For purposes of discussion, let's call the responder "Xov".

I disagree with Xov especially on the point about "not sheltering your children".

It's a common fallacy, that if you let your kids become "worldly wise" they will be better equipped to influence the world, etc. BAD MOVE. It doesn't work. They just become part of the problem.

Think about it: The world is clearly messed up, and is in a state of disorder. How can a person who is ordered (in their soul, in their life) fit in with such a world? You would, BY DEFINITION, have to feel different from all the disordered people around you. So it doesn't even make sense.

Having your kids feel alien to the world around them is A THING TO BE DEVOUTLY DESIRED. Read the lives of the Saints -- good holy parents always taught their kids the Faith first -- and they only fit in their societies when those societies were Catholic. You don't want kids to feel comfortable and at-home in the world -- it will help to preserve their innocence. It won't make them a saint automatically, but it won't HINDER your other efforts.

What happened to Catholics being pilgrims and wayfarers in this world? Our lasting home is in Heaven -- that is CHURCH TEACHING -- like it or leave it. Yes, a Catholic society can help us get to that home. But the current world is NOT Catholic, not by any stretch. Vatican II was about "bending down to meet the modern world, to help them" but we all can see how well THAT worked! The Church needs to keep HERSELF pure, and not worry so much about appealing to the poor masses that need her. The same goes for individuals!

Getting your kids a TV, letting them hang out with other worldly kids, sending them to public school, etc. CAN'T be a good thing. Some people might survive it with their faith intact (perhaps after a period of "wandering"), but that doesn't mean it's a good thing.

That was the point I felt most strongly about, so I started with that one. I'm sure other discussion could easily follow :)

In Christ,

Matthew

'Agreed, though I would phrase it differently so as to not intimate that all traditionalists are or should be married.'

Here we go again.  Can we not rid ourselves of the G--d----- feminism?  No one is saying that all traditionalists are or should be married.  What we are saying is that it behooves us to have families that include lots of children in order to outnumber everyone else.  This makes perfect sense.


'All trads agree that the priesthood and liturgy have been watered-down , but, sad to say, an item like this often morphs into he-man nonsense and put-downs of women. Yes, revalorize the priesthood and don't let it get sugar-sweet; but get real, real straight about what headship means, about women's talents and gifts, etc. Some of the stuff I've seen from some men in trad circles is quite disgusting.'

'He-man' nonsense...  There is a complaint about everything...

Let's put it another way: get the women out of men's business and get men out of women's business!  Men, start being men; women start being women and, for the love of Pete, wear a skirt!


'Ludditism, Drop It.'

I think a balanced approach to using modern technology is called for.


'The Professions, Enter 'Em.'

I would say that one should have a skill or a trade before entering some other profession.  You might need it as a fall-back.

I also advocate women staying out of the highest levels of education (post-baccalaureate).  I also think that if a woman is going to go to college and get a degree, that it should be in a traditionally feminine pursuit, such as nursing.  There's no reason for them being anywhere else.  We need women pursuing domestic, supportive roles and not trying to take men's roles away.  Female 'participation' in the workforce is part of the problem, not part of the solution.


'To demand more of fellow Catholics than the Church demands is to set yourself up as God.'

Baloney.  That is just a b.s. excuse to do the absolute minimum.

Also, note the use of the word 'demand'.  The only one making demands is the author of this sentence.  It betrays a sort of insecurity for which the hostile tone is meant to compensate.


'Besides, the Church is a hospital for sinners, not a social club for the perfect.'

Which would imply, given the previous sentence, that you might as well just shoot for the minimums, since the ideals are just 'too perfect'.  What a bunch of nonsense.


'State the positive more than ranting against the negative.'

This is called 'censorship'.  Just state what you observe and give your opinion about it.  Try to be Catholic when doing so.


'Don't over-shelter your children if you have any.'

Right.  Just send them out into the world and let them fend for themselves.  :rolleyes:


'Stop calling everything you don't like "modernist" or "feminist" or "Marxist."'

No.  It is not a matter of individual likes or dislikes.

When something is Modernist, Feminist, or Marxist, then it is perfectly legitimate to label it thusly, especially since Marxism, Feminism, and Modernism are completely anti-Catholic.  'Satanic' is actually a better descriptor.


'People tend to dislike hearing about "burning heretics" and such. Maybe because it's so un-Christ-like.'

Sure.  So I suppose we should apologise for the Inquisition?  Gimme a break.


This kind of thinking is exactly why the Faith has been imperilled.  I recant any complimentary language I might have used WRT the forum in question.  Ultimately, more harm than good will be caused by it because of its underlying assumption.


Pax Domini sit semper vobiscuм.

I think children should be sheltered from the insanity of the modern world, but not from milking cows and working in the fields.

I think women need to choose men who are real men, neither wimps, nor barbarians.  This is the one place where women actually have alot of power, so they need to choose good traditional men and have babies with them.  I know I'm not perfect but I get tired of the finger being pointed at men, when it's really up to women to choose good husbands.  If there aren't any around then they should just pray.

I agree with Gilbert that it is not necessary for women to go and get master's degrees or anything.  A simple degree from a simple state college will do fine.  Better yet, she should marry young and earn her degree in the first couple years of marriage.  It will give her something very productive to do before the kiddos come along.  But still, this is not the issue at all.  I think the bigger problem with college is not that women are attending, but that women and men are attending together.  I say do away with co-ed colleges, and do away with stupid frat parties and the like.  Colleges are supposed to be institutes of learning.

But mostly, my thoughts on this "bring tradition back" movement is "yea right!"  I mean, I can try and be a good influence on my friends, my family, and on any future children I might have.  But the world is too far gone.  There are billions of people in it, and they all own television sets.  

We've been told since the beginning that it is just messed up because of the fall. The only hope to bring things back right is God himself.  All we can really do is maintain our own integrity, and pray.

Another note: ChantCD, it really is bad netiquite to copy and paste the way you have here.  Perhaps you could bring up the issues without the personal attacks and the copy/pasting.  I would like to discuss some of these things on your site, but I have this sinking feeling that the way it's done here is kind of "gossipy".

You're right, sorry to pick on you.  Just trying to play two sides at once here.  I'm probably being quite silly.

But let's do discuss this topic.  I like it.  Any thoughts on the other stuff I said?

Miss_Fluffy:
'I think children should be sheltered from the insanity of the modern world, but not from milking cows and working in the fields.'

I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree with you.  The problem with not sheltering your children is that, by not doing so, you are trusting the state or society or whomever ELSE to educate your children on critical issues when it should be the PARENTS' job.

For instance, the opposite approach -- not sheltering your children -- taken to its logical conclusion would imply that one should let one's children play in traffic, or use illegal drugs, or engage in pre-/extra-marital sex, or whatever.  Because, afterall, children need to learn on their own, right?

Wrong.


'I think women need to choose men who are real men, neither wimps, nor barbarians. This is the one place where women actually have alot of power, so they need to choose good traditional men and have babies with them. I know I'm not perfect but I get tired of the finger being pointed at men, when it's really up to women to choose good husbands. If there aren't any around then they should just pray.'

Again, I take no issue with what you have stated.  I would simply like to elabourate on the points you made by stating:

1.  I know I come off as 'misogynistic', but nothing could be further from the truth.  I love and respect feminine women and understand that they are, frankly, CRITICALLY INDESPENSIBLE to the restoration of Catholic Tradition into mainstream Catholic society.  Without Catholic women, there will be no Catholic men.

2.  Women definitely need to choose good men.  In marriage, at least in the decision to accept a proposal to marriage, women are in the 'driver's seat' if for no other reason than it takes a Catholic woman to have Catholic children.  Women hold the 'reproductive trump card', if you will.

Now, I dont say that to be controversial or untoward.  But, let's face it: men court women, not vice versa.  Women decide to accept or reject a proposal of marriage.  Once they do, they are subject to their husband's authority.  Therefore, it behooves a Catholic woman to choose a good, Catholic man.

The next thing I recommend is somewhat controversial.  I do NOT think that a woman should make this decision on her own.  I definitely think that a Catholic woman considering marriage should have the approval of her parents (esp. her father) and at least the support of her priest.

Now, why do I state this?  Because I hate women and think they should be under a man's thumb?  NO!  I state this because Matrimony, aside from being an indissoluble sacrament, is an enormous, life-long commitment and investment.

Young people, generally speaking, are attracted to each other on superficial bases: i.e., because they generally find each other physically attractive -- they are infatuated with each other.  Hormones kick in and they dont think rationally: they think emotionally.  It goes for men just as it does for women.

So, if you marry someone who is wrong for you, you will pay for it the rest of your life.  Generally speaking, the burden lies much more heavily on the woman as it does the man.

With that in mind, it behooves a young girl who is interested in a possible suitor to get a second opinion.  Who better to render a reliable opinion that will be in her best interests than her own parents and her own priest?  They will be able to step back and say, 'Yes, he's the one: go for it!' or 'What on God's green earth are you thinking?  You'll ruin your life!' or 'Hmm, let's give it a little more time...'  After all, in a good Catholic family, everyone will be interested in seeing their daughter (or son) take a good decision from which the next generation of the family will profit.

I do think that men's families should likewise counsel their sons, but I think the bigger role should be played by the young woman's family.

Anyhow, while I dont suggest 'arranged marriages', neither do I think that young people are competent by themselves to decide whom to marry.  In the end, it is the young woman's decision, of course.  But, she should seek the advice and consent of her parents and priest, knowing that they have their daughter's best interests at heart.


'Better yet, she should marry young and earn her degree in the first couple years of marriage. It will give her something very productive to do before the kiddos come along.'

I agree that a woman should marry young.  There are many reasons why this makes sense.  However, I would encourage a young couple to not marry until after completing college.  Why?  Because college is still about YOU.  When you marry, you will have children.  Then it becomes about THEM.


'I think the bigger problem with college is not that women are attending, but that women and men are attending together. I say do away with co-ed colleges, and do away with stupid frat parties and the like. Colleges are supposed to be institutes of learning.'

Amen to that.  I went to an all-male college and I can attest to the fact that it was much easier to focus on one's studies without the distraction of the opposite sex being present.


'But mostly, my thoughts on this "bring tradition back" movement is "yea right!" I mean, I can try and be a good influence on my friends, my family, and on any future children I might have. But the world is too far gone. There are billions of people in it, and they all own television sets.'

I personally dont think that non-Catholic adult family members or friends will convert, generally speaking, for the simple fact that they wont see any need to.  They have made it this far in life without the Church, so why would they need it now?  Abstract concepts like Soul, and Sin, and Grace will mean nothing to them.  They'll be worried more about their worldly pursuits.

In order for them to convert, they will have to perceive a need to do so.  Otherwise, you'll just be wasting time.

Now, as to your children, that is another matter entirely.  The example you set for them, particularly in their youngest years, will influence them for the rest of their lives.  If you set a good Catholic example and teach them why you do things as you do, chances are they'll be good Catholics.

Nothing is guaranteed, of course.  But you have a better chance of influencing your own children than you do anyone else.  Which is why, humanly speaking, Catholics should marry, create stable families, and have as many children as God will give them.


'We've been told since the beginning that it is just messed up because of the fall. The only hope to bring things back right is God himself. All we can really do is maintain our own integrity, and pray.'

True, in the end, we're shovelling sh-- against the tide.  God doesnt demand victory for us Catholics.  However, he does demand that we stand up for Him and His Church.


'Another note: ChantCD, it really is bad netiquite to copy and paste the way you have here. Perhaps you could bring up the issues without the personal attacks and the copy/pasting. I would like to discuss some of these things on your site, but I have this sinking feeling that the way it's done here is kind of "gossipy".'

ChantCD:
'I don't mean to be gossipy, and in fact, an argument could be made that this isn't gossip (it's on a public forum, I would respond there except I've been "silenced", my motive for responding to this post is the good of souls, etc.)'

I was similarly censored, so I deleted my account.  Just move on.
 

'I suppose I could just paraphrase what I read and type it here -- or just "happen" to bring up a topic on the same subject (I think I have actually done that -- at least one time recently)'

I dont think there is anything wrong with cutting and pasting a topic of interest from another forum instead of re-typing everything from scratch.  My only recommendation would be to simply address the issue without naming names or implying them.  For instance:


'"Xov"'

Oh come on...  Everyone knows to whom you're referring.  Pardon my bluntness (I'm a military man, we dont do 'tact' very well), but if you're going to call names, then just do it honestly.  

Anyhow, to the point...


'...runs a forum with hundreds if not thousands of members, and her "position" affects MANY souls. She is perceived as the "reasonable middle path" of Catholic Tradition for hundreds of people. Having made herself a public figure, and having stepped into the (normally male) field of politics, she (and others just like her) must deal with the criticism, etc. that occurs in that field.'

Since we're on the topic of the 'other forum', I figured out what their problem is on the way in to work.

The problem is that they are, generally speaking, Indulters who 'tolerate' and 'encourage' Catholic Tradition... just as long as it doesnt become too intolerable to their Modernist sensibilities.  There is a philosophical contradiction inherent in the Indult position that accepts the Second Vatican Council while supporting the Traditional Catholic Mass... despite the fact that the 'interpretation' of Vatican 2 by the mainstream of the Catholic Church and Catholic Tradition are two completely, irreconcilable things.

So, the 'other forum' is not a traditional Catholic site, overall.  The information presented on the apologetics pages appears to uphold Catholic Tradition, but the forum does not.  (Yes, I have thus declared infallibly for all time, etc. ad nauseam infinitum and you must believe me under pain of mortal sin.  [That was sarcasm, in case you need to know...])  It is a conservative Catholic site with a traditional label.  That is why you were censored.

So, just drop it.  You arent going to convince them you're right and they arent interested in you anymore.  Get over it.


'But that's not really an issue, since I think she is quite used to criticism, actually.'

If she were used to criticism, you wouldnt have been censored.  As it turns out, you were.


'I think the "netiquette" thing is a moot point now that I've been booted from her forum. I mean, does she have the right to keep the whole world from hearing my responses to important posts?'

Of course not, my friend.  Just post what you think is relevant and answer it.

But etiquette should still be relevant, despite how others behave.  A gentleman does not name names.  Be a gentleman, even if certain women cannot be ladies.  You demean yourself when you stoop to their level.


'No offense to those who still have active accounts there, but I must say that the quality of the "average post" is going down, not up. It's mostly silliness, over-the-top sarcasm about Bishop Williamson, etc. A LOT of good people -- charitable, intelligent, rational, well-informed, have been booted off. Since water seeks its own level (or, birds of a feather flock together), some serious Catholics start to feel unwelcome (or at least "different") in such a situation. When you upset/ban/send away a bunch of good Catholics with high standards, it can't be a good thing.'

Well, I was censored before I deleted my account, so anything I say about the 'other forum' is probably going to come across as sour grapes.

That said, I tend to agree with your assessment.  I dont know if 'a LOT' of good people were booted, but it seems that, going through some of the old threads, many traditional Catholics were.

But, that is entirely consistent with their 'oecuмenical' Catholic philosophy.  Everyone who calls himself a traditional Catholic is welcome... until one begins to advocate Catholic Tradition.

Again, my recommendation: Just drop it.  Instead of focusing on the negative, focus on the positive.  Give us a truly traditional Catholic site!


Pax Domini sit semper vobiscuм.

Gilbert -

I understand what you're saying about the "other forum" -- just to clarify, I was being tongue-in-cheek as I used the pseudonym "Xov" -- I have a corny sense of humor at times. I didn't think I'd fool anyone -- to me, it was the same as using her name.

I certainly want to be a gentleman, but I never considered that using names was bad when it comes to discussion like this. Now that I stop and think about it, it's kind of like an "ad hominem" argument. Why not just argue the points, and leave the person completely out of it?

I've just been switching a lot of gears lately, and hadn't really stopped and thought about every aspect of the situation.

Matthew

P.S. I still need to contribute to the actual thread -- there's a lot of good points up there.

I think women need to choose men who are real men, neither wimps, nor barbarians.  This is the one place where women actually have alot of power, so they need to choose good traditional men and have babies with them.  I know I'm not perfect but I get tired of the finger being pointed at men, when it's really up to women to choose good husbands.  If there aren't any around then they should just pray.

I totally agree. I know a young woman (not Catholic) who married a man she knew wouldn't be a good husband (nor father I suppose) just because she didn't want to be wrong for having gotten engaged to him in the first place.   This is not a dumb girl either. By the modern world's standards, she's very intelligent--a lawyer in fact. Her unhappy marriage can certainly not be blamed solely on her immature husband.

I agree with Gilbert that it is not necessary for women to go and get master's degrees or anything.  A simple degree from a simple state college will do fine.  Better yet, she should marry young and earn her degree in the first couple years of marriage.  It will give her something very productive to do before the kiddos come along.

There are many different educational paths that I would see as acceptable for young women depending on how close they believe to be to marriage. However, I'm not sure starting college after you're married would be a very good idea. I don't think the odds are in your favor that you'll finish before the kiddos come along.

With good men today being so few and far between, I'm not of the opinion that women should make husband-finding their primary objective after a high school education. I think those who live their lives waiting for "Mr. Right" to show up are more likely to settle or fall for something much less than ideal. Of course, not all--men nor women--are suited for college, but to those who can, I don't think the possibility of marriage one day leading them back into the home should keep them from working toward a degree.