Protestants and Modernists claim it to be; a pompous, self righteous, squeaky clean, clan of "chosen ones" evidenced by their "propriety" according to fashionable customs. I am inclined to think that as this stuffy pomposity was epidemic in the C19 God chose to elevate the likes of Benedict Labre, Anna Maria Taiggi, the grubby nobodies of La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima, Knock, and a host of others to make the likes of you rethink the nature of sanctity.

Astonishingly, you run a series of "hit pieces" on Valtorta's "Poem" decrying it because in it Jesus and Mary are portrayed as real people "like us in all things but sin" as St Paul says somewhere. What!? Are you subtly siding with the Pharisees who implied that if He was a real Messiah He and His disciples would be parading around in flashest garments with tassels and phylactories imposing themselves and raising armies? Well, we know historically and presently that most of the crookedest people in the Church and the World parade themselves with utmost superficial propriety and ceremony.

You give the distinct impression that if the poor and wretched were really of the "chosen" they would not be grubby and unsophisticated; they would be urbane and notable like the fashionable English gentry who liked to claim that their wealth and status was "proof" of their election by God.

Joseph of Cupertino, Benedict labre, pray for us grubby nobodies.

     Kind regards,



Warmongers! Jewish Neo-Cons!

Re: TIA’s position on the War in Iraq and Ukraine

How does it feel knowing all the foreign wars you supported, which have led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands, far exceeding those killed by Russia in the same time frame, have led to the Islamic invasion of Europe that you and your Jewish neocons friend have hyperventilated about for years?

Furthermore your saber rattling against Russia will get so many Europeans killed, undoubtedly to be replaced by third world people incapable of leading a society

P.S - The invasion of Iraq helped to legalize homosexuality in that country So much for tradition in action. More like sodomy for Israel in action.




Are You Naïve or Partners in Crime?

Dear TIA Staff,

Having recognised your true and sincere defense of Catholic tradition, I am utterly shocked that you have fallen into the trap of believing what the "bought and paid for" Western news sources are reporting on the current events in Ukraine.

How you can swallow all their lies and deceit when you surely are aware of the West’s goal of implanting true Communism (no Christian God) the world over is beyond my comprehension. I ask you to research what took place in 2014 in Ukraine when the West with the US government as its leader removed the elected president of Ukraine and replaced him with one of their own.

And do you know who their current president is? He worked as an actor! Just the right man for the job, isn’t he! What you might not know is that Putin and his administration are against much of the immorality overwhelming the Western Culture; that which we sincere Catholics also fight against!

Are you watching CNN or NBC for your news source?

     Totally shocked,

     Fr. J.M.



Re: Rigged Elections

Any linkage of Jesus Christ to automatic weapons is blasphemy. As imperfect as democracy can be ("Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others" - Winston Churchill) do you really favor a government established by armed force?

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Zedong, aka Chairman Mao.

Shame on you!



You Are Not Catholic

Don’t fight for America, it belongs to Satan.

How are you doing?

Stumbled on this little "fem" in the middle of the night... And in a way it surprises me..., and in another way it does not.... Read some of the comments...

Interesting....! But I don't think any comment tells you that I could see what you need to hear...

And that is "YOU'RE NOT 'CATHOLIC!" Or at the very least NOT the 'Catholic(s)" you ought to be. !

You should know VERY WELL that when a "protestant" crosses the Tiber that THEY ARE NOT REBAPTIZED , that their PROTESTANT BAPTISM IS HONORED BY THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.... No...,

The "protestants" are NOT the Christians that they ought to be..., But in a very clear way NEITHER ARE YOU...

To take the position you are taking CLEARLY PUTS YOU OUTSIDE THE TEACHING IF THE CHURCH... You need to reopen...




Presumptuous & Detractors

Re: Sex-Shop in St. Louis; our answers to readers

I'm appalled at the baseness of your attack on Canon Coggeshall in your bogus reply to reader responses. You are stooping to Church Militant levels of presumption, innuendo, detraction and yes, scandal, which you are causing. I know I'm wasting my time - you are as self-righteous and mistaken in your attacks as the website owners are of the validity of their perverted business. Some points you attempt to make:

"You may indeed call Canon Coggeshall and ask a public position from him, because, yes, we have evidence that he knows perfectly about the website Catholic Intimacy and is avoiding a public condemnation of it."

What is that evidence EXACTLY? You're so certain of your position, let's hear it NOW! And is it necessary for him to take a stand, when the position from the pulpit consistently condemns such things? If anything needs to be said from the pulpit, it will be.

"A group of around 50 of his parishioners delivered a petition for him yesterday to, as far as we know, do exactly that: to use his authority to remove that immoral website from the Catholic public domain. Before they delivered this document, several of them had addressed the topic with him and one of his fellow-priests, and both were reluctant to deal with the topic publicly."

What authority does he have to remove that horrible website fromd the "Catholic public domain", whatever that is. The website owners are clearly distorting Church teaching to support their ridiculous money-making scheme. We've been members of the Oratory (it's not a "parish" BTW) for many years and know that not every issue is to be aired publicly. It cannot be assumed infallibly Athat the lack of an instantaneous response in a time frame acceptable to TIA is equal to complicity or support. If anything, you've probably increased their sales while offending many people with your articles.

"Now, as you correctly implied in your request, a public scandal demands a public sanction. It is basic in Catholic Morals. Since the Pastor and another of his priests do not want to make it, nothing seemed better to us than to put a little fire under their feet to encourage them to do what is right."

Very poorly written, making me wonder about the level of discourse here. I can write as poorly as I please - I'm not publishing anything nor poking at specks in others' eyes online.

"We did not mention it in our Picture of the Week because we did not know for sure whether that petition would be delivered or not. We mentioned that he tacitly approved the action of the couple because he refuses to act publicly against the scandal."

Really? You don't know whether it was delivered (sic "or not") ! What does "tacitly" mean? It merely means you hope it's true without being certain, which charity would demand, but you're going to impugn guilt anyway.

  1. It is a psychological position that creates the same atmosphere that produced the cover-ups of homosexual priests and pedophile priests, which has so greatly damaged the prestige of the Church.

    "A psychological position that creates an atmosphere?" Gobbledy-gook first of all. Secondly You can assert this, but you cannot prove it. Pretty much a high schooler's approach to argumentation. The sinful cover-ups have been horrific, but you can't simply use that as a hammer to beat anyone you please with. Witch-hunt type stuff.

    It is a false idea of respect. The love of the faithful for the priest should come from the love we have for Holy Mother Church, and not the other way around. A priest who does not follow good morals does not represent the Church, but is crucifying her. So, he must be admonished. If he does so publicly, he must be admonished publicly. Those who take a position of pulling out their hair when a lay faithful justly criticizes a priest are feeding an ambience that propitiates cover-ups.

    "How can you assert that Canon C does not follow "good morals". Judge not? "If he does so publicly, he must be admonished publicly." So poorly written I can't decipher it. "An ambience that propitiates cover-ups" - lol

  2. If a person puts himself in the shoes of a client of Catholic Intimacy website – that is a person who commits those perversities in his married life – when he sees someone making accusations that those practices are not Catholic, to save himself he will use the priest as a shield. Then, there is nothing more efficient than to accuse the accuser of insulting the priest. It diverts the attention from his moral perversities and removes himself from the danger zone.

    Looks like someone has been hitting the bottle before they scribbled the above section. Whew!

    Curiously, none of those furious messages against TIA stressed the horror of that website’s content...

    Perhaps the brevity of emails doesn't allow one to express emotions of outrage - one should be able to assume such outrage without having to name the unspeakable.

  3. Although indisputable evidence is better than an ensemble of circumstantial evidence, we believe that – taking into consideration the widespread moral decadence of the clergy for the last six decades – the latter is enough to raise an honest suspicion on the bad behavior of a priest, as long as the accuser is not biased or moved by personal reasons.

    "Is better than?" That's a real cop-out - it's not a matter of playing a hunch. It's uncharitable and against justice to rely on circumstantial evidence, and very weak circumstantial "evidence" to boot. So your suspicion is "honest", but a priest dragged into your filthy insinuations is "bad"? Pretty lame. You are justified in judging apparently. All men are sinners - that's enough for one to accuse his fellow man of many things, but I don't think Jesus himself took such approach. Maybe your Jesus did.
Quite disappointed that you've doubled down on your weak pseudo-arguments and are relying on hearsay at best. Nothing good can come of this, I'm afraid. I'd recommend you leave the matter in Canon Coggeshall's capable hands. He has many good priests to advise and guide him to act wisely and not precipitously - unless you somehow know that they're evil as well.



Blason de Charlemagne
Follow us

Posted January 26, 2023