Prefer his daughter have 10 years of higher education to 10 children?

Prefer his daughter have 10+ "boyfriends" (let's say this is generally a euphemism) or 10+ children?

Ask yourself: How many upper middle class trad parents really prefer the latter to the former?

Seriously.  Is it any wonder they want to support Bishop Fellay's sellout?

The upper middle class smells and bells crowd are a pest.

This topic is getting redundant.  We all know that there are many fakes who label themselves traditionalists.  Why do you think Bishop Williamson has said the sell out has ALREADY happened?

It's gotten so bad and will get worse.  I have a family member that could be described as a false traditionalist.  Attends Latin Mass and prays daily rosaries but is very worldly.  Now she has some mental health issues most likely caused by sin and she believes herself to be a "victim soul".  It's really as far away from a saintly life as one can get.  But this person is convinced that her problems are not caused by sinfulness but that Heaven has chosen her to "suffer" for the sins of others.  It's totally inverted.

Quote from: Guest

This topic is getting redundant.  We all know that there are many fakes who label themselves traditionalists.  Why do you think Bishop Williamson has said the sell out has ALREADY happened?

It's gotten so bad and will get worse.  I have a family member that could be described as a false traditionalist.  Attends Latin Mass and prays daily rosaries but is very worldly.  Now she has some mental health issues most likely caused by sin and she believes herself to be a "victim soul".  It's really as far away from a saintly life as one can get.  But this person is convinced that her problems are not caused by sinfulness but that Heaven has chosen her to "suffer" for the sins of others.  It's totally inverted.

Let's have a little patience.  Not every one out there struggling with personal sin is a "sell out".  

Pray for her - do a nine day novena to St. Philomena.

Be patient with her.  

Pray the rosary with her.

Bring up a topic that you would like to discuss but in a non-confrontational manner.

You are very deluded yourself.

Prefer his daughter have 10 years of higher education to 10 children?

Prefer his daughter have 10+ "boyfriends" (let's say this is generally a euphemism) or 10+ children?

Ask yourself: How many upper middle class trad parents really prefer the latter to the former?

Seriously.  Is it any wonder they want to support Bishop Fellay's sellout?

The upper middle class smells and bells crowd are a pest.

Deliberately inflammatory, but it's a good post making a good point.

The Catechism, Tradition etc, do not have anything specific to say about how many children you should have (apart from the right number), or whether you should be educated or not. Jesus' parables on talents, the more given the more asked etc., would suggest that if you have an intelligent daughter who is doing well in school, you should support her development in that way.

Any virtue unchecked by the other virtues eventually becomes a vice. The right balance produces the best out of a person, hopefully a saint. Indeed a married woman with a double degree and a PhD has achieved a great deal, but if she has deliberately foregone having children to pay for this, then she has very likely missed out on God's many graces and blessings that would have come from a family life. She has probably sinned by not fully embracing her role as wife, but she has not sinned by being educated.

On the other hand, if a woman marries young enough in ind order to have those 10 children, but due to lack of support from family, husband and society, is not able to develop her own personality and talents (apart from motherhood), she will also be one who has rejected, or been denied, God's many graces and blessings that would have come from her developing her talents. It is not necessary to have a large family, but it is a blessing.

But I wholeheartedly agree, men and women should take courtship very seriously, and only engage in it with the firm understanding that it is about deciding whom one should marry. Serial boyfriend/girlfriend relationships are dangerous and this nearly always leads to mortal sin.

is not able to develop her own personality and talents (apart from motherhood), she will also be one who has rejected, or been denied, God's many graces and blessings that would have come from her developing her talents.

Graces and blessings come from personality and talents, as opposed to from sacramental marriage?  This seems like a humanistic point of view, as opposed to a Catholic one.

One of the chief motivations for men developing their talents (and men take much longer to reach their peak than women.  many philosophers have pointed that women's personalities do not develop much past a certain age) is in order to support a wife and her children.

Yet that can't possibly be the rationale for a woman seeking higher education.  

The very reason men put all that effort in, is the opposite of the reason that women put all that effort in!  Literally the opposite.

And yet, if we are honest, perhaps they are at cross-purposes because they have the same motivation.  Isn't it really the truth that if the chief motivation for men in making a great career for themselves is to be in a good position to have a good woman, the chief motivation for a woman to try to make a good career for herself is to be courted by higher ranking males?  By the time a woman has reached the age her career is fully established, (how can that be preparation for motherhood?) she is likely someone who has many "relationships" (damaging her fitness as a potential wife) giving her unwarranted expectations while being too old to attract the men she wanted before.

A young talented woman doesn't need more feathers in her cap.  If she truly is profoundly (rare, one in a million) gifted, then it might make sense to devote herself to her talents. (although I have to say, it seems like too much of a sacrifice)  Otherwise, she can't do better than to marry a good man who loves her.

Perhaps we should do a TELE-phone poll.

I don't know if this post is from Telesphorus or not.  Let's assume it is.  It will surprise no one that I often disagree with him.  We are disagreeing about Dorothy Day on another thread.  But he is absolutely and indisputable right here.  

I think the questions of the OP are fair and need to be answered.  Who can see the current liberal drift of the FSSPX and not realise that worldly "values" are indeed transforming the minds of Traditional Catholics ?  Was this not exactly what occurred in the 1940s and 1950s, for which Our Lord spat the bulk of Catholics out of His mouth by taking away the Church from them ?  Catholic life and the Kingship of Christ do rely on lay professionals, it is true (unless one believes that Catholic governments have no immediate need for jurists, diplomats, and civil engineers, which is quite a difficult position to argue).  That being said, the rights of the Sacred Royalty of the meek and humble Heart of Jesus are not served by women being devoted to men's business in the public social world and neglecting their duties at home in service to their husbands and children.  The Catholic City is directly built and guarded by men; it always has been and always will be.  Those who propose otherwise would try to establish disorder in the family in order to build order in society, which is absurd.

Now, let's say a woman is skilled in music or languages or has an interest in history and philosophy or even, perhaps, mathematics.  She argues (or rather her soft father with little understanding of natural theology argues) that she needs to develop these talents through formal disciplinary instruction in order to better educate her children.  

First, if she is pursuing a career or higher education, she is not in her children's life as she ought to be in the first place and is likely bringing a lot of personal baggage and perhaps financial debt into a marriage.  This has the additional effect of damaging her relationship with her would-be husband, since he will have to deal with a proud "back-seat driver" insisting on her own "accomplishments" being a sufficient foundation for her to habitually and systematically question his judgment and leadership/lordship.  Strike one.  

Second, if she is insistent on the necessity of learning these things to a professional level in order to educate her children, she seems to therefore imagine that she will replace, in her children's development, these institutions of higher education that she claims are necessary for full development in the first place.  If her children can rely on her own skill and knowledge rather than on formal educational institutions, she has undermined her own argument regarding the necessity of formal educational institutions.  If learning outside of these institutions is good enough for her children, it's good enough for her as well.  Strike two.  

Third, if she believes that she is disobeying God by not cultivating her talents to a professional level, she should seriously question what exactly the role of a wife and mother is.  If she does have personal talents to contribute to a family, these will manifest themselves within her state in life as being first and foremost a wife and mother.  That is to say, her primary understanding of her duty of state should derive from her immediate vocation.  Her understanding of her personal talents and their significance ought to be formed upon this foundation, being a contingent logical step.  Now, a woman's development of her personal career or talents at a professional level and then getting married afterwards belies a misunderstanding of the duties of a wife and mother, as well as a fundamental misunderstanding of femininity and social life.  She would be disobeying God's law in the order of nature in order to attempt to serve God through developing her personal natural endowments.  That is to say, she would be disobeying God in order to obey God, which is absurd.  Strike three.

There does not seem to be any reason for this change in father's attitudes about their daughters except simple vanity.  The women eat it up because women are naturally and uniquely vain about their self-worth since the Fall and are susceptible to internalising other's standards.  A father who pushes this line of reasoning onto his daughter's will likely create little zealots for his cause of personal vainglory.  This makes sense if we consider the instincts a wife and mother has to loyalty to a group, to protect her house and her children, etc.  But these liberal fathers who push the soft feminist line to their daughters pervert, rather than sublimate, their daughters' womanly instincts.  A woman's healthy pride in her natural community is inverted into a vicious pride in her self.  Her loyalty and devotion are twisted into vanity and insecurity.

Bump.