You didn’t answer the question.Why do you think it's so odd? Traditional Catholicism is essentially just a sectarian movement within the Church that doesn't accept the reforms of the 1960s. If you're genuinely interested, I could explain to you their theory of how a Catholic can recognize the pope yet resist his teachings. I no longer think this theory is any good; nevertheless, it's there, and traditional Catholics are convinced by it. But because the theory is so tenuous, a splinter sect has emerged. These are the sedevacantists: traditional Catholics who believe that almost the entire hierarchy apostatized at Vatican II, that there hasn't been a valid pope since Pius XII, and that they and their priests and bishops are the remnant Church. Sedevacantists stand in relation to the Vatican like the Russian Old Believers stand in relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. Each side excommunicates the other.
The best-known traditional Catholic group is the Society of St. Pius X, founded by Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre in the 1970s to form priests who would offer the Latin Mass exclusively and preach the pre-Vatican II faith unadulterated. You can read their mission statement on their website, and they also have a pretty comprehensive Wikipedia entry. Peace be with you.
Don’t be ridiculousHe said it sounded untrue because he didn't think a 14 year old would go into a hotel room.
Rapp didn't say he was in a hotel room - he said he was in a bedroom. Spacey didn't have a separate bedroom - he had a studio apartment. Which is why Spacey won the court case.
You didn’t answer the question.
You stated you were a “traditional Catholic”. What did you do that made you a traditional Catholic over a non traditional Catholic?
It is a strange thing to state oneself was a “traditional Catholic”. It isn’t a term anyone uses to describe themselves within Catholicism.
You are confusing several elements. I understand fully these elements within the Catholic Church. I have written two books on Vatican II.
The issue you stated re the Latin mass isn’t quite correct. The pope has no issue with the Latin mass. What you are referring to is the Tridentine mass which is different from just a Latin mass. The Pope’s complaint is with the Tridentine mass and the very tiny number of groups who are against the rulings of Vatican II. But those groups have been around for many decades. It is just about internal divisions but is nothing new and not really growing as you suggest. There are about 1000 churches in the whole world that celebrate the Tridentine mass. Within a Catholic population of 1.2 billion it is nothing of too much concern.
I don’t need Wikipedia to learn about Lefebvre and the SSPX. I have attended many of their events.
What I would like to know is what made you a “traditional Catholic”?
And what this has to do with the female role within Catholicism and the freedom to speak?
Lol, I don’t know what you understand when people speak to you, but my comments to you had nothing to do with any of anything in this super long response that you typed in return. So my reasonable assumption is that you frequently understand nothing. Which would explain a lot, actually, of why you keep going repeating nonsense.Let me help you :
"people feel sorry for you....I think the hilarious part is that you keep typing ....It’s beyond comical how many words you’ve typed"
Sure perfectly acceptable statements.
I don't care if you think the facts of a legal case available officially are not accurate or if you are stating that because you were sexually abused means you have some kind of super knowledge to state someone is factually incorrect. It doesn't.
I haven't rambled about my dislike of Morrissey. I don't hate anyone and have no invested hatred of anyone.
The whole point of my discussion was about whether Morrissey has been the victim of an orchestrated silencing plan as he is stating. It is all about that.
I don't feel unvalidated at all, far from it. Why on earth should I? I have no idea what validation you think I am looking for. I just made a point at the start of this thread which came from the London gig review and people just keep replying to me so the discussion interests me. Nothing to do with mental health issues re your "unhinged" point or any feeling of being unvalidated. Just an interesting democratic free discussion.
It has nothing to do with moving on. It is purely about having a discussion about a subject with regards to freedom of speech and silencing and whether Morrissey's view that 4 people have deliberately concocted a plan to silence him or whether it is just people choosing what to buy.
Very grown up. I'm not throwing out anything and certainly not sobbing. I'm very happy thanks.
I'm not showing anyone I can't move on. I don't need to move on. There is nothing to move on from. I'm just having a discussion about freedom to speak and silencing and how some circles think people's personal choices are claimed to be deliberate silencing if they don't like those personal choices. It's interesting and others obviously since we are now on page 10.
If you don't find it interesting and your only retort is childish exemplifications of toys being thrown cause someone dare to bore you then so be it. You could just be grown up and ignore it.
You mistake me for someone who gives a damn what you think.
Don’t be ridiculous
You think a civil case for battery was lost because Spacey had a studio apartment?
Where are you getting this point about a studio apartment? Please link to it.
It was lost because Rapp couldn't prove that Spacey had touched him intimately in a sexual way. The fact they were in Spacey's apartment was never doubted in court and not challenged by Spacey. It seems only you are doing that.
What has that to do with Morrissey saying he didn’t believe the accuser because any 14 year old would know what could happen if he was alone with an adult?
Here's an article about all the times Morrissey's speech was supressed and he was silenced
![]()
The uncomfortable truth about Morrissey - Far Out Magazine
We are looking at the troubling character of Morrissey and how the former Smiths singer has let down a large chunk of his fansfaroutmagazine.co.uk
Over recent years, the volume of Morrissey’s voice has become an ever-increasing one. Having made some seriously disgusting remarks about Anthony Rapp, the accuser of Kevin Spacey: “One wonders if the boy did not know what would happen,” said Morrissey, “When you are in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware of where that can lead.”
The issue of the studio flat was indeed brought up at the trial. The defence said that the floorplan ended up being the 'star witness'. In other words no one went into Spacey's bedroom because there wasn't one.Don’t be ridiculous
You think a civil case for battery was lost because Spacey had a studio apartment?
Where are you getting this point about a studio apartment? Please link to it.
It was lost because Rapp couldn't prove that Spacey had touched him intimately in a sexual way. The fact they were in Spacey's apartment was never doubted in court and not challenged by Spacey. It seems only you are doing that.
What has that to do with Morrissey saying he didn’t believe the accuser because any 14 year old would know what could happen if he was alone with an adult?
Don't you have people to dox?He said:
.. of course there are extreme cases and rape is revolting and any kind of physical attack is revolting..
I’ve never been, in my youth, in situations like that. Never. And I was always aware of how, where things could go. And if you’re in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware, where it could lead to, and you have to say why, why are we here, why aren’t we downstairs in the lobby… so it doesn’t quite ring true to me.
I think I offended you by suggesting that there was some sort of moral equivalence between Mr Tate and religious scripture. That was not what I was suggesting in any way. I have respect for anyone of faith. I was simply suggesting that there are people who find offence in the words of Mr Tate, of course, but there are also people who find offence in religious scripture and faith, especially Christianity. It does mostly seem to be 'traditional' Christianity that arouses such offence - much less so 'traditional' Judaism or Islam. As an old fashioned liberal, I think the lack of tolerance of religious belief is worrying. Some universities have tried to exclude Christian societies from fresher fairs. Kate Forbes, one of the candidates for SNP Leader, was virtually ruled out for standing at one point because she has 'traditional' Christian views on issues such as gay marriage. The former leader of the Liberal Democrats, Tim Farron, was given a similar rough ride for being a Christian, and he cited this as one of the issues that led to his resignation. What would a 'sensitivity reader' make of The Bible?In his case they are views. There is an internet full of his views about women and their role in the world. But are they the same as views or behaviours or whatever you would chose to call them as said and carried out by current religious people. I wouldn’t think so.
I personally wouldn’t want to see teenage boys living with this kind of role model and as has been said by someone there are schools who have reported that they have boys treating girls badly based on their agreement with Andrew Tate’s views.
There is a difference I think when we are talking about adults being able to make up their own minds about these kind of things and freedom to speak but when young children are manipulated online with this kind of trash then I think there has to be a conversation regarding the safeguarding of children. Other examples include online pages that teach children to self harm with videos to teach them about suicide as a release. They do exist and there have been incidents because of that freedom to speak.
But I am tired now. I have seen you argue your points with other people on many things continually on this site to the point it just goes back and forth to no avail or consensus or agreement. From what I have seen I think you would argue to the death about a topic even if you didn’t believe it yourself. So I will leave you and just accept we will never agree on this.
I only became interested in this discussion because of the religious theological points made because theology is a topic of interest to me.
Hope all goes well for you and god bless
You just keep repeating yourself, it's insanity, I won't be entertaining your crazy Morrissey obsessionThat doesn't change it.
He's against physical attacks & he doesn't think the story rang true.
& the story actually wasn't true.
You just keep repeating yourself, it's insanity, I won't be entertaining your crazy Morrissey obsession
ooh how hurtful.Lol, I don’t know what you understand when people speak to you, but my comments to you had nothing to do with any of anything in this super long response that you typed in return. So my reasonable assumption is that you frequently understand nothing. Which would explain a lot, actually, of why you keep going repeating nonsense.
I was talking to you about the topic and the fact that your continually saying that Morrissey victim shamed someone doesn’t make it so.
And the fact that you keep repeating your same fixations to literally any number of different people who have interacted with you on this thread, really does point to the fact that you care very much. Too add to which, you literally just typed an entire diatribe about how much you “don’t care”.![]()
So yes, I do think your responses are off-topic, incorrect, and all comical, and you still come off as unhinged in literally every response you type![]()
You are still missing the whole point.View attachment 90059
![]()
Kevin Spacey found not liable in sex abuse suit brought by Anthony Rapp
Rapp alleged that Spacey climbed on top of him at a New York City party in 1986, when Rapp was 14 and Spacey was 26.www.nbcnews.com
He said:
.. of course there are extreme cases and rape is revolting and any kind of physical attack is revolting..
I’ve never been, in my youth, in situations like that. Never. And I was always aware of how, where things could go. And if you’re in somebody’s bedroom, you have to be aware, where it could lead to, and you have to say why, why are we here, why aren’t we downstairs in the lobby… so it doesn’t quite ring true to me.
I understand that but it isn't the point.The issue of the studio flat was indeed brought up at the trial. The defence said that the floorplan ended up being the 'star witness'. In other words no one went into Spacey's bedroom because there wasn't one.
Spacey’s attorneys also focused on what they said were inconsistencies in Rapp’s story, especially around the floor plan of the apartment where the alleged event occurred. Rapp had recalled a flat with a separate bedroom, while Spacey actually lived in a one-room studio. “The star witness of our case was the floor plan,” Spacey’s attorney Jennifer Keller said in her closing statements.
![]()
Jury rules Kevin Spacey is not liable in Anthony Rapp sexual misconduct case
A jury ruled that Kevin Spacey is liable for no damages at the conclusion of a contentious sexual misconduct lawsuit brought by Anthony Rapp.consequence.net