Girl Gets Kicked Out of Prom for Having the Nerve to Wear Pants

Girl Gets Kicked Out of Prom for Having the Nerve to Wear Pants

There's something here that people should know, and that even as a Catholic, my position on this is going to sound rather liberal because of my age and experience. I'm only (gasp!) 19 years old. Really, I'm not that old. To put it in perspective, I was born the week OJ Simpson got acquitted.

Now, I was recently spotted at a high school prom, oh, about 2012. It'll actually be 2 years around this weekend, I think. Went with a lovely friend, too.

So, here's the thing about high school prom: it can get two things fairly quickly - expensive (heaven have mercy, can it get to that) and salacious. (oh, yes)

Good heavens on Earth, can it get absolutely salacious. Believe me. When I went, both men and women were grinding on each other and "dancing" to that shit list they call the Billboard Top 40. Prom dresses, too. I'm not sure if the money they're spending on those things - money that combined, probably puts a dent in the local GDP -  is going towards a dress or a piece of expensive material that covers the genitalia and breasts enough to not look like a bathing suit.

With what we have today, red jeans and a black shirt is probably better than anything. I mean, it's not traditionally what one would wear at prom - [but who am I to judge? I didn't wear a tux. I wore a suit I bought the previous summer and I'm convinced another guy showed up in flannel and jeans] but people should be, at least modest. That might be my sensus Catholicus speaking, but modesty is good. It shows respect, it shows decorum. Were I a priest, I'd want to see the a picture of the dress brides were wearing if they wanted a wedding in the Church. I wouldn't hesitate to refuse to marry that couple because of low-cut immodest dress that has no place in the Church or anywhere.

So kudos to this girl for having decency. At least she's being honest with herself.

...

Today, when I could've been going to Mass on the holiest of holiest days, Easter Sunday, I sat there in silence for about 10 minutes when I got out of the shower and got dressed, and ended up not going.

What's wrong with me?

Why did I refuse to go? Was it because of the rampant hypocrisy there? That Catholics who would only go to Mass and forget the Faith after would be there? Would it be that?

I don't know, I really don't.

I offended Our Lord & Savior in the most grievous way possible. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

I felt like Judas Iscariot when he betrayed Our Lord the day before Christ was to die. I wanted to die. This needs to never happen again, because now I feel lost.

Sigh.

Cor Jesu sanctissima, miserere nobis.

Sancta Maria, semper virginae, ora pro nobis nunc et in hora mortis nostrae.

I'm sorry. Also, sorry for ranting.

I'm sorry.

Very sorry.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Now, sorry for what, you might ask?

Sorry for ever supporting that disgusting, liberal, affront to Our Lord & Savior the world calls "same-sex 'marriage'". I mean, honestly. They've gone as far off the deep end as possible, they did. The liberal crowd knows no limits and claims equality. Believe me, they claim equality. They claim that marriage equality [bullshit] is a solution to something good. Really, it's not. The homosexual left has only ever known one thing and that's force. Force, force, force, force. There is no reason to enshrine sodomy in the laws of the nation, despite what legal verbiage will have you think. There's no reason to even think that two men or two women should ever be capable of marrying. It's an affront to religion and to morality to insinuate that it could be possible, because it isn't. Marriage is a man and a woman, and society has gravely erred against everyone for thinking something else.

Look, we are called to love the sin, but hate the sinner. Homosexual acts, as those outside of marriage, are a sin. Heterosexual acts outside of marriage are a sin. All sin displeases God, and when we Catholics or we Christians oppose marriage equality, we're doing people good. We're doing good by saying, "let's help you be a better person and sin no more".

Look at Brendan Eich to see what happens when the left gets their way. Too many people are oppressed by the lack of equality that sodomite marriage proponents push out in their legitimizing of sin and an unhealthy lifestyle. Maybe it's time we bring back the Federal Marriage Amendment, that would put in the Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman. The time America's had to glorify sodomy & fornication is over, or at least it needs to end soon. God help us.

Mary wrote St. Luke's Gospel?

Well...

Mary in the Catholic Church is probably, if not the, most influential woman of the Church. She is the Mother of Our Lord & Savior, Jesus Christ, and conceived without the mark of Original Sin. In fact, both of the defined dogmas of the Catholic faith are about Her. There's more, but I'm talking about the ones defined under papal infallibility.

One of my favorite parts of the Gospels actually involves Mary, and is in the second chapter of the Gospel according to St. Luke. It's the Gospel reading at Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve, and one of the greatest events of history. The day Masses have the part after...what a travesty. Still the day of Our Lord's Nativity, nonetheless.

The Gospels, if one doesn't really know, are 4 accounts of the life of Jesus by four different people - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They have differing accounts of Our Lord's life, ministry, death and Resurrection, but some events are different than others.

Matthew's version includes the procession into Jerusalem, which was read on Palm Sunday.

Luke's version includes more, such as the good thief, "Father, forgive them, for they know what they do" and is read on the Celebration of the Lord's Passion.

St. Luke's version also has the virgin birth, and seems to be more concise, as if there were a presence recording every moment. A woman would certainly want to be near her dying Son. St. Luke's is the only one of the four to mention the Virgin Mary, really, at all. The first two chapters could easily be the Gospel of Mary, as they focus on her being filled with the Holy Ghost, to be born as Christ in Luke 2:1-14. Luke 1 has the Angel Gabriel announce to the Virgin of the incoming birth. It's where the Church gets the Hail Mary prayer from: The angel telling Mary She is full of grace, and of St. Elizabeth telling her "Blessed are you among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb".

With that being said, is it possible that Mary wrote St. Luke's Gospel? I mean, the first couple of chapters, yes. It's not entirely implausible that Luke 1-2 could have been written by Her. Really, it's not. Luke 1 includes the announcement, celebrated on Ascension Sunday.

(Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae, et concepit de Spiritu Sancto)

Luke 2 includes the birth and the child Jesus being brought into the temple. 

With all those events, does it make sense? Somewhat. I need more accounts and evidence before I'll take it as gospel, no pun intended.

Cor Iesu Sanctissima sit vobis,

Carlos.

Excuse me?

What on earth is this?

Now, look: I'm from Minnesota, OK? I've lived in this amalgamation of winter and road construction bordering on 16 years. Born in Jamaica, Queens, New York and moved when I was 4.

There's one thing I know for sure about this state and that's that there's a LOT of Lutherans. Every town, at least here in the metropolitan area, has at least one Lutheran church. The next town over, where my parish is, has three. Granted, one of them is the much more conservative Lutheran branch, but still.

They're good people. Knew a lot in high school, since the general rule of thumb is that if your last name was Scandinavian, Finnish included, you were probably Lutheran. There's just one problem...

The whole religion was started by an angry heretic German priest 500 years ago. Martin Luther saw inconsistencies with the Catholic doctrine and broke off, citing his ideas. None of them make any sense and include ideas like "Faith alone will save" or "The Bible alone is sufficient".

There is no point for the Catholic Church to reconcile with heresy. The Lutheran religion, simply put, is heresy. It contradicts with all the faith teaches. If individual Lutherans want to convert, then Deo gratias, good for them. But right now it makes zero sense for the religion Jesus founded to ever try to come to terms with its rebel. Sometimes, I think that if Martin Luther hadn't put himself into schism, there would be no John Calvin, Wesley, King Henry or any one of the 32,000 denominations that would erupt into chaos at the tip of a hat.

Oh, well.

Introduction

Greetings, friends.

I'm Carlos, a Catholic blogger out of the Archdiocese of St. Paul-Minneapolis. I attend one of the St. Stephen's here in the Metro (named after the deacon in the Acts of the Apostles) and I'm looking into traditional Catholicism. This is a blog dedicated to Catholicism. That is all.

I am not, nor will ever be, one of those Catholics that espouses the type of borderline idolatrous ultramontanism that some Novus Ordites believe - where the Pope is not the Vicar of Christ, the Pope IS Christ. That is dangerous to the Catholic faith. I will admit that the Pope is capable of speaking heresy. Absolutely.