User Profile: tradcatholicgirl

tradcatholicgirl

Member Since: June 08, 2012

Comments

123 To page: Go
  • [10] January 29, 2015 at 3:12pm

    There are more differences among the many of the 35,000 protestant denoms than there are between the Catholic Church and the most conservative Anglican/Episcopal or Lutheran churches.

    Her bias is not intellectually honest.

    Responses (1) +
  • [22] January 28, 2015 at 4:50am

    I would have considered that a modest choice in a dress. No cleavage, tea length.

    It is a fact that most evening and formal wear tends to be sleeveless or cap sleeves. She was appropriate.

  • [2] January 24, 2015 at 2:12pm

    Thank God I am old enough to have met and known people who had their extermination camp numbers still tattooed on their forearms or wrists!

    Trouble is . . There are hardly any voters alive that lived through the extermination camps and then emigrated here. And their children and grandchildren have become citified liberals. . . tragically. So, there is no one to remember, or force our “Leader” to be at least politically correct enough to honor those victims of the Holocaust at any time.

  • [3] January 24, 2015 at 1:59pm

    Sasquatch,

    I’ve been complaining about it for along time. I can’t understand why the editorial staff, not to mention the writers, are not embarrassed enough to do something about it.

    I guess it is a case of “take the money and run.”

  • January 23, 2015 at 4:40am

    My family does the same. We dress with respect for church as a matter of personal conviction. And, as a matter of fact, I wear nothing but skirts and dresses unless I am working out at the gym. I dress very comfortably and with modesty. And people have a hard time understanding why I don’t long for jeans every day. Like somehow I am not free or completely myself if I am more dressed rather than less.

  • [12] January 22, 2015 at 5:49am

    Men are going to be visually stimulated no matter what women wear.

    The point is that girls today (And, sadly, grown women) dress as though being “hot” is the most important thing they can aspire to be.

    Tight pants, tight shirts, skirts at crotch length, skin everywhere. That style of dress is saying something specific about how a girl feels about herself.

    Why not teach our girls that sexy can be all the following: intelligent, funny, classy, and yes . . virtuous too!

  • [5] January 22, 2015 at 5:37am

    As always, Matt. . . Thanks for writing the truth in a culture gone mad.

  • [1] January 20, 2015 at 5:11pm

    Nice post. A man will look and appreciate anyway. But if a woman is dressed with dignity and a little modesty, the guy has a half a chance to see her dignity first.

    My post elsewhere used the same phrase. . hardwired . . so it is not a sin to be visually stimulated.

    But our little girls are being taught that being “hot” is everything. They should be taught to dress with dignity, style, and modesty.

    And taught that “sexy” can be a lot of things: intelligent, funny, compassionate . . not just physically stimulating.

  • [1] January 20, 2015 at 5:01pm

    What women today don’t get is that the men will look and appreciate whether you are flaunting it or not. Am I right, guys?

    Leave SOMETHING to their imagination.

    Note to ladies: Leggings are not pants.

    And tight pants are just as immodest as a very short skirt.

    Our girls are being taught by our culture that to be “hot” is everything! It is sad, and I really get annoyed at moms who not only dress like that but allow their daughters to dress the way street walkers dressed only a generation ago.

    Men are going to look. They are wired to be visually stimulated. That is not a crime. But YOUR dignity as a woman is what they need to see first.

  • [2] January 20, 2015 at 4:56pm

    What women today don’t get is that the men will look and appreciate whether you are flaunting it or not. Am I right, guys?

    Leave SOMETHING to their imagination.

    Note to ladies: Leggings are not pants.

    And tight pants are just as immodest as a very short skirt.

    Our girls are being taught by our culture that to be “hot” is everything! It is sad, and I really get annoyed at moms who not only dress like that but allow their daughters to dress the way street walkers dressed only a generation ago.

    Men are going to look. They are wired to be visually stimulated. That is not a crime. But YOUR dignity as a woman is what they need to see first.

    Responses (3) +
  • [28] January 20, 2015 at 4:47pm

    Very selfish . . but I guess you could understand her own grief at not having her own maybe screwed her perspective! That HE doesn’t get that is surprising . . saying it is “beyond” him.

    Responses (1) +
  • [26] January 20, 2015 at 5:49am

    You do realize that this action is not the sort of thing that should happen in a free society? The government cannot come into your home and take your kids because you are taking a substance that is considered “alternative.”

    You do realize that if this father was arrested on drug or alcohol related disturbance – even for the umpteenth time — the kids would still be allowed to stay at home with mom?

    There may be some cause for concern, but no right to detain and keep kids.

  • [3] January 18, 2015 at 7:29pm

    Because we all sin, we are not to judge others. But, to be a follower of Christ, you must make a judgment on sin itself.

    Do not judge the sinner. Only God does that. But you are obligated to make a judgment of the sinful act based on what Jesus said himself.

  • January 18, 2015 at 7:10pm

    Zappa,

    Some of us have family members and friends who have had children (both IVF and adopted) within gay relationships.

    Not all of these situations are dysfunctional and temporary. There are the those few successful, happy family situations that are — of course — always very well-publicized. . .

    But, believe me, there are very good reasons (in reality) for not redefining marriage.

  • [18] January 18, 2015 at 3:50pm

    Troonorth,
    Over the centuries, the Church has been gifted with art that was meant to glorify God. It is not used as an “investment” which can be sold one day at a profit.

    The Catholic Church believes that we can and should express our love of God with GOODNESS, TRUTH AND BEAUTY. . . .lovely windows that glorify the stories of the Gospel, a golden tabernacle (Where our Lord Jesus rests.), gorgeous hymns and Latin Chants, statues that venerate the holiest of among us, paintings that glorify scenes from the Bible. . . These all exemplify truth, goodness and beauty!

    No one has taken one penny from you to glorify God this way. So what is your beef???

    You are welcome to your own faith. We love ours for its fullness.

  • [2] January 18, 2015 at 4:52am

    Wagman,

    As a devout Catholic who has actually read extensively about both evolution AND the Catholic faith, I am calling you on your erroneous statement!

    The Catholic Church does not believe man evolved from any other species.

    Of course, the Church supports the idea that WITHIN species, creatures change and mutate to form advantageous traits – that is fact. That may be what you refer to when you incorrectly use the word “evolution.”

    But The Church does not espouse the yet completely unproven theory that complex species evolve FROM completely different species.

    Nor do they support the idea that complex life evolved from single celled creatures that evolved from a simple biological soup.

    Educate yourself first about science, then work on religion.

  • [1] January 17, 2015 at 5:17am

    Thanks, snoop.

    and @Brotherhood. . it may seem like I am being too picky, but I’ve been reading poorly edited Blaze articles for a few years now. It seems to me that any person who wants to be a professional journalist should take the time to post well. And shame on the Blaze for not having editorial staff who catch this stuff. Just because it is online does not mean it should not be grown-up journalism.

  • [2] January 16, 2015 at 8:07pm

    He had a dramatic conversation??? No, Billy, he had a dramatic conversion.
    Also, Billy, you spelled forest wrong.

    Really? Are you being paid for this?

    Good Story. But this is journalism sadly lacking in any professional polish.
    WHEN, oh when, Blaze, will you get some editorial oversight?

    Responses (3) +
  • [3] January 14, 2015 at 5:10am

    Attackdog,

    The article wasn’t about Nicholas Sparks. That was just an interesting hook that Matt used to begin his article.

    The article was about marital love. . . and our sometimes silly ideas about “falling in love” compared to what “standing in love” for a lifetime really means.

    In reply to attackdog's comment on the contribution My Marriage Wasn't Meant to Be

  • [11] January 14, 2015 at 4:59am

    Love is a choice. One that you make every day, over and over.

    Thanks, Matt, for another one! Nice to hear from the adult perspective.

    In reply to the contribution My Marriage Wasn't Meant to Be

123 To page: Go