Saturday, February 10, 2018

THE CLOTHES MAKE THE (WO)MAN


Love matches, as they are called, have illusion for their father and need for their mother. Nietzsche

As Valentine's Day beckons with hearts and flowers, we find it singularly appropriate to put the February 22 Big Show on the back burner for a week so as to direct our scrutiny to Dannie's 2018 YAG in Cincy

As you may have observed, $GG is already promoting the event in its weekly bulletin and online. A program of "adult" activities promising to be as lame as last year's hasn't been posted yet on the website. However, we did find the meddling "clergy" have added demands to aggravate the already disordered scruples of the psychasthenic losers tormented enough to register this year. If the site's home-page "art work" is any indication (click here), you'll have a good idea of the mentality of the target audience "One Hand" and Checkie have in mind.

To save you (and us) the time of reading through all that twaddle, PL had a third party with YAG connections to furnish us highlights.

The creepiest difference between the 2018 and 2017 dating meat-markets is there is now "no hard and fast cutoff" for the upper age limit! In other words, "the YAG is now open to singles age 18 and up." An e-mail promo to previous attendees asks recipients to "please pass this info on to your friends who might have been a smidge "too old" last year; tell 'em to c'mon in!"
Whaaaaat? Did they really say, "c'mon in"? Is it going to be a weekend-long pool party with beach-blanket bingo and all? We knew the registrants would get soaked, but we didn't expect the cult masters meant it literally.  And if their running-buddies were "a smidge 'too old'" last year, aren't they more than "a smidge 'too old'" in 2018?


Concerned parents and safety-conscious twenty-somethings have cause to fear what "a smidge 'too old'" entails. In 2017, the upper limit was a nightmarishly high 35 years old. We bristle when we imagine a drooling, heavy-breathing, bloated, goggle-eyed, middle-aged "Mr. Lonelyheart Trad" aggressively stalking an unwary "Miss Sede Distinct Possibility" splashing all alone in the deep end.

Other rule changes are equally disturbing. To further discourage well-adjusted young adults from attending, the YAG dress code's been beefed up to make it much stricter this year — but only with respect to the ladies. Naturally!  This is Tradistan. For 2018, the more intrusive, illustrated regulations obsess in voyeuristic detail about how modest women's attire must be. For instance, a dress
must...generously COVER, not merely skim or come halfway over, the knees BOTH while standing AND sitting down. No slits.... If a skirt needs leggings underneath to make it decent, it's WAY too short. 
More ominously, "cleavage" is forbidden together with the titillatingly mysterious "suggestion of cleavage."

What the latter means is anybody's guess, for it's not spelled out how the "clergy" will determine if what's visible is an authentic sulcus intermammarius or just a pert shadow. Catching and shaming violators, the favorite "clerical" exercise at a sede cult apostolate, might be impossible should all the gals wear turtlenecks. But even absent turtlenecks in June, it'll be tough to police the new interdiction. As our very own Readerette informed the editorial staff, U.S. federal courts have ruled that the intermammary cleft is so vague that no guidance is available to define it (West's federal supplement [First Series], p. 994, West Publishing Co, 1990).*

PL wonders what happened last year to provoke this radical revision of the dress standards. Did one or more of these "good Catholic girls" cross the line of Christian modesty, say, by free-buffing, thus resulting in manly outrage— plus a longer-than-usual line at the confessional? 

Just as the rules are tougher for the womenfolk, so the boys' club members get their customary patriarchal pass. Guys are perfunctorily advised that "slacks or nice jeans [?!] are preferred" and that shirts and pants may not be "tight." (Perhaps a subtle hint for some of those empty-carb-craving sede chow hounds to go on a pre-YAG diet in order to depress the quantity of food consumed?)

Shorts are not allowed on cult premises, but inasmuch as there's no explicit off-property prohibition, we conclude that males may wear loose-fitting shorts at events not held at dilapidated $GG. (Otherwise Dannie and Cheesy wouldn't have limited the ban to the vermin-infested cult campus. We mean, they'd've boldly written "No shorts" period! Right?)


Oh, the pastoral nonfeasance of the sede "Brotopia"!

What if the women in attendance are scandalized — or become ensnared in an unavoidable proximate occasion of sin — through the indecent exposure of virile knees (or even the "suggestion of knees") by men immodest enough to wear baggy shorts in the presence of nubile trad-bachelorettes? Have the cult masters no concern over the effect of bare, hairy, male lower limbs on all these impressionable daughters of Eve? Suppose the bros are not as mindful as the chicks are when they sit: Who of us hasn't heard about, or witnessed, the "manspreading" blight? And why, if shorts are allowed at some activities, wasn't there an express prohibition against going commando?

In their effort to polemicize the weekend for their morbid sectarian purposes, the cult masters have raised the bar for attendance by adding oddly specific religious tests. Registrants, who must be sedes, this year have to agree they condemn certain SSPV practices; they must also affirm they believe in baptism of desire/ baptism of blood, as if that could be a deal-breaker for youthful lovebirds, LOL. ("Sweet cheeks, you know I love you, truly I do, but unless you affirm baptism of blood/desire here and now before our very first kiss, Checkie will never let us go steady," the tradette demurely cooed, rapidly blinking her rheumy eyes. "Oh, honey bunch," trad-boy groaned in reply, "you knooooowwwww that I dooooo! *XOXO*") 

Cult central is sure to publish updates about YAG 2018 in the coming months, which we'll be eager to cover on these pages. But for mature young adults in Traddielandia, we'd suggest the information shared today should be enough for them to

STAY AWAY FROM YAG IN CINCY 2018.

* The gender bias of the dress code is intolerable. For men, polo shirts are among the "preferred" choices, yet, scandalously there's no requirement that guys wear long-tailed polo jerseys so as to prevent shriek-inducing exposure of the crena clunium, a common, unsightly wardrobe malfunction, which the workman's-chic clothier, the Duluth Trading Company, labels "an egregious display of Plumber's Butt," more archly termed in French "le sourire du plombier."

Alas! At $GG, when it comes to modesty or simple good taste, it's still a man's world.

104 comments:

  1. Instead of Dannie telling “your friends who might have been a smidge ‘too old’ last year; tell 'em to c'mon in!," he could perhaps reword it to say, “If you have a pulse, c’mon in!” After all, it doesn’t matter how old or decrepit someone is, as long as he or she forks over the “entrance fee”! (Actually, entrants with one foot in the grave are probably welcome. (Who knows? If if they die while attending the YAG,, they just might leave $GG in their will!)

    ReplyDelete
  2. All cultmaster sins aside, I see nothing wrong with forbidding cleavage displays. Not sure why that bothers you so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It doesn't bother us per se.

      What bothers us is, Why is it necessary to tell presumptively Catholic women that they can't display cleavage?

      It seems to us that the modest Catholic debs who would attend YAG 2018 would have been brought up to know that, at the very least, the display of the position of their breasts on the chest wall was not in the best of taste. We mean, that's a no-brainer, dude.

      So why the "clerical" fascination? Hmmmnnnhhh?

      Delete
    2. Maybe it's necessary to specify this because they ran into problems with modesty last time?

      I also see nothing wrong with having a dress code. Your mockery of Catholic standards of modesty show your true colors.

      To answer your last question, maybe clerics are fascinated with modesty because they know how many souls are dragged into hell by immodest attire.

      Delete
    3. Or maybe they're not clerics but just control freaks. It's absolutely certain they're not Roman Catholic clerics.

      Delete
    4. We all know that boys will be boys and girls will be girls, some pushing the boundaries of modesty, or worse going way over the boundaries.
      Even for adults the Legion of Decency spelled out the rules.
      What is wrong with that?

      Delete
    5. Well now you're changing your point. First you accused them of having a "clerical fascination" with modesty, and asked why it was necessary for them to remind attendees of the need to dress modestly. When Anonymous 8:44PM gave you a very reasonable answer, you then switched to a different, unrelated point. My point is, whether you consider them clerics or laymen, their insistence on modest dress is completely appropriate. I'm no sede-vacantist, but I am a married man, and I can't stand women displaying what only their husbands should see. Either there was a problem with that at the last YAG, or they have a problem with it at SGG. In any case, it needs to be dealt with, because immortal souls are at stake.

      Delete
    6. Then the guys shouldn't be exposing what only their wives should see. The cult masters should've been just as specific with them.

      Delete
    7. Reader: What you're doing here is called "moving the goalposts."

      Delete
    8. No. We're interrogating the whole of Dannie's male-centric discourse.

      Delete
    9. The Reader February 11, 2018 at 5:38 AM

      Please be sensible.

      We all know that concerning temptations and sins against chastity the problem of indecently dressed female is worse than males, due to the nature and bodies of males and females.
      Just look at how the Church has been treating of the problem for centuries through her theologians, saints, pastors, sermons, approved books etc.

      Delete
  3. What a pathetic attempt to have a reason to blog! There is so much wrong here the only reasonable way to handle it is from start to finish, and space required me to try to be brief!

    The title. "the clothes make the (wo)man". That is actually a phrase that one is pretty much lastingly judged by the clothes (s)he wears. In other words, wear nice clothes and you will be considered nice. But PL gets this wrong because if the rules insist on dressing nice, the title of the blog doesn't fit, because everyone knows not to judge when they consciously know the rules required it in the first place!

    Is it Catholic to require attire to be in accord with Christian modesty? Yes, it is, traditionally. Even restauranteurs will require certain attire merely to foster more wealthy clientelle, and that is okay, but when a Catholic group requires it to prevent sin, PL complains! That is sick. More on that later.

    Then we have PL's choice of a quote by Nietsche to sub-title the blog! He was a guy who died in 1900 and was anti-Catholic. Couldn't PL have chosen a quote from one of the many Saint authors? Approved Catholic authors? or at least Aristotle? No, PL chose a man who said, “Christianity remains to this day the greatest misfortune of humanity.” and "God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him."

    Now, I will only go so far as the first two paragraphs. (And we all know that there is one man who is the prime author of these blogs because the tone and lingo is noticeable). You mention "Valentine's Day", which you should have mentioned "St. Valentine's" day.

    Next, you mention "Big Show", but any consecration traditionally is a big show. Your cynical illegetimate remark shows you don't know tradition on such an occasion.

    You complain that the activities are called "adult", and you yourself call them "lame". Yet, how much do we know that rolling a ball down and alley or putting a little ball into a hole is considered quite adult! The point is, Christianity has traditional been termed, effectively, "lame" by those opposing it. If I were not married, I wouldn't have the slightest hesitation to joing a get-together with the prospect of meeting an available woman, even if we paint a house for three days! The brilliance of this is to keep the people busy and to judge how virtuous a person is in the face of hourse of simple (and perhaps lame) activity. That is what really determines virtue!

    I didn't even finish the 2nd paragraph. Pl doesn't really have a clue, and there is much more to say. I will call myself "Anonymous_003" for the next time I post (if you don't censor it).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the Big Show in B'ville is illegitimate.

      BTW, there is not one "man' in charge of the blog. It is a group effort, which is later edited by women and men to express a consistent voice.

      You are welcome to post again Anon-003, as long was you refrain from the vile profanity of your fellow friends of Dannie.

      Delete
    2. Can you give us the worst example of "vile profanity" that my so-called friends have already published here?

      Delete
    3. No, we won't. It's unprintable. This is a family blog.

      Delete
    4. Reader February 10, 2018 at 6:43 PM
      A group effort could mean you, your wife and maybe a kid or two.

      Delete
    5. "as long was you"? Yes, it is clear why you have people edit your blog after you compose it.

      Sounds rather paranoid, "vile profanity of your fellow friends". You could have 50 different anonymous people replying here and only one of them uses vile profanity, but you make it look like there are so many. That's not honest.

      That's like PL's "favorite" movie you have listed as being "Doubt". All you at PL have the same favorite movie and it's that one? And, you all agree that deliberately lying when you have no proof for something is okay, as long you can get the priest out of the parish to satisfy a mere suspicion? That's what the movie doubt ends with as the final solution.

      Delete
    6. Reader6:43, I said "prime" author, didn't I? Prime means "leading", it doesn't mean "only".

      As for vile profanity, I don't use it because it is a sin, and as another post says, you may have only one anon who sins like that.

      Resuming my critique of your 2nd paragraph...the term "meddling" is when one interferes. It is definitively not interfering when one voluntarily offers something and gives the conditions for it. Your editors didn't catch that one.

      "disordered scruples"....which it is not, because is complies with the mind of the Church. You and your editors failed to know this.

      The "home-page "art-work" ".....of the site which didn't claim to be artwork!, yet you criticize for being artwork. You and your editors failed to discern that. All it is a photo of lined up figurines. The only mentality it portrays is a happy, wholesome, feminine, cute mindframe. One which male participants of any virtue will gladly accept as coming from a woman. Males who are turned off by that should not get married. It is, intentionally, or unintentionally, excellent.

      3rd paragraph, your use of "twaddle" reveals that you (and your so-called editors) don't have the "mind of the Church" in regard to the conditions for the gathering. It also reveals you don't seem to know the differences among bad, good, better and best. Example, the Church approves of men and women being separate in one side of the Church and the other, which is an exampe of better, but less than that can be still good. You go to extremes.

      Your 4th paragraph? I will leave it at this for now. "Creepiest"...this is an example of how someone who thinks something is creepy, when it really isn't, reveals a creepiness on the part of the perceiver. More to follow, since this is a large reply already.

      ~Anonymous_003

      Delete
    7. Apparently you didn't notice the quotation marks. But keep 'em coming.

      Delete
    8. Which quotation marks, and what do you mean? Or do you like to talk in riddles so nobody understands?

      Delete
    9. If the site's home-page "art work" is any indication (click here), you'll have a good idea of the mentality of the target audience "One Hand" and Checkie have in mind.

      Delete
    10. It's obvious by those quotes that you mean "so-called" art work. In other words, you are saying it is NOT artwork. So what? The web site doesn't even claim it is art work in the first place, so why are you objecting?

      Delete
    11. The ReaderFebruary 11, 2018 at 5:40 AM

      So how many people is it, including family members?

      Surely you don't mind telling us the total number of people involved in the group effort, do you?

      Delete
    12. Anonymous February 11, 2018 at 10:09 PM

      Another (specialized) definition of the term is "material (such as a drawing or photograph) prepared for reproduction in printed matter."

      Delete
    13. The Reader February 11, 2018 at 7:58 PM

      You should not use quotation marks unless you are quoting someone. Otherwise it can be the cause of confusion.
      In this case it appears no one is referring it as artwork in any sense but you.
      Please stop focusing on made up problems and trivialities and instead deal with issues of substance.
      Have you not yet realized that all these distractions and diversions that you stimulate do not even advance the discussion or further you aims, but rather get people bogged down in inconsequential matters of no importance?
      Why not keep it real?

      Delete
    14. Wrong. Quotation marks may be used to indicate distinctive treatment of words.

      We do keep it real. Very real. It is of utmost importance for traditional Catholics to see that the SW Ohio cult is a sham in every respect.

      Delete
  4. It is painful to watch men who have no one over them through this blog.

    It is impossible not to be clumsy when you are properly situated neither with respect to a superior nor with respect to your living situation and this has gone on for decades.

    The deviation is orders of magnitude wider now.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I believe you are perceptive and correct. None are so blind as those who think they have it all figured out.

      Delete
  5. 1) I was waiting for someone to take you to task for quoting Nietzsche...didn't take very long at all.

    2) In one way, I can understand the urge to keep out Feeneyites, as they tend to be killjoys. But still...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PL likes to get a rise out of its adversaries in the Readers' choice of epigraphs.

      Delete
    2. "PL likes to get a rise out of its adversaries in the Readers' choice of epigraphs."

      That's not the same justification you used last time you were queried/attacked for using the likes of Nietzsche in your epigraph. You make it all up as you go along, Reader.

      Delete
    3. The principal reason behind our selection of quotations doesn't preclude the ancillary enjoyment of needling low-brows.

      Delete
    4. Reader: Your unveiled contempt for those whom you consider your inferiors says a whole lot about you.

      Delete
    5. That's not contempt. It's just the truth.

      Delete
  6. My guess is that they want even less women to show up than last year--but maybe they just don't want the woman w/the gold scarf in the group pic from last year coming back.

    http://www.sgg.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/DSC_0157.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't think that's the case. I think it's probably not the clergy making the suggestions, but the coordinator of the young adult group. She tends to be on the extreme side of modesty. Although, I have heard that in the past, SGG has a difficult time with modest shirts for women, as long as the knees were covered, one was okay. The women were not told about covering up the cleavage showing. This is before the arrival of the new teacher/coordinator though.

    ReplyDelete
  8. On another note, I can't imagine sending my young adult to a group outing with 40 year old men looking for wives. I find that extremely desperate to increase numbers. A 40 year old has no business seeking company in the young adult group, but nothing this group does surprises me.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Somehow or another I wonder if perhaps a few of the more attractive female participants in last year’s YAG gathering drew more attention from the eligible bachelors than the less attractive females. This has possibly provoked an issue of jealousy?
    Regardless, if ANY of the young ladies wore anything that was provocative or immodest per the rules and mandates of this traddie entity, initially, they should be talked to privately, by a woman, to correct the perceived problem, however real or imagined. To be so indiscreet in addressing and discussing so specifically a modesty issue of cleavage, in print, to women AND men, is a violation of modesty in itself.

    Now, with this issue of P L, the whole world now knows of a cleavage issue at SGG. A private word to the “offenders” should suffice. The person responsible for so indiscreetly creating and initiating the public response to this SGG “cleavage” matter requires some lessons in appropriately addressing such issues before running and controlling a marriage market gathering of young adults. There are still available books and pamphlets, pre Vatican II, that address such matters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon. 12 Feb 10:42 AM

      Well said! A study in common sense and good taste, qualities lacking at the vulgar SW Ohio cult.

      You will note that PL, in reporting $GG's indiscretion, confined itself to the medical terms of art. The offending word would not have appeared here at all were it not journalistically necessary to quote the cult website accurately.

      We understand the cult masters don't know Latin and are likewise ignorant of the clinical terminology in English. Had they wished to be less coarse, they would have forbidden "décolletage" or "décolleté garments," assuming they felt they had to take this issue up in the public forum to prevent the recurrence of scandal or worse.

      Delete
    2. Last year must have been one wild weekend! Sounds like YAG should be named TAGG .... "Tramps After Gertie Guys."

      PL will be to blame if more males than females register for 2018.

      Delete
  10. The Reader: "Had they wished to be less coarse, they would have forbidden "décolletage" or "décolleté garments,"

    Then those reading the delicate instruction would've looked up the word "décolletage" and found: décolletage
    ˌdeɪkɒlɪˈtɑːʒ,deɪˈkɒltɑːʒ/
    noun
    a low neckline on a woman's dress or top.
    a woman's cleavage as revealed by a low neckline on a dress or top.

    They would've ended up seeing the word "cleavage," so what's the difference?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1st, it depends on the dictionary they use. Not all dictionaries give "cleavage" as a synonym. The best don't, owing to the original meaning. Forbidding low-cut necklines allows the prudent moralist to avoid all direct reference to the female anatomy. Much more tasteful.

      2nd, even if they encountered the word in a rum online source, the offense would be indirect.

      Delete
    2. AnonymousFebruary 12, 2018 at 5:19 PM wrote:

      “They would've ended up seeing the word "cleavage," so what's the difference?”

      Had this “cleavage” matter been handled discreetly, this entire discussion about cleavage and modesty wouldn’t be taking place. That is the difference.

      Delete
    3. Anon @ 9:54 am
      You can hardly blame others for YOUR EXERCISING OF YOUR FREE WILL. PL didn't have to raise the issue. PL initiated the public discussion of the word "cleavage," acting as if it's a grave sin against etiquette to use that term. It isn't. The Reader is just a wannabe agitator.

      Delete
  11. PL really sounds warped. Imagine criticizing the use of a photo of little statuettes as if it indicates a - what?...."mentality"? Any girl or woman in the world would think that photo is wholesome and cute and happy. Any decent male knowing it was chosen by a female wouldn't think twice. The PL gang must be hilarious at an inkblot session!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No.

      We merely note the tackiness of the mentality behind YAG. It is definitely not adult, and betrays arrested social development. But, then, the "PL gang," as you call us, knows only mature, educated, and socially sophisticated women and men, who recognize the YAG "artwork" as kitsch.

      Delete
    2. Again - ANY girl or woman would think that photo is cute. That's reality. You have just revealed your own arrested development...or derangement.

      Delete
    3. Would ANY boy or man think the photo cute without feeling icky?

      Perhaps — if he's sill living in his mom's basement.

      Would ANY mature gal or guy think it adult-appropriate?

      We doubt it.

      Would ANY sane gal think a guy who liked that picture could be a possible mate?

      We know for sure she wouldn't.

      Delete
    4. You prove my point once again. Anyone decent who already has a wife completely expects his wife, and ALL women and girls to think that photo is cute and darling. If a man has a problem with that, he has a problem...and shouldn't get married. PL has a serious problem.

      Delete
    5. Dead wrong about "ALL."

      Cosmopolitan, well-educated women with taste understand the photo in question appeals to the primitive emotions of a child. When we showed the illustration to a number of professional women we know, they all groaned at the saccharinity. Two of them made the barf gesture, while a third shook her head in disbelief that it was used to advertise an adult weekend. She asked, "Are these people hillbillies?" Another called it "sick." The rest just laughed in derision at the cluelessness of the website's moderator.

      You're hanging out with — or belong to — the wrong class of women: that's your problem.

      Delete
    6. Let us all hear now from the mouth of a woman....not what we just had to suffer through.

      Delete
    7. I'm an adult woman. The imagery and the life size posters of a person by the sgg seem very immature to me. A dress code is necessary, but the way they put it was quite unusual. I will have to agree that if one or two ladies chose not to follow it, they should have been pulled aside privately and told what would be more appropriate. I would give them the benefit of the doubt that they may not have realized their mistake, and instead of calling it out publicly (because the people who went to the outing know exactly who it was), it would have been more charitable to take the matter privately.

      Delete
    8. You are right, not ALL. We have to allow for the one's that get themselves impaired by becoming "professional". As a man I say Bravo to the well-chosen photo that keeps away women who are inclined to make me shake my head or wrench at the thought of them joining.

      Delete
    9. And we're certain the highly accomplished, single women who threaten Neanderthals are thankful the cult chose that photo, too. It will keep them from coming near the likes of you and your ilk.

      Delete
    10. I can’t believe how many people give more than 2 seconds to a simple image like that. In the post millennial age of MEME’s and more, certainly this throwback image is not so childish. Even so, the main point of the YAG is to have a place for single trad men and women to meet. The rest is on them to figure it out. Any normal single trad is going there to find a potential spouse and the rest is just fluff.



      I find it very funny this is an issue on this blog considering how many goofy pictures the readers uses in their posts.

      Delete
    11. The content of the comments section is driven by our readership, so our one-line remark about the developmental inappropriateness of the photo of animal figurines must have struck a nerve among the culturally impaired cultists.

      In light of the Gertie's choice of visual theme, we would argue that no normal single trad would attend Dannie's YAG. Real traditional Catholics don't like kitsch. The cult was patently appealing to a segment of the underclass.

      Delete
  12. Anonymous February 12, 2018 at 10:42 AM

    This is the type of comment an ignorant prude would make. And you also are inadvertently blaming PL for a widespread violation of modesty in itself, by spreading the message.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I'm an professional woman & I, too, think the "artwork" is cute & a bit childish. If this is for a gathering of mature men & women, then arrested social development did come to mind to me as well.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I am a stay-at-home mom who has a master's +. That "artwork" may be appropriate for my toddler's picture book, but it is out of place as the visual theme for young/maturing adults in search of potential lifelong mates. Both the mother and the woman in me find it cloying. Courtship, which may lead to a Catholic marriage, is a serious, though joyful, undertaking, which should not be cheapened by cutesy imagery. Dating itself is not without its challenges and requires level heads informed by an adult outlook. In this context, the chipmunk oompah band (or whatever those smug, ALL MALE gremlins are) degrades what should be elevated and even holy. It is definitely NOT "cute" or "darling."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Anon @ 2:34 pm failed to inform the readership that she is a PL stooge, humorless cow, and runs her household like Stalag 15.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, that was pretty uncharitable.

      Delete
    2. Interesting, because I am very similar to 2:34, but I am not 2:34. It's funny that 2:42 thinks they know who everyone is that writes as anon. It's also funny that they can pick on how anyone runs their house, when they don't mind how these men run a church/school.

      Delete
  16. The liberal taint generally accompanies being university educated, especially when it comes to women.

    Women are particularly made for motherhood, or religious life. Those are the REAL "professional women". These types would think NOTHING of the photo banner on that web site. Loads of non-Catholic and Novus Ordo women would think it cute and simple give no more thought to it. It's not a cult thing to have no objection to it, but is is the PL-cult thing to make it a point of contention.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's PL's journalistic responsibility to point out the bad taste of the SW Ohio cult. However, we'll stipulate that "loads" of socially backward folks would approve of the photo. It's pure country kitsch. That's what happens when you don't have university-educated, professional women to help you and let yokel girls run things.

      Delete
    2. I do believe Eldraucher, Selway, and McGuire all have university educated sisters. Are you including their families in this group?

      The head of the sgg young adult group is an Eldraucher, who is college educated.

      Delete
    3. Yes, cults do think they have "responsibilities". History knows what REAL women are like. Modernists try to alter that view, and "university-educated" is one of them.

      Delete
    4. Did you know, "Reader" that Our Lady was a yokel girl? The Universities today indoctrinate with anti-god principles all over the place. When will you wake up?

      Delete
    5. You need to wake up, for you are woefully ignorant that in Catholic art, Mary is represented as a prodigy of learning. Among her common attributes is the book, the iconographic symbol for profound learning and study, which related to her rôle as Sedes Sapientiæ. St. Anne is pictured as holding a book when she taught Mary or Jesus to read. Our Lady is also styled as Virgo Sapientissima. Hardly the illiterate female ideals of your fantasy!

      Pious tradition tells us that Ss. Anne & Joachim were both descendants of David, and the Protoevangelium of James describes St. Joachim as a rich and pious man. The Church Fathers generally agree on Mary's Davidic descent. Moreover, some modern scholars have posited that if Our Lady's kinship to St. Elizabeth was on the maternal side, she was of the House of David. Hardly yokels, then, in the eyes of the Church, ancient and modern!

      You are at odds with centuries of Catholic piety, so you should best be silent.

      Delete
    6. Boy, a new low here by the PL cult - comparing the knowledge & intellectual formation of the Blessed Virgin Mary with modern day University degrees! An opinion from hell.

      Delete
    7. You'd better re-read what we wrote, because we affirmed nothing of the kind.

      Delete
    8. Colleges teach women to become communist feminist lesbians.
      I know this for a fact,please believe me.
      The dorms and sorority houses are satanic houses of abomination.
      My identity cannot be revealed.
      It's heartbreaking to see what has been done to modern women and knowing full well it's intentional.
      PL if you have worked at a university level you know full well what I am revealing.

      Delete
    9. Certainly not all colleges or universities. We know of several, including those run by Evangelicals, that do not fit into your model. Plus we know many traditional Catholic girls who got their degree without compromising their virtue.

      Delete
    10. 4:13, you are quite confused. I am a college graduate and not a feminist, not a lesbian, and not a communist. I was never in a dorm or sorority, so I cannot attest to that. I have an education to provide for myself and family in case anything happens to my husband, and I am grateful for that. There's too many widows who can't say the same because of views, like your's, and you need to wake up and realize we are not in the 19th century anymore.

      Delete
    11. Seat of Wisdom primarily refers directly to the Word (Christ) of whom Mary is the throne. Secondarily, it refers to the wisdom of Mary. Wisdom is a gift of the Holy Ghost, it doesn't mean secular learning at a school. Catholic books explain that the uneducated can easily have this gift of wisdom. The Blessed Virgin didn't have the schooling as you are talking about here. The uneducated, with the virtue of simplicity, absolutely likes that photo. I know University trained women who would like that, too. Your taking issue with a casual photo is just SO weird.

      Delete
    12. Wisdom is far more complex than you have imagined. In scholastic philosophy, it is "the intellectual virtue concerning the first or supreme causes of all things." Wisdom may be philosophical, practical, speculative, and supernatural. Broadly, it is the "best form of knowledge," knowledge ordered to God. Knowledge acquired through some form of pedagogy may and should be so ordered.

      We never said Mary had a university education, as moderns understand it. That's your false assertion. To so affirm would be anachronistic. The NT does not speak to her infancy, but traditional piety represents her as having been brought up in the temple and often shows her reading, which indicates the pious believed Our Lady was far more educated than the average man or woman of her day.

      Our point is that, unlike you, the Church had no problem in ascribing to the BVM the adornment of formal knowledge got through study.

      Delete
    13. The whole contention is that you praised the modern higher-educated for taking issue with that photo, when in fact it can be the uneducated and virtuous who will have no problem with it, but actually like it. Weird, weird stuff you produce here at every turn. You have a snobbish view of higher-education. The more you write the more you put your foot in your mouth.



      Delete
    14. Dear Reader you are a classic example of a person that is educated beyond their intellect.

      Delete
    15. Anon 14 Feb. 8:22 PM

      You appear to assert that the educated are not virtuous, but the uneducated are. If so, then you err. You also seem to be a victim of the trad vice of anti-intellectualism, encouraged by so many of the dreadfully malformed "clergy."

      The Roman Catholic Church has always honored and promoted higher education, witness her many colleges and universities throughout the world.

      One of the benefits of higher education, especially of a liberal-arts education, is the acquisition of good taste and sophistication. That partly explains why both the virtuous and unvirtuous educated dismiss the YAG photo while the virtuous and unvirtuous uneducated like it.

      As Gracián observed, "Bad taste springs from lack of knowledge," and as Burke noted, "The cause of a wrong taste is a defect of judgment." A post-secondary education not only furnishes us with knowledge, but it also refines our judgment. Hence, the opinions of the educated relative to the YAG photo are to be preferred to those without the advantage of superior intellectual formation.

      Delete
    16. None of the trad Clergy I have met are against higher education or learning and that includes any off the OH and FL based priests. In fact, I have found quite the opposite to be true. Why do you think they are against learning?
      Note I do agree many trads have an issue with higher education and I believe there are in error with this position, but I have not found the clergy to have the same view.

      Also those of us with superior intellectual formation learned how to use our own brain to evaluate things and don’t need to relay on artificial self-pronounced “sophistication” to tell us how to evaluate such a picture.

      In reply to Burke:
      she chases her tail
      monkeys running through the trees
      hark, the calls of birds

      Delete
    17. Reader7:55AM, all wrong. Look back at your original contention and you will see that, based on your small clique of University educated adults, you ridicule the objective use of a photo of figurines. Your clique is wrong, because it doesn't represent anything but its own snobby self. You intimate higher educated people will look down their noses at the use of a such a simple and child-like photo of figurines. Go read about child-like simplicity among the great intellectual and educated Saints. Don't even compare modern Universities with the higher education of the great Saints.

      Delete
    18. Anonymous February 15, 2018 at 5:00 PM

      Our list could go on ad infinitum, but here are highlights:

      1. Numerous first-hand reports from chapel members about "clergy" disparaging higher education, even from the pulpit.

      2, The lack of a college credential for the "nuns" and most of the "priests." The lack of teaching/administration certificates.

      3. Engaging recent high-school graduates as "teachers."

      4. The quality of pedagogy and curriculum in cult "schools."

      5. This quote from "Bishop" Robert F. McKenna (2004 letter):

      “As for higher education for Sisters, it is a mistake in my conviction. With the exception where there is a practical necessity for one to study something for teaching a higher course, there is no need for it ... ‘A little learning is a dangerous thing.’ The Apostle himself says that knowledge "puffs up," and the danger I think is even greater for women than men.”

      As an aside: sophistication is not self-pronounced. It is earned by exposure to the best, sound instruction from disciplinary masters, and assiduous reflection on experience.

      Delete
  17. When one of the principal's sons impregnated a fellow student some time back, you can bet that much more than her "cleavage" was showing -- and that SGG's "dress code" did little to prevent that from happening (nor did it prevent him and his brothers from watching porn on the school computer). It is amazing that so many of the people commenting here are so"up in arms" against PL, yet were probably strangely silent when those aforementioned events occurred.

    The truth is, many of the puritanical traddies who rant so much about "wholesome" attire turn out to be unwholesome themselves -- "closet perverts." The whole cult preoccupation with "decent clothing"turns out to be little more than an exercise in hypocrisy. And Anon 2:34 PM is right:The YAG promo photo actually cheapens what it's supposed to be representing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The WatcherFebruary 13, 2018 at 6:59 PM wrote:

      The truth is, many of the puritanical traddies who rant so much about "wholesome" attire turn out to be unwholesome themselves -- "closet perverts."

      You have succinctly put into words what I’ve been trying to say for years about this element of traddie. Many thanks Watcher.

      These sad people don’t realize the message they are sending to others about themselves and the state of their perverted, warped minds. Their constant focus on and harping about the morality of their fellow trads, wholesome attire, sandals, high heels, cleavage, etc. speak volumes about their disordered minds.

      Apparently they feel condemning others and pointing out their flaws somehow or another dupes people into thinking they are the epitome of morality and propriety. All the while some, if not many of this element are merely feeding and indulging their prurient interests.

      Over the years I’ve ever so much wanted to confront some of these perverts and ask them why they feel so superior, and what distinguishes them, what is the difference between them and the people they criticize and condemn? What benefits do they derive from their obsessions? Many will respond by saying they are trying to save souls. Really???

      Enough said.

      Delete
    2. @Watcher, the impregnator is only a hypocrite if they pretend to be an unfallen man and above the rest (kinda like you and the Reader). “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun.”


      @anon 10:37 AM I agree many trads can be Pharisaical on many issues, however this is not an SGG issue, but a trad in general issue and in reality a human issue among any group of people trying to be above the rest of the garbage in society. The garbage don’t have to worry about being Pharisaical as they are just openly horrible. It is the watcher that is a puritan pretending that just because a sin becomes public it is somehow unique.

      Delete
    3. Anon. 9:23 PM, you are wrong on all counts. First of all, we said NOTHING about whether the “impregnator” was a hypocrite or not. Our remarks about hypocrisy had to do, not with him, but with the “cult preoccupation with ‘decent’ clothing.’” Please check your facts first before making any more of your (false) accusations. Secondly, your admonition of anon. 10:37 is totally off-base as well. Being pharisaic is not a general trad thing but a “cult” thing – especially SGG and MHT. Lastly, your comment – “It is the watcher that is puritanical pretending that just because a sin becomes public it is somehow unique” – makes no sense whatsoever (either in content, or grammatically). Therefore, we suggest that you go back to school, to learn how to think and write coherently.

      Delete
  18. Yesterday found The Lay Pulpit's Feb. 10 offering along the same lines of under no one and no one above that I've been realizing clearly lately! For me this simple concept covers everything and no need for me to focus on any individual. Happier that way and see the impossible situation for what it is. The buck stops with the bishop who does not have apostolic succession. That seems clear in several sources at jmjsite - now see the sadness for what it is.

    Have contacted one venue for the move to probably the East Coast so far and will report back. At the time I wrote I hadn't gotten the matter of authority clear so I asked whether either ordinary or supplied jurisdiction exists since it never 'comes' with ordination.

    It was a church found through the Archives at this site. I made a note of it months ago because it has several commendations and no negative feedback from commenters.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As long as you avoid anything affiliated, even remotely, with $GG, you might be OK, especially if you're worried about apostolic succession. That caveat includes any "priest" who was "ordained" by "One-Hand Dan."

      Delete
  19. Reader ---- Why did you feel the need to introduce the concept of "free buffing" into your narrative? Why did you put that image in the minds of your male readers?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Entertaining the possibility of its occurrence was necessary in order to discover a reason for the radical revision of the cult rules on women's attire. Free-buffing seemed to be one of the more egregious offenses that could have motivated laying down the law for the ladies and not the gentlemen. Thus it deserved mention. (Other likely offenses that came to mind, of course, could not be printed.)

      The danger to the morals of our male readership was low or non-existent insofar as the well-adjusted men who support this blog are so righteous that they could never be distracted by the reference. They would understand it for what it is: a hypothesis to explain the severity of the regulations.

      The intellect is naturally moved to speculate whether anything awful happened last year to provoke the draconian measures instituted for 2018. Free-buffing was both plausible and printable.

      Delete
  20. Reader ---- Thanks for the novel length (non)justification for using such a gauche, suggestive
    term which no doubt would be liable to conjure up impure thoughts. Thank you also for your obfuscation, and for conveniently forgetting about the ill-adjusted men you're always harping on about whom visit this site. What about them? Our sons need protection from you and your infernal speculations about matters which are really none of your concern. Please think before you write things that may cause young men's imaginations to wander into perilous waters, as it were.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The degenerate cultie bros who visit this site are already too far gone to be affected by such an endearing term as free-buffing. Some people may even think it's "cute" and "darling." Besides, the ill-adjusted freaks have their "clergy's" sermons to fill their imaginations with more "perilous" thoughts than the innocuous free-buffing.

      But we do have a question for you. Why do you (wrongly) criticize us for using free-buffing and then don't utter a squeak of reproach about our mention of going commando? Could it be the gals aren't as disordered as the trad boys you're thinking of?

      Delete
  21. Reader ---- Firstly. It wasn't "wrongly."

    "Free buffing" and "Going commando" are terms applied to females. "Free balling" is applied to males. They are all crude terms, which I know you used because you wish to appear "with it" or "hip" (your generation uses that term) or "cool," etc.
    You criticize the clergy for not using delicate, French terms for "cleavage," then you proceed to employ modern, crude parlance rather than just say "wearing no garments underneath their costume."
    So, if I'm excoriating you for using "free buffing," consider yourselves equally chastized for having the poor taste to use "going commando."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please see the Wikipedia for "going commando," which correctly states:

      "Going commando, free-balling for males, or free-buffing for females, is the practice of not wearing undergarments to cover the genitals from outer clothing."

      Delete
  22. https://www.truerestoration.org/aussies-adventures-in-america-part-2/

    Is this a photo of a high mass at mht? If so, the pews are looking pretty empty. Why is that?

    ReplyDelete
  23. The gushingly written article by Therese made your ecclesiastical pals look like super stars; the church like an exquisite jewel; the seminary like the primary seat of learning in America.

    I was rather enchanted until she praised the culinary excellence of Five Guys.

    Up to then I thought maybe you’ve been exaggerating the deficiencies of the Gertian Rite and the Sandfordian seminary. Five Guys!!!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chowing down with Big Don and other masqueraders is dining with "... the leading Catholic clerics, the highest dignitaries of our day!" ?????

    LOL

    Someone needs some perspective. These religious entrepreneurs are outside the Church. None is a Catholic cleric, and, without rank, none is a dignitary, not even in secular society.

    We told you TR was a shill for the cult.

    ReplyDelete
  25. NOTICE

    The thread re: the education and social status of the BVM is hereby closed. PL defeated the apparently pious but in fact wantonly impious assertions about our Lady’s knowledge/education and social class. Nevertheless, we received subsequent comments (which we did not post) vigorously asserting the same fallacies in opposition to pre-Vatican II Mariological teaching. Inasmuch as the author(s) of the 6 unpublished comments did take the time to comment without recourse to vulgarity, PL will make one final reply in hopes of curing his/her/their ignorance, at least on these two topics. Our source is Fr. Gabriel Roschini, OSM, Compendium Mariologiae (1946).

    A. Regarding the “Science” of Mary

    B. Virgo… habuit scientiam acquisitam vere deductivam…. Ex excellentia fontium cognitionis. Scientiam enim hausit: a) ex assidua S. Scripturae lectione, auditione (in Synagogis) et meditatione, prout plures ex Patribus, et potissime Origines testantur: «Habebat (Maria) legis scientiam… »

    “The Blessed Virgin… had truly deductive acquired knowledge [i.e., properly scientific knowledge] …. By reason of the excellence of her sources of knowledge. For she drew her [properly scientific] knowledge: a) from continual reading of Sacred Scripture, listening (in synagogues), and meditation, just as several of the Fathers, especially Origen, assert: ‘(Mary) had [properly scientific] knowledge of the Law…’”

    NOTES: In scholastic theology and philosophy, “acquired” knowledge, which is gained through one’s own acts (the agent intellect abstracts from matter in the phantasms), is distinct from “infused” knowledge, which is not acquired through one’s own effort but is knowledge through species implanted by God in the possible intellect.

    Luke ii. 46, xx. 1, xxi. 37; Matt. xxi. 23, xxvi. 55; John xviii. 20 witness to the fact that in the Temple’s outer halls we find what the Jews called the bet ha-midrash ha-gadol, “the great house of study,” a prestigious center of higher, formal education where the learned lectured and answered questions.

    Scholars have estimated that 90% of the Jewish population of Roman Palestine could only write their name or could not read or write at all; consequently, the BVM’s literacy was exceptional for her time.

    B. Regarding the Nobility of the BVM's Descent

    B. Maria Virgo fuit genere nobilissima, utpote orta I) de stirpe regia et II) sacerdotali. [I et II] Prob[antur] Auctoritate S. Scripturae…

    “The Blessed Virgin Mary was of the most noble descent, seeing that she was born of I) royal and II) priestly lineage. [I and II are] proved by the authority of Sacred Scripture…” followed by scriptural citations and syllogistic arguments based on Scripture.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Could you please specify the particular SSPV practices that must be condemned to participate in YAG? It is my experience, that in Cincinnati, it is the SSPV that denounces SGG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The following comes from the cult's "special requirements" for participating in YAG (#3):

      You reject in principle and practice the SSPV policy of (a) refusing communion with the clergy of St. Gertrude the Great Church and its affiliates and of (b) denying sacraments to laymen who receive sacraments from said clergy.

      Delete
  27. So, it seems, I am correct, and have forced you to expose your hypocrisy (you consistently turn a blind eye to SSPV shortcomings).

    It is SSPV that asserts and condemns without authority or justice in this case. SGG, as deplorable as they may be, merely asks that you reject these uncharitable, exclusionary practices in principle. They don't even exclude one for being from SSPV or attending.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Oh sure, young people who would fly across the country to try to find a Catholic spouse should be absolutely thrilled to throw the Faith to the curb and marry a Feeneyite!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon March 20, at 1:29 PM

      As long as a man marries a woman.

      Delete