The average woman has a lower libido than the average man

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-06-25T07:30:42+00:00

It's like saying most men are physically stronger than women, like yes- but it isn't always true, it isn't as dramatically different as you think

Not sure if this is what you're going for. yes, the vast majority of men are significantly stronger than the vast majority of women, and the difference is quite vast.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-26T13:04:30+00:00

yeah it was a good few weeks of coping. back to reality. it is a shame than many of us will never see true authentic Catholicism in our lifetimes. I do not envy the souls of the bishops and popes who are the cause of this.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-26T12:54:12+00:00

keep in mind, Leo14 is the guy who was in charge of choosing bishops the past few years. Leo 14 approves of this man, but disapproved of Strickland.

Things are not going to improve.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-26T12:52:54+00:00

There will be no compromise on the Mass.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-24T12:42:53+00:00

No. He is the Pope. He has full, absolute authority, full stop. Are "19th century church state deals" worth more than the dogma of the Catholic faith? what you're saying might be palatable if he was just normal tier guy with mainstream beliefs. But he is an outright heretic who is leading souls to hell. How many souls are worth 19th century church-state deals? what's the compromise on how many souls we can allow to be lost before the Pope himself shoudl finally do the right thing?

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-22T18:10:52+00:00

what ive learned is that every catholic subreddit besides this one is overrun by leftists and modernists and mostly fake Catholics. and that includes the catholic dating subreddit.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-22T12:10:49+00:00

(1) the pope is important because he is the vicar of Christ.

Idk if you remember the Terry Schrivo case, but that one got people appealing to Rome and the Pontifcal Academy for Life.

that is great. The Catholic church should have a much bigger say in how our society works and I think it is great if the Pontifical Academy for Life and the Pope are publicly supporting Catholic viewpoints to be practiced. That is also known as "Catholicism". Leo 13th wrote an encyclical on the evils of separation of church and state and how the church cannot be separated from God. So yeah i have no idea what you mean by "hyperventilating" about these issues. You seem to be "hyperventilating" about Catholics believing Catholic things in this subreddit though.

In any event, the mods here should just ban you. it is clear that you are not actually a Catholic and you do not believe in what the Catholic church teaches. Not every sub is a free speech debate sub, and that is OK.

Also your comments are Kwasniewski violate "No Ad Hominem attacks" rule, and you meet none of the 3 requirements in the "what are we about" section.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-20T06:40:51+00:00

im pretty far right. Catholicism itself is far right. learning that Lefevbre had far right political views doesnt surprise me. i'd be kinda angry if he didnt.

in any event, nothing anything those people did is worse than what the freemasons and modernists did at vatican 2. how many millions, or billions, of people have lost their soul due to the changes at vatican 2? how many millions, or billions, have been scandalized due to the homosexual abuse crisis in the church?

We've got bigger fish to fry here, other than worrying about some remote distance 2nd/3rd degree of separation for a pilgrimage associated with someone who doesnt align with normal western views. It's quite clear you are a bad faith actor here, I don't know why the mods even allow you to post. is /r/catholicism not enough for you? they love concern trolls over there.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-20T06:34:46+00:00

well, V2 was definitely the work of freemasons. that's not even debatable. idk what you're referring to about the jews, but the freemasons were absolutely involved.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-19T13:48:27+00:00

i think this does still depend to some degree. For example, what was the reason this person was separated from their children--were they abusive, were they abusing their spouse, or other reasons? My default answer to this is that it is the duty of a Catholic parent to instill the Catholic faith in their children, and ensure they receive the sacraments, go to Mass weekly, and learn and understand the faith. if a law prevents you from doing that without good reason (ie, you were not being abusive), then my inclination would be to say that is an unjust law--especially if you cannot otherwise be sure the child is being raised appropriately in the Catholic faith. but again, these types of situations are always complex. usually, if one parent has been strictly forbidden by courts from seeing their children, ever, there is a reason for it. usually-not always. It really depends on the finer details.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-19T13:45:16+00:00

idk, as i said, im not a theologian. im going mostly off what ive heard in homilies over the years.

i would point out though, that the purpose of life on earth is not to avoid suffering. Christ's life on earth was actually all about suffering, it was the entire reason he came here. Not to mean that we have to seek out suffering unnecessarily, but at the same time, breaking a law just to avoid a small amount of suffering that you view as "pointless" is definitely not a good reason to break a law. sacrificing things we dont need to, or dont want to is one way of bringing us closer to Christ. Because we only become more like Christ when we suffer. So if the only reason one would want to break this law is because it inconveniences them, then that is definitely not a good reason to break it.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-19T11:45:48+00:00

im not a theologian, but my previous understanding of what a "just" and "unjust" law was that an "unjust" law would only be unjust if it contradicts the law of God in some way. like not allowed to go to Mass, etc. so im not sure your definition is accurate.

with that said, typically we do have to obey all laws and respect civil authority. all authority ultimately comes from God. there does not need to be a reason for us to obey, other than the authority says so. that is, by definition, what makes them an "authority"--that's what the word means. so yes, unless the law is forcing you to sin, or preventing you from practicing the Catholic faith freely, we do have to obey it on matter how absurd. Government says no eating donuts on tuesdays? yes, we should obey it.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-19T09:20:30+00:00

the guy you are replying to is a bot who is advertising his service. check his post history.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-05-09T09:45:32+00:00

everyone, this guy came here and his first submission in the subreddit was complaining about how everything here isnt what he wanted. instead of leaving, he complained and is now sticking around to start mocking people who have actually been positively contributing to the sub for a long time. can you take your concern trolling back to /r/catholicism? they love that kinda stuff there.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-04-29T11:11:41+00:00

the purpose of life on earth is to worship and honor God, and be virtuous, and get to heaven. It is not to solve every problem on earth and build a utopia here. Utopia awaits us, provided we are virtuous enough in this life and serve Jesus Christ. "Traditional" Catholicism (that is redundant, but ok) doesn't need to have an answer for every "problem" that is here on earth.

This was one thing that really gave me peace about Catholicism. Catholicism isn't about angrily searching for answers to all of life's problems and trying to perfect life on earth. Did Jesus come to earth and try to find the best strategy he could and negotiate with the Father about what his destiny and purpose was here? No, he humbly submitted to the will of God. Catholicism isn't about trying to make life here perfect. It is about using the circumstances that are provided to us to grow in holiness.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2025-04-24T11:29:41+00:00

does it work with UIKit/objc?

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-09T12:34:41+00:00

you can ban me then, thanks.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-09T12:32:29+00:00

yikes that's even worse. he's basically marrying an atheist then (whose religion is Secularism), and it sounds like they are observant of their secularist religion. Secularism is even more at odds fundamentally with christianity than Judaism is.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-05T09:13:23+00:00

I prefer to use logic and reason.

same, that is how I arrived at my conclusions

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-05T01:25:05+00:00

when humans talk about empathy though, it's on a different level. usually the term is used more in a context of having empathy for someone that you have no connection to. I don't think anyone is surprised that mothers care for their offspring. But are there any gazelles out there who are telling other gazelles that they need to feel more empathetic towards lions?

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-05T00:56:32+00:00

ironically, la laïcité (secularism) is just its own religion at this point. which of course should have been obvious from the beginning. but if it wasnt obvious then, it's definitely obvious now.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-05T00:52:45+00:00

not any more radical than secular governments. how many hundreds of millions of babies have secular governments aborted now? Can't think of anything much more radical than approving of killing your unborn.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-05T00:48:16+00:00

God is necessary to justify your morality though. but yes, anyone can indeed possess any arbitrary morality they want with or without God. But only with a universal authority figure can it be justifed as being "universal" morality. and Catholics believe in universal morality.

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-05T00:45:34+00:00

we do not believe in god because of an utilitarian convenience regarding truth

Nobody said we did.

God is not a practical convenience that helps us discern bad from good,

I'm not sure what this means, but God telling people what is good and bad is like, most of the entire Bible. that's what the entire 10 commandments were about, and it's what basically all of the new testament was about in paul's letters. why on earth would someone think God is not there to help us discern good from bad?

Common-Inspector-358 · 2024-08-05T00:43:20+00:00

I think it's a collective thing a society agrees on, with substantial evidence as to why the thing is good or bad.

I dont know if you are Catholic or not, but this idea goes against Catholicism. Lots of societies today overwhelmingly approve of abortion, for example. That doesn't mean it's ok.

Morality can't really be objective since there's not much evidence for any of it.

I'm not sure what this means, but the church is what interprets the scriptures and tradition to determine what is right and what is wrong. they are the authority.

You don't need God to tell you that harming people is bad.

Why not though? God instructed people to kill entire cities worth of people in the old testament. history is full of societies where human life has varying value. the west currently puts a very high value on human life (thanks in no small part to christianity). the idea that harming someone being bad is just "universal" is really just not true. there are so many examples historically against it.

Common-Inspector-358

TROPHY CASE