Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: PenitentWoman on August 20, 2012, 09:47:21 PM
-
How important is it to be dressed in modest clothing at home by yourself? For example, does a person who lives alone need to worry about buying modest pajamas? Does it offend God to wear modern nighttime attire if no other human (old enough to make note of it) would ever see it?
I have the same question for workout clothing. Awhile back I did buy a nice workout skirt from a modest clothing website. It is not perfect (goes just past the knee) but it is a huge improvement. The only problem is that I only have one, and since I hand wash my clothes I only do laundry once a week. Because I only workout at home now, is it a big deal to wear shorts?
I'm sure it seems like I ask the most ridiculous questions, but really do not know the answer. I've read things before about keeping covered for your guardian angel, so I don't know how far a woman should take modesty.
-
I would say that modesty around the home is important as well, no doubt. Just because one cannot see you doesn't mean you are free to dress immodestly. And even if no one else is around, God is always watching.
I believe one woman went into Padre Pio's confessional once, and since Padre Pio had the ability to read souls, he told her that she needed to repent for the way she dressed. She asked what was wrong with the way she was dressed, as she was dressed modestly at the time. Padre Pio responded "Not the way you're dressed here, but the way you dress at home".
So yes, women should always strive to dress modestly, whether at home or in public.
-
That makes sense. Thank you for the Padre Pio story. That clarifies what I wanted to know.
Now on with the laundry. lol
-
Women should wear dresses in and outside the house. As for exercise or workout I don't really see the big deal about women dressing in t-shirts or tanktops with running shorts or something like that. As for nightwear women should wear nightgowns or something to that nature.
As for men, I always wear trousers in and outside the house, except during the summer when I'm working, and then I'll wear blue jeans, and I always have some kind of shirt on, whether T-shirt or button-up shirt.
-
Good to mention men's clothing too.
It could be 20 degrees out and my neighbor feels the need to stand out on his balcony shirtless.
-
Good to mention men's clothing too.
It could be 20 degrees out and my neighbor feels the need to stand out on his balcony shirtless.
Unfortunately there is plenty of sloven dress these days.
-
Good to mention men's clothing too.
It could be 20 degrees out and my neighbor feels the need to stand out on his balcony shirtless.
Unfortunately there is plenty of sloven dress these days.
in private, not as important to me, out of view, not that one runs around as some nudist nor deviant (think Rocky Horror Picture )mind you.
Cant stand when I go out and see people, usually young girls, sometimes young men, in lounge wear, PJs and bedroom fluffy shoes.....they go out like this shopping!!
I might wear old beat up clothes around house, esp when working in yard, but will dress up most of time to go out, save for a run to hardware and/or nursery....
goign shirtless for me, even inside, is not option.....out, even less so, I might risk traumatizing someone for life or a harpoon :laugh2: :laugh1:
-
That makes sense. Thank you for the Padre Pio story. That clarifies what I wanted to know.
Now on with the laundry. lol
Remember too, that modesty is an act of virtue. As Christians we should love to perform acts of virtue, and enjoy the good of them. To be modest is to be with Christ, to be virtuous is to be united with Christ -- we practice it from the supernatural motive of love of Him. And so we gain merit in Heaven, Heaven rejoices, and our Heaven will be all the more higher in happiness and joy as well as our time on earth.
And so to practice modesty in the home as well as outside of it, rather than only outside of it, is both necessary, and a joyful good. And when one practices something all the time, it is easy and natural.
If we are always modest we are always in good sight before Heaven and earth, and on earth the unexpected can happen.
So modest nightwear is important, as well as what we might wear for chores or exercise around the home.
If you can make or alter your own clothes this can help to acquire a modest wardrobe.
Many people find virtues difficult and painful, or see them in a negative light, and this is not what they are to naturally be for a Christian. On the contrary, we must love to practice them and acquire ease with them.
-
Didn't know one had to be modest in private. Wow!
-
I don't know that one has to. living in private as we live in public is good practice though, and helps to remind us that all our lives should be consecrated to God.
-
Public and private standards of modesty are definitely not comparable, for the person concerned is clearly not giving an occasion for the sin of another, as would happen with the donning of immodest attire in public. This is not to discourage wearing modest clothes even in private, merely to say that it is not a sin to do otherwise.
Here is a 1930 instruction from the Sacred Congregation in Rome,
"We recall that a dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat, which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows, and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knee. Furthermore, dresses of
transparent material are improper.
Let parents keep their daughters away from public gymnastic games and contests; but, if their daughters are compelled to attend such exhibitions, let them see to it that they are fully and modestly dressed. Let them never permit their daughters to don immodest garb."
This speaks specifically of public places. Would anyone say this applies as such in private as well?
-
Well as usual, I'm confused. :)
It is true, what Shin says about modesty being an act of virtue. I'm not too worried about outside the house anymore, as I have built up an adequate wardrobe of long skirts for very little money as they are easy to find right now.
I've pretty much given up on dresses because the ones that are long enough (to the ankles) just stand out too much on a woman my age.
Now though, I am sort of second guessing my sweater collection because of the two fingers guideline. I thought for sure something like this (though I would never pay even that sale price) would be cut high enough:
http://www.kohls.com/kohlsStore/womens/sweaters/layered_look/PRD~1104835/Dana+Buchman+Surplice+MockLayer+Sweater.jsp
Maybe I'll just have to wear scarves with everything.
I am not sure what to do about the exercise clothes other than wash the workout skirt I have more often. I worry though, that even that isn't modest enough:
http://www.apostolicclothing.com/womens/275-black-running-skirt.html
As far as night gowns? It is hard to find anything with decent coverage that allows for nursing while co-sleeping. Some of the modest nightgowns are incredibly frumpy.
If I think ahead to the possibility of married life, I imagine that even a husband with strict standards for his wife's modesty would find some of these gowns to be downright ugly. I just never know where to draw the line between looking nice and being too vain.
I'm sure I sound like such a handful right now :facepalm: I just feel like I can't afford to get anything wrong when it comes to being a good Catholic lady. If I am ever so blessed to be married, my poor husband should be automatically eligible for sainthood.
-
Talk to your priest or others you trust and use basic common sense. You'll be fine.
-
I normally don't go so much so please forgive any mistakes, and for going on a bit.
Frumpy is good.
Actually, the proper reparation for any sin, is the practice of the opposite. So for any and all times one has sinned through vanity, one should at least practice an equal amount of time in its great opposite.
We should not be praising, admiring, or loving people for their exterior superficial beauty. Not as adults, and not as raising our children to appreciate being praised for it and praising it.
On the contrary as Christians we should be avoiding it, and praising, admiring, or loving modesty.
People nowadays indulge themselves in base ways to the fullest, commonly, without any restraint.
Since there is not Christian society in general, which has quite different rules, standards, roles, people do not know how to live responsibly as men and women, fathers and mothers, children and adults. It takes time. And study. And humility and caution.
And certainly none of the world's entertainments which provide cultural standards impart proper standards, emotional reactions, judgements.. either, but just the opposite.
And so turn things upside down from the old perspective.
In both husband and wife. It's far better to be an plain or ugly looking person rather than a person who is 'attractive'. It will cause far more virtue and far less sin of a superficial attraction or desire for simply the material thing.
A husband will have a far easier time not being tempted to lust, with a wife who is not too attractive and so who has to be all the more careful. A wife the same. And so the two can love each other for their virtues and spiritual goods. . .
For both men and women it is better to be plain and simple. Modesty is a virtue. Simplicity is also a virtue. Humility is a virtue.
And so then modesty of the eyes is easier on one's companions and one does not have to fear being desired sinfully, or attracting attention for the wrong reasons. Instead relationships are based on one's interior self.
I think anyone can easily note the baseness of simple exterior desire compared to that of Christian admiration of spiritual virtue, the interior.
To value another person for the sake of the person's Christianity, spiritual virtues.. Or to value another person for ornamental or base reasons that are common? What choice is there?
'Not only in body but in heart as well, no ornament becomes like humility, modesty and devotion.'
St. Francis de Sales
'Because you ought to consider your body only as a living temple where God wishes to be adored in spirit and in truth and as a living tabernacle that Jesus Christ has chosen as his dwelling place, you must, considering these noble privileges that you enjoy, show much respect for your body. These considerations ought to make you resolve not to touch your body or even to look at it without an indispensable necessity. . .'
St. Jean Baptist de la Salle
See we can be casual, or we can be respectful to our bodies. They can be tabernacles, kept veiled, or things that hang out on display. They can be sacred, if of far less worth than the soul, and food for worms, or they can be profane and treated as such.
We are never alone. God is always there. We ourselves are always witnesses of our own behavior, which affects us. And so too we have the angels and the saints, and so too normally enough our spiritual enemies trying to catch us up.
-
Well now I'm really confused. To be clear, I didn't mean to give the impression I dress immodestly outside the home. I am very careful to be covered now. I think I do a pretty good job.
Frumpy is good.
Actually, the proper reparation for any sin, is the practice of the opposite. So for any and all times one has sinned through vanity, one should at least practice an equal amount of time in its great opposite.
We should not be praising, admiring, or loving people for their exterior superficial beauty. Not as adults, and not as raising our children to appreciate being praised for it and praising it.
I know it is wrong to be vain, but to purposely try to be frumpy? How on earth would I attract a suitor by spending time purposely making myself ugly? There has to be some middle ground. Are you saying that to make up for vanity I should start shaving my head, stop moisturizing my skin, dress in a potato sack and put on weight? How does someone become frumpy?
I can pretty much forget about getting married if I can't go for a little bit of cuteness to soften the blow of my non-virgin status. By taking care of my appearance, I can still show that I am fairly young. Isn't that a quality I should want to play up while I still can? The window for "young fertile wife" isn't very big.
I really thought that I had read scripture that would indicate that aesthetic appeal can be appreciated.
Think of this scenario: A good Catholic man sees two unwed mothers in church...something that is automatically a turn off to him. If there was any chance of him to maybe give one of those women a second look, would it be the one with a bright smile who looks cute/young/vibrant/fit/put together, or the one who looks "frumpy" as you put it?
On the contrary as Christians we should be avoiding it, and praising, admiring, or loving modesty.
Yes, I agree with praising modesty. I didn't think modest was synonymous with frumpy. I think the way I dress is very modest when I am out of my home...I certainly don't look frumpy though.
In both husband and wife. It's far better to be an plain or ugly looking person rather than a person who is 'attractive'. It will cause far more virtue and far less sin of a superficial attraction or desire for simply the material thing.
A husband will have a far easier time not being tempted to lust, with a wife who is not too attractive and so who has to be all the more careful. A wife the same. And so the two can love each other for their virtues and spiritual goods. . .
I am really confused now. If I were married, why would my husband lust after me? I would be his wife, and therefore available to him for intimacy.
My thinking is that a wife should not let herself go in marriage. She should keep herself looking nice so that her husband's eyes stay fixed on her. I would be afraid that a wife who doesn't care about her appearance and tries to be "ugly" might make her husband tempted to look elsewhere. Do we turn away from looking at a beautiful setting sun, or do we admire it?
Shouldn't a wife want to keep her husband happy? She is supposed to keep his home looking beautiful...why not herself? Wouldn't it be good for a marriage if a man can come home to a lovely home, a lovely dinner, and a lovely, smiling, put together wife?
It wouldn't be okay for a man to have to come home to a disheveled home all the time. So why would anyone want to come home to a disheveled wife? Isn't physical attraction what leads to the marital act? Doesn't it help make a woman more fruitful if her husband is attracted to her? Isn't that how nature works? I didn't think men were "readied" by ugliness.
Outside the home, she may no longer have a reason to attract a man, but he can help protect her from the eyes of other men by allowing her to be a homemaker, so she isn't out and about unnecessarily. I don't think she should let her whole self go just because she might have to go to the grocery store sometimes. If I tried to dress "frumpy" it would probably draw more attention to myself.
Because you ought to consider your body only as a living temple where God wishes to be adored in spirit and in truth and as a living tabernacle that Jesus Christ has chosen as his dwelling place, you must, considering these noble privileges that you enjoy, show much respect for your body. These considerations ought to make you resolve not to touch your body or even to look at it without an indispensable necessity. . .'
Again, I don't understand why modesty has to be equated with ugly. A woman can be perfectly covered and still look lovely. Why does the temple of the body have to be unappealing in order to be sacred? Why is it disrespectful to the body to look nice?
The Lord made all sorts of beautiful things. Flowers are beautiful. A star filled night sky is beautiful. A mountain landscape is beautiful. A coral reef filled with brightly colored tropical fish is beautiful. The Lord did not design a world that is frumpy or plain at all. If frumpy was the ideal, why is the world so beautiful?
-
Hmm. It looks like I didn't get across quite what I wanted to. I wonder how to put it properly.
-
Hmm. It looks like I didn't get across quite what I wanted to. I wonder how to put it properly.
I'm sorry if I sound argumentative. I'm feeling generally discouraged today and my emotions are not helped by the insomnia I've been battling.
I'm not trying to sound shallow. I am simply trying to be realistic about my chances for marriage. If there was a weighted average math problem to determine if a woman is marriage material for a Traditional husband, purity would be a heavy category. I don't score so well in this one, and I can't do much about it. I come as a package deal with living evidence of my sin. Therefore, I don't think I can afford much frump factor.
Vain is unattractive too, I get that. I've admitted I struggle to draw the line. I just don't want to "go the opposite" if it costs me the chance for marriage. Are traditional men typically attracted to frumpy women?
-
Haha! Thank you for saying that, that's very polite of you!
I'll try to put more effort into how I word things, forgive me. You have at least, my prayers. May Our Lady of Modesty protect you!
-
If you think of frumpy as disheveled, which is I suppose sometime one of its connotations, then forgive me, yes that would be correct disheveledness is not a part of modesty. So for now at least that point noted...
Here are a number of writings of the saints on the subject of modesty.
http://www.saintsworks.net/Modesty%20and%20Purity.htm
I think especially one should consider how -modesty of the eyes- is practiced and their example.
Modesty is more than just the clothing one wears, after all. :)
-
Well now I'm really confused. To be clear, I didn't mean to give the impression I dress immodestly outside the home. I am very careful to be covered now. I think I do a pretty good job.
Frumpy is good.
Actually, the proper reparation for any sin, is the practice of the opposite. So for any and all times one has sinned through vanity, one should at least practice an equal amount of time in its great opposite.
We should not be praising, admiring, or loving people for their exterior superficial beauty. Not as adults, and not as raising our children to appreciate being praised for it and praising it.
I know it is wrong to be vain, but to purposely try to be frumpy? How on earth would I attract a suitor by spending time purposely making myself ugly? There has to be some middle ground. Are you saying that to make up for vanity I should start shaving my head, stop moisturizing my skin, dress in a potato sack and put on weight? How does someone become frumpy?
I can pretty much forget about getting married if I can't go for a little bit of cuteness to soften the blow of my non-virgin status. By taking care of my appearance, I can still show that I am fairly young. Isn't that a quality I should want to play up while I still can? The window for "young fertile wife" isn't very big.
I really thought that I had read scripture that would indicate that aesthetic appeal can be appreciated.
Think of this scenario: A good Catholic man sees two unwed mothers in church...something that is automatically a turn off to him. If there was any chance of him to maybe give one of those women a second look, would it be the one with a bright smile who looks cute/young/vibrant/fit/put together, or the one who looks "frumpy" as you put it?
On the contrary as Christians we should be avoiding it, and praising, admiring, or loving modesty.
Yes, I agree with praising modesty. I didn't think modest was synonymous with frumpy. I think the way I dress is very modest when I am out of my home...I certainly don't look frumpy though.
In both husband and wife. It's far better to be an plain or ugly looking person rather than a person who is 'attractive'. It will cause far more virtue and far less sin of a superficial attraction or desire for simply the material thing.
A husband will have a far easier time not being tempted to lust, with a wife who is not too attractive and so who has to be all the more careful. A wife the same. And so the two can love each other for their virtues and spiritual goods. . .
I am really confused now. If I were married, why would my husband lust after me? I would be his wife, and therefore available to him for intimacy.
My thinking is that a wife should not let herself go in marriage. She should keep herself looking nice so that her husband's eyes stay fixed on her. I would be afraid that a wife who doesn't care about her appearance and tries to be "ugly" might make her husband tempted to look elsewhere. Do we turn away from looking at a beautiful setting sun, or do we admire it?
Shouldn't a wife want to keep her husband happy? She is supposed to keep his home looking beautiful...why not herself? Wouldn't it be good for a marriage if a man can come home to a lovely home, a lovely dinner, and a lovely, smiling, put together wife?
It wouldn't be okay for a man to have to come home to a disheveled home all the time. So why would anyone want to come home to a disheveled wife? Isn't physical attraction what leads to the marital act? Doesn't it help make a woman more fruitful if her husband is attracted to her? Isn't that how nature works? I didn't think men were "readied" by ugliness.
Outside the home, she may no longer have a reason to attract a man, but he can help protect her from the eyes of other men by allowing her to be a homemaker, so she isn't out and about unnecessarily. I don't think she should let her whole self go just because she might have to go to the grocery store sometimes. If I tried to dress "frumpy" it would probably draw more attention to myself.
Because you ought to consider your body only as a living temple where God wishes to be adored in spirit and in truth and as a living tabernacle that Jesus Christ has chosen as his dwelling place, you must, considering these noble privileges that you enjoy, show much respect for your body. These considerations ought to make you resolve not to touch your body or even to look at it without an indispensable necessity. . .'
Again, I don't understand why modesty has to be equated with ugly. A woman can be perfectly covered and still look lovely. Why does the temple of the body have to be unappealing in order to be sacred? Why is it disrespectful to the body to look nice?
The Lord made all sorts of beautiful things. Flowers are beautiful. A star filled night sky is beautiful. A mountain landscape is beautiful. A coral reef filled with brightly colored tropical fish is beautiful. The Lord did not design a world that is frumpy or plain at all. If frumpy was the ideal, why is the world so beautiful?
PenitentWoman, don't worry about it.
You are right; I don't know what Shin is talking about.
In fact, a wife "letting oneself go" once married is a very bad sign; it shows that she is no longer happy.
What Shin is doing is classic -- focusing too much on Lives of the Saints and not enough on Doctrine. Focusing too much on either will result in errors in the practical realm. I learned this in the SSPX Seminary.
In the Lives of the Saints, you have extraordinary examples, which aren't always a good idea to practice (in each and every situation). Doctrine, on the other hand, is always true. But if you only read books of Doctrine and never the Lives of the Saints you wouldn't learn about how God sometimes goes over and above the "normal", or see examples of how God is free in His creation. That's why we need BOTH in our spiritual reading.
Some people get scrupulous or a bit on the "Puritan" side when it comes to sɛҳuąƖ morality within marriage. Chalk it up to America's Puritan roots, which still affect us to this day.
I've had to repeatedly ban one bozo that keeps saying that (in so many words) a 1 minute timer ought to be used, and that the lights should be completely out. Basically he is infected with the Puritan notion that sex is a necessary evil, and that carnal desire -- even within the bounds of Holy Matrimony -- must be fought as much as ever.
Oh, and this man (and his friend) admit to being recent converts from Protestantism. They'll have to forgive me for NOT following their "teachings".
It is time for them to learn, but they would rather be teachers of men. A common pitfall.
Anyhow, Puritan sɛҳuąƖ morality is certainly not what the Catholic Church has traditionally taught.
I think it quite appropriate for a young lady to present herself well (within reason -- excessive vanity should be guarded against) especially if she is looking for a husband. It is natural, as well as common sense.
-
I guess maybe my love for beautiful clothing is vain in itself. I don't mean expensive clothing. I don't care about labels or the modern fashion industry--much of my wardrobe is secondhand. I just like pretty materials and patterns and colors. I have always loved couture in general.
When I think of Traditional Catholic Weddings and First Holy Communions, I think of very ornate dresses and veils. If plainness was more holy, why do Traditionalists dress so nice for these sacraments?
It seems I am thinking of vanity and modesty as two separate issues when others believe vain automatically equals immodest. The N.O. has a modesty problem during mass. It also has a problem of parshioners being too casual. Being too casual is not acceptable in the Traditional Church. We are to dress for the Lord. So do we dress in our most beautiful clothing to show reverence? Or do we dress "plain and ugly" to keep those around us for looking? What is the better option?
There is clothing out there that covers a woman, yet could still be considered fashionable in a particular culture. Isn't this a better way to go about selecting an outfit so your modesty still blends in? As opposed to dressing like you're from a different century and then end up getting looked at like it is Halloween?
I hope there is another way to make up for vanity, that doesn't involve trying to be frumpy. Frumpy makes me feel very unfeminine.
-
I hope there is another way to make up for vanity, that doesn't involve trying to be frumpy. Frumpy makes me feel very unfeminine.
You know, it's funny, even when trad women do not dress in rather eccentric ways, if one is familiar with the typical way they dress (that is - being just barely modest according to old standards) they are easily distinguished in a crowd. That and their hair gives them away.
-
Matthew, you have just expressed very well what I just can't seem to put to words.
Thank you.
I've had to repeatedly ban one bozo that keeps saying that (in so many words) a 1 minute timer ought to be used, and that the lights should be completely out. Basically he is infected with the Puritan notion that sex is a necessary evil, and that carnal desire -- even within the bounds of Holy Matrimony -- must be fought as much as ever.
I've read those posts and unfortunately went to the website. As an unmarried woman I shouldn't be focusing on these things at all, but I really hope the traditional church offers some guidance in this area during marriage preparation, maybe?
So far I only have:
-My own short-lived, horrible, shameful, unpleasant experience
-Christopher West (as recommended by N.O. board mommies--despite the pornographic nature of his books)--thankfully an N.O. priest said in Catechism class that he would NEVER recommend those books, so I didn't read the whole thing.
-The puritanical stuff that was posted here.
:pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray: :pray:
-
I hope there is another way to make up for vanity, that doesn't involve trying to be frumpy. Frumpy makes me feel very unfeminine.
You know, it's funny, even when trad women do not dress in rather eccentric ways, if one is familiar with the typical way they dress (that is - being just barely modest according to old standards) they are easily distinguished in a crowd. That and their hair gives it away.
Could you so kindly help me out and elaborate on what you mean by this?
I don't want to stand out.
I don't know how to describe my dilemma or what I am trying to go for. Once married I will gladly dress however my husband prefers (assuming he prefers something non-sinful) However in the meantime, I am on my own. My own FATHER recently made fun of me for not wearing a bathing suit. I have to figure out on my own what a good traditional man would find attractive enough to draw some (good) attention, so I can at least meet someone...but as I said in a different post...I don't want to be "trendy trad." I don't want to look fake or edgy.
I'm making all these changes in my life and moving to being a Traditional Catholic because I feel it is where God wants me, because I believe it to be the true faith, and I because I love the church teaching on marriage and family. I don't deserve an applause for dressing like a woman is SUPPOSED to dress, but I wouldn't be doing it (and dealing with comments and teasing from others) if I didn't feel genuinely called to do it. That is why I am so worried about getting it right.
Like I said before, I had started headcovering in the N.O. It certainly wasn't to be trendy. In the N.O. covering does stand out, so I tried to be discreet (wide headbands, or a scarf tied around my hair) but I felt the need to have something on my head. I did this because it says in the Bible that a woman MUST do this. It felt right to do it. For me, it isn't just some meaningless custom. It is symbolic of womanhood.
It was not for fashion. It was for humility. I wish I seemed more sincere.
-
Could you so kindly help me out and elaborate on what you mean by this?
I don't want to stand out.
I think it's pretty much impossible not to stand out - these girls were even wearing too much make-up - I wouldn't say they were dressed in a particularly distinct way - it's just if you recognize the look, it's unmistakable. (long hair with natural hair color is another give-away - I really don't know how to describe clothes - they're either familiar or unfamiliar - sorry I can't give you details)
You will stand out as a Catholic. Just use your own sense of taste, avoid too much eccentricity, and don't worry about it.
-
Too bad you aren't on Facebook anymore, PW. I'd hook you up with a young lady I know. She is a traditional Catholic, owns a seamstress shop that caters to Trads and is studying fashion. No one would.ever call her frumpy. She and the clothes she designs and makes are lovely and modest. She was my nieces maid of honor and when the ordered dress was a disaster she made a bridesmaid dress from scratch in a couple days. Amazing.
She is a nice, single twenty something woman, you two would probably hit it off.
-
Thank you. I think I know what you mean. I'm not trying to cleverly get around the rules of decency and then it as just trying to be stylish. I'm pretty careful about relying on more than a skirt's length as a guideline. I can see how a lifer might push the limits,
knowing it will be hard for an authority to pinpoint the problem because it technically covers.
I only wear very light eye makeup and lip gloss...no foundation or anything. I don't like product in my hair.
Shoes are difficult. Flats don't seem dressy enough for mass, but non flashy looking pumps
are very hard to find. I've heard open toe is not okay so that is very limiting.
Overthinking it all just worsens the vanity, so I'll just have to trust myself.
If I'm blessed with marriage, and my husband is smart man, he will make sure I have very little closet space. :laugh1:
-
PW, you need to place yourself under the spiritual headship of a solid traditional priest. There is a protection proceeding from the divine order that is needed for single women out on their own and particularly those who have unmet needs or wounds from their upbringing. You are at extremely high risk for a relationship with another abuser. You have done it once before. I say this to you like one alcoholic knows another. Please find a priest and do this ASAP. The internet is not a substitute for in person catechism and community. I say this not with the intention to offend but out of concern. Your situation is serious.
-
Too bad you aren't on Facebook anymore, PW. I'd hook you up with a young lady I know. She is a traditional Catholic, owns a seamstress shop that caters to Trads and is studying fashion. No one would.ever call her frumpy. She and the clothes she designs and makes are lovely and modest. She was my nieces maid of honor and when the ordered dress was a disaster she made a bridesmaid dress from scratch in a couple days. Amazing.
She is a nice, single twenty something woman, you two would probably hit it off.
Awww. Glad to hear girls are doing things like this. I love to sew, but I'm not very good at it yet. Knitting is my favorite but I'm still pretty slow.
Facebook is best left without my presence. Even when I'm not on it I find out things I don't want to know that were revealed there. I think it was good advice to get rid of it.
-
PW, you need to place yourself under the spiritual headship of a solid traditional priest. There is a protection proceeding from the divine order that is needed for single women out on their own and particularly those who have unmet needs or wounds from their upbringing. You are at extremely high risk for a relationship with another abuser. You have done it once before. I say this to you like one alcoholic knows another. Please find a priest and do this ASAP. The internet is not a substitute for in person catechism and community. I say this not with the intention to offend but out of concern. Your situation is serious.
I understand what Catherine is getting at.
I don't know who thumbed this post down, but it was most un-called for. Catherine is showing genuine concern.
The person who thumbed it down probably didn't understand. Allow me to elaborate:
PW sounds very attractive and feminine in her posts here. She also does sound vulnerable (maybe I already said that? I said feminine. Well, that's really the same thing.) She expressed a desire to be a traditional female, which is to say submissive. She has even stated many ways in which she submits to Church doctrine, morals, practices, etc. and that is a huge red flag for the "wrong kind of guy". If a woman is submissive, she might be able/inclined to submit to an abusive "he-man" type. Bad men know this. They know what to look for.
I'm NOT saying she's doing anything wrong in her life, as she describes it on here.
What I *am* saying is that good people will often be taken advantage of -- or ATTEMPTS will be made to take advantage of them. It's a sad commentary on the world we live in, but it's nevertheless true.
Catherine (and myself) were merely REMINDING PenitentWoman that she should be somewhat careful as she meets people online or IRL.
I could go on for paragraphs, but let's just say that when a woman "falls" as PW has described in the past, she often ends up in a bad marriage or abusive situation, because a man (sometimes the partner who convinced her to sin) takes advantage of her feelings of guilt, etc. and verbally abuses her into the ground.
This pattern was very apparent in a book I read a couple years ago by a German midwife who lived in the early 1900's. "All for the love of mothers". An *excellent* book for all men and women to read. You learn more about human nature reading that book in 1 hour than most people learn in 4 years.
-
You are at extremely high risk for a relationship with another abuser. You have done it once before. I say this to you like one alcoholic knows another.
This is feminist talk. She has already accused men here of being abuser types.
-
Tele, the fact is that abusers do exist.
Some men have a malformed ego -- perhaps because of lack of love growing up, I don't know -- and they seem to "need" to have a woman cowering in his presence.
Men naturally live on "ego", just like women live on "love". But Original Sin and other factors can twist these natural things into monstrous shapes.
Women's desire for love can lead to immorality, vanity, etc.
Man's desire for ego boost can lead to being abusive, unjust, etc.
I don't know what CathInfo member(s) CatherineOfSiena accused of being an abuser, but what she said above is certainly true.
-
Unfortunately, some women have a desire to be abused and to also gain sympathy for the abuse they've received, even though they sought it out.
I'm not saying PW is that type.
Now this desire that some women feel is a perversion of a natural desire to be held accountable and given guidance by a man who isn't afraid to do so.
-
I'll be back to respond to your last post after dinner.
-
There is certainly such as thing as "spousal abuse".
The traditional roles men & women play in Catholic marriage does NOT constitute abuse. I'm not saying that because a woman is submitting to a man, giving up her career to raise a large family, depending on a man for support, etc. that she is being abused. THAT is feminist talk.
But some men feel the need to grind women into the ground, playing off their feelings of inadequacy, guilt, etc. to make themselves feel "big". It's sick of course, but there are MANY examples of this out there today in the modern world, and I'm sure there are even a few Catholics that have this problem.
-
I live alone in the middle of nowhere and I wear nothing more than I wear something.
It shouldn't be an issue if there is nobody around to see you. Granted, you shouldn't be wearing sɛҳuąƖly suggestive attire even when by yourself (that would be weird).
God created us in his image...naked, and since he's the only one to see you, the unclothed body doesn't bother him.
-
Men naturally live on "ego", just like women live on "love". But Original Sin and other factors can twist these natural things into monstrous shapes.
Women's desire for love can lead to immorality, vanity, etc.
Man's desire for ego boost can lead to being abusive, unjust, etc.
Sorry Matthew, but it's men who want a woman's love and women who are more vain. How you could possibly reverse these things is beyond me.
Men don't typically pursue women because "she will make me a great man" - men pursue women for marriage to a large degree because they want a woman to love them.
It's women who wish to raise their status by marriage.
Now many women choose abusers. Most women tend to test the men they're with - and they will escalate conflicts to dangerous levels as part of the test.
In the feminist police state that leads to disastrous situations.
Like The Quiet Man except John Wayne ends up in prison because Maureen O'Hara engaged in vindictive lying after calling 911.
Instead of being dragged ten miles from the train station like she deserved.
-
From what I can tell most LEGITIMATE (legitimate in the sense of actually being worthy of the title abuser) abusers are either drunks or are wickedly cruel psychopaths or sociopaths. So-called "dark triad" men are said to be more attractive to many women because of it.
-
The truly sadistic abusers are the types who ought to be taken out and shot - unfortunately, they tend to be the ones who get away with it. It's relatively innocent men who typically get punished - false accusations of abuse are very convenient tool for women and for bullies who wish to appear to be "protecting" women.
-
I've had the sad experience of reading sadists boast of the horrible things they've done to women and it's enough to make a man's blood boil.
But what that sick fellow said is that only a [expletive] has to worry about a woman calling the police.
-
Most of the males who make a show of being incensed over a woman getting slapped don't really think it's such a horrible crime or is the worst thing in the world: but they salivate at the prospect of seeing a man taken away in chains - a man who isn't whipped the way they are whipped.
-
Tele, with all due respect, you had one bad experience which seems to color almost all your posts. You also are unmarried. Thus I do believe that you should refrain from posting on any of these kinds of posts, not only for yourself, as the poster, but also the postee.
Catherine gave Penitent very good advice. I've been there, done that, so I know whereof she speaks. Matthew said it well when he posted that there are men out there who prey on good women. I think it might be a game for them to conquer a solid, good-hearted woman. The woman is left to pick up the pieces while he goes on to other conquests. Penitent would do well to heed Catherine's advice. It is also imperitive that Penitent go to Mass every Sun. This is a commandment & more important than worrying about a wardrobe. The wardrobe will fall into place as time goes by.
For what it's worth, when we were growing up parents & children wore the same things when they were at home as when they went out. St. James writes about 'double-minded men'. I'm sure his words were going deeper than clothing but Catholics should be of 'one mind' & that is we dress around our family the same as when we go out.
-
It's women who wish to raise their status by marriage.
Do men or women care more if their potential mate dresses well, drives a nice car, has a prestigious job or rich family?
Whose vanity is more important to relationships?
-
Catherine gave Penitent very good advice.
Not the part about being like an "alcoholic" who can't help being attracted to abusive men. Especially when Catherine has insinuated men on this forum are potential abusers.
PW needs to find a gentle-hearted loving men. Unfortunately, it's a rather unusual combination to find a truly gentle-hearted man who is also convincingly commanding.
-
Wow...
I was not expecting a thread about frumpy nightgowns to go this direction. I really don't know what to say. I appreciate the concern that has been expressed, but I am obviously terrible at expressing myself. I know that I got myself into a bad situation before. Not an hour goes by that I'm not reminded of that. It hurts a little though to think that I present myself as so incompetent that I would lead myself into a situation that would expose my daughter to abuse. I do everything I can to protect her. I would never allow her to live in a harmful situation. I know what it is like to be a child and witness relationship chaos. I wouldn't put her through that.
Maybe I am a little overzealous about some things, but the reason I gravitate towards marriage topics, and find them particularly edifying is because I've lived through what happens when people do not adhere to their roles. When you constantly deviate from God's design, it doesn't work. Everyone suffers. This is why we have a family structure to abide by. I might romanticize the concept, but I certainly don't want to be slave or a doormat. If that is was what is being discerned from my posts then I have a serious problem transmitting my thoughts.
I feel like when you have experienced an unhealthy relationship, you are suddenly expected to turn into a man hating ultra feminist who isn't going to be told what to do. I have said repeatedly (both in posts and private conversations) that I am aware of the difference between an authoritative man who is disordered or motivated by selfishness, and an authoritative man who cares about his wife's soul. I am not the smartest person in the world, but I am not an idiot either. I have spent a lot of time thinking about these things. It is very important for me to get married, yes, but it would be disastrous for me to marry someone who is passive. I'm a lost lamb...a damaged soul. I recognize that.
The last thing I need is to be married to a man who wants to be my best friend and support everything I have to say no matter how irrational or overly emotional it is. That kind of person would unintentionally allow me to drown in my problems. I know myself well enough to understand how this works.
I suppose someone will twist that into me wanting to marry a bully,which is quite unfair. I just think I would be better off with someone who would be more interested in guiding me than catering to my obvious oversensitiveness, flightiness etc. Of course I want someone who loves me and loves my daughter, but I'm not going to commit to marriage and family with someone who is not willing to be a leader of the family.
If a man is apathetic towards departure from marriage roles, what other church teachings might he go soft on? Family size? Divorce? I'm not looking at this as just what I need to bring the table (though there is no getting around the fact that I will likely have a lot more to prove) but I am looking to make sure that a potential spouse views marriage as permanent. I am terrified of being left alone with children. It is a terrible feeling to be abandoned. I want someone who isn't going leave me.
Wanting a true leader for a husband doesn't make me a doormat. It makes me realistic about what I need to get to heaven. I would never marry a man that I didn't trust to love me and protect my soul. That is a far cry from what I had with my daughter's father.
-
Unfortunately, some women have a desire to be abused and to also gain sympathy for the abuse they've received, even though they sought it out.
I'm not saying PW is that type.
Now this desire that some women feel is a perversion of a natural desire to be held accountable and given guidance by a man who isn't afraid to do so.
I know you are not saying that I am this type, but I really hope that no one would think I am either.
I never desired to be treated the way I was treated. I was in a very depressed spot and dealing a lot of different things. I had someone who showed interest in me and made me feel good. When he couldn't get what he wanted from me instead of moving on like most every other boyfriend I had, he wasn't going to take no for an answer. I took that as willingness to wait for me, but that isn't what it was. It led to manipulation and breaking me down.
He suffers from serious narcissism. He has a terrible temper that was made worse when he drank, which was pretty often. He was also a steroid user, which probably contributed to his temper. I don't want to believe he chooses to be cold. A mentally normal human being doesn't go from a flattering sweet talker, to controlling paranoid jealous stalker, to aggressive fits of rage, in a period of days or even hours...and then...lather, rinse, repeat. There is something obviously wrong with him. I try to deal with it by praying for him.
Yes, I chose this man to be with. I am not blaming anyone for my choices or looking for sympathy. I accept responsibility for what I've done. I suffer because of it, and mostly my daughter suffers because of it. She goes without the presence of a father because of my poor choices. I have to live with that guilt everyday. I don't think her father feels one bit of guilt for it.
I don't push child support with him. I've never tried to do anything that would keep him from seeing her if he wanted. He won't even acknowledge her unless it is to scare me about what will happen if I try to get money from him. He didn't care that she was a girl. He didn't care that I was in labor or that she was born. He wanted me to kill her in utero. If we died tomorrow I wouldn't expect him at the funeral. I don't say that so that people feel sorry for me, I say it because I am not trying to get anything from him, despite his cruelty.
Having a baby alone is not fun. I'm not independent and resilient like other single moms. I'm sentimental and like to feel protected. In no way did I seek out an unhealthy relationship to try to gain sympathy. I've had nothing but pain from it.
-
Most of the males who make a show of being incensed over a woman getting slapped don't really think it's such a horrible crime or is the worst thing in the world: but they salivate at the prospect of seeing a man taken away in chains - a man who isn't whipped the way they are whipped.
That is astonishingly offensive.
-
I do not seem to fit well with this group--I am not being disrespectful, for we each serve God in the ways that He wants us to--I'm just trying to find a place to talk about Catholic things and how this world scares me all the time. I am not trying to be strange...
But, PW, as an educator, if I read your posts as a journal, I would believe that you are a woman who only values the opinion of men. That you want to be led by them. This can lead you to vulnerability for it attracts those who wish to dominate. I haven't been here long enough to know if I am way off base on this--I myself am struggling with how to say what is rattling in my head right now... I can think of many strong women in the Bible, and Jesus seemed to enjoy being in their company.
Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I have been married 30 years and worked, raised a family, worn pants and jeans, but have never been dominated--we are a partnership...we each do different things in that, but neither tells the other what to do. I have always dressed modestly, and have been asked by many parents where I get such modest clothing for our kiddo.
I think we must be modest when seen. In private, all alone, I don't think it has to be that way (though flannel nighties are my idea of fancy lingerie, lol).
I worry that we worry about such little things that we fail to focus on the big picture--loving God with all ourhearts and loving our neighbors.
-
SS - Indeed! and someone gave him a thumbs up for that!! Strange world this is.
-
Loriann, I hear you. That's what some of us are trying to say to PW. In my post I should have written 'some men like to conquer solid (but vulnerable) good-hearted women.' I left out vulnerable & that's an important word.
-
Most of the males who make a show of being incensed over a woman getting slapped don't really think it's such a horrible crime or is the worst thing in the world: but they salivate at the prospect of seeing a man taken away in chains - a man who isn't whipped the way they are whipped.
That is astonishingly offensive.
What is astoundingly offensive is the way certain individuals treat the slapping of a woman as though it is a heinous crime that deserves merciless punishment.
That is - at best - a form of moral imbecility - the slap of a woman is regarded as an affront of the honor of womankind that must be severely punished rather than be regarded as a loss of temper or an occasionally justifiable act of correction.
It is a belief women must be untouchable - I think such attitudes can be blamed for the advance of feminism and its diabolical laws.
-
PW, you need to place yourself under the spiritual headship of a solid traditional priest. There is a protection proceeding from the divine order that is needed for single women out on their own and particularly those who have unmet needs or wounds from their upbringing. You are at extremely high risk for a relationship with another abuser. You have done it once before. I say this to you like one alcoholic knows another. Please find a priest and do this ASAP. The internet is not a substitute for in person catechism and community. I say this not with the intention to offend but out of concern. Your situation is serious.
catherine, I am really curious what prompted this? What did I say on this post (which is about clothing) that sparked such urgent concern?
What exactly do you think I should say to the priest? What do you mean by protection proceeding?
I know you are concerned, and I do need to take more things to a priest. I didn't think asking about nightgowns was something I needed to ask a priest about. That seemed an acceptable topic for a discussion board. I feel like I am missing something. I am not using the board as a substitute for Holy counsel. I just wanted a to hear what other Catholic's think about the topic.
She expressed a desire to be a traditional female, which is to say submissive. She has even stated many ways in which she submits to Church doctrine, morals, practices, etc. and that is a huge red flag for the "wrong kind of guy".
This really has me confused. I've only brought up submission when I felt the context was fitting. It's not like I put it in my signature line "Highly submissive!" I have shared my beliefs either in a philosophical/ideological way about women's roles in general, or I have talked about how some of St. Paul's words on marriage were profound to me. If I misrepresented church teaching in any way at all, I would hope someone would correct me.
Matthew, I really appreciate your concern for me. I discuss my feelings on this board because I can't do it anywhere else. I have said before I post too much. I have another group, but it is modern/N.O. and I can't accept the advice they give me there. Submission is a dirty word in the "outside" world, so isn't something that can be discussed elsewhere. I'm not intentionally bringing it up, I just gravitate towards those kinds of posts because I am passionate about the subject. We all have topics we feel strongly about, I'm sure.
What I *am* saying is that good people will often be taken advantage of -- or ATTEMPTS will be made to take advantage of them. It's a sad commentary on the world we live in, but it's nevertheless true.
Catherine (and myself) were merely REMINDING PenitentWoman that she should be somewhat careful as she meets people online or IRL.
I really do take your concerns to heart, but there is no need to be concerned. I have thought a lot about my past and I know exactly what got me there. I'm not concerned about being abused again. Being vulnerable shouldn't have any affect on how I feel about Church teaching. The rules and their truths don't change because I have a past. If anything, they are even more important to follow so that I can really heal.
I was under the impression that men care about headship. Maybe some couples don't ever need to talk about it. For me (and other unwed people here) it would seem like an important topic for pre-marriage. It isn't like finding out on your wedding night that your spouse snores. A marriage could be ruined if one party decides they don't recognize the order of the family.
For people who grew up Traditional, maybe marriage roles just go without saying. I don't know how that works. I didn't grow up this way and I need a lot more guidance than most people ever would.
I am stepping into uncharted territory because I don't think know a single person IRL who considers the husband head of the household. How sad is that?
In order for me to accept being obedient requires willingness to look at things in the most basic sense. I have to remove all the outside noise that denies the structure of the family, and go back to scripture. It is there that I have found the answers, and I have had "light bulb moments" about why traditional roles must be preserved.
-
What you're seeing is how women with feminist attitudes get very agitated at women who are open about desiring a traditional role.
-
But, PW, as an educator, if I read your posts as a journal, I would believe that you are a woman who only values the opinion of men. That you want to be led by them. This can lead you to vulnerability for it attracts those who wish to dominate. I haven't been here long enough to know if I am way off base on this--I myself am struggling with how to say what is rattling in my head right now... I can think of many strong women in the Bible, and Jesus seemed to enjoy being in their company.
It isn't that I don't value the opinions of women. I very often do. It is just that there are certain subjects where I pay more attention to the answers of men because I am typically looking for insight about things about the male mind and attitudes towards marriage.
Bishop Williamson states that women are more emotional and men more rational. I already have the emotional answer--from myself. I would prefer the rational answer. Men are more direct and to the point and I find their answers more helpful for that reason. I thought that seeking guidance from men was the ideal. There are no women priests for a reason. I can't always get to a priest, but for some opinions, laymen can give good insight.
Again, I am not trying to be disrespectful. I have been married 30 years and worked, raised a family, worn pants and jeans, but have never been dominated--we are a partnership...we each do different things in that, but neither tells the other what to do.
Loriann, I am glad that works for you. I recognize that for myself, an egalitarian marriage wouldn't work out so great. I need a lot more guidance than most. I have made some terrible mistakes in my past that prove I have a tendency to let my emotions rule me at times. I would prefer someone who doesn't indulge my every misstep, but who cares enough about me to guide me.
I think I could be a really great wife, but I need a certain type of husband. Dominate seems like such harsh word, but the bible does use the word dominion regarding a husband over his wife. There has to be a reason for that. It may not be a particularly palatable one to those influenced by feminism, but it is a reason nonetheless. I didn't choose the language of the Scripture.
Thorn, your concern means a lot to me. I know I have a lot of learn. I am not trying to give anyone a headache.
I'm not looking for a jerk. I think I said in one of my earliest posts here that I need someone who will wrap his arms around me and dry my tears. I do need that because I do need to heal. Affection is important, but it will be entirely more meaningful coming from a man who isn't afraid to be a leader who loves me enough to want me to get to heaven.
I do need a patient man with a gentle heart. I would like to be loved as Christ loved the Church. That is a protective and guiding form of love. Firm but gentle. That is just what I think I need.
All I can do is pray for that, and prepare myself to be a loving helpmate and wife. If I am blessed with a husband who can love me AND my child, I will be going the extra mile towards being everything HE needs and deserves from a family.
I don't see what is wrong with that.
-
catherine, I am really curious what prompted this? What did I say on this post (which is about clothing) that sparked such urgent concern?
It isn't about clothing. I think the developing problem, common for a new trad, is scruples. While only your spiritual director is qualified to make and treat that diagnosis, scruples is defined as unreasonable fear, excessive judgment or belief that trivial matters are grave sins. Now I am not saying immodesty is not grave. It is that the time and priority given to this issue is WAY out of proportion and as Thorn said, Mass and learning the Faith is your first priority, not clothes.
What exactly do you think I should say to the priest? What do you mean by protection proceeding?
I know you are concerned, and I do need to take more things to a priest. I didn't think asking about nightgowns was something I needed to ask a priest about. That seemed an acceptable topic for a discussion board. I feel like I am missing something. I am not using the board as a substitute for Holy counsel. I just wanted a to hear what other Catholic's think about the topic.
Getting other opinions is fine. The problem is that those opinions may not be correct. On any board you get a mix of people with varying levels of knowledge and spiritual health. All those different opinions are going to lead to confusion. That is why I say your primary education needs to come from a priest. A husband is not a spiritual director and should not be expected to be. When that time comes you need to already know the Faith and norms so you can assume your role as a Catholic wife, not expect him to teach it to you.
The word submission can be broken down into "sub" "mission". Every man has a purpose, a mission, in life. Woman was created to support that mission, to be a companion and helpmate. You get to choose what mission you want to support. Every group functions well with a designated leader, be it a football team or a work project. Every person on the team is valued and a good leader gets his team members' input and makes a decision for the good of the whole. The husband is the quarterback or team leader of the family. He takes everyone's input and well being in mind before making the final call. A good leader is never domineering or tyrannical. That kind of behavior creates resentment and rebellion. When Eve initiated the Fall and expulsion from the Garden I am pretty sure Adam didn't smack her around although I am sure words were exchanged on the way out. St. Joseph is another good example. He was kind, compassionate and a steady provider without abusing the Blessed Mother or Jesus. My point is that there is a healthy kind of leadership and submission and an unhealthy kind.
When a person comes from a broken, abusive or neglectful family structure, the wounds resulting will domino throughout the person's life and interactions with others. Awareness is the first step but even so the healing can take decades, sometimes life long. People who have healthy upbringings don't realize the great gift they have been given. Adult relationships are easy for them because they have had great role models who met their developmental needs.
What I *am* saying is that good people will often be taken advantage of -- or ATTEMPTS will be made to take advantage of them. It's a sad commentary on the world we live in, but it's nevertheless true.
Catherine (and myself) were merely REMINDING PenitentWoman that she should be somewhat careful as she meets people online or IRL.
Yes. I wasn't accusing you ,PW, of seeking out abusers. I was saying that abusers have a sixth sense for the wounded. Your radar has to be very high and very developed and I fear that it is not. It is something that comes with age and the school of experience. While you are more intelligent and strong willed than you give yourself credit for, your desires are catnip for bad boys. If you had a father or brothers looking out for you they would recognize those guys and protect you. Men have a radar for other men up to no good like women have a radar for women who are inauthentic, gold diggers, etc.
While I don't know Matthew personally, his posts indicate healthy leadership and sound advice. His daughters are very lucky.
The issue of spiritual headship under a traditional priest was a concept presented to me over the past year. I am still working through my understanding of it but so far it is a really good idea. In the modern world women leave their family home for school and/or work until marriage or even to get out of a bad home environment. That's reality, and the right or wrong of it is a different discussion. However, the protection that comes from following the divine order stated above with husbands/fathers as head of household is lost. We see that in the physical realm as low functioning predators try to take advantage of women but damage can also occur in the emotional and spiritual realms.
By adopting or being adopted by a priest as a spiritual father (metaphorically, not literally), a single woman can still receive that protection until she marries or if she intends to remain single. That's the best I can explain it for now. This would a natural extension for a spiritual director of an unmarried woman so I don't see it as an extreme request. You would still meet with him on a regular basis. His guidance would be that of a father concerned for his daughter's suitors, education, decision making and moral safety.
-
A spiritual director is supposed to be a spiritual director. A priest of God. Not a man who takes an exceptional interest in the personal decisions young women make about who they wish to marry, etc.
It really starts to violate the bounds of propriety in the confessional when priests take on a role that goes past the matter of sin and salvation and starts to be about advice about who to marry, who not to marry, (I'm not talking about spiritual reasons - though they shouldn't be judging men they don't know, only giving objective criteria of what's right and wrong)
This is where priests can start to act like cultists, it's extremely dangerous. This is why face to face confession was banned.
Abuse of the confessional leads many souls to perdition.
Also be extremely wary of predatory busybodies, you will find many of these people among trads.
-
It isn't that I don't value the opinions of women. I very often do. It is just that there are certain subjects where I pay more attention to the answers of men because I am typically looking for insight about things about the male mind and attitudes towards marriage.
PW you must be cautious when arguing with your fellow women. Women often band together against men in a sort of pack instinct. And no offense to the women on here but men usually have a more rational and self-confident answer to questions than women.
-
Bishop Williamson noted well, men the head, women the heart.....women at least have intuition he stated.....
-
Shoes are difficult. Flats don't seem dressy enough for mass, but non flashy looking pumps
are very hard to find. I've heard open toe is not okay...
I've never heard that.
-
Shoes are difficult. Flats don't seem dressy enough for mass, but non flashy looking pumps
are very hard to find. I've heard open toe is not okay...
I've never heard that.
plnety women wear either dress shoes w/open toe or a dress sandal, esp if health needs (swelling feet)..she, brown flip-flops, so popular with the under-30 crowd, not good at all.
-
Now I am not saying immodesty is not grave. It is that the time and priority given to this issue is WAY out of proportion and as Thorn said, Mass and learning the Faith is your first priority, not clothes.
Mass and the Faith are to be one's first priority, but part of the Traditional Catholic Faith includes women following the Blessed Virgin Mary as an example. Modest clothing IS important, because if a woman does not dress modestly, then her soul is in danger. Our Lady said that more people go to hells over sins of the flesh than any other sin.
-
Wow, this has taken a turn since I last saw it.
I was going to take advantage of the chance to agree with Tele but that was a while ago, I didn't get back fast enough lol. On the point of standing out, if you dress and behave as a traditional Catholic it happens of necessity, not because you want it to. It happens naturally because you will be a lady among ... non-ladies and that is noticeable whether you like it or not. Even if you use today's styles, you will manipulate them a little differently to make them modest so you will be modern but still different. Many people will appreciate the difference, many will not, but it doesn't really matter because you aren't dressing for them anyway. Ignore the dissenters whose perceptions of beauty are all wrong anyway and graciously accept the compliments from those who are refreshed by your femininity. Even if it puts you on the spot, it is a moment of edification for them and you must humbly allow God's grace to work through you.
About being at higher risk for abuse, c of s and Matthew make good points as well as Loriann. I know you think because you've seen it at a young age and lived it already, that drives you to avoid it now. While I believe that is a good start, the fact remains that you don't know what TO look for. I don't know if I can express this well but what I'm trying to say is that you still only know relationships from a negative point of view. Compared to women who grew up traditional and with good men in their lives (flawed men certainly, but men positively striving for sanctity) or who are already married to such men, you are at a disadvantage because they know what to look for from the positive point of view, from positive examples, whereas you are trying to work backwards from negative examples. Does that make sense? You could work so hard to avoid one thing you know you don't want, only to land in something else you don't know you shouldn't want. Without the positive experience to guide you, you could swing from one type of abuse to another type without realizing it.
That shouldn't be a cause for feeling depressed or anything but it should make you more wary of taking anonymous male advice from online. Submission is a loaded word and it's a delicate position to place yourself in. It's a vow made to one chosen person, it's not to be taken lightly. You place yourself in a very vulnerable position towards your husband not random internet goers or men in general, know what I mean?
I think various people are concerned with how much you seem to crave such submission and it's manifesting itself in desiring mainly male approval. But as I said submission is something that is interpreted and practiced in daily life in a million different ways and not all of them are truly Catholic so although you would rather not, you must put that craving aside until you are actually getting married. There is some grain of truth in learning to be independent and happy alone while it is God's will for you. The desire to be submitted to a good man is a good and naturally feminine desire, and I myself remember being emotionally unstable until I had that in my life, so I fully relate to you. Especially if you already have a child I can imagine it would be that much more sensitive. But it must to be reined in a bit until you find that one who will make it a reality. It cannot be offered randomly to just anyone because they happen to be male.
Even asking about nighties, it's a bit of an intimate question, no? Perhaps better reserved for other women? Do you need the men around to be thinking about and giving you advice on how to dress for bed? Not that you've asked them specifically I realize, but perhaps this is bringing up a need for a private section specifically for ladies and more private questions, I've thought about that before. Either that or you could PM a few ladies with such questions. Believe it or not, it is actually more female guidance that you need right now. Find a few ladies who have what you want and find out how they are doing it or how they went about getting it. Beware of men who would alienate you from other women, peers and/or mentors, using whatever psychological hoops. This is known in all circles to be a red flag regardless of religion, age, race, marital status etc... Rather, you should be encouraged to meet and learn from other traditional Catholic women. They normally have a lot to offer especially when they are living the life you want to strive for.
-
PW, you've asked questions on a Catholic forum & will get all kinds of answers.
99% will have your best interests at heart & try to steer you away from the 1%.
As catherine wrote - it isn't about clothing. It's the whole ball of wax that I was looking at, too. You've received excellent advice from long married men & women. Unmarried men under 39 years of age shouldn't even be weighing in on this discussion. They don't know any more about life than you do so just ignore them. God bless.
Wallflower- excellent post!
-
As catherine wrote - it isn't about clothing. It's the whole ball of wax that I was looking at, too. You've received excellent advice from long married men & women. Unmarried men under 39 years of age shouldn't even be weighing in on this discussion. They don't know any more about life than you do so just ignore them.
Clothing is important, because immodest clothing can lead one's soul to hell.
And unmarried men under the age of 39 shouldn't comment? That's just absurd.
-
true, should not all have a voice and have some life lessons to share? what if, say, unmarried 28 weighed in and has a degree in theology? or is in seminary? etc,etc.
-
I'm a honestly a little overwhelmed by the turn this took. It blindsided me and I am not quite sure why.
It isn't about clothing. I think the developing problem, common for a new trad, is scruples. While only your spiritual director is qualified to make and treat that diagnosis, scruples is defined as unreasonable fear, excessive judgment or belief that trivial matters are grave sins. Now I am not saying immodesty is not grave. It is that the time and priority given to this issue is WAY out of proportion and as Thorn said, Mass and learning the Faith is your first priority, not clothes.
You mention my time discussing clothing is out of proportion with spiritual things. Please do not assume I that don't spend time on spiritual matters. I have discussed those things here. I've done a great deal of reading. I have many spiritual questions to go over with a priest. I thought that for social/culture discussions, it would be okay to talk here and get feedback. I have always liked clothing, so I enjoy talking about it. The way I used to dress had a serious impact on my life. It may not be a big deal to others, but for ME it is a big deal. Most people here did not grow up as modern as I did. Most women here haven't worked as a lifeguard or as a cocktail waitress. I feel a great deal of shame over my past and a lot of it relates to dress.
A husband is not a spiritual director and should not be expected to be
Well, a husband should be a spiritual leader of his household, and so I think you are downplaying that a little bit. The person I marry will likely be more spiritually mature and knowledgeable than I will. Therefore, I won't hesitate to seek a certain amount of guidance from him.
When that time comes you need to already know the Faith and norms so you can assume your role as a Catholic wife, not expect him to teach it to you.
I am learning a lot of the norms by interacting with other people.
The husband is the quarterback or team leader of the family. He takes everyone's input and well being in mind before making the final call. A good leader is never domineering or tyrannical. That kind of behavior creates resentment and rebellion. When Eve initiated the Fall and expulsion from the Garden I am pretty sure Adam didn't smack her around although I am sure words were exchanged on the way out. St. Joseph is another good example. He was kind, compassionate and a steady provider without abusing the Blessed Mother or Jesus. My point is that there is a healthy kind of leadership and submission and an unhealthy kind.
I'm sorry, but I just don't see where I indicated I wanted a tyrannical husband. It hurts a great deal that you feel the need to remind me that certain Biblical figures didn't "smack" their wives around. Do I really come across as someone who is so clueless that I would put myself (and my daughter) in a relationship that could bring us harm? I want the the opposite of harm from a husband. I just don't hold the common, modern opinion of what that means.
Yes. I wasn't accusing you ,PW, of seeking out abusers. I was saying that abusers have a sixth sense for the wounded. Your radar has to be very high and very developed and I fear that it is not. It is something that comes with age and the school of experience. While you are more intelligent and strong willed than you give yourself credit for, your desires are catnip for bad boys. If you had a father or brothers looking out for you they would recognize those guys and protect you. Men have a radar for other men up to no good like women have a radar for women who are inauthentic, gold diggers, etc.
I don't really know how to respond here. I don't know what is that makes you so concerned about my ability to form healthy relationships. I am living a completely different life than I was before and I see things much clearer then before I had my daughter.
I'm probably being oversensitive, but it is embarrassing to read some of this. I know everyone means well, but I'm feeling like I did something wrong and I just don't know what it is.
I have spent my entire adult life around the wrong kinds of men. No one in my life stepped in to counsel me. Now that I want a strong Catholic man, I have my family, friends, and various posters here who want to criticize it. I'm having a very hard time with that. :cry:
I'll have to reply more later.
-
Feminists are against traditional minded women and traditional men, whether they (the feminists) go to Latin mass or not.
It's only natural they get a lot of traction because the world socially promotes well-brought up trad women (to seduce them) and socially punishes trad men (to persecute them) who don't conform.
And the liberal trads tell us it's a sign that trad men are weak, unworthy, or are bullies.
It's cultural marxist intrustion, whether conscious or unconscious.
-
SS - where, pray tell, did I write that clothing was unimportant?? I didn't even insinuate it. You know better than to twist the message.
I know nothing about physics. Do you really think that I should give even my 2 cents worth of knowledge on physics if someone wrote about it & asked questions? What could I possibly give or add to the discussion except confusion?
-
SS - where, pray tell, did I write that clothing was unimportant?? I didn't even insinuate it. You know better than to twist the message.
You and Catherine said it's not about clothing, I'm saying that modest clothing is important.
I know nothing about physics. Do you really think that I should give even my 2 cents worth of knowledge on physics if someone wrote about it & asked questions? What could I possibly give or add to the discussion except confusion?
Thorn, with all due respect, I'd appreciate it if I could post on this thread without you butting in and telling me I shouldn't.
-
PenitentWoman,
I'm sorry for the confusion that has resulted from this thread. I think the problem is that you have two different sides tugging at.
Let me start by saying that some of the things catherine and wallflower wrote are true. But I also get the idea that they and Thorn want you to just listen to everything they have to say and ignore everyone else (more-so Thorn than catherine or wallflower). As Belloc said, everyone should get to have a say. Of course, it's also worth keeping in mind that some people are worth listening to more than others.
You are right that the husband is the spiritual leader of the household. He decides where the family will go to Church and so-forth. There is, however, one obvious exception to this. If a Catholic woman is married to a man who is, say, a Protestant, she does not have to obey his command to go to a Protestant church. In fact, she is obliged to disobey him for the good of her soul and the souls of her children. Same goes for any other sinful command that he gives. The woman is obliged to disobey such a command.
And, you are correct that dress is important. As I've said, a woman who dresses immodestly is sinning. So I think it is good that you realize the importance of dress.
You seem like a good Catholic lady that has learned from your past mistakes. I know your situation cannot possibly be easy to endure, but do hang in there. If God Wills that you marry, He will send a good Catholic man into your life.
God Bless.
-
All I can do is pray for that, and prepare myself to be a loving helpmate and wife. If I am blessed with a husband who can love me AND my child, I will be going the extra mile towards being everything HE needs and deserves from a family.
I don't see what is wrong with that.
If I have made you think I think there is anything wrong with that--I am sorry...I did not mean that. I just cautioned you that looking for a man who directs you may cause some highly domineering men to be attracted to you. "Watch what you ask for--you may get it." Just caring about your safety and happiness.
To me marriage is the right mix of two people who become one. So my sister's spouse may not work for me, but that is not an issue for it istheir partnership. Some men do domestic chores, some do not. Whatever makes the couple joyful and loyal to God is the key.
BUT I wanted to say that not all men are rational. Many, many are emotional, and unable to walk away when angry...that makes them emotional, imo.
I feel for you because life is so much more beautiful when you have a spouse who is your other half. Not everyone gets that.
-
What you're seeing is how women with feminist attitudes get very agitated at women who are open about desiring a traditional role.
I didn't see any women get agitated--we are trying to offer advice to a sister who asked for it.
-
OK, Belloc, what if? The fact is that the 2 men in question aren't in seminary or have degrees in theology, and most importantly - have enough 'life experiences' to be able to sensibly advise someone in PW's position. It's the blind leading the blind.
SS- please don't be offended or too sensitive. My remarks weren't directed at you at all. I have no idea how old you are, married or not, etc. So carry on posting all you want. I have no desire to stop you. Unless of course if you too are underage & unmarried :-)
Of course clothing is important, but you're missing the big picture here. Nowhere did anyone write or even insinuate that clothing wasn't important. Go back & re-read the posts. Must everything be spelled out? OK Clothing is important, but going to the TLM every Sunday & having a spiritual directer is most important and no, not to talk about what nightie to wear. Is that better?
-
I have spent my entire adult life around the wrong kinds of men. No one in my life stepped in to counsel me. Now that I want a strong Catholic man, I have my family, friends, and various posters here who want to criticize it. I'm having a very hard time with that. :cry:
I'll have to reply more later.
No one here is criticizing you for wanting a strong Catholic man. What is being said is be careful. You are laying your heart and soul on the line and that is leaving you vulnerable to *every* man here, not just a few select good strong Catholic men.
People like Tele can throw around that all the women here are feminists who don't submit blah, blah, blah. The truth is we, or I should speak for myself, I don't submit to him. That's all he knows about me. And that's what he doesn't like.
The point of saying that is that when I am online the soft, vulnerable, feminine, wifely side of me gets protected a bit. It doesn't get put on display for everyone and anyone. It's a side I share with my husband. It doesn't mean I am masculine online but I'm not about to share all the deep desires and longings and such for submission and wifely duties with everyone at all times. There's a certain amount of intimacy in that. A woman longing for a good husband, for a family, there's a bit of the sacred involved. I think that's what catherineofsienna was getting at when she said normally you would have a father or brother who would protect you. In the absence of that you have to protect yourself. When I was single I still didn't talk that way to random men either. That does not mean change your desires to be a submissive Catholic wife, it just means don't advertise it so much. Try to keep yourself a bit more protected in what you display of yourself to a forum of mixed company.
PS I say this as someone who has taken part in conversations here that I regret. There have been things discussed that as a lady I would never ever discuss with men IRL. So trust me when I say we all have our embarrassing threads. You are not alone in that.
-
Wow, this has taken a turn since I last saw it.
I was going to take advantage of the chance to agree with Tele but that was a while ago, I didn't get back fast enough lol. On the point of standing out, if you dress and behave as a traditional Catholic it happens of necessity, not because you want it to. It happens naturally because you will be a lady among ... non-ladies and that is noticeable whether you like it or not. Even if you use today's styles, you will manipulate them a little differently to make them modest so you will be modern but still different. Many people will appreciate the difference, many will not, but it doesn't really matter because you aren't dressing for them anyway. Ignore the dissenters whose perceptions of beauty are all wrong anyway and graciously accept the compliments from those who are refreshed by your femininity. Even if it puts you on the spot, it is a moment of edification for them and you must humbly allow God's grace to work through you.
About being at higher risk for abuse, c of s and Matthew make good points as well as Loriann. I know you think because you've seen it at a young age and lived it already, that drives you to avoid it now. While I believe that is a good start, the fact remains that you don't know what TO look for. I don't know if I can express this well but what I'm trying to say is that you still only know relationships from a negative point of view. Compared to women who grew up traditional and with good men in their lives (flawed men certainly, but men positively striving for sanctity) or who are already married to such men, you are at a disadvantage because they know what to look for from the positive point of view, from positive examples, whereas you are trying to work backwards from negative examples. Does that make sense? You could work so hard to avoid one thing you know you don't want, only to land in something else you don't know you shouldn't want. Without the positive experience to guide you, you could swing from one type of abuse to another type without realizing it.
That shouldn't be a cause for feeling depressed or anything but it should make you more wary of taking anonymous male advice from online. Submission is a loaded word and it's a delicate position to place yourself in. It's a vow made to one chosen person, it's not to be taken lightly. You place yourself in a very vulnerable position towards your husband not random internet goers or men in general, know what I mean?
I think various people are concerned with how much you seem to crave such submission and it's manifesting itself in desiring mainly male approval. But as I said submission is something that is interpreted and practiced in daily life in a million different ways and not all of them are truly Catholic so although you would rather not, you must put that craving aside until you are actually getting married. There is some grain of truth in learning to be independent and happy alone while it is God's will for you. The desire to be submitted to a good man is a good and naturally feminine desire, and I myself remember being emotionally unstable until I had that in my life, so I fully relate to you. Especially if you already have a child I can imagine it would be that much more sensitive. But it must to be reined in a bit until you find that one who will make it a reality. It cannot be offered randomly to just anyone because they happen to be male.
Even asking about nighties, it's a bit of an intimate question, no? Perhaps better reserved for other women? Do you need the men around to be thinking about and giving you advice on how to dress for bed? Not that you've asked them specifically I realize, but perhaps this is bringing up a need for a private section specifically for ladies and more private questions, I've thought about that before. Either that or you could PM a few ladies with such questions. Believe it or not, it is actually more female guidance that you need right now. Find a few ladies who have what you want and find out how they are doing it or how they went about getting it. Beware of men who would alienate you from other women, peers and/or mentors, using whatever psychological hoops. This is known in all circles to be a red flag regardless of religion, age, race, marital status etc... Rather, you should be encouraged to meet and learn from other traditional Catholic women. They normally have a lot to offer especially when they are living the life you want to strive for.
Very true. Great post.
-
The women with feminist attitudes think that women who are open about wanting to be good Christian wives are weak and are magnets for abusive men.
It says a lot about what they really think about Tradition.
There are lots of "trad" women who practically admit to hating trad men.
-
Wallflower, Tele does not call you a feminist because you don't submit to him. He calls you a feminist because some of your views are not in line with Catholic teaching. For instance, you tend to stretch the exceptions to the wife staying at home beyond their limits.
I don't mean this to sound offensive, I am just making an observation.
-
Feminists are against traditional minded women and traditional men, whether they (the feminists) go to Latin mass or not.
It's only natural they get a lot of traction because the world socially promotes well-brought up trad women (to seduce them) and socially punishes trad men (to persecute them) who don't conform.
And the liberal trads tell us it's a sign that trad men are weak, unworthy, or are bullies.
It's cultural marxist intrustion, whether conscious or unconscious.
There can be a lot of middle road between feminist and fully traditional Catholic women...the mommy wars are so destructive in so many ways...in our church, the Traditional minded tend to be very judemental to the point of being rude, and it costs them the chance to speak of why they believe. Just like when I work on the line in front of the abortion clinic in Gary Indiana--the loud raging folks who scream murderer--have no credibility (imagine the Lord doing that??...not) but those of us who say things can we show you some pictures so you know what you are going to do--we get our foot in the door with many women and then they begin to see pictures of little baby feet and soon we get them to a better place, or maybe we get them to agree to an ultrasound...but the screamers--they get nothing...
-
I have spent my entire adult life around the wrong kinds of men. No one in my life stepped in to counsel me. Now that I want a strong Catholic man, I have my family, friends, and various posters here who want to criticize it. I'm having a very hard time with that. :cry:
I'll have to reply more later.
No one here is criticizing you for wanting a strong Catholic man. What is being said is be careful. You are laying your heart and soul on the line and that is leaving you vulnerable to *every* man here, not just a few select good strong Catholic men.
People like Tele can throw around that all the women here are feminists who don't submit blah, blah, blah. The truth is we, or I should speak for myself, I don't submit to him. That's all he knows about me. And that's what he doesn't like.
The point of saying that is that when I am online the soft, vulnerable, feminine, wifely side of me gets protected a bit. It doesn't get put on display for everyone and anyone. It's a side I share with my husband. It doesn't mean I am masculine online but I'm not about to share all the deep desires and longings and such for submission and wifely duties with everyone at all times. There's a certain amount of intimacy in that. A woman longing for a good husband, for a family, there's a bit of the sacred involved. I think that's what catherineofsienna was getting at when she said normally you would have a father or brother who would protect you. In the absence of that you have to protect yourself. When I was single I still didn't talk that way to random men either. That does not mean change your desires to be a submissive Catholic wife, it just means don't advertise it so much. Try to keep yourself a bit more protected in what you display of yourself to a forum of mixed company.
PS I say this as someone who has taken part in conversations here that I regret. There have been things discussed that as a lady I would never ever discuss with men IRL. So trust me when I say we all have our embarrassing threads. You are not alone in that.
Malleus : Well said. From a Male perspective - true as men we have a role given us by GOD to be the head of the household. But that is most definitely not a license to become a tyrant insisting on subservience . We are as Catholics to emulate the Holy Family. St Joseph did not appear to me to be a heavy handed my way or the highway type of Man. But he does appear to be a very strong man of fine character. If a man wishes to be respected - then he must earn that respect. His wife is to be the queen of his household and the heart of his home. He must always understand this fact and love our wives as Christ loves the Church and Christ delivered his lifes blood up for her. It is because of this , and his actions of fidelity and love that will compel his wife to both respect and honor him. If a man desires a wife to honor and respect him as head of the household - then he must be willing to be worthy of that honor and respect through his actions.
Pax
-
As an unmarried "under 39" man myself, with all due respect to all posters here, when St.Paul says the woman is to submit to the man in holy matrimony, he is not putting forth a request nor proferring a suggestion, nor is its meaning obscure and in need of a different interpretation than Tradition and countless Saints, men and women alike, have always understood it. The headship of the husband is plainly a Catholic doctrine. The same Apostle says, "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord"
The same is repeated by St.Peter, to wit, "In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands: that, if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word, by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Whose adorning, let it not be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: But the hidden man of the heart, in the incorruptibility of a quiet and a meek spirit which is rich in the sight of God.
For after this manner heretofore, the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: As Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance. You husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers be not hindered."
So, while it is true and necessary that a Christian wife is to obey and be submit to her husband, it is equally true that her husband is to be loving and gentle toward her. From what I've read of her posts in this thread, Penitent Woman seems to me to understand this remarkably well. Besides, almost everyone reading the posts here is probably Catholic anyway, and even if he is not, it is unlikely he will meet PW personally or know who she is even if he happens to.
St.Francis De Sales says very beautifully,
"Therefore, husbands, do you preserve a tender, constant, hearty love for your wives. It was that the wife might be loved heartily and tenderly that woman was taken from the side nearest Adam's heart. No failings or infirmities, bodily or mental, in your wife should ever excite any kind of dislike in you, but rather a loving, tender compassion; and that because God has made her dependent on you, and bound to defer to and obey you; and that while she is meant to be your helpmeet, you are her superior and her head.
And on your part, wives, do you love the husbands God has given you tenderly, heartily, but with a reverential, confiding love, for God has made the man to have the predominance, and to be the stronger; and He wills the woman to depend upon him,--bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh,--taking her from out the ribs of the man, to show that she must be subject to his guidance. All Holy Scripture enjoins this subjection, which nevertheless is not grievous; and the same Holy Scripture, while it bids you accept it lovingly, bids your husband to use his superiority with great tenderness, lovingkindness, and gentleness. "Husbands, dwell with your wives according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife as unto the weaker vessel."
The married women here have some very good counsel here for Penitent Woman, and definitely especially seeing as they've kept the faith and handed it on, are worth listening to. But it simply isn't true to say that her admirable attitude of respecting and acquiescing to God's design for the family, with the headship of the husband and the wife subject to his authority, which is merely that of a traditional Catholic woman preparing for marriage, is going somehow to cause her problems. I'm sure she is now more than prudent and wise enough to distinguish between a true Christian husband who will love and care for her from an abusive man who will take advantage of her.
As for the undisguised slight on unmarried men, sometimes young people understand each other better than elder people understand them, and intuitively know what the other person needs, and sometimes youth remembers what maturity tends to forget. :wink:
-
I have spent my entire adult life around the wrong kinds of men. No one in my life stepped in to counsel me. Now that I want a strong Catholic man, I have my family, friends, and various posters here who want to criticize it. I'm having a very hard time with that. :cry:
I'll have to reply more later.
No one here is criticizing you for wanting a strong Catholic man. What is being said is be careful. You are laying your heart and soul on the line and that is leaving you vulnerable to *every* man here, not just a few select good strong Catholic men.
People like Tele can throw around that all the women here are feminists who don't submit blah, blah, blah. The truth is we, or I should speak for myself, I don't submit to him. That's all he knows about me. And that's what he doesn't like.
The point of saying that is that when I am online the soft, vulnerable, feminine, wifely side of me gets protected a bit. It doesn't get put on display for everyone and anyone. It's a side I share with my husband. It doesn't mean I am masculine online but I'm not about to share all the deep desires and longings and such for submission and wifely duties with everyone at all times. There's a certain amount of intimacy in that. A woman longing for a good husband, for a family, there's a bit of the sacred involved. I think that's what catherineofsienna was getting at when she said normally you would have a father or brother who would protect you. In the absence of that you have to protect yourself. When I was single I still didn't talk that way to random men either. That does not mean change your desires to be a submissive Catholic wife, it just means don't advertise it so much. Try to keep yourself a bit more protected in what you display of yourself to a forum of mixed company.
PS I say this as someone who has taken part in conversations here that I regret. There have been things discussed that as a lady I would never ever discuss with men IRL. So trust me when I say we all have our embarrassing threads. You are not alone in that.
Malleus : Well said. From a Male perspective - true as men we have a role given us by GOD to be the head of the household. But that is most definitely not a license to become a tyrant insisting on subservience . We are as Catholics to emulate the Holy Family. St Joseph did not appear to me to be a heavy handed my way or the highway type of Man. But he does appear to be a very strong man of fine character. If a man wishes to be respected - then he must earn that respect. His wife is to be the queen of his household and the heart of his home. He must always understand this fact and love our wives as Christ loves the Church and Christ delivered his lifes blood up for her. It is because of this , and his actions of fidelity and love that will compel his wife to both respect and honor him. If a man desires a wife to honor and respect him as head of the household - then he must be willing to be worthy of that honor and respect through his actions.
Pax
Nice post
-
sometimes young people understand each other better than elder people understand them, and intuitively know what the other person needs, and sometimes youth remembers what maturity tends to forget. :wink:
Maturity remembers that we were young once too and thought we had all the answers. I did. I paid the price.
-
If a man wishes to be respected - then he must earn that respect.
Does a wife have to "earn" her husband's love?
A man doesn't have to earn his wife's respect any more than he has to "earn" the marriage debt.
It's owed him.
St. Paul says wives should fear their husbands. That's the kind of respect he's talking about.
If you can't accept that then you might have a problem with traditional marriage, and it's pretty clear many liberalized or feminized trads have a serious problem raising their daughters for Catholic marriage.
-
Maturity remembers that we were young once too and thought we had all the answers.
Agreed. I think that attitude would definitely be foolhardy in a young man or a young woman, life certainly has a lot of lessons to teach us, and we would be well advised to listen to those who've faced and overcome challenges before us, unless we wish to learn the hard way too.
I was merely saying that elder people would be unwise to totally preclude us from voicing our own opinions as well. We bring a fresh perspective and we understand each other like I said!
Anyway, I want to say I'm sorry for whatever it was that you suffered. I hope God and time have healed that pain.
God bless.
-
Spiritus Sanctus is right, the statement made earlier that unmarried men have no right to comment is absurd. I suppose then, that all of the teachings of the Holy Doctors of the Church, so many popes & holy priests are to be disregarded since they never married. I know the response will likely be that that is different because they were eminent in sanctity, or at least had received the sacrament of Holy Orders.
This is wrong as well. One can know & understand everything really essential about a subject without having actually experienced it sensibly. One needn't knock down a tree & eat of its leaves to understand the habits of elephants for instance.
Also, Spiritus Sanctus, I accidentally down-voted one of your posts, sorry about that, I was looking at something else in my peripheral vision & clicked the wrong face.
-
Most of the males who make a show of being incensed over a woman getting slapped don't really think it's such a horrible crime or is the worst thing in the world: but they salivate at the prospect of seeing a man taken away in chains - a man who isn't whipped the way they are whipped.
That is astonishingly offensive.
What is astoundingly offensive is the way certain individuals treat the slapping of a woman as though it is a heinous crime that deserves merciless punishment.
That is - at best - a form of moral imbecility - the slap of a woman is regarded as an affront of the honor of womankind that must be severely punished rather than be regarded as a loss of temper or an occasionally justifiable act of correction.
It is a belief women must be untouchable - I think such attitudes can be blamed for the advance of feminism and its diabolical laws.
It is, or should be, felonious assault and should be punished by the law accordingly. If you think this behavior is acceptable, you are not a Catholic, I don't care how many Latin Masses you attend.
-
It is, or should be, felonious assault and should be punished by the law accordingly. If you think this behavior is acceptable, you are not a Catholic, I don't care how many Latin Masses you attend.
Then St. Thomas Aquinas was not a Catholic, because he said a man could chastise his wife with words and blows.
You're a liberal Sigismund. I don't advocate the slapping of women, but I'm not going to pretend it's a felony that should justify imprisoning a man.
That's insanity. The same insanity that is responsible for the feminist laws that exist today.
-
What you're seeing is how women with feminist attitudes get very agitated at women who are open about desiring a traditional role.
I didn't see any women get agitated--we are trying to offer advice to a sister who asked for it.
Nor do I. Any woman who has an opinion or even an independent thought must be an agitated feminist, I guess.
-
Changing the subject to traditional women being magnets for abusers is definitely a sign of agitation.
-
It is, or should be, felonious assault and should be punished by the law accordingly. If you think this behavior is acceptable, you are not a Catholic, I don't care how many Latin Masses you attend.
Then St. Thomas Aquinas was not a Catholic, because he said a man could chastise his wife with words and blows.
You're a liberal Sigismund. I don't advocate the slapping of women, but I'm not going to pretend it's a felony that should justify imprisoning a man.
That's insanity. The same insanity that is responsible for the feminist laws that exist today.
Well, St. Thomas was wrong on this. He said enough sensible things to make up for it. I cannot say that about you. It is a crime, and should be, for any adult to strike any other adult unless in self defense or the defense of another. What the punishment should be depends on the severity of the offense, of course. It can and should include imprisonment if warranted.
I cannot imagine such a thing happening, but if one of my sons in law were ever to strike one of my daughters, the law would be the least of his worries. We could perhaps share a jail cell after he got out of the hospital.
-
Well, St. Thomas was wrong on this.
Quite a bold opinion.
Something not held by our ancestors.
He said enough sensible things to make up for it. I cannot say that about you. It is a crime, and should be, for any adult to strike any other adult unless in self defense or the defense of another.
Uh-huh. Let me know when you start screaming about felonious assault when women slap men.
You need to cut the BS. You support extreme retaliation against mild violence because you support the feminist police state - the same feminist police state that guards abortion clinics drags fathers out of their houses in chains - and you support it, and say people who agree with St. Thomas aren't Catholics.
What the punishment should be depends on the severity of the offense, of course. It can and should include imprisonment if warranted.
You said it was a felony.
I cannot imagine such a thing happening, but if one of my sons in law were ever to strike one of my daughters, the law would be the least of his worries. We could perhaps share a jail cell after he got out of the hospital.
More proof you don't have the Catholic view, since you approve of personal vengeance.
If one of your daughters was slapped you should probably ask what they're doing to exasperate their husband and tell her not to do it again. What hurts your pride doesn't entitle you to revenge.
-
Not all felonies are equally serious.
I don't actually approve of taking the law into one's own hands, but my law-abiding nature may be compromised where my children are concerned. it may not be right, but there it is. Since you think it is woman's fault if her husband feels exasperated and slaps her, I an not sure why this should be a problem for you.
-
Not all felonies are equally serious.
You think a woman being slapped is worth sending a husband to prison and having a record as a felon because you're a woman worshipper.
I don't actually approve of taking the law into one's own hands, but my law-abiding nature may be compromised where my children are concerned.
In that case bullying father in laws should be expect to be shot if they cross the threshold, if we're going to throw out Catholic morality.
it may not be right, but there it is. Since you think it is woman's fault if her husband feels exasperated and slaps her, I an not sure why this should be a problem for you.
People who incite others to anger (and sometimes that anger is justified) are responsible for that. Just as women who incite men to lust are responsible for provoking sinful acts. They didn't commit the sin the man commits, but they did commit the sin of inciting ti.
-
Spiritus Sanctus is right, the statement made earlier that unmarried men have no right to comment is absurd. I suppose then, that all of the teachings of the Holy Doctors of the Church, so many popes & holy priests are to be disregarded since they never married. I know the response will likely be that that is different because they were eminent in sanctity, or at least had received the sacrament of Holy Orders.
This is wrong as well. One can know & understand everything really essential about a subject without having actually experienced it sensibly. One needn't knock down a tree & eat of its leaves to understand the habits of elephants for instance.
Also, Spiritus Sanctus, I accidentally down-voted one of your posts, sorry about that, I was looking at something else in my peripheral vision & clicked the wrong face.
Thank you, Cuthbert. No worries about the downvote, it's quite alright. :cool:
-
Quite right Telesphorus, no one is advocating going about slapping & beating women, but to classify it as a felony is going too far, especially in this day & age when they are so many spoiled brats, who were never disciplined in any way, who were always protected from the consequences of their actions, & who therefore think themselves entitled to take revenge on their hapless husbands by making false accusations of abuse;
because he didn't make her life that of a Disney princess, he deserves to rot in some prison cell. In their minds that's just retribution for not doing the impossible of keeping them in their preferred emotional state.
The way things are going, it'll soon be a felony to hurt some woman's feelings, "psychological assault" or some such rot. In Britain one can already be imprisoned for saying anything that sodomites, Jews, Mohammedans & assorted other privileged sects & groups don't like, how long before it comes here?
-
Quite right Telesphorus, no one is advocating going about slapping & beating women, but to classify it as a felony is going too far, especially in this day & age when they are so many spoiled brats, who were never disciplined in any way, who were always protected from the consequences of their actions, & who therefore think themselves entitled to take revenge on their hapless husbands by making false accusations of abuse;
because he didn't make her life that of a Disney princess, he deserves to rot in some prison cell. In their minds that's just retribution for not doing the impossible of keeping them in their preferred emotional state.
The way things are going, it'll soon be a felony to hurt some woman's feelings, "psychological assault" or some such rot. In Britain one can already be imprisoned for saying anything that sodomites, Jews, Mohammedans & assorted other privileged sects & groups don't like, how long before it comes here?
There's no reasoning with woman worshippers. Ultimately the families of traditionalists will have to be defended with force against the socialist state and many "trads" will be on board with the new order.
-
I suppose then, that all of the teachings of the Holy Doctors of the Church, so many popes & holy priests are to be disregarded since they never married.
Agreed. Think about this.
Kings David and Solomon were married. Several times. To many women. Right. Now, the good Lord and St.Paul were not. Now, all else being equal (okay, that may not exactly be the case here, but still), even on a human level, whom would you prefer marriage advice from? :wink:
On a more serious note, Telesphorus, if I recall right, I believe the Angelic Doctor was speaking with reference to a husband who had discovered his wife committing adultery and which the law of the time allowed, by virtue of not punishing as severely, for exacting personal vengenace on her. But St.Thomas says this cannot be permitted and is superseded by that of the Church, and at best, he may accuse her or chastise her for this. Is it this you are talking about, or something else?
St.Paul says he who loves his wife loves himself. St.Francis De Sales that it should be easier to separate body from soul than man from wife. How can a Christian gentleman under any circuмstance wish to lay hands on a lady in such an unseemly manner? More than that, how can a Christian husband wish for whatever reason to hurt or humiliate his wife?
How is this in any way consistent with the injunction of the Apostle, "You husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, giving honour to the female as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life"? Such an attitude appears to me to be more reflective of the disorder and chaos wrought by the fall as the words of Scripture recall in its aftermath rather than with the ideal of matrimony restored and elevated by the Savior and taught by Him as the type of His union with the Church.
While I would not call it a felony, it is, in my opinion, certainly not something that should be spoken of as somehow more or less justifiable, much less a prime example of feminist influence, for there are surely better ones to cite.
-
About being at higher risk for abuse, c of s and Matthew make good points as well as Loriann. I know you think because you've seen it at a young age and lived it already, that drives you to avoid it now. While I believe that is a good start, the fact remains that you don't know what TO look for.
I think I have a pretty good idea what to look for.
-Devout Catholic
-Non-emasculated
-Believes marriage is forever
-Believes the Lord plans the family
-Believes a mother should be at home with her children
-Loves me
That shouldn't be a cause for feeling depressed or anything but it should make you more wary of taking anonymous male advice from online. Submission is a loaded word and it's a delicate position to place yourself in. It's a vow made to one chosen person, it's not to be taken lightly. You place yourself in a very vulnerable position towards your husband not random internet goers or men in general, know what I mean?
Are you under the impression I am submitting my will to random internet goers? That sure seems to be insinuated over and over again.
The desire to be submitted to a good man is a good and naturally feminine desire, and I myself remember being emotionally unstable until I had that in my life, so I fully relate to you. Especially if you already have a child I can imagine it would be that much more sensitive. But it must to be reined in a bit until you find that one who will make it a reality. It cannot be offered randomly to just anyone because they happen to be male.
I think various people are concerned with how much you seem to crave such submission and it's manifesting itself in desiring mainly male approval. But as I said submission is something that is interpreted and practiced in daily life in a million different ways and not all of them are truly Catholic so although you would rather not, you must put that craving aside until you are actually getting married.
I do not submit to the male sex in general. Considering the kind of men I have typically found myself around (due to my work environments) that would be ridiculous. An adult woman is not required to submit to men who are not her husband, however I think there are ways to interact with trustworthy, honorable men that reflect the order in which God created us. I also think there are some situations when women should recognize the innate authority of manhood. Women cover their heads in church because women is the glory of man. Women do not wait to start covering until they have husbands. They cover always, because as a whole, they reflect man, and man reflects Chirst.
Society strives to equalize and make each sex more like the other. It seeks to feminize the man and bring masculine traits to the woman. This has blurred the lines so much that now the faithful have to reinterpret scripture to make it more palatable and politically correct. When women on the N.O. boards have to explain "wives submit to your husbands" to RCIA types, they will say that the quoted command MUST be kept in context with "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church." They say this as if their duty to submit can be dependent on how loved they feel at the moment.
Submission is a fixed necessity as long as what is being asked of a wife is not sinful. On the other hand, how loved someone feels is completely subjective. This is how modern "Catholic" wives manipulate scripture to make sure they never actually have to follow it. I don't want to be influenced by the sugar coaters who don't really believe they need to submit, but must figure out how to explain scripture that they don't like. This is why I can't grow as a Catholic, surrounded by those women.
There is some grain of truth in learning to be independent and happy alone while it is God's will for you.
I am as independent as I need to be out of absolute necessity. I have no desire to learn to be more independent. The idea that women can solve a problem by becoming more independent is nothing but an assertion of feminism, not God's will. I feel no desire to be a more independent woman. I tolerate my status because I have to. I don't seek to amplify it.
Even asking about nighties, it's a bit of an intimate question, no? Perhaps better reserved for other women? Do you need the men around to be thinking about and giving you advice on how to dress for bed? Not that you've asked them specifically I realize, but perhaps this is bringing up a need for a private section specifically for ladies and more private questions, I've thought about that before. Either that or you could PM a few ladies with such questions.
I feel kind of hurt that my original post is being manipulated. Maybe I should have been even more vague, but it was not my intent to ask intimate questions of men. I apologize if that is how it ended up being taken, but I really believed my OP was innocent.
Believe it or not, it is actually more female guidance that you need right now.
For some things, I would absolutely agree. I don't agree though, that modesty should only be asked of women. Men are usually the better judges for very obvious reasons. The conservation is helped along by both men and women because most men can't give fashion advice. They can only speak vaguely, though importantly.
For other things, it simply depends on the issue. Some things require advice from a woman. Other things are better helped with guidance from a man, and I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. There is no reason to exclude either for most types of questions, but as I've learned, women must be careful in how much they "instruct" others.
-
But St.Thomas says this cannot be permitted and is superseded by that of the Church, and at best, he may accuse her or chastise her for this.
Yes, he said a husband could chastise the adulterous wife with words and blows rather than putting her away.
He also said the husband could without sin, if motivated by desire for justice, have the adulterous wife put to death by law, but that it murder to kill her himself if she is caught in flagrante delicto.
-
The point is that St. Thomas accepts physical chastisment for reasons other than self-defense, so we can't very well say someone is not Catholic if they justify striking a woman for a reason other than self-defense.
-
Clothing is important, but going to the TLM every Sunday & having a spiritual directer is most important and no, not to talk about what nightie to wear. Is that better?
I'm sure you don't mean it, but I feel as though you twisted the intent of my post to mean something different. Me asking about modesty requirements when home alone should not somehow indicate that I don't care about going to mass and getting spiritual guidance.
-
As an unmarried "under 39" man myself, with all due respect to all posters here, when St.Paul says the woman is to submit to the man in holy matrimony, he is not putting forth a request nor proferring a suggestion, nor is its meaning obscure and in need of a different interpretation than Tradition and countless Saints, men and women alike, have always understood it. The headship of the husband is plainly a Catholic doctrine. The same Apostle says, "Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord"
...
So, while it is true and necessary that a Christian wife is to obey and be submit to her husband, it is equally true that her husband is to be loving and gentle toward her. From what I've read of her posts in this thread, Penitent Woman seems to me to understand this remarkably well.
Thank you. Your post makes a lot of sense.
-
The point is that St. Thomas accepts physical chastisment for reasons other than self-defense, so we can't very well say someone is not Catholic if they justify striking a woman for a reason other than self-defense.
I do not say that. But adultery is a very serious matter and what St.Thomas says here, I would only say, should not be used as a pretext for thinking slapping a woman, especially one's wife, is a light thing for every triviality or minor disagreement.
Christian men, no less than Christian women, in their own way need to prepare for marriage according to the will of the good God and learn to be a good husband and father, and not to abuse that authority they possess in their household.
-
I do not say that. But adultery is a very serious matter and what St.Thomas says here, I would only say, should not be used as a pretext for thinking slapping a woman, especially one's wife, is a light thing for every triviality or minor disagreement.
Of course not. One would hope it never reaches that point.
The problem is that we have a system where exaggerated and false accusations of abuse are used to destroy families. And there is self-righteous justification for the damage that is caused over what is often something very minor. I have no doubt most of us had many ancestors who slapped their wives and I would guess in the vast majority of cases it was not considered an excuse to destroy a marriage.
-
I have spent my entire adult life around the wrong kinds of men. No one in my life stepped in to counsel me. Now that I want a strong Catholic man, I have my family, friends, and various posters here who want to criticize it. I'm having a very hard time with that. :cry:
I'll have to reply more later.
No one here is criticizing you for wanting a strong Catholic man. What is being said is be careful. You are laying your heart and soul on the line and that is leaving you vulnerable to *every* man here, not just a few select good strong Catholic men.
People like Tele can throw around that all the women here are feminists who don't submit blah, blah, blah. The truth is we, or I should speak for myself, I don't submit to him. That's all he knows about me. And that's what he doesn't like.
The point of saying that is that when I am online the soft, vulnerable, feminine, wifely side of me gets protected a bit. It doesn't get put on display for everyone and anyone. It's a side I share with my husband. It doesn't mean I am masculine online but I'm not about to share all the deep desires and longings and such for submission and wifely duties with everyone at all times. There's a certain amount of intimacy in that. A woman longing for a good husband, for a family, there's a bit of the sacred involved. I think that's what catherineofsienna was getting at when she said normally you would have a father or brother who would protect you. In the absence of that you have to protect yourself. When I was single I still didn't talk that way to random men either. That does not mean change your desires to be a submissive Catholic wife, it just means don't advertise it so much. Try to keep yourself a bit more protected in what you display of yourself to a forum of mixed company.
PS I say this as someone who has taken part in conversations here that I regret. There have been things discussed that as a lady I would never ever discuss with men IRL. So trust me when I say we all have our embarrassing threads. You are not alone in that.
I am truly confused. I prefer to speak online in the same way I strive to elsewhere. I don't see why I have to censor my femininity. It isn't a matter of purposely putting traits out on display. It is simply showing who I am as a person. I am posting on public boards. I am not "talking to random men" any certain way. I am providing a viewpoint.
What I really don't understand is why so many are acting as though I have no identity other than submissive. I bring up submission when the context is fitting, and it is often a very general statement that should be true for all women, and not always specific to me personally. I would say I have shown many other things about who I am too. My personality, my sense of humor, and my interests/hobbies, my love of being a mother. These are all things I reveal about myself. These are characteristics I should be known by. I don't consider belief in the order of the family as a sign of anything other than understanding the why of it. I see it as a fundamental understanding of God's perfect design.
I try to be very thoughtful when I post about these things. I know I don't always articulate myself very well, and sometimes I really mess up...but I really don't know what I did here. I just don't see it, yet I feel embarrassed and ashamed.
-
Changing the subject to traditional women being magnets for abusers is definitely a sign of agitation.
Warning a sister that word choices may incite the wrong attention is not agitation. Calling every woman who holds a view different than yours might be considered agitation.
St Paul's use of the word tdnt in the scripture was interesting--it can mean awestruck instead of fear. How would one feel of the spouse was awestruck of her husband vs fear??
-
Warning a sister that word choices may incite the wrong attention is not agitation.
Sorry, but an innocent thread about how to dress around the house was turned with one post of catherineofsienna into a post about "alcoholics" who are drawn to "abusers" who are attracting "abusive" men - that's hysteria.
Calling every woman who holds a view different than yours might be considered agitation.
Depends on the difference of views.
St Paul's use of the word tdnt in the scripture was interesting--it can mean awestruck instead of fear. How would one feel of the spouse was awestruck of her husband vs fear??
Women should be afraid of offending their husbands.
-
There's no reasoning with woman worshippers. Ultimately the families of traditionalists will have to be defended with force against the socialist state and many "trads" will be on board with the new order.
REally? Wow
-
Warning a sister that word choices may incite the wrong attention is not agitation.
Sorry, but an innocent thread about how to dress around the house was turned with one post of catherineofsienna into a post about "alcoholics" who are drawn to "abusers" who are attracting "abusive" men - that's hysteria.
Calling every woman who holds a view different than yours might be considered agitation.
Depends on the difference of views.
St Paul's use of the word tdnt in the scripture was interesting--it can mean awestruck instead of fear. How would one feel of the spouse was awestruck of her husband vs fear??
Women should be afraid of offending their husbands.
Women should be afraid of ofending anyone--it is common decency. Men should do the same as well! I think you misunderstoodd the intent of Cof S's post, and mine, too.
-
I'm no fan of The Godfather but even the character Don Corleone didn't punish his daughter's husband for really being abusive.
What we have no is a situation where many "Trads" are on board with feminism and have a strong compulsion to engage in malignant bullying - the kind that justifies appealing to law enforcement over the merest slight - the kind that justifies lying, etc. They really are bereft a sensus Catholicus.
-
REally? Wow
The feminists and the secularists do not intend to permit traditionalism and homeschooling to continue. You're naive if you think they intend to let it go on indefinitely.
I have no doubt many "trads" will be on board with taking children away from Catholic families of "extremists." They will be fully on board with because they are not really Catholics and do not have Faith.
-
REally? Wow
The feminists and the secularists do not intend to permit traditionalism and homeschooling to continue. You're naive if you think they will let it go for much longer.
I have no doubt many "trads" will be on board with taking children away from Catholic families of "extremists." They will be fully on board with because they are not really Catholics and do not have Faith.
Recent events (--the whole Chik-fil-A support day comes to mind)--lead me to believe that Americans still value the freedoms we have, and are starting to stand behind those who express Christian views even contrary to their own. I have faith that those who choose homeschooling are allowed to continue...
As a former educator, I can tell you that most homeschooled kids were taught very well, but a few were totally neglected by their parents educationally. The biggest problem I saw was some homeschoolers were a bit too familiar with adults--i.e., acting like peers, and some are socially retarded due to isolationism. Not all, though, as some had group activities.
-
Recent events (--the whole Chik-fil-A support day comes to mind)--lead me to believe that Americans still value the freedoms we have, and are starting to stand behind those who express Christian views even contrary to their own.
I'm sorry but a bunch of people going to buy chicken sandwiches isn't going to change the future.
Even 10 years ago the idea that someone like the owner of Chick-Fil-A would face public scrutiny for being opposed to so-called "marriage" of ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs would have been unthinkable.
Things are getting worse very rapidly, and trads are being affected.
-
There can be a lot of middle road between feminist and fully traditional Catholic women
Feminism is either evil, or it is not.
I can't celebrate middle of the road, because I don't believe it is what the Lord wants. That is why I was inspired to begin conversion.
I am still incredibly confused as to how this thread went down the road it did. It was not my intent for that to happen.
-
Recent events (--the whole Chik-fil-A support day comes to mind)--lead me to believe that Americans still value the freedoms we have, and are starting to stand behind those who express Christian views even contrary to their own.
That's swell and dandy, but the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is inevitable at this point. Our freedoms are steadily slipping away. Yet, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and abortionists suddenly are gaining freedom.
I can tell you that most homeschooled kids were taught very well, but a few were totally neglected by their parents educationally. The biggest problem I saw was some homeschoolers were a bit too familiar with adults--i.e., acting like peers, and some are socially retarded due to isolationism.
Home-schooled children no doubt outperform the average brain-washed child who goes to a government school.
-
As a former educator, I can tell you that most homeschooled kids were taught very well, but a few were totally neglected by their parents educationally. The biggest problem I saw was some homeschoolers were a bit too familiar with adults--i.e., acting like peers, and some are socially retarded due to isolationism. Not all, though, as some had group activities.
Socially retarded? You mean not socialized to the standard of factory education?
I will be homeschooling if at all possible. I kind of want to isolate my child(ren).
-
As a former educator, I can tell you that most homeschooled kids were taught very well, but a few were totally neglected by their parents educationally. The biggest problem I saw was some homeschoolers were a bit too familiar with adults--i.e., acting like peers, and some are socially retarded due to isolationism. Not all, though, as some had group activities.
Socially retarded? You mean not socialized to the standard of factory education?
I will be homeschooling if at all possible. I kind of want to isolate my child(ren).
Well, I meant being socailly unable to adapt and cope...see, most homeschool parents return their children to high school-the worst place to start learning how to refute the evils of the world and disagree with those with whom they don't see eye to eye. Isolation is different than protection, imo
-
Recent events (--the whole Chik-fil-A support day comes to mind)--lead me to believe that Americans still value the freedoms we have, and are starting to stand behind those who express Christian views even contrary to their own.
That's swell and dandy, but the nєω ωσrℓ∂ σr∂єr is inevitable at this point. Our freedoms are steadily slipping away. Yet, ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs and abortionists suddenly are gaining freedom.
I can tell you that most homeschooled kids were taught very well, but a few were totally neglected by their parents educationally. The biggest problem I saw was some homeschoolers were a bit too familiar with adults--i.e., acting like peers, and some are socially retarded due to isolationism.
Home-schooled children no doubt outperform the average brain-washed child who goes to a government school.
Our freedoms are slipping away, agreed. but we still can turn it around--don't make light of the anger rippling through the country...
One of the most liberal schools I attended was Catholic in name, sadly.
But this country historically has challenged when freedoms are restricted too much--we will be back. It only takes a spark to get a fire going.
-
Trying this one again since I messed up the quoting. I am really feeling misunderstood.
About being at higher risk for abuse, c of s and Matthew make good points as well as Loriann. I know you think because you've seen it at a young age and lived it already, that drives you to avoid it now. While I believe that is a good start, the fact remains that you don't know what TO look for.
I think I have a pretty good idea what to look for.
-Devout Catholic
-Non-emasculated
-Strong leader
-Believes marriage is forever
-Believes the Lord plans the family
-Believes a mother should be at home with her children
-Loves me
That shouldn't be a cause for feeling depressed or anything but it should make you more wary of taking anonymous male advice from online. Submission is a loaded word and it's a delicate position to place yourself in. It's a vow made to one chosen person, it's not to be taken lightly. You place yourself in a very vulnerable position towards your husband not random internet goers or men in general, know what I mean?
Are you under the impression I am submitting my will to random internet goers? That sure seems to be insinuated over and over again.
The desire to be submitted to a good man is a good and naturally feminine desire, and I myself remember being emotionally unstable until I had that in my life, so I fully relate to you. Especially if you already have a child I can imagine it would be that much more sensitive. But it must to be reined in a bit until you find that one who will make it a reality. It cannot be offered randomly to just anyone because they happen to be male.
I think various people are concerned with how much you seem to crave such submission and it's manifesting itself in desiring mainly male approval. But as I said submission is something that is interpreted and practiced in daily life in a million different ways and not all of them are truly Catholic so although you would rather not, you must put that craving aside until you are actually getting married.
I do not submit to the male sex in general. Considering the kind of men I have typically found myself around (due to my work environments) that would be ridiculous. An adult woman is not required to submit to men who are not her husband, however I think there are ways to interact with trustworthy, honorable men that reflect the order in which God created us. I also think there are some situations when women should recognize the innate authority of manhood. Women cover their heads in church because women is the glory of man. Women do not wait to start covering until they have husbands. They cover always, because as a whole, they reflect man, and man reflects Chirst.
Society strives to equalize and make each sex more like the other. It seeks to feminize the man and bring masculine traits to the woman. This has blurred the lines so much that now the faithful have to reinterpret scripture to make it more palatable and politically correct. When women on the N.O. boards have to explain "wives submit to your husbands" to RCIA types, they will say that the quoted command MUST be kept in context with "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church." They say this as if their duty to submit can be dependent on how loved they feel at the moment.
Submission is a fixed necessity as long as what is being asked of a wife is not sinful. On the other hand, how loved someone feels is completely subjective. This is how modern "Catholic" wives manipulate scripture to make sure they never actually have to follow it. I don't want to be influenced by the sugar coaters who don't really believe they need to submit, but must figure out how to explain scripture that they don't like. This is why I can't grow as a Catholic, surrounded by those women.
There is some grain of truth in learning to be independent and happy alone while it is God's will for you.
I am as independent as I need to be out of absolute necessity. I have no desire to learn to be more independent. The idea that women can solve a problem by becoming more independent is nothing but an assertion of feminism, not God's will. I feel no desire to be a more independent woman. I tolerate my status because I have to. I don't seek to amplify it.
Even asking about nighties, it's a bit of an intimate question, no? Perhaps better reserved for other women? Do you need the men around to be thinking about and giving you advice on how to dress for bed? Not that you've asked them specifically I realize, but perhaps this is bringing up a need for a private section specifically for ladies and more private questions, I've thought about that before. Either that or you could PM a few ladies with such questions.
I feel kind of hurt that my original post is being manipulated. Maybe I should have been even more vague, but it was not my intent to ask intimate questions of men. I apologize if that is how it ended up being taken, but I really believed my OP was innocent.
Believe it or not, it is actually more female guidance that you need right now.
For some things, I would absolutely agree. I don't agree though, that modesty should only be asked of women. Men are usually the better judges for very obvious reasons. The conservation is helped along by both men and women because most men can't give fashion advice. They can only speak vaguely, though importantly.
For other things, it simply depends on the issue. Some things require advice from a woman. Other things are better helped with guidance from a man, and I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. There is no reason to exclude either for most types of questions, but as I've learned, women must be careful in how much they "instruct" others.
-
Trying this one again since I messed up the quoting. I am really feeling misunderstood.
About being at higher risk for abuse, c of s and Matthew make good points as well as Loriann. I know you think because you've seen it at a young age and lived it already, that drives you to avoid it now. While I believe that is a good start, the fact remains that you don't know what TO look for.
I think I have a pretty good idea what to look for.
-Devout Catholic
-Non-emasculated
-Strong leader
-Believes marriage is forever
-Believes the Lord plans the family
-Believes a mother should be at home with her children
-Loves me
All well and good but do you know how these ideals are applied in real life from day to day?
That shouldn't be a cause for feeling depressed or anything but it should make you more wary of taking anonymous male advice from online. Submission is a loaded word and it's a delicate position to place yourself in. It's a vow made to one chosen person, it's not to be taken lightly. You place yourself in a very vulnerable position towards your husband not random internet goers or men in general, know what I mean?
Are you under the impression I am submitting my will to random internet goers? That sure seems to be insinuated over and over again. Yes, that's the impression left when a person writes things like "I thought it was ideal to seek counsel from men" etc... It's a running theme that you would take the opinions offered here simply because they are men, whereas the response to women is quite different.
The desire to be submitted to a good man is a good and naturally feminine desire, and I myself remember being emotionally unstable until I had that in my life, so I fully relate to you. Especially if you already have a child I can imagine it would be that much more sensitive. But it must to be reined in a bit until you find that one who will make it a reality. It cannot be offered randomly to just anyone because they happen to be male.
I think various people are concerned with how much you seem to crave such submission and it's manifesting itself in desiring mainly male approval. But as I said submission is something that is interpreted and practiced in daily life in a million different ways and not all of them are truly Catholic so although you would rather not, you must put that craving aside until you are actually getting married.
I do not submit to the male sex in general. Considering the kind of men I have typically found myself around (due to my work environments) that would be ridiculous. An adult woman is not required to submit to men who are not her husband, however I think there are ways to interact with trustworthy, honorable men that reflect the order in which God created us. I also think there are some situations when women should recognize the innate authority of manhood. Women cover their heads in church because women is the glory of man. Women do not wait to start covering until they have husbands. They cover always, because as a whole, they reflect man, and man reflects Chirst.
Society strives to equalize and make each sex more like the other. It seeks to feminize the man and bring masculine traits to the woman. This has blurred the lines so much that now the faithful have to reinterpret scripture to make it more palatable and politically correct. When women on the N.O. boards have to explain "wives submit to your husbands" to RCIA types, they will say that the quoted command MUST be kept in context with "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church." They say this as if their duty to submit can be dependent on how loved they feel at the moment.
Submission is a fixed necessity as long as what is being asked of a wife is not sinful. On the other hand, how loved someone feels is completely subjective. This is how modern "Catholic" wives manipulate scripture to make sure they never actually have to follow it. I don't want to be influenced by the sugar coaters who don't really believe they need to submit, but must figure out how to explain scripture that they don't like. This is why I can't grow as a Catholic, surrounded by those women.
And? Is all this meant to imply that the women here are just sugar-coating feminists and that's why you prefer to interact with the men? Otherwise I don't really understand how it fits. I do find it confusing how one minute you are so new to tradition that you don't even know what pj's to wear and the next minute you are able to write so eloquently and in so much detail not only on traditional views of marriage but alledging departure from them by your fellow ladies here. Maybe that's where people are getting lost.
There is some grain of truth in learning to be independent and happy alone while it is God's will for you.
I am as independent as I need to be out of absolute necessity. I have no desire to learn to be more independent. The idea that women can solve a problem by becoming more independent is nothing but an assertion of feminism, not God's will. I feel no desire to be a more independent woman. I tolerate my status because I have to. I don't seek to amplify it.
Again this has nothing to do with feminism. Learning to be happy and striving for spiritual/emotional stability in the place God has given you at this moment is about giving oneself over to Providence. I'm not telling you that you don't need a man or even questioning your desire for one.
Even asking about nighties, it's a bit of an intimate question, no? Perhaps better reserved for other women? Do you need the men around to be thinking about and giving you advice on how to dress for bed? Not that you've asked them specifically I realize, but perhaps this is bringing up a need for a private section specifically for ladies and more private questions, I've thought about that before. Either that or you could PM a few ladies with such questions.
I feel kind of hurt that my original post is being manipulated. Maybe I should have been even more vague, but it was not my intent to ask intimate questions of men. I apologize if that is how it ended up being taken, but I really believed my OP was innocent.
This is not from your OP. You asked a question initially, several people responded and then you proceeded to ask specifically about night gowns and how they don't have proper coverage when nursing/co-sleeping, what would a strict husband find ugly etc...
Believe it or not, it is actually more female guidance that you need right now.
For some things, I would absolutely agree. I don't agree though, that modesty should only be asked of women. Men are usually the better judges for very obvious reasons. The conservation is helped along by both men and women because most men can't give fashion advice. They can only speak vaguely, though importantly.
For other things, it simply depends on the issue. Some things require advice from a woman. Other things are better helped with guidance from a man, and I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. There is no reason to exclude either for most types of questions, but as I've learned, women must be careful in how much they "instruct" others.
I do not understand, again, what you are insinuating in the last line. Saying that and putting "instruct" in quotation marks just seems to confirm what you've spent so much time trying to deny.
-
I've said my piece with PW & wasn't going to post again, but Wallflower you did a masterful job in your last post!! EXACTLY how I feel too! If PW is confused so are the rest of us (or at least me) by her by her posts against 'those' women. This is a real conundrum for me. I don't know if I'm among the feminists in her & Tele's minds but those who know me would die laughing at the label.
And catherineofsiena's post is hysterical feminism according to Tele is really hysterical - & I don't know catherine but her post was well reasoned & thoughtful.
-
There can be a lot of middle road between feminist and fully traditional Catholic women
Feminism is either evil, or it is not.
I can't celebrate middle of the road, because I don't believe it is what the Lord wants. That is why I was inspired to begin conversion.
I am still incredibly confused as to how this thread went down the road it did. It was not my intent for that to happen.
Feminism is evil or it is not... I don't see it as an absolute. It is not like murder, or adultery...what is feminism? I am wondering. I am called a conservative stick in the mud for the most part, a holy roller, in the real world, and here some have implied I am a feminist. It gives me a great laugh.
I have advanced degrees in church history and biblical translation. I read much of what the norm was with Jesus, his family, and his day. I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
-
Trying this one again since I messed up the quoting. I am really feeling misunderstood.
About being at higher risk for abuse, c of s and Matthew make good points as well as Loriann. I know you think because you've seen it at a young age and lived it already, that drives you to avoid it now. While I believe that is a good start, the fact remains that you don't know what TO look for.
I think I have a pretty good idea what to look for.
-Devout Catholic
-Non-emasculated
-Strong leader
-Believes marriage is forever
-Believes the Lord plans the family
-Believes a mother should be at home with her children
-Loves me
All well and good but do you know how these ideals are applied in real life from day to day?
That shouldn't be a cause for feeling depressed or anything but it should make you more wary of taking anonymous male advice from online. Submission is a loaded word and it's a delicate position to place yourself in. It's a vow made to one chosen person, it's not to be taken lightly. You place yourself in a very vulnerable position towards your husband not random internet goers or men in general, know what I mean?
Are you under the impression I am submitting my will to random internet goers? That sure seems to be insinuated over and over again. Yes, that's the impression left when a person writes things like "I thought it was ideal to seek counsel from men" etc... It's a running theme that you would take the opinions offered here simply because they are men, whereas the response to women is quite different.
This really isn't true. I feel as though you are twisting what I have said. Interestingly enough, I privately asked the opinion of one of the non-feminist females here about something I was considering (not having to do with clothing or anything like that) and what to do you know...she offered up that I run it by one of stronger males here that she knew I could trust. I thought that was really admirable of her, and it made a lot of sense.
The desire to be submitted to a good man is a good and naturally feminine desire, and I myself remember being emotionally unstable until I had that in my life, so I fully relate to you. Especially if you already have a child I can imagine it would be that much more sensitive. But it must to be reined in a bit until you find that one who will make it a reality. It cannot be offered randomly to just anyone because they happen to be male.
I think various people are concerned with how much you seem to crave such submission and it's manifesting itself in desiring mainly male approval. But as I said submission is something that is interpreted and practiced in daily life in a million different ways and not all of them are truly Catholic so although you would rather not, you must put that craving aside until you are actually getting married.
I do not submit to the male sex in general. Considering the kind of men I have typically found myself around (due to my work environments) that would be ridiculous. An adult woman is not required to submit to men who are not her husband, however I think there are ways to interact with trustworthy, honorable men that reflect the order in which God created us. I also think there are some situations when women should recognize the innate authority of manhood. Women cover their heads in church because women is the glory of man. Women do not wait to start covering until they have husbands. They cover always, because as a whole, they reflect man, and man reflects Chirst.
Society strives to equalize and make each sex more like the other. It seeks to feminize the man and bring masculine traits to the woman. This has blurred the lines so much that now the faithful have to reinterpret scripture to make it more palatable and politically correct. When women on the N.O. boards have to explain "wives submit to your husbands" to RCIA types, they will say that the quoted command MUST be kept in context with "Husbands love your wives as Christ loves the church." They say this as if their duty to submit can be dependent on how loved they feel at the moment.
Submission is a fixed necessity as long as what is being asked of a wife is not sinful. On the other hand, how loved someone feels is completely subjective. This is how modern "Catholic" wives manipulate scripture to make sure they never actually have to follow it. I don't want to be influenced by the sugar coaters who don't really believe they need to submit, but must figure out how to explain scripture that they don't like. This is why I can't grow as a Catholic, surrounded by those women.
And? Is all this meant to imply that the women here are just sugar-coating feminists and that's why you prefer to interact with the men? Otherwise I don't really understand how it fits. I do find it confusing how one minute you are so new to tradition that you don't even know what pj's to wear and the next minute you are able to write so eloquently and in so much detail not only on traditional views of marriage but alledging departure from them by your fellow ladies here. Maybe that's where people are getting lost.
Right here you are basically just making fun of me. I asked if I should worry about modesty when I am home alone. You are twisting it into something else, which is very hurtful. I wasn't alleging departure of anyone either. I'm just sensing a little bit of disdain wrapped into some of the advisory comments. I take all the concerns to heart, but when the advice is given to me publicly, and it seems to implicate others as being predatory, I can't help but wonder what the real motivation is. If it is genuine worry for me, I am very sorry for thinking otherwise. I'm just not so sure.
There is some grain of truth in learning to be independent and happy alone while it is God's will for you.
I am as independent as I need to be out of absolute necessity. I have no desire to learn to be more independent. The idea that women can solve a problem by becoming more independent is nothing but an assertion of feminism, not God's will. I feel no desire to be a more independent woman. I tolerate my status because I have to. I don't seek to amplify it.
Again this has nothing to do with feminism. Learning to be happy and striving for spiritual/emotional stability in the place God has given you at this moment is about giving oneself over to Providence. I'm not telling you that you don't need a man or even questioning your desire for one.
I think it does have to do with feminism. The church used to promote hasty marriage for unwed mothers. Probably because they knew the mother would carry enough shame to truly repent. Now, because the worldly stigma has been lessened, women are generally less concerned about correcting their situations, and repentance and conversion is less of a sure thing, so fewer men are willing to take on the risk that comes with covering the shame of unwed mother. As a result, independence is promoted for said mothers. This propagates the "I don't need a man" mentality. If that isn't feminism, I'm not sure what is. I have said from the moment of my abandonment that I need a man. I've been shamed and taunted for that elsewhere. Even here it doesn't go over well with everyone. Every mother needs a husband, and every child a father. There is no point in trying to convince myself that my daughter isn't losing out big time because of my past stupidity. We are surviving, but certainly not thriving. The Lord did not design things to be this way. I went outside of the design of preserving purity for marriage. Because of that grave error, I have to continue to live outside of the design of how things should be.
Even asking about nighties, it's a bit of an intimate question, no? Perhaps better reserved for other women? Do you need the men around to be thinking about and giving you advice on how to dress for bed? Not that you've asked them specifically I realize, but perhaps this is bringing up a need for a private section specifically for ladies and more private questions, I've thought about that before. Either that or you could PM a few ladies with such questions.
I feel kind of hurt that my original post is being manipulated. Maybe I should have been even more vague, but it was not my intent to ask intimate questions of men. I apologize if that is how it ended up being taken, but I really believed my OP was innocent.
This is not from your OP. You asked a question initially, several people responded and then you proceeded to ask specifically about night gowns and how they don't have proper coverage when nursing/co-sleeping, what would a strict husband find ugly etc...
I made a mistake. I am unfortunately highly desensitized to certain topics of conversations. It makes me unintentionally too forward and I'm working on that. I have grown up and lived around vulgar conversations and interactions between men and women. Compared to most young women with the same background, I'm considered prudish and uptight. Modern young women are disgustingly crass. My exposure to that is a far cry from what most of you have experienced. I'm trying to repair the damage, but you don't have to make fun of me for it. I feel plenty embarrassed.
Believe it or not, it is actually more female guidance that you need right now.
For some things, I would absolutely agree. I don't agree though, that modesty should only be asked of women. Men are usually the better judges for very obvious reasons. The conservation is helped along by both men and women because most men can't give fashion advice. They can only speak vaguely, though importantly.
For other things, it simply depends on the issue. Some things require advice from a woman. Other things are better helped with guidance from a man, and I know I'm not the only person who feels this way. There is no reason to exclude either for most types of questions, but as I've learned, women must be careful in how much they "instruct" others.
I do not understand, again, what you are insinuating in the last line. Saying that and putting "instruct" in quotation marks just seems to confirm what you've spent so much time trying to deny.
My point was that women yapping back and forth online can unintentionally turn into an exchange of feminist jargon...like equating agreement with submission with being a magnet for abuse. The biggest risk is that these conversations almost always lead to at least some level of male bashing, both direct and indirect. Attempting to discredit/undermine male posters comes across as rather disrespectful, and unfortunately what might be truly good advice feels disingenuous. When the feminist undertones show up, I became very wary, and unfortunately defensive.
All of this just speaks to an unmistakable and painful pattern that has colored my entire life. I say things that some women don't want to hear their fellow female say. I'm seen as a bit of a traitor, I guess.
This is why my own mother is woefully disappointed in how I've turned out. I've pretty much always been a disappointment to her, but in the past few days she has really made it evident to me just how repulsive I am to her.
This is also why my lifelong best friend has decided it is okay to make fun of me now, and make fun of the type of husband I want. I thought that it was just because she is a proud modernist that she accuses me of seeking out an abusive relationship, but now her feelings are being echoed among traditional Catholics, which is a tad bit frightening.
I must say, if the goal of the world is to weaken my resolve, it sure feels to be working at the moment. I think I am far more vulnerable to that than to getting involved with abusive men.
-
Feminism is evil or it is not... I don't see it as an absolute. It is not like murder, or adultery...what is feminism? I am wondering. I am called a conservative stick in the mud for the most part, a holy roller, in the real world, and here some have implied I am a feminist. It gives me a great laugh.
I have advanced degrees in church history and biblical translation. I read much of what the norm was with Jesus, his family, and his day. I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Feminism is evil and is condemned by the Church. Feminists are everywhere, even in the (neo)Trad world.
And are you implying that Jesus and His family would do things that would seem feminstic?
-
PenitentWoman, don't let the somewhat negative comments from people such was wallflower and Thorn discourage you. You're very blessed to know the dangers of feminsm, you have a good head on your shoulders.
Wallflower and Thorn are trying to imply that you're scrupulous in certain areas of modesty. I wouldn't pay any attention to such absurdity, you're not being scrupulous. You're being reasonable.
-
PW - you asked a question & now the ones who offered advice are 'women yapping back & forth on the internet'!!???? How disrepectful can a person get?
PS: When the church 'urged' marriage for unwed mothers it was to the father of the child & not some unknown future man.
Don't worry - you won't have me 'yapping' at you any more. I'll leave you to your man hunt. Best of luck. btw I never implied anything to you. I simply laid it out. I never mentioned or thought of scruples, but now I see that perhaps scruples does play a part.
-
Indeed Pax Romanum, what concord hath Christ with Belial, as it is written in Holy Scripture. If feminism isn't a work of satan I don't know what is. To say that there can be a middle road between feminism & Catholicism is like saying that there can be a middle road between тαℓмυdism & Catholicism, or communism & Catholicism, that one can be devoted to Our Lady, & also to Joseph Stalin.
-
Thorn, you misunderstood what I meant. I asked a question about clothing. The answers I received created a good and interesting conversation.
My yapping comment was referring to the back and forth incited after the topic took a drastic turn. I include myself as one of those going back and forth. My point was that these conversations can easily take on an unladylike tone. I don't want to raise anyone's blood pressure.
Please forgive me if I came across as rude.
SS- Thank you for your supportive and understanding posts.
I'm feeling rather discouraged with myself, once again. When feelings start getting hurt and the tone goes negative and assumptions of abuse are being aimed at other posters on my behalf, I start to realize I'm not bringing anyone towards Christ with my presence.
-
Feminism is evil or it is not... I don't see it as an absolute. It is not like murder, or adultery...what is feminism? I am wondering. I am called a conservative stick in the mud for the most part, a holy roller, in the real world, and here some have implied I am a feminist. It gives me a great laugh.
Oh yes it is too like murder or adultery. Oh wait, it IS murder and adultery.
It's straight out of Hell. Elaine Pagels' rubbish is from Hell.
-
Feminism is evil or it is not... I don't see it as an absolute. It is not like murder, or adultery...what is feminism? I am wondering. I am called a conservative stick in the mud for the most part, a holy roller, in the real world, and here some have implied I am a feminist. It gives me a great laugh.
I have advanced degrees in church history and biblical translation. I read much of what the norm was with Jesus, his family, and his day. I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Feminism is evil and is condemned by the Church. Feminists are everywhere, even in the (neo)Trad world.
And are you implying that Jesus and His family would do things that would seem feminstic?
I am not being facetious--What is feminism, and can you steer me to some church doctrine on its definition and why it is evil?
As for Jesus--he treated women very well by the standards of the day. I would steer you to the Magdalene and Woman at the Well scriptures. Paul was not known for such communication. Perhaps he learned it from his HEavenly and Earthly father, but his compassion for women was quite uncharacteristic of the day. Joseph's treatment of the Blessed Mother was also VERY MUCH against the norm and law, even before the Angel talked to him.
-
There can be a lot of middle road between feminist and fully traditional Catholic women...
There is no middle road between good and evil, truth and untruth, darkness and light...
If you read my examples I agreed with that by saying murder has no gray area (or is it justified in self-defense...?) What makes a feminist, and what makes it evil--I am asking this in honest questioning. As I also said I am usually accused of being an huber-conservative, holy roller, Catholic, so to be called feminist is kind of interesting so I want to know what it means to a Trad. Catholic.
-
Is it feminist to go to college?
Is it feminist to work?
Is it feminist to garden?
What is it??Posts have implied these are feminist behaviors.
That is the middle road I was referring to, ans some posts have said these are feminist traits?
There is a big gap between these three things and let's say participating in the culture of death...or dressing with body parts falling out...That is how I percieve the middle road. To equate the first examples with these makes my head shake.
-
I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Before anyone starts discussing the evil of feminism, you need to explain what you mean by this remark. If you are the type to diminish Scriptural and Church authority, and instead prefer what you’ve learned in your advanced historical studies, any attempt for us to discuss this issue will be fruitless.
-
Elizabeth - Please excuse my ignorance, but who's Elaine Pagels & how does she figure in here?
Maybe someone can clue us in here too & make a list of 'what exactly is feminism'. I've been called a few names in my day but never feminist or unladylike. I'd like to know how they perceive me as a feminist.
-
PenitentWoman I think when you are feeling less defensive you need to reread the posts and what was actually said to you, rather than what you insist on believing was said.
Every one was said with your protection in mind. The protection of young women, or all women really, is a basic in traditional Catholic circles.
If you would prefer to play psychological hoops to turn it into some feminist witchhunt, that's fine. But don't pretend it is traditional for a woman to be without priest, without father, mother, brother or without fellow peers and mentors to guide her and that she should instead appeal to a bunch of men who are essentially strangers on the internet.
All this thread has done is highlight that catherine and Matthew were right in their initial assessments that you need to find a stable source of protection. If it isn't available in your family and friends and you don't want to hear from ladies here, then the priest would be the best option for you (and here we are back to catherine's initial post)
-
Loriann, the Church condemns the woman working outside the home. That is the basis of the feminist movement, the woman wanting power and to put herself on an equal level with men. Here is what Pope Pius XI said about the woman working outside the home:
Communism is particularly characterized by the rejection of any link that binds the woman to the family and the home, and her emancipation is proclaimed as a basic principle.- Pope Pius XI
-
Is it feminist to go to college?
Is it feminist to work?
Is it feminist to garden?
It's not feminist to garden, but the first two can certainly be feministic under certain circuмstances.
A married woman is never to work outside the home unless she is forced to do so, such as if her husband becomes unable to work.
Going to college is not necessary for women who intend to marry, because a degree is meant for people who intend to work. Even a woman who intended to remain single could find a job without a degree. I personally think universities are nothing but liberal cesspools, and Bishop Williamson thinks the same.
-
The fact that I was thumbed down for quoting a pre-Vatican II Pope shows that there are some feminists on this forum. Only a liberal feminist would thumb that down.
-
Feminism begins when we put ourselves first before God the Father, and deprive Him of the submission to His will. It is an unclean spirit of refusal to co-operate with God's grace. It deprives countless souls of the graces they need to get to Heaven. It is a gigantic hoax to pave the way for the Antichrist.
It is a spiritual situation and the rotten fruits are everywhere worse than cancer.
-
. I would steer you to the Magdalene and Woman at the Well scriptures. .
No thank you. A traditional Catholic religious will steer me to the correct interpretation of the Bible.
-
I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Before anyone starts discussing the evil of feminism, you need to explain what you mean by this remark. If you are the type to diminish Scriptural and Church authority, and instead prefer what you’ve learned in your advanced historical studies, any attempt for us to discuss this issue will be fruitless.
Mentioning the studies was foolish--I can see it seemed braggardly, though that was not the intent. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus's treatment of Mary Magdalene defied the conventional stoning. Compassion.
Jesus conversation with the woman at the well broke conventional behavior--he spoke to her. And was kind as well.
Jesus' good Samaritan even broke the law in his parable--why? Compassion
St Joseph's behavior to the Blessed Mother defied the moral law of the time even before the angel reassured him. I have used the scriptural studies to defend our traditions and our church. Jesus was a far more compassionate being than what we seem to be in this age.
I wish to know what feminism is because I have the secular definition, but feel I am missing something regarding its context here. I am not trying to make trouble, just understand, and I have been nothing but respectful to our church and its followers.
-
. I would steer you to the Magdalene and Woman at the Well scriptures. .
No thank you. A traditional Catholic religious will steer me to the correct interpretation of the Bible.
I believe the interpretation of the Bible was that MAry Magdalene was to be stoned to death as required by law of adulterers and prostitutes. I believe Jesus stopped that with the line Let he who is without sin among you cast the first stone....How is that not the proper interpretation? Jesus defied the law to show compassion and do whatwhat was right. He also told us to leave the judging to the Just Judge.
-
I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Before anyone starts discussing the evil of feminism, you need to explain what you mean by this remark. If you are the type to diminish Scriptural and Church authority, and instead prefer what you’ve learned in your advanced historical studies, any attempt for us to discuss this issue will be fruitless.
Mentioning the studies was foolish--I can see it seemed braggardly, though that was not the intent. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus's treatment of Mary Magdalene defied the conventional stoning. Compassion.
Jesus conversation with the woman at the well broke conventional behavior--he spoke to her. And was kind as well.
Jesus' good Samaritan even broke the law in his parable--why? Compassion
St Joseph's behavior to the Blessed Mother defied the moral law of the time even before the angel reassured him. I have used the scriptural studies to defend our traditions and our church. Jesus was a far more compassionate being than what we seem to be in this age.
I wish to know what feminism is because I have the secular definition, but feel I am missing something regarding its context here. I am not trying to make trouble, just understand, and I have been nothing but respectful to our church and its followers.
We'll get to that soon. Now what did you mean by Jesus's ways versus those of Paul? Versus means against, as opposed to. Do you mean to say that Paul's ways were not Christ's, that Paul's teaching was not Christ's? Surely not.
-
I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Before anyone starts discussing the evil of feminism, you need to explain what you mean by this remark. If you are the type to diminish Scriptural and Church authority, and instead prefer what you’ve learned in your advanced historical studies, any attempt for us to discuss this issue will be fruitless.
Mentioning the studies was foolish--I can see it seemed braggardly, though that was not the intent. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus's treatment of Mary Magdalene defied the conventional stoning. Compassion.
Jesus conversation with the woman at the well broke conventional behavior--he spoke to her. And was kind as well.
Jesus' good Samaritan even broke the law in his parable--why? Compassion
St Joseph's behavior to the Blessed Mother defied the moral law of the time even before the angel reassured him. I have used the scriptural studies to defend our traditions and our church. Jesus was a far more compassionate being than what we seem to be in this age.
I wish to know what feminism is because I have the secular definition, but feel I am missing something regarding its context here. I am not trying to make trouble, just understand, and I have been nothing but respectful to our church and its followers.
We'll get to that soon. Now what did you mean by Jesus's ways versus those of Paul? Versus means against, as opposed to. Do you mean to say that Paul's ways were not Christ's, that Paul's teaching was not Christ's? Surely not.
I meant that Paul followed tradition quite specifically, and was one to execute the law to the letter, more black and white than Jesus
-
I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Before anyone starts discussing the evil of feminism, you need to explain what you mean by this remark. If you are the type to diminish Scriptural and Church authority, and instead prefer what you’ve learned in your advanced historical studies, any attempt for us to discuss this issue will be fruitless.
Mentioning the studies was foolish--I can see it seemed braggardly, though that was not the intent. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus's treatment of Mary Magdalene defied the conventional stoning. Compassion.
Jesus conversation with the woman at the well broke conventional behavior--he spoke to her. And was kind as well.
Jesus' good Samaritan even broke the law in his parable--why? Compassion
St Joseph's behavior to the Blessed Mother defied the moral law of the time even before the angel reassured him. I have used the scriptural studies to defend our traditions and our church. Jesus was a far more compassionate being than what we seem to be in this age.
I wish to know what feminism is because I have the secular definition, but feel I am missing something regarding its context here. I am not trying to make trouble, just understand, and I have been nothing but respectful to our church and its followers.
We'll get to that soon. Now what did you mean by Jesus's ways versus those of Paul? Versus means against, as opposed to. Do you mean to say that Paul's ways were not Christ's, that Paul's teaching was not Christ's? Surely not.
I meant that Paul followed tradition quite specifically, and was one to execute the law to the letter.
In other words, you mean that St. Paul - who lived, not him, but Christ in him - along with his teachings included in Sacred Scripture, are somewhat deficient as a model of Christian behaviour? Especially as regards relations between the sexes?
-
LoriAnn --
With the line of reasoning you're putting forward, I could stand here and defend breaking the law.
See? Our Lord went against the laws and law-givers of the time, the Pharisees. He dined with publicans, he allowed his followers to snack on corn on the Sabbath, was against the official punishment (stoning) of a woman guilty of adultery, etc.
I think you're not qualified to expound the Gospel to us. You have not had seminary training, nor are you a Deacon or higher who has the graces of state to preach the Gospel.
Women shouldn't be biblical scholars, period. St. Paul: "Let women be silent in church. If they wish to know anything, let them ask their husbands at home."
It helps them to know the Faith, because they are the ones that will teach it to their children. But women weren't designed for higher studies -- the classic definition of University. Not modern college, which is basically trade school and suited for everyone, even those with average intelligence. Modern college doesn't challenge a person like Universities of old used to. And yes, Universities in the classic sense are the abode of men. Women were not created for University education. They are fundamentally wired differently than men; they focus more on particulars and persons than abstract concepts and pure reason. They are stronger in intuition (which is inherently vague and in-exact) and emotion than pure reason.
Which makes sense, as God created men and women for very different things.
Feminism is all around us today. Even "staunch, anti-feminists" like Graham, Telesphorus, and yes I'd like to include MYSELF -- would not give a reading "0%" if a Feminism-O-Meter were held to us.
I think you'd be surprised how much Feminism you've soaked up in your years, just growing up in America. Especially if you're part of the Baby Boom generation, but it's not just that generation.
-
I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
Before anyone starts discussing the evil of feminism, you need to explain what you mean by this remark. If you are the type to diminish Scriptural and Church authority, and instead prefer what you’ve learned in your advanced historical studies, any attempt for us to discuss this issue will be fruitless.
Mentioning the studies was foolish--I can see it seemed braggardly, though that was not the intent. As I mentioned in another post, Jesus's treatment of Mary Magdalene defied the conventional stoning. Compassion.
Jesus conversation with the woman at the well broke conventional behavior--he spoke to her. And was kind as well.
Jesus' good Samaritan even broke the law in his parable--why? Compassion
St Joseph's behavior to the Blessed Mother defied the moral law of the time even before the angel reassured him. I have used the scriptural studies to defend our traditions and our church. Jesus was a far more compassionate being than what we seem to be in this age.
I wish to know what feminism is because I have the secular definition, but feel I am missing something regarding its context here. I am not trying to make trouble, just understand, and I have been nothing but respectful to our church and its followers.
We'll get to that soon. Now what did you mean by Jesus's ways versus those of Paul? Versus means against, as opposed to. Do you mean to say that Paul's ways were not Christ's, that Paul's teaching was not Christ's? Surely not.
I meant that Paul followed tradition quite specifically, and was one to execute the law to the letter.
In other words, you mean that St. Paul - who lived, not him, but Christ in him - along with his teachings included in Sacred Scripture, are somewhat deficient as a model of Christian behaviour? Especially as regards relations between the sexes?
Whoa Nelly--No I said nothing about deficient. The word versus was not chosen to reflect a conflict.
-
Feminism is nothing more than the application of the Marxian principle of class warfare to the relations between the sexes. (this is proper English, gender is a grammatical concept, such as the masculine, feminine & neutral genders in the Latin, German & Russian languages, amongst others)
As others have written, modern colleges & universities are nothing more than dens of iniquity, to send a young woman into such moral contagion, & then to expect her to emerge unscathed is just as nonsensical as injecting someone with plague bacilli & expecting them not to contract the plague, or throwing them into a pit full of snakes & expecting them not to be bitten. The same with going out to work.
The serpent chose to tempt Eve rather than Adam first for a reason, which is that women are generally more easily induced to assent to sin than men. How many marriages have been broken up because the woman met some fellow at work, whom she perceived as offering more excitement &c., than old Jim back at home, & therefore she felt it best to run off to be Burt's concubine.
The support for feminism noted by Telesphorus, Spiritus Sanctus & others, is I think partially due to the emotional & irrational nature of most women. They prefer feeling over thinking, whenever they do think, it is most often highly coloured by their current emotional state. This is why it's so often pointless to attempt engaging them by dialectic, they're simply not up to it, & don't want to be up to it. By far the greater part of modern women, the more feminist they are, the more the following is true, can not or will not rise above the level of men bad, women good, like the sheep in Animal Farm that so loved to bleat "four legs good, two legs bad".
They want everyone to agree, preferably with them, but at any rate they don't want dissension, & an insistence upon knowing & adhering to the truth about things, as this disturbs their emotional state. They do not feel warm & fuzzy, & as far as they're concerned, that is absolutely insupportable. They would rather have everybody arrive at some consensus, & go about carrying out the commonplace duties of this temporal life, no matter if the arrived at consensus denies the truth here & there.
Let me add here that the above is meant in the general & not in the particular, that is another commonly feminine fault; to subjectivise everything, to object to some statement with something along the lines of "but Susie went to college & came out all right!" That may well be, but we aren't talking about little Susie in particular, but rather about the situation in general.
-
I've just now seen Matthew's post above, spot on Matthew, this is pretty much what I was trying to say, the irrationality of so many women is well demonstrated by so many of them loudly proclaiming themselves "liberated" by feminism, even as they are forced to work like a slave just to survive, which wouldn't generally have been the case in earlier less "enlightened" ages.
-
LoriAnn --
With the line of reasoning you're putting forward, I could stand here and defend breaking the law.
See? Our Lord went against the laws and law-givers of the time, the Pharisees. He dined with publicans, he allowed his followers to snack on corn on the Sabbath, was against the official punishment (stoning) of a woman guilty of adultery, etc.
I think you're not qualified to expound the Gospel to us. You have not had seminary training, nor are you a Deacon or higher who has the graces of state to preach the Gospel.
Women shouldn't be biblical scholars, period. St. Paul: "Let women be silent in church. If they wish to know anything, let them ask their husbands at home."
It helps them to know the Faith, because they are the ones that will teach it to their children. But women weren't designed for higher studies -- the classic definition of University. Not modern college, which is basically trade school and suited for everyone, even those with average intelligence. Modern college doesn't challenge a person like Universities of old used to. And yes, Universities in the classic sense are the abode of men. Women were not created for University education. They are fundamentally wired differently than men; they focus more on particulars and persons than abstract concepts and pure reason. They are stronger in intuition (which is inherently vague and in-exact) and emotion than pure reason.
Which makes sense, as God created men and women for very different things.
Feminism is all around us today. Even "staunch, anti-feminists" like Graham, Telesphorus, and yes I'd like to include MYSELF -- would not give a reading "0%" if a Feminism-O-Meter were held to us.
I think you'd be surprised how much Feminism you've soaked up in your years, just growing up in America. Especially if you're part of the Baby Boom generation, but it's not just that generation.
Matthew--With all due respect --are all of the other "scholars" who debate the gospels here ones who have studied or are they just smarter by nature of their sex? I find it humorous that your example of St Pauls women should ask their husbands--illustrates the difference between Jesus and him that I was trying to reflect--Jesus tried to explain to the woman at the well --and the crowds...where Paul said ask your husband.
And yes, If my government told me I had to commit an abortion by law--I would defy law which compelled me to sin, thereby following the example put forth by my Lord and Savior--context is important. Women are not children. They are different then men, they are mothers and not priests, they are also creatures of God. St Paul let women preach the Gospel, too. Maybe they knew more back then than we do today.
And yes, I am a middle aged woman, married 31 years in December, a devout CAtholic and received my MDIVs at CAtholic institutions, so I must be a bit liberal in that respect. But am I a feminist? I dont know, no one will define it in this context. God bless and keep you all.
-
Hey good post Matthew, especially about the baby boomer generation. :applause:
That generation, along with the "Greatest Generation" really got us into the mess we are in today. :shocked:
Feminism definitely comes from Marxism, read my post over at the "Resistance Movement" forum about "Feminism's Marxist Roots." And you're right I'm against "altar girls," women clergy, women in combat, women boxing, etc. because it destroys a man's role in society. Men are to be leaders in the secular world and clerical world.
-
This attempted juxtaposition, on Lorianne's part, of Our Blessed Lord's & St. Paul's characters has a very bad savour. St. Paul, being one of the greatest of the Saints, necessarily by virtue of this fact, imitated Our Lord as perfectly as it is possible for a human being to do.
-
Yes, well said Matthew. :applause:
-
This attempted juxtaposition, on Lorianne's part, of Our Blessed Lord's & St. Paul's characters has a very bad savour. St. Paul, being one of the greatest of the Saints, necessarily by virtue of this fact, imitated Our Lord as perfectly as it is possible for a human being to do.
Didn't you hear? Nowadays St. Paul is supposedly a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who tried to get people to accept an "unnatural view" about celibacy and he also hated women. :rolleyes:
-
Looking at the active users list, it would appear that catherineofsiena is the one who is thumbing us down. I had really hoped she was not a feminist, but I'm sorry that is not the case. Of course, she has made it rather obvious the past few weeks anyway.
-
Yes Traditional Guy, I suppose I need to "get with the times" & stop being such a horrible reactionary, we all do, according to them anyhow. The leftists, socialists &c., have reached a new low with all of this glorification of sodomites. Even Stalin, evil tho' he was, never tolerated it.
-
Yes Traditional Guy, I suppose I need to "get with the times" & stop being such a horrible reactionary, we all do, according to them anyhow. The leftists, socialists &c., have reached a new low with all of this glorification of sodomites. Even Stalin, evil tho' he was, never tolerated it.
Yes but Stalin accepted a more 'national' view to Communism while the neoconservatives and Franfurtian Marxists believe in a worldwide overturning of values to shape societies in their image. ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity is a disease that has brought down every society from Weimar Germany to Rome.
Isn't it funny how the Left accuses the Right of controlling everything, even though leftists are even in our midst in the 'conservative' camp?
-
Looking at the active users list, it would appear that catherineofsiena is the one who is thumbing us down. I had really hoped she was not a feminist, but I'm sorry that is not the case. Of course, she has made it rather obvious the past few weeks anyway.
I've been in the kitchen and did not log out.
To be honest, I don't really read your postings anymore. Once I see the paranoid rantings and woman hating drivel from the gang I pass right on by. But, let's finish this once and for all. I'm going to take my priest's advice (well, part of it) and put you and the other boys on ignore. The hatred that emanates from all of you is an occasion of sin and definitely not productive for the spiritual life. I don't see what any of you have to offer a woman except misery.
Do me a favor and put me on ignore as well. We wouldn't give each other the time of day in real life so let's make if official. The cyber air will be cleaner.
-
Looking at the active users list, it would appear that catherineofsiena is the one who is thumbing us down. I had really hoped she was not a feminist, but I'm sorry that is not the case. Of course, she has made it rather obvious the past few weeks anyway.
I've been in the kitchen and did not log out.
To be honest, I don't really read your postings anymore. Once I see the paranoid rantings and woman hating drivel from the gang I pass right on by. But, let's finish this once and for all. I'm going to take my priest's advice (well, part of it) and put you and the other boys on ignore. The hatred that emanates from all of you is an occasion of sin and definitely not productive for the spiritual life. I don't see what any of you have to offer a woman except misery.
Do me a favor and put me on ignore as well. We wouldn't give each other the time of day in real life so let's make if official. The cyber air will be cleaner.
Hahahaha, have you ever considered what might be motivating you to post all these warnings to PW?
-
I don't mean to get into a long rant here on a historical subject but I feel I must explain what I mean.
Basically Lenin and Stalin came to believe in the Soviet state as the vanguard of the revolution while Trotsky came to believe in a permanent revolution of communism. Of course the two camps split off with our neoconservatives coming from the Trotskyite camp and from the Jacobin camp, believing in a permanent revolution of democracy to change the world's values. About the same time a new branch of Marxism was created called "cultural Marxism" in which these Marxists believed in changing values that would get Western society to more easily accept Marxism. You can see the similarity between the two camps.
Ironically Lenin and Stalin were proven wrong while it seems cultural Marxism and neoconservatism has held out the longest.
-
Hahahaha, have you ever considered what might be motivating you to post all these warnings to PW?
She must be talking to an effeminate, sodomite priest or a Vatican II priest to get a warning about us patriarchal males and to ignore us. :laugh1:
-
Looking at the active users list, it would appear that catherineofsiena is the one who is thumbing us down. I had really hoped she was not a feminist, but I'm sorry that is not the case. Of course, she has made it rather obvious the past few weeks anyway.
I've been in the kitchen and did not log out.
To be honest, I don't really read your postings anymore. Once I see the paranoid rantings and woman hating drivel from the gang I pass right on by. But, let's finish this once and for all. I'm going to take my priest's advice (well, part of it) and put you and the other boys on ignore. The hatred that emanates from all of you is an occasion of sin and definitely not productive for the spiritual life. I don't see what any of you have to offer a woman except misery.
Do me a favor and put me on ignore as well. We wouldn't give each other the time of day in real life so let's make if official. The cyber air will be cleaner.
Hahahaha, have you ever considered what might be motivating you to post all these warnings to PW?
Your psychopathology.
-
Hahahaha, have you ever considered what might be motivating you to post all these warnings to PW?
She must be talking to an effeminate, sodomite priest or a Vatican II priest to get a warning about us patriarchal males and to ignore us. :laugh1:
He is an elderly, pre VII priest.
-
He is an elderly, pre VII priest.
Then I would suggest you finding a different priest.
-
Your psychopathology.
So it really is directed at me, isn't it?
-
Then I would suggest you finding a different priest.
Now, don't second guess her priest on something like this.
I think Catherine is very defensive and doesn't want to get to know us and understand our point of view.
-
Now, don't second guess her priest on something like this.
I think Catherine is very defensive and doesn't want to get to know us and understand our point of view.
It would be good for her to know the words of cultural Marxists that "they would take a long march through the institutions" and that included the Church to make it more liberal and "modern."
-
I have advanced degrees in church history and biblical translation. I read much of what the norm was with Jesus, his family, and his day. I think many would be surprised at his ways, vs those of Paul, the one most people quote about the church of Christ.
You are certainly a feminist. And your thinking you've discovered things traditional priests haven't a clue about (such as the apparent chasm between Our Lord and St. Paul) shows you to be Modernist as well. The intellectual pride, the attempt to "revolutionize" belief in a given area, turning traditional beliefs on their head.
Advanced degrees in Church history and biblical translation? Why?
Were/are you looking to become a priest?
I'm sorry, but going for "advanced" degrees in areas reserved to the Clergy says a lot about you. We're not talking about an 18 or 20 year old who isn't married yet, so "why not" go to college and learn teaching, nursing, accounting, etc. Those are practical fields for women -- maybe you'll never find a spouse? What if your spouse dies? etc.
There is *never* a reason for a woman to get divinity or theology degrees. Actually, I take that back. I knew one woman who worked for TAN Books & Publishers who was an "old maid" and helped read over books and make sure they were theologically sound. But, again, she was an old maid so that's a bit different.
You mentioned wearing jeans/pants -- I'm going to go ahead and guess that it's your normal attire.
And earlier you talked about your "kiddo" (singular). I can't claim to know all the details of your private life, but taken together with your educational "credentials" as well as your feminist/modernist positions as expressed on CathInfo, I'm thinking you didn't want any more children than that.
You also said you pay $12,000 a year in property taxes. That's quite a house, sister. My mom pays $3,500 a year in Rockford (a city with high taxes) for her $100,000 house. Do the math. What's your house worth?
You certainly could have afforded to adopt a few children -- assuming you couldn't have more than one. Why didn't you?
I believe you've mellowed a bit over the years -- you are probably FAR more conservative now than you were at 20. Nevertheless, you are considerably liberal and feminist.
I don't know how many more days you'll be welcome here on CathInfo. Not because you're feminist, but because you're feminist and unwilling to change. You're set in your ways. That much I can tell.
-
One thing to note about feminists: they are very ideological and don't like their point of view destroyed by common sense and historical fact. Now I haven't put anyone on ignore here, because the conversations to me, never really get that emotionally exhausting, but anyway the priest does have a point about ignoring things you'll only get emotionally attached to, but I think he's wrong in the sense that catherine should approach our point of view with an open mind and see the good points in our arguments. Now I've seen about three women on this forum actually look at feminism (complete feminism that is, because I think every woman on here thinks abortion is bad) as something that is bad and sees the anti-feminist's good points.
-
Matthew,
I believe that Loriann posted early on that she and her husband were believed to be unable to have children. Her daughter was a surprise gift.
That's a low blow.
I don't think you have to worry about her returning here.
-
I know that is normally not something I would say or post. But in this case, it's not that simple, Catherine.
To clarify, all I'm accusing her of is Feminism and Modernism, which I can read for myself because she's posted such things here.
If she were a normally-wired female, NOT imbued with feminism, why not study some feminine subject in college? Nursing? teaching? care for the elderly? midwifery?
And a $300,000+ house suggests having "means". I don't understand why they didn't adopt a few, IF they liked children, that is.
I look at the whole picture. I am seldom (if ever) wrong when I consider things from that perspective.
What bothers me the most about her, though, is her Modernism. Coming up with "revolutionary" dichotomies that aren't there, such as Christ vs. St. Paul.
-
I know that is normally not something I would say or post. But in this case, it's not that simple, Catherine.
To clarify, all I'm accusing her of is Feminism and Modernism, which I can read for myself because she's posted such things here.
If she were a normally-wired female, NOT imbued with feminism, why not study some feminine subject in college? Nursing? teaching? care for the elderly? midwifery?
And a $300,000+ house suggests having "means". I don't understand why they didn't adopt a few, IF they liked children, that is.
I look at the whole picture. I am seldom (if ever) wrong when I consider things from that perspective.
What bothers me the most about her, though, is her Modernism. Coming up with "revolutionary" dichotomies that aren't there, such as Christ vs. St. Paul.
I understand what you are saying but how do you know where she is in her movement towards tradition? Maybe she just discovered the Mass or maybe she was raised pre VII and is a revert? It's a long process that takes years. There are many people out there like her. I think it's unfair to make assumptions.
Her husband may be wealthy. There isn't anything in Catholicism that commands us to financial poverty. In terms of children, people go overseas to adopt because American babies are aborted in such great numbers. Loriann did mention that she is involved in sidewalk counseling at the clinics. I don't know any feminists who do such a thing.
-
Shin said:
Frumpy is good.
Is this what you had in mind?
Oversized 90's Dress ... Green Woven Tapestry Drop-waist Frock ... Medium
http://www.etsy.com/listing/106140129/oversized-90s-dress-green-woven-tapestry?ref=sr_gallery_1&ga_search_query=Oversized+90's+Dress+...+Green+Woven+Tapestry+Drop-waist+Frock+...+Medium&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_ship_to=ZZ&ga_min=0&ga_max=0&ga_search_type=all
This one's probably not modest enough even though it looks like a sack.
http://www.etsy.com/listing/80701385/sailor-boy-dress-in-brown-and-champagne?ref=sr_gallery_37&ga_search_query=sailor+dresses&ga_view_type=gallery&ga_ship_to=ZZ&ga_min=0&ga_max=0&ga_search_type=all
In all seriousness Penitent Woman might be able to find some attractive modest clothing at reasonable prices at Etsy.com
-
I know that is normally not something I would say or post. But in this case, it's not that simple, Catherine.
To clarify, all I'm accusing her of is Feminism and Modernism, which I can read for myself because she's posted such things here.
If she were a normally-wired female, NOT imbued with feminism, why not study some feminine subject in college? Nursing? teaching? care for the elderly? midwifery?
And a $300,000+ house suggests having "means". I don't understand why they didn't adopt a few, IF they liked children, that is.
I look at the whole picture. I am seldom (if ever) wrong when I consider things from that perspective.
What bothers me the most about her, though, is her Modernism. Coming up with "revolutionary" dichotomies that aren't there, such as Christ vs. St. Paul.
Matthew, You have judged incorrectly. Typical of what I have seen on this place...lots of class hate , racism, bigotry and lots of judgements made.
1) I got my first two degrees in Education and was a principal for many years. Myhusband and I went hungry the first three years of our marriage as we put him through law school.
2) I was told I was barren and we accepted that as The Lord's will. After a dream I was told I was pregnant and given a gift by God...My "kiddo" This was after 17 years of marriage.
3) I live in a large house because it has two apartments below in which young pregnant women WHO are abandoned by their family because they CHOSE LIFE AFTER AN ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCY, instead of abortion-- like the family wants--reside.
4) My husband runs a law firm, does pro bono work every day, and I run a soup kitchen now that I am retired.
5) I got the degrees in religion as part of a program to help research apostolic succession and eucharistic validity for apologists.
6) Jeans are not my every day attire but I wear them and worry more about how my behavior and love of God and man, through His Grace, will get me to Heaven.
If I were you I would look at why you need to be so judgemental...are you reflective of the mission of our Lord? Do you judge like Pharisees and Saducees? DO you bring more to the Lord or repel more away.
-
Whoa Nelly--No I said nothing about deficient. The word versus was not chosen to reflect a conflict.
Then the word versus wasn't chosen at all, just thrown out there without respect for its meaning.
Your poor wording seriously raised my hackles and those of more than a few other posters here, judging by the number of downvotes you received.
I think it would be good if you took some time to clarify your thinking for us on the supposed differences between St. Paul and Our Lord, more systematically, rather than leave us all guessing and perhaps doubting your orthodoxy.
-
Whoa Nelly--No I said nothing about deficient. The word versus was not chosen to reflect a conflict.
Then the word versus wasn't chosen at all, just thrown out there without respect for its meaning.
Your poor wording seriously raised my hackles and those of more than a few other posters here, judging by the number of downvotes you received.
I think it would be good if you took some time to clarify your thinking for us on the supposed differences between St. Paul and Our Lord, more systematically, rather than leave us all guessing and perhaps doubting your orthodoxy.
Aww, I think I'll leave you smart men to figure it out. GodBLess you.
-
I've been in the kitchen and did not log out.
To be honest, I don't really read your postings anymore. Once I see the paranoid rantings and woman hating drivel from the gang I pass right on by. But, let's finish this once and for all. I'm going to take my priest's advice (well, part of it) and put you and the other boys on ignore. The hatred that emanates from all of you is an occasion of sin and definitely not productive for the spiritual life. I don't see what any of you have to offer a woman except misery.
Do me a favor and put me on ignore as well. We wouldn't give each other the time of day in real life so let's make if official. The cyber air will be cleaner.
Catherineofsiena,
You are a feminist. You and all the other feminists on this forum should either leave or be banned. Sorry if what I'm saying sounds harsh, but the feminist mindset does put souls in serious jeopardy, and when it comes to saving souls, sometimes we have to be harsh. It's called tough love.
For you to accuse me of "women hating drivel" just because I am against the woman working outside the home shows that you are a feminist. Your line that I have nothing to offer a woman except misery is nothing but a sinful slander that you need to repent of. I don't hate women, and you have no room to make such a ridiculous assertion. I am tired of the liberal feminists that have infiltrated this forum. CatholicInfo is really better off without your kind.
Next time you see your priest, you need to go to Confession and repent for your slander, as well as the liberalism you are spewing that could endanger many souls.
-
Oh, and if your priest has told you to put the anti-feminists on this forum on ignore, you need to find another priest, because he sounds like another typical neo-Trad.
-
Matthew, You have judged incorrectly. Typical of what I have seen on this place...lots of class hate , racism, bigotry and lots of judgements made.
In other words, Catholicism. Because that is the definition of Catholicism according to liberals, Marxists, and Jews.
I live in a large house because it has two apartments below in which young pregnant women WHO are abandoned by their family because they CHOSE LIFE AFTER AN ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCY, instead of abortion-- like the family wants--reside. [/color]
Well give them a medal why don't you...
What would you rather do--stone them?? I didn't get them pregnant, but I will show mercy. Typical...cry and preach pro-life and then kick a person who has sinned out on the street. Very Christian of you. I am sure that is exactly what Jesus would have done...NOT.
-
I know that is normally not something I would say or post. But in this case, it's not that simple, Catherine.
To clarify, all I'm accusing her of is Feminism and Modernism, which I can read for myself because she's posted such things here.
If she were a normally-wired female, NOT imbued with feminism, why not study some feminine subject in college? Nursing? teaching? care for the elderly? midwifery?
And a $300,000+ house suggests having "means". I don't understand why they didn't adopt a few, IF they liked children, that is.
I look at the whole picture. I am seldom (if ever) wrong when I consider things from that perspective.
What bothers me the most about her, though, is her Modernism. Coming up with "revolutionary" dichotomies that aren't there, such as Christ vs. St. Paul.
I understand what you are saying but how do you know where she is in her movement towards tradition? Maybe she just discovered the Mass or maybe she was raised pre VII and is a revert? It's a long process that takes years. There are many people out there like her. I think it's unfair to make assumptions.
Her husband may be wealthy. There isn't anything in Catholicism that commands us to financial poverty. In terms of children, people go overseas to adopt because American babies are aborted in such great numbers. Loriann did mention that she is involved in sidewalk counseling at the clinics. I don't know any feminists who do such a thing.
I never said she was the worst feminist, or pro-abortion. I'm just saying she's a bit too feminist to be a member of CathInfo. She has more than the "1-5%" of feminism that most of us here in America are infected with. She has a bit too much to have a long future here on CathInfo. That's what I was/am saying.
I'm also not saying she has no virtue, etc. etc. Please don't read anything else into my post than "LoriAnn objectively speaking is infected with feminism" because that's all I said.
And if someone is new to Tradition, that's great.
But then they should have the attitude of docility -- ability to be taught -- not a "who are you to teach" attitude which she showed, just today. She is quite high-and-mighty proud of her biblical education, and is quite ready to teach the REST of us how all our priests were wrong about Our Lord and St. Paul.
She has the PRIDE and temerity to teach a NEW GOSPEL and that is what set me off. That's what the modernists did in the 1960's, and I don't have to take it here on my own forum.
-
3) I live in a large house because it has two apartments below in which young pregnant women WHO are abandoned by their family because they CHOSE LIFE AFTER AN ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCY, instead of abortion-- like the family wants--reside.
4) My husband runs a law firm, does pro bono work every day, and I run a soup kitchen now that I am retired.
All of that and you're interested in moving?? Liberal feminist or not, I hope you pick it all up again wherever you go.
-
This attempted juxtaposition, on Lorianne's part, of Our Blessed Lord's & St. Paul's characters has a very bad savour. St. Paul, being one of the greatest of the Saints, necessarily by virtue of this fact, imitated Our Lord as perfectly as it is possible for a human being to do.
Didn't you hear? Nowadays St. Paul is supposedly a ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ who tried to get people to accept an "unnatural view" about celibacy and he also hated women. :rolleyes:
Don't forget αnтι-ѕємιтє and Gentile Supremacist. :rolleyes:
There was no such attempt.
-
Matthew, You have judged incorrectly. Typical of what I have seen on this place...lots of class hate , racism, bigotry and lots of judgements made.
In other words, Catholicism. Because that is the definition of Catholicism according to liberals, Marxists, and Jews.
I live in a large house because it has two apartments below in which young pregnant women WHO are abandoned by their family because they CHOSE LIFE AFTER AN ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCY, instead of abortion-- like the family wants--reside. [/color]
Well give them a medal why don't you...
What would you rather do--stone them?? I didn't get them pregnant, but I will show mercy. Typical...cry and preach pro-life and then kick a person who has sinned out on the street. Very Christian of you. I am sure that is exactly what Jesus would have done...NOT.
You paint the picture of these women doing something heroic. They didn't. They fornicated and decided not to murder their young. That's not heroic. And its hardly deserving of reward or praise.
I don't preach "life". I preach not murdering the socially innocent.
I do not think what they did was heroic, but what would you do with them--let them starve on the street>? Plus, if mom starves the infant does too. When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
-
Loriann’s false ideas about the Bible, Our Lord, Saint Paul, etc. are actually even more disturbing than the feminism which is so prevalent among some posters here.
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
Ok, so based on your supposition, what would our Lord think you should do with a woman who has concieved in sin...kill her? Not show mercy?? Just trash talk? Where are the corporal works of mercy?
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
Sometimes we can judge "thoughts" or "motives". If a woman is fornicating or committing adultery then obviously lust is in her heart and her mind in those moments. Those sorts of things don't happen by accident or without evil intent.
About one in four teen moms is a rape or incest victim.
Abortion is a handy way to cover it all up.
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
Ok, so based on your supposition, what would our Lord think you should do with a woman who has concieved in sin...kill her? Not show mercy?? Just trash talk? Where are the corporal works of mercy?
Are these women even penitent? If not then they deserve no mercy.
Yes, they are very penitent, they just realise an innocent should not suffer because of their wrongfulness. Many a soul has suffered a great deal for a moment's foolishness.
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
Sometimes we can judge "thoughts" or "motives". If a woman is fornicating or committing adultery then obviously lust is in her heart and her mind in those moments. Those sorts of things don't happen by accident or without evil intent.
About one in four teen moms is a rape or incest victim.
Abortion is a handy way to cover it all up.
What does this have to do with fornication and adultery?
Same thing fornication and adultery had to do with unwed moms--you brought it up
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
Ok, so based on your supposition, what would our Lord think you should do with a woman who has concieved in sin...kill her? Not show mercy?? Just trash talk? Where are the corporal works of mercy?
Are these women even penitent? If not then they deserve no mercy.
Yes, they are very penitent, they just realise an innocent should not suffer because of their wrongfulness. Many a soul has suffered a great deal for a moment's foolishness.
Deciding not to commit murder is not equivalent to being penitent. Many people decide not to murder their children yet continue on in their sinful ways. Have these women repented of their fornication, renounced their life of sin, and become Catholics?
Yes they have. The fathers have not but the mothers have. Some of them are already Catholic and went to confession.
-
Oh, and if your priest has told you to put the anti-feminists on this forum on ignore, you need to find another priest, because he sounds like another typical neo-Trad.
I hope any priest has many better things to do than to become involved in who posts what on some internet forum.
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
Ok, so based on your supposition, what would our Lord think you should do with a woman who has concieved in sin...kill her? Not show mercy?? Just trash talk? Where are the corporal works of mercy?
Are these women even penitent? If not then they deserve no mercy.
None of us deserve mercy. That is sort of the whole point of the atonement and Divine grace, isn't it?
-
When did we become the judge? AM I wrong in interpreting the words Judge not les ye be judged?
That is a verse that liberals often quote (out of context, I should add). We are free, and actually, we are obliged to judge actions. We cannot judge thoughts or motives, but we can judge people's actions.
Ok, so based on your supposition, what would our Lord think you should do with a woman who has concieved in sin...kill her? Not show mercy?? Just trash talk? Where are the corporal works of mercy?
When did I say this? I said we can judge actions but not thoughts or motives. I never said any of those things.
-
For example: we can judge if feminism says that men and marriages are evil, then women will naturally come to believe in that. Considering the 5.5 million unmarried couples in America, up from 530,000 in 1970 all of this rhetoric leads to a destruction of the family and a death rate, since women will not want children.
-
Reading Engels and Luxemburg?
Ha, good one. As I mentioned in "Feminism's Marxist Roots" Engels said in The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State that all discrimination against women comes from patriarchal males and that women should be brought into the labor force.
-
The decline of the family has come from contraceptives, a welfare state that eliminates the need for a family with a wage earner and the decline in marriage for sure. But judging things like that differs from judging people.
-
The decline of the family has come from contraceptives, a welfare state that eliminates the need for a family with a wage earner and the decline in marriage for sure. But judging things like that differs from judging people.
So if you see a known swinger with another man you are to assume...
As for contraceptives no one forces women to buy them, they do it on their own free will. As for the "welfare state" are you speaking of federal government welfare or state and church welfare because welfare services are needed sometimes. But let's be honest here the destruction of the family was epitomized by the sex, drugs, rock n' roll, and women's liberation of our social, moral, and cultural revolution.
-
I'd also like to add our Hollywood values and MTV culture that supports hedonism and lionizes teenage sex, also causes this moral destruction of society.
-
I'd also like to add our Hollywood values and MTV culture that supports hedonism and lionizes teenage sex, also causes this moral destruction of society.
Yes, true
-
Well, well! Looks like all the wolves have scattered. Must be in their dens licking their chops about their 'victory'.
But where's Penitent & Tele? For being such prolific posters all the time they're sure quiet lately.
Loriann was taken to task severely for posting on the gospel, yet Trad Guy said vicious allegations against an elderly preVat II priest with nary a word of remonstrance.
Can you say Double Standard? Will Trad Guy humbly apologize for that public attack on a priest?
-
Excuse me Thorn, but are you NOT the same person who said Fatima might be of the devil? You have no credibility.
You, Loriann, Catherine, and wallflower are all feminists. You should really be ashamed of yourself for acting that way towards a woman who is going through what PW has been through. She is a sincere woman who is trying to do what's right and you are trying to make fun of her. You say Trad Guy should humbly apologise, but it is you who lacks humility. The behavior put forth in this thread by you and the other three liberals I mentioned is not Catholic behavior. You feminists need prayers, you're all displaying disgusting behavior.
-
Can you say Double Standard? Will Trad Guy humbly apologize for that public attack on a priest?
Thorn I will not apologize as such and I will explain why. This priest which she went to, if he had given her a proper counsel would have told her of the Catholic teachings of marriage, and yes that includes St. Paul's admonition of wives being subject to their husbands and of the need for women to hear men out. And yes the clergy has shown cowardice in the face of leftist assaults, so I have to wonder if we are dealing with men (yes contary to popular belief the clergy used to have a manly toughness), or indeed as the sex abuse scandal showed, some closet ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖs just waiting to prey on altar boys, or at the very least cowards and appeasers. You act as if a priest or someone of the clergy is simply untouchable.
Now I understand that the priest may have told her to put us on ignore so that she wouldn't get emotional but as I said I don't see what on this thread one can get real emotional about.
-
IF, SS, IF it is not of God, then it MIGHT be of the devil. We only have 2 choices, no? It is not a dogma of faith so we are free to believe or disbelieve or simply be neutral about Fatima. That's all I wanted to get across. I've lost credibility because of that? I do believe in EVERYTHING that the church requires me to. I'm neutral on Fatima. If you believe that's fine with me.
I don't think Catholicism is a matter of being popular. Sorry.
-
Well, well! Looks like all the wolves have scattered. Must be in their dens licking their chops about their 'victory'.
But where's Penitent & Tele? For being such prolific posters all the time they're sure quiet lately.
Loriann was taken to task severely for posting on the gospel, yet Trad Guy said vicious allegations against an elderly preVat II priest with nary a word of remonstrance.
Can you say Double Standard? Will Trad Guy humbly apologize for that public attack on a priest?
Thanks Thorn. My priest is in his 90s. We are so lucky to have him. We are a tiny group, mostly elderly, and really can't be called a chapel in the proper sense although I do. One step away from the catacombs is more like it. I don't know what we'll do when he can't offer Mass anymore. The Society chapels are a bit far but maybe I can work something out. The local one has a chaotic history.
-
Please, dear SpiritusSanctus, can you tell me what is Catholic behavior for a woman as I truly want to be a virtuous woman & no one has ever taken the time to tell me just what it is that I'm doing wrong. Would you be so kind? Thanks in advance.
-
IF, SS, IF it is not of God, then it MIGHT be of the devil.
The Church approved Fatima as a true Apparition, so it cannot, therefore, be of the devil. If it's of the devil, then the Church erred.
It is not a dogma of faith so we are free to believe or disbelieve or simply be neutral about Fatima.
That's not true. The Church does not approve an Apparition and then say "Oh, but you don't have to believe it". If the Church wanted people to remain neutral on it, they would have remained neutral on it themselves. They did not, though.
I've lost credibility because of that?
How can a Catholic who suggests a true Apparition approved by the Church might have been of the devil still hold credibility?
I do believe in EVERYTHING that the church requires me to.
No, you reject the Church's approval of Fatima.
I'm neutral on Fatima.
How can you be neutral on the most important Marian Apparition in the history of the Church?
I don't think Catholicism is a matter of being popular.
When did I suggest it was?
You also didn't address what I wrote about feminism. You came on this thread and called those who were against feminism "wolves" and made fun of PenitentWoman just because she didn't take your liberal advice. Not to mention the fact that Catherine accused me and others on this thread of "hating women" and said we wouldn't have anything to offer a woman except misery. Then she hides behind the ignore button instead of having the decency to apologize. All because her priest told her to instead of telling her the truth, that her mindset is very feministic. Sadly, it sounds like yet another priest leading souls astray. Just because one is a pre-Vatican II priest doesn't mean they're free of error, Thorn. What about Bishop Fellay and Fr. Rostand?
And need I even remind people of the unbelievable remarks Loriann made about St. Paul?
I know I should try to remain charitable, but I have a really short patience when it comes to feminists. This thread had quieted down until you came on here and tried to provoke the anti-feminists. I'll let the evidence speak for itself and show who the real troublemakers are.
-
Please, dear SpiritusSanctus, can you tell me what is Catholic behavior for a woman as I truly want to be a virtuous woman & no one has ever taken the time to tell me just what it is that I'm doing wrong. Would you be so kind? Thanks in advance.
Thorn,
Perhaps a study of the Church's teachings on career women would help. I have a lot of content on the "Destroying the evils of Feminism" thread, if you have not already read it:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19486&f=8&min=0&num=10
-
Thank you SS for referring me to that link. If you don't mind I won't read it now but will save it for Sun as that's when I do my reading. One thing tho - I'm not a career woman so would it still be apropos to me? Do you have anything else or will this link keep me busy for awhile?
One more thing if you don't mind: I was always taught that just because the church approves an apparition, you can either believe or simply not (neutral) as it (the approval) simply means that the apparition does not contain anything contrary to faith & morals. It isn't a dogma of faith. Would you be so kind as to give docuмentation (not that I don't have faith in your wisdom) that you MUST believe in Fatima? I would appreciate it. Thank you. Perhaps I was too strong about it being of the devil but I still believe that we are free to believe in it or not. I have my reasons for all this, actually.
-
Dear Thorn,
First of all, I apologize for losing my temper. You at least seem willing to carry on a charitable and reasonable discussion.
Even if you're not a career woman, what I posted would still apply to you because one can still be a feminist even if they do not work outside the home. It is important to know what the Church teaches about the roles of the man and the woman in a marriage.
As for Apparitions, my understanding is that when they are approved by the Church, we must accept them. I am rather busy right now, but as soon as I find more time I will look for some sources on that.
Thank you for your charitable reply.
God Bless.
-
I appreciate that. As it stands now it is your understanding vs. my understanding. The blind leading the blind so to speak! It's best to present proof.
-
Didn't read through the whole thread.
Modesty is necessary primarily out of charity and concern for others. A modest society tends to be a moral society. Modest dress encourages virtue and helps to stifle our (often rampant) concupiscence.
That being said, modesty within the home is completely dependent on what one's home is. What kind of example are you setting if you have children? That's the main one. Is there a part of the house where when you walk by you will be within view of the world (I'm not talking about peeping Toms here)? Make sure you're dressed modestly if that's the case (or move).
If you live alone, modesty in the home doesn't really apply. It applies insofar as your own body can tempt you to sin. The human body wasn't created evil, it is our own wills that direct it towards that end.
-
Dear Thorn,
As for Apparitions, my understanding is that when they are approved by the Church, we must accept them.
I don't think this is true. All "approved " means in this case is that the Church has investigated it and found nothing contrary to faith or morals and no indication of deception. We are NEVER required to believe in private revelations, which really bind only the person who received them.
However, I would agree that in the case od some, Like Fatima and Lourdes to name two, it would be imprudent in the extreme to reject them.
-
Sig, you're correct in the first paragraph, but in the second 'imprudent in the extreme' is a bit extreme as the church says that we are not required to believe in them. You can't go beyond what the church teaches, can you? Just asking. Don't get mad & jump on me.
-
I don't outright reject them. I simply feel neutral. God can do anything & maybe they did happen. But I wasn't there & never investigated so it's possible that it may not be miraculous. That's all.
-
SSPX recently commented on this issue in their newsletter
"Is a “Christian Morality Dress Code” needed in the year 2012?
1st Sunday of August:
10th Sunday after Pentecost
Daily we are the eyewitnesses of the degradation of the dress code among our own traditional folks, ladies firstly, yet not excluding the men either. What we are seeing also is that the problem is extended from teenagers to parents and even to the elderly.
Christian modesty is a direct application of the principles of faith (that is, of original sin and its consequent concupiscence), of morality (on Christian modesty and the removal of scandal). It is not irrelevant to notice that the unisex clothing has been promoted by the same people who now are behind the promotion of sins against nature and the gender theory – a few months ago we spoke of it in this column. Whereas up to now, we acknowledged that the sex makes the gender, now, gender ideologues affirm that the gender makes the sex. For them, “the sex is a social category,” meaning that it could be modifiable according to the desires of each in connection with the ‘construction’ of the social models.
No one should object to the parish pastor implementing a dress code in accordance with Canon Law (CIC 1262 #2), and usually these rules are posted in the church vestibule for everyone to see. In fact, the Holy See itself has prescribed the removal “from Communion and even from Church, improperly dressed women” (January 12, 1930, S.C.C.). It cannot be stressed enough though that the authority of enforcement ultimately belongs to the pastor, and great discretion, prudence and charity must be employed to salvifically apply the rules of modesty in a church.
Some resistance may be felt amongst the younger generation who do not understand the problem and are immersed in a world foreign to Christian modesty. They need to be taught about the effects of original sin and its consequences. They need to know that, often we are led to obey laws which we do not understand, and to obey these is quite meritorious. And if, alas, they have already been victims of others’ immodesty, it, the young men should request young ladies to dress femininely and modestly. Need we stress that the parents of the teenagers are the first ones responsible in these matters. This duty is especially incuмbent on the head of the family who should not allow a slackening of modesty for either his wife or his children.
Regarding the use of pants, which has been the avant-garde tool of the Gender theory, we may suggest these broad lines for remedy. The feminine pants, often worn out of pleasure or convenience, is not the correct garb of a Catholic girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life. Perhaps due to the evils of our times (e.g., one’s profession, security, extraordinary activity, etc.) women cannot always avoid wearing pants. Despite this, there is no reason that pants should be worn in family, social and parish life.
So unless we react against the broad stream, our practical attitude will turn out to be a fiasco. As foretold by G.K. Chesterton somewhere: unless we live as we believe, we’ll end up believing as we live."
http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_august_2012.htm#only_faith
-
Tough rules. Got to watch it. Otherwise, you'll get "stung" at the mall in your levis! :jester:
-
Please, dear SpiritusSanctus, can you tell me what is Catholic behavior for a woman as I truly want to be a virtuous woman & no one has ever taken the time to tell me just what it is that I'm doing wrong. Would you be so kind? Thanks in advance.
:facepalm:
I hope you got a satisfactory answer, Thorn, because that was entirely too drippy to have to read more than once. :clown:
-
Oh, Mater, you're a sharpie! I feel kinda bad but .....
-
Well, well! Looks like all the wolves have scattered. Must be in their dens licking their chops about their 'victory'.
But where's Penitent & Tele? For being such prolific posters all the time they're sure quiet lately.
Loriann was taken to task severely for posting on the gospel, yet Trad Guy said vicious allegations against an elderly preVat II priest with nary a word of remonstrance.
Can you say Double Standard? Will Trad Guy humbly apologize for that public attack on a priest?
This forum is my first introduction to Traditional Catholicism. I would recommend that those who oversee the movement come here to see what I have seen my first few days...
BIGOTRY, RACISM, JUDGEMENTALISM and CLASS DISCRIMINATION. Jesus stood for none of those things, and if you stand for them, you hurt the Lord.
I even had my infertility made fun of.
Yet only 2 (women) defended me against that clearly hateful speech. The poster of that diatribe is the owner, Matthew, so he can do as he pleases, but no TRAD men stood up. NO TRAD MEN STOOD UP for that.
I was also accused of insulting ST Paul--please read what I said--I said he was different in approach vs Jesus. I said he was more black and white where Jesus was more a teacher. That's all. That's All. THAT' ALL! Many of the young men here have a narrative about the outside world and women, and once a woman mentioned ST Paul the narrative kicked in and others piled on their assumptions and used words mysogynistic and hate, not me. They have narratives about all pregnant girls-- but a percentage are rape victims... but that does not fit the judgement narrative.
Many here have not reflected Jesus in any way I can see. In fact, I would argue that the adherence to pre-judged narratives and then "the gang" piling on a poster contributes to an atmosphere that fueled movements like the Spanish Inquisition, nαzι Germany, and The Witch hunts of Europe and Colonial America. In God's name we judge and cry out unbelievable accusations. At first no one believes, but later no one stands up, then finally it is a given.
I already see signs of it--people here who were appalled at the slander thrown at me, but afraid to stand up to "the gang" for they haven't the energy for what will come next. You are at Stage Two for sure. I don't blame them. I was going to debate many of the things said, but my daddy said if you lie with dogs too long, you get fleas.
I have prayed for you all. I will continue to pray for you all. I really hope you give some thought to these words. You totally misjudged what I do, who I am, and what my life is...I can only hope I have done the same about you because you have scared me to death about the future of the church movement.
-
Please, dear SpiritusSanctus, can you tell me what is Catholic behavior for a woman as I truly want to be a virtuous woman & no one has ever taken the time to tell me just what it is that I'm doing wrong. Would you be so kind? Thanks in advance.
:facepalm:
I hope you got a satisfactory answer, Thorn, because that was entirely too drippy to have to read more than once. :clown:
It sure changed the response tenor though. Wink wink
-
Thorn, what you are saying about Fatima and private revelation is not exact. The Angelic Doctor teaches such events are "not indeed for the declaration of any new doctrine of faith, but for the direction of human acts". This presupposes that the faithful, once they know beyond reasonable doubt that they are truly from heaven, ought to be quick and ready to be so directed. The call of Fatima is nothing other than the timeless message of the Gospel - one to prayer and repentance, to sacrifice and penance, through the aids of the daily Rosary and consecration to the Immaculate Heart, along with specific directives to the Pope and the Bishops to so consecrate Russia.
They are not known with the certainty of faith, but they are known with a definite moral certainty, especially given public miracles and the approval of the Church. Our Lord said, "Make it known to My ministers that given they follow the example of the King of France in delaying the execution of My command, they will follow him into misfortune" which shows that indifference to this message, as to that earlier one, would be extremely rash and imprudent and endanger the fate of men and nations.
When asked why He was so insistent, Our Lord revealed a reason was that in the age to come He willed devotion to the Immaculate Heart to spread everywhere and greatly increase among Christians, when everybody had seen that it was by this that disaster had been overcome and the victory of the Church over her enemies was wrought.
About the other issues discussed in this thread, the same Apostles, Sts. Peter and Paul also tell young men not to be rude and rash in speaking to elders, not to rebuke harshly but to entreat gently. St.Paul includes young Timothy in this, even though he was a Bishop, not a mere layman. This applies even more when we are talking about priests, especially older traditional priests.
It is a priest's right to guide penitents in the confessional, and as a rule, in general, the latter is to prefer the priest's judgment to his or her own. No one ought to slander a priest simply based on that.
Finally, the opinion that St.Paul cannot be trusted to faithfully hand down the doctrine he received from Our Lord Jesus Christ is an absolutely classical favorite of deists, modernists and rationalists, because it allows such heretics to assert that they understand Christ better than one His chosen Apostles, and to reject a large portion of sacred Scripture, especially traditional Christian teachings, whether it be on the differing roles of men and women in the Church and in the family, so ordained by God and so reflected in nature, or even today ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, or any other number of topics.
It is important for Christians to be aware of this because if not, quite possibly in good faith, we may easily be snared by such a grievous error which will gradually but inevitably destroy the gift of faith in us.
The truth is St.Paul was highly praised by St.Peter, by St.Barnabas and all the Apostles and disciples at the Synod of Jerusalem recorded in sacred Scripture. What he wrote in sacred Scripture is what Christ intended him to write and no more.
-
Sig, you're correct in the first paragraph, but in the second 'imprudent in the extreme' is a bit extreme as the church says that we are not required to believe in them. You can't go beyond what the church teaches, can you? Just asking. Don't get mad & jump on me.
I think I can if it is simply a matter of opinion. The Church says that we don't have to believe in private revelations, so I can't say that anyone must do so or elevate a private revelation to a position of dogma where believing in it is a condition for being Catholic. As far as I know, the Church has never said that you can't have a really strong opinion about their veracity. If I am wrong about this, I will happily retract this statement. As a matter of opinion. I think the evidence for Fatima and Lourdes is so overwhelming that it would be extremely imprudent not to believe in them. It would not be heresy, and it would not compromise one's Catholicism, but I personally believe it would defy good sense. This, too, is just an opinion, however, and I am not suggesting in any way that you are any less Catholic if you think I am wrong.
-
Nishant said it far better than I did. Even if, theoretically, Fatima didn't happen and the children lied or were deluded, one can cone to no possible spiritual harm by saying the Rosary daily, making the First Saturdays, wearing the scapular, etc. If the apparition did happen but was not of God, then Satan must be losing his marbles. It would be really stupid to diabolically inspire a vision that would encourage people to do such beneficial and spiritually praiseworthy things.
-
I wish to know what feminism is because I have the secular definition, but feel I am missing something regarding its context here. I am not trying to make trouble, just understand, and I have been nothing but respectful to our church and its followers.
Unfortunately, many traditional Catholics believe that if a woman is not feminist under the standards set by the sixties and on, she is not a feminist at all. This couldn't be further from the truth. Some of us, recognizing the fundamental importance of the "woman question", try to maintain a fully Christian understanding of women and their place in society and the family, and for models of this we have to look back past the 50s, past even the 19th century when feminism first began to spread.
Here is a gentle yet firm statement from the Catholic Enclypodia:
If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up. On the other hand, as the result of this, a certain social subordination in respect to man which in no way injures her personal independence is assigned to woman, as soon as she enters into union with him. Consequently nothing is to be urged on this point of equality of position or of equality of rights and privileges. To deduce from this the inferiority of woman or her degradation to a "second-rate human being" contradicts logic just as much as would the attempt to regard the citizen as an inferior being because he is subordinate to the officials of the state.
It should be emphasized here that man owes his authoritative pre-eminence in society not to personal achievements but to the appointment of the Creator according to the word of the Apostle: "The man . . . is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Corinthians 11:7).
Hopefully you don't discount this simply because it cites St. Paul. As a natural society is like a family writ large, women are subordinate not only in private but in public life, and lack the rights, duties, and privileges of men in every sphere. All notions of equality between the sexes, other than the moral equality of our souls naked before the Creator, must be fought against by Catholics. His Excellency Bishop Williamson, as usual, summarizes this in simple terms:
In the beginning, God created man and woman, both human but quite different, firstly man, secondly woman (Genesis I, 27; II, 22); woman to be man's help-mate like unto himself (Gem. II, 18), woman for man, not man for woman (I Cor. XI, 9), for "the man is not of the woman but the woman is of the man" (I Cor. XI, 8). Thus even before original sin happened, God ordered between man and woman distinction, inequality, and the headship of man over woman for purposes of living in society and in the family upon this earth.
Women must also be shielded from situations, like modern college and working life, that may dull their feminity, endanger chastity in themselves and those around them, or even enflame in them resentment and rebellion against their God-given station.
Many of us are also determined to fight our culture's deeply ingrained habit of placing women on a moral pedestal. This is not the traditional understanding of women. Take a look, for instance, at Matthew's remark, on page four or five, to the effect that men struggle with their egos, while women struggle with their desire for love. There is a grain of truth to that but on its own, and especially today, it's a dangerously delusional way to think, since it makes women appear comparatively innocent: men are full of pride, and women are just looking for love. In other words, it places women on a moral pedestal. This habit of thought has become automatic even among traditional Catholics.
In contrast, Scripture and tradition teach us that "seduction began with Eve"; women, like men, have fallen souls filled with lust and rebelliousness; but in addition are characterized by a profound capacity for rationalizing their sins, for "she wipes her mouth and says: 'I have done no evil." (Proverbs 30:20) Women are less objective than men and less capable of ruling themselves and holding themselves to account.
The lust, rebelliousness, and capriciousness of womankind, whipped up, disguised, liberated, and finally mandated by law through the intellectually hollow theories of feminism, have proven disastrous for the social reign of Our Lord. They have almost almost single-handedly destroyed the family; they have criminalized the God-given spiritual and temporal rule of men; and they have led the souls of many to eternal perdition. For these reasons we are strongly against feminism and those who enable it by their excuses, tendentious revisionism, and appeals to exceptions.
Does this help?
-
Take a look, for instance, at Matthew's remark, on page four or five, to the effect that men struggle with their egos, while women struggle with their desire for love. There is a grain of truth to that but on its own, and especially today, it's a dangerously delusional way to think, since it makes women appear comparatively innocent: men are full of pride, and women are just looking for love.
I noticed that too. If you take Bishop Williamson's actual words in his conferences he usually refers to men struggling with their egos whereas women struggle with their wills. That takes the innocence factor out of it for you. :) There's a lot to be said about both in marriage and how he shows love by sacrificing his ego and she shows love by sacrificing her will but without his exact words I'm better off leaving it there.
-
OK, SS, I spent this afternoon reading my assignment of that thread you directed me to & I noticed that I had already read it & even posted on it. I agree with almost everything there (I have a slight problem about the college ed part but I can easily explain that).
So I'm basically back to square one with you in asking what it is that you want me to learn (since I already knew & accept what was discussed on that thread) & how a non-feminist is supposed to act that I'm neglecting. Guess what I'm asking or saying is that I need it spelled out for me on my actions. How did you form your opinion of me that I'm a feminist & what needs to be changed? Thank you.
Sig - perhaps we need to start a new thread on Fatima so as not to go off on a tangent on this one? But just let me state briefly & that may be the end of it. It would have been better had I written " You aren't required to go beyond what the church requires." I totally agree with you that 'it is simply a matter of opinion'. That's it in a nutshell!!! We're all agreed on the tenets of the faith. Anything beyond that is a matter of personal opinion & we shouldn't or needed be arguing about it. Just like all this arguing about sedevacantism which also (at this time) is a matter of opinion.
-
Nishant - Yes, "the timeless message of the Gospel" is what I believe in. She shall crush the head of the serpent. We MUST pray & do penance. See, we're really on the same page. Beyond that it's our own opinion. You have yours & I respect that & I have mine.
-
OK, SS, I spent this afternoon reading my assignment of that thread you directed me to & I noticed that I had already read it & even posted on it. I agree with almost everything there (I have a slight problem about the college ed part but I can easily explain that).
So I'm basically back to square one with you in asking what it is that you want me to learn (since I already knew & accept what was discussed on that thread) & how a non-feminist is supposed to act that I'm neglecting. Guess what I'm asking or saying is that I need it spelled out for me on my actions. How did you form your opinion of me that I'm a feminist & what needs to be changed? Thank you.
Sig - perhaps we need to start a new thread on Fatima so as not to go off on a tangent on this one? But just let me state briefly & that may be the end of it. It would have been better had I written " You aren't required to go beyond what the church requires." I totally agree with you that 'it is simply a matter of opinion'. That's it in a nutshell!!! We're all agreed on the tenets of the faith. Anything beyond that is a matter of personal opinion & we shouldn't or needed be arguing about it. Just like all this arguing about sedevacantism which also (at this time) is a matter of opinion.
Yes, I would say we agree on this point.
-
Take a look, for instance, at Matthew's remark, on page four or five, to the effect that men struggle with their egos, while women struggle with their desire for love. There is a grain of truth to that but on its own, and especially today, it's a dangerously delusional way to think, since it makes women appear comparatively innocent: men are full of pride, and women are just looking for love.
I noticed that too. If you take Bishop Williamson's actual words in his conferences he usually refers to men struggling with their egos whereas women struggle with their wills. That takes the innocence factor out of it for you. :) There's a lot to be said about both in marriage and how he shows love by sacrificing his ego and she shows love by sacrificing her will but without his exact words I'm better off leaving it there.
I don't understand why someone thought this a disagreable contribution, but I'll follow others' lead and say someone must have clicked the wrong smilie.
Can anyone elaborate the part I underlined? I don't understand how showing love toward his wife would involve the husband debasing himself.
PS. Graham, I enjoyed your post. Looking forward to the next installment. : )
-
SSPX recently commented on this issue in their newsletter
"Is a “Christian Morality Dress Code” needed in the year 2012?
1st Sunday of August:
10th Sunday after Pentecost
Daily we are the eyewitnesses of the degradation of the dress code among our own traditional folks, ladies firstly, yet not excluding the men either. What we are seeing also is that the problem is extended from teenagers to parents and even to the elderly.
Christian modesty is a direct application of the principles of faith (that is, of original sin and its consequent concupiscence), of morality (on Christian modesty and the removal of scandal). It is not irrelevant to notice that the unisex clothing has been promoted by the same people who now are behind the promotion of sins against nature and the gender theory – a few months ago we spoke of it in this column. Whereas up to now, we acknowledged that the sex makes the gender, now, gender ideologues affirm that the gender makes the sex. For them, “the sex is a social category,” meaning that it could be modifiable according to the desires of each in connection with the ‘construction’ of the social models.
No one should object to the parish pastor implementing a dress code in accordance with Canon Law (CIC 1262 #2), and usually these rules are posted in the church vestibule for everyone to see. In fact, the Holy See itself has prescribed the removal “from Communion and even from Church, improperly dressed women” (January 12, 1930, S.C.C.). It cannot be stressed enough though that the authority of enforcement ultimately belongs to the pastor, and great discretion, prudence and charity must be employed to salvifically apply the rules of modesty in a church.
Some resistance may be felt amongst the younger generation who do not understand the problem and are immersed in a world foreign to Christian modesty. They need to be taught about the effects of original sin and its consequences. They need to know that, often we are led to obey laws which we do not understand, and to obey these is quite meritorious. And if, alas, they have already been victims of others’ immodesty, it, the young men should request young ladies to dress femininely and modestly. Need we stress that the parents of the teenagers are the first ones responsible in these matters. This duty is especially incuмbent on the head of the family who should not allow a slackening of modesty for either his wife or his children.
Regarding the use of pants, which has been the avant-garde tool of the Gender theory, we may suggest these broad lines for remedy. The feminine pants, often worn out of pleasure or convenience, is not the correct garb of a Catholic girl or lady, either in the parish, domestic or social life. Perhaps due to the evils of our times (e.g., one’s profession, security, extraordinary activity, etc.) women cannot always avoid wearing pants. Despite this, there is no reason that pants should be worn in family, social and parish life.
So unless we react against the broad stream, our practical attitude will turn out to be a fiasco. As foretold by G.K. Chesterton somewhere: unless we live as we believe, we’ll end up believing as we live."
http://www.sspx.org/pastors_corner/pastors_corner_august_2012.htm#only_faith
I wear cape dresses in public except when I exercise I wear knee length shorts and a t-shirt that is a size too big.
I've found pajama pants are more modest when sleeping as they keep my legs covered unlike a nightgown that will move as I sleep. I have a teenage son so I can't risk being uncovered. Any suggestions?
-
Take a look, for instance, at Matthew's remark, on page four or five, to the effect that men struggle with their egos, while women struggle with their desire for love. There is a grain of truth to that but on its own, and especially today, it's a dangerously delusional way to think, since it makes women appear comparatively innocent: men are full of pride, and women are just looking for love.
I noticed that too. If you take Bishop Williamson's actual words in his conferences he usually refers to men struggling with their egos whereas women struggle with their wills. That takes the innocence factor out of it for you. :) There's a lot to be said about both in marriage and how he shows love by sacrificing his ego and she shows love by sacrificing her will but without his exact words I'm better off leaving it there.
I don't understand why someone thought this a disagreable contribution, but I'll follow others' lead and say someone must have clicked the wrong smilie.
Can anyone elaborate the part I underlined? I don't understand how showing love toward his wife would involve the husband debasing himself.
PS. Graham, I enjoyed your post. Looking forward to the next installment. : )
I will get back to this hopefully later this evening.
-
Tiffany, I don't know what a cape dress is. Any suggestions on what? You seem to have everything covered.
Loriann, I'm really sorry that your intro to a trad Catholic forum turned out that badly. You were browbeaten & thrown to the side of the road. The men on the thread seemed to form a pack and went into attack mode. I see you noticed that when I groveled, SS turned around. My question is: should a women have to grovel to get a man to treat her with kindness, dignity & respect? I guess we now know the secret to men: grovel. I can't imagine a real man expecting this tho. Christ talked about women being the weaker vessel, but I think it was to protect her & not to crush her.
Tele keeps writing about women who lie about abuse & men getting punished for it. I think there's a special place in Hell for those kinds of women & it's right between 2 abusive men who are also there justly & they will spent all eternity rubbing elbows with each other. But Tele, abuse & rape is real & terrible & more common than lying women, I think. (I'm not even counting the floozies & Jezebels who parade around in flimsy clothes 'asking for it'.
I'm still waiting patiently for SS to give proof about Fatima & apparitions that caused him to spout out about my lack of credibility.
I'm also waiting for Loriann to to be 'set straight' regarding Christ & St. Paul altho to my mind she wasn't 'teaching' the Gospel but just showing the differences in style or approach. All the Apostles that Christ picked were all manly, salt of the earth type men with their own individual style but spreading the same Good News.
So there's some unfinished business on this overworked thread & having the men go into hiding won't make it go away.
-
Tiffany, I don't know what a cape dress is. Any suggestions on what? You seem to have everything covered.
Loriann, I'm really sorry that your intro to a trad Catholic forum turned out that badly. You were browbeaten & thrown to the side of the road. The men on the thread seemed to form a pack and went into attack mode. I see you noticed that when I groveled, SS turned around. My question is: should a women have to grovel to get a man to treat her with kindness, dignity & respect? I guess we now know the secret to men: grovel. I can't imagine a real man expecting this tho. Christ talked about women being the weaker vessel, but I think it was to protect her & not to crush her.
Tele keeps writing about women who lie about abuse & men getting punished for it. I think there's a special place in Hell for those kinds of women & it's right between 2 abusive men who are also there justly & they will spent all eternity rubbing elbows with each other. But Tele, abuse & rape is real & terrible & more common than lying women, I think. (I'm not even counting the floozies & Jezebels who parade around in flimsy clothes 'asking for it'.
I'm still waiting patiently for SS to give proof about Fatima & apparitions that caused him to spout out about my lack of credibility.
I'm also waiting for Loriann to to be 'set straight' regarding Christ & St. Paul altho to my mind she wasn't 'teaching' the Gospel but just showing the differences in style or approach. All the Apostles that Christ picked were all manly, salt of the earth type men with their own individual style but spreading the same Good News.
So there's some unfinished business on this overworked thread & having the men go into hiding won't make it go away.
You are a very observant person. I was hoping we'd hear something by now.
-
The men on the thread seemed to form a pack and went into attack mode. I see you noticed that when I groveled, SS turned around. My question is: should a women have to grovel to get a man to treat her with kindness, dignity & respect? I guess we now know the secret to men: grovel. I can't imagine a real man expecting this tho.
I don't expect women to "grovel" for me to treat them with kindess and respect. I usually make the effort to treat women with kindness and respect regardless. The reason I lost it was because I basically got the feeling that you were just taunting me and a few others. I am normally a pretty calm guy, but there are certain things that provoke me, and taunting is one of them. Nevertheless, I shouldn't have lost my temper, and I'm sorry I did.
I'm still waiting patiently for SS to give proof about Fatima & apparitions that caused him to spout out about my lack of credibility.
Sorry, I had actually forgotten about responding to you. I'll give my response when I'm finished looking for sources. The problem is, there is something about private revelations on Catholic Apologetics that I wanted to read, but I can't access that site now for some reason. So there goes a reliable source for me to use. Ah well.
-
Tiffany, I don't know what a cape dress is. Any suggestions on what? You seem to have everything covered.
Loriann, I'm really sorry that your intro to a trad Catholic forum turned out that badly. You were browbeaten & thrown to the side of the road. The men on the thread seemed to form a pack and went into attack mode. I see you noticed that when I groveled, SS turned around. My question is: should a women have to grovel to get a man to treat her with kindness, dignity & respect? I guess we now know the secret to men: grovel. I can't imagine a real man expecting this tho. Christ talked about women being the weaker vessel, but I think it was to protect her & not to crush her.
Tele keeps writing about women who lie about abuse & men getting punished for it. I think there's a special place in Hell for those kinds of women & it's right between 2 abusive men who are also there justly & they will spent all eternity rubbing elbows with each other. But Tele, abuse & rape is real & terrible & more common than lying women, I think. (I'm not even counting the floozies & Jezebels who parade around in flimsy clothes 'asking for it'.
I'm still waiting patiently for SS to give proof about Fatima & apparitions that caused him to spout out about my lack of credibility.
I'm also waiting for Loriann to to be 'set straight' regarding Christ & St. Paul altho to my mind she wasn't 'teaching' the Gospel but just showing the differences in style or approach. All the Apostles that Christ picked were all manly, salt of the earth type men with their own individual style but spreading the same Good News.
So there's some unfinished business on this overworked thread & having the men go into hiding won't make it go away.
You are a very observant person. I was hoping we'd hear something by now.
I was just thinking the same thing. I did my best to answer your question. Why haven't you responded?
-
Apology accepted, SS, & I await your research. (mainly because I'm sure I'll be proven right. lol ) (that's a good natured lol) For the record I did not intend to provoke or taunt & I'll have to go back & see what I wrote that ever made you think that. I know that I tend to be blunt & call a spade a spade.
-
Tiffany, I don't know what a cape dress is. Any suggestions on what? You seem to have everything covered.
Loriann, I'm really sorry that your intro to a trad Catholic forum turned out that badly. You were browbeaten & thrown to the side of the road. The men on the thread seemed to form a pack and went into attack mode. I see you noticed that when I groveled, SS turned around. My question is: should a women have to grovel to get a man to treat her with kindness, dignity & respect? I guess we now know the secret to men: grovel. I can't imagine a real man expecting this tho. Christ talked about women being the weaker vessel, but I think it was to protect her & not to crush her.
Tele keeps writing about women who lie about abuse & men getting punished for it. I think there's a special place in Hell for those kinds of women & it's right between 2 abusive men who are also there justly & they will spent all eternity rubbing elbows with each other. But Tele, abuse & rape is real & terrible & more common than lying women, I think. (I'm not even counting the floozies & Jezebels who parade around in flimsy clothes 'asking for it'.
I'm still waiting patiently for SS to give proof about Fatima & apparitions that caused him to spout out about my lack of credibility.
I'm also waiting for Loriann to to be 'set straight' regarding Christ & St. Paul altho to my mind she wasn't 'teaching' the Gospel but just showing the differences in style or approach. All the Apostles that Christ picked were all manly, salt of the earth type men with their own individual style but spreading the same Good News.
So there's some unfinished business on this overworked thread & having the men go into hiding won't make it go away.
You are a very observant person. I was hoping we'd hear something by now.
I was just thinking the same thing. I did my best to answer your question. Why haven't you responded?
I missed it--I will go back to find it.
-
I wish to know what feminism is because I have the secular definition, but feel I am missing something regarding its context here. I am not trying to make trouble, just understand, and I have been nothing but respectful to our church and its followers.
Unfortunately, many traditional Catholics believe that if a woman is not feminist under the standards set by the sixties and on, she is not a feminist at all. This couldn't be further from the truth. Some of us, recognizing the fundamental importance of the "woman question", try to maintain a fully Christian understanding of women and their place in society and the family, and for models of this we have to look back past the 50s, past even the 19th century when feminism first began to spread.
Here is a gentle yet firm statement from the Catholic Enclypodia:
If the two sexes are designed by nature for a homogeneous organic co-operation, then the leading position or a social pre-eminence must necessarily fall to one of them. Man is called by the Creator to this position of leader, as is shown by his entire bodily and intellectual make-up. On the other hand, as the result of this, a certain social subordination in respect to man which in no way injures her personal independence is assigned to woman, as soon as she enters into union with him. Consequently nothing is to be urged on this point of equality of position or of equality of rights and privileges. To deduce from this the inferiority of woman or her degradation to a "second-rate human being" contradicts logic just as much as would the attempt to regard the citizen as an inferior being because he is subordinate to the officials of the state.
It should be emphasized here that man owes his authoritative pre-eminence in society not to personal achievements but to the appointment of the Creator according to the word of the Apostle: "The man . . . is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Corinthians 11:7).
Hopefully you don't discount this simply because it cites St. Paul. As a natural society is like a family writ large, women are subordinate not only in private but in public life, and lack the rights, duties, and privileges of men in every sphere. All notions of equality between the sexes, other than the moral equality of our souls naked before the Creator, must be fought against by Catholics. His Excellency Bishop Williamson, as usual, summarizes this in simple terms:
In the beginning, God created man and woman, both human but quite different, firstly man, secondly woman (Genesis I, 27; II, 22); woman to be man's help-mate like unto himself (Gem. II, 18), woman for man, not man for woman (I Cor. XI, 9), for "the man is not of the woman but the woman is of the man" (I Cor. XI, 8). Thus even before original sin happened, God ordered between man and woman distinction, inequality, and the headship of man over woman for purposes of living in society and in the family upon this earth.
Women must also be shielded from situations, like modern college and working life, that may dull their feminity, endanger chastity in themselves and those around them, or even enflame in them resentment and rebellion against their God-given station.
Many of us are also determined to fight our culture's deeply ingrained habit of placing women on a moral pedestal. This is not the traditional understanding of women. Take a look, for instance, at Matthew's remark, on page four or five, to the effect that men struggle with their egos, while women struggle with their desire for love. There is a grain of truth to that but on its own, and especially today, it's a dangerously delusional way to think, since it makes women appear comparatively innocent: men are full of pride, and women are just looking for love. In other words, it places women on a moral pedestal. This habit of thought has become automatic even among traditional Catholics.
In contrast, Scripture and tradition teach us that "seduction began with Eve"; women, like men, have fallen souls filled with lust and rebelliousness; but in addition are characterized by a profound capacity for rationalizing their sins, for "she wipes her mouth and says: 'I have done no evil." (Proverbs 30:20) Women are less objective than men and less capable of ruling themselves and holding themselves to account.
The lust, rebelliousness, and capriciousness of womankind, whipped up, disguised, liberated, and finally mandated by law through the intellectually hollow theories of feminism, have proven disastrous for the social reign of Our Lord. They have almost almost single-handedly destroyed the family; they have criminalized the God-given spiritual and temporal rule of men; and they have led the souls of many to eternal perdition. For these reasons we are strongly against feminism and those who enable it by their excuses, tendentious revisionism, and appeals to exceptions.
Does this help?
I read part of this in another post, but missed the original--sorry. Thank you for helping me to understand this position--Is this the Trad position as a whole? It doesn't seem to account for the midbehavior of men in the world (like pornography, infidelity anger pride fighting etc) how do the men repel such worldy things? The fact that women are more heart and men more ego seem to be true. How do the men isolate themselves?
(Note--I never said I disagreed with Paul so the comment about him was not really fair). I don't quite understand how keeping women out of schools can benefit...isn't it easier to reject the culture if you are well-armed? What happens to the poor woman if her husband is disabled? Is this the reason someone mentioned that Traditionalists are on public aid more? I wholeheartedly agree that the family has declined and has become ungodly, but I think the dissolution of the family has come from male and female alike. In fact, most marital affairs that I presonally know of were the male.
-
Another member of the terrifying gang who have reduced the others to submission here: Heute Europa, morgen die ganze Welt (Today Europe, tomorrow the whole world, supposedly said by Hitler, tho' I rather doubt this myself). A wonderful example of the over-excited female imagination.....anyhow, Loriann, it is another sign of modernist tendencies that you would characterise the Spanish Inquisition as evil. It was the only thing that saved Spain from being turned into a Jєωιѕн dictatorship. Tomas de Torquemada & the others were heroes, deserving of veneration not censure.
It would be much better to read reputable history rather than that written by Judaeo-Masonic & protestant calumniators. The marranos were plotting to reduce the Christian people of Spain to an abject slavery, the ones that they didn't prefer to murder outright, that is.
The desecration of Consecrated Hosts, & the ritual murder of Christian children are two of the main reasons that the Holy Inquisition was set up in Spain. That the marranos did these things is incontrovertible. What were the Spanish crown, & people supposed to do? Have a "dialogue" with these beasts?
There are times when harsh, even seemingly merciless measures must be taken, notwithstanding the feminine dislike of intransigence in any form, it is very often absolutely necessary to the survival of Christian people. A weak sentimentality that tolerates ever greater evils, that lets a multitude of crimes go unpunished results in the open sewer of a society which we are forced to live in the midst of now.
What does one do with a gangrenous limb? Leave it? No, one cuts it off, one must cut it off, if the man affected by it is to survive. Communism, evil as it is, is at least capable of instilling martial virtues. What does this filthy hedonistic modern western society instill? Nothing but lust, sensuality, treachery, crime & disorder.
Most Western Europeans, Americans, Australians &c., think of nothing whatsoever except gratifying themselves without restraint, in whichever way they fancy, & think that they can get away with; there is not much left that is not permitted them. It is only a matter of time before there will be paedophile marchs, as there are now sodomite parades. On the other hand, look what happened in Russia when these degenerate pieces of human excrement tried to hold a parade.
First the mayor of Moscow publicly stated that he would not tolerate such a satanic act to take place in his city. They tried to do it anyway. The result was not Russians cowering, begging forgiveness for not being "inclusive". It was mass arrests, with well-deserved beatings with truncheons handed out liberally. That is the way it ought to be here as well.
This is why the decadent western "democracies" (really plutocratic oligarchies with "them" at the top) don't stand a chance against the more well-organised & better disciplined peoples of the East. The "democracies" with their so-called "tolerance" & sickening false sentimentality would be crushed like cockroaches, unless God willed otherwise. Women generally have a very difficult time understanding geo-political realities, which is why they shouldn't trouble themselves with them.
They generally ought to be at home with their family, either with their parents, or their husbands, should they marry, or else in a convent. They need to be protected from the outside neo-pagan world, if they are to avoid ideological contamination, rather children need the guidance & protection of their parents, so in a similar manner do women need the protection of their families, or of the Church.
-
Another member of the terrifying gang who have reduced the others to submission here: Heute Europa, morgen die ganze Welt (Today Europe, tomorrow the whole world, supposedly said by Hitler, tho' I rather doubt this myself). A wonderful example of the over-excited female imagination.....anyhow, Loriann, it is another sign of modernist tendencies that you would characterise the Spanish Inquisition as evil. It was the only thing that saved Spain from being turned into a Jєωιѕн dictatorship. Tomas de Torquemada & the others were heroes, deserving of veneration not censure.
It would be much better to read reputable history rather than that written by Judaeo-Masonic & protestant calumniators. The marranos were plotting to reduce the Christian people of Spain to an abject slavery, the ones that they didn't prefer to murder outright, that is.
The desecration of Consecrated Hosts, & the ritual murder of Christian children are two of the main reasons that the Holy Inquisition was set up in Spain. That the marranos did these things is incontrovertible. What were the Spanish crown, & people supposed to do? Have a "dialogue" with these beasts?
There are times when harsh, even seemingly merciless measures must be taken, notwithstanding the feminine dislike of intransigence in any form, it is very often absolutely necessary to the survival of Christian people. A weak sentimentality that tolerates ever greater evils, that lets a multitude of crimes go unpunished results in the open sewer of a society which we are forced to live in the midst of now.
What does one do with a gangrenous limb? Leave it? No, one cuts it off, one must cut it off, if the man affected by it is to survive. Communism, evil as it is, is at least capable of instilling martial virtues. What does this filthy hedonistic modern western society instill? Nothing but lust, sensuality, treachery, crime & disorder.
Most Western Europeans, Americans, Australians &c., think of nothing whatsoever except gratifying themselves without restraint, in whichever way they fancy, & think that they can get away with; there is not much left that is not permitted them. It is only a matter of time before there will be paedophile marchs, as there are now sodomite parades. On the other hand, look what happened in Russia when these degenerate pieces of human excrement tried to hold a parade.
First the mayor of Moscow publicly stated that he would not tolerate such a satanic act to take place in his city. They tried to do it anyway. The result was not Russians cowering, begging forgiveness for not being "inclusive". It was mass arrests, with well-deserved beatings with truncheons handed out liberally. That is the way it ought to be here as well.
This is why the decadent western "democracies" (really plutocratic oligarchies with "them" at the top) don't stand a chance against the more well-organised & better disciplined peoples of the East. The "democracies" with their so-called "tolerance" & sickening false sentimentality would be crushed like cockroaches, unless God willed otherwise. Women generally have a very difficult time understanding geo-political realities, which is why they shouldn't trouble themselves with them.
They generally ought to be at home with their family, either with their parents, or their husbands, should they marry, or else in a convent. They need to be protected from the outside neo-pagan world, if they are to avoid ideological contamination, rather children need the guidance & protection of their parents, so in a similar manner do women need the protection of their families, or of the Church.
Cuthbert, thank you for your response. I would hardly refer to myself as over-excited, but thanks for the laugh.
I like to always return to Jesus as my model. WWJD is corny, but it is a way to look at the founder of our church. Would you ever see Jesus burning, torturing and inventing implements which rip organs and bodies to pieces? In HIS name? The Inquisitors kept extensive transcripts of every session. They are still in the Vatican libraries. When one reads them it is horrific. No different, really, than the atrocities the Muslims are committing today in their attempt to keep their religion pure and infidels out.
Descecration of the Blessed Sacrament and murder are always wrong. The Jews descecrated the original Sacrament, and His response to Peter was to not fight with swords...His response to the cruel torture, "Father, forgive them."
-
Is this the Trad position as a whole?
It is the Traditional position, yes; but there are some who would disagree. We live on a battlefield, as I think you’ve discovered. The Traditionalist ‘identity’ has been heavily diluted recently – some say since Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, some place it earlier – and we find many Catholics who self-identify as Traditionalists but are basically modern in sensibility. With respect to feminism, this is the group I discussed in the first paragraph of my previous post, the ones who believe that opposition to post-60s “radical” feminism is sufficient. Well, guess what, according to Catholic teaching all feminism is “radical”, i.e., extreme. We can’t say that the first wave was not extreme simply because we were born into a time when it had already become the cultural baseline. We have to destroy it all.
It doesn't seem to account for the midbehavior of men in the world (like pornography, infidelity anger pride fighting etc) how do the men repel such worldy things?
Men, like women, are fallen. I make no excuses for my sex, but we’re discussing feminism and I want to stick to the point, rather than be sidetracked in an attempt to “account for the misbehavior of men”. Note more carefully this passage already cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It should be emphasized here that man owes his authoritative pre-eminence in society not to personal achievements but to the appointment of the Creator according to the word of the Apostle: "The man . . . is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Corinthians 11:7).
We have been called by Christ to spiritual perfection. But we are all a work in progress, and our imperfection does not excuse women from obeying the men placed over them (with the usual restrictions about sin applied), any more than, say, a wife’s imperfections releases her husband from his duties towards her.
The fact that women are more heart and men more ego seem to be true.
As I said, it has a grain of truth but can lead to delusion unless balanced with the knowledge that women’s egos are nearly relentless in their self-justification. The assertion that woman is “more heart” can be just another sanitizer for her selfish behavior, since whatever sin she commits, well, her deepest intentions were spotless: she’s just looking for love!
We could smash and burn all the structural aspects of feminism (the laws, institutions, lobbies, groups, books, etc.), and if only this belief remained, in the basic innocence of women, feminism would spring back into existence immediately.
The desire to have a chaste and devoted helpmeet and to run a family is inscribed on the bottom of every man’s soul, Christian or not. It has nothing to do with the ‘male ego’ and everything to with how we’re created to be. The longer this is systematically denied to the majority of men, the longer they are fed table-scraps, the more their minds cloud over with inarticulate resentment against a world that tells them to “man up” for a vicious woman’s “love”.
What does feminism feed? The woman’s heart? No, the woman’s ego. What does feminism exploit? The man’s ego? No, the man’s desire for love!
This is why we have to eschew Oprah-ized pop wisdom encapsulated in odious pat phrases like “woman are more heart and men more ego”.
I don't quite understand how keeping women out of schools can benefit...isn't it easier to reject the culture if you are well-armed? What happens to the poor woman if her husband is disabled?
There must be a playbook somewhere you’re getting this stuff from. We've seen it so many times before on CathInfo.
It’s absolutely 110% crazy to say that women should be sent into the very den of the beast so that later they can tell us how he decorates it. Maybe Trad women should spend more time in night clubs, that way they’ll be better armed against them!
What happens if her husband is disabled? Did you know that although about 30% of Americans have college degrees, upwards of 85% are employed? That means that the majority of people earning incomes in the US don’t have college degrees. Wow!
Young women should be taught skills that they can put to good use in family life, and if the worst happens, could be used to generate income through a home business. It’s very simple.
Does this help?
-
Fantastic post Graham, though I rather suspect your employment figures.
-
Changes in men’s and women’s labor force participation rates (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jan/wk2/art03.htm)
-
Changes in men’s and women’s labor force participation rates (http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2007/jan/wk2/art03.htm)
And the percentage given as "labor force participant" includes those who are out of work.
http://dqydj.net/the-male-female-unemployment-gap/
-
Excellent Graham, I especially liked the part about sending them into the den of the beast so that they can later tell us how he decorates it. Regarding the Inquisition, Loriann, the Church & Christian people do have the right to defend themselves, we are not quakers, or jehovah's witnesses. Trying & punishing malefactors who were plotting to enslave & massacre Christians is not the same thing as a man shooting someone because he had been insulted, or looked at the wrong way.
Should the Catholic people of Vienna have opened the city gates & kissed the feet of the Turks, as they cut their throats? Also, if the Inquisition was so very horrible, why was it not uncommon for common criminals to deliberately declare themselves heretics in order to get themselves transferred to the Inquisition's prisons? Could it be that it was well known that conditions in the Inquisitorial prisons were much better than in the others? That they had better food, better ventilation, better everything?
At least two witnesses were required to try someone for judaizing; the accused was asked to write out a list of his enemies, if any witness was found to be on that list, his testimony was disallowed. That's a good deal better than the much vaunted American system where a SWAT team will be sent out to knock someone's door down & shoot anyone who dares try to defend himself, all because some anonymous informer rang them up & told them that dope was being sold at such & such an address.
They've got it wrong & killed innocent people who tried to defend themselves because they thought, understandably, that they were being raided by armed robbers, many times. Many of the things done as regards punishment of malefactors & so on were indeed horrific, but they were necessary for the most part. The real world is not like a tragicomedial film, wherein all is well in the end after a bit of unpleasantness in the interim. Life in this vale of tears is a combat, one in which Christian people can not indulge in mawkish false sentimentality without putting themselves in grave peril.
-
Is this the Trad position as a whole?
It is the Traditional position, yes; but there are some who would disagree. We live on a battlefield, as I think you’ve discovered. The Traditionalist ‘identity’ has been heavily diluted recently – some say since Summorum Pontificuм in 2007, some place it earlier – and we find many Catholics who self-identify as Traditionalists but are basically modern in sensibility. With respect to feminism, this is the group I discussed in the first paragraph of my previous post, the ones who believe that opposition to post-60s “radical” feminism is sufficient. Well, guess what, according to Catholic teaching all feminism is “radical”, i.e., extreme. We can’t say that the first wave was not extreme simply because we were born into a time when it had already become the cultural baseline. We have to destroy it all.
It doesn't seem to account for the midbehavior of men in the world (like pornography, infidelity anger pride fighting etc) how do the men repel such worldy things?
Men, like women, are fallen. I make no excuses for my sex, but we’re discussing feminism and I want to stick to the point, rather than be sidetracked in an attempt to “account for the misbehavior of men”. Note more carefully this passage already cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
It should be emphasized here that man owes his authoritative pre-eminence in society not to personal achievements but to the appointment of the Creator according to the word of the Apostle: "The man . . . is the image and glory of god; but the woman is the glory of the man" (1 Corinthians 11:7).
We have been called by Christ to spiritual perfection. But we are all a work in progress, and our imperfection does not excuse women from obeying the men placed over them (with the usual restrictions about sin applied), any more than, say, a wife’s imperfections releases her husband from his duties towards her.
The fact that women are more heart and men more ego seem to be true.
As I said, it has a grain of truth but can lead to delusion unless balanced with the knowledge that women’s egos are nearly relentless in their self-justification. The assertion that woman is “more heart” can be just another sanitizer for her selfish behavior, since whatever sin she commits, well, her deepest intentions were spotless: she’s just looking for love!
We could smash and burn all the structural aspects of feminism (the laws, institutions, lobbies, groups, books, etc.), and if only this belief remained, in the basic innocence of women, feminism would spring back into existence immediately.
The desire to have a chaste and devoted helpmeet and to run a family is inscribed on the bottom of every man’s soul, Christian or not. It has nothing to do with the ‘male ego’ and everything to with how we’re created to be. The longer this is systematically denied to the majority of men, the longer they are fed table-scraps, the more their minds cloud over with inarticulate resentment against a world that tells them to “man up” for a vicious woman’s “love”.
What does feminism feed? The woman’s heart? No, the woman’s ego. What does feminism exploit? The man’s ego? No, the man’s desire for love!
This is why we have to eschew Oprah-ized pop wisdom encapsulated in odious pat phrases like “woman are more heart and men more ego”.
I don't quite understand how keeping women out of schools can benefit...isn't it easier to reject the culture if you are well-armed? What happens to the poor woman if her husband is disabled?
There must be a playbook somewhere you’re getting this stuff from. We've seen it so many times before on CathInfo.
It’s absolutely 110% crazy to say that women should be sent into the very den of the beast so that later they can tell us how he decorates it. Maybe Trad women should spend more time in night clubs, that way they’ll be better armed against them!
What happens if her husband is disabled? Did you know that although about 30% of Americans have college degrees, upwards of 85% are employed? That means that the majority of people earning incomes in the US don’t have college degrees. Wow!
Young women should be taught skills that they can put to good use in family life, and if the worst happens, could be used to generate income through a home business. It’s very simple.
Does this help?
Thanks for the answers. I find it funny that you "guys" never want to steer the conversation to questions about the male part. Perhaps we should start a thread...I am a little insulted, though, by the play book comment--I have always thought for myself, whist praying for guidance. I obey church teachings and believe we must put our money where our mouths are...to be like the Master Teacher and Savior whenever possible. I think my questions would follow a logical progression. I have seen naiive women who have been sheltered so much that they cannot even function at the death of their husbands--I do think that is a legitimate concern. I'll come back to post later, but I have to go fix dinner now. Til later...thanks.
-
The Den of the Beast comment is perplexing. There is a lot of the world that lies between the extremes of night clubs and church. I was raised in the world, sheltered, and taught why things are bad, and encouraged to follow the examples of the early church and help make the world a better place. One can work within the extremes and try to effect moral change. Somehow you must be able to teach the world why things are bad, or they can't change.
-
Regarding the Inquisition, Loriann, the Church & Christian people do have the right to defend themselves, we are not quakers, or jehovah's witnesses. Trying & punishing malefactors who were plotting to enslave & massacre Christians is not the same thing as a man shooting someone because he had been insulted, or looked at the wrong way.
/
Cuthbert--I go back to the Lord of Lords, our teacher. He was the Blessed Sacrament. He was defiled. He told Peter to put the sword down. He was scorned, beaten bloody, and murdered like a criminal. HE DID NO VIOLENCE. He did not smite them, though he could. He forgave. IT behooves us to follow His admonitions.
-
Thanks for the answers.
You're welcome Loriann. Thank you for the opportunity to provide them. Let me know if you have any more questions.
He did not smite them, though he could.
It's true that he took on human nature in order to save, and so during his tenure on Earth he refrained from smiting. But you'd do well to remember that he is a smiting God.
-
Loriann, please read, or re-read St. Augustine's doctrine on what constitutes a Just War. If the Christian people of the Dark Ages & early Middle Ages had held to this idea of absolute pacifism, there would most probably be no more Christians today than there are Parsees, & with about the same insignificant influence on the world around them. How far does this idea that no resistance whatever is to be offered aggressors go? If one takes it to its logical conclusion, one would say that all prisons are to be broken open, all policemen should leave off arresting malefactors, instead of arresting them they must embrace them, & treat them as if they were also victims, so that we finish up with the same sort of pantheistic & universalist nonsense as that which was held by Victor Hugo.
I'm not accusing you of entertaining any such ideas, but this is where this idea that criminals must always be forgiven & never punished is sure to lead. It has very often happened that a criminal, after being condemned to death will be moved to make his peace with God, knowing that he must soon appear before Him, whereas a man guilty of similar crimes who is condemned to a long term of imprisonment, even life imprisonment, will die impenitent. I would agree that many of the methods of execution used in earlier times were often unnecessarily cruel, but one must remember that burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, &c., had been done since the days of the Roman Empire, & most probably long before.
The long period of use, combined with the fact that the people of earlier ages had to endure many more hardships, & much more real suffering, heat & cold, travelling on foot &c., made these things less horrible to contemporary witnesses than they are to modern people, most of whom have lived very easy lives in comparison to their ancestors (myself included) that have led to a horror of suffering of any kind, not only to extraordinary suffering which is truly horrific, being pulled apart by horses & so on, but to things like having to wear old clothes, not being able to buy all of the latest electronic devices, luxuries are now regarded as necessities.
Modern people, generally speaking need to be treated with greater severity, not less. Many of them are over-grown spoiled brats who become frenzied raging beasts if one so much as dares to slow them down by driving the speed limit. Insolent riff-raff like this could do with a solid beating, it would be administered after they were caught driving aggresively three times. It would be a form of intensive therapy so to speak. The blows of the truncheon would shatter the delusions of grandeur, they would at last realise that they are not the centre of the universe after all......but anyhow this a digression, to summarise, there is a time for mercy, but also a time for justice.
-
Loriann, the Church has never condemned the Inquisition, unless you count Vatican II as the Church, which it is not. Who are you to say that it was somehow not Christ-like?
You also don't seem to see that it is the governments that punished people. The Inquisition merely determined certain things about them, such as if they were heretics. That is not to say the Church is against capital punishment, because it isn't. It just doesn't capitally punish anyone itself. Whether some of the tortures were excessive, is another matter; if there were excessive tortures, as there most likely were at times, it was due to fallible human governments, but cannot be blamed on the Church.
Christ told Peter to put the sword down IN A CERTAIN CIRcuмSTANCE. Firstly, it showed His mercy, to forgive someone who was coming to arrest Him, and replace his ear. Secondly, there was no point for Peter to protect Him, because if Christ didn't want to be taken away and die for our sins, He could have arranged it in many ways. But He did want to be taken away and die for our sins. He didn't need Peter's act of bravado, though it showed a lovable zeal. That was Peter's character, a bit impetuous with some intemperate zeal -- at first, then later he improved.
This same God you see here, replacing the ear of the centurion, is the same God who will render terrible judgment after blazing the planet with fire at the end of time. He is perfect justice; and perfect mercy. It is the same God who covered the Earth with a Flood. You apparently have confused God with Mr. Rogers. Are you going to the Novus Ordo?
That doesn't mean I agree with some of the others here who place to much emphasis on severity and punishment, in my view. It's a delicate balance, though, and no one has it down perfectly, most likely, except God and Mary. The point is to get close enough. And you err far too much towards a false sense of mercy.
-
The true Church has never condemned the death penalty either as the Inquisition shows along with the death penalty being in the Vatican until '68. Also as the Inquisition shows the liberal idea of religious tolerance is not needed for a successful society since Spain built the first of the great Western empires.
-
The true Church has never condemned the death penalty either as the Inquisition shows along with the death penalty being in the Vatican until '68. Also as the Inquisition shows the liberal idea of religious tolerance is not needed for a successful society since Spain built the first of the great Western empires.
:applause:
do agree, though, in that many states are corrupt, it can be troubling......their use of death penalty, but no, nothing in Catholic theology against death penalty at all. Would that we had a hierarcy and Inquisition now..... :heretic: :boxer:
-
Christ told Peter to put the sword down IN A CERTAIN CIRcuмSTANCE.
well put, in passages preceding, the Apostales took 2 swords and Christ had no issue with that........nor did he when he led, as the 2nd Power in the OT, the Isrealites into battle......
-
Regarding the Inquisition, Loriann, the Church & Christian people do have the right to defend themselves, we are not quakers, or jehovah's witnesses. Trying & punishing malefactors who were plotting to enslave & massacre Christians is not the same thing as a man shooting someone because he had been insulted, or looked at the wrong way.
Cuthbert--I go back to the Lord of Lords, our teacher. He was the Blessed Sacrament. He was defiled. He told Peter to put the sword down. He was scorned, beaten bloody, and murdered like a criminal. HE DID NO VIOLENCE. He did not smite them, though he could. He forgave. IT behooves us to follow His admonitions.
he smited plenty in the OT, so too, in the future showdown.......
His purpose in his earthly life was different and meant to be, but, He was stil the same power, the 2nd power of Trinity......He was there in the Cloud, in the battles Moses led, etc...he was there in teh power of the Ark to smite,etc.....
Must not fall prey to the temptation to seperate Jesus in the NT from the rest of the books and history.....there was never a time when He was not. He always was.
-
Thanks for the answers.
You're welcome Loriann. Thank you for the opportunity to provide them. Let me know if you have any more questions.
He did not smite them, though he could.
It's true that he took on human nature in order to save, and so during his tenure on Earth he refrained from smiting. But you'd do well to remember that he is a smiting God.
True, Psalms speaks well of this......so too the first 5 books.....Christ was the Pillar of a Cloud, the prayers of Good Friday hammer this home....the reproaches:
O My people, wha have I done to thee? Or wherein have I afflicted thee? Answer Me. Because I led thee out of the land of Egypt, thou hast prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
Because I led thee out through the desert forty years: and fed thee with manna, and brought thee into a land exceeding good, thou has prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
What more ought I to have done for thee, that I have not done? I planted thee, ineed, My most beautiful vineyard: and thou has become exceeding bitter to Me: for in My thirst thou gavest Me vinegar to drinkL and with a lance thou hast pierced the side of thy Savior.
I led theeFor thy sake I scourged Egypt with its first-born: and thou didst deliver Me up to be scourged. I led you out of Egypt having drowned Pharao in the Red Sea: and thou to the chief priests didst deliver Me.
I opened the sea before thee: and thou with a spear didst open My side.
I went before thee in a pillar of cloud: and thou didst lead Me to the judgment hall of Pilate.
I fed thee with manna in the desert; and thou didst beat Me with blows and scourges.
I gave thee the water of salvation from the rock to drink: and thou didst give Me gall and vinegar.
For thy sake I struck the kings of the Chanaanites: and thou didst strike My head with a reed.
I gave thee a royal scepter: and thou didst give My head a crown of thorns.
I exalted thee with great strength: and thou didst hang Me on the gibbet of the Cross.
-
Sorry, but you will never convince me that mutilation and burning of flesh will be the way of the NEW covenant. It stretches the truth to justify strapping or chaining a human while inserting, ripping and applying instruments of pain, as self-defense.
It is hard to call some barbarians as you burn the flesh off of other humans.
-
Thanks for the answers.
You're welcome Loriann. Thank you for the opportunity to provide them. Let me know if you have any more questions.
He did not smite them, though he could.
It's true that he took on human nature in order to save, and so during his tenure on Earth he refrained from smiting. But you'd do well to remember that he is a smiting God.
True, Psalms speaks well of this......so too the first 5 books.....Christ was the Pillar of a Cloud, the prayers of Good Friday hammer this home....the reproaches:
O My people, wha have I done to thee? Or wherein have I afflicted thee? Answer Me. Because I led thee out of the land of Egypt, thou hast prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
Because I led thee out through the desert forty years: and fed thee with manna, and brought thee into a land exceeding good, thou has prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
What more ought I to have done for thee, that I have not done? I planted thee, ineed, My most beautiful vineyard: and thou has become exceeding bitter to Me: for in My thirst thou gavest Me vinegar to drinkL and with a lance thou hast pierced the side of thy Savior.
I led theeFor thy sake I scourged Egypt with its first-born: and thou didst deliver Me up to be scourged. I led you out of Egypt having drowned Pharao in the Red Sea: and thou to the chief priests didst deliver Me.
I opened the sea before thee: and thou with a spear didst open My side.
I went before thee in a pillar of cloud: and thou didst lead Me to the judgment hall of Pilate.
I fed thee with manna in the desert; and thou didst beat Me with blows and scourges.
I gave thee the water of salvation from the rock to drink: and thou didst give Me gall and vinegar.
For thy sake I struck the kings of the Chanaanites: and thou didst strike My head with a reed.
I gave thee a royal scepter: and thou didst give My head a crown of thorns.
I exalted thee with great strength: and thou didst hang Me on the gibbet of the Cross.
-
The true Church has never condemned the death penalty either as the Inquisition shows along with the death penalty being in the Vatican until '68. Also as the Inquisition shows the liberal idea of religious tolerance is not needed for a successful society since Spain built the first of the great Western empires.
But how did it all end? In the typical cycle of domination building and decline.
-
Loriann, the Church has never condemned the Inquisition, unless you count Vatican II as the Church, which it is not. Who are you to say that it was somehow not Christ-like?
And you err far too much towards a false sense of mercy.
Thank you, when I face judgement, I can only hope those are the words used to describe me.
As for who am I to be saying something was not Christ like, I look to the teacher. His words, his actions. He never inflicted pain intentionally. Inquisition techniques did so.
-
Thanks for the answers.
You're welcome Loriann. Thank you for the opportunity to provide them. Let me know if you have any more questions.
He did not smite them, though he could.
It's true that he took on human nature in order to save, and so during his tenure on Earth he refrained from smiting. But you'd do well to remember that he is a smiting God.
True, Psalms speaks well of this......so too the first 5 books.....Christ was the Pillar of a Cloud, the prayers of Good Friday hammer this home....the reproaches:
O My people, wha have I done to thee? Or wherein have I afflicted thee? Answer Me. Because I led thee out of the land of Egypt, thou hast prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
Because I led thee out through the desert forty years: and fed thee with manna, and brought thee into a land exceeding good, thou has prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
What more ought I to have done for thee, that I have not done? I planted thee, ineed, My most beautiful vineyard: and thou has become exceeding bitter to Me: for in My thirst thou gavest Me vinegar to drinkL and with a lance thou hast pierced the side of thy Savior.
I led theeFor thy sake I scourged Egypt with its first-born: and thou didst deliver Me up to be scourged. I led you out of Egypt having drowned Pharao in the Red Sea: and thou to the chief priests didst deliver Me.
I opened the sea before thee: and thou with a spear didst open My side.
I went before thee in a pillar of cloud: and thou didst lead Me to the judgment hall of Pilate.
I fed thee with manna in the desert; and thou didst beat Me with blows and scourges.
I gave thee the water of salvation from the rock to drink: and thou didst give Me gall and vinegar.
For thy sake I struck the kings of the Chanaanites: and thou didst strike My head with a reed.
I gave thee a royal scepter: and thou didst give My head a crown of thorns.
I exalted thee with great strength: and thou didst hang Me on the gibbet of the Cross.
When Jesus brought the New Covenant, he taught a new way, as God drew closer to man. Yes, God is still a smiting God--the point of Jesus was to leave the smiting to God. The inquisition did not do that.
And I will never forget that God is the Just Judge, not us.
-
Must not fall prey to the temptation to seperate Jesus in the NT from the rest of the books and history.....there was never a time when He was not. He always was.
Jesus clearly said the Way was to be a different path than the OT. His presence in the Divine and Human form was to change the ways. Otherwise we'd still be plucking eyes for eyes.
-
He never inflicted pain intentionally.
In fact, and shame on me for forgetting this before, the divine wrath did stream once, if not fully-fledged, from the human form of Christ. I’m speaking of course of when he whipped and drove the money changers from the temple. Fr. Haydock remarks:
There was undoubtedly something divine in his whole conduct and appearance, which deterred all from making resistance. The evangelist seems to insinuate this by putting these words: "The house of my Father," into our Saviour's mouth, which was making himself immediately the Son of God. This made Origen consider this miracle, in overcoming the unruly dispositions of so many, as a superior manifestation of power to what he had shewn in changing the nature of water at Cana. A. — Jesus Christ here shews the respect he requires should be shewn to the temple of God; and S. Paul, speaking of the profaners of God's Church, saith: If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy.
the point of Jesus was to leave the smiting to God.
If the Baltimore Catechism contained the question "What was the point of Jesus?" I sincerely doubt that the response would be "To leave the smiting to God." It might say that he was sent to redeem mankind from sin, and it might add that in doing so he was to return us to our original dignity by permitting us to participate in the nature of God himself. If God is a smiting God, and if he is perfect, and if we are in his likeness and image, and if we are called to be perfect as he is, then there is definitely some call for us to smite the wolves who prey on his sheep.
Raoul is right to mention that such smiting or corporal punishment devolves to the temporal authority or state. Remember that Catholics are taught there should be no absolute separation of Church and State (or were taught this until Vatican II); rather, these can be thought of as the right and left wings of one bird. In a healthy Christian society, the state leaps to defend the formulas of the faith against obstinate subversion, since it recognizes that even temporal authority must strive to please Him on whom it ultimately depends.
First off, let’s establish the justice of the death penalty (and, by implication, other forms of corporal punishment) from the traditional ‘point of view’. What does the eminently traditional Catechism of the Council of Trent say about the death penalty?
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
Very simple and plain, I think you’ll agree. It could be urged that the passage speaks only of using the death penalty to preserve and secure human life. But of how much more importance is the eternal life which heresy endangers? Let St. Thomas speak:
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
All in all to say that the Inquisition, as such, should not be condemned by well-formed Christians, though I’m certain there were injustices done. We should pray charitably for heretics and other lost souls as Christ commanded, and also for a return to harmonious relations between the State and the Church; a wise and human tolerance for those with different beliefs, but, when necessary, a conclusive end put to the havoc wreaked by Christ's avowed enemies.
-
Even an encyclopedia with secularist bias like wikipedia admits Protestants and secularists were pretty dishonest in their exaggerations of the Holy Inquisition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Legend_of_the_Spanish_Inquisition
Loriann, what I say to you I say with respect. Falsely painting the Church of the past as evil, oppressive and intolerant and rewriting history to do that was one of the stated goals of the Communists.
The truth is, those who've seen the experts and scholars wax eloquent about the alleged cruelties of the Church don't understand the necessary steps Christian priests and princes took to keep Christendom safe and free from those who would do it harm. So you might want to pause before you follow secularist revisionists and slander the memory of those who took the steps they did that Christians may not be left to the mercy of unbelievers.
Maybe you need to consider something like the French Revolution and the slaughtering of the Vendee to see how the enemies of the Church treated Christians when we were at their mercy.
The "enlightened" men who engineered that revolution and their lackeys killed innocent women and children, priests and laymen without compunction, in numbers far greater in one decade than those executed in some three hundred years of the Holy Inquisition.
I needn't mention the millions of Christians killed under Communism.
By contrast, the courts of the Inquisition were even then famed for their mercy and leniency, and even hardened criminals preferred to be transferred to them. The death penalty was handed out rarely.
None of this is to say there might not have been some excesses and abuses here and there.
I would cite St.Paul, "For he is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil."
Fr.Garrigou Lagrange said, "The Church is intolerant in principle because she believes. She is tolerant in practice because she loves. The enemies of the Church are tolerant in principle because they do not believe. They are intolerant in pratice because they do not love"
Finally, here is what Jesus would say and do, "But as for those my enemies, who would not have me reign over them, bring them hither, and kill them before me."
-
Thorn, all right. If I understand your point of view, it appears to be everything is either "a matter of faith" or "a matter of opinion".
With respect, I think it is in this that you are mistaken. For example, there are matters known with moral certainty. This is a true certainty, and is sufficient to base one's decisions on. As an example, the certainty one has after a proper confession that one's sins are forgiven is a moral certainty.
Likewise, that Fatima is a genuine revelation from heaven is not known with the certainty of faith, but it is known with moral certainty. Because of the nature of the message, which includes very specific directives to ecclesiastical authorities, indifference to it is not an option.
Sr.Lucia said, "Father, the most Holy Virgin is very sad because no one has paid any attention to Her Message, neither the good nor the bad. The good continue on their way, but without giving any importance to Her Message. The bad, not seeing the punishment of God actually falling upon them, continue their life of sin without even caring about the Message."
-
Well, guess what, according to Catholic teaching all feminism is “radical”, i.e., extreme. We can’t say that the first wave was not extreme simply because we were born into a time when it had already become the cultural baseline. We have to destroy it all.
I'd ask for your opinion directly, Graham, but seeing what happened earlier in this thread, I'll just ask everyone:
How can feminism be destroyed?
The Den of the Beast comment is perplexing. There is a lot of the world that lies between the extremes of night clubs and church.
Church and nightclubs might be two extremes, but since one of those extremes is holy, I am confused by this theory of always looking for "middle ground" or moderation. Shouldn't we always try to stay closest to the holy side? You had also mentioned middle ground between highly feminist women and very traditional women. You used the term "mommy wars" which typically applies debates over breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding, daycare vs. staying at home etc. Would you mind elaborating as to how it applies to church teaching on Catholic women? If you do not believe feminism is intrinsically evil, I would be interested in knowing which elements of feminism you feel have been beneficial to society. Are there certain rights or advantages that you feel have positively contributed to the Catholic family?
I was raised in the world, sheltered, and taught why things are bad, and encouraged to follow the examples of the early church and help make the world a better place. One can work within the extremes and try to effect moral change. Somehow you must be able to teach the world why things are bad, or they can't change.
Could you share which examples from the early church you are referring to? How often and under what circuмstances were women called to "go out in the world" to effect change? I am not very knowledgeable in this area.
Thanks in advance for answering, Loriann. Bless you for taking in those young girls. I pray that the charity they were shown will allow them to open their hearts to the fullness of truth in the Holy Spirit.
-
He never inflicted pain intentionally.
In fact, and shame on me for forgetting this before, the divine wrath did stream once, if not fully-fledged, from the human form of Christ. I’m speaking of course of when he whipped and drove the money changers from the temple. Fr. Haydock remarks:
There was undoubtedly something divine in his whole conduct and appearance, which deterred all from making resistance. The evangelist seems to insinuate this by putting these words: "The house of my Father," into our Saviour's mouth, which was making himself immediately the Son of God. This made Origen consider this miracle, in overcoming the unruly dispositions of so many, as a superior manifestation of power to what he had shewn in changing the nature of water at Cana. A. — Jesus Christ here shews the respect he requires should be shewn to the temple of God; and S. Paul, speaking of the profaners of God's Church, saith: If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy.
the point of Jesus was to leave the smiting to God.
If the Baltimore Catechism contained the question "What was the point of Jesus?" I sincerely doubt that the response would be "To leave the smiting to God." It might say that he was sent to redeem mankind from sin, and it might add that in doing so he was to return us to our original dignity by permitting us to participate in the nature of God himself. If God is a smiting God, and if he is perfect, and if we are in his likeness and image, and if we are called to be perfect as he is, then there is definitely some call for us to smite the wolves who prey on his sheep.
Raoul is right to mention that such smiting or corporal punishment devolves to the temporal authority or state. Remember that Catholics are taught there should be no absolute separation of Church and State (or were taught this until Vatican II); rather, these can be thought of as the right and left wings of one bird. In a healthy Christian society, the state leaps to defend the formulas of the faith against obstinate subversion, since it recognizes that even temporal authority must strive to please Him on whom it ultimately depends.
First off, let’s establish the justice of the death penalty (and, by implication, other forms of corporal punishment) from the traditional ‘point of view’. What does the eminently traditional Catechism of the Council of Trent say about the death penalty?
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
Very simple and plain, I think you’ll agree. It could be urged that the passage speaks only of using the death penalty to preserve and secure human life. But of how much more importance is the eternal life which heresy endangers? Let St. Thomas speak:
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
All in all to say that the Inquisition, as such, should not be condemned by well-formed Christians, though I’m certain there were injustices done. We should pray charitably for heretics and other lost souls as Christ commanded, and also for a return to harmonious relations between the State and the Church; a wise and human tolerance for those with different beliefs, but, when necessary, a conclusive end put to the havoc wreaked by Christ's avowed enemies.
I was going to mention Jesus' one instance of wrath as the temple money changers, but forgot. Jesus had many points, and to suggest that my saying, "Leave the smiting to God" was all I saw in Jesus is erroneous.
I stand by my other remarks--clearly if things were the same today, some would approve hanging me from the ceiling and damaging parts of my body to keep the faith pure from the likes of me--a teacher, soup kitchen worker, pro-life advocate, anti-conception, adoration sitting church going CAtholic woman married almost 31 years...I am such a bad person.
-
Must not fall prey to the temptation to seperate Jesus in the NT from the rest of the books and history.....there was never a time when He was not. He always was.
Jesus clearly said the Way was to be a different path than the OT. His presence in the Divine and Human form was to change the ways. Otherwise we'd still be plucking eyes for eyes.
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever.......
Due to throw out the 10 Commandments too?
He, the God man was to bring in the New and everlasting covenant, but you might, beforing casting aside the entire OT, might want to read Malachi 3:6
You are committing an error, of dividing Christ, between OT and NT and seemingly throwing out the old......
Protestants have done this and this is why they reject the use of vestements, the use of sacraments/sacramentals, the hierachial church, and on and on.....their excuse-hey, everything is new and different, we do not need that stuff......
your comment "Jesus clearly said the Way was to be a different path than the OT. His presence in the Divine and Human form was to change the ways. " is not supportable at all, you make Him to be some revolutionary.....he was NOT. Or imply that he got it wrong or heck, changed his mind........
-
Thanks for the answers.
You're welcome Loriann. Thank you for the opportunity to provide them. Let me know if you have any more questions.
He did not smite them, though he could.
It's true that he took on human nature in order to save, and so during his tenure on Earth he refrained from smiting. But you'd do well to remember that he is a smiting God.
True, Psalms speaks well of this......so too the first 5 books.....Christ was the Pillar of a Cloud, the prayers of Good Friday hammer this home....the reproaches:
O My people, wha have I done to thee? Or wherein have I afflicted thee? Answer Me. Because I led thee out of the land of Egypt, thou hast prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
Because I led thee out through the desert forty years: and fed thee with manna, and brought thee into a land exceeding good, thou has prepared a Cross for thy Savior.
What more ought I to have done for thee, that I have not done? I planted thee, ineed, My most beautiful vineyard: and thou has become exceeding bitter to Me: for in My thirst thou gavest Me vinegar to drinkL and with a lance thou hast pierced the side of thy Savior.
I led theeFor thy sake I scourged Egypt with its first-born: and thou didst deliver Me up to be scourged. I led you out of Egypt having drowned Pharao in the Red Sea: and thou to the chief priests didst deliver Me.
I opened the sea before thee: and thou with a spear didst open My side.
I went before thee in a pillar of cloud: and thou didst lead Me to the judgment hall of Pilate.
I fed thee with manna in the desert; and thou didst beat Me with blows and scourges.
I gave thee the water of salvation from the rock to drink: and thou didst give Me gall and vinegar.
For thy sake I struck the kings of the Chanaanites: and thou didst strike My head with a reed.
I gave thee a royal scepter: and thou didst give My head a crown of thorns.
I exalted thee with great strength: and thou didst hang Me on the gibbet of the Cross.
When Jesus brought the New Covenant, he taught a new way, as God drew closer to man. Yes, God is still a smiting God--the point of Jesus was to leave the smiting to God. The inquisition did not do that.
And I will never forget that God is the Just Judge, not us.
then why, if GOd alone smites-and Jesus is a part of the Trinity, then why did Paul and Peter,etc tell us to submit to proper authority, including smiting rulers?
Why did Paul excommunicate? is that not a form of smiting?
I know some members of the World Wide Church of God and similar types that think this-they will not allow for the military, nor serving on juries,etc......
This is NOT Church teaching........
For 2000 yrs, the Church and her leaders had said that civil authorities have a right and a duty to punish.......but said punishment must be by lawful authority and just....
if we sat around nad just left it to God, which He rarely smites openly, then we wold have anarchy, which is condemned too.....
-
He never inflicted pain intentionally.
In fact, and shame on me for forgetting this before, the divine wrath did stream once, if not fully-fledged, from the human form of Christ. I’m speaking of course of when he whipped and drove the money changers from the temple. Fr. Haydock remarks:
There was undoubtedly something divine in his whole conduct and appearance, which deterred all from making resistance. The evangelist seems to insinuate this by putting these words: "The house of my Father," into our Saviour's mouth, which was making himself immediately the Son of God. This made Origen consider this miracle, in overcoming the unruly dispositions of so many, as a superior manifestation of power to what he had shewn in changing the nature of water at Cana. A. — Jesus Christ here shews the respect he requires should be shewn to the temple of God; and S. Paul, speaking of the profaners of God's Church, saith: If any man defile the temple of God, him will God destroy.
the point of Jesus was to leave the smiting to God.
If the Baltimore Catechism contained the question "What was the point of Jesus?" I sincerely doubt that the response would be "To leave the smiting to God." It might say that he was sent to redeem mankind from sin, and it might add that in doing so he was to return us to our original dignity by permitting us to participate in the nature of God himself. If God is a smiting God, and if he is perfect, and if we are in his likeness and image, and if we are called to be perfect as he is, then there is definitely some call for us to smite the wolves who prey on his sheep.
Raoul is right to mention that such smiting or corporal punishment devolves to the temporal authority or state. Remember that Catholics are taught there should be no absolute separation of Church and State (or were taught this until Vatican II); rather, these can be thought of as the right and left wings of one bird. In a healthy Christian society, the state leaps to defend the formulas of the faith against obstinate subversion, since it recognizes that even temporal authority must strive to please Him on whom it ultimately depends.
First off, let’s establish the justice of the death penalty (and, by implication, other forms of corporal punishment) from the traditional ‘point of view’. What does the eminently traditional Catechism of the Council of Trent say about the death penalty?
Another kind of lawful slaying belongs to the civil authorities, to whom is entrusted power of life and death, by the legal and judicious exercise of which they punish the guilty and protect the innocent. The just use of this power, far from involving the crime of murder, is an act of paramount obedience to this Commandment which prohibits murder. The end of the Commandment is the preservation and security of human life. Now the punishments inflicted by the civil authority, which is the legitimate avenger of crime, naturally tend to this end, since they give security to life by repressing outrage and violence. Hence these words of David: In the morning I put to death all the wicked of the land, that I might cut off all the workers of iniquity from the city of the Lord.
Very simple and plain, I think you’ll agree. It could be urged that the passage speaks only of using the death penalty to preserve and secure human life. But of how much more importance is the eternal life which heresy endangers? Let St. Thomas speak:
I answer that, With regard to heretics two points must be observed: one, on their own side; the other, on the side of the Church. On their own side there is the sin, whereby they deserve not only to be separated from the Church by excommunication, but also to be severed from the world by death. For it is a much graver matter to corrupt the faith which quickens the soul, than to forge money, which supports temporal life. Wherefore if forgers of money and other evil-doers are forthwith condemned to death by the secular authority, much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death.
On the part of the Church, however, there is mercy which looks to the conversion of the wanderer, wherefore she condemns not at once, but "after the first and second admonition," as the Apostle directs: after that, if he is yet stubborn, the Church no longer hoping for his conversion, looks to the salvation of others, by excommunicating him and separating him from the Church, and furthermore delivers him to the secular tribunal to be exterminated thereby from the world by death. For Jerome commenting on Galatians 5:9, "A little leaven," says: "Cut off the decayed flesh, expel the mangy sheep from the fold, lest the whole house, the whole paste, the whole body, the whole flock, burn, perish, rot, die. Arius was but one spark in Alexandria, but as that spark was not at once put out, the whole earth was laid waste by its flame."
All in all to say that the Inquisition, as such, should not be condemned by well-formed Christians, though I’m certain there were injustices done. We should pray charitably for heretics and other lost souls as Christ commanded, and also for a return to harmonious relations between the State and the Church; a wise and human tolerance for those with different beliefs, but, when necessary, a conclusive end put to the havoc wreaked by Christ's avowed enemies.
I was going to mention Jesus' one instance of wrath as the temple money changers, but forgot. Jesus had many points, and to suggest that my saying, "Leave the smiting to God" was all I saw in Jesus is erroneous.
I stand by my other remarks--clearly if things were the same today, some would approve hanging me from the ceiling and damaging parts of my body to keep the faith pure from the likes of me--a teacher, soup kitchen worker, pro-life advocate, anti-conception, adoration sitting church going CAtholic woman married almost 31 years...I am such a bad person.
I am nto calling you to be smited or anything, but you are wrong in many areas and lacking biblical sense........a lot of " i read that..." " seems to me it means..."
a lot of relying on feelings and personal interpretation common in NO backgrounds......
-
Nishant - yes, in the case of apparitions I do believe that it's either a case of 'a matter of faith' or a 'matter of opinion'.
No, Fatima can not be known by 'moral certainty'. The only thing that can be certain is that the church has declared that there is nothing contrary to faith & morals in the apparition. Period. That I believe. We must pray & do penance. Our Lady will crush the head of the serpent. There is a Hell & many souls go there. I don't need any apparition to convince me of these facts. God can do anything & it is possible that Fatima did happen. I'm not obligated by the church to believe in it, is my whole point. I don't understand what all the fuss is about & am waiting for Spiritus Sanctus to clear my name on this. I also believe that the devil has power to do 'signs & wonders' so we must be very cautious ala Medjugorje & other apparitions that are truly suspicious. My other point is: we don't need nor should we look for 'signs & wonders'.
-
As soon as someone sees my name do they automatically down thumb me? It doesn't seem to matter if I ask a simple question or post on anything - it gets down thumbed. If anyone disagrees with what I post why not correct whatever it is you disagree with & stop the mindless thumbs down thing?
Opinions can be right or wrong, they're simply opinions. What FACTS did I get wrong?
-
Cuthbert--I go back to the Lord of Lords, our teacher. He was the Blessed Sacrament. He was defiled. He told Peter to put the sword down. He was scorned, beaten bloody, and murdered like a criminal. HE DID NO VIOLENCE. He did not smite them, though he could. He forgave. IT behooves us to follow His admonitions.
So I guess the Cristero war was not just, because the Catholics engaged in violence, eh?
You were asked if you went to the Novus Ordo, yet you did not answer. I would like to ask you again if you attend the NO, because your mindset sounds like what they teach at an NO parish - no fighting, no violence, just peace and love.
You appear to be a pacifist, which is the opposite extreme of war-mongers like Rick Santorum. St. Thomas Aquinas says what the three conditions of a just war are:
1) It must be declared by legitimate authority. Saint Paul says: "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil" (Rm. 13:4).
2) The cause must be just. He quotes Saint Augustine: "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."
3) It must be waged with good intention. "For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): 'The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war.'"
So violence/war is perfectly legitimate under the appropriate circuмstances.
-
I also believe that the devil has power to do 'signs & wonders' so we must be very cautious ala Medjugorje & other apparitions that are truly suspicious.
Medj is from the devil. I think that's something on which we can all agree.
I confess, I gave you the two thumbs up :laugh1:
-
I'd ask for your opinion directly, Graham, but seeing what happened earlier in this thread, I'll just ask everyone:
How can feminism be destroyed?
I know I'm not Graham but I'd like to try to answer this one.
My first thought was: practically, feminism will have to destroy itself, it can't be destroyed, because it's too seductive and those who fall prey to it have often irretrievably committed themselves to it. And they know nothing different. There is practically no one with any serious influence explaining how feminism is wrong that will be taken seriously by most young women. So even gradual social breakdown will not reverse behavior. What's happened in Eastern Europe under Communism (which had a different kind of feminism, but feminism nonetheless) shows how the change is permanent.
That being said, IN THEORY, feminism could be destroyed if enough men began systematically agitating against the system - using various kinds of force. That seems pretty unlikely to happen.
So practically speaking, the reaction Catholics need to have is first to understand it and its root causes, and how it deprives men and women of the natural joys of a healthy family life. Next they need to recognize how it is incredibly pervasive and that its partisans fully intend to infiltrate traditional families and traditional communities - and eventually to use the law to govern the management of the household to be in accord with feminist ideas. So we need to be vigilant.
What can practically be done is to live well, marry well, raise children well - always being vigilant and watchful - recognizing that bad influences and attitudes are widespread and seep into people you would otherwise believe you could trust.
-
Take a look, for instance, at Matthew's remark, on page four or five, to the effect that men struggle with their egos, while women struggle with their desire for love. There is a grain of truth to that but on its own, and especially today, it's a dangerously delusional way to think, since it makes women appear comparatively innocent: men are full of pride, and women are just looking for love.
I noticed that too. If you take Bishop Williamson's actual words in his conferences he usually refers to men struggling with their egos whereas women struggle with their wills. That takes the innocence factor out of it for you. :) There's a lot to be said about both in marriage and how he shows love by sacrificing his ego and she shows love by sacrificing her will but without his exact words I'm better off leaving it there.
I don't understand why someone thought this a disagreable contribution, but I'll follow others' lead and say someone must have clicked the wrong smilie.
Can anyone elaborate the part I underlined? I don't understand how showing love toward his wife would involve the husband debasing himself.
PS. Graham, I enjoyed your post. Looking forward to the next installment. : )
Time is once again limited on my end. I'm sorry it took a bit to get back to this. Although I've listened to the conferences several times, the last time was 2-3 years ago so these are not the Bishop's words, but my understanding of the idea. My mind is making me question whether or not Dr White touched on this too, I think the nursery rhyme is from him and I might be mixing both of them up but it all ends in the same place.
The hart, he loves the high wood;
The hare, she loves the hill;
The knight, he loves his bright sword;
The lady loves her will.
It isn't that man debases himself but in order to make a sacrifice or make himself vulnerable, both of which are required by love, a man must rise above his ego whereas a woman must rise above her will. It's part of how we are wired completely differently.
Men are usually more self-oriented in that they think of themselves, they are wrapped in their own bubbles, they are fond of their own advancement and their places in the world, unlike women who tend to serve others and be interested in others naturally. They don't tend to be deeply attentive to others, they don't focus on other persons in the same way women do. This isn't BAD, it's just the way they are made and I think it's generally understood that a man's ego is an important part of him, of his identity. But when men fall in love and marry they suddenly have someone besides themselves that they must consider and act on behalf of. It takes them out of themselves to a large extent.
When a man shows his vulnerability in love by bringing flowers or showing small gestures of appreciation or asking for his wife's input, it is his ego he humbles to do so. As husband he is owed everything that she does in the home, there's no need or moral obligation to bring flowers, he could make every decision without consult if he wanted. But we all know that would not be wise. It would be the ego gone astray and thinking only of itself and such habits would most likely be to the detriment of the group. But when he is able to rise above his ego and his own perspective, he is able to be grateful and appreciate her efforts because he is broadening his view beyond himself.
In order to be selfless and sacrifice for his family and even be patient in the face of wrongdoing, it is a man's ego that he must keep humbled. You see this even outside of marriage where men who are capable of having gratitude, developing virtue, working hard or keeping cool when insulted, it is their egos that they are in control of and there's something admirable in that because it takes such effort for a man. It is his most prized possession.
Woman on the other hand, loves her will. She wants what she wants and what she wants is largely run by intuition or caprice, both of which are unpredictable, to the chagrin of those around her. I think this is more obvious and needs less explanation. When a woman is able to control her desire to have everything go her way, she is putting forth the effort to be selfless and sacrificing. Her vulnerability comes from putting her own desires on hold and in the hands of her husband. It takes great effort for a woman to do that as her will is her most prized possession.
So what is most prized is also what is most affected by original sin and most difficult to control.
I should add that egos and wills are not evil in themselves, they are necessary to men and women. A man could never get through the world without his ego and a woman could never get through the world without her will. I think the ego in relation to men is a bit more obvious, they must have confidence and authority. They need to have dominion in the world, have respect and be needed. They need a place in the world, even if just a humble one. No man can function properly without his ego intact.
With women and the will one must consider the demands of pregnancy, childbirth, raising children and managing a home to appreciate her will. When you're fighting 2 year old barbarians teaching them to be human, it takes will. When you are getting up every 2 hours at night to nurse a baby for months and years on end, it takes will. If it's not one child who needs you, it's another or another, or your husband, or the neighbor, or your husband again, and now the baby. The demands on a mother's person are constant and no matter how much she loves, they can often be exhausting. Motherhood is not a job for the weak-willed. No way could a woman plod through one step after the other without a strong will, both in terms of the will as a faculty and the will of knowing/getting what you want (you just have to want the right things). That's why selfish women put marriage and children on hold or fulfill their duties half-heartedly. They'd rather do what they want to do and motherhood is the complete opposite of that. You are entirely given over to other people. It's also why little gestures like the husband and family taking over chores for an afternoon and letting mom put her feet up or bringing her breakfast in bed or little "pamperings" like that on occasion mean so much to a mother whereas they would have a bit less effect and impact on a father. A father is more flattered by his wife and children coming to him for consultation, to hear of his life and experiences, to be taught by him, things that pormote his ego in a healthy way.
Fatherhood makes a saint of a man because it brings him out of his particular way of being selfish, through his ego and motherhood makes a saint of a woman because it brings her out of her particular way of being selfish, through her will.
What is amazing is that in the end each gets what they need by giving it up, typical Christian paradox. A man who is capable of controlling his ego will have a wife and family who respect him thereby affirming that ego. A woman who is capable of controlling her will will have a husband and family who respect her desires thereby giving her her will. But it's a completely different atmosphere when it is given freely by loved ones than when one fights to hold onto it for themselves. It is much more fulfilling, much more peaceful and stable.
Of course this is the ideal of how things should go, we all know original sin rears its ugly head and wreaks havoc in a million different ways. But the ideal at least gives us something to strive for.
-
(As an aside, because it's a running theme here, that's why people are instinctively offended when someone goes on about what they are owed. It's not that they disagree, they often know it's true, they just know that it's the basest level of understanding and behavior, even if they can't put it in so many words. There are higher ways of dealing with situations that are less likely to make the situation worse.)
-
By "woman's will" you mean ego - that she "do as she will" have her "free will" wallflower. You don't actually mean will in sense it is used when speaking of "an act of will."
By ego, on the other hand, you probably mean will. It suggests you think as though a man's focus on what he's doing is egotism.
-
People being confused about what they are owed in justice because of customary "gratuities" becomes a problem.
-
By "woman's will" you mean ego - that she "do as she will" have her "free will" wallflower. You don't actually mean will in sense it is used when speaking of "an act of will."
By ego, on the other hand, you probably mean will. It suggests you think as though a man's focus on what he's doing is egotism.
Woman on the other hand, loves her will. She wants what she wants and what she wants is largely run by intuition or caprice, both of which are unpredictable, to the chagrin of those around her. I think this is more obvious and needs less explanation. When a woman is able to control her desire to have everything go her way, she is putting forth the effort to be selfless and sacrificing. Her vulnerability comes from putting her own desires on hold and in the hands of her husband. It takes great effort for a woman to do that as her will is her most prized possession.
-
I'd ask for your opinion directly, Graham, but seeing what happened earlier in this thread, I'll just ask everyone:
How can feminism be destroyed?
I know I'm not Graham but I'd like to try to answer this one.
My first thought was: practically, feminism will have to destroy itself, it can't be destroyed, because it's too seductive and those who fall prey to it have often irretrievably committed themselves to it. And they know nothing different. There is practically no one with any serious influence explaining how feminism is wrong that will be taken seriously by most young women. So even gradual social breakdown will not reverse behavior. What's happened in Eastern Europe under Communism (which had a different kind of feminism, but feminism nonetheless) shows how the change is permanent.
That being said, IN THEORY, feminism could be destroyed if enough men began systematically agitating against the system - using various kinds of force. That seems pretty unlikely to happen.
So practically speaking, the reaction Catholics need to have is first to understand it and its root causes, and how it deprives men and women of the natural joys of a healthy family life. Next they need to recognize how it is incredibly pervasive and that its partisans fully intend to infiltrate traditional families and traditional communities - and eventually to use the law to govern the management of the household to be in accord with feminist ideas. So we need to be vigilant.
What can practically be done is to live well, marry well, raise children well - always being vigilant and watchful - recognizing that bad influences and attitudes are widespread and seep into people you would otherwise believe you could trust.
Great post, Tele. I was wondering if you could expound more upon this:
"That being said, IN THEORY, feminism could be destroyed if enough men began systematically agitating against the system - using various kinds of force. That seems pretty unlikely to happen."
I know you said that it would be unlikely to happen, but in theory, what would that look like?
-
But how did it all end? In the typical cycle of domination building and decline.
So the peoples of the countries Spain conquered were not improved by the Spanish being there? How about the Indians doing cannibalism, human sacrifice, and tomahawking early settlers? That seems like savage behavior to me.
-
I know you said that it would be unlikely to happen, but in theory, what would that look like?
It's best not to go into detail.
-
My older sister is an old maid who takes her work home with her on the weekends.
The other day I was looking through my books and I found the the 1988-1989 Harvard Course Catalogue.
She didn't go to Harvard, she went to Georgetown for some strange reason,
but it seems apparent the effect was the same.
She was seventeen then, did she and my parents understand the real reason Harvard would want an intelligent girl from a Catholic family?
It wasn't to help her have a Catholic Family life, that's for sure!
-
This is a post (not mine) from a blog that I'm not going to name - but I found it very disturbing and it's influenced my thinking:
Guys, this is somewhat off topic but related to the post because it concerns men who want to have a family later in life. I will post it anyway in hopes of saving a few souls.
Here is what to expect from a post high-divorce rate society which is what America is now.
1) A low birth rate averaging about one child per two people–mostly because men are afraid to have children.
2) A low marriage rate–mostly because men are afraid to get married.
3) Grown men and women living with and around their mothers.
4) Women who think of the family unit as this: a mother, a grandmother, and a baby. When the women speak of a family, they never mention a man.
5) Women who are so desperate to get a baby, they will take sperm from almost any source and get a baby in any ruthless way possible.
6) You can expect the women to be incredibly slutty with something like 20% paternity fraud, [here he goes into off-color details]
7) A bastard (fatherless) rate of at least 30% and up to 70%.
8) An increasing crime rate.
9) Increasing poverty.
10) Decreasing education.
11) Increasing ѕυιcιdє, depression, nihilism in the youth.
12) Lost and aimless men of all ages with a low life expectancy for men.
I base my observations on living in Eastern Europe (Czech, Russian, Polish, Slovak, Ukraine, Ireland, America). Many women in these countries have no expectation of having a husband. Given the chance to have a husband, they would usually choose to not have one around, unless he was just a paycheck who did not interfere on their lifestyle in any way. Other women have extremely unrealistic expectations that a man will ride in on a white horse and save them and their “baby” from abject poverty.
If the women live in a country where hefty state assistance is available to single mothers through welfare or child support, of course you can expect the number of single mothers to be a very high percentage and you can even expect some women to commit serial bastardization (multiple children with multiple men).
As a man living in these countries you will be hunted for sperm and money. Of the hundreds of women you come across, perhaps none of them will respect you for being a kind or interesting person. You as a man are completely commoditized in these cultures.
Even if all state assistance is removed, there is no reversal of this behavior and these trends once they are in motion. The only thing that ends this “ghettofication” and “bastardization” is a decreasing birth rate which slowly extinguishes these very sad societies.
What is somewhat alarming in America is that the family breakdown seems to be associated with a higher incarceration rate for mostly men; if this trend continues, you can expect all America to be like Louisiana: a giant bastard and slave prison with an incarceration rate for men of close to 4% (1,600/50,000) and a fatherless rate of around 40%.
My point is this: if you want to have a family, you need to take yourself to a country with the opposite of these trends.
-
I know you said that it would be unlikely to happen, but in theory, what would that look like?
It's best not to go into detail.
Jen, I'm guessing it looks much less pleasant than the two of us teaching the joys of meal planning to the next generation of young ladies. :wink:
In all seriousness, in a non-graphic nutshell, isn't it just military forced restoration of patriarchy?
Oh and since this post had sailed far away from pajamas, what's for dinner tonight?
I'm baking a lasanga with fresh tomato sauce and basil I grew in my window. :) It weighs more than my 10.5 month old child, so I think I'll freeze most of it. :)
-
Loriann, please read, or re-read St. Augustine's doctrine on what constitutes a Just War. If the Christian people of the Dark Ages & early Middle Ages had held to this idea of absolute pacifism, there would most probably be no more Christians today than there are Parsees, & with about the same insignificant influence on the world around them. How far does this idea that no resistance whatever is to be offered aggressors go? If one takes it to its logical conclusion, one would say that all prisons are to be broken open, all policemen should leave off arresting malefactors, instead of arresting them they must embrace them, & treat them as if they were also victims, so that we finish up with the same sort of pantheistic & universalist nonsense as that which was held by Victor Hugo.
I'm not accusing you of entertaining any such ideas, but this is where this idea that criminals must always be forgiven & never punished is sure to lead. It has very often happened that a criminal, after being condemned to death will be moved to make his peace with God, knowing that he must soon appear before Him, whereas a man guilty of similar crimes who is condemned to a long term of imprisonment, even life imprisonment, will die impenitent. I would agree that many of the methods of execution used in earlier times were often unnecessarily cruel, but one must remember that burning at the stake, breaking on the wheel, &c., had been done since the days of the Roman Empire, & most probably long before.
The long period of use, combined with the fact that the people of earlier ages had to endure many more hardships, & much more real suffering, heat & cold, travelling on foot &c., made these things less horrible to contemporary witnesses than they are to modern people, most of whom have lived very easy lives in comparison to their ancestors (myself included) that have led to a horror of suffering of any kind, not only to extraordinary suffering which is truly horrific, being pulled apart by horses & so on, but to things like having to wear old clothes, not being able to buy all of the latest electronic devices, luxuries are now regarded as necessities.
Modern people, generally speaking need to be treated with greater severity, not less. Many of them are over-grown spoiled brats who become frenzied raging beasts if one so much as dares to slow them down by driving the speed limit. Insolent riff-raff like this could do with a solid beating, it would be administered after they were caught driving aggresively three times. It would be a form of intensive therapy so to speak. The blows of the truncheon would shatter the delusions of grandeur, they would at last realise that they are not the centre of the universe after all......but anyhow this a digression, to summarise, there is a time for mercy, but also a time for justice.
Excellent post! :applause:
-
As soon as someone sees my name do they automatically down thumb me? ?
You'll get used to it. :smirk:
-
That being said, IN THEORY, feminism could be destroyed if enough men began systematically agitating against the system - using various kinds of force. That seems pretty unlikely to happen.
I think feminism is fueled by the homo collective to a large extent, and that is a very depressing thought.
-
In all seriousness, in a non-graphic nutshell, isn't it just military forced restoration of patriarchy?
I think he's envisaging something less disciplined.
-
In all seriousness, in a non-graphic nutshell, isn't it just military forced restoration of patriarchy?
I think he's envisaging something less disciplined.
...this is wear I hear crickets chirping as we've now gone outside of my conversational cup of tea. I tried, lol...
-
I know you said that it would be unlikely to happen, but in theory, what would that look like?
It's best not to go into detail.
Jen, I'm guessing it looks much less pleasant than the two of us teaching the joys of meal planning to the next generation of young ladies. :wink:
In all seriousness, in a non-graphic nutshell, isn't it just military forced restoration of patriarchy?
Oh and since this post had sailed far away from pajamas, what's for dinner tonight?
I'm baking a lasanga with fresh tomato sauce and basil I grew in my window. :) It weighs more than my 10.5 month old child, so I think I'll freeze most of it. :)
I am genuinely curious, though, about "agitating the system." I really have no clue. I hope it wasn't an impertinent question. :(
Yes, this thread has gone hopelessly askew, in many different directions. I've found the last few posts on feminism recently made to be very edifying though, so I can't complain.
Lasagna with fresh basil sounds great! I made catfish parmesan tonight, from catfish I caught with my dad. :) There was too much for myself so I took the rest in to my coworkers.
-
By "woman's will" you mean ego - that she "do as she will" have her "free will" wallflower. You don't actually mean will in sense it is used when speaking of "an act of will."
By ego, on the other hand, you probably mean will. It suggests you think as though a man's focus on what he's doing is egotism.
It's like you start arguing before you even read. If you even read.
-
I know you said that it would be unlikely to happen, but in theory, what would that look like?
It's best not to go into detail.
Like a picture, this says a thousand words.
jen don't consider for one moment that you are being impertinent. It's a valid question. I suspect he knows his answer requires more violence than is acceptable in a Catholic society. The Fundamental Protestants and Islamic societies would lap it up though.
-
jen don't consider for one moment that you are being impertinent. It's a valid question. I suspect he knows his answer requires more violence than is acceptable in a Catholic society. The Fundamental Protestants and Islamic societies would lap it up though.
What is acceptable violence in a Catholic society in a revolutionary state is a difficult question to answer. What is not difficult to understand is that laying out some imaginary plan of various tactics that could be used to get rid of feminism would only be counter-productive and could be used to smear anti-feminists.
-
I am genuinely curious, though, about "agitating the system." I really have no clue. I hope it wasn't an impertinent question. :(
I think it's a good question (I'm curious too) but I think Tele and Graham will avoid answering it for two reasons:
1.). It will make certain people here very upset.
2.) It might not (directly) apply to/effect ladies who "think" like you and I do, so no point exposing it to us.
Then again I could be way off.
-
Take a look, for instance, at Matthew's remark, on page four or five, to the effect that men struggle with their egos, while women struggle with their desire for love. There is a grain of truth to that but on its own, and especially today, it's a dangerously delusional way to think, since it makes women appear comparatively innocent: men are full of pride, and women are just looking for love.
I noticed that too. If you take Bishop Williamson's actual words in his conferences he usually refers to men struggling with their egos whereas women struggle with their wills. That takes the innocence factor out of it for you. :) There's a lot to be said about both in marriage and how he shows love by sacrificing his ego and she shows love by sacrificing her will but without his exact words I'm better off leaving it there.
Graham I also wanted to mention that although I agree with you that putting woman's need for love parallel to man's ego can cause her to seem more innocent than she is, there are other facets of life in which her need for love does put her at a disadvantage.
When it comes to sex and love, women are very much at a disadvantage because often when they are looking for love, men are simply looking for sex.
Now when a man falls in love, then he is vulnerable as well because sex means more to him at that point. (A man needs sex to feel close while a women needs to feel close for sex) So yes he is vulnerable too in the correct context.
But in the general fallen world of concupiscence she is most disadvantaged. This comes from being under his leadership and wanting his approval. Which is why we do our daughters no favors to teach submmission without being just as strong in teaching her who to submit to.
Many trads and especially some men have a lopsided view on submission, and tradguy brushed on this earlier with his comment on women having to hear men out. Well, yes and no. Unless you are someone's husband, father, brother, priest, or in a position of secular authority, you can't claim any kind of authority simply by virtue of being a man. There's more to it than that.
Submission is an active act of the will that affects a woman and her (future) family's life forever. It even affects their eternity. It's not to be taken lightly. The Fiat provides so much meat for meditation on how profound an act it is through both God's initiation and Our Lady's response. Both the male and female perspectives are encompassed therein.
I absolutely believe in and consciously practice submission in my daily life, but you can believe I am particualar about to whom. Besides those listed above there are certain men, even here, who have proven themselves to be learned, virtuous, life-experienced and I value their input. Before then, it's with reservation that I listen but certainly not to the extent that people like SS or TradGuy, probably even PW seem to believe to be correct. I think once they are married they will realize it would be very unwise and inappropriate for their wives or daughters to listen to any Tom, D1ck or Harry who has something to say to them, and especially if those men begin to harangue them about it. That kind of behavior of trying to be forceful with women who are in no way indebted to them only proves how women do need to be guarded. The way some women are spoken to it's lucky it's online and husbands aren't in person. But there again, lack of life experience, being able to think about it in terms of their own wives and daughters, makes a difference. That's why it's on my list of qualities that I look for.
Aside from that, yes I just wanted to mention that I know where Matthew was coming from and he is in some ways correct about that. The need for love did not fit exactly right in that parallel but it does fit in other ways. For as much as feminism is a cause of many evils, it is also a symptom of many evils and a woman's vulnerability and dependence on man are entangled right in there with everything else.
-
When it comes to sex and love, women are very much at a disadvantage because often when they are looking for love, men are simply looking for sex.
They're only "at a disadvantage" if they aren't waiting for marriage.
This claim of women that they are looking for love but men are looking for sex is a rationalization.
Women show by what they respond to and their pattern of behavior the things that they're really looking for.
-
They're only "at a disadvantage" if they aren't waiting for marriage.
This claim of women that they are looking for love but men are looking for sex is a rationalization.
Women show by what they respond to and their pattern of behavior the things that they're really looking for.
Yeah wasn't the whole point of the feminist movement the 'ideal' that women could sow their wild oats in the frat houses and bars with one-night stands just like men? Of course since the consequence is pregnancy the pill and abortion was used to justify the new 'moral code.'
-
Wallflower, I make no judgment about who you (or any woman here) trusts or listens to. I can learn a lot from both men and women here. I appreciate any genuine attempt to look out for me. I don't get that anywhere else, unless you count the anti-Catholic things my mother says as caring about my well being.
What hurt my feelings was being called out and shamed in a rather random way. Asking opinions and seeking guidance isn't the same thing as submission. I'm learning, and it's unfortunate how irritating that is to others, when they have no idea how I use what I hear to learn to be a better person. It isn't about surrendering my will without caution to "random men" on the internet. It's about realizing what sort of guidance is and isn't helpful for someone in my position.
It's wrong to assume the worst of people and their intentions, but I have a very hard time extending such charity when the advice is based on assumption of intent. Not assuming should go both ways. I don't think anyone here would disagree that I'm vulnerable. Reminding me of it randomly in an unrelated post just doesn't feel very sincere. Especially when it turns to basically making fun of me.
I take everything to heart, but I have to square it up with my own instincts and observed patterns too.
-
By "woman's will" you mean ego - that she "do as she will" have her "free will" wallflower. You don't actually mean will in sense it is used when speaking of "an act of will."
By ego, on the other hand, you probably mean will. It suggests you think as though a man's focus on what he's doing is egotism.
It's like you start arguing before you even read. If you even read.
though we are all prone to that, you noticed that too, did you.....
perhaps some sub-human (read, non white to Tele) upset her today in WhiteBread land.....those keys taking a :fryingpan: no doubt :laugh1:
-
PW, no one made fun of you. I have no idea where you got that idea. I pointed out a seeming contradiction in you that is confusing and doesn't seem straight-forward, that's not making fun. I think as long as you think of yourself as some hapless victim in this thread, you will not fully take in what was said to you.
Also asking questions and taking guidance are absolutely a type of submission. No one is assuming you do this, we can see it for ourselves. And for how many times you yourself admit to being vulnerable I don't see what was so traumatic about others noticing and speaking up as well. I have not seen this type of thread constantly being made about you, this was the first I saw, but it was bound to come out at some point as many were obviously building to the same conclusion with every post you made. You think this was unrelated but you were asking questions and looking for direction, right? If that isn't related to "be careful who you put your trust into", I don't know what is.
-
Wallflower - thanks. Couldn't have said it better myself! We're being accused of something that I'm positive no one did.
-
Wallflower - thanks. Couldn't have said it better myself! We're being accused of something that I'm positive no one did.
might I be permitted to second that :applause:
-
PW, no one made fun of you. I have no idea where you got that idea. I pointed out a seeming contradiction in you that is confusing and doesn't seem straight-forward, that's not making fun. I think as long as you think of yourself as some hapless victim in this thread, you will not fully take in what was said to you.
Also asking questions and taking guidance are absolutely a type of submission. No one is assuming you do this, we can see it for ourselves. And for how many times you yourself admit to being vulnerable I don't see what was so traumatic about others noticing and speaking up as well. I have not seen this type of thread constantly being made about you, this was the first I saw, but it was bound to come out at some point as many were obviously building to the same conclusion with every post you made. You think this was unrelated but you were asking questions and looking for direction, right? If that isn't related to "be careful who you put your trust into", I don't know what is.
I can't help but feel made fun of with comments about how I need to worry less about nightgowns and more about going to mass, or how I speak eloquently about certain topics, but I can't figure out what to wear. Those comments feel snarky, and they seem to make assumptions about my priorities and my dedication to a spiritual life. My devotion and my prayer life have already made a difference for me. I already feel as though the Lord has recognized my faithfulness, so I must not be doing to terrible. Forgive me for bringing up a topic that I struggle with a bit that isn't directly related to traditional piety.
If asking for guidance is in itself a form of submission, then I am perfectly fine with that. I don't have to have a spousal level of trust in everyone to find value in their opinions.
I really want to believe that this was all truly done out of genuine concern for me, but I'm skeptical. To interject a warning about my "serious situation" in a public comment says a lot. It comes across as a form of insidious shaming. There is really no other way to describe that besides that it is hurtful.
-
if, ever, you want to chat and not be on the threads, feel free to send me-or anyone-a PM...that might cut out a lot of bull around.....if you are comfortable with that, send away a PM.....
-
I really want to believe that this was all truly done out of genuine concern for me, but I'm skeptical. To interject a warning about my "serious situation" in a public comment says a lot. It comes across as a form of insidious shaming. There is really no other way to describe that besides that it is hurtful.
And yet, still not an eye batted over the suggestion that some things don't seem straight-forward.
And "insidious shaming"? lol There have been several phrases used here that I noticed sounded too familiar. This one takes the cake though. There's only one person I've ever heard talk like that. Well, I guess now maybe two.
-
Wallflower, your bullying and mocking of PenitentWoman is really difficult to observe. I think it would be a good idea for you to have some decency and leave her alone. It is truly pathetic and sickening to watch you behave this way to someone who feels helpless and hurt. If you are going to behave like that, you really shouldn't bother calling yourself a Traditional Catholic.
You've been behaving in a similar manner towards Tele for a long time, so it comes as no real surprise. One would think that you could at least show some sympathy to someone who feels hurt by your comments, but it appears that you're too caught up in your own ego to even feel remorse for such an un-Catholic attitude.
-
And cue SS calling onto question my very Catholicism, "bullying" more than those he accuses of doing so, because I take a different view of a person and situation than he does. Eh, it's too predictable.
-
SS - UNBELIEVABLE!!!! What on earth are you talking about?
PS: I'm still waitinggg.
-
And cue SS calling onto question my very Catholicism, "bullying" more than those he accuses of doing so, because I take a different view of a person and situation than he does. Eh, it's too predictable.
So telling you that you're bullying someone else and that your behavior is un-Catholic is even more bullying? Nonsense.
-
I don't know the situation between WF and Tele. To WF defense though, I have seen a pattern with PW, her posts will turn waif/victim type especially after a poster extrapolates on a statement she has made. The poster is made out to be the bad guy attacking her then. Now that is insidious. :D
-
Looks like more & more people are finally seeing a pattern.
Here's the scenerio:
A young Poster comes on a public Catholic forum & asks questions about finding tradition after giving a rundown to all about her backgound.
Several older trad Catholic women try to answer by giving advice. They've had some bad experiences in their own lives & believe Poster may be headed in that direction too- based on what Poster wrote. They also give her advice about tradition.
Poster takes offense & goes to cool off.
Poster returns to say that said women were making fun of her!!!
Young unmarried men rush to Poster's defense and accuse the women who tried to help the young Poster of bullying her!!
Women are left scratching their heads in disbelief.
Poster doesn't mention tradition much any more. Goes on to cook gourmet meals & can as she's comfortable with that.
Young men high five each other & invite Poster to ask THEM for advice.
Reading books on tradition are their specialty.
No one can figure this one out.
-
Thorn,
wallflower and catherineofsiena are typical outspoken trad women and as such they put a very high priority on policing all trad women they feel to be under their purview. In particular, part of this policing is to make sure that their own feminist slanted ideas of what is traditional are upheld by all the women, (at least all the attractive women). They get extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a young trad woman who thinks for herself - and worst of all - who shows any sign whatsoever of going against their control over which men are deemed acceptable. They place a premium on their ability to control who the women of the group are willing to go with - that's the crux of their power. So if a woman opts out of their little "femitrad union" - there's hell to pay.
-
This is a post (not mine) from a blog that I'm not going to name - but I found it very disturbing and it's influenced my thinking:
Guys, this is somewhat off topic but related to the post because it concerns men who want to have a family later in life. I will post it anyway in hopes of saving a few souls.
Here is what to expect from a post high-divorce rate society which is what America is now.
1) A low birth rate averaging about one child per two people–mostly because men are afraid to have children.
2) A low marriage rate–mostly because men are afraid to get married.
3) Grown men and women living with and around their mothers.
4) Women who think of the family unit as this: a mother, a grandmother, and a baby. When the women speak of a family, they never mention a man.
5) Women who are so desperate to get a baby, they will take sperm from almost any source and get a baby in any ruthless way possible.
6) You can expect the women to be incredibly slutty with something like 20% paternity fraud, [here he goes into off-color details]
7) A bastard (fatherless) rate of at least 30% and up to 70%.
8) An increasing crime rate.
9) Increasing poverty.
10) Decreasing education.
11) Increasing ѕυιcιdє, depression, nihilism in the youth.
12) Lost and aimless men of all ages with a low life expectancy for men.
I base my observations on living in Eastern Europe (Czech, Russian, Polish, Slovak, Ukraine, Ireland, America). Many women in these countries have no expectation of having a husband. Given the chance to have a husband, they would usually choose to not have one around, unless he was just a paycheck who did not interfere on their lifestyle in any way. Other women have extremely unrealistic expectations that a man will ride in on a white horse and save them and their “baby” from abject poverty.
If the women live in a country where hefty state assistance is available to single mothers through welfare or child support, of course you can expect the number of single mothers to be a very high percentage and you can even expect some women to commit serial bastardization (multiple children with multiple men).
As a man living in these countries you will be hunted for sperm and money. Of the hundreds of women you come across, perhaps none of them will respect you for being a kind or interesting person. You as a man are completely commoditized in these cultures.
Even if all state assistance is removed, there is no reversal of this behavior and these trends once they are in motion. The only thing that ends this “ghettofication” and “bastardization” is a decreasing birth rate which slowly extinguishes these very sad societies.
What is somewhat alarming in America is that the family breakdown seems to be associated with a higher incarceration rate for mostly men; if this trend continues, you can expect all America to be like Louisiana: a giant bastard and slave prison with an incarceration rate for men of close to 4% (1,600/50,000) and a fatherless rate of around 40%.
My point is this: if you want to have a family, you need to take yourself to a country with the opposite of these trends.
This is grossly exagerrated. I am married to a Russian woman, 15 years, 5 children. She had lots of friends who would love to marry a sober man, who would be faithful. They are gorgeous some of them.
-
Thanks. Tele, for your explanation. But this is the problem - You wrote that the feminist women 'get extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a young trad woman who thinks for herself'. As the Poster presented herself, she COULDN'T think for herself, even to the nightie to wear! There were other things as well, but do you understand? I didn't find them to be trying to control the Poster. Contrarywise I felt that the advice was motherly and something that Poster needed to hear as she seemed quite vulnerable.
Also, I was attacked as well. Do you view me as a feminist & if so how do you base your opinion? I was surprised at how vicious it became. I personally think & felt that there were misunderstandings flowing all around.
-
No, she was asking about what was appropriate to wear around the house because she was thinking. Trying to understand what's best. She wondered if there was an answer that most trads would have for her.
The bizarre response was effectively to "warn" her that she was in danger in getting involved with abusive men.
-
Thorn,
wallflower and catherineofsiena are typical outspoken trad women and as such they put a very high priority on policing all trad women they feel to be under their purview. In particular, part of this policing is to make sure that their own feminist slanted ideas of what is traditional are upheld by all the women, (at least all the attractive women). They get extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a young trad woman who thinks for herself - and worst of all - who shows any sign whatsoever of going against their control over which men are deemed acceptable. They place a premium on their ability to control who the women of the group are willing to go with - that's the crux of their power. So if a woman opts out of their little "femitrad union" - there's hell to pay.
Tele,
I am flattered that I live rent free inside your head. However, I am not interested in joining the Church of Tele. Spare me your propaganda. I am a Catholic, not a rigorist. Take heart though, because the women attracted to you will never be put off by the likes of me.
I hope this assuages your concerns. Now back on ignore you go.
catherine
P.S. Your comment about "attractive women" is a bit puzzling. Whose picture have you seen?
-
I am flattered that I live rent free inside your head.
I know very well how trad women act when they want to punish a man they disapprove of. Even if their ideas are completely paranoid, they will do anything to prevent that man from being accepted by trad women.
However, I am not interested in joining the Church of Tele. Spare me your propaganda. I am a Catholic, not a rigorist.
blah blah blah
Take heart though, because the women attracted to you will never be put off by the likes of me.
Doubtless it depends on the woman. However the behavior of women like you certainly can have a negative effect on those women, no matter what choice they make.
I hope this assuages your concerns. Now back on ignore you go.
catherine
Putting me on and off ignore pretty much shows you can't control yourself.
P.S. Your comment about "attractive women" is a bit puzzling. Whose picture have you seen?
Well, I know you think PW is pretty, I sort of recall seeing her avatar once, but I don't have a clear recollection of her appearance.
My point about how these femitrad police only care about the attractive women is this: they don't care what happens to the unattractive women because it doesn't affect their self-perception of social status. Because that's what all these games on the part of these trad women are really about.
-
Putting me on and off ignore pretty much shows you can't control yourself.
You're right. The temptation to spar with you becomes too great to overcome.
You know what I did today? I cut off one of those "do not remove under penalty of law" tags. All of it.
:devil2:
Well, I know you think PW is pretty
Where did you hear that?
-
Where did you hear that?
You know it wasn't long ago I was in proximity to the cathinfo control panel.
:laugh1:
-
Where did you hear that?
You know it wasn't long ago I was in proximity to the cathinfo control panel.
:laugh1:
Perhaps you could elaborate. I was under the impression private messages were private unless shared by the parties involved with others.
Which was it Tele?
-
Where did you hear that?
You know it wasn't long ago I was in proximity to the cathinfo control panel.
:laugh1:
Perhaps you could elaborate. I was under the impression private messages were private unless shared by the parties involved with others.
Which was it Tele?
Who is talking about private messages?
-
Where did you hear that?
You know it wasn't long ago I was in proximity to the cathinfo control panel.
:laugh1:
Perhaps you could elaborate. I was under the impression private messages were private unless shared by the parties involved with others.
Which was it Tele?
Who is talking about private messages?
I'd like to know what you meant by the control panel comment. Unless you have an example, I don't recall ever discussing PW's looks on a thread. So my question is, how did you come by that information? Did she share my pm's with you, are you a moderator or did you hack into our accounts?
A simple question.
-
I'd like to know what you meant by the control panel comment. Unless you have an example, I don't recall ever discussing PW's looks on a thread. So my question is, how did you come by that information? Did she share my pm's with you, are you a moderator or did you hack into our accounts?
A simple question.
Catherine:
I am flattered that I live rent free inside your head.
:laugh2:
-
I'd like to know what you meant by the control panel comment. Unless you have an example, I don't recall ever discussing PW's looks on a thread. So my question is, how did you come by that information? Did she share my pm's with you, are you a moderator or did you hack into our accounts?
A simple question.
Catherine:
I am flattered that I live rent free inside your head.
:laugh2:
Answer the question.
-
Creepy.
-
Tele and Graham and SS, I think you did a very good job on this thread. I have followed it from the beginning but haven't said anything because everything I would have tried to say was already said so well.
I would like to add that this thread is ridiculous. PenitentWoman, who clearly is a truly penitent woman, is asking completely legitimate questions related to interior modesty of spirit. Modesty is an internal disposition, and clothing is a reflection of that disposition as much as it is also an act of charity towards those around oneself. It is simply not true that modesty only exists in relation to others, or that modesty is only about not calling attention to oneself (when it is obviously chiefly related to chastity and not calling attention to oneself in such a way as to tempt others). For women, before they do this or that thing, they should ask themselves if the Blessed Mother would do it. And no, I don't mean that in a strictly historical way, such as, "Would the Blessed Mother take an airplane ? No, she didn't have airplanes to take ! Would she wear boots in the winter ? No, she was from Galilee !" The rule should be given realistic answers given the circuмstances of time and place, but she is still a model that can be readily imitated by all women, since it is her virtue that can be apprehended by truly faithful women whose hearts are docile to the Truth, and it is the lesson taken from her virtue that can thus be applied in any situation.
Anyway, PenitentWoman is asking very fair and pertinent questions and being given theological answers from men who have studied the Faith as well as some women who agree with these men and with PW's instincts. Then she gets patted on the head and told that she is being "too submissive" ? That she should be afraid of "abuse" on the horizon ? That she is being a "rigorist" because she doesn't think tanktops and sweatpants are appropriate attire for a young lady with a penitential spirit who wants to advance in grace and holy knowledge ? Insanity ! Here is a woman who is persevering in her conscience despite visceral attacks from those closest to her and the strong temptation for unwed mothers to be proud of their situation and resent anybody who doesn't think it's completely fine or that living with a man who brings money home for her baby is fine and so forth. She is looking for a real man as a remedy to her irregular situation and as a provider of security for herself and her daughter, one she would marry, which is nothing if not the most normal and healthy instinct and desire of every sane young woman, especially one with a baby to care for. And, despite her soul leading her towards a good and healthy reaction to her present unfortunate circuмstances and her obvious concern for the natural law, she is peppered with insinuations that she might have some sort of psychological complex or be on the path to an abusive relationship. Disgusting. Unreal and disgusting.
Sure, she shouldn't just marry any traditional Catholic guy that comes along, especially if he has obvious weaknesses that he doesn't seem to be willing to put much energy into overcoming. Nor should she just take the word of some random man at the coffee shop as the will of God and submit to him. But was there very much of an indication at all that this is the way PW was acting ? No. Not at all. Of course she needs to use common sense, and it seems like she has been and will continue to do so. She is clearly intelligent; I highly doubt that she would not be appropriately discriminating in her search for a husband who is a real man. We have no reason to believe so. The older, feminist, reactionary women seem to be emoting their insecurities at PW, then resenting the fact that PW has noticed, and so they emote their reactionary positions at PW even more, with some character slights as salt in the wound. Gratuitous doubts and qualifications of and excuses against the natural law are really about the last thing somebody like her needs right now.
PenitentWoman, you have been asking legitimate questions and responding to the comments and barbs sent your way admirably. Don't let these comments get to you too much. Just continue to pray, seek spiritual counsel from a traditional Catholic priest and good pre-Conciliar Catholic books, follow your conscience as it is informed by these things, use common sense and good judgment to remain balanced, and ignore anything that suspiciously seems like it may have had its origin in womanly hysteria. God bless you.
-
Creepy.
Why, because he knows something but isn't telling how he does ? Crafty is more like it. Men are not creepy for being men and not always bending over backwards for feminine whims or to appease womanly insecurities.
-
Looks like more & more people are finally seeing a pattern.
Here's the scenerio:
A young Poster comes on a public Catholic forum & asks questions about finding tradition after giving a rundown to all about her backgound.
Several older trad Catholic women try to answer by giving advice. They've had some bad experiences in their own lives & believe Poster may be headed in that direction too- based on what Poster wrote. They also give her advice about tradition.
Poster takes offense & goes to cool off.
Poster returns to say that said women were making fun of her!!!
Young unmarried men rush to Poster's defense and accuse the women who tried to help the young Poster of bullying her!!
Women are left scratching their heads in disbelief.
Poster doesn't mention tradition much any more. Goes on to cook gourmet meals & can as she's comfortable with that.
Young men high five each other & invite Poster to ask THEM for advice.
Reading books on tradition are their specialty.
No one can figure this one out.
well put and for the record, I am age 41, so flattered :cheers: if I am in the "younger men" category, if not, lo siento...I did not in post was happy to talk to poster if she felt comfortable with that and if she wanted, by PM if she felt better, hence a 1-1 can be a more free flow of exchange.......opinions of course, based on my experiences and knowledges, but mainly, it is my $.02......
-
Tele and Graham and SS, I think you did a very good job on this thread. I have followed it from the beginning but haven't said anything because everything I would have tried to say was already said so well.
I would like to add that this thread is ridiculous. PenitentWoman, who clearly is a truly penitent woman, is asking completely legitimate questions related to interior modesty of spirit. Modesty is an internal disposition, and clothing is a reflection of that disposition as much as it is also an act of charity towards those around oneself. It is simply not true that modesty only exists in relation to others, or that modesty is only about not calling attention to oneself (when it is obviously chiefly related to chastity and not calling attention to oneself in such a way as to tempt others). For women, before they do this or that thing, they should ask themselves if the Blessed Mother would do it. And no, I don't mean that in a strictly historical way, such as, "Would the Blessed Mother take an airplane ? No, she didn't have airplanes to take ! Would she wear boots in the winter ? No, she was from Galilee !" The rule should be given realistic answers given the circuмstances of time and place, but she is still a model that can be readily imitated by all women, since it is her virtue that can be apprehended by truly faithful women whose hearts are docile to the Truth, and it is the lesson taken from her virtue that can thus be applied in any situation.
Anyway, PenitentWoman is asking very fair and pertinent questions and being given theological answers from men who have studied the Faith as well as some women who agree with these men and with PW's instincts. Then she gets patted on the head and told that she is being "too submissive" ? That she should be afraid of "abuse" on the horizon ? That she is being a "rigorist" because she doesn't think tanktops and sweatpants are appropriate attire for a young lady with a penitential spirit who wants to advance in grace and holy knowledge ? Insanity ! Here is a woman who is persevering in her conscience despite visceral attacks from those closest to her and the strong temptation for unwed mothers to be proud of their situation and resent anybody who doesn't think it's completely fine or that living with a man who brings money home for her baby is fine and so forth. She is looking for a real man as a remedy to her irregular situation and as a provider of security for herself and her daughter, one she would marry, which is nothing if not the most normal and healthy instinct and desire of every sane young woman, especially one with a baby to care for. And, despite her soul leading her towards a good and healthy reaction to her present unfortunate circuмstances and her obvious concern for the natural law, she is peppered with insinuations that she might have some sort of psychological complex or be on the path to an abusive relationship. Disgusting. Unreal and disgusting.
Sure, she shouldn't just marry any traditional Catholic guy that comes along, especially if he has obvious weaknesses that he doesn't seem to be willing to put much energy into overcoming. Nor should she just take the word of some random man at the coffee shop as the will of God and submit to him. But was there very much of an indication at all that this is the way PW was acting ? No. Not at all. Of course she needs to use common sense, and it seems like she has been and will continue to do so. She is clearly intelligent; I highly doubt that she would not be appropriately discriminating in her search for a husband who is a real man. We have no reason to believe so. The older, feminist, reactionary women seem to be emoting their insecurities at PW, then resenting the fact that PW has noticed, and so they emote their reactionary positions at PW even more, with some character slights as salt in the wound. Gratuitous doubts and qualifications of and excuses against the natural law are really about the last thing somebody like her needs right now.
PenitentWoman, you have been asking legitimate questions and responding to the comments and barbs sent your way admirably. Don't let these comments get to you too much. Just continue to pray, seek spiritual counsel from a traditional Catholic priest and good pre-Conciliar Catholic books, follow your conscience as it is informed by these things, use common sense and good judgment to remain balanced, and ignore anything that suspiciously seems like it may have had its origin in womanly hysteria. God bless you.
well put, penitent had valid questions/concerns.......sometimes, we all get wordly, but also, tehre is a good quote heard this last weekend, scratch the surface with too many trads and you reveal a Puritan......so, balance....
-
Incredible post, PereJoseph! Well said.
-
PereJoseph, I didn't even respond to Tele's psychobabble about old ugly bitties trying to control young "attractive" women for their status because I *knew* no one would believe such a ridiculous assertion anyway. He's clearly grasping for straws to try and negate any value in their input. Because old and ugly are worthless, we should all know that by now. :rolleyes:
However, I'm glad you spoke up. It allows me to correct my perception of you which is disappointing but in the end I'd rather have an accurate one.
It's curious how fond Tele and now very obviously you as well, are of such assertions knowing nothing of our looks, ages or "statuses". Some others may be more open but I know I've never told my age or even those of my children or even the number of child(ren) so that you could guess. All of this hinges on Tele's disdain for "older" women. A disdain he has expressed many times which colors all his interactions with anyone over 25. But if that's the boat you wish to ride, feel free.
-
And yes, it is creepy, playing cat and mouse with catherine leading her to question if her privacy has been breached.
-
PereJoseph, I didn't even respond to Tele's psychobabble about old ugly bitties trying to control young "attractive" women for their status because I *knew* no one would believe such a ridiculous assertion anyway. He's clearly grasping for straws to try and negate any value in their input. Because old and ugly are worthless, we should all know that by now. :rolleyes:
"The lady doth protest too much, methinks."
However, I'm glad you spoke up. It allows me to correct my perception of you which is disappointing but in the end I'd rather have an accurate one.
It's curious how fond Tele and now very obviously you as well, are of such assertions knowing nothing of our looks, ages or "statuses".
wallflower, believe it or not, how old you are and how you look are matters of complete indifference to me. That being said I think I have a vague idea, given the things you've said.
Some others may be more open but I know I've never told my age or even those of my children or even the number of child(ren) so that you could guess. All of this hinges on Tele's disdain for "older" women. A disdain he has expressed many times which colors all his interactions with anyone over 25. But if that's the boat you wish to ride, feel free.
Oh yes, now it's back to harping on tele and young women.
-
And yes, it is creepy, playing cat and mouse with catherine leading her to question if her privacy has been breached.
It's pretty creepy how the women in these trad chapel cliques cravenly destroy reputations and then try to gaslight the victims about it.
"I live rent free in your head" - telling the person they're crazy in other words, when in fact the person knows the truth.
-
And yes, it is creepy, playing cat and mouse with catherine leading her to question if her privacy has been breached.
So what Tele claims to know is made into a fuss, but why didn't you call foul when Catherine said that we (refering to Tele, TradGuy20 and I, and perhaps Graham as well) would have nothing to offer a woman other than misery? That is a very uncharitable and slanderous remark, but Catherine did not apologise. Instead she put us on ignore because her priest advised her to do so, probably because he shares her ideas on the issue.
-
I think the starter of this thread back in 2007 quite rightly pointed out that there are feminists here on CatholicInfo, only I think the feminists now are far worse than they were then:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=3557&min=0&num=10
-
Telesphorus, the way you dealt with catherine.....that was a masterstroke, I take my hat off to you. I haven't enjoyed seeing an insolent person put in their place so much for quite a long time.
-
Telesphorus, the way you dealt with catherine.....that was a masterstroke, I take my hat off to you. I haven't enjoyed seeing an insolent person put in their place so much for quite a long time.
And yet, he still hasn't answered the question of how he knows the contents of PM's between two people who are supposedly complete strangers to him. That, and I won't forget that the suggestion that someone or something isn't being straight-forward has also gone conveniently ignored. Times like this I thank God from the bottom of my soul for intuition. You men have no idea what you miss without it. Which is why we are supposed to be complementary but it's just not jiving in this case. I'm ok with that. Life goes on. Very much so.
-
Telesphorus, the way you dealt with catherine.....that was a masterstroke, I take my hat off to you. I haven't enjoyed seeing an insolent person put in their place so much for quite a long time.
And yet, he still hasn't answered the question of how he knows the contents of PM's between two people who are supposedly complete strangers to him. That, and I won't forget that the suggestion that someone or something isn't being straight-forward has also gone conveniently ignored. Times like this I thank God from the bottom of my soul for intuition. You men have no idea what you miss without it. Which is why we are supposed to be complementary but it's just not jiving in this case. I'm ok with that. Life goes on. Very much so.
Tele is too busy patting himself on the back for some imaginary smackdown of me.
Pride goeth before a fall and some gullible fools are about to go down in a big way. Somewhere, an entire women's studies class is laughing at them.
-
The Bible says not to call people fools, Catherine.
-
Some things never change, such as the catty-ness of females towards ladies who might be considered pretty or attractive or feminine or whatever.
The feminists think you're stupid and the non-feminists fear you might steal their man.
We should try to be more inspired by the Visitation, I think.
-
Would the women here who disagree with me (i.e wallflower, catherineofsiena, and Loriann), instead of ignoring me or thumbing me down, mind explaining to me why they disagree with my stance? I've explained to all of you why I disagree with your stance, now can you please take the time to explain to me why you disagree with mine?
Do you ladies disagree with what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says below?
Duties Of A Husband
It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.
He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.
Duties Of A Wife
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling hint lord.
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
-
I guess what I'm asking is: does anyone have an argument against the sources I've used to back up my point? I really don't think there is an argument that can be used against those sources, but I'm curious to see what arguments certain women on this thread have instead of just having my posts thumbed down without a response.
-
"A womens's studies class is laughing at them". You quite sure that their professor will allow that? After all they need to be reading their Marx & Engels, perhaps a bit of Lenin's work.........well, on the other hand perhaps not. After all Marx, Engels, Lenin &c., evil tho' they were, were nonetheless intelligent. Studying their writings requires intelligence likewise, so no......it just wouldn't do to have your typical women's studies class read them, it would be unfair, like trying to make a little terrier fight a bear.
Much better to have them read some tenth rate female hack who doesn't really understand anything beyond four legs good, two legs bad (this is taken from a book called Animal Farm, written by an Englishman who wrote under the name of George Orwell, for any feminists reading this) or in this case, women good, men bad.
After womens's studies class has concluded, they can learn from some older members of the sisterhood how to pick a mark, oh I mean husband, & then cash in, oh I mean divorce, & use the chump's I mean ex-husband's money to go on holiday & enjoy themselves, until it's time to land another (they must needs be careful, quite a few are getting wise to the game & may well refuse to bite, or else break the line & get away, more skill is required now)
The state will always be happy to help in all of this, if the man doesn't want to pay the woman who broke up his family to go on holiday & buy expensive shoes & so forth, well then, they'll just throw him in a gaol cell for a while & see if that changes his mind. The mafia has nothing on the modern state.
Why is that? Why does the state always help, what's in it for them? Well who knows, to find out would require thinking, & that is something that our young feminists find hateful in the extreme, it's nearly as bad as those villainous men. No matter anyhow, the marvellous feminine faculty of intuition says that the Jews who run things just want to help, now shut up, they say, my favourite soap opera is coming on. & so we leave our young feminists to their fate, let them learn humility the hard way, thro' what will come in the future.
Also, no screaming that I'm stating that any woman writing here has such a low character, as no Catholic who practises her religion would attend a "womens's studies class", any more than she would work assiduously to assimilate the teachings to be found in Mao's Little Red Book.
-
Would the women here who disagree with me (i.e wallflower, catherineofsiena, and Loriann), instead of ignoring me or thumbing me down, mind explaining to me why they disagree with my stance? I've explained to all of you why I disagree with your stance, now can you please take the time to explain to me why you disagree with mine?
Do you ladies disagree with what the Catechism of the Council of Trent says below?
Duties Of A Husband
It is the duty of the husband to treat his wife generously and honourably. It should not be forgotten that Eve was called by Adam his companion. The woman, he says, whom thou gavest me as a companion. Hence it was, according to the opinion of some of the holy Fathers, that she was formed not from the feet but from the side of man; as, on the other hand, she was not formed from his head, in order to give her to understand that it was not hers to command but to obey her husband.
The husband should also be constantly occupied in some honest pursuit with a view to provide necessaries for the support of his family and to avoid idleness, the root of almost every vice.
He is also to keep all his family in order, to correct their morals, and see that they faithfully discharge their duties.
Duties Of A Wife
On the other hand, the duties of a wife are thus summed up by the Prince of the Apostles: Let wives be subject to their husbands. that if any believe not the word, they may be won without the word by the conversation of the wives, considering your chaste conversation with fear. Let not their adorning be the outward plaiting of the hair, or the wearing of gold, or the putting on of apparel: but the hidden man of the heart in the incorruptibility of a quiet and meek spirit, which is rich in the sight of God. For after this manner heretofore the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling hint lord.
To train their children in the practice of virtue and to pay particular attention to their domestic concerns should also be especial objects of their attention. The wife should love to remain at home, unless compelled by necessity to go out; and she should never presume to leave home without her husband's consent.
Again, and in this the conjugal union chiefly consists, let wives never forget that next to God they are to love their husbands, to esteem them above all others, yielding to them in all things not inconsistent with Christian piety, a willing and ready obedience.
I agree with it. SS I've told you this before, you and I agree on ideals. Where we often disagree, at least in your mind, is in the practical application of those ideals. And even then, sometimes we don't disagree, you just think we do because I don't repeat it your way word for word or I have an additional caveat or whatever the case may be. Trust me, when you marry, you won't get up in the morning, read this quote and sit silently on the couch all day. You will have to implement these ideals in a million different ways throughout a million sets of circuмstances. Sometimes you will succeed, sometimes you will fail, but if you are wise you will always learn from both.
-
Some things never change, such as the catty-ness of females towards ladies who might be considered pretty or attractive or feminine or whatever.
The feminists think you're stupid and the non-feminists fear you might steal their man.
We should try to be more inspired by the Visitation, I think.
There is no cattiness towards PW. I can only speak for myself that there is resentment and anger. She betrayed my trust and violated my privacy by sharing my private messages with another poster and in this instance, possibly putting me in danger. If she did it to me she did it to everyone else.
She first arrived when Tele's thread about the unmarried couple was winding down. If you recall he spent much of the thread calling the girl a whore. She was open about her situation and wondered if she would be welcome here. I, along with others, was very concerned she would be treated badly. I offered to help find secular resources in her area. I tried to warn her away from people who might hurt her. I tried to find trad chapels in her area and other resources online. This is fact evidenced in public and private messages. She knows it.
Despite a stated intent to become traditional Catholic, PW never once met with a priest. She never once went to a trad chapel. Yes, someone checked. She never met with the CMRI priest. She lied. She said that she's gone to the Indult maybe twice in the past three months, but who knows? When a pattern of deceit emerges a person can't know what the truth is anymore.
Single or married, young or old, working or not, the lifestyles claims made by PW are impossible. It is humanly impossible to work two or three jobs, care for an infant, garden, can and function in an 1850s lifestyle. Oh, and make gourmet meals while barely making ends meet financially. It's unrealistic, and it was the first red flag that many women noticed.
There has been an observed near zero effort to learn the Faith. What has been observed is an overattentiveness to culture and superficials, especially in regards to men. PW likes to stir up conversation and particularly hear the trad male viewpoint. This was flattering to their ego and caused them to overlook the elephant growing in their cyber living room.
"Rational vs. Emotive Theory." "Egalitarian." "Military enforced installation of the patriarchy." When I read the first term PW used I thought, "Huh." The second term, "Okay that was weird." Third term alarm bells went off that became a raging, flashing neon sign. These are feminist codewords. The majority of women do not speak this way. These are terms used by academic feminists and the committed left. While the guys here were busy chasing feminist shadows they missed the real life, real thing in front of their nose.
Her public tone towards female posters took a harsh turn over the past two to three weeks. I started getting the sense I was part of some sociology experiment. Women previously supportive of her were now getting attacked. When questioned, PW obfuscated. It happened throughout this thread. So yes, some ill will was created as it would be in real life when people bite the hand that tries to feed them.
Putting all this together is enough to question whether the identity of PW is a hoax. Is she simply a troubled young girl looking for attention or a husband? Is she a random internet kook? Is she a 35 y.o. cross dresser named Antoine? Who knows. I lean towards PW as a sociology or women's studies major doing research for a thesis, sort of like a Jane Goodall studying trads in the wild. I expect there will be a paper someday entitled "Religious extremists and Misogyny" or something along that line.
I think I was duped. I think we were all duped. People may wake up at different times and to different degrees. Some not at all. None of that makes me or anyone else a bad person. It is simply a difference of opinion on a controversial poster.
-
Some things never change, such as the catty-ness of females towards ladies who might be considered pretty or attractive or feminine or whatever.
The feminists think you're stupid and the non-feminists fear you might steal their man.
We should try to be more inspired by the Visitation, I think.
There is no cattiness towards PW. I can only speak for myself that there is resentment and anger. She betrayed my trust and violated my privacy by sharing my private messages with another poster and in this instance, possibly putting me in danger. If she did it to me she did it to everyone else.
She first arrived when Tele's thread about the unmarried couple was winding down. If you recall he spent much of the thread calling the girl a whore. She was open about her situation and wondered if she would be welcome here. I, along with others, was very concerned she would be treated badly. I offered to help find secular resources in her area. I tried to warn her away from people who might hurt her. I tried to find trad chapels in her area and other resources online. This is fact evidenced in public and private messages. She knows it.
Despite a stated intent to become traditional Catholic, PW never once met with a priest. She never once went to a trad chapel. Yes, someone checked. She never met with the CMRI priest. She lied. She said that she's gone to the Indult maybe twice in the past three months, but who knows? When a pattern of deceit emerges a person can't know what the truth is anymore.
Single or married, young or old, working or not, the lifestyles claims made by PW are impossible. It is humanly impossible to work two or three jobs, care for an infant, garden, can and function in an 1850s lifestyle. Oh, and make gourmet meals while barely making ends meet financially. It's unrealistic, and it was the first red flag that many women noticed.
There has been an observed near zero effort to learn the Faith. What has been observed is an overattentiveness to culture and superficials, especially in regards to men. PW likes to stir up conversation and particularly hear the trad male viewpoint. This was flattering to their ego and caused them to overlook the elephant growing in their cyber living room.
"Rational vs. Emotive Theory." "Egalitarian." "Military enforced installation of the patriarchy." When I read the first term PW used I thought, "Huh." The second term, "Okay that was weird." Third term alarm bells went off that became a raging, flashing neon sign. These are feminist codewords. The majority of women do not speak this way. These are terms used by academic feminists and the committed left. While the guys here were busy chasing feminist shadows they missed the real life, real thing in front of their nose.
Her public tone towards female posters took a harsh turn over the past two to three weeks. I started getting the sense I was part of some sociology experiment. Women previously supportive of her were now getting attacked. When questioned, PW obfuscated. It happened throughout this thread. So yes, some ill will was created as it would be in real life when people bite the hand that tries to feed them.
Putting all this together is enough to question whether the identity of PW is a hoax. Is she simply a troubled young girl looking for attention or a husband? Is she a random internet kook? Is she a 35 y.o. cross dresser named Antoine? Who knows. I lean towards PW as a sociology or women's studies major doing research for a thesis, sort of like a Jane Goodall studying trads in the wild. I expect there will be a paper someday entitled "Religious extremists and Misogyny" or something along that line.
I think I was duped. I think we were all duped. People may wake up at different times and to different degrees. Some not at all. None of that makes me or anyone else a bad person. It is simply a difference of opinion on a controversial poster.
This is a Raoul-worthy post. The girl did go to college in the last few years, and did read books like the The Handmaid's Tale as part of her assignments.
She's not a dull woman.
And believe it or not, some women are naturally clever at cooking, they actually put an effort into it. Growing tomatoes and peppers on a garden plot isn't impossible either.
And she wasn't "barely getting by" financially, as she herself said.
That being said we can't really know, can we? Like Matthew said at the beginning, it doesn't really matter. I'm not ashamed of the way I've acted, because I'm honest.
-
because I'm honest.
oh come on Tele :roll-laugh1:
-
Some things never change, such as the catty-ness of females towards ladies who might be considered pretty or attractive or feminine or whatever.
The feminists think you're stupid and the non-feminists fear you might steal their man.
We should try to be more inspired by the Visitation, I think.
There is no cattiness towards PW. I can only speak for myself that there is resentment and anger. She betrayed my trust and violated my privacy by sharing my private messages with another poster and in this instance, possibly putting me in danger. If she did it to me she did it to everyone else.
She first arrived when Tele's thread about the unmarried couple was winding down. If you recall he spent much of the thread calling the girl a whore. She was open about her situation and wondered if she would be welcome here. I, along with others, was very concerned she would be treated badly. I offered to help find secular resources in her area. I tried to warn her away from people who might hurt her. I tried to find trad chapels in her area and other resources online. This is fact evidenced in public and private messages. She knows it.
Despite a stated intent to become traditional Catholic, PW never once met with a priest. She never once went to a trad chapel. Yes, someone checked. She never met with the CMRI priest. She lied. She said that she's gone to the Indult maybe twice in the past three months, but who knows? When a pattern of deceit emerges a person can't know what the truth is anymore.
Single or married, young or old, working or not, the lifestyles claims made by PW are impossible. It is humanly impossible to work two or three jobs, care for an infant, garden, can and function in an 1850s lifestyle. Oh, and make gourmet meals while barely making ends meet financially. It's unrealistic, and it was the first red flag that many women noticed.
There has been an observed near zero effort to learn the Faith. What has been observed is an overattentiveness to culture and superficials, especially in regards to men. PW likes to stir up conversation and particularly hear the trad male viewpoint. This was flattering to their ego and caused them to overlook the elephant growing in their cyber living room.
"Rational vs. Emotive Theory." "Egalitarian." "Military enforced installation of the patriarchy." When I read the first term PW used I thought, "Huh." The second term, "Okay that was weird." Third term alarm bells went off that became a raging, flashing neon sign. These are feminist codewords. The majority of women do not speak this way. These are terms used by academic feminists and the committed left. While the guys here were busy chasing feminist shadows they missed the real life, real thing in front of their nose.
Her public tone towards female posters took a harsh turn over the past two to three weeks. I started getting the sense I was part of some sociology experiment. Women previously supportive of her were now getting attacked. When questioned, PW obfuscated. It happened throughout this thread. So yes, some ill will was created as it would be in real life when people bite the hand that tries to feed them.
Putting all this together is enough to question whether the identity of PW is a hoax. Is she simply a troubled young girl looking for attention or a husband? Is she a random internet kook? Is she a 35 y.o. cross dresser named Antoine? Who knows. I lean towards PW as a sociology or women's studies major doing research for a thesis, sort of like a Jane Goodall studying trads in the wild. I expect there will be a paper someday entitled "Religious extremists and Misogyny" or something along that line.
I think I was duped. I think we were all duped. People may wake up at different times and to different degrees. Some not at all. None of that makes me or anyone else a bad person. It is simply a difference of opinion on a controversial poster.
This is a Raoul-worthy post. The girl did go to college in the last few years, and did read books like the The Handmaid's Tale as part of her assignments.
She's not a dull woman.
And believe it or not, some women are naturally clever at cooking, they actually put an effort into it. Growing tomatoes and peppers on a garden plot isn't impossible either.
And she wasn't "barely getting by" financially, as she herself said.
That being said we can't really know, can we? Like Matthew said at the beginning, it doesn't really matter. I'm not ashamed of the way I've acted, because I'm honest.
Well Tele, I guess we got two different stories because she told me in pm and in public posts that she was barely getting by.
I went to college too. More than PW claims. I don't use those words. And yes, I cook. I come from a family of "naturally clever women." Many women are and we recognize that there are only 24 hours in a day to get things done.
I know you want to believe and that's fine. That's your business.
-
because I'm honest.
oh come on Tele :roll-laugh1:
Come on, what?
When has Tele ever shown himself to be two-faced, duplicitous, or told any lie?
I've never known him to be such, and I've been around since he joined.
He has his principles and views, and some of those are controversial, but he's certainly honest about them. I've never known him to mince words, or distort the truth.
-
because I'm honest.
oh come on Tele :roll-laugh1:
Come on, what?
When has Tele ever shown himself to be two-faced, duplicitous, or told any lie?
I've never known him to be such, and I've been around since he joined.
He has his principles and views, and some of those are controversial, but he's certainly honest about them. I've never known him to mince words, or distort the truth.
Yes, Matthew.
You are right.
Tele just tells the truth about Feminism.
For which he is repeatedly criticised.
-
So now PW is a hoax, eh?
Yes, very Raoul-like. Raoul went around acting like he had "cracked the code" about Telesphorus, and here Catherine is acting that way about PW.
I think Catherine's latest outburst at PW is nothing but bitterness because PW decided to listen to the anti-feminists here such as Tele instead of listening to her and wallflower.
-
Well Tele, I guess we got two different stories because she told me in pm and in public posts that she was barely getting by.
She's said here on the forum she wouldn't qualify for assistance. She obviously has enough money to cook some decent meals.
I went to college too. More than PW claims. I don't use those words.
No but you've been a trad a lot longer. PW is clearly a skillful writer - she can assimilate and restate ideas easily.
And yes, I cook. I come from a family of "naturally clever women." Many women are and we recognize that there are only 24 hours in a day to get things done.
Some people are naturally efficient. I know I'm not one of them, but I know they exist.
-
PW is coming in for a lot of criticism.
She is genuinely determined to avoid the wickedness of Feminism.
She gets savaged by a small group of female posters.
Happily, there are people here who support PW for her brave stand in favour of the truth.
-
Tele and Graham and SS, I think you did a very good job on this thread. I have followed it from the beginning but haven't said anything because everything I would have tried to say was already said so well.
I would like to add that this thread is ridiculous. PenitentWoman, who clearly is a truly penitent woman, is asking completely legitimate questions related to interior modesty of spirit. Modesty is an internal disposition, and clothing is a reflection of that disposition as much as it is also an act of charity towards those around oneself. It is simply not true that modesty only exists in relation to others, or that modesty is only about not calling attention to oneself (when it is obviously chiefly related to chastity and not calling attention to oneself in such a way as to tempt others). For women, before they do this or that thing, they should ask themselves if the Blessed Mother would do it.
...she is still a model that can be readily imitated by all women, since it is her virtue that can be apprehended by truly faithful women whose hearts are docile to the Truth, and it is the lesson taken from her virtue that can thus be applied in any situation.
Anyway, PenitentWoman is asking very fair and pertinent questions and being given theological answers from men who have studied the Faith as well as some women who agree with these men and with PW's instincts. Then she gets patted on the head and told that she is being "too submissive" ? That she should be afraid of "abuse" on the horizon ? That she is being a "rigorist" because she doesn't think tanktops and sweatpants are appropriate attire for a young lady with a penitential spirit who wants to advance in grace and holy knowledge ? Insanity ! Here is a woman who is persevering in her conscience despite visceral attacks from those closest to her and the strong temptation for unwed mothers to be proud of their situation and resent anybody who doesn't think it's completely fine or that living with a man who brings money home for her baby is fine and so forth. She is looking for a real man as a remedy to her irregular situation and as a provider of security for herself and her daughter, one she would marry, which is nothing if not the most normal and healthy instinct and desire of every sane young woman, especially one with a baby to care for. And, despite her soul leading her towards a good and healthy reaction to her present unfortunate circuмstances and her obvious concern for the natural law, she is peppered with insinuations that she might have some sort of psychological complex or be on the path to an abusive relationship. Disgusting. Unreal and disgusting.
Dear Pere Joseph,
Thank you for these sane and accurate words.
They really needed to be said.
-
The older, feminist, reactionary women seem to be emoting their insecurities at PW, then resenting the fact that PW has noticed, and so they emote their reactionary positions at PW even more, with some character slights as salt in the wound. Gratuitous doubts and qualifications of and excuses against the natural law are really about the last thing somebody like her needs right now.
PenitentWoman, you have been asking legitimate questions and responding to the comments and barbs sent your way admirably. Don't let these comments get to you too much. Just continue to pray, seek spiritual counsel from a traditional Catholic priest and good pre-Conciliar Catholic books, follow your conscience as it is informed by these things, use common sense and good judgment to remain balanced, and ignore anything that suspiciously seems like it may have had its origin in womanly hysteria. God bless you.
Exactly.
PW, this is the advice for you to heed.
-
Well Tele, I guess we got two different stories because she told me in pm and in public posts that she was barely getting by.
She's said here on the forum she wouldn't qualify for assistance. She obviously has enough money to cook some decent meals.
Nope. She said she wouldn't take it. Not the same as not qualifying and in fact implies qualifying.
I was also thinking today how when I was single and working three jobs, I had no time for most of that stuff and I didn't even have a child or spend time online. I mean, several nights a week she's only getting 3 1/2 hours of sleep, that's how strung out she is with work yet she's gardening, canning, sewing aprons, working out, washing clothes by hand, gourmet cooking and sitting all evening rocking and nursing her baby on top of that? Eh... Stay at home moms struggle to get that much done, much less a single mom working 3 jobs and "not making ends meet" (exact words).
If it walks like a duck...is the point I'm at. It was a nagging suspicion a couple weeks ago based on having seen the hoax at FE firsthand last year and seeing so many similarities, but the weird change in tone in this thread confirmed it for me. Hats off to Thorn for spotting it immediately.
-
You know I informed Matthew that I didn't think I would post anymore, but I'm not going to be accused of "vanishing" and allow good people to wonder about me.
I'm not in the right frame of mind to go through piece by piece and defend myself, but I will admit... cmri is not the right place for me. I'm incredibly grateful for those who warned me to stay away. Not because I think poorly of it (I haven't yet formed an opinion on the sede issue) but because I can see now it is too cliquely. I could never blend in. I hate to say it, but I'm still more comfortable with an NO priest whom I've known for awhile now. Slam away, I guess.
As far being a woman's study experiment? I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.
The most offensive are the claims that I haven't tried to learn tradition. You have no idea.
Right now, I'm not even sure what more I could say or if I should even bother. I'll keep reading and I'll keep praying.
It's funny Catherine, you told me the harsh trad men would push me back to the NO. Ironic.
I apologize for all the drama. I'm literally sick to my stomach. Just when you think you've hit rock bottom with shame and rejection...it's topped off. Congrats. I will continue to seek truth and crawl on.
Thank you to those who've been kind to me. I've learned so much. I will press on for my daughter and for my soul.
I feel like the Lord has rewarded me for what I've tried to do. For devotion to Blessed Mother. For the progress I've made and for the slow but steady transformation of my life over the past year and a half. Now I don't know if it was all just wishful thinking or what.
It is what it is.
-
Dear PW,
God Bless you.
Please do not let spiteful people demoralize you.
Keep praying.
Most of us like you and are hoping for the best for you.
Many of your posts are a joy to read.
Yours, Sede Catholic
-
If you decide to leave, PW, then sorry to see you go, but whatever is best for you. Sad to see these liberal feminists run off another good poster.
As far as a Traditional priest, perhaps you would prefer to seek guidance from an SSPX priest if you can't reconcile yourself with the CMRI. Trust me, you won't regret ditching the NO priests and choosing to seek guidance from a Traditional priest instead. It's for the good of your soul that you choose a Traditional priest instead.
-
Penitent Woman, I'm sorry that certain individuals have inflicted unnecessary suffering on you. Pere Joseph & Sede Catholic are spot on regarding these individuals & their motivations.
Don't let them grind you down old girl, don't let them win. Deny them this victory. Pray the Rosary every day if you have time, or if the day has proved too tiring pray one or two decades & the Memorare & Salve Regina.
The Almighty God will surely reward your humility & simplicity (meant in the good sense of course), The Most Holy Mother of God will take care of you & your dear daughter. I shall pray for you in the Holy Rosary, may God & His Most Immaculate Mother bless & keep you always.
-
Penitent Woman, I'm sorry that certain individuals have inflicted unnecessary suffering on you. Pere Joseph & Sede Catholic are spot on regarding these individuals & their motivations.
Don't let them grind you down old girl, don't let them win. Deny them this victory. Pray the Rosary every day if you have time, or if the day has proved too tiring pray one or two decades & the Memorare & Salve Regina.
The Almighty God will surely reward your humility & simplicity (meant in the good sense of course), The Most Holy Mother of God will take care of you & your dear daughter. I shall pray for you in the Holy Rosary, may God & His Most Immaculate Mother bless & keep you always.
Dear Cuthbert,
Thank you for being a voice of sanity.
Thank you for supporting PW - she obviously needs a bit of kindness right now.
Thank you also for your kind words about me.
God Bless you Cuthbert.
-
You know I informed Matthew that I didn't think I would post anymore
Penitenta, I hope you will stay because I have enjoyed your interesting posts. I have learnt a lot myself both from your questions and the answers you have been given. At times I have wondered about what seemed to me to be a downgrading of your self. Anyway everybody is different with different backgrounds and experiences. God bless you whether you go or stay.
-
Dear PW,
God Bless you.
Do not be discouraged.
Also – this is so important – the CMRI is the best place for you.
You will get valid Sacraments and the true Faith.
You will not find that in many other places.
-
Thank you for Sede Catholic for your kind words, may God bless you as well.
-
Nope. She said she wouldn't take it. Not the same as not qualifying and in fact implies qualifying.
That isn't what she said. She said if she quit her waitress job, then she would qualify, but would try not to take it. She has had two jobs. Secondly, living alone can be boring. Even with two jobs there would still be time to spend more time cooking or tending to a garden plot a couple hours a week.
-
PenitentWoman,
You are truly a gem. Perhaps some of the women on this board have had a hard time relating to you, but that has not been the case for me. Your posts both on the board and through PM have been a delight to read, especially the ones about cooking. I share your excitement about cooking, and I'm glad you have shared it with us.
When you said you feel like the Lord has rewarded you for what you are trying to do, I would say you are right. Wishful thinking? No, not at all. Don't let discouragement blur what the Holy Ghost has been teaching you. He has brought you so far! You have a good head on your shoulders, and eyes to see and ears to hear. It's a hard thing, making straight our paths, but he will continue to give you abundant graces in your everyday conversion. You may slip up, perhaps you may gain some wrong ideas every now and then, but is that not part of our road to heaven? I think it is. These things have a way of keeping us humble, realizing our need for a saviour. I do not doubt that you have taken time to develop your spiritual life. It's evident in the way you speak. Someone who has devoted little of themselves to our Blessed Mother would not speak the truths that you do. I've seen evidence of a tender and yielding heart from you, PW, and that is so precious in the eyes of Our Lord.
Keep praying, stay faithful to your rosary, and like a few others have said, I would very much encourage you to seek out the help of a traditional priest. As a young woman who has recently discovered traditional catholicism, meeting regularly with my priest has been huge for me. My family isn't Catholic, so I cannot rely on spiritual covering and headship from my dad, and I knew I had to find covering somewhere, as women are not meant to be on their own. Entrusting myself to a good priest was the best thing I've done for my spiritual formation.
Peace be to you, PW. As usual, you have my prayers. :)
-
Nope. She said she wouldn't take it. Not the same as not qualifying and in fact implies qualifying.
That isn't what she said. She said if she quit her waitress job, then she would qualify, but would try not to take it. She has had two jobs. Secondly, living alone can be boring. Even with two jobs there would still be time to spend more time cooking or tending to a garden plot a couple hours a week.
When I had a nursing toddler and worked full time outside the home, I was never bored. I was exhausted and was always trying to keep up with keeping up. I have a teen now and I do crafts before bed at night.
I can't imagine how a nursing mother working 2 jobs with an infant that nurses most of the night also cans, cooks, gardens, visits the elderly, cloth diapers, hand washes everything, goes to social gatherings with family members.. You have to grocery shop, check mail, take out your trash, put gas in your car, find clean socks for the baby for the next day, pay the electric bill, shower and wash your hair, and manage to sleep enough to be alert enough to drive. When I had a day off here and there I would clean and do laundry and it was a nice luxury to catch up on housework.
-
She has had two jobs. Secondly, living alone can be boring. Even with two jobs there would still be time to spend more time cooking or tending to a garden plot a couple hours a week.
How would you know? Have you ever worked two jobs and lived truly alone where you were doing all the household chores and the cooking? I imagine living at home, your mother does a lot of that for you, so I can't imagine you truly know what time all those cooking and cleaning responsibilities take. I don't remember "bored" from my couple years of handling several jobs. I remember "exhausted".
And, she does not live alone, she has a 10 month old. A 10 month old who still nurses. That's a lot of time and energy spent that you wouldn't know about.
Also, she has 4 jobs. Looking back I see, office -- daytime. waitress -- 3 nights, babysitting -- other nights, and a housecleaning client. Wasn't there something about visiting nursing homes after Mass too? At the very least we're getting tall tales. Makes for interesting evening reading.
I don't mind taking the fall for this. It's nothing compared to the backlash HK got when he suggested being careful with the FE hoax. That woman had garnered sympathy that was through the roof by that time and she had been PM'ing with everybody, establishing very personal relationships very quickly. Sound familiar? God knows the truth.
-
I've lived by myself before where I took care of the house, washed my own clothes, and cooked my own meals.
While it's true I didn't have jobs to hold down, I'm very inefficient, someone who was efficient could do it.
-
I've lived by myself before where I took care of the house, washed my own clothes, and cooked my own meals.
While it's true I didn't have jobs to hold down, I'm very inefficient, someone who was efficient could do it.
Tele did you have an infant? Huge huge huge difference.
-
Tele, get real! I'm quite efficient & have done a lot on my own, but even I couldn't do all that Poster purports to do.
-
Tele did you have an infant? Huge huge huge difference.
Okay, but she says she's a naturally very neat person. Which leads me to think she would have time to do some cooking projects a couple times a week. As well as go to a plot a couple times of week.
As for her babysitting jobs, if she just watching another infant with her own, that's hardly additional work to the jobs she is holding down.
-
Tele, you're on a different planet. "That's hardly additional work" to watch another child shows how totally out of touch you are. Give it up.
It wasn't another infant that she was watching, but a child because remember when he ( the child) saw the guy in the striped suit on the computer sceen he commented? Infants can't talk, Tele.
-
Tele, you're on a different planet. "That's hardly additional work" to watch another child shows how totally out of touch you are. Give it up.
It wasn't another infant that she was watching, but a child because remember when he ( the child) saw the guy in the striped suit on the computer sceen he commented? Infants can't talk, Tele.
I only remember her watching the friend's baby.
When did she say she watched the child?
-
Tele did you have an infant? Huge huge huge difference.
Okay, but she says she's a naturally very neat person. Which leads me to think she would have time to do some cooking projects a couple times a week. As well as go to a plot a couple times of week.
As for her babysitting jobs, if she just watching another infant with her own, that's hardly additional work to the jobs she is holding down.
Tele I agree with you much of the time but you are not seeing it. I'm giving you my own experience as a single working outside the home mom with a nursing child in daycare.
-
My whole point, dear Tele, You just can't see it & therefore don't get it.
-
Thorn, you do not know anything about PW.
So for you to rashly accuse her of lying - with no evidence - is very sinful.
Why are you not afraid of being wrong?
-
Tele, you're on a different planet. "That's hardly additional work" to watch another child shows how totally out of touch you are. Give it up.
It wasn't another infant that she was watching, but a child because remember when he ( the child) saw the guy in the striped suit on the computer sceen he commented? Infants can't talk, Tele.
I only remember her watching the friend's baby.
When did she say she watched the child?
Her second night job that she job shares.
-
Don't remember the date but it was late at nite & someone posted a picture of the 3 Stooges & one had on a striped suit & the child she was babysitting asked if the man was in jail or else why was he in jail. (don't remember exactly)Maybe you're confused because she said BABYsitting.
-
It is shameful that a young woman who has come here needing our help is suffering these insults.
It is all baseless conjecture.
There is not a shred of evidence that PW has lied.
This is all just speculation.
It is sinful speculation.
-
Why are you not afraid of being wrong?
I'll second that question for catherine, wallflower, thorn and possibly tiffany. There are no prizes for being right, but the risk of being wrong is a pretty weighty one.
fyi - the babysitting is not a baby, but a little boy. Personally, I think two is easier than one as they entertain each other : )
-
Tele, it seems you are asking sincerely, it's somewhere in the first pages of her post history. We read some of it tonight and didn't get far so it shouldn't take long for you to find it. She says she babysits on the nights she isn't waitressing.
Sede, FWIW, I have been worried about being wrong for a couple of weeks. Even now, I know I don't know the whole story, she could very well be a troubled person rather than a malicious one. I don't know. I just know there are too many holes and contradictions in the story.
-
I'm dying to read your refutations. What is it that you know for a fact?
-
Why are you not afraid of being wrong?
I'll second that question for catherine, wallflower, thorn and possibly tiffany. There are no prizes for being right, but the risk of being wrong is a pretty weighty one.
Dear Mater,
Thank you for saying that.
The moral culpability for being wrong is, as you say, "...a pretty weighty one."
Your point about them entertaining each other is also valuable.
-
Why are you not afraid of being wrong?
I'll second that question for catherine, wallflower, thorn and possibly tiffany. There are no prizes for being right, but the risk of being wrong is a pretty weighty one.
fyi - the babysitting is not a baby, but a little boy. Personally, I think two is easier than one as they entertain each other : )
I agree with wallflower. I don't know if she is troubled or malicious. I do know that I was personally betrayed and stabbed in the back. No apology and yet, I'm the bad person.
-
Wrong about what, Mater? I've only regurgatated what she herself posts.
-
Here's a post of hers from July 6:
My daytime job is an office manager (glorified secretary, I guess) and I feel grateful to have this job. Even though it does not pay well, I had just graduated (worthless, debt-inducing business degree) and so no professional experience for a resume. To get this job while pregnant was something I felt blessed to achieve. I have become quite efficient with my workload and so I have
been allowed generous time to pump milk for my daughter.
I am always watching for a new opportunity that could replace both my jobs (nanny, housekeeper etc.) but it always requires upfront resources to relocate. I am trying to save, and when my lease is up again in October I hope to be ready to move.
-
Did you digest my post, Tele? I said that I too am quite efficient, but could not do all the things that the Poster claims to do. Now that's Super Wonderwoman!!!
-
I'll second that question for catherine, wallflower, thorn and possibly tiffany. There are no prizes for being right, but the risk of being wrong is a pretty weighty one.
I don't think anyone is looking for a prize for being right. Is that what you are implying or is that just a casual statement? Prize aside, you don't think there would be a level of injustice if a person who is here to agitate the forum by knowing exactly which buttons to press would garner more member loyalty than people who are here as honest members? This became a huge bash the women thread and with very low blows when there's a much bigger issue of dishonesty and possible malice at hand.
fyi - the babysitting is not a baby, but a little boy. Personally, I think two is easier than one as they entertain each other : )
Except I distinctly remember her saying she rocks her baby and nurses for hours in the evenings. I remember this because my reaction was "Must be nice".
-
I do know that I was personally betrayed and stabbed in the back. No apology and yet, I'm the bad person.
Sorry Catherine, but you don't have the right to secretly attack the reputations of others on this forum and then expect the recipient of those messages to keep them inviolable.
-
What does Cynicism ever accomplish?
The Catholic Faith isn't about sentimentalism, but it certainly involves love, as God is Love.
Love involves opening yourself up, risking getting hurt. Even those "of the world" understand this, at least as applied to human relationships.
Catholics, if they act as Catholics, WILL be taken advantage of. Many times over. Such is the nature of the beast.
There will be a temptation (and I do use the word "temptation", as in from the devil) to become cynical, as that will build a nice wall around you and protect you from being humiliated, hurt, an in general, from being "dissed". But in the process, you shut out the possibility of loving those around you.
Give money to a stranger? He might spend it on booze.
Trust that person? He might be trying to scam me.
Open up about your personal life to relate to someone? They might use it against me.
Talk with a Catholic still attending the Novus Ordo? They're probably set in their ways, and hopelessly brainwashed with modernism and other errors.
Give shelter to a relative? He had his chance to get/stay established. He must be a bum. I wouldn't want him taking advantage of me for years on end.
Admonish the sinner? He'll probably get angry or throw it back in my face.
The saints were not thus cynical or negative.
You see the pattern. Every opportunity to practice charity towards our neighbor, or practice one of the corporal/spiritual works of mercy, we open ourselves up to disappointment, frustration, loss (time/money) and in general being offended.
But I think we need to GET OVER IT and practice virtue -- not for virtue's sake -- but for God's sake. He's the one keeping track.
If a young lady (or man) comes on here with a "story" and we all do our best to practice the spiritual works of mercy on their behalf, who is the loser if he/she turns out to be a fraud? Certainly not those who acted like Catholics.
-
I do know that I was personally betrayed and stabbed in the back. No apology and yet, I'm the bad person.
Sorry Catherine, but you don't have the right to secretly attack the reputations of others on this forum and then expect the recipient of those messages to keep them inviolable.
Typical twisting from you Tele. What makes you think that is what I am referring to? What makes you think I attacked anyone's reputation? You didn't come up much in the conversations but then again, it's ALWAYS about you, isn't it?
Private messages are just that, private. If there is anything objectionable it should be referred to Matthew.
Thanks for confirming the betrayal.
-
There's nothing at risk here but the prides of the parties involved. If no one is coming after your money, your wellbeing, your livelihood, your family, etc, there's no harm in being kind and showing charity -- yes, even extending a seemingly unreasonable level of benefit of the doubt -- even if the person is outright lying to you again and again.
Also, even if her needling everyone in these "hot" topics is entirely intentional, there would be nothing to it if it weren't for the fact that we're already divided in our opinions. Exposing the differences between us all is just that. She's not creating division, just magnifying it.
Anyhow, I made Matthew stop what he was doing and reply since he's better with words than I am. I see he's done so I'm going to go see if he did a good job with what I wanted to say. :laugh1:
-
I do know that I was personally betrayed and stabbed in the back. No apology and yet, I'm the bad person.
Sorry Catherine, but you don't have the right to secretly attack the reputations of others on this forum and then expect the recipient of those messages to keep them inviolable.
Typical twisting from you Tele. What makes you think that is what I am referring to? What makes you think I attacked anyone's reputation? You didn't come up much in the conversations but then again, it's ALWAYS about you, isn't it?
Private messages are just that, private. If there is anything objectionable it should be referred to Matthew.
Thanks for confirming the betrayal.
Would you like to publicly verify the words are yours if I post them?
-
Here's a post of hers from July 6:
My daytime job is an office manager (glorified secretary, I guess) and I feel grateful to have this job. Even though it does not pay well, I had just graduated (worthless, debt-inducing business degree) and so no professional experience for a resume. To get this job while pregnant was something I felt blessed to achieve. I have become quite efficient with my workload and so I have
been allowed generous time to pump milk for my daughter.
I am always watching for a new opportunity that could replace both my jobs (nanny, housekeeper etc.) but it always requires upfront resources to relocate. I am trying to save, and when my lease is up again in October I hope to be ready to move.
When she goes home from the job she is quite efficient at, she has an infant and her own needs to care for. Dinner, bath for the baby, she says she does laundry by hand, she is working the second job on some nights, and she is canning, cooking from scratch, visiting the nursing home after Mass. It's not real.
A nursing mom with an infant is usually tired Tele. She is working a second and third jobs and doing these extra things and nursing her infant all night? Many SAHM with their first baby have trouble keeping up and that is without three extra jobs, canning produce that she grew, and visiting the elderly on Sunday.
I often felt so guilty about going to Mass without my laundry being done. That is real for a working mom.
My issue with PW is after she makes statements, when she is asked about them or you show her things don't match, how can you believe this here and say that there, her posts go waif/victim like.
Secondly she often throws in a waif/victim statement in other posts too.
Her statements about what feminism is to blame for or dangers of this or that, or what family life should be like, they are just too general and broad to seem real to me. A red flag is how she reacts when you follow the idea she presented.
I suspect she may idealize or romanticize some things related to the traditional lifestyle so she throws out these statements.
-
What does Cynicism ever accomplish?
The Catholic Faith isn't about sentimentalism, but it certainly involves love, as God is Love.
Love involves opening yourself up, risking getting hurt. Even those "of the world" understand this, at least as applied to human relationships.
Catholics, if they act as Catholics, WILL be taken advantage of. Many times over. Such is the nature of the beast.
There will be a temptation (and I do use the word "temptation", as it from the devil) to become cynical, as that will build a nice wall around you and protect you from being humiliated, hurt, an in general, from being "dissed". But in the process, you shut out the possibility of loving those around you.
Give money to a stranger? He might spend it on booze.
Trust that person? He might be trying to scam me.
Open up about your personal life to relate to someone? They might use it against me.
Talk with a Catholic still attending the Novus Ordo? They're probably set in their ways, and hopelessly brainwashed with modernism and other errors.
Give shelter to a relative? He had his chance to get/stay established. He must be a bum. I wouldn't want him taking advantage of me for years on end.
Admonish the sinner? He'll probably get angry or throw it back in my face.
The saints were not thus cynical or negative.
You see the pattern. Every opportunity to practice charity towards our neighbor, or practice one of the corporal/spiritual works of mercy, we open ourselves up to disappointment, frustration, loss (time/money) and in general being offended.
But I think we need to GET OVER IT and practice virtue -- not for virtue's sake -- but for God's sake. He's the one keeping track.
If a young lady (or man) comes on here with a "story" and we all do our best to practice the spiritual works of mercy on their behalf, who is the loser if he/she turns out to be a fraud? Certainly not those who acted like Catholics.
Wow, that just twisted my stomach. Guess whose EXACT speech that was? When he was turning on his *actual* friends in favor of the phantom and trying to convince them being scammed (spiritually, emotionally, psychologically) was no big deal. That's freaky.
-
The saints were not thus cynical or negative.
That is it.
The saints did not behave like this.
They would have been kind and gentle, not vindictive and malicious.
-
PW is just a forum poster. Who are the people creating drama around her?
It's unfortunate if she's felt the need to embellish things, but that's no reason to believe she's completely "made-up."
It doesn't help anyone - except for the egos of the women which clashed with her presence here.
-
Exactly, Tele.
Why is there this drama being made about PW ?
Why?
-
What does Cynicism ever accomplish?
The Catholic Faith isn't about sentimentalism, but it certainly involves love, as God is Love.
Love involves opening yourself up, risking getting hurt. Even those "of the world" understand this, at least as applied to human relationships.
Catholics, if they act as Catholics, WILL be taken advantage of. Many times over. Such is the nature of the beast.
There will be a temptation (and I do use the word "temptation", as it from the devil) to become cynical, as that will build a nice wall around you and protect you from being humiliated, hurt, an in general, from being "dissed". But in the process, you shut out the possibility of loving those around you.
Give money to a stranger? He might spend it on booze.
Trust that person? He might be trying to scam me.
Open up about your personal life to relate to someone? They might use it against me.
Talk with a Catholic still attending the Novus Ordo? They're probably set in their ways, and hopelessly brainwashed with modernism and other errors.
Give shelter to a relative? He had his chance to get/stay established. He must be a bum. I wouldn't want him taking advantage of me for years on end.
Admonish the sinner? He'll probably get angry or throw it back in my face.
The saints were not thus cynical or negative.
You see the pattern. Every opportunity to practice charity towards our neighbor, or practice one of the corporal/spiritual works of mercy, we open ourselves up to disappointment, frustration, loss (time/money) and in general being offended.
But I think we need to GET OVER IT and practice virtue -- not for virtue's sake -- but for God's sake. He's the one keeping track.
If a young lady (or man) comes on here with a "story" and we all do our best to practice the spiritual works of mercy on their behalf, who is the loser if he/she turns out to be a fraud? Certainly not those who acted like Catholics.
Wow, that just twisted my stomach. Guess whose EXACT speech that was? When he was turning on his *actual* friends in favor of the phantom and trying to convince them being scammed (spiritually, emotionally, psychologically) was no big deal. That's freaky.
What part of my "speech" is incorrect in any way? Please give me some idea, at least a vague quote from a saint or Catholic doctrine, so that I might be corrected.
Please, tell me how I'm wrong.
Your "argument" (if you can call it that) has a name: ad-hominem. That is where you try to undermine the MAN making the argument, rather than his argument. In this case, discrediting me by calling me Quis_ut_Deus from Fisheaters.
-
There's nothing at risk here but the prides of the parties involved. If no one is coming after your money, your wellbeing, your livelihood, your family, etc, there's no harm in being kind and showing charity -- yes, even extending a seemingly unreasonable level of benefit of the doubt -- even if the person is outright lying to you again and again.
Also, even if her needling everyone in these "hot" topics is entirely intentional, there would be nothing to it if it weren't for the fact that we're already divided in our opinions. Exposing the differences between us all is just that. She's not creating division, just magnifying it.
Anyhow, I made Matthew stop what he was doing and reply since he's better with words than I am. I see he's done so I'm going to go see if he did a good job with what I wanted to say. :laugh1:
It's a matter of protecting your loyal and honest members. You consider that just their pride? Nothing you need to worry about? And how do you know they wouldn't eventually come after money or wellbeings? You want to wait until it gets that far? You don't think someone who is willing ot put this much energy into it is doing it for fun and won't eventually go deeper and deeper into it?
-
Here's the "plagiarized" speech Wallflower made reference to:
My final public words on Laura
« on: April 21, 2011, 05:47:AM »
I don't expect anyone to change their minds as to if all this was real or a scam. In a sense, I don't care, either. But you know what, if you think it was a scam, keep it to yourself. Don't bother me with it, don't post it on the forum, don't go doing Google searches or calling places or whatever else seems like a good idea; don't spread talk and stuff on other forums either. Just leave it be. If you want to do anything for me out of some kind of respect and decency that I've shown people here, please do that for me, and for Ty, Jesse, Bak, etc.
I think I've been decent enough to most of you that I am entitled to at least ask that much.
As far as believing or not, that's kind of a funny thing. Call me naive, or a sap, or a sucker, but I really believe all of this is true.
I believe with God all things are possible. From seashells to supernovas, I believe. I don't believe in UFOs (they're demons) or ghosts (demons again), but I do believe in the reality of astrology in the sense of signs of things, I believe in magick in the sense of the praeternatural, and I believe in alchemy in the sense of something exists in reality besides chemical matter.
I believe God sent His only Son down and because He loved us so He spread His arms on the Cross and died for us. I believe in Transubstantiation, the angels, the Saints, and that the BVM plays with the infants in limbo to give them comfort. I don't believe there exists Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or the Easter Bunny, but I do believe in the concepts of sharing wonder with children and delighting them with fabulous stories.
We spend our whole lives praying for miracles, for final perseverance, for conversion of hearts, etc. Then one seemingly happens, and suddenly some people don't believe it's possible. Oh ye of little faith comes to mind. I feel like I want to remind people that "with God all things are possible" is not just a slogan. I mean, the point of going to Mass and praying and availing ourselves of the Sacraments is to convert our hearts and obtain sanctification and the beatific vision, right? So when it looks like the whole thing actually may have worked, suddenly it's not possible.
Really, I think people are listening to the devil in a very real way. I mean, he can't have something like this happen unspoiled. I can hear him now: "it's too good to be true!" "It's a big joke and you're going to be the butt of it!" "Don't be a sap, this miraculous conversion stuff is a fantasy of Saul in the Bible!"
God would never say such things. God would say: Hope that it's true. Pray for it to be true. Believe in Me and what I can accomplish if someone opens their heart to Me. Let them laugh at your belief in Me. Let them laugh at your trust in Me. Do so for My sake as I did for you on the Cross. Let them swindle and con you, I will stand with you if you stand with me. Don't be afraid.
How do I know this? I dunno, I just do. God would never be ashamed of someone who believed in Him. God would never turn His back on someone that was made the butt of a joke for having Faith in Him. That's not God. Not the God I learned about from the Benedictine nuns, or the Jesuits, or the SSPX priests that I admire. He doesn't sow doubt about His abilities in us - that's the job of Satan, the adversary, the Father of Lies.
Really, I don't understand how people can claim the Catholic Faith if they don't believe the point of the faith, the salvation of all sinners, is possible. If their response to it is "I highly doubt it." The conversion of a heart, the turning towards God, the dying in Sanctifying Grace - that's the point of everything. The point of the Mass, Confession, Last Rites, the Gospel, the Crucifixion, the Immaculate Conception, etc. Without that soul being saved, all of that is for naught. Christ shed His blood for us to use it, not just to kneel before it at Mass. We're supposed to fight until the Last Drop of His Precious Blood. But then we see what looks like a victory, and some can't believe it.
Sorry, I believe this stuff is true. First, because I trust God. If I believe in a lie, I'm still believing in Him. He isn't the lie. Second, because I was there. I was the one talking to Ty and Laura while this was going on.
Oh, but Quis, some might say. You know, just because we don't believe this doesn't mean we don't believe in miracles and stuff. Really? I mean, do you need things handed to you on a silver platter? Do you need the sun to come down like at Fatima? To stick your hand in Christ's side? Or is the greatest miracle of all - and the most important one - someone converting and dying in the Faith to obtain the Beatific Vision and their appropriate Final End?
Why is that so hard to believe? Doubt, lack of faith, fear. Pick your poison. Distrust doesn't come from God.
Oh, but Quis, others might say. You know, the truth counts for something. Does it? I mean are you willing to stand by that? I hope so, because the "truth" is not a series of events that may or may not have happened. The Truth is Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior. The Truth is what sets us free, and in my heart I know Laura was set free. She was set free from misery, from sin, from a crippling orientation, from pain, etc. I know because I saw her freed by Christ. No one else can do that for us but Jesus because He is the Truth and the Way and the Life. So are you standing for Truth, for Christ, when you think something is "too perfect"? That Christ would put His hand to something imperfectly I guess is the implication.
And I have to shake my head at the self-serving hypocrisy. Honestly, besides the original thread that ignited this, the PMs I received after are just, well, kinda shocking to me.
One forum member told me outright we had been had. They didn't believe a word of it. I asked them what they needed to believe Laura even existed. They wanted the funeral director's name who arranged the cremation, the priest who gave extreme unction, etc. I'm like, no, you're missing my question. I want to know what you need to know to believe she just was a real human being. There was nothing that could convince him that I was willing to tell him. He searched teacher licensing things and stuff (sorry, private schools don't need teachers with certs - I know, "how convenient", but like I said, it may also be the truth), showed me her name wasn't there, etc.
It was those kinds of PMs that made me ask Ty for something. I told Ty I want to say I saw the proof, and I can't say that unless I see it. So he sent me the scan of the driver's license. After I posted that, the same person sent me this (with redactions):
Quote
Now that the whole Laura drama is over, I can see the forum losing the prayerful atmosphere we had going, and descending back into squabbling.
Quis, if this incredible story is honest-injun-no-bullshit true, I would be inclined to pray to Laura rather than for her. I'm not kidding. Santa subito. I'd be asking her for miracles. I'd want to develop the kind of "popular cult" that leads to beatification.
I just can't wrap my head around the fact that the whole story played out in cyberspace with no concrete evidence that it's anything but clever fiction. Especially because such things have happened in the past on other sites, as HK points out. I want to see Laura's death certificate more than the "birthers" want to see Obama's birth certificate. I want to see her co-workers and students posting memorials on legacy.com to their teacher and friend. I want to know what hospital she was in. I want to call the funeral director and verify that he handled the arrangements. I want to talk to the priest who anointed her. I want to know that it's all true.
With the scant amount of information available to me, I can't do that. Maybe the best way to handle it is to wait a few weeks and find out if a death certificate has been issued for Laura. What do you thnk? Do we know whether the coroner was involved, and whether there was an autopsy?
:o
Here was my response:
Quote
You're going to ask her for prayers after you probably cost her soul a bunch by sowing doubt? Wow, you've got a set of brass ones.
Look, maybe you lack an understanding of social norms, so let me clue you in on something: She was my friend. Don't you get that? I was on the other end of the phone every time she went in an ambulance; I was sitting there crying waiting for word from Ty after they pulled the plug to hear she died. This isn't a pixel person to me. I lost a friend. Even if it was what you thought, and it was all fake, that doesn't change the pain I felt over things. It may have been an imaginary friend I lost, but I lost a friend nevertheless.
If in that you don't understand what might be the problem asking me for "evidence" to begin with let alone now, then you've got a screw loose. I let you put your hand in her side once by asking for a scan of the DL. If you want to put it in again by digging up a death cert like a ghoul, leave me out of it.
See, it's all about the person who is questioning. It's about if they're going to be made a fool of. It's about they need to know the truth (why?). It's not about the pain they might cause someone else. Then as soon as they put their hand in the side, it's prayers for them, not prayers for Laura. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. That's not how Faith works. You trust in God even if you can't put your hand in His side.
I pray for Laura; if she's with God, she knows what I need, and she'll pray for me. I know that with my heart. And as I said before, I don't know for a fact she's in heaven, but she's one of the few people I'd bet on. So within pious allowances, I know she's praying for me, and for Ty, and Jesse, and Bak, and probably for the whole forum because that's the kind of person I knew her to be in the short time I knew her.
I know some people think I have a screw loose. That I'm in too deep because here is a person who was on the forum for a short time and I'm putting my eggs in that basket. My only answer is this: I'm 42 years old. I'm allowed to take those kinds of risks on someone if I want to. I don't do it blindly. I do it knowing full well if I stick my neck out there's a good chance of my head getting cut off. I do those things for the love of Christ because if it is a choice between letting a soul perish or me being Crucified, well, here's my hand - put the nail in. I'm nothing without Him, and I'm not afraid to make an ass of myself to further Him.
I'm sure there was a lot of eye rolling by some when I called Laura "my sister". There's only two other people in this world I refer to like that. My sister that I shared parents with, whom I love, and Jen, who some people here know. I'd take a bullet for her. We even have ourselves listed as brother and sister on Facebook. She knows why, and I know why, and God knows why, and it's nothing bad - sorry to disappoint those with filthy minds. Jen is my sister to me as much as the one I share parents with. I think she feels the same about me, but I won't presume to say that. And I hope I don't embarrass her by saying this stuff, but I'll never be embarrassed to tell anyone she's my sister and I love her that way, and I always will.
I didn't pick Laura as a sister. She picked me as a brother, so I couldn't refuse her. Oh, to be sure, Ty is her non-bio brother. If anyone on God's green earth deserves to be called her brother, it's Ty and not me. And to be sure, she's my sister in Christ as all women are. But that's not the deal. Here's what Ty sent me right after she died:
Quote
The day Laura got dizzy, fell and texted you, she and I talked later and she flat out told me that when she couldnt get ahold of me because of my phone battery going, her first thought wasn't of Sarah who would have been closer, or Mike who could have come and grabbed her, it was you. Why? Cause of all the people knew she knew you'd be available to talk, calm, and that you'd pray with her. She told me she had so much respect for you and that you were a good guy and that she looked up to you and loved you like a very cool older Catholic brother. She also told me several times how much FE meant to her, and its why she had started donating to your site, she saw it as an awesome thing.
Yeah, I know, it's part of the con. Fine, I'll be a sap for this, too. The reason I'll be a sap is because she treated me like a brother. She talked to me and asked me things as if I were an older brother. I didn't reach out to her. This sweet young girl who was nice to everyone on the forum as far as I know reached out to me in a text message and just asked me to pray for her while she was dropped down on the floor and couldn't get help. That's all she asked me for, was to pray with her and not leave her alone until Ty got back. Ty did come back, and the result was her first trip to the hospital in the ambulance, the one which she survived. She trusted in three people: me to stay with her, Ty to come back, and God in her prayers. Since she saw me as her brother, I say I am her brother. I'm her brother as much as Mary is my mother. And Ty is my friend. He's not a liar. He's a good guy who, just like Laura, is trying to find God and Christ and make sense of stuff. And I have his back just like he had mine by scanning a stupid driver's license like a week after someone important to him dies just so I can be honest and tell people I saw proof she existed, people who really only care about themselves.
So y'all can laugh at me. I don't care. Just don't do it here in my house. Don't do it to my face either, unless you want to find out what I'm made of, and I can tell you right now it's nothing nice. Laura is my little sister because she adopted me as her brother, and I accept, and that's that.
I think one of the things that bothered me the most is that people she clearly thought were her friends turned their backs on her. Laura sent me this about one forum member (redacted):
Quote
That's one reason FE is so great, the relationships you make with others here automatically have at least faith in common. And I like MemberX a lot too, he's a very fun person and I'm so proud of him for the stuff he does, and the commitment he's got to that.
Here is what MemberX sent to me about Laura:
Quote
I'm 100% convinced that the laurabookworm story is not genuine....
Then it details why they believe that, and ends with:
Quote
Alright, I'm done, I know you'll probably want to continue to defend this situation, because that's the kind of person you are and you don't really care about it. You've made that position clear. I've said my piece and that's all I can do. You can decide for yourself what you think. I don't want to be a part of encouraging her/his/its cult following.
I'm done discussing this issue.
That just makes me sad to think Laura admired someone who thinks Laura is a "her/his/it". I mean, obviously I have a completely subjective opinion. I believe the "situation" is real. Given that, it makes sense I think it's sad. Yeah, I know, I'm a sucker.
Which brings me to the three final things I want to say:
1) Really, leave it alone. If I've ever done anything for you, do one small thing for me and leave this alone. Don't bother me, don't bother Ty, or Jesse or Bak; don't spread rumors or gossip or whatever. Don't dig for details or bother Laura's family or anything like that. Believe what you want, but let it alone. Laugh at me behind my back, sure, go ahead. It wouldn't be the first time I've been laughed at, but it will be one of the few times it's worth it.
2) Laura told me something important. It was in a text message, so I couldn't copy and paste it for the memorial thread, and I have to type it in. But I want to share it with everyone. At this point Laura knew her heart was going to go. Not if, but when. We were talking about how long and stuff, and she said this to me.
Quote
Please pass on my thanks to vox and of course yourself... I love fisheaters, i've learned so much there, more than i'd have been able to learn offline. Ty is learning too, i see that, and so many others are learning, praying, fellowshipping, it's awesome. I know that if ty needs a place to hang out sometime later, he feels welcome at your place. And one day, I hope he finds Christ too. Sooner than later. I want to see it.
Yep, Laura, Ty is welcome here by me as long as he wants to hang out. He's my friend now. I hope he finds Christ, too, and I pray every day that you see it up close and personal in Christ's very wounds as He pours His Precious Blood upon Ty's heart.
3) For anyone else who wants to be a "Fool for Christ" (thanks for the phrase MaterLaeta! ) and believe with me and pray for Laura's soul and for Ty's conversion, here's what I sent to Ty about this stuff. It's a letter Malachi Martin (a Jesuit! - AMDG) wrote and published years ago. It's gotten me through all these years on the forum. When I get tired of the hate mail, the snide comments, people laughing at me behind my back (you know you do, and I know it, too), I pull this out and read it. It's great advice about what's important in life. You'll find it in the next post.
So, that's it. That's all I have to say on any and all of this really. And, really, just leave me alone. if you think I'm living in a fantasy, great. Just let me be. If I'm made a fool of, fine. I'll be a fool for Christ and His promise to convert hearts. I believe in Him and His Promise, and I will not doubt what He can do.
My last public words on this topic if I can help it are:
I love you as my sister, Laura; pray for me as I pray for you.
-Joe
Report to moderator Logged
QuisUtDeus
Guest
Re: My final public words on Laura
« Reply #1 on: April 21, 2011, 05:47:AM »
Here's what Fr. Martin wrote:
I am sending you these few lines as my commentary on the abuse and calumnies flung in my direction by certain members of our Roman Catholic Church. Many of my friends and well-wishers have urged me to respond to the abusers and the calumniators; and remember that this abuse and calumnious attack has been going on for over thirty-three years! That is a long time; and I have become a veteran of such oppression, so much so that in a certain sense I know much better than any of my friends and well-wishers how to deal with this sustained harsh treatment.
The basic lesson I have learnt over those thirty-three years is: not allow myself be diverted from fulfilling my mission as a priest and a servant of the Holy See of Peter. This means not merely refusing to pick up the stones thrown at me and returning them on the heads of my abusers. It means principally that I fulfill my duties as a priest—celebrate daily Mass, recite my breviary, fulfill my pastoral obligations to those under my care. It means that I never allow the distortions—doctrinal and other—of these very zealous abusers and calumniators to enter into my optic or cloud my angle of vision. It means, of course, praying for their spiritual welfare—and also that the Holy Spirit grant them some measure of understanding. For understanding is chiefly what lacks to them.
Well over twenty-five years ago, I wrote to my Superior in Rome complaining about a recrudescence of these attacks, and suggesting a certain course of action. He wrote back quoting that passage of John’s Gospel where Christ warns His disciples that the time would come when they would be ostracized and persecuted by people who would do that to them and think they were doing God’s will. “Can’t you suffer, too, for Christ’s sake?” This was my Superior’s answer.
Besides all that, all these years have taught me a few central lessons; you have to have undergone it all to be able to appreciate the principal lesson. Which is: abusers and calumniators are not out to get the truth, to build up, to edify. Their bent is to destroy, to liquidate. Hence, no matter what information you give them, they will not desist; they will use it to further their distrustful ambition. Hence, I found that there was no point in even trying to communicate with them; anything they learned became merely grist for their grindstones of hate.
A second valuable lesson I learned was this: they don’t really matter in the kingdom of God and in the daily warfare between Christ and Lucifer. There are too many Confessions to be heard, too many Masses to be said, too many souls seeking and needing spiritual direction, too many confused priests to be enlightened, too many aberrant bishops to be corralled back into the fold of Christ, too many holydays in honor of Angels and Saints, too many exorcisms of the possessed and the obsessed, too many of the faithful dying and needing Extreme Unction, too many children needing Confirmation—in a word, too many needy ones for any priest to hesitate for one moment and to tarry over the spewings and spittings coming from the unclean mouths, the jealous souls and the erroneous pens of pigmy men who fancy themselves upon a solid rock and who crave to ascend to fame and vanity over the dead bodies and soiled reputations of their victims.
I have always let such people know that I personally have no difficulty in waiting for the final showdown in the presence of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus, as the Just Judge of the living and the dead.
In sum, I have no time to wait—there’s too much work to be done. I know that many of my friends and well-wishers now and again answer some of my attackers. I generally discourage any sustained effort in that direction; the reason? Nothing will ever change the minds of these people—nothing except the grace of God. As I said, I am most willing to wait for God to change their minds. In the meantime, I have far too much to do. I can’t afford to waste time on them.
+Malachi
http://catholicforum.fisheaters.com/index.php?topic=3438656.0
-
You don't think someone who is willing ot put this much energy into it is doing it for fun and won't eventually go deeper and deeper into it?
Hey, when it gets "deeper" as you say then maybe we'll talk.
Right now she's just asking questions, which can help countless people who read the forum, as well as the souls of those who offer honest answers and advice before God.
-
I don't know anything about the FE scandal.
-
It's a matter of protecting your loyal and honest members. You consider that just their pride? Nothing you need to worry about? And how do you know they wouldn't eventually come after money or wellbeings? You want to wait until it gets that far? You don't think someone who is willing ot put this much energy into it is doing it for fun and won't eventually go deeper and deeper into it?
If there were something to protect you from it would be a different story. We've kept individuals known to be harmful away from here before and we'd do so again if there were any solid evidence that such was the case. Has PW asked for anything from any of us? Not to my knowledge. Yes, I'd absolutely wait until it actually happens before driving someone away over something they might do. At this point, I still have zero reason to believe she has any intention of seeking anything but friendships.
-
I don't know anything about the FE scandal.
Sorry, catherine. He fixed it.
-
Matthew, when I told you my concern, you reassured me "Don't worry, I'm not Quis". A bit of a dig at him but whatever, it's true, he handled that all wrong.
I'm telling you that you are reacting exactly the same way. There's nothing wrong in what you said. However, to what degree do we take it? Will you leave your doors unlocked and open at night just to avoid being "cynical"? Will you let your 3 year stroll the mall alone to avoid being "cynical"? Will you give all your personal details online just to avoid being "cynical"?
What Quis refused to take to heart was that his reaction of trying to sweep it all under the rug with a bit of "love everybody even if it hurts" speech, was a clear message to all that they and their wellbeing and friendship didn't mean much to him. That them being duped and scammed through his website, wasn't worth him taking a stand over. He'd rather "help" and stand by some complete stranger who had just screwed over his forum and his friends. All he had to do was say hey this is my forum and no one gets to run this kind of game. That's it. Take some responsibility. At a time like that people look to a leader for a stance to send a message to trolls, which is naturally the owner.
Also, I mentioned to you that my concern about such people is that they PM with everybody and get personal off-site. Yes, that's each person's responsibility to watch themselves, however, it's something that starts here. It's still somewhat under your umbrella. Your members, doing exactly as you just said, being helpful, friendly, charitable, end up PMing back and forth, getting personal very quickly. It leaves forum members vulnerable in ways that are not good. For you to come out with this speech sweeps all that aside as if it's of no concern to you.
-
PW is just a forum poster. Who are the people creating drama around her?
It's unfortunate if she's felt the need to embellish things, but that's no reason to believe she's completely "made-up."
It doesn't help anyone - except for the egos of the women which clashed with her presence here.
PW posts
Poster A responds
Poster B attacks poster A
Poster B is where the drama starts.
PW will do the waif/fragile victim post or switches the issue, instead of having a convo of what poster A is responding too.
You acknowledge she could be embellishing but are still attacking those who have called it out saying it is about their egos?
-
Those were his "final" words. There was a lot that came before. All in the same vein of "well, you are praying more (for her soul), is it really that bad?" "Don't be cynical" etc... Making all kinds of excuses to ignore members' concerns. This hasn't gotten that in depth, there's no funeral or funeral Masses being said, but it doesn't need to. There's enough dishonesty to make it obvious already. Might as well nip it in the bud.
-
And Tiffany, how did this thread go?
PW posts about wanting to wear modest clothes around the house.
The response is: PW is in great danger of attracting an abuser.
Now I know from private messages Catherine sent to PW that she was practically referring to men on this site.
So Catherine now claims PW isn't a real person, before she was anxious to constantly warn her about potentially abusive people on this site.
It's not PW's sincerity that's called into question.
-
For those who may be wondering we've all come to this suspicion separately. I PM'd Matthew a few days ago, then someone else contacted me to warn me of their suspicions. I also didn't know Tiffany was coming to the same conclusion until tonight. So several people have had their red flags raised over the past couple weeks/months without contacting each other until lately.
-
Did you digest my post, Tele? I said that I too am quite efficient, but could not do all the things that the Poster claims to do. Now that's Super Wonderwoman!!!
I don't know if you've ever worked at a restaurant, but the shifts are usually only four to six hours several times a week. Most people who work at restaurants seem to have more than one job, and there are plenty of unwed mothers and students among them. All told, they likely work 40-50 hours a week, and that's if she works five shifts a week and then baby-sits (average time five hours or so ?) another five times... from which we can assume she either baby-sits less or waitresses less... see ? Let's say she waitresses 20 hours a week and baby-sits the other three nights : That's a total of roughly 35 hours a week out of the 168. If we subtract 8 hours/night for sleep, we come up with 77 hours left, which means roughly 11 hours/day to devote to other tasks. Now, if she works at a good restaurant that is busy and has an average check of around $100/table (3 people/table, $33/person), she could easily be making $30,000/yr from those hours, plus baby-sitting for supplemental income. Thus, if she is working part-time at a restaurant and part-time as a babysitter on her other nights, she would have more than enough time in the day to pursue other things, such as take care of her daughter, doing the laundry on some days and devoting her other days to gardening, cooking for fun and practice, and so forth.
Believe it or not, some people have a lot of natural aptitude for skills such as gardening, cooking, sewing, and so forth. If cooking has always been an interest (which would lead to interest in the restaurant business), perhaps she got good at it first while she was in college, which is where it seems many people first experiment with cooking these days. PentinentWoman has shown that she is bright and quickly assimilates ideas and their contexts; so it is really not very unreasonable to believe that, if she enjoys those daily activities, she could quickly become good at them. And perhaps she has somebody to help look after her daughter when she is at work.
In any case, she said that she spent some time on NO forums. Based on the incredibly realistic comments of the NO women she related, it is clear that she also has a thorough familiarity with that milieu and the language ardent NFPers and TOB devotees use. She also would have gained a familiarity with NO devotional language, much of which overlaps Catholic devotional language and spirituality in its reference to the saints and their prayers and anecdotes. Even her signature and language here shows the imprint of somebody coming from the NO, such as the use of "Holy Spirit" and the rest. Anyway, being around enthusiastic NFPers and family planners, would a truly penitent soul and sharp intellect not develop an aversion to that sort of commentary ? And, once she comes here and reads the threads, would it be impossible for her to gradually shift gears after seeing how the people here talk ? It all seems unlikely, but certainly not impossible. And conversions are unlikely in the first place, so aren't we as Catholics used to such unlikelihood ?
If your theory is right, she would have to be far more intelligent than you give her credit for, surely intelligent and talented enough to pull off what you claim is impossible (which turns out to be not so impossible once one runs the numbers). If CatherineofSienna's theory is correct, she would have to be a vicious feminist who is mining data for a hit-piece against traditional Catholics, writing -- apparently -- the sort of hit-piece that CatherineofSienna would probably agree with anyway. In any case, for this project or paper, the feminist writer would have to immerse herself in and quickly master the idioms of NO NFPers and their entire Johannine-Pauline milieu, develop a realistic opinion of all of it, and weave the invented mentality into an invented persona. Then, the character would have to give herself a fake schedule, fake friends, a fake timeline, and so forth. This seems to be far above the aptitude of even an incredibly gifted college student. And what about the hours and hours of research (done over the summer -- what school offers such an academic program ?) ? How many women have the skills of an investigative journalist and a novelist simultaneously, as well as the life experience necessary to give plausible schedules of single mothers who work at restaurants, while also being able to appeal to serious traditional Catholics (through references to canning, gardening, cooking, using authentic French names of saints in her signature, and so forth) using all of our own idioms and language but -- and here's the kicker -- from the standpoint and within the narrative of her incredibly well-developed character's personality ? And how many men have that level of craftiness either, much less college-level girls in women's studies programs, which is hardly a serious intellectual endeavour that appeals to people with disciplined and subtle minds, such as such a master schemer would need ?
What is more plausible ? Isn't it far more plausible and more charitable to assume that she's real ? Otherwise one would have to assume that he/she is writing from within Traditional Catholicism and is knowledgeable of Cathinfo specifically... a disturbing thought. But who would do such a thing ? Is it a Cathinfo member ? Well, Matthew would have been able to catch the IP or the IP filter. Perhaps it is somebody from FE ? Sorry, but those people don't seem to have that level of subtlety, otherwise they most likely wouldn't fall for the silliness of the Indult and the FSSP and popular culture and so forth. Then again, maybe it's the US government, the DHS, or a group of eccentric intellectuals ? It could be, but then there is not much that could be done at the end of the day against that, so why the ruse ?
But why assume any of those things, when the most plausible and easiest answer to all of those gratuitous doubts is that PW is just a smart young woman who is trying to figure things out and find refuge from her bad situation and the ignoble men and unsympathetic feministic women in her life ? That she is trying to unite herself to the Truth ? Not giving such benefits of the doubt is just unreasonable. Should we infer that she is a bright young woman who is advancing in the Faith or that she is a terrifyingly intelligent person who is advancing an objectively evil agenda ? What seems like the more balanced and charitable conclusion to you, given all the evidence ?
P.S. I cannot help but notice that all of the ridiculous charges against PW seem to be reflections of the insecurities and stereotypes common to feministic neo-Trad lines of argument. Would it be too much to wonder if this is just a coincidence ?
-
Otherwise one would have to assume that he/she is writing from within Traditional Catholicism and is knowledgeable of Cathinfo specifically... a disturbing thought.
Yes I had entertained something like that as a remote possibility, a while ago.
-
I don't know if you've ever worked at a restaurant, but the shifts are usually only four to six hours several times a week. Most people who work at restaurants seem to have more than one job, and there are plenty of unwed mothers and students among them. All told, they likely work 40-50 hours a week, and that's if she works five shifts a week and then baby-sits (average time five hours or so ?) another five times... from which we can assume she either baby-sits less or waitresses less... see ? Let's say she waitresses 20 hours a week and baby-sits the other three nights : That's a total of roughly 35 hours a week out of the 168. If we subtract 8 hours/night for sleep, we come up with 77 hours left, which means roughly 11 hours/day to devote to other tasks. Now, if she works at a good restaurant that is busy and has an average check of around $100/table (3 people/table, $33/person), she could easily be making $30,000/yr from those hours, plus baby-sitting for supplemental income. Thus, if she is working part-time at a restaurant and part-time as a babysitter on her other nights, she would have more than enough time in the day to pursue other things, such as take care of her daughter, doing the laundry on some days and devoting her other days to gardening, cooking for fun and practice, and so forth.
That was impressively detailed considering you left out her MAIN job. :wink:
-
I don't know if you've ever worked at a restaurant, but the shifts are usually only four to six hours several times a week. Most people who work at restaurants seem to have more than one job, and there are plenty of unwed mothers and students among them. All told, they likely work 40-50 hours a week, and that's if she works five shifts a week and then baby-sits (average time five hours or so ?) another five times... from which we can assume she either baby-sits less or waitresses less... see ? Let's say she waitresses 20 hours a week and baby-sits the other three nights : That's a total of roughly 35 hours a week out of the 168. If we subtract 8 hours/night for sleep, we come up with 77 hours left, which means roughly 11 hours/day to devote to other tasks. Now, if she works at a good restaurant that is busy and has an average check of around $100/table (3 people/table, $33/person), she could easily be making $30,000/yr from those hours, plus baby-sitting for supplemental income. Thus, if she is working part-time at a restaurant and part-time as a babysitter on her other nights, she would have more than enough time in the day to pursue other things, such as take care of her daughter, doing the laundry on some days and devoting her other days to gardening, cooking for fun and practice, and so forth.
That was impressively detailed considering you left out her MAIN job. :wink:
Heh, well, I thought that was implied, but you present me with the opportunity to include it. The only thing I think I haven't accounted for is who takes care of the baby during waitressing. The baby would sleep sometimes, of course, which would give PW some free time in the day. Otherwise the baby would naturally be brought to her baby-sitting job and on errands to the supermarket, retail clothing shop, farmer's market, Mass, and anything else which would be done during the day-time. Besides doctor's appointments and waitressing, it seems that most things could be done with the baby along for the trip or nearby and entertained with something. Let's say that PW brings her computer with her while she is baby-sitting (as evidenced by the question about the Three Stooges), there are a few free hours while the little boy and her daughter are sleeping. As long as PW is not addicted to electronics or the television, there doesn't seem to be any reason why she wouldn't be able to productively use the eight or so hours (taking away three from my former scheme to account for miscellaneous baby issues) she would have over the course of the day. The only thing is, who looks after the baby during waitressing ? Maybe PW's mom or sister or grandmother or aunt or friend... ? I know, I know... once again, impossible ! Only superhumas have female relatives happy to spend time with their grand daughter, niece, friend's baby, or great grand daughter ! :smile:
-
Pere, I traded sitting with another waitress. We worked out that arrangement.
I waitressed/bar tended from 8 until 2 typically. Babysitting nights I come early and help with the dinner routine while Mom gets ready. Some nights I bring or make something there, other times I serve what their Mom usually gives (frozen chicken nuggets, ramen noodles...other unhealthy "kid food")
I babysat 2 children though I believe I've only talked about the boy who is now 3. While they are on a later than "normal" schedule, they still slept most of the time I was there. I then would clean, play online, practice sewing etc. I can never fall asleep, and my daughter will not sleep in the pack & play if she knows I am there, so we nurse and cuddle. I have to walk the baby back to my place around 3 anyway. There are nights I sleep very, very little. I quit waitessing 2 weeks ago. Last night was my last time babysitting for this Mom, who works at the same place.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19589&min=10&num=10
Roman, I am essentially a cocktail waitress at a sports bar and grill. I work 8-close usually and we serve food til 11 and then I serve drinks and hide in the back cleaning as much as possible.
Another forum assured me the job was okay as long as I don't flirt for tips. :/ I hate this job, but my rent went up and I'll be homeless without it. I get hit on all the time and just try to ignore it. The whole atmosphere is immoral from the music they play to the bachelor/achelorette parties that come in. Still, I have worked at rowdier bars before in my college days.
I'm so conflicted. I do a babysitting share with another single mom who does the same job opposite nights. Please pray for me.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19610&min=20&num=10
To be fair, my office job is a series of very tedious tasks. I have begged my boss to switch me from hourly to salary because I could do what needs to be done in about 3/4 the time I am expected to be here. It isn't an option though, and he gives me no good reason why.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19610&min=140&num=10
Yes. I have 2 jobs (pretty sure I've mentioned this in my whining posts ) I have a day job and I waitress the
late shift 3 nights a week (usually)
I also do a babysitting swap opposite nights with another waitress.
This is my goal. Just wondering if I should move first. I want to start a home cleaning business and just bring my daughter with me. I would also offer consultations for home organization. I really enjoy these things.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19486&min=40&num=10
The mom I babysit for struggles to keep her home neat so when I'd get the little ones settled in, I would just subtly clean for her. She was so impressed that she hired me for a deep cleaning of her whole apartment and to organize her kitchen. The best part is she hasn't kept up with it, so hopefully she will use me again.
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php?a=topic&t=19376&min=60&num=10
I babysit for preschool age kids who live in an apartment. Granted, it is at night time so we don't go outside, but I know their mom takes them to the park to play, and the apartment building has a small playground too.
Having a baby IS exhausting. Part of the reason I've got this nanny job is because I've talked to the Pediatrician extensively about my schedule. The job was offered to me because I had spoken about needing something better, work wise. Because I have talked a lot about my interest in healthy cooking (as well as other passions such as attachment parenting) and because my bff who is an RN had been plugging my house cleaning aspirations, they figure I'll be the perfect fit.
I love to cook. I've been cooking for a very long time. I don't recall saying that I prepare nightly gourmet meals. I cook when I can and eat off of it for multiple meals. I cooked a ton and learned a ton when I was pregnant. I knew I wanted to be a housewife.
Last weekend was the first in forever I didn't have to work. I got to can and freeze with my Grandma. I also took her to a Latin mass for the first time since she was a teenager. She laughed about my head covering seriousness and recalled her youth and having Kleenex bobby pinned in her hair if she tried to skip it.
I don't have friends. I don't have a social life. Even working 60 hours a week, I have to fill. I don't know how else to explain that. Before dd could crawl, I used a moby wrap or my ergo ($10 garage sale score) and could get plenty done with the baby attached to me. I STILL babywear from time to time.
I don't really cloth diaper much. Daycare is too lazy to toss rice liners and fill a wet bag. I coupon for disposables and only CD when I know I'll have time to wash.
I stay busy. I can't handle disorganization or unfinished cleaning. I love how Proverbs 31 woman never puts out her lamp. I thought that was a good way to be.
As far as assistance? I only know what my mom could tell me. I would only get TANF with my office job. Waitressing would likely push me over the max income for EBT benefits. I might apply for medicade now due to my job change.
I am flattered (though it is now bittersweet) to be called a good writer. I had a lot of professors who seemed to think otherwise.
It's funny how when I was in college, I didn't even know what the SSPX seminary was, but now having read the Williamson letters, I'm thinking some of his excellency's left behind grace must have floated through the bluffs to me and influenced all those C papers I wrote when I didn't feel like kissing up to liberal soapbox profs when it came to abortion, affirmative action etc. Maybe they were really A papers after all.
It is strange how relatively close I was (year wise, and especially geographically) to the Bishop who I've come to admire so much. The Lord works in mysterious ways, it seems.
I really, really do need to stop posting, but the work schedule thing was driving me crazy.
Matthew can check my IP addresses. I have logged on from my phone mostly, and I think 2 different computers. I'm in Minnesota.
Oh and Catherine, I am sorry for sharing our private conversation. It was a knee jerk reaction. I was upset about some of the advice you had given me and some of the snarky comments you'd made about you know who. I really became frustrated when you said the abusive man stuff in my post.
Gossip is sure hurtful. I apologize for what I did. It was wrong of me. I was hurt and defensive but it's not an excuse.
Is Fr. Hughes from CMRI nice or would my privacy be non existent? I have to go up that way today. The chapel is kind of creepy from the outside. My NO priest is orthodox and supports TLM, but he really did not think I should go to Immaculate Conception. For a number of reasons and not just because it is see. I just don't know.
I also discovered where the SSPX nuns live. Maybe I can stay with them...LOL. The building looks really neat. Never knew how much SSPX culture was in MN.
I hope that I'm not banned because I like to read here, but I'll understand if I am. Regardless, I need some time away. My new job wont allow for much computer time. At night I will read but not post. I'm sorry my presence an has managed to cause drama. I'm hurting right now, but I know that God knows the truth.
In Christ,
PW
P.S. my coworkers decided this is my theme song while I wait for a husband.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=je4nDvNJXsg
P.P.S. Google "traditional Catholic unwed mothers" You will see how I got here.
-
When analysing PW's various activities and wondering if she is exaggerating, people have forgotten how much attention husbands need. That's a huge time block removed, IMO. :laugh1: :chef: :pray: :dancing:
-
What a curious non-answer. Have you been untruthful or not? That's the elephant in the room yet we're getting tons more confusing details and some backpedalling about little things like cloth diapering. The real issue has yet to be addressed. An innocent person's first reaction is to say so and clearly.
Also Pere, that's exactly what is disturbing is that this poster speaks as someone who has been traditional Catholic for many years (or at least in trad circles if not personally practicing) to know their specific language, not a new convert. No matter how intelligent, it takes time. And if that intelligent, you know what nightgowns to wear. Tele why would you have entertained this possibility a while ago? Are you now taking a 180 position and saying you also noticed inconsistencies and coincidences related to Cathinfo?
PW I think you could tell us how nice the priest at CMRI is, considering you wrote a whole thread about meeting him. Either way, it may be a good idea to see him today. That I wouldn't discourage no matter who you are and what is actually going on.
-
Why are you not afraid of being wrong?
I'll second that question for catherine, wallflower, thorn and possibly tiffany. There are no prizes for being right, but the risk of being wrong is a pretty weighty one.
fyi - the babysitting is not a baby, but a little boy. Personally, I think two is easier than one as they entertain each other : )
I agree with wallflower. I don't know if she is troubled or malicious. I do know that I was personally betrayed and stabbed in the back. No apology and yet, I'm the bad person.
Well, you still have people waiting for an apology from you, though I know we won't get one.
-
Take some responsibility. At a time like that people look to a leader for a stance to send a message to trolls, which is naturally the owner.
You know, being a moderator of my own forum has made me realize how hard it is to run one. Seeing that s2srea has apparently turned his forum over to you, I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before you realize it as well. When you do realize it, you will stop complaining about Matthew's moderation just as I did. The reason? Moderators have enough on their plates, no need to add to it. :)
-
Whoops, I accidentally had that quote say it was from Matthew when it really was from wallflower. Don't know what I was thinking. :facepalm:
Anyway, I corrected it.
-
Take some responsibility. At a time like that people look to a leader for a stance to send a message to trolls, which is naturally the owner.
You know, being a moderator of my own forum has made me realize how hard it is to run one. Seeing that s2srea has apparently turned his forum over to you, I'd imagine it's only a matter of time before you realize it as well. When you do realize it, you will stop complaining about Matthew's moderation just as I did. The reason? Moderators have enough on their plates, no need to add to it. :)
I understand that. I did not ask for the forum btw, I would much prefer he (or another man) run it but I suspect he's taking a very long much needed break from forums. Can't blame him, I've been on the edge of one myself. This may tip me over. And seeing Matthew react the same way as Quis did, I do recognize it is not an easy call to make and don't envy being in their shoes.
However, you pick your battles. A possible troll who is more and more obviously untruthful, "coincidentally" hitting all the subjects known to promote unrest, miscommunication and disharmony, pitting people against each other, then fading into the back, a hapless victim, while they fight it out is something to be taken seriously. Not to mention the possible danger on the personal levels of PMs precisely because traditional Catholics take being kind and generous and wanting to help converts to heart. Obviously if no one bit then it wouldn't be an issue but since that's not human nature you have to have some level of action to protect your forum and your members from being exploited.
I don't think that falls under being a superficial complaint. Especially since so many have had doubts but pushed them aside for some time. She went wrong in playing victim where it seriously did not make sense. You can only passive-aggressively poke people so many times before they realize what's going on and call you out on it.
-
Also SS, I didn't have time to say it earlier, long weekend plans are about to go into full effect, but that forum is meant to be heavily moderated. It was created with one specific purpose, to focus on developing the interior life without the other chaos that always distracts us from that. Number of members, level of traffic and individuals would be sacrificed quickly to keep that atmosphere. That's why I would love to see it go, to have that "safe place" and the book club, but it's also why I don't feel comfortable with the title of owner. I don't feel qualified to run either of those two subjects but tried to push through the discomfort anyway. I have never participated in my secular friends' book clubs because I would never read the books they read. Having a traditional one was an exciting proposition for me. I realize I'm probably best going back to audio books and as many literature conferences as I can get my hands on. Too bad Dr White is retired.
-
It wasn't a dig at him; it's true -- I'm not Quis! There's no logical reason why I should act in a similar way during a given situation, as we have almost nothing in common except for the Catholic Faith and we both work in computers.
Leaving your doors unlocked is imprudent. It opens you up to theft and possibly worse.
Letting your 3 year old stroll through the mall alone is criminal and dangerous. The child could be abducted and horribly abused or even murdered.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to a member on a Catholic forum is a different story. There are no lives or livelihoods at stake. Each person is welcome to trust or NOT to trust; that isn't my decision. If someone PMs you asking for money, or a place to stay, etc. it's your decision: Yes or no.
I can't control what is done off-site. All a moderator can do is judge what is posted on-site.
Matthew, when I told you my concern, you reassured me "Don't worry, I'm not Quis". A bit of a dig at him but whatever, it's true, he handled that all wrong.
I'm telling you that you are reacting exactly the same way. There's nothing wrong in what you said. However, to what degree do we take it? Will you leave your doors unlocked and open at night just to avoid being "cynical"? Will you let your 3 year stroll the mall alone to avoid being "cynical"? Will you give all your personal details online just to avoid being "cynical"?
-
I need to coin a term for this exaggerated view of what a moderator should do.
Maybe "King" or "Pope"? hahaha
Moderators aren't all-knowing; they shouldn't weigh in on everything with the full might of their moderating power. They shouldn't have a black-and-white opinion on everything, even if they barely understand the subject, so they can delete the opposite opinion.
That would be ridiculous.
The Pope should always weigh in on any controversy to make sure everyone knows what the Catholic Faith teaches -- and doesn't teach. His job is to personify orthodoxy for the Catholic world, and to lead the Catholic Church in general. One of his main tasks is to be constantly vigilant to speak out against errors.
It isn't the job of a forum moderator to "save the world" or "figure everything out" for people. No ex-cathedra statements.
A moderators job is to run a decent forum where people can A) find things B) find good information and threads and C) foster an environment where people feel comfortable contributing.
Telling people, "You can't post about topic X, even though it's a hot topic right now" goes against C. If people want to talk to people matching PW's description, who am I to tell them "no"?
She's not unpopular here. You have to agree. Just look at the upvotes/downvotes and pro- and anti-PW posts.
-
I am just curious and sorry if I missed this in earlier posts but what are modest pajamas? I wear a pair of sleep pants and a t shirt. what would constitute modest pajamas any way? thanks.
-
PereJoseph's post back on page 42 shows exactly why & how the men are dealing with all this. Pere gave a detailed list of the Poster's work history, yet - as Mater pointed out- left out the most important one!! - her day job as office manager where she said that she left the baby in daycare which Pere also left out! So Pere didn't get the whole picture even tho he thought he did & went on to form an opinion.
Of all the men here, I think Tele is the one most likely to really look & digest what all the Poster has written. Tele - not all women are evil & out to get men at all costs. Just because there are some bad apples, don't let that color your life forever. I still believe that the women here gave the Poster good advice & tried to help & guide her.
The Poster wrote on July 10 that she was meeting with a TRAD priest the next day. On the 11th she wrote that she had survived but had a very creepy feeling.
So - PenitentWoman- did you or did you not meet with a TRAD priest??? This is an important question & needs to be answered. If she doesn't answer then I do believe that people have a right to be suspicious of anything else she writes.
I shouldn't speak for catherineofsiena, but I think she was warning the Poster about ALL men she may meet, not just those on this forum. The men here seem to take whatever is written here VERY personal.
-
I agree with PereJoseph that this thread is ridiculous.
I don't see PenitentWoman as some troll with malicious intent. I see her as a sincere person who has repented for her past mistakes and just came here to learn. I think this whole fear of her being some sort of phony is just bordering on paranoia. I realize that you have to be cautious with people on the internet, but there is such a thing as taking it too far.
Tele knowing the content of the PMs Catherine sent to PW was really obvious all along. Why PW forwarded the PMs to Tele, I don't know and really don't care because 1) it's none of my buisiness, and 2) it doesn't matter, she has the right to do what she wants. Where in the forum's rules does it say you can't forward PMs to other people? I could understand if Catherine told her some personal information that she didn't want others to know about and PW forwarded that information to others, that would have sinful. But she didn't do that.
I think the problem we have here is that Catherine is upset because PW went against her advice and decided to befriend Tele and some of the other men on this forum that Catherine doesn't get along with. So that seems to make her, wallflower, and Thorn think that PW is some troll all because she didn't take their advice. I suggest letting her decide who she wants to listen to or befriend. What difference does it make?
I see an issue with some people on Trad forums (and I myself am probably guilty of having done this) where people seem more caught up in "winning" and beating the other "side" than actually using Trads forums as a means of interacting with other Trads or stengthening one's spiritual life.
This obsession to "win" can sometimes lead to grave sins such as slander or calumny. Winning isn't what Trad forums are all about. PenitantWoman made a serious mistake earlier in her life. She has repented. She came here to learn about Traditional Catholicism. Catherine said that abusive men could push her back to the NO, but something else that can push her back to the NO is a negative reception from Traditional Catholics. Instead of running her off the forum, worrying that she might be a troll, or trying to get her on your "side", why not show some patience and sympathy?
As far as her being hesitant to seek advice from a Traditional priest, we have to remember that many of us were once where she currently is. The average person is not going to be told the truth and convert right away. Conversions often take time. I didn't jump from the NO straight to being a Trad. I was a semi-Trad for a while.
One other thing: Tele, like PW, has had a lot of controversy surrounding him ever since he put a personal experience of his on this forum. Both posters have a lot of false accusations thrown at them, and an example can be found in post from Thorn. Tele doesn't think all women are evil. Any man who thinks that is beyond paranoid and probably needs to get some help. Tele simply exposes the feminist movement for what it is. That's primarily why his ignore count is as high as it is. Some people just don't want to hear the truth. But Matthew is right that Tele is an honest and sincere fellow just trying to save his soul, and the same can be said for PW. I
That's my two cents, for what it's worth.
-
PereJoseph said:
If your theory is right, she would have to be far more intelligent than you give her credit for, surely intelligent and talented enough to pull off what you claim is impossible (which turns out to be not so impossible once one runs the numbers). If CatherineofSienna's theory is correct, she would have to be a vicious feminist who is mining data for a hit-piece against traditional Catholics, writing -- apparently -- the sort of hit-piece that CatherineofSienna would probably agree with anyway.
Has Catherine of Siena become a feminist without my knowledge? I ask before attacking this statement, since I have seen her accused of that by self-styled inquisitors of anti-feminism without any proof.
In any case, for this project or paper, the feminist writer would have to immerse herself in and quickly master the idioms of NO NFPers and their entire Johannine-Pauline milieu, develop a realistic opinion of all of it, and weave the invented mentality into an invented persona. Then, the character would have to give herself a fake schedule, fake friends, a fake timeline, and so forth. This seems to be far above the aptitude of even an incredibly gifted college student. And what about the hours and hours of research (done over the summer -- what school offers such an academic program ?) ?
What on earth are you talking about? What "research" is required? If someone has invented the Penitent Woman persona, it is someone who knows all about Vatican II and the various strains of traditionalism. No research whatsoever would be necessary.
And why would this person have to be a feminist? They would be like Pope Augustine, not a feminist. Someone just playing a game for motives that I don't really care to know.
How many women have the skills of an investigative journalist and a novelist simultaneously, as well as the life experience necessary to give plausible schedules of single mothers who work at restaurants, while also being able to appeal to serious traditional Catholics (through references to canning, gardening, cooking, using authentic French names of saints in her signature, and so forth) using all of our own idioms and language but -- and here's the kicker -- from the standpoint and within the narrative of her incredibly well-developed character's personality ?
Incredibly well-developed? Maybe it's you and you're tooting your own horn? If she is fake, it's not that great. I have noticed that her posts are repetitive and vague; there are never any details that really "sell" her stories. She's a secretary, she's a waitress... I haven't heard any "true to life" little details, the kind that writers use to make things plausible. Even her story about being abused is incredibly vague, and is just a generic depiction of Stockholm Syndrome.
And how many men have that level of craftiness either...
Ah, it took you a while to think of that. Let's not exaggerate, all it takes is to capture a slightly Novus Ordo-ized but sincere tone.
What is more plausible ? Isn't it far more plausible and more charitable to assume that she's real ?
This has nothing to do with charity. As for plausible, I'll tell you what isn't plausible, that a Frenchman with incredibly perfect English grammar and a massive vocabulary, who writes like John Updike, wouldn't know that in English, there is no space between the last word of a sentence and a question mark. Perhaps this is a little detail to make you look "French" without stretching it too much? But stranger things have happened, so yes, I agree, it's better to assume people here are real.
Once you get into the paranoia, there's no end to it, as I have learned. I think a good solution is that people should give their names. I don't want to hear any silly excuses about the government watching either. I know plenty of Catholics on Facebook and I've never had any problems there such as come up on this site. If any place is penetrated by shadowy figures, it is CathInfo, not Facebook.
Otherwise one would have to assume that he/she is writing from within Traditional Catholicism and is knowledgeable of Cathinfo specifically... a disturbing thought. But who would do such a thing ? Is it a Cathinfo member ? Well, Matthew would have been able to catch the IP or the IP filter.
That sort of thing has been going on ever since I came, with Pope Augustine and his personae. I have seen all kinds of fakes on here. This is a news flash to you?
As for Matthew, he has gotten himself in a position where he needs drama to keep this site going, which leads to bad decisions.
-
Speaking of Matthew, there has never been an explanation of Tele's popularity count exploding, for the exact same repetitive comments he always says, or for the influx of "racialists" on the site. It's clear this site is extremely fishy.
-
Sede Catholic said:
Thorn, you do not know anything about PW.
So for you to rashly accuse her of lying - with no evidence - is very sinful.
Why are you not afraid of being wrong?
What is the sin, Sede Catholic? Show me the sin of suspecting an Internet poster has adopted a fake persona, especially on a site like this. Don't accuse people of sins lightly; that is wrong.
If Penitent Woman does not even exist, then we are not accusing "her" of lying, because there is no "her."
Here, we can clear this up, Penitent Woman, sign on Facebook and send me a friend request, my name is Michael de la Sota. Something tells me that won't be happening.
-
CathMomof7, a longtime member here, knows me from Facebook. She can vouch that I am trustworthy. I am also a longstanding member at Queen of Angels at CMRI.
The "government" and all kinds of spooks already know where I am, if they care, so no, this doesn't frighten me to say. The saints did not go around anonymous; that is to give the devil far too much power. That excuse doesn't wash. I am not forcing anyone to go on Facebook, but if someone really exists, they could prove it in an E-mail or by some other means.
-
because I'm honest.
oh come on Tele :roll-laugh1:
Oh, come on, Catherine.
I have been largely silent in this thread, becasue, as Pere Joseph said, it has degenerated into silliness. I may be sorry I am commenting now.
Telesphorus and I have had some serious conflicts on this forum, and neither of us have been particularly gentle about it. I think he is profoundly wrong about a lot of things, and of questionable orthodoxy on a few. I expect he would say the same of me. That being said, suggesting that you are somehow in danger from him is just crazy. As I recall, he was initially a bit harsh with PW, but backed off significantly one he was more aware of her situation. When did he call her a whore, or anything comparable? I would like an actual citation, please, since you are asserting this.
You may not like Telesphorus. I don't always like him, and I dislike some of his positions intensely. However, he is not some insane, woman-hating pedophile stalker, as has been asserted without proof here repeatedly.
Get a grip.
-
because I'm honest.
oh come on Tele :roll-laugh1:
Come on, what?
When has Tele ever shown himself to be two-faced, duplicitous, or told any lie?
I've never known him to be such, and I've been around since he joined.
He has his principles and views, and some of those are controversial, but he's certainly honest about them. I've never known him to mince words, or distort the truth.
Absolutely.
-
Why am I not surprised that Raoul is suspicious of PW?
Matthew owes us no explanation for Tele's reputation rating because it doesn't matter. If you're upset because someone has a rep of 3000, you're just being silly. A reputation rating on a forum really means nothing.
I've gotta say, though that if Raoul wants to criticize me again for my support of Tele, rather than get angry like I did last time, I think I'll smile it off and won't respond. I really don't care what people think of me. If anyone wants to down me for defending PW as well, my only response is: bring it on! :)
-
What makes you think I want to criticize you? As you can see, the last thing I want is to be drawn into more CathInfo follies. I just wanted to give the "feminists" some support on this one.
If PW can prove she exists, I gave her a way to do so. She can come up with another herself. It is not hard. Where does she go to church? Who has met with her? If someone wants to be a spook, don't be surprised if others treat you like a spook.
-
What does Cynicism ever accomplish?
The Catholic Faith isn't about sentimentalism, but it certainly involves love, as God is Love.
Love involves opening yourself up, risking getting hurt. Even those "of the world" understand this, at least as applied to human relationships.
Catholics, if they act as Catholics, WILL be taken advantage of. Many times over. Such is the nature of the beast.
There will be a temptation (and I do use the word "temptation", as it from the devil) to become cynical, as that will build a nice wall around you and protect you from being humiliated, hurt, an in general, from being "dissed". But in the process, you shut out the possibility of loving those around you.
Give money to a stranger? He might spend it on booze.
Trust that person? He might be trying to scam me.
Open up about your personal life to relate to someone? They might use it against me.
Talk with a Catholic still attending the Novus Ordo? They're probably set in their ways, and hopelessly brainwashed with modernism and other errors.
Give shelter to a relative? He had his chance to get/stay established. He must be a bum. I wouldn't want him taking advantage of me for years on end.
Admonish the sinner? He'll probably get angry or throw it back in my face.
The saints were not thus cynical or negative.
You see the pattern. Every opportunity to practice charity towards our neighbor, or practice one of the corporal/spiritual works of mercy, we open ourselves up to disappointment, frustration, loss (time/money) and in general being offended.
But I think we need to GET OVER IT and practice virtue -- not for virtue's sake -- but for God's sake. He's the one keeping track.
If a young lady (or man) comes on here with a "story" and we all do our best to practice the spiritual works of mercy on their behalf, who is the loser if he/she turns out to be a fraud? Certainly not those who acted like Catholics.
Wow, that just twisted my stomach. Guess whose EXACT speech that was? When he was turning on his *actual* friends in favor of the phantom and trying to convince them being scammed (spiritually, emotionally, psychologically) was no big deal. That's freaky.
WHAT? :surprised:
-
Telesphorus said:
Thorn,
wallflower and catherineofsiena are typical outspoken trad women and as such they put a very high priority on policing all trad women they feel to be under their purview. In particular, part of this policing is to make sure that their own feminist slanted ideas of what is traditional are upheld by all the women, (at least all the attractive women).
Wallflower and CofS are part a femitrad cabal to steal away the attractive women and engage them in a feminist plot... This comment got seven thumbs up. Seven. Wallflower and CofS are getting thumbs-downed for all they do.
They get extremely uncomfortable with the idea of a young trad woman who thinks for herself - and worst of all - who shows any sign whatsoever of going against their control over which men are deemed acceptable. They place a premium on their ability to control who the women of the group are willing to go with - that's the crux of their power. So if a woman opts out of their little "femitrad union" - there's hell to pay.
Just like if anyone opts out of accepting you as the Grand Inquisitor of anti-feminism, you will attack them? Who is doing more bullying, you or them? When has CofSiena ever aggressively tried to make anyone a feminist? There is no proof of that, but there is plenty of proof that you attack anyone who doesn't agree with every word of your nonsense.
Also, they were not trying to inculcate feminist ideas in PenitentWoman. Sensible people could easily see, that they were trying to stop her from going to extremes, and accepting a Pharisee-like view of the proper role of the husband in a marriage. Because of her alleged past of being submissive, they charitably feared for her soul, and believed she was in danger of falling for some of the extremist views trafficked on this site.
That was before, of course, they began doubting her existence tout court.
-
Here, we can clear this up, Penitent Woman, sign on Facebook and send me a friend request, my name is Michael de la Sota. Something tells me that won't be happening.
Fair crack of the whip, sport! I wouldn't join Facebook for your benefit, or for anybody else's, for that matter!
-
The most baffling part of this thread for me is PereJoseph. I can understand him saying that Tele was making some sense in this thread, because he was relatively restrained for a while. But Pere knows his tendencies, and how he really thinks. So why would he be so outraged by the actions of wallflower and CofS, who also know how Tele thinks deep down? That is what they were clearly warning against.
Now, I have occasionally taken Tele's side on certain things, but in a way that is consistent with my character. I am not a feminist, and wallflower sometimes does say things that are lightly feminist ( in my estimation ). People are not all black-and-white; there are shades of grey. There will be times when I will have to overcome my distaste for Tele's personality, and agree with him on something. My identity does not revolve around being anti-Tele; it revolves around God and thus truth.
With PereJoseph's intervention, though, it doesn't make sense that someone as perceptive as he is wouldn't see what is going on here, or why Penitent Woman is under suspicion as a real person. It is not consistent with his previously established character, which was usually perceptive regarding Tele. Here he sounds almost like an acolyte of Tele.
PereJoseph said:
Anyway, PenitentWoman is asking very fair and pertinent questions and being given theological answers from men who have studied the Faith as well as some women who agree with these men and with PW's instincts. Then she gets patted on the head and told that she is being "too submissive" ? That she should be afraid of "abuse" on the horizon ? That she is being a "rigorist" because she doesn't think tanktops and sweatpants are appropriate attire for a young lady with a penitential spirit who wants to advance in grace and holy knowledge ? Insanity !
This doesn't work PereJoseph. You know very well that Tele has rigorist tendencies, why are you acting now like you don't, and doing an outraged routine? "Men who have studied the faith"? If you think Tele is a scholar of the faith, you have a problem, all he ever talks about is this one subject. And please quote where either woman has advocated tanktops... Maybe I missed it, but it seems unlikely.
I also extend my invitation to you to join me on Facebook, what French restaurant do you work at? Where do you live? Where do you go to church?
-
Better keep up with the thumbs-downs, because as you well know, I wipe the floor with you badly when it comes to actual logic. This is what you're reduced to; like Antichrist will be reduced to killing those who question him. It illustrates perfectly what I am dealing with here.
-
As for Matthew, he has gotten himself in a position where he needs drama to keep this site going, which leads to bad decisions.
I thought you were real, but you're way more capable of creating drama than PW is, so perhaps I'm wrong. You don't like drama, you don't like this site, why again are you still here??
-
SS, while I wait for you to get docuмentation on the church & apparitions, let me tell you that your post isn't worth 2 cents.
You see her as a sincere person who came here to learn about tradition? You've met her in person & can vouch for this? If not, then you don't know any more than the rest of us. Who's said she's here with malicious intent? Read the posts again, SS!! and give your proof. If she came here to learn why didn't she continue to discuss faith & tradition instead of posting all her secular activities showing the world what an ideal wife she'd make?
You believe that catherine is upset because PW didn't take our advice? You're not thinking straight. I got more out of catherine's post than that.
Again you defame me. Show me where I said that she was a troll or even sided with those who think that. Prove it SS.
This 'debate' has nothing to do about 'winning', but it's about getting to the truth because of inconsistent stories by PW. Show your proof that PW came here to learn about traditional Catholicism. Her stating it isn't proof.
State for the record who is running PW off the forum. Contraire - we all want her to come here & answer a few questions such as did she meet with a trad priest. Some people don't want the truth? Speak for yourslf SS. We're begging for the truth to come out & it's you who keeps insisting PW is who she claims to be (someone looking for answers about tradition) without proof of any kind. If you've never met PW in the flesh to see just what she has done to learn about tradition by meeting with a trad priest & going to a TLM, then you're as much in the dark as the rest of us.
-
-
[size=]This forum has been my introduction to Traditional Catholicism. Because I am considered to be so very conservative and traditional, people told me I should look into this movement. Coming here I feel I have been almost called Jezebel herself. No matter. The Just Judge knows all. But here is a pattern I see.
1) Woman makes a statement considered to be anti whatever. Like my saying Jesus and Paul were different. Look up my quote --that is all that was said.
2) One man (generally one of three in particular) jumps on the post in an angry way making accusations (like oh, so you think St Paul is a mysogynist --which was _NOT ANYTHING SAID AT ALL, or another example--l you are ganging up on a woman...)
3) Other men (generally 4 plus the three not mentioned earlier) get into a pack frenzy criticizing the female for the first male's inaccurate quote. They then preach to the woman accusing her and discussing the inaccurate characteristics mentioned by the first man. You commonly act like you can read minds and motives.
4) Then the judgements and snide comments come.
5) Not many disagreeable posts come with a respectful tone. But there are a few men who seem to understand traditional does not mean disdainful.
6) Raul is right--I used my real name here, It is easy to be less Charitable when you are hiding behind an alias.
7) I commend Matthew--I was sure I was banned after the last few weeks. I still am deeply wounded that Matthew insulted my infertility--again another anti-feminist stereotype you judged on. Totally wrong, but wounding--and opening wounds endured by Catholics saying that for years while we were praying to the blessed mother for intervention( instead of seeking laborotory assistance)--which came in His time, 17 years later. But I digress.
8) Some of you appear to be haters. Some of you are racist. Many of you, if you really believe the hate you spew, would make me prefer an aetheist as a neighbor over you, because at least they don't KNOW better, yet a catechised Catholic should certainly know better regarding how they behave and treat all of God's children.
9) Your arguing and spitting all over each other does nothing to teach others about Traditional Catholicism, or maybe it does. I still haven't figured that one out. The more divided we are, as Catholics, the more room we make for the Evil one to penetrate. The more He wins.
10) I have been accused of being centrist because I say things like there is a vast difference between wearing jeans and being a prostitute or unchaste or whatever the words were... Well, there is. And calling a woman in jeans a prostitute will do nothing to help her learn why you think jeans are wrong. It just makes your ego feel better, and turns her away thinking you are hysterical men, or lunatics, or so judgemental that they could never please your religion.
11) Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...you are no expert to me til you are a parent...I was a principal, and parenthood was so very different than anything I could have ever imagined. You can pontificate to married folks when you move out of your momma's house and aren't on parental or public assistance to make your way. When you are working, doing laundry, cooking, and taking care of kids--homeschooling them or educating them and teaching them how to navigate the harsh world...then you can preach, but some of you ( and you know who I am referring to) should not be telling a woman, man or youngster anything til you grow up.
I prayed a lot about whether to write this post. I have felt urged to do so. I am sure it will get 7 thumbs down. I can count on those pretty consistently. The early followers of the Way were known for they way they took care of each other. How kind and compassionate they were. How are we acting to each other?
I could say more but I think it prudent to let it go. God Bless you and keep you.[/size]
-
What makes you think I want to criticize you?
Well, you've criticized me before for defending Tele, so it would seem likely that you'd criticize me for defending PW.
I just wanted to give the "feminists" some support on this one.
You support the un-supportable.
Better keep up with the thumbs-downs, because as you well know, I wipe the floor with you badly when it comes to actual logic. This is what you're reduced to; like Antichrist will be reduced to killing those who question him. It illustrates perfectly what I am dealing with here.
(http://i2.ifrm.com/16087/138/emo/smileyviolin2.gif)
-
You've met her in person & can vouch for this?
Oh, and you've met her and can vouch for your theory?
If she came here to learn why didn't she continue to discuss faith & tradition instead of posting all her secular activities showing the world what an ideal wife she'd make?
She has asked questions more than "showing the world what an ideal wife she'd make".
You believe that catherine is upset because PW didn't take our advice?
Yes, I do. Her actions show it.
Again you defame me. Show me where I said that she was a troll or even sided with those who think that.
You're suggesting right now that her story doesn't add up and that she seems suspicious. That's all I said, I didn't defame you, nor was that my intent.
If you've never met PW in the flesh to see just what she has done to learn about tradition by meeting with a trad priest & going to a TLM, then you're as much in the dark as the rest of us.
Have a good day, Thorn.
-
SS, again read the posts!! I don't have a 'theory' or even subscribe to any that are put forth. I merely said in my very first post about the Poster that the story didn't ring true. No more. No less. I got tromped on for that. After the Poster explained, I willingly gave the Poster the benefit of a doubt & wished the Poster well. Then the stories got tangled again & once again I started to have doubts. Now others do too. All I ask is that you carefully read everything, please.
So, SS, what's my theory in your mind? You're sadly lacking when it comes to proving things, it looks like.
-
SS, again read the posts!! I don't have a 'theory' or even subscribe to any that are put forth. I merely said in my very first post about the Poster that the story didn't ring true. No more. No less. I got tromped on for that. After the Poster explained, I willingly gave the Poster the benefit of a doubt & wished the Poster well. Then the stories got tangled again & once again I started to have doubts. Now others do too. All I ask is that you carefully read everything, please.
So, SS, what's my theory in your mind? You're sadly lacking when it comes to proving things, it looks like.
iT IS A PART OF A PATTERN i MENTION IN THE POST ABOVE THIS
-
Thanks for the post, Loriann. Don't know how many posts like that, it will take.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs.
-
Thanks for the post, Loriann. Don't know how many posts like that, it will take.
It is indeed a sad state of affairs.
Well, Six more thumbs down to go, lol.
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...you are no expert to me til you are a parent...I was a principal, and parenthood was so very different than anything I could have ever imagined. You can pontificate to married folks when you move out of your momma's house and aren't on parental or public assistance to make your way. When you are working, doing laundry, cooking, and taking care of kids--homeschooling them or educating them and teaching them how to navigate the harsh world...then you can preach, but some of you ( and you know who I am referring to) should not be telling a woman, man or youngster anything til you grow up.
With the exception of TraditionalGuy20 (who's screen-name reveals his age), how do you know which members here are young?
-
-
(Sorry, messed up on the above post again.)
SS, again read the posts!! I don't have a 'theory' or even subscribe to any that are put forth. I merely said in my very first post about the Poster that the story didn't ring true. No more. No less. I got tromped on for that. After the Poster explained, I willingly gave the Poster the benefit of a doubt & wished the Poster well. Then the stories got tangled again & once again I started to have doubts. Now others do too. All I ask is that you carefully read everything, please.
So, SS, what's my theory in your mind? You're sadly lacking when it comes to proving things, it looks like.
Thorn, when you can calm down and engage in reasonable discussion like you did last week, I'll address what you wrote. Until then, responding would just be returning insult for insult, and I'd better not engage in that for the sake of my own soul.
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...you are no expert to me til you are a parent...I was a principal, and parenthood was so very different than anything I could have ever imagined. You can pontificate to married folks when you move out of your momma's house and aren't on parental or public assistance to make your way. When you are working, doing laundry, cooking, and taking care of kids--homeschooling them or educating them and teaching them how to navigate the harsh world...then you can preach, but some of you ( and you know who I am referring to) should not be telling a woman, man or youngster anything til you grow up.
With the exception of TraditionalGuy20 (who's screen-name reveals his age), how do you know which members here are young?
I read posts--I listen to what others say. But that was the most important thing you took from all of that... 5 more to go, lol
-
I'm not going to discount or discredit a poster because of their age. Look at Daegus, for example. He joined this forum at a young age (16, to be precise), and no one held it against him. Even his opponents in debate never brought up his age or used it against him. They talked to him like he was an adult. And he was very popular here among the majority of members. Very wise and knowledgable for his age.
Now if someone joined this forum at the age of 12, yeah, ok. But Daegus has proven that age really doesn't matter.
-
I'm not going to discount or discredit a poster because of their age. Look at Daegus, for example. He joined this forum at a young age (16, to be precise), and no one held it against him. Even his opponents in debate never brought up his age or used it against him. They talked to him like he was an adult. And he was very popular here among the majority of members. Very wise and knowledgable for his age.
Now if someone joined this forum at the age of 12, yeah, ok. But Daegus has proven that age really doesn't matter.
How about some of the other subjects in the post...you are illustrating what I talked about--focusing on a small point to the exclusion of the important details...that part wasn't directed at you but other parts apply to you.
-
This 'debate' has nothing to do about 'winning', but it's about getting to the truth because of inconsistent stories by PW.
When I talked about "winning", I wasn't refering to just this debate. There are lots of people on Trad forums - some on this forum as well - who will go to extreme lengths just to win. There is one significant example.... well, I'd better not mention it. That's another topic.
-
Sweetie pie SS, will you please do me a favor and give me proof of all you assertions? Thanks so much. Lovingly, Thorn
Mater, was that drippy enuf? The guy actually asked for it!!
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...you are no expert to me til you are a parent...I was a principal, and parenthood was so very different than anything I could have ever imagined. You can pontificate to married folks when you move out of your momma's house and aren't on parental or public assistance to make your way. When you are working, doing laundry, cooking, and taking care of kids--homeschooling them or educating them and teaching them how to navigate the harsh world...then you can preach, but some of you ( and you know who I am referring to) should not be telling a woman, man or youngster anything til you grow up.
Too much existentialism. You don't seem to realize how your argument plays right into the hands of people who think priests shouldn't give advice on married life since they are not married or shouldn't tell women how to dress since they are not women.
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...you are no expert to me til you are a parent...I was a principal, and parenthood was so very different than anything I could have ever imagined. You can pontificate to married folks when you move out of your momma's house and aren't on parental or public assistance to make your way. When you are working, doing laundry, cooking, and taking care of kids--homeschooling them or educating them and teaching them how to navigate the harsh world...then you can preach, but some of you ( and you know who I am referring to) should not be telling a woman, man or youngster anything til you grow up.
Too much existentialism. You don't seem to realize how your argument plays right into the hands of people who think priests shouldn't give advice on married life since they are not married or shouldn't tell women how to dress since they are not women.
See, this is how the posts always go--focus on one point and keep the covversation going about that so we can ignore the rest. But the argument is that you don't really know how busy a parent and family are until you experience it. A priest can advise and be a helper but his life experience is not the same...Just as I cannot feel total empathy with the priest.
The other comments of the original post are far more important. But SS will not talk about those because they are just criticism.
The elephant in the room, so to speak.
-
Alright Loriann, I'll give my response to the other parts of your post:
This forum has been my introduction to Traditional Catholicism.
So I take it this answers our question that you attend the Novus Ordo?
Woman makes a statement considered to be anti whatever. Like my saying Jesus and Paul were different. Look up my quote --that is all that was said.
Well, even now I'm not sure what you were getting at, but you seemed to be implying that Paul's way was different than Christ's way. That is quite a bold statement concerning one of Christ's Apostles.
One man (generally one of three in particular) jumps on the post in an angry way making accusations
Again, your statement was controversial. That's why it was jumped on.
Other men (generally 4 plus the three not mentioned earlier) get into a pack frenzy criticizing the female for the first male's inaccurate quote. They then preach to the woman accusing her and discussing the inaccurate characteristics mentioned by the first man. You commonly act like you can read minds and motives.
No. Telesphorus, Graham, TradGuy20, Sede Catholic, PereJoseph and I are strongly opposed to feminism. Considering you were promoting the idea of women having degrees - even claiming to have one yourself - that came off as rather feministic, something that even Matthew pointed out. Let me ask you something, Loriann. Do you believe a married woman should work outside the home? If you have already stated your opinion on the matter, I apologise. This thread is too long to go back and look for particular posts.
Raul is right--I used my real name here, It is easy to be less Charitable when you are hiding behind an alias.
It is also easier for your reputation to be destroyed when using your real name, which is one of several reasons why no one on this forum knows my real name.
I still am deeply wounded that Matthew insulted my infertility--again another anti-feminist stereotype you judged on. Totally wrong, but wounding--and opening wounds endured by Catholics saying that for years while we were praying to the blessed mother for intervention( instead of seeking laborotory assistance)--which came in His time, 17 years later. But I digress.
The promotion of women obtaining degrees is not in line with the Traditional Catholic mindset. Bishop Williamson disagrees with you on that.
Some of you appear to be haters. Some of you are racist. Many of you, if you really believe the hate you spew, would make me prefer an aetheist as a neighbor over you, because at least they don't KNOW better, yet a catechised Catholic should certainly know better regarding how they behave and treat all of God's children.
Kindness can never be chosen over theology. For instance, I'd rather have a Traditional priest who was a bit of a jerk than a nice priest who was a flaming liberal.
have been accused of being centrist because I say things like there is a vast difference between wearing jeans and being a prostitute or unchaste or whatever the words were... Well, there is. And calling a woman in jeans a prostitute will do nothing to help her learn why you think jeans are wrong. It just makes your ego feel better, and turns her away thinking you are hysterical men, or lunatics, or so judgemental that they could never please your religion.
When did anyone here say a woman in jeans was a prostitute? Are you against the idea of women wearing skirts as opposed to pants?
-
Caraffa, why bring more things into the discussion? To muddy the water so the basic premise won't be dealt with?
-
Sweetie SS, You didn't notice that Loriann was posting about infertility only & you go on & answer her about women getting degrees? Don't you see how disjointed you seem? Didn't you READ that part of her post so you could give an intelligent response? Unbelievable!!
-
she said in a soft & loving voice.
-
Caraffa, why bring more things into the discussion? To muddy the water so the basic premise won't be dealt with?
Lorainn's views are ones that commonly come up in discussions like this. It shows that those who use them have different first principles than the rest of us, and if we can not agree on first principles (i.e Catholicism) then there is little point in even having this discussion other than to warn those who don't to change.
-
I was just addressing what she wrote because she said I only focused on the insignificant part of her post, Thorn. No problem with that.
And "sweetie pie SS" is going further than calming down, but what the heck, I'll take it. :laugh1:
On a serious note, as far as having "proof" that PW is sincere, she has PMed me a few times and, based on the content of those PMs, I have no doubts that she is sincere.
-
Here, we can clear this up, Penitent Woman, sign on Facebook and send me a friend request, my name is Michael de la Sota. Something tells me that won't be happening.
Fair crack of the whip, sport! I wouldn't join Facebook for your benefit, or for anybody else's, for that matter!
Nor would I.
-
PW started this thread to ask perfectly reasonable questions about modesty in dress.
Feminists then wrecked this thread with accusations against her.
It is a sin to unjustly accuse a young lady of lying and deceit without a shred of proof.
Anyone can see that such an action is a sin.
-
Alright Loriann, I'll give my response to the other parts of your post:
This forum has been my introduction to Traditional Catholicism.
So I take it this answers our question that you attend the Novus Ordo?
Woman makes a statement considered to be anti whatever. Like my saying Jesus and Paul were different. Look up my quote --that is all that was said.
Well, even now I'm not sure what you were getting at, but you seemed to be implying that Paul's way was different than Christ's way. That is quite a bold statement concerning one of Christ's Apostles.
You seem to interpret things in a particular narrative, which always dissolves to a spitting match here.
One man (generally one of three in particular) jumps on the post in an angry way making accusations
Again, your statement was controversial. That's why it was jumped on.
But the jumping comes on the generally misinterpreted part vs the post.
Other men (generally 4 plus the three not mentioned earlier) get into a pack frenzy criticizing the female for the first male's inaccurate quote. They then preach to the woman accusing her and discussing the inaccurate characteristics mentioned by the first man. You commonly act like you can read minds and motives.
No. Telesphorus, Graham, TradGuy20, Sede Catholic, PereJoseph and I are strongly opposed to feminism. Considering you were promoting the idea of women having degrees - even claiming to have one yourself - that came off as rather feministic, something that even Matthew pointed out. Let me ask you something, Loriann. Do you believe a married woman should work outside the home? If you have already stated your opinion on the matter, I apologise. This thread is too long to go back and look for particular posts.
Raul is right--I used my real name here, It is easy to be less Charitable when you are hiding behind an alias.
It is also easier for your reputation to be destroyed when using your real name, which is one of several reasons why no one on this forum knows my real name.
I still am deeply wounded that Matthew insulted my infertility--again another anti-feminist stereotype you judged on. Totally wrong, but wounding--and opening wounds endured by Catholics saying that for years while we were praying to the blessed mother for intervention( instead of seeking laborotory assistance)--which came in His time, 17 years later. But I digress.
The promotion of women obtaining degrees is not in line with the Traditional Catholic mindset. Bishop Williamson disagrees with you on that.
Some of you appear to be haters. Some of you are racist. Many of you, if you really believe the hate you spew, would make me prefer an aetheist as a neighbor over you, because at least they don't KNOW better, yet a catechised Catholic should certainly know better regarding how they behave and treat all of God's children.
Kindness can never be chosen over theology. For instance, I'd rather have a Traditional priest who was a bit of a jerk than a nice priest who was a flaming liberal.
have been accused of being centrist because I say things like there is a vast difference between wearing jeans and being a prostitute or unchaste or whatever the words were... Well, there is. And calling a woman in jeans a prostitute will do nothing to help her learn why you think jeans are wrong. It just makes your ego feel better, and turns her away thinking you are hysterical men, or lunatics, or so judgemental that they could never please your religion.
When did anyone here say a woman in jeans was a prostitute? Are you against the idea of women wearing skirts as opposed to pants?
1) I made it quite clear I was looking into Traditional Catholicism for the first time. My degrees and background should make it clear that I was raised NO or something other than Traditional.
2) Matthew 's insulting my infertility--your answer makes no sense regarding that issue. He judged my childlessness as a career choice. Very painful.
3) Theology over kindness--Racism is NOT theology. ANd it thrives here.
I would prefer a crusty true to the truth priest over rainbows and butterflies too.
4) The thread is too long to go back to and find the quote about the pants, but it was said. More than once.
5) If your religious views are true and honest--they should not destroy you--what scares you to be revealed?
What do the fighting and bigotry and rudeness here teach anyone about the movement. ?
Do you think that people who have started differently can become TRAD?? Would they be welcomed?
-
Racism is NOT theology. ANd it thrives here.
I know racism is not theology. I was talking about what you said about living next to an atheist over a rude Catholic who "knows better". And by the way, atheists reject God by their own choice (with the exception of people in poor countries such as Africa who have no one to teach them about God).
If your religious views are true and honest--they should not destroy you--what scares you to be revealed?
With all the nuts on the internet, I'd simply prefer not to reveal my name. Surely you can understand that.
What do the fighting and bigotry and rudeness here teach anyone about the movement. ?
Do you think that people who have started differently can become TRAD?? Would they be welcomed?
There are problems in the Trad movement, but you can't write it off as a whole.
Sure, people of sincerity would be welcomed.
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...
Loriann, some of the worst posters are immature in spite of their age. Age does not come into it.
-
Racism is NOT theology. ANd it thrives here.
I know racism is not theology. I was talking about what you said about living next to an atheist over a rude Catholic who "knows better". And by the way, atheists reject God by their own choice (with the exception of people in poor countries such as Africa who have no one to teach them about God).
If your religious views are true and honest--they should not destroy you--what scares you to be revealed?
With all the nuts on the internet, I'd simply prefer not to reveal my name. Surely you can understand that.
What do the fighting and bigotry and rudeness here teach anyone about the movement. ?
Do you think that people who have started differently can become TRAD?? Would they be welcomed?
There are problems in the Trad movement, but you can't write it off as a whole.
Does the TRAD movement offer that same philosophy to those of NO, or newcomers?
Sure, people of sincerity would be welcomed.
I feel I was sincere and honest in what I wrote--was I welcomed in your opinion?
-
I've been thinking it over, & you know, Loriann is right. No more militancy, no more seeking diligently the truth about things & adhering to it, certainly no more combatting of error. No, what we need to do is drop our racism & bigotry & embrace all regardless of who & what they are. (cue hippy music, the age of aquarius or something) We should sit in a circle on the ground cross-legged in our tie-dye shirts & long hair & smoke some good stuff while singing kumbaya, that's the way to do it, that will solve all our problems, peace & love.......
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...
Loriann, some of the worst posters are immature in spite of their age. Age does not come into it.
Ok, so what about the racism and other things??Any ideas?
-
Loriann, you do seem sincere. Thus you would be welcomed by Trads. I think what we are trying to get through to you is where your views go against the beliefs of Traditional Catholicism. I'm not sure you've commented on that yet.
And actually, that belief is not limited to just Traditional Catholicism. Some Novus Ordites believe the same thing. Heck, even some Protestants do. Most don't, but there are SOME out there who do.
-
But Sweetie Pie, you DIDN'T address what she had just wrote. That's my point.
She wrote about infertility ONLY, in that sentence. You responded by writing ONLY about women obtaining degrees & Bishop Williamson. Totally disjointed.
Please go back my Sweetie Pie & see for yourself. Thank you so much.
-
I've been thinking it over, & you know, Loriann is right. No more militancy, no more seeking diligently the truth about things & adhering to it, certainly no more combatting of error. No, what we need to do is drop our racism & bigotry & embrace all regardless of who & what they are. (cue hippy music, the age of aquarius or something) We should sit in a circle on the ground cross-legged in our tie-dye shirts & long hair & smoke some good stuff while singing kumbaya, that's the way to do it, that will solve all our problems, peace & love.......
Racism is wrong--all the way, Cuthbert, and you can make Kumbayaa jokes all you want--but you feed the beast, and this site is rife with it.
You should combat error--but you'll have a better chance of doing it Jesus' way by explaining instead of being disrespectful.
I never smoked anything, so I can't address your suggestion--but I can tell you that you aren't bringing a lot of folks to the kingdom if you make them think you are hysterical men who hate.
-
Well, yes. You should drop your racism and bigotry. Assuming, of course, that you actually have any.
-
Loriann, you do seem sincere. Thus you would be welcomed by Trads. I think what we are trying to get through to you is where your views go against the beliefs of Traditional Catholicism. I'm not sure you've commented on that yet.
And actually, that belief is not limited to just Traditional Catholicism. Some Novus Ordites believe the same thing. Heck, even some Protestants do. Most don't, but there are SOME out there who do.
I am not sure what you mean by" that belief "here
-
That belief= belief that the woman's role is always in the home.
-
Well, yes. You should drop your racism and bigotry. Assuming, of course, that you actually have any.
Shall I make a list?? :)
-
That belief= belief that the woman's role is always in the home.
I was raised to believe that ignorance is a form of oppression.
Therefore my parents (Dad went to Notre Dame, after doing missionary work in Papua New Guinea, so you know his formation) encouraged their children (all daughters) to attend college. I did. I will be married 31 years and I worked until I was blessed with a child after 17 years of infertility. I then stayed home. My daughter attends Catholic school and is a very traditional girl. She is active in the church and she works at our soup kitchen. She works specifically with brain damaged kids. She is the kind of kid who makes people say We should look at the catholic church because we want our kids to be like her. I am very blessed. I do not hide from what i am or how I was raised...I feel it has made me a perceived enemy to be shot at, here.
-
Sigismund said:
Nor would I.
Excellent. Then you can stay in a toxic, hate-filled, anti-Christ, environment due to your superstition.
-
But Sweetie Pie, you DIDN'T address what she had just wrote. That's my point.
She wrote about infertility ONLY, in that sentence. You responded by writing ONLY about women obtaining degrees & Bishop Williamson. Totally disjointed.
Please go back my Sweetie Pie & see for yourself. Thank you so much.
That is the one thing that has really wounded me...I would like an answer, and hope that Catholics stop judging a woman unless they know her reproductive organs intimately.
-
College is really is liberal cesspool, especially for women, as Bishop Williamson once noted. Even men shouldn't go, they should either do online college or simply work through self-employment.
I have to log off for the night, but I will add more to this some time tomorrow.
-
Sigismund said:
Nor would I.
Excellent. Then you can stay in a toxic, hate-filled, anti-Christ, environment due to your superstition.
That would describe Facebook quite nicely, I think.
-
No, it describes the attraction of certain people here for sociopathic attitudes that would be rejected by healthy Catholics.
-
Well, if by racism you mean actually hating others because of their race, wanting to see them exterminated & so forth, then I agree, that is mortally sinful, but I don't think anyone on Catholic Info holds to such views. Simply acknowledging racial differences isn't evil.
I don't presume to speak for others, but my own view on the matter is that God has willed the white man to teach & lead the other races, working to lift them out of barbarism. Kipling's poem, The White Man's Burden has a lot of truth to it. The Spaniards & Portuguese did a good job of this in the Americas, & in the Philippines, & in many other countries.
The French also, converted many in Indo-China, & in their various African colonies. This is the ideal, & tho' it has often not been lived up to, it still ought to be striven for; every great endeavour will be marred by the effects of original sin on those who carry it out.
-
College is really is liberal cesspool, especially for women, as Bishop Williamson once noted. Even men shouldn't go, they should either do online college or simply work through self-employment.
I have to log off for the night, but I will add more to this some time tomorrow.
So when we have no doctors, nurses, physical therapists...
Did the apostles stay home or trudge into the dens of sin?
-
Sigismund said:
Nor would I.
Excellent. Then you can stay in a toxic, hate-filled, anti-Christ, environment due to your superstition.
That would describe Facebook quite nicely, I think.
If you remove anti-christ from that quote, it could describe some of here.
-
I was referring to here, Loriann -- anti-Christ included. Who were the greatest enemies of Christ when he was on Earth? The Pharisees. Look around you here. This abominable puffed-up pride is insufferable.
-
Well, if by racism you mean actually hating others because of their race, wanting to see them exterminated & so forth, then I agree, that is mortally sinful, but I don't think anyone on Catholic Info holds to such views. Simply acknowledging racial differences isn't evil.
I don't presume to speak for others, but my own view on the matter is that God has willed the white man to teach & lead the other races, working to lift them out of barbarism. Kipling's poem, The White Man's Burden has a lot of truth to it. The Spaniards & Portuguese did a good job of this in the Americas, & in the Philippines, & in many other countries.
The French also, converted many in Indo-China, & in their various African colonies. This is the ideal, & tho' it has often not been lived up to, it still ought to be striven for; every great endeavour will be marred by the effects of original sin on those who carry it out.
Pointing out differences is very innocent compared to what has been done here. The research shows differences among races--longer muscles in black people vs caucasian, etc, In the liberal school system, posts made here could be used for expulsion and possible hate language. Ascribing attributes like sloth to a whole people is far more insidious.
What proof do you have that God chose the White race?
-
College is really is liberal cesspool, especially for women, as Bishop Williamson once noted. Even men shouldn't go, they should either do online college or simply work through self-employment.
I have to log off for the night, but I will add more to this some time tomorrow.
Good night--then maybe tomorrow you can answer the infertility line when you do the other things.
-
I was referring to here, Loriann -- anti-Christ included. Who were the greatest enemies of Christ when he was on Earth? The Pharisees. Look around you here. This abominable puffed-up pride is insufferable.
Sorry I misunderstood. My first post here was that we sounded like the pharisees.
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...
Loriann, some of the worst posters are immature in spite of their age. Age does not come into it.
Ok, so what about the racism and other things??Any ideas?
I am mostly a reader here. I felt inspired to write about age. Ageism is not a good thing! That's all for now. This thread is about modesty around the home, BTW.
-
Well, some of the strongest evidence of Our Lord's choosing the white race is that the principle of hierarchy, & thus inequality pervades nature, God has willed that this is so. One could regard the human race & its various divisions as a sort of family, just as in a family you have the parents ruling over & teaching their children who are weak & ignorant, & look instinctively to their parents to help them to procure the necessaries of life, & to learn that which is essential to becoming a civilised human being, so in a similar manner has God given the other races the white man to act as a father, teaching them the Faith that Our Lord willed to give him first.
Our Blessed Lord did not pick the European races to be the first recipients & benefactors of His Holy Religion at random. He knew that they, due to their character & temperament were the most well suited to carry out His command to preach & baptise all nations. Look at what was accomplished by the European races when they were yet heathens. Is there anything approaching the grandeur of the acropolis in sub-saharan Africa?
Have the eskimos brought forth a philosopher to equal Plato? No, of course not. It may be objected that the Chinese have Confucius & Mencius, & it is true, that generally speaking the Asiatic races are equal to the Europeans in intelligence, but I would maintain that the principle yet holds. The Asiatics could be considered like unto an older son, equal to his father in most regards, but yet rightfully subject to him. The aboriginal races of the Americas would be next, & the negro & Australian aboriginal races would be last.
The coming of the white man was the best thing that ever happened to these people. If not for his advent they would still be sacrificing to vile idols, & very often, depending on which country we are speaking of, killing & eating each other. In some parts of sub-saharan Africa, this is indeed the case. I know that the European races have sadly, largely given themselves up to apostasy now, rather like the Jews, they have preferred the goods of this world & gratifying themselves to serving God, but this principle is nonetheless true.
This is one of the reasons for the miserable situation that prevails today, besides the defection of so many within the Church, we have also on the natural level, the degeneration of that race which hitherto at least maintained order to a certain extent, but now with the forces of Int'l Judaeo-Masonry having gained complete control, the ship has lost its rudder, or to put it somewhat better, those who are the declared enemies of mankind, & of all that is good & decent have taken the wheel & are steering straight for the rocks.
-
Sigismund said:
Nor would I.
Excellent. Then you can stay in a toxic, hate-filled, anti-Christ, environment due to your superstition.
All this is true because I won't join a social networking site?
-
Well, yes. You should drop your racism and bigotry. Assuming, of course, that you actually have any.
Shall I make a list?? :)
Racism is certainly rampant here. I just don't remember if Cuthbert participates in it, and don't want to accuse him of this sin unjustly.
-
Sigismund said:
Nor would I.
Excellent. Then you can stay in a toxic, hate-filled, anti-Christ, environment due to your superstition.
That would describe Facebook quite nicely, I think.
Indeed. I am completely befuddled by Raoul's reaction to my post.
-
It isn't the job of a forum moderator to "save the world" or "figure everything out" for people. No ex-cathedra statements.
A moderators job is to run a decent forum where people can A) find things B) find good information and threads and C) foster an environment where people feel comfortable contributing.
Telling people, "You can't post about topic X, even though it's a hot topic right now" goes against C. If people want to talk to people matching PW's description, who am I to tell them "no"?
She's not unpopular here. You have to agree. Just look at the upvotes/downvotes and pro- and anti-PW posts.
I don't know where I've asked you to save the world. I'd say what I've asked falls under C. If you want to be neutral and set a precedence for future happenings that each is entirely responsible for themselves no matter what, fair enough. But this does seem to negate the previous post which is a relief. There is something disturbing about attaching a moral weight to whether a person believes an internet stranger or not which is what the first post did. It turned it into a virtue to allow oneself to be taken advantage of in the context of ignoring internet dangers. If it's about acting like Catholics, I'd say even those who have questioned her have done it in a more respectful way because of that.
As far as popularity goes, it's a double-edged sword. Some people are naturally very nice and very popular. I've met a couple such people in forums and never given it a second thought. However, when considered with all other red flags, it can be one itself as well. I should have compared the similarities when I offered to the first time. Not that it would change how you handle the issue, but it's just good to know. For the sake of anyone who might get something out of it for future referrence I will do so now.
Laura:
Had a morally checkered past for which she was remorseful.
Believed she was being led by God to Traditional Catholicism.
Was deeply dedicated to her new resolutions to be learn Traditional Catholicism.
Was exceptionally intelligent and well-spoken.
Was well educated and well read.
Posted on a myriad of different topics and became a real part of the community.
Was very well liked and often praised for being such a good example.
Garnered a lot of sympathy for her "illnesses" while a poster and of course her subsequent "death".
PM'd with people a lot to make friends quickly and on a more personal level than mere forum talk.
Talked about her life with a lot of detail. Seemed very honest and open.
Within a couple months she managed to be a central figure on the forum.
So you see, being popular, well-liked, intelligent etc... means nothing. If the story doesn't add up, it doesn't add up. Take PereJoseph for example. She's popular with him. He wrote a whole article defending her schedule yet forgot the main job. The he wrote another piece figuring how her mother or sister or grandparent etc... spend time with her child and somehow missed, God only knows how, as she repeated so many times that her mother and friends all despise her and she's alone without help! What did her popularity do here in bringing forth truth or accuracy? Not much.
Being intelligent, well spoken etc.. can even be a clue that the person has an ability to manipulate. I don't know why people seem stuck on this idea that scammers must be dull and unlikable. That's completely illogical. Rule number 1 if you want to manipulate people is you have to be nice and likable and intelligent. You can't accomplish a thing without that!
Then you find their soft spot. For trads in general it'll be the convert who is just so remorseful and in need of so much help. (Again, not bad on it's own but a clue when taken with all other red flags.) Then you figure people out individually and compliment and flatter them. That's what caught my eye initially about PW was a phase she went through of being saccharin sweet. Not just nice, saccharin sweet with an abundance of compliments all around, more than people usually do, even if they are naturally nice. Ingratiating would be the word for it.
Another way of endearing people to you is to repeat back to them everything they want to hear, how they want to hear it. It's not hard. I've been here 2 years. I know people well enough I could create a new account and have people eating out of my hand within weeks. I know exactly what people want to hear in what tone and could fake it easily. A lot of people could. We're a transparent lot.
Give a lot of detail about your life so you seem open and honest. Lull people with a sense of "knowing" you, especially through PM's which create a closer bond by their very nature of being private. But do this more quickly than the average person does. It's one thing to bond over a forum and slowly open your life up and end up FB friends in a year or so. It's another thing to do it quickly as if you have nothing to lose, because you don't, it's a fake persona anyway. The faster you bond the less time they have to remember their privacy and the fact that they really don't know you.
Then the piece de resistance, add a huge helping of pity. Make yourself untouchable to rebuke so that people will feel as guilty as sin when/if the red flags pop up and they will push them aside rather than risk being wrong. Make them fear being "callous" towards you because you're already such a pitiable creature. Nothing works in your favor as much as people's sympathy.
It's actually quite genius. Unless you can't keep your story straight.
Think I'm nuts? I've seen this 3 times now, twice confirmed, with consequences in real life. There's a pattern.
-
There is something disturbing about attaching a moral weight to whether a person believes an internet stranger or not
Sorry wallflower, but it is immoral to try to claim someone is completely made-up character because you don't like them or what they do.
It's attacking a reputation. Just because you don't know a person's name doesn't mean you have the right to try to poison the way other people perceive a person, even if they only go by a screen name.
There's more than a little bit off about this flood of concern for the girl shown by the people on your side, followed by a refusal to admit she's a real person.
-
PW started this thread to ask perfectly reasonable questions about modesty in dress.
Feminists then wrecked this thread with accusations against her.
It is a sin to unjustly accuse a young lady of lying and deceit without a shred of proof.
Anyone can see that such an action is a sin.
Sede
It's not she has asked a question and was jumped on for that question. The questions seem to be somewhat of a gateway for her to come out with other statements.
There are many strong statements she makes about how things should be but then says other things that don't seem to fit from someone saying those initial beliefs. I saw it in the Why Catholic Men Don't Marry thread. That is OK but when called on it, she pulls this victim response and then it's the gateway of her stating moral claims and being a victim. She attempted to make my suggestion not to put her daughter in a public school to say she men aren't necessary. She is the morally right hero in need against those pushing feminism on her. It's made up! From PW keeping her daughter out of public school would teach her daughter she does not need a man. (PW working outside the home doesn't teach her that though.) I put her on ignore after that thread.
My take is there is something about trad life that she idealizes and makes these broad claims that are more about her idealization than a true belief. When asked about the inconsistencies she takes a victim stance like a borderline waif does.
As far as deceit I have seen for a while she does the impossible with time. She is a single mother with a nursing newborn working 2 -3 jobs but has nothing to do on Sunday so she visits the elderly, re-purposes clothing, successfully grows her own produce and cans it, washes her own clothes by hand to save money at the laundromat, has made critical comments of the food the children she babysits are served - implying she would not serve children food like that, and so forth. Also she does not come from any type of conservative background but she has so many of these traditionally feminine skills? These skills can be learned but they take time and I really doubt single mother nursing an infant while working 2 -3 jobs is going to learn so many so fast. Even in households where there is no feminism, where girls learn skills growing up, you find they were specialize in one or two things. One might be great at baking and so a great deal of baking and another will love sewing so will mend and sew dresses, another one sings and will do the Wed visiting to sing at the nursing home before she goes to her cleaning job. PW is already skilled though at growing, canning, sewing, she visits while working 2 -3 jobs and caring for her nursing infant and is skilled at organizing and cleaning. She has no friends but reports conversations with her best friend.
I know young Mennonite mothers who are raised without feminism, on farms, they are SAHM and they do not have time to garden or can or sew. These women already have these skills too, there is no learning curve. They are not working 2 -3 jobs either.. they are SAHM AND they have the support of women around them too but when they have infants they do not do these activities because there is no time.
-
That makes sense. Thank you for the Padre Pio story. That clarifies what I wanted to know.
Now on with the laundry. lol
Remember too, that modesty is an act of virtue. As Christians we should love to perform acts of virtue, and enjoy the good of them. To be modest is to be with Christ, to be virtuous is to be united with Christ -- we practice it from the supernatural motive of love of Him. And so we gain merit in Heaven, Heaven rejoices, and our Heaven will be all the more higher in happiness and joy as well as our time on earth.
And so to practice modesty in the home as well as outside of it, rather than only outside of it, is both necessary, and a joyful good. And when one practices something all the time, it is easy and natural.
If we are always modest we are always in good sight before Heaven and earth, and on earth the unexpected can happen.
So modest nightwear is important, as well as what we might wear for chores or exercise around the home.
If you can make or alter your own clothes this can help to acquire a modest wardrobe.
Many people find virtues difficult and painful, or see them in a negative light, and this is not what they are to naturally be for a Christian. On the contrary, we must love to practice them and acquire ease with them.
That's a good way of putting it.
Habit is important.
-
Also she will throw in a bit of truth when not answering and attempts to put the person questioning her on the defensive & making a jab at them. She uses a statement showing good morals or traditional beliefs when avoiding answering a question. Who can argue with that? It's highly manipulative.
For example in this thread when being called out about how impossible her activities are:
I stay busy. I can't handle disorganization or unfinished cleaning. I love how Proverbs 31 woman never puts out her lamp. I thought that was a good way to be.
-
Finally, some of the worst posters are so young...
Loriann, some of the worst posters are immature in spite of their age. Age does not come into it.
Ok, so what about the racism and other things??Any ideas?
I am mostly a reader here. I felt inspired to write about age. Ageism is not a good thing! That's all for now. This thread is about modesty around the home, BTW.
I respect that. I do feel bad that it has been derailed.
-
Well, some of the strongest evidence of Our Lord's choosing the white race is that the principle of hierarchy, & thus inequality pervades nature, God has willed that this is so. One could regard the human race & its various divisions as a sort of family, just as in a family you have the parents ruling over & teaching their children who are weak & ignorant, & look instinctively to their parents to help them to procure the necessaries of life, & to learn that which is essential to becoming a civilised human being, so in a similar manner has God given the other races the white man to act as a father, teaching them the Faith that Our Lord willed to give him first.
Our Blessed Lord did not pick the European races to be the first recipients & benefactors of His Holy Religion at random. He knew that they, due to their character & temperament were the most well suited to carry out His command to preach & baptise all nations. Look at what was accomplished by the European races when they were yet heathens. Is there anything approaching the grandeur of the acropolis in sub-saharan Africa?
Have the eskimos brought forth a philosopher to equal Plato? No, of course not. It may be objected that the Chinese have Confucius & Mencius, & it is true, that generally speaking the Asiatic races are equal to the Europeans in intelligence, but I would maintain that the principle yet holds. The Asiatics could be considered like unto an older son, equal to his father in most regards, but yet rightfully subject to him. The aboriginal races of the Americas would be next, & the negro & Australian aboriginal races would be last.
The coming of the white man was the best thing that ever happened to these people. If not for his advent they would still be sacrificing to vile idols, & very often, depending on which country we are speaking of, killing & eating each other. In some parts of sub-saharan Africa, this is indeed the case. I know that the European races have sadly, largely given themselves up to apostasy now, rather like the Jews, they have preferred the goods of this world & gratifying themselves to serving God, but this principle is nonetheless true.
This is one of the reasons for the miserable situation that prevails today, besides the defection of so many within the Church, we have also on the natural level, the degeneration of that race which hitherto at least maintained order to a certain extent, but now with the forces of Int'l Judaeo-Masonry having gained complete control, the ship has lost its rudder, or to put it somewhat better, those who are the declared enemies of mankind, & of all that is good & decent have taken the wheel & are steering straight for the rocks.
Thank you for explaining how you derived your position.
-
IF PW is a hoax, she is 100 times sweeter than a number of the bitter zeal political agitators who work the forums for an unholy agenda, who calumniate, bully and lie for whatever reason.
I don't know what happened at Fisheater's, so if this is a repeat of something weird, and others are on to it, I apologise for my ignorance.
-
No, it describes the attraction of certain people here for sociopathic attitudes that would be rejected by healthy Catholics.
So you don't think Facebook is an un-Christian atmosphere? Where people basically befriend hundreds of people that aren't really their friends just to have a status and make them feel popular, where you aren't allowed to speak out against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and where people give "updates" on things that no one really gives a flip about? Not to mention it's a major distraction, just another tool of the government.
And when you say "healthy Catholics", just how many "healthy Catholics" are there in the world? I recall you saying a few months ago that there are only 20 people alive who even know what real Catholicism is. Who are these 20 people? You and the people at your parish? Does that mean that a majority of people here aren't real Catholics?
-
College is really is liberal cesspool, especially for women, as Bishop Williamson once noted. Even men shouldn't go, they should either do online college or simply work through self-employment.
I have to log off for the night, but I will add more to this some time tomorrow.
So when we have no doctors, nurses, physical therapists...
Did the apostles stay home or trudge into the dens of sin?
Going to a doctor isn't an occasion of sin. People have to go to the doctor for the sake of their own health.
The Apostles spread the teachings of Christ, they didn't exactly "trudge into the dens of sin".
The Church teaches us that we should try to avoid occasions of sin as much as possible. That would include avoiding a liberal university.
-
College is really is liberal cesspool, especially for women, as Bishop Williamson once noted. Even men shouldn't go, they should either do online college or simply work through self-employment.
I have to log off for the night, but I will add more to this some time tomorrow.
So when we have no doctors, nurses, physical therapists...
Did the apostles stay home or trudge into the dens of sin?
Going to a doctor isn't an occasion of sin. People have to go to the doctor for the sake of their own health.
The Apostles spread the teachings of Christ, they didn't exactly "trudge into the dens of sin".
The Church teaches us that we should try to avoid occasions of sin as much as possible. That would include going to a liberal university.
My post addressed the training of doctors, not going to them.
To be a doctor one must earn a bachelors, and then an MD or DO, and then residency at Universities. To be a nurse one must have an associates degree, or BA or MSN. Physical therapy is 7 years of university.
The Apostles went into the world and spoke against the sinfulness of it. That is not staying at home.
-
But to be a doctor one must get a bachelors, and MD, and then residency at institutions. To be a nurse one must have an associates degree, or BA or MSN. Physical therapy is 7 years of university.
If someone wants to be a doctor, fine. Obviously that requires a degree. I am saying as a general rule that college is not necessary for men or women (especially women).
The Apostles went into the world and spoke against the sinfulness of it. That is not staying at home.
When did I say people should stay at home? I said they should avoid occasions of sin. If you think it's a good idea to go to college just to speak out against the sinfulness of it, think again. Anyone who did that wouldn't last long before they were kicked out. You're not going to convert an entire university. It's best to avoid them all together.
-
But to be a doctor one must get a bachelors, and MD, and then residency at institutions. To be a nurse one must have an associates degree, or BA or MSN. Physical therapy is 7 years of university.
If someone wants to be a doctor, fine. Obviously that requires a degree. I am saying as a general rule that college is not necessary for men or women (especially women).
The Apostles went into the world and spoke against the sinfulness of it. That is not staying at home.
When did I say people should stay at home? I said they should avoid occasions of sin. If you think it's a good idea to go to college just to speak out against the sinfulness of it, think again. Anyone who did that wouldn't last long before they were kicked out. You're not going to convert an entire university. It's best to avoid them all together.
If by your example you convert one or two souls to the Glory of God, you do well.
-
You can't fight every battle, Loriann. It's not worth risking your soul just because you think you can convert a university.
When placing yourself in an occasion of sin like that, you're basically fighting a battle with the devil. We cannot fight an angel. You're better off fleeing from the devil.
-
No, it describes the attraction of certain people here for sociopathic attitudes that would be rejected by healthy Catholics.
So you don't think Facebook is an un-Christian atmosphere? Where people basically befriend hundreds of people that aren't really their friends just to have a status and make them feel popular, where you aren't allowed to speak out against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and where people give "updates" on things that no one really gives a flip about? Not to mention it's a major distraction, just another tool of the government.
And when you say "healthy Catholics", just how many "healthy Catholics" are there in the world? I recall you saying a few months ago that there are only 20 people alive who even know what real Catholicism is. Who are these 20 people? You and the people at your parish? Does that mean that a majority of people here aren't real Catholics?
You aren't allowed to speak against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Really? Wow. I guess I assumed you could say anything you wanted on your own page.
-
I went to bed last nite so just read Wallflower & Tiffany's posts. Thank you both & especially Wallflower. I've never been on FE so what happened with Laura? She didn't have illnesses & didn't die? (since you put those 2 things in quotes). Or was she completely made up, - but someone gave her driver's license so she must have been a person but a fraud? Could you please finish that story?
I'm new not only to CI but even computers so never experienced or heard about frauds on the internet, but I personally lived with a fraud & so I guess my radar is sensitive. Wallflower's post was brilliant & razor sharp. Matthew should make reading it mandatory to everyone on this forum.
As far as Sweety Pie - that poor thing is so wrapped up in himself he can't see anything. Will someone please take that blankie off his head? Loriann posted about if no one should go to college, then when there were no doctors.......... & he took that to mean she said we couldn't go to doctor's!!!!! LOL It's really impossible to discuss anything with someone like that & there seems to be quite a few of them on this forum unfortunately.
That blanket statement about FB being evil & pontificating about being on it proves my point. I'm on FB, have only 45 friends (mostly distant cousins) distant as in 'far away' & if anyone uses bad language I simply block them & I have dropped one young second cousin because I couldn't put up with his nonsense any more. I've handpicked all my friends & ignored many that wanted to be my friend. I could easily have 200 friends, but why?? I could drink excessively too, but why? So this nonsense about evil FB is just that - nonsense, just like using a blanket statment about going to college. I agree about college being evil, BUT there are exceptions, & one shouldn't pontificate & paint everything with such a broad, broad stroke. Especially if one doesn't know what he's talking about half the time. That's the truth, like it or not.
-
The most baffling part of this thread for me is PereJoseph. I can understand him saying that Tele was making some sense in this thread, because he was relatively restrained for a while. But Pere knows his tendencies, and how he really thinks. So why would he be so outraged by the actions of wallflower and CofS, who also know how Tele thinks deep down? That is what they were clearly warning against.
You are right that I thought that Tele was making sense on this thread and, besides a few posts here and there, I think that he has continued to do so. Yes, I have opposed him before when I thought that he was saying things that were overly emotional and reactionary, but I also have supported his words when I thought that they were sound. In past discussions with CatherineofSiena, though, I have seen blatant feminism and have no reason to believe that any of her opinions have changed or been modified. I have agreed with Wallflower before, even on threads that have devolved into back-and-forth bickering with Tele, but when she does not make sense or treats somebody in such a way that I find to be harmful or uncharitable, I will not shy from saying so if I think it would be helpful to the person in question as well as to the readers. I have perceived her as being feministic in the past (though not as bad, of course, as CoS), and I saw her comments on this thread as consistent with that former judgment. I try to be measured and generous in my judgments as much as possible, and I have written on this thread with the same principles of fairness in judgment guiding me.
As for who knows how people think deep down, well, I try not to be deceived by what people say if their behaviour or their fixations are contrary to their words. That being said, I refuse to be part of a camp and try not to assume that I know people's deepest intentions. I opposed Wallflower and CoS on this thread because I perceived them as using their feministic tendencies coupled with their well-established reactions to Telesphorus as an excuse for vilifying PW, who must be incredibly frustrating to the mindset of FE women. I have lived my whole life around women -- relatives, teachers, family friends, associates -- and learned from experience about how women are around other women that they believe are a threat or affront to the way that (a) they see themselves or (b) their position as a teacher or maternal figure whose words should be respected. My intention in this thread was to stand above reactionary lines of thought from either side (though it seemed rather one-sided in this instance) in order to protect PW from what I saw as unprovoked womanly attacks and to uphold the Truth as much as possible. As to whether or not I was right in my premises and observations, perhaps you and I will just have to disagree on this point, Raoul.
Now, I have occasionally taken Tele's side on certain things, but in a way that is consistent with my character. I am not a feminist, and wallflower sometimes does say things that are lightly feminist ( in my estimation ).
There you go. I would like to repeat those words as my own. Hopefully you understand where I am coming from.
People are not all black-and-white; there are shades of grey. There will be times when I will have to overcome my distaste for Tele's personality, and agree with him on something.
Exactly.
My identity does not revolve around being anti-Tele; it revolves around God and thus truth.
Exactly.
With PereJoseph's intervention, though, it doesn't make sense that someone as perceptive as he is wouldn't see what is going on here, or why Penitent Woman is under suspicion as a real person.
Listen, I understand the background with Fisheaters and all that and see why people would be suspicious of PW being able to accomplish everything she talks about doing. But I cannot be morally confident that she is not telling the truth, so I am extending her the benefit of the doubt and, as such, proceeding accordingly. I am prepared to be wrong, but I am bound to follow my conscience, and it would be sinfully presumptuous of me to not treat PenitentWoman as exactly who she claims to be based on what information I currently have. I understand all of the ways that somebody could be perpetrating fraud and have thought through them myself since they were brought up on this thread. At the end of the day, though, I cannot have positive doubt about PenitentWoman's honesty, so I will continue to deal with her as I have thus far.
It is not consistent with his previously established character, which was usually perceptive regarding Tele. Here he sounds almost like an acolyte of Tele.
Raoul, do you honestly believe that I am, in any way, an acolyte of Tele ? :smile: Come on...
I think we just disagree about whether or not the comments that inspired my post were feministic or not. I do not want to wade into all of the other things on this thread, I was simply animated by an opposition to feminism and a concern for PW.
By the way, as for logistical impossibility, my own sister is a good baker, decent cook, good at sewing, a good knitter, good at crocheting, and has a knack for figuring all of those womanly arts out and mastering them in an incredibly short amount of time. In fact, while these things are hard for so many, she makes them look effortless. I have witnessed this, so how could I deny that it is possible for another girl to be talented in that way ? As for liberal girls not growing up that way, I assure you that my family is not traditional Catholic, but girls of this younger generation still like to bake and knit. In fact, that's the trend these days, liberal girls knitting and going to farmers' markets and cooking organic food in their own window gardens. It really doesn't seem all that implausible to me, no matter how much the Baby Boomers and Generation-Y women in my life have tried to persuade me that these things are incredibly difficult burdens that require years of hard-won experience. I know quite a few women who see these things as therapeutic and relaxing and who also have a natural acuмen for them. I cannot apologise for having seen that.
This doesn't work PereJoseph. You know very well that Tele has rigorist tendencies, why are you acting now like you don't, and doing an outraged routine?
I know how Telesphorus is, sure, but I can assure you that the outrage was genuine. The more I thought about the way it seemed Wallflower, Thorn, Tiffany, and CoS were treating PW, the more indignant I became. I actually spent a few hours over the course of the day during my activities thinking about it, and I couldn't see how their comments toward her could be defensible. That was my issue, all history of disagreement with Tele being put aside.
"Men who have studied the faith"?
Actually, I was thinking of Graham when I wrote this. I thought that his posts were brilliant and, insofar as others were simply agreeing with him or saying similar things, it seemed like their comments were attuned to the mind of the Church as his were.
If you think Tele is a scholar of the faith, you have a problem, all he ever talks about is this one subject.
Well, two subjects, but you know what I think about all of that. I haven't changed.
And please quote where either woman has advocated tanktops... Maybe I missed it, but it seems unlikely.
It was just an example, maybe a little tongue-in-cheek. Tanktops are what many women and girls today wear to bed. If modesty is only relative to other people and worrying about modest nightwear is considered "excessive" and "rigoristic," it logically follows that it is okay for women to continue dressing as most of them currently do. After all, there are no people around, so why dwell on these things -- what if one develops scruples or takes the advice of men in preference to married women, etc. ? Anyway, I don't know if anybody brought up tanktops on this thread, but it doesn't matter. This issue has well-worn paths and tanktops are seen along them.
I also extend my invitation to you to join me on Facebook, what French restaurant do you work at? Where do you live? Where do you go to church?
Thank you, but I removed myself from Facebook a while back in order to be less distracted by the internet and more productive in my duty of state. I would be more than happy to tell you a bit more about myself through private message, but as I have a tendency to say many things on here that could be used against me and my family, I prefer to keep my identity private. I haven't successfully extricated myself from the machine yet, so I still need to keep a low profile before I can be as forthright as I have been in the past.
-
Elizabeth, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to. Political agenda? Or any other agenda for that matter.
-
No, it describes the attraction of certain people here for sociopathic attitudes that would be rejected by healthy Catholics.
So you don't think Facebook is an un-Christian atmosphere? Where people basically befriend hundreds of people that aren't really their friends just to have a status and make them feel popular, where you aren't allowed to speak out against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and where people give "updates" on things that no one really gives a flip about? Not to mention it's a major distraction, just another tool of the government.
And when you say "healthy Catholics", just how many "healthy Catholics" are there in the world? I recall you saying a few months ago that there are only 20 people alive who even know what real Catholicism is. Who are these 20 people? You and the people at your parish? Does that mean that a majority of people here aren't real Catholics?
You aren't allowed to speak against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Really? Wow. I guess I assumed you could say anything you wanted on your own page.
He is once again spouting on something of which he is showing he knows little. No worries Sigismund. People speak out against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, abortion, politics, whatever they choose. It is their own page and they write what they wish. If others don't like it they can defriend each other.
As far as friends go, many people use it to keep in touch with family and long distance friends, sharing their pictures and family lives. It is what you make it. If you want to be superficial and look for status or popularity, "collecting friends", that's what you do. If you want to use it for things a little more profound, that's what you do. I don't know how many friends I have kept in touch with, whose little updates give edifying glimspes into their daily lives, who ask for prayers when things are bad, who pray for me and my family when it's our turn to endure trials. But in typical fashion he's taking the worst case scenarios and applying them with an extremely broad and even false brush to justify his bias. FB is a tool and you actually have 100 times more control over it's atmosphere and environment and the people you interact with than you do on a forum. In that sense it is much safer than a forum.
-
Has Catherine of Siena become a feminist without my knowledge? I ask before attacking this statement, since I have seen her accused of that by self-styled inquisitors of anti-feminism without any proof.
Based on my earlier discussions with her, I am convinced that she is a feminist, and more so than Wallflower.
What on earth are you talking about? What "research" is required? If someone has invented the Penitent Woman persona, it is someone who knows all about Vatican II and the various strains of traditionalism. No research whatsoever would be necessary.
Right. But that is not what CoS alleged, it was that PW is probably a student in a Women's Studies.
And why would this person have to be a feminist? They would be like Pope Augustine, not a feminist. Someone just playing a game for motives that I don't really care to know.
Sure, but that is not what CoS was talking about, and I was dealing with her theory. Your theory has the benefit of at least being plausible and realistic.
Incredibly well-developed?
Her personality seems pretty realistic and consistent with her description of her age and location and circuмstances to me.
Maybe it's you and you're tooting your own horn? If she is fake, it's not that great. I have noticed that her posts are repetitive and vague; there are never any details that really "sell" her stories. She's a secretary, she's a waitress... I haven't heard any "true to life" little details, the kind that writers use to make things plausible. Even her story about being abused is incredibly vague, and is just a generic depiction of Stockholm Syndrome.
If you want to believe that it's me, go ahead. Just don't pretend that it wouldn't be an incredibly silly way of thinking.
Ah, it took you a while to think of that. Let's not exaggerate, all it takes is to capture a slightly Novus Ordo-ized but sincere tone.
It took me a while to feel comfortable speaking with Catholic terminology, so I imagine it would take a while for others. Then again, I was younger when I had my conversion, so maybe that explains why it seemed like there was something of a steep learning curve. I'm not dead-set on my explanations; I was only trying to give a defense of somebody who I thought was being attacked.
This has nothing to do with charity. As for plausible, I'll tell you what isn't plausible, that a Frenchman with incredibly perfect English grammar and a massive vocabulary, who writes like John Updike, wouldn't know that in English, there is no space between the last word of a sentence and a question mark.
Of course I know that there is usually not a space, except in XIXth-century books and, as you know, in French grammar. I adopted it consciously years ago for those exact reasons after I saw it in an English translation of Joseph de Maistre. I thought it looked nice and it coincides with my general aversion to the "Websterized" US English style, which consciously tried to remove all of the Norman French elements from English spelling and so forth. Consider it a tiny little protest over the results of the Seven Years' War. That's how I think of it, anyway.
Perhaps this is a little detail to make you look "French" without stretching it too much? But stranger things have happened, so yes, I agree, it's better to assume people here are real.
Good, I am glad that you still believe I'm a real person. You know that I grew up speaking English and that my French needs work. I have said this before. I am an Acadian Frenchman in North America. I never claimed to be from France or Québec.
Once you get into the paranoia, there's no end to it, as I have learned. I think a good solution is that people should give their names. I don't want to hear any silly excuses about the government watching either. I know plenty of Catholics on Facebook and I've never had any problems there such as come up on this site. If any place is penetrated by shadowy figures, it is CathInfo, not Facebook.
That's probably true. I just don't want any trouble in the workplace or for my family.
That sort of thing has been going on ever since I came, with Pope Augustine and his personae. I have seen all kinds of fakes on here. This is a news flash to you?
Of course not. I have already considered that possibility.
As for Matthew, he has gotten himself in a position where he needs drama to keep this site going, which leads to bad decisions.
Well, I cannot be morally confident about Matthew's intentions just as I cannot be morally confident about accusations of PenitentWoman being dishonest. So, maybe being simple as a dove binds my hands and I need to be wiser like a serpent, but according to the rules of moral theology as I understand them, I do not have any justification for assuming bad intentions on the part of Matthew or PenitentWoman until I have more information. As of right now, I have a reasonable doubt regarding any proposed malice, so I will stay with that. That's all I can do right now.
-
There is something disturbing about attaching a moral weight to whether a person believes an internet stranger or not
Sorry wallflower, but it is immoral to try to claim someone is completely made-up character because you don't like them or what they do.
It's attacking a reputation. Just because you don't know a person's name doesn't mean you have the right to try to poison the way other people perceive a person, even if they only go by a screen name.
There's more than a little bit off about this flood of concern for the girl shown by the people on your side, followed by a refusal to admit she's a real person.
I have not claimed this person is completely made up. I have only stuck to what I'm reasonably sure of, that there is dishonesty and manipulation afoot. (See that's how you address an issue directly)
I have not attacked this person's character by assuming intentions, state of mind, state of soul, or even whether conscious of the discrepancies. Some people can be compulsive and not even know what they're doing. I am well aware that there are many different possibilities, some malicious, some not, and I've already said I don't know if this person is malicious or just troubled. Which is why I've stuck to pointing out the actions themselves, what's right in front of everyone in public. I have not made any demands upon her except to address the issues head-on and speak clearly; I have not exaggerated any of her actions, there's no need. They speak for themselves. I mean, someone questions a person's veracity and their response is "Hey, check my IP, I'm in MN". Wha..? How is that relevant? Unless someone was questioning your location, which wasn't close to being an issue, then it's just another weird deflection.
You are also acting strangely and I don't know if you're in deeper than you're letting on but reading her PM's, her starting to speak exactly like you down to "insidious shaming". No one else speaks like that or makes those accusations. First you admit the possibility of embellishments, then you admit you thought of the remote possibility of someone messing with CI, now back to defending ... It's all just strange.
That's all I have to say about it. I think I have been calm and fair. No matter how disturbing I find this, I haven't pontificated over how sick and disgusting I think anyone is. If I might play "the game" for a minute, I've been a lot fairer than I've gotten.
-
Right. But that is not what CoS alleged, it was that PW is probably a student in a Women's Studies...
...department.
-
Wallflower, why does it seem probable that you & your allies would never have started wondering about the possibility of infiltration if PW had gone along with the lot of you & started saying things such as "yes, I suppose that I must be careful, all of you are right, I'm becoming a "door-mat", if I'm not careful one of these horrid svengalis will bring me under his evil influence (cue a picture of Peter Lorre or Boris Karloff as one of the villainous characters they often played), & then, who knows where it will end, I might finish up in the.......in the........she can barely bring herself to say it....in the KITCHEN, COOKING FOR THEM!!!!
She can hardly stand the strain & may be in need of smelling salts any moment....I need to become "independent"!!! I must become "EMPOWERED"!!!!!(nauseating newspeak, my hand hesitated to write it) I don't need any of them, we in the sisterhood must stick together!!!!" A gross exaggeration, I know (or perhaps not) but anyhow, if she'd started using feminist or semi-feminist code language you & the rest would have already accepted her as one of the gang.
More's the pity that she couldn't be induced to throw in her lot with all of you, as you need all of the help you can get in fighting to prevent more helpless young damsels falling victim to the machiavellian machinations of patriarchal (in the feminist sense of the word, to be uttered with a hiss of hysterical hatred) super-villains, who if not for the valiant efforts of the sisterhood would be goose-stepping down every main street, attended by their hapless female slaves.
-
As far as Sweety Pie - that poor thing is so wrapped up in himself he can't see anything. Will someone please take that blankie off his head?
So now you've resorted to sugar-coated insults. Do you enjoy provoking people?
-
So now I'm being criticized for downing Facebook. Wow, and the feminists on this thread accused us of "bullying"?
I read in 2010 that FB partnered with GLAAD and that "homophobic" comments would no longer be allowed on FB.
That's really besides the point, though. The bottom line is I think it's a tool of satan and I wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole. I have the right to my opinion. If anyone else wants to use it, go ahead, I won't be stopping you. But I have my reasons for thinking it's a joke.
-
Edit
-
Wallflower, why does it seem probable that you & your allies would never have started wondering about the possibility of infiltration if PW had gone along with the lot of you & started saying things such as "yes, I suppose that I must be careful, all of you are right, I'm becoming a "door-mat", if I'm not careful one of these horrid svengalis will bring me under his evil influence (cue a picture of Peter Lorre or Boris Karloff as one of the villainous characters they often played), & then, who knows where it will end, I might finish up in the.......in the........she can barely bring herself to say it....in the KITCHEN, COOKING FOR THEM!!!!
She can hardly stand the strain & may be in need of smelling salts any moment....I need to become "independent"!!! I must become "EMPOWERED"!!!!!(nauseating newspeak, my hand hesitated to write it) I don't need any of them, we in the sisterhood must stick together!!!!" A gross exaggeration, I know (or perhaps not) but anyhow, if she'd started using feminist or semi-feminist code language you & the rest would have already accepted her as one of the gang.
More's the pity that she couldn't be induced to throw in her lot with all of you, as you need all of the help you can get in fighting to prevent more helpless young damsels falling victim to the machiavellian machinations of patriarchal (in the feminist sense of the word, to be uttered with a hiss of hysterical hatred) super-villains, who if not for the valiant efforts of the sisterhood would be goose-stepping down every main street, attended by their hapless female slaves.
:laugh2:
Great post !
-
Thank you Pere Joseph, I'm glad you enjoyed it. Judging by the down-votes we have both got however, someone obviously didn't like it in the least. Perhaps Wallflower or one of the others will soon pour out her fury at the insolence of the patriarchal oppressors.
-
No, it describes the attraction of certain people here for sociopathic attitudes that would be rejected by healthy Catholics.
So you don't think Facebook is an un-Christian atmosphere? Where people basically befriend hundreds of people that aren't really their friends just to have a status and make them feel popular, where you aren't allowed to speak out against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, and where people give "updates" on things that no one really gives a flip about? Not to mention it's a major distraction, just another tool of the government.
And when you say "healthy Catholics", just how many "healthy Catholics" are there in the world? I recall you saying a few months ago that there are only 20 people alive who even know what real Catholicism is. Who are these 20 people? You and the people at your parish? Does that mean that a majority of people here aren't real Catholics?
You aren't allowed to speak against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity? Really? Wow. I guess I assumed you could say anything you wanted on your own page.
He is once again spouting on something of which he is showing he knows little. No worries Sigismund. People speak out against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, abortion, politics, whatever they choose. It is their own page and they write what they wish. If others don't like it they can defriend each other.
As far as friends go, many people use it to keep in touch with family and long distance friends, sharing their pictures and family lives. It is what you make it. If you want to be superficial and look for status or popularity, "collecting friends", that's what you do. If you want to use it for things a little more profound, that's what you do. I don't know how many friends I have kept in touch with, whose little updates give edifying glimspes into their daily lives, who ask for prayers when things are bad, who pray for me and my family when it's our turn to endure trials. But in typical fashion he's taking the worst case scenarios and applying them with an extremely broad and even false brush to justify his bias. FB is a tool and you actually have 100 times more control over it's atmosphere and environment and the people you interact with than you do on a forum. In that sense it is much safer than a forum.
Okay. Thanks.
I have no personal experience with Face Book or any other such site. I keep in touch with family and friends just fine with personal contact, phone calls and emails, so I am not likely to try it.
-
Good for you Sigismund, I've never understood the appeal of putting up a lot of pictures of oneself (this seems to be one of the main activities done on facebook, I don't know for certain, as I've never been on it either.) More importantly, it's just a way for the lackeys of int'l Jewry to surveil the goyisch slaves. I know they could do the same with any computer site, including this one, but why walk up & hand it to them?
-
Precisely, Cuthbert. Well said.
-
To be a doctor one must earn a bachelors, and then an MD or DO, and then residency at Universities. To be a nurse one must have an associates degree, or BA or MSN. Physical therapy is 7 years of university.
Loriann, it's true that there is a need for university in some cases, but overall it has become a cesspit.
It is largely over-rated and unnecessary for much of the learning, which would be better done in a hands-on situation, (apprentice-style) as in previous nurse training. Teachers went straight from school into the classroom during the time of a higher standard of general education. I was a very effective teacher with no university training whatsoever.
University is basically a place where students are brainwashed and corrupted.
-
Nadir, I don't think that anyone is disputing what you posted. It's this vehement, strident posting against all college without any exceptions being able to be made that's so wrong.
People from the outside reading these posts would think that to be a trad one must check one's brain at the door. It's just wrong.
-
But Sweetie Pie! You're the one who said you liked the sugar, even after I said I felt bad for doing it at first! And you told me to keep it coming so I gave it to you & now you wake up & don't like it?? Sigh -- Sometimes you're damned if you do & damned if you don't.
No, I don't in the least like provoking people. I simply state the truth and that provokes some people. Very sad but true.
-
I never said I liked sugar-coated insults, Thorn. That's what you're doing, flinging insults at me that are coated with a little sugar. "Sweetie Pie is so caught up in himself". "Someone needs to remove the blankie off his head". You know that's not what I asked for, Thorn. And I sure didn't say to "keep it coming". I said I'd "take it", and even noted that you were exaggerating the request to "calm down".
Sorry, but "Sweetie Pie" is just going to ignore everything else you write that is directed at me.
Oh, and please stop calling me "Sweetie pie". I didn't mind at first, but your attempt to "give me sugar" is fake, evidenced by your sugar-coated insults. It probably sends a bad message to have a woman refering to me as "sweetie pie" anyway.
-
OK, SS, no more Sweetie Pie. Mustn't give scandal to others. Now what about that docuмentation about the church & Fatima? I'm still patiently waiting for that & it will take our minds of PW for a bit.
-
*off*
-
Ok, Thorn, I did some research and found the following.
According to this page from New Advent.com, a Catholic is not required to believe in private revelations. So that's one point in your favor.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm
However, Fatima is more than just a private revelation. Here is something I found on a Fatima website:
10. BUT ISN'T THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA JUST A PRIVATE REVELATION WHICH NO CATHOLIC HAS TO BELIEVE?
No, it is not just a private revelation. It is a public, prophetic revelation given by the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. It is not to be confused with "Revelation" or as it is also called, the Deposit of the Faith, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. But public, prophetic revelation must not be despised. The Virgin Mary's prophecy was confirmed by a public miracle and authenticated by a whole line of Popes. Also, its predictions have come true.
So, while belief in the Message of Fatima may not strictly be required of Catholics as an article of faith, one would be very foolish to disregard such an obviously authentic message from Heaven. As St. Paul taught: "Despise not prophecies, but prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." (1 Thess. 5:20-21) The prophecy of Fatima has been proven worthy of belief. We should not despise it, but rather hold fast to what Our Lady told us at Fatima.
So, in conclusion, we have no reason to believe that Fatima should be disregarded or that it is from the devil.
-
Sorry! Close but no cigar. I strongly suspect that that website you quoted from was Fr. Gruner's. Am I correct? So you can't use it as I have a problem with Fr. Gruner & also you can't use that as proof even if I had no problem with him because I SPECIFICALLY said it had to be what the CHURCH declared & therefore it can't be what Fr. Gruner THINKS or interprets what the church says. You should know perfectly well that this is a non-answer on your part. It's the same way you're using non-answers regarding PW. So try again. You can even leave out the devil part & just prove that we MUST believe in Fatima. Not that we're strongly urged to by some priest, but that we MUST believe in Fatima.
-
I've been following and wondered is Thorn the only one asking about PW's story of meeting with the Traditional priest? Catherineofsiena said PW did not meet with the traditional priest. On July 11th PW wrote that she had met with the CMRI priest, she even posted some details of the supposed meeting, such as the priest advising her to get rid of facebook, etc. After catherineofsiena said PW lied about that, PW has been on and made more posts on this thread, including a very long and rambling one talking about cloth diapers, but did not refute catherineofsiena saying she had lied about meeting with the priest.
Still waiting for PW to address catherineofsiena's claim. She should want to clear it up as it speaks to her credibilty.
-
That is a lousy first post.
I suggest that harridans stop picking on this young woman, PW.
She is being bullied here.
It is sickening.
It is sinful.
It is not for her to prove her lack of guilt. No. The burden of proof is on her detractors.
With no proof whatsoever, they have accused her of lying. That is morally deplorable.
If she was a quasi-traditional feminist, they would have no problem with her.
Because she is trying to be a proper Catholic woman, they are being cruel.
So much for Feminism being about "empowering" women.
Feminists bully the normal women and make them suffer.
-
Tele noticed how these people pretend to be concerned for PW, and then accuse her of fabricating everything.
The hypocrisy of pretending concern for a young woman, and making utterly unsubstantiated accusations against the young woman they claim to be concerned over, is easy to see.
PW is one of the best posters on CathInfo.
She is a much better poster than those who pick on her.
-
Wallflower, why does it seem probable that you & your allies would never have started wondering about the possibility of infiltration if PW had gone along with the lot of you & started saying things such as "yes, I suppose that I must be careful, all of you are right, I'm becoming a "door-mat", if I'm not careful one of these horrid svengalis will bring me under his evil influence (cue a picture of Peter Lorre or Boris Karloff as one of the villainous characters they often played), & then, who knows where it will end, I might finish up in the.......in the........she can barely bring herself to say it....in the KITCHEN, COOKING FOR THEM!!!!
She can hardly stand the strain & may be in need of smelling salts any moment....I need to become "independent"!!! I must become "EMPOWERED"!!!!!(nauseating newspeak, my hand hesitated to write it) I don't need any of them, we in the sisterhood must stick together!!!!" A gross exaggeration, I know (or perhaps not) but anyhow, if she'd started using feminist or semi-feminist code language you & the rest would have already accepted her as one of the gang.
More's the pity that she couldn't be induced to throw in her lot with all of you, as you need all of the help you can get in fighting to prevent more helpless young damsels falling victim to the machiavellian machinations of patriarchal (in the feminist sense of the word, to be uttered with a hiss of hysterical hatred) super-villains, who if not for the valiant efforts of the sisterhood would be goose-stepping down every main street, attended by their hapless female slaves.
I put PW ignore a while ago when she pulled the waif/victim in the public schools topic in the marriage thread. It was her strong statements followed by more ideas that didn't seem to fit the original statement then going into waif/victim mode when called on it that I decided to put her on ignore. This has happened in more than one thread.
I know many other single mothers in conservative circles. Some have been abandoned, divorced due to abuse, widowed, whatever the reason they are single. 1) They aren't constantly drawing attention to their situation of being unmarried 2) they are 200% focused on their kids out of necessity - convos are mainly about their kids 3) they don't go on endlessly about needing to find a husband even if they are praying to find one and none go on how they will make a great wife or have a plan set up like marrying a widower and saving him money or do they talk about looking "cute" to attract a man. 4) None have time to do so many different things like successfully growing their own produce and canning it, washing clothes by hand, gourmet cooking, visiting the elderly, especially those employed or with a nursing child or when sleep deprived like PW says she is due to working. I know some widows with grown children that do volunteer but their children are young adults. Will they show up in an urgent situation? Yes but that is different than saying they have nothing to do on a Sunday! 5) They are not jumping to be critical of other moms. PW criticism of feeding the children boxed food and her criticism of the mother wanting a babysitter didn't seem to fit. The whole thread about the friend with the newborn wanting to meet a friend had the tone of look at this bad mother with feminist ideas, despite her own child being in daycare and while she works a job away from home and PW said she worked at a restaurant/bar place? So she can leave her child frequently to work at one but she is critical of another mother going to meet a friend there? It doesn't fit. She throws truthful statements in here and there so people agree but if you look at the big picture it is off.
I spoke up now about PW because I saw WF being jumped on and it wasn't right. As far as a band of allies? Many times on topics I've more agreed with Tele than WF on some things and Thorn and I have been on opposing sides of issues. There is no band of allies just agreeing with one another because we are in a clique.
-
Sede her statements do not fit. When called on it she goes into victim mode and then goes on how she just needs a husband or some other statement that is true but is not an answer.
Many single mothers need a husband and it's a difficult situation. We still have to do our best to protect our children while we are single. Once we become mothers it is not about our mistakes but being focused 100% doing what is necessary for our children. Doesn't the homeschool/public school topic does not throw red flags at you? Especially the part about not homeschooling her daughter so she can see her mother's mistakes?? PW life should be about her daughters well being, it's not about PW.
I'm no feminist and even pm'ed PW when first here about work she could do from home to supplement her income as she made it sound she was working 2 jobs away from home plus babysitting.
-
Tiffany I can deal with a lot of accusations, but saying my daughter isn't my primary concern in life is just more than I can handle. You have no idea.
You have twisted my words about the whole homeschooling thing. You have gone out of your way to pick on me...why? Because I'm not like you? Because I've avoided public assistance? Because my one child hasn't pushed me into the "I can't accomplish anything" category? Have you ever spent any time with mother's of big families? Are they able to function?
The only reason I took my night job was because it was closing shift. My daughter generally slept quite well when I wasn't there. You can say I'm lying about that too, but for some reason when she knows I've left and she can't nurse, she will go to sleep fairly easily.
You can say anything you want about me, but accusing me of not living, breathing, and praying for the very best I can give my daughter? That's a lie you can answer to the Lord for.
Blessed Mother, pray for ALL mothers.
P.S. you can soak your pears in 7up to minimize browning.
I've hosted a few baby/bridal showers, and helped with baptism brunches (you know, for the other PhD women's studies candidates here at man-hater University) and when I make fruit salad or an edible arrangement (yep, I can make fruit into a bouquet...it takes less than 2 hours for 4+ dozen skewers) I soak any apples, pears or bananas in 7up and freeze slightly before using.
-
Sorry! Close but no cigar. I strongly suspect that that website you quoted from was Fr. Gruner's. Am I correct? So you can't use it as I have a problem with Fr. Gruner & also you can't use that as proof even if I had no problem with him because I SPECIFICALLY said it had to be what the CHURCH declared & therefore it can't be what Fr. Gruner THINKS or interprets what the church says. You should know perfectly well that this is a non-answer on your part. It's the same way you're using non-answers regarding PW. So try again. You can even leave out the devil part & just prove that we MUST believe in Fatima. Not that we're strongly urged to by some priest, but that we MUST believe in Fatima.
So now I have to use links based on what YOU like? I'm growing impatient with you and your arrogant, disrespectful tone, Thorn. At any rate, I found a better link. In this link is contained a quote from Pope Pius XII:
"the time for doubting Fatima is past." -Pope Pius XII
http://www.fatimacrusader.com/cr03/cr03pg06.asp
-
I am puzzled about why people seem to think that PW just wouldn't be able to do all sorts of things in addition to having an infant. I used to go to school full time and work full time as a nanny for an infant. I did tons of creative stuff, because it is my nature. Also, being very physically fit gives lots of energy. By God's grace I got tons of stuff done all the time.
The thing that totally slowed me down has been age and homeschooling. I forgot, I never drove until 10 years ago, and that made me less fit for sure. If we are blessed with physical strength, and are motivated to always try our best, we can do a lot of things.
I can't believe out of all the posters here PW is under the microscope. Nobody has explained the Fisheater's situation. The FE thing would go a long way toward proving that this isn't just another dogpile of scary Church Ladies.
-
SS, how does asking for proof make me arrogant & disrespectful???!!
For the last time, I don't want things from Fr. Gruner quoting Popes about their personal opinions or articles by them that are not meant to be BINDING on all Catholics. Don't you see that that is not what I'm asking for? I want an OFFICIAL statement from the Pope ex cathedra. THEY DO EXIST. All we're doing is going round & round with you not answering. Is this on purpose? So I'm just going to take it that you can't find anything that binds us to believe, as a matter of faith & morals, apparitions & esp. Fatima.
You're getting impatient with me because I'm holding your feet to the fire. You screamed that I had no credibility because of my neutrality concerning apparitions. A reputation is really all a person has. You were wrong. It needs to be made right. That's the Catholic way.
-
For the last time, I don't want things from Fr. Gruner quoting Popes about their personal opinions
Personal opinions? If you believe Fatima is doubtful after what I posted - particularly the quote from Pius XII - your head is in the sand.
I was not wrong, you were wrong to seriously suggest that Fatima may be of the devil. There is nothing wrong with telling you that you are mistaken on that. Fatima has been approved by numerous Popes and has been declared a true Apparition by the Church. Not holding it as an article of the Faith is one thing, but to think that you can just dismiss Fatima and its message is not right. And then you complain about the sources I provide. It doesn't matter what source I used, the bottom line is Pope Pius XII said there is no reason to doubt Fatima. You're just being stubborn. You not liking Fr. Gruner is your own problem.
You don't have neutrality on Fatima, you've made it clear that you don't really accept it and that it may even be of the devil. If it's of the devil, then the Church erred in declaring it a true Apparition. How you could deem it possible that the devil was behind it is beyond me.
And I noted your position on Fatima in the first place because you accused everyone on this thread who spoke out against feminism as being "wolves". And you did so after the thread had already quited down. You were just trying to stir up a hornet's nest and you know it. You've also repetatedly tried to provoke me in this thread, telling me I'm "too wrapped up in myself" all because I defended PW against the unfair charges made against her. And every reply I made towards Loriann, there you were bossing me around and telling me what I should respond to.
I apologise for any lack of charity I've displayed on this thread and will leave it at that. Please do not bother to respond Thorn, I'm afraid I won't be responding back. This thread is ridiculous and needs to be locked. I had best refrain from posting on it any longer.
-
PereJoseph said:
Well, I cannot be morally confident about Matthew's intentions just as I cannot be morally confident about accusations of PenitentWoman being dishonest. So, maybe being simple as a dove binds my hands and I need to be wiser like a serpent, but according to the rules of moral theology as I understand them, I do not have any justification for assuming bad intentions on the part of Matthew or PenitentWoman until I have more information.
I am not talking about moral intentions, I simply stated a fact about what he needs to keep the site going, and that can be proven by the fact that this site has always thrived on controversies -- SGG, Bishop Fellay vs. Bp. Williamson, Tele, etc. It's like a soap opera here.
It is like saying "Priest so-and-so would have lost his job if he didn't go along with the changes, and would have been homeless." That is stating a fact. But I'm not saying I know what his motives are; he could have been fooled by VII or he could have been a coward driven by self-interest, or some other motive.
As for PenitentWoman, I strongly doubt that rash judgment applies to someone under a fictitious screen name. I would never have thought to accuse someone of sin if they said Raoul76 was a hoax. No one ever said that before, during the thousands of times people were accused of being fakes, and often were. Spiritus himself was claiming everyone and their brother was a certain notorious trad-Catholic figure, thus bringing a real person's name into it. Now suddenly it is some dastardly sin to suspect a hoax? That doesn't work, and it is uncomfortably reminiscent of the emotional manipulation you see in the Novus Ordo and SSPX, with people trying to guilt others into not being "judgmental."
This site is rife with hoaxes; it still has not been explained where all these nαzι-tinged people came from or why Tele's point score went way up. Was Matthew bumping it up because he secretly favors his ideas? Did Tele bring people over from another site? While I can't say for sure, it was all more than fishy.
Ergo, as I see it, there is no rash judgment in anyone questioning ANYONE else who has not been proven to have a real identity. And I have scruples, too, so that means the rest of the site must have uber-scruples... But selective ones. Since, as I just said, though now they are oh-so-punctilious about the reputations of members, when it comes to PW who suits their agenda, this is not how they are with others.
True, if you are dependent on a job for your livelihood you have to be careful what you are seen saying on the Internet; I understand that, and am not dependent in that way, having the luxury to say what I want. As for whether someone comes to kill me, that is not something Catholics should fear. Not that I think that would happen, because truth-telling Catholics are no longer martyred, they are ignored and gaslighted and marginalized and made to look crazy. However, if I really wanted to prove to a specific person that Raoul76 was real, someone who could in no way harm me, I could do so in a letter very easily.
-
I realize what I just said about Facebook contradicted what I said before, that everyone should just join Facebook and stop skulking around anonymously. Not having to support a family with a job, I didn't think about that situation back then, but of course, it can make it even harder to stay employed if you are seen on Facebook writing monologues about international Jewry.
-
Spiritus himself was claiming everyone and their brother was a certain notorious trad-Catholic figure, thus bringing a real person's name into it.
When did I claim this?
-
Many times, there is a certain person who you believe comes on under different aliases, remember?
-
Raoul, why have you dropped in here over the past 3 days to participate solely in this thread? Is Matthew paying you? Perhaps you ARE Matthew. You're both verbose and your posts lack focus. Yes, there certainly are a number of similarities. I think Matthew and Raoul are the same person! :rolleyes:
-
Wow, SS! Nothing like picking up your marbles & leaving when you can't seem to win - but asking that everyone's marbles be picked up too is a bit extreme, wouldn't you have to agree?
Fatima is not an article of faith & the church has stated that there's nothing against faith or morals in the message, therefore you are free to believe in 'the message'. The devil tho can come along and stir up things which he has just done by pitting Catholic against Catholic (& other things) which is completely contrary to what Christ wants. What did Christ say about how the world would know that they are His disciples? By how they loved one another, and don't even dare mention kumbyah & other such NO nonsense. I've NEVER had anything to do with the NO, nor my family for that matter, so don't even go there.
-
PereJoseph said:
Well, I cannot be morally confident about Matthew's intentions just as I cannot be morally confident about accusations of PenitentWoman being dishonest. So, maybe being simple as a dove binds my hands and I need to be wiser like a serpent, but according to the rules of moral theology as I understand them, I do not have any justification for assuming bad intentions on the part of Matthew or PenitentWoman until I have more information.
I am not talking about moral intentions, I simply stated a fact about what he needs to keep the site going, and that can be proven by the fact that this site has always thrived on controversies -- SGG, Bishop Fellay vs. Bp. Williamson, Tele, etc. It's like a soap opera here.
Raoul, that is the fallacy of "Post hoc, propter hoc". Google it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Just because DE FACTO there are plenty of controversies in the Trad world (both online and offline), it doesn't follow that the owner of a popular Trad Catholic forum is CAUSING, ENCOURAGING, or FOMENTING those controversies.
You are utterly ignorant of the matter. You apparently know little about Traditional Catholics.
Are you so emotional that your reason has been short-circuited?
Someday you'll get a clue about Traditional Catholics, and ONCE AGAIN you'll have to backpedal/apologize with a new addition to your signature: "I apologize for any digs I made against the owner of this forum. He was not responsible for the controversies that constantly arose here; they arise quite easily all by themselves..."
-
Yes, Raoul, my paid agents were responsible for the division between Bp. Fellay and Bishop Williamson.
Hey, it's great for the forum's traffic numbers! :rolleyes:
-
Raoul, why have you dropped in here over the past 3 days to participate solely in this thread? Is Matthew paying you? Perhaps you ARE Matthew. You're both verbose and your posts lack focus. Yes, there certainly are a number of similarities. I think Matthew and Raoul are the same person! :rolleyes:
I must disagree, at least on content. I think Raoul76 is actually Tele. Raoul's posts draw attention to Tele and sometimes even bring attention to activities related to Tele in the anonymous section. :shocked:
Maybe Raoul76 is both Tele and Matthew. :detective:
:clown:
-
Matthew said:
Raoul, that is the fallacy of "Post hoc, propter hoc". Google it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
Just because DE FACTO there are plenty of controversies in the Trad world (both online and offline), it doesn't follow that the owner of a popular Trad Catholic forum is CAUSING, ENCOURAGING, or FOMENTING those controversies.
You are utterly ignorant of the matter. You apparently know little about Traditional Catholics.
Are you so emotional that your reason has been short-circuited?
I didn't say you were. Read what I said again. If you can't read there is little point in repeating it. There is no post hoc involved.
I could go further but actually I don't care about any of this. Catherine and wallflower wrote to me, I took a look, saw how they were treated, and made a few comments.
Catherine wrote to me and said she believes women should be doctors and lawyers and such, I do not agree and told her so. So I see she has opened herself to attack with those comments. But she is nowhere near as obsessive and militant with her ideas as Tele; so it is absurd to suppose that she is "indoctrinating" PW away from the "healthy" ideas of the so-called anti-feminists here, whose leader is a puffed-up Pharisee.
I have never seen PW constantly harping on her slightly feminist ideas, but Tele harps nonstop on his Pharisee ideas.
What I see here is that CofS and wallflower were genuinely concerned for the spiritual welfare of PW. I do not see any evidence that they were trying to change her mind or make her feminist. However, I do see evidence that Tele and others are trying to make her think like them. CoS and wallflower, therefore, were clearly acting with more charity than others here, and were wantonly insulted, that is why I said something. But that is typical for this site. The spirit here is far from Christ-like.
-
As far as I'm concerned, this is all just a time-wasting trap. Certain people sit on this site, have nothing to say, and therefore they need to feed off others who wander into their web. I have spent far too much time already on such nonsense.
I should say, I do believe PW is real, simply because she has a neurotic and slightly depressed tone in her posts that a man, or anyone else, would have to be almost a genius to fake. But I understand why others think she is fake; because something on this site is not right, and breeds such thoughts.
It happened to me before here; but on Facebook, I don't get paranoid and think people are faking their personalities. Those paranoid thoughts come to you HERE, on CathInfo. Catherine and wallflower are not psychic, they can't be expected to know exactly what kind of creepy shenanigans are going on; but you can just feel something is wrong here.
CofS and wallflower tried to help PW, because she comes off as someone who is very naive who thinks she is more advanced in the faith than she is, making her appear vulnerable. Not because they wanted to turn her into Gloria Steinem. Where has it been seen that either woman is aggressive with her feminist-tinged ideas? It is Tele who is the radical, unstoppable aggressor.
I didn't say anything, because I didn't want to anticipate something. I am not going to freak out because some person I don't know on the Internet might marry Tele. If she does, she needs to run it by her priest. If he's a good priest, he will see in two seconds that Tele has clear "problems." Beyond that, it's not my problem. As was shown, PW doesn't listen to good advice anyway. St. Paul says to admonish your brother once or twice, then move on. That is what I should have done with Tele in the beginning, and that is what I will do here.
PW, stay away from this guy. You have been warned.
-
I don't believe that its beyond the realm of possibility that PW is able to accomplish all the things she says. Some people are really good at multi-tasking and thrive on very little sleep. Personally I could never manage her lifestyle but that's me. Lets look at the facts. She has a full time job as office manager which I assume is 40 hrs. per week, add 5 more hrs. for travel to and from work. Next consider her bar tender/waitress job. PW has indicated that typically she works 6 hrs. per shift. Not sure how many days a week she does this job but assuming 2 to 3 nights a week equals a total of 12-18 hrs with another 2 to 3 hrs. of travel time. That amounts to a approximately of 66 hrs. per week. I'm not counting the hrs. she baby sits because she can be doing housework, laundry, cooking, gardening, etc. at the same time. The most time consuming of all these chores would be washing the clothes by hand. Also just because she has a hard time making ends meet and can barely afford to rub two nickels together doesn't mean she can't put together decent meals. Actually I find it costs a lot less overall to by quality food than the quick and easy processed stuff. PW has stated that she cooks large portions that serve as several meals. So lets assume she only cooks a couple of times a week. The more I consider all the facts, I don't see why anyone would suspect PW is not being sincere.
Oh btw, PW might have a couple of gadgets such as these that would considerably cut down the time it takes to manually wash the clothes.
Rapid Washer - DIY Manual Hand Washing Machine
http://www.amazon.com/Rapid-Washer-Manual-Washing-Machine/dp/B002QUAPSO/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1346711122&sr=8-1&keywords=manual+washing+machine
Best Hand Clothes Wringer
http://www.amazon.com/GetPreparedStuff-Best-Clothes-Wringer-Hand/dp/B002QSXK60/ref=pd_bxgy_la_img_z
-
Catherine wrote to me and said she believes women should be doctors and lawyers and such
Thanks for saying this, it proves she's a feminist.
-
It's like a soap opera here.
Eggsactly, actually it's much more entertaining.
-
Come to think of it Raoul, the very first time I posted on this fourm I was accused of being some character by the name of LuLu or something.
-
Ok, Thorn, I did some research and found the following.
According to this page from New Advent.com, a Catholic is not required to believe in private revelations. So that's one point in your favor.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13005a.htm
However, Fatima is more than just a private revelation. Here is something I found on a Fatima website:
10. BUT ISN'T THE MESSAGE OF FATIMA JUST A PRIVATE REVELATION WHICH NO CATHOLIC HAS TO BELIEVE?
No, it is not just a private revelation. It is a public, prophetic revelation given by the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God. It is not to be confused with "Revelation" or as it is also called, the Deposit of the Faith, which ended with the death of the last Apostle. But public, prophetic revelation must not be despised. The Virgin Mary's prophecy was confirmed by a public miracle and authenticated by a whole line of Popes. Also, its predictions have come true.
So, while belief in the Message of Fatima may not strictly be required of Catholics as an article of faith, one would be very foolish to disregard such an obviously authentic message from Heaven. As St. Paul taught: "Despise not prophecies, but prove all things; hold fast to that which is good." (1 Thess. 5:20-21) The prophecy of Fatima has been proven worthy of belief. We should not despise it, but rather hold fast to what Our Lady told us at Fatima.
So, in conclusion, we have no reason to believe that Fatima should be disregarded or that it is from the devil.
Perfectly expressed.
-
Sorry! Close but no cigar. I strongly suspect that that website you quoted from was Fr. Gruner's. Am I correct? So you can't use it as I have a problem with Fr. Gruner & also you can't use that as proof even if I had no problem with him because I SPECIFICALLY said it had to be what the CHURCH declared & therefore it can't be what Fr. Gruner THINKS or interprets what the church says. You should know perfectly well that this is a non-answer on your part. It's the same way you're using non-answers regarding PW. So try again. You can even leave out the devil part & just prove that we MUST believe in Fatima. Not that we're strongly urged to by some priest, but that we MUST believe in Fatima.
Well, I have some problems with Fr Gruner too, in the sense of disagreements, but that doesn't mean he can never be right. He is clearly right here.
Perhaps it is time to turn things around. I think it is pretty clear why those of use who believe in Fatima accept it. What reasons do you see for rejecting or even doubting it. I am not suggesting in advance that you don't have any. I would be genuinely interested in hearing what they are.
And I will say again that while I think it is a mistake to doubt Fatima, it is not heretical and I am not in any way questioning your orthodoxy on this point.
-
That is a lousy first post.
I suggest that harridans stop picking on this young woman, PW.
She is being bullied here.
It is sickening.
It is sinful.
It is not for her to prove her lack of guilt. No. The burden of proof is on her detractors.
With no proof whatsoever, they have accused her of lying. That is morally deplorable.
If she was a quasi-traditional feminist, they would have no problem with her.
Because she is trying to be a proper Catholic woman, they are being cruel.
So much for Feminism being about "empowering" women.
Feminists bully the normal women and make them suffer.
Indeed. This is the first thing Jane decided to comment about? If I were a more suspicious sort, I might think someone had a second account.
-
Raoul, why have you dropped in here over the past 3 days to participate solely in this thread? Is Matthew paying you? Perhaps you ARE Matthew. You're both verbose and your posts lack focus. Yes, there certainly are a number of similarities. I think Matthew and Raoul are the same person! :rolleyes:
Well, you never see the two of them together... :smirk:
-
Yes, Raoul, my paid agents were responsible for the division between Bp. Fellay and Bishop Williamson.
Hey, it's great for the forum's traffic numbers! :rolleyes:
I think Matthew is also responsible for global warming, original sin, continental drift, and the designated hitter rule.
-
Raoul, why have you dropped in here over the past 3 days to participate solely in this thread? Is Matthew paying you? Perhaps you ARE Matthew. You're both verbose and your posts lack focus. Yes, there certainly are a number of similarities. I think Matthew and Raoul are the same person! :rolleyes:
I must disagree, at least on content. I think Raoul76 is actually Tele. Raoul's posts draw attention to Tele and sometimes even bring attention to activities related to Tele in the anonymous section. :shocked:
Maybe Raoul76 is both Tele and Matthew. :detective:
:clown:
Perhaps they are all Pope Augustine, David Hobson, and Fr. Cekada.
-
Nope only one account. So what if it's my first post? You have to start somewhere. Not that I owe an explanation, but I have followed postings here for a while. I was talking with a friend who is a long time member about the PW drama and decided to post myself. It is a legitimate question to ask PW about the supposed meeting with the priest. PW claims she met with the priest. CofS stated it was checked out, that in fact PW did not meet with that priest as she led everyone to believe she had. Since her inconsistencies are what are in question, it is natural to ask for clarification. What is the big deal for her to come on here and tell eveyone CofS is not being truthful, if that is the case? Instead she makes another disjointed post about freezing fruit and making edible arrangements. It would seem CofS did tell us the truth.
I think PW is probably the poor waif/victim she portrays herself to be. I also think she came here to advertise for a husband, moreso than to learn about the True Mass. Whevever anyone offered her help, links, videos, books, I don't recall her coming back and making any further comment of substance. Everything was geared toward domestic things and certain kind of language designed to sound appealing to a man. If people are honest and look at her posts/interactions here objectively, it's very easy to see.
-
That is a lousy first post.
I suggest that harridans stop picking on this young woman, PW.
She is being bullied here.
It is sickening.
It is sinful.
It is not for her to prove her lack of guilt. No. The burden of proof is on her detractors.
With no proof whatsoever, they have accused her of lying. That is morally deplorable.
If she was a quasi-traditional feminist, they would have no problem with her.
Because she is trying to be a proper Catholic woman, they are being cruel.
So much for Feminism being about "empowering" women.
Feminists bully the normal women and make them suffer.
Indeed. This is the first thing Jane decided to comment about? If I were a more suspicious sort, I might think someone had a second account.
These posts should have gone with the response above. I will add, people post where they are interested. I didn't know there was a rule of making a first post on a particular thread.
Bullied, sickening, sinful? I only asked a question. PW joined here and in the first couple of posts had already revealed some very private and intimate things about herself for all the world to read. I didn't know she is somehow off limits to be asked a question becasue of some inconsistencies that have come to light.
-
I see that wallflower, catherine &c., have seen fit to bring up reinforcements, that can only mean one thing; that the battle is going poorly for them.
-
That is a very perceptive comment, Cuthbert.
And for the discerning:
I was talking with a friend who is a long time member about the PW drama and decided to post myself.
-
And then people have the nerve to get suspicious about PW!!!!!!!!
-
I don't have a college education and English is not my first language so forgive my poorly chosen way of wording it sede catholic. When I said talking with someone, meaning we were only reading the posts, not gossiping about them.
-
Jane said:
very private and intimate things about herself for all the world to read
She remains anonymous.
-
Jane said: very private and intimate things about herself for all the world to read
She remains anonymous.
Yes of course she does, what I wrote is being taken out of context. I read on here often someone will post something and if in a later post there is the slightest inconsistancy said poster will get jumped all over. Sounds like a double standard with PW being off limits to ask a simple question of.
-
Raoul, your interpretation of what I told you is inaccurate. That's not what I said. I hope you will make a public correction.
I do not know Jane in real life or online.
This will be my last post on the forum. I came here with an open heart wanting to learn and converse with other traditional Catholics. Thank you to all the kind, beautiful, virtuous and wise people, men and women, with whom I've had the pleasure to meet and interact. Some of you made me laugh and some of you educated me. I am confident your example leads people to the Faith in real life. I am grateful to have known you.
The rest I leave to a just God.
-
I've been following this thread for the last several days. Jane is Tiffany under a secondary account. I don't say this without evidence.
Observe Tiffany:
My issue with PW is after she makes statements, when she is asked about them or you show her things don't match, how can you believe this here and say that there, her posts go waif/victim like.
Secondly she often throws in a waif/victim statement in other posts too.
PW will do the waif/fragile victim post or switches the issue, instead of having a convo of what poster A is responding too.
I put PW ignore a while ago when she pulled the waif/victim in the public schools topic in the marriage thread. It was her strong statements followed by more ideas that didn't seem to fit the original statement then going into waif/fragile victim mode when called on it that I decided to put her on ignore. This has happened in more than one thread.
I don't know the situation between WF and Tele. To WF defense though, I have seen a pattern with PW, her posts will turn waif/fragile victim type especially after a poster extrapolates on a statement she has made. The poster is made out to be the bad guy attacking her then. Now that is insidious. :D
Jane chimes in:
I think PW is probably the poor waif/victim she portrays herself to be.
And then:
I don't have a college education and English is not my first language so forgive my poorly chosen way of wording it sede catholic.
A woman presumably in the United States with the very English name of Jane, but English is not her first language? And this supposedly being so, she is somehow aware of the correct usage of the uncommon word 'waif', which also just happens to be Tiffany's phrase of choice? I'm not buying it.
The suspicion should be directed towards Tiffany/Jane, not PenitentWoman. Stop your shenanigans Tiffany/Jane . . . if that is your real name.
-
The fact these women all use the same terminology just means they're talking about it with each other.
It's really amusing what women spend their time discussing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbhnRuJBHLs
-
Farewell, Catherine. Although I strongly disagree with you on some of your views, I would like to offer you an apology for calling you out for thumbing down people's posts. I admit that was uncharitable.
-
Catherine, there's no reason for you to leave.
-
Raoul, your interpretation of what I told you is inaccurate. That's not what I said. I hope you will make a public correction.
I do not know Jane in real life or online.
This will be my last post on the forum. I came here with an open heart wanting to learn and converse with other traditional Catholics. Thank you to all the kind, beautiful, virtuous and wise people, men and women, with whom I've had the pleasure to meet and interact. Some of you made me laugh and some of you educated me. I am confident your example leads people to the Faith in real life. I am grateful to have known you.
The rest I leave to a just God.
Now who's playing the waif/victim?
-
The fact these women all use the same terminology just means they're talking about it with each other.
It's really amusing what women spend their time discussing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbhnRuJBHLs
A possibility. Nevertheless I stand by my suspicion of Tiffany/Jane.
-
Hill, I am most certainly not Tiffany, I do not know her online or in real life. Wait, I think CofS just said similar words in her post, does that mean she and I are also one and the same? Even without a college education, even I could figure out a person can live in America, and still not be a native speaker, such as if one immigrated here because their husband is American. Duh. Oh and as for my name. Nope not really mine, I have a devotion to Saint Jane Frances de Chantal, she is a French saint, but you can't sign up with such a long name it doesn't allow. Anyway, I echo catherineofsiena's sentiments and will follow her good example. Au revoir.
-
Perhaps Matthew could do an IP check and sort this out?
-
Farewell, Catherine. Although I strongly disagree with you on some of your views, I would like to offer you an apology for calling you out for thumbing down people's posts. I admit that was uncharitable.
Catherine, there's no reason for you to leave.
Gentlemen, don't buy into it! Catherine is playing the waif/victim card, and you two apologizing to her and telling her to stay is exactly what she wants. She's doing exactly what some women here have been accusing PenitentWoman of doing. Don't fall for her game.
-
Anyway, I echo catherineofsiena's sentiments and will follow her good example. Au revoir.
Easy come, easy go.
-
Gentlemen, don't buy into it! Catherine is playing the waif/victim card, and you two apologizing to her and telling her to stay is exactly what she wants. She's doing exactly what some women here have been accusing PenitentWoman of doing. Don't fall for her game.
Telling her she has no reason to leave isn't apologizing to her.
She knows she has no excuse for her conduct.
-
I apologised only for calling her out regarding thumbing people down. That was unnecessary.
Nevertheless, I agree with Tele that her conduct was inexcusable and she should apologise.
-
Then we are all agreed that if she does not apologize and reform it would be best for her to leave.
-
Let it be known, that Hill is surfing from a proxy.
Catherine Of Siena either moved today, or took up surfing from a proxy.
Jane's IP is inconclusive, but her IP is very close to a known proxy.
There's no way Jane OR Hill are just random Internet surfers that stumbled upon CathInfo.
-
Thank you for shedding more light on Jane, Matthew.
It is very informative that Jane is located near to another poster.
I feel confident that the other poster is a Feminist who has posted on this thread.
I was appalled that someone actually joined CathInfo in order to participate in the wicked bullying of Penitent Woman.
-
Anyway, I echo catherineofsiena's sentiments and will follow her good example. Au revoir.
Easy come, easy go.
:roll-laugh1:
-
I am a traditional Catholic and as many other traditional Catholics I have known about CI for a long while. I did not "just stumble" upon CI, as I already wrote in another post I have been reading here for quite a while. sede catholic, I did not join to bully anyone, you keep repeating that does not make it true. I only asked a question about what catherineofsiena reported.
You sede are making rash judgements against me, you are the one who is bullying and intimidating with your insistence of saying falsehoods about me. You are off base in your faslehoods about me. I asked one question and you keep bullying me for that one question. I am not going to respond to you further.
-
No, you joined in a sickening attempt to bully a young woman.
And by your own admission you know one of the other bullies.
-
You could have asked a question such as: "Why are a bunch of Feminists picking on a young woman?"
Instead, your first post here was to request personal information from a member in good standing (a status that you do not have here), about that member's private life.
And you coupled that with disputing PW's inegrity.
You said: It speaks to her integrity.
-
it speaks to her credibilty.
I got the last word wrong in the previous post. But, as Jane didn't even spell credibility correctly, who cares? :laugh1:
-
I posted in this topic when PW used the word insidious with WF. If that wasn't the pot calling the kettle black IMO.
You can go read the Catholic men don't marry thread and see I posted to PW that her statements don't fit weeks before this. I was trying to understand her POV but then I saw then how she pulls the waif/victim type of post, inserted things I never said - which changes the issue, then answers those things with how she needs a husband.
She makes such strong statements about feminism or trad life but other things she says, they just don't fit someone with those beliefs.
I don't know Jane or Hill nor have I pmed with them.
-
Is a being a Waif a bad thing?
-
This needs to stop.
Without any proof or evidence, several Feminists are repeatedly accusing PW of deceiving the Forum.
It is sinful to accuse people of things that they are not guilty of.
This has actually been one of the most upsetting threads that I have ever read on CathInfo.
The word “waif” is being used as an insult against PW.
The Oxford Dictionary defines the word “waif” thus:
a homeless, neglected, or abandoned person, especially a child
...
a person who appears thin or poorly nourished
...
an abandoned pet animal
None of those descriptions apply at all to PW.
But, Feminists use the word waif in an entirely new and malevolent context.
Feminists use the word waif to describe normal girls who do not want want spend their lives arguing with men, opposing men, or loathing men.
In other words, normal women. Who just want to marry, have children, obey their husbands, and be housewives.
These normal women refuse to throw away their happiness and take up the bitterness of Feminism instead.
This enrages the Feminists, as we have seen here.
They then resort to hounding and bullying the good women concerned.
They also lie about them, or unjustly accuse them of things - as we have seen here.
So much for the Feminists false claim about wanting to empower women.
In reality, Feminists persecute women - as we have seen here.
Feminism is built on lies and false accusations.
Feminism has made men suffer, but it has made women suffer even more.
It may wreck a man’s marriage.
But it destroys a woman’s essential nature.
Feminism has been an incredibly evil influence on the world.
Feminism is a malevolent and anti-Catholic ideology.
-
Is a being a Waif a bad thing?
Elizabeth is correct.
There is nothing wrong with being a normal woman, or what these aggressive women would call a "waif".
Most normal women just want to marry, have a Family, and love and obey their husbands.
They have no desire to embitter themselves with a failed ideology that has ruined the lives of so many other women.
-
I was referencing a pattern of behavior, the waif/victim, like with what you see with some borderlines. It's disordered and manipulative.
It has NOTHING to do with being a feminist or not.
-
The term is used in that way by Feminists.
The whole idea is just Orwellian Newspeak.
-
The hypocrisy of these Feminists is obvious.
They warned PW not to trust men here such as Tele.
Then they persecuted PW.
And it was mainly Tele and the other men here who protected PW from these Feminists.
Feminism consists of opposing Catholicism, lies, and bullying normal women.
-
Elizabeth, I did not scrutinize PW until the past few nights, I've used her post history for bedtime reading. Before then I got a sense for something being "off" in other ways I've already mentioned. It didn't take scrutiny, it only took being a woman and the strengths we have of paying attention to people and having intuition.
However, I did start questioning my own sanity and wondering if an apology is in order, if I'm suddenly way off my rocker imagining things, so I asked a couple people for their insights and read her post history and I am now convinced of my position.
I don't know if she is trying to pull off a Frank Abagnale, faking her "career" of homemaker, but PW is talking to real women who live this life she's describing. Tiffany has the example of herself, a single mom and the Mennonites; I have my family, having been raised this way with the traditional lifestyle ~ gardening, canning, breadmaking and coincidentally, grinding our own flour, something my father enjoys doing, care of infants and homes etc... It takes the whole family pitching in.
PW's work schedule is such that she works every day and 3 nights. This leaves her 2 weeknights and a weekend of free time during which she accomplishes:
Cooking in bulk from scratch
Cleaning in depth (self-described neat freak)
Laundry, by hand
Grinding flour
Bread baking, by hand
Working out "a lot" (exact words, twice)
Gardening
Care for infant and two (or one? the story keeps changing) other kids, regular visits to elderly, Mass, forums/research, prayer life. Plus the basics of home life such as grocery shopping, paying bills/mail, changing linens, personal hygiene, baby baths etc...
All in two evenings and the weekend? This is what SAHMs do in a week. The efficient ones at that.
In addition to all that, she makes own toothpaste and soap, cans (mentions last weekend with Grandma but also said she did pickles and green beans before that), sews, cloth diapers, has one housecleaning client (mentiones that when saying she needs 6), homemakes baby food (homemade rice cereal/purreed veg) ...
Even with some of those being alternated like canning and sewing, it's literally and physically not feasible for a 60 hour working mother, (not counting her driving or walking to work and daycare drop off/pick up time, which normally add up to a few more hours a week).
And we're expected to believe she is this "energetic" on 3-4 hours of sleep every night? On the nights she is babysitting she walks home at 3 am, (says she does not sleep while babysitting). On the nights she is working, well, then SHE is closing so she isn't home until 3 am (mentions this when talking about night time nursing) This is less sleep than is humanly possible on a regular basis like that. Unless she sleeps during the day, which would be another thing to add to the list of things supposedly accomplished on the weekend and only the weekend since weekdays are gone to work.
There's also this comment made to me I think she likes to make up for lost time with me because our evenings are pretty much spent in a chair and nursing, which is perfectly fine because it is just the two of us so we have very little housework or any interruptions.
What happened to the babysitting she does every night that she isn't working?
Both times that it was noticed that she seems to know a disproportionate amount about tradition compared to the upbringing and recent conversion she describes...same odd answer.
Thorn I'm just having difficulty understanding your story when all you've been around seems to be modernists & worse, yet you know quite a bit about tradition.
PWI feel like you are making fun of me.
These lies are the least of the dishonesty and don't matter in the long run except to establish that this person is not credible. With that established, I am more convinced of my other suspicions that are more serious, but not verifiable. I don't think it's as simple or innocent as looking for a husband either. But this is where I have to say each has been warned and if anyone gets hurt, I guess, too bad for them.
-
It has not in any way been established that PW is not credible.
PW has genuine credibility.
It is perfectly reasonable that a young mother can do the things that she has described.
Her critics are the ones who lack credibility.
What they so maliciously allege is untrue, and is simply highly emotional garbage.
This thread contains living proof that most women are illogical, and judge things on emotion rather than fact.
Feminists convict themselves when they speak.
-
Some women here have been very cruel to PW.
Those women should go bright red with shame.
I have ceased having a good opinion of certain women here as a result of their cruelty to PW.
It is amazing that these malicious accusations against PW are just being thrown about with a rash disregard of the truth, and of morality.
This is wicked and uncharitable behaviour.
Feminism turns women into hard, cruel, beings.
It makes them unlovable. Then they are miserable because they are lonely and unloved.
Women suffer the loss of their happiness on earth because of Feminism.
They are also in peril of losing their eternal happiness in Heaven and going to Hell instead, because of Feminism.
-
Ok Sede, you can calm down now. Quit flooding the thread please. You and a couple others have cornered the market on emotion and the "hiss of hysteric hatred"in this thread (thanks for being the best example of that, Cuthbert. Ironic.) Definitely not doing truly reasonable men too proud.
-
That is just a baseless ad hominem.
I am calm. And I have not flooded the thread.
This thread has been flooded with women picking on PW because she dared to dissent from the Sisterhood.
Most of the women on Cathinfo are good traditional Catholic women, and are not in favour of Feminism.
But the small minority of Feminist women here are very aggressive and loud - as we have seen on this thread.
-
I don't even own a washboard, but even so, doing laundry by hand (in my bathtub) is still by far more timely than loading everything up (including the baby) and driving to the laundry mat. At the laundry mat it is hard to nurse and since she has been crawling it is difficult to know what to do with her. She is too big to sit in the infant seat and she just isn't very patient with the stroller. This makes everything more difficult. At home she can crawl around and play. The cost savings is significant too.
As far as nursing on the couch in the evenings? Yes! I babysat LATE and spent a lot of time nursing on the couch.
I have spent a Saturday and two evenings canning this year.
I don't bake bread everyday. I have only myself to feed.
Haven't made soap or toothpaste in quite awhile. When I do this, it is a day long project and I make several bars. I don't know anyone who makes soap one bar at a time.
I typically check my garden one or two evenings a week after work and then go Saturday morning or Sunday afternoon. I made a mulch from wood chips and newspaper to minimize weeds.
I do often go to the nursing home after mass on Sundays. This requires an hour or two. I feel guilty when I skip or don't stay long enough. How is this substantial? I don't have a family to spend my Sundays with.
My sundress to apron project has been a flop. I still plan to use the concept at some point
I exercise. Even on little sleep. I was an avid runner even with borderline hypermesis until my doctor said no more. I still walked everyday. Now I workout at home (DVDs mostly) It is nothing compared to my former life.
I have very little housework because I am gone more than home. Things just don't really get that dirty and I clean as I go. I'm the type of person who had a 104 degree fever from mastitis and a brand new baby, yet I could not rest because there were dishes in the sink. I just have to get things done. I don't have little ones to make big messes or to homeschool.
I really don't know what else to say. I start a new career in 5 1/2 hours and I can't get to sleep. I am really lost.
-
Just try to rest and don't worry about the craziness here.
-
Dear PW,
What you say is obviously true.
There is no reason to doubt it.
Do not let these harpies upset you.
Most people on CathInfo are of good will.
The people of good will here know that you are telling the truth.
Get some sleep if you can.
Good luck with tomorrow.
I will pray about it.
It is good that you are still posting.
Think about the nice people here, not the bullies.
God Bless you, Penitent Woman.
God Bless your baby.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
Thank you.
-
It is a pleasure.
And thank you for all of your good posts on CathInfo.
-
I never said you bake bread everyday. I said you have all those things to accomplish in 2 evenings and the weekend. How you divide it up and when you do what doesn't change anything. The conclusion is the same. I also know that soap making is not done one bar at a time. But you have gone so far overboard that clarifying the soap or backpedalling on something else still leaves a lot that is highly unrealistic. The more you insist you do it, the more I know you are as clueless as the men as to how much time this list actually takes. If you insist you were nursing so many hours then that's even LESS time spent doing these things. You do realize you're saying you do as much as a SAHM does (and more actually because they usually use bread and washing machines) but in two nights and two days, right? And on top of working 60+ hours?
I really don't know what else to say.
I don't think there is much else to say. If you're for real, it wouldn't hurt to apologize for exaggerating. If you're not for real, then you don't really care anyway and I refuse to be manipulated into feeling bad.
-
Wallflower, just stop picking on PW.
You know that she starts a new job tomorrow.
Are you trying to ruin it by depriving her of sleep?
Matthew has already banned you from CathInfo for the way you behaved towards Tele.
It appears that your new victim is PW.
How can you behave so spitefully if you are a traditional Catholic?
That is far more inexplicable than PW’s perfectly understandable life.
Wallflower, how can you be so spiteful if you are a traditional Catholic?
That would be very difficult for you to explain.
-
Sorry wallflower, but it is immoral to try to claim someone is completely made-up character because you don't like them or what they do.
It's attacking a reputation....even if they only go by a screen name.
There's more than a little bit off about this flood of concern for the girl shown by the people on your side, followed by a refusal to admit she's a real person.
Exactly, Tele.
-
I do more than stay at home moms? What exactly am I paying daycare for then?
Would you like to know everything I accomplished this weekend?
Well, I didn't get my garden raked up like I had planned because I ended up going to visit my Dad. I did however help his mistress assemble 200+ wedding party favors, helped her order her invites, French braided the hair of 3 little girls I'd never met before, made breakfast for 11 people including Pioneer Women cinnamon rolls (quite labor intensive but amazing... Google them) and cleaned/organized my Dad's kitchen.
Oh and I attended Saturday afternoon NO mass (sorry)and watched my Dad receive the Eucharist while living in sin. Then I watched an opera on YouTube. I also went grocery shopping and made 4 ice cube trays of baby food yesterday.
I'm really going to have to get in touch with some of the large family moms from a group I used to post on and ask them how they bathe, feed, educate/chauffeur to activities for 6+ kids and do much of what I do or more-definitely wayyy more cooking...and still obviously have time to spend with hubby to make all those babies.
I remember on secular boards new moms would say they can't write thank you notes because it's too busy with a baby. In the time it takes to make an online post, you can write 2-3 thank you notes.
I'm in the twilight zone.
Ohhhh one last thing I did: swam maybe 1/3 a mile in a skirt. My Dad told my soon to be stepbrother he would give him a beer if he threw me off the pontoon. In I went. Haven't swam in quite a long time so I just decided to front crawl back to shore instead of giving a teenage boy a chance to see me in my soaked white top.
-
I'm really going to have to get in touch with some of the large family moms from a group I used to post on and ask them how they bathe, feed, educate/chauffeur to activities for 6+ kids and do much of what I do or more-definitely wayyy more cooking...and still obviously have time to spend with hubby to make all those babies.
I remember on secular boards new moms would say they can't write thank you notes because it's too busy with a baby. In the time it takes to make an online post, you can write 2-3 thank you notes.
Unless they are claiming to be online or making babies 60+ hours a week AND getting all SAHM chores done from scratch and by hand, these "points" don't mean anything. You spend time online so the only one that wouldn't apply would be spending time with DH which amounts to a few hours. That's eaten up many times over in the time you claim to work.
I think we've been distracted by the trees enough, I've put my own chores on hold enough this week, I don't have much interest in pursuing it. I think it's safe to say we should just go our separate ways.
(Oh and I love how you got in one more referrence of yourself in sensually attractive clothing. If it's not your bikinis, it's what you wore to work, or it's your nightgown, now it's a wet white shirt... yet all in the guise of piety. It's amazing.)
-
Wallflower, I'm with you on letting this dead horse rest. It's useless. We still don't have any real answers to real specific questions asked of her. It's just round & round the mulberry bush. Also the awful posts by the boys are just too much.
But I'd like one last thing before we close this chapter. You told the story of Laura from FE. Are you saying that she didn't have illnesses nor die? That it was all a fake? I'd love to hear the rest of that story, please. Also, who's Frank Abagnale? I'll try & look him up.
-
I don't think there is much else to say. If you're for real, it wouldn't hurt to apologize for exaggerating. If you're not for real, then you don't really care anyway and I refuse to be manipulated into feeling bad.
Wallflower, may I suggest you take the admonishment of several people in this thread and leave PW alone? You're only embarassing yourself.
-
It is perfectly reasonable that a young mother can do the things that she has described.
Sede it is not reasonable or even remotely realistic.
-
I see high-functioning people do amazing things every day. My Mother-in-Law is 70, she has a highly responsible job, entertains, her beautiful hose is spotless, she takes care of an incredible variety of tasks, is involved with all her grandchildren, dresses awesomely at all times, reads at least 3 books a week--I could go on and on.
She's really smart and really fast at what she does. I find it impossible to understand how she manages parties, and everything. It's like she's a ninja. It's how some people are. Eyes like a hawk and radar hearing. She also works out at the gym regularly.
-
hose=house
MIL is running an empire.
-
How important is it to be dressed in modest clothing at home by yourself?
Very. You must accustom yourself to behaving in a manner that edifies you and strengthens your devotion to Our Lady and Our Lord. This is important in the privacy of your own home just as much as when you are out and about in public.
Dress modestly, live modestly.
Pray without cessation.
-
I see high-functioning people do amazing things every day.
Let’s face it, there’s nothing truly incredible about PW’s story or timetable. We all personally know people who lead very busy lives. Just reflecting on that should suffice to reel the accusations back in – assuming there’s no emotional or ideological motive underlying them. For instance I know a woman who works a full-time job, a part-time job, takes classes several evenings a week, and has a three year old. Her situation and schedule are comparable to PW’s, minus the DIY attitude to housework, so I know for a fact that it’s possible. Then, I had a roommate who worked at the farmer’s market from 8am to 4pm, washed dishes downtown from 8pm to 12 midnight, was involved in political activism, played the guitar, piano, and violin, and still had energy to go to pubs and shows on his days off. Yesterday I read about a Jєωιѕн man in Vienna, between the wars, who IIRC ran a law firm, a factory, his household, and was a respected authority on Merovingian economics; this story was related in the autobiography of Eric Voegelin, who on top of his duties as a professor, published about 20,000 pages (or 35 large volumes) of high quality reflections on history, politics, and philosophy, and appears to have known 10 or 15 languages. Compared to some people, PW is plain lazy.
I also know that contradictions and seeming contradictions could be found in anybody’s post history, and this is not reason enough to accuse them of deception or fabrication and demand an apology. One can’t expect people taking part in casual conversation to talk about themselves, their lives, and their interests with laser-like precision. That’s not how normal people converse in that context, so one can’t reasonably subject their words to close analysis.
-
back to the original intent of topic, how modest at home? inside w/shades drawn?
For Penitent woman, can she wear shorts, tee shirts? flip flops? tennis shoes? Assuming just her and no neighborss out, visitors expected......
Full dresses w/heels and pearls?
Can someone, esp female, provide some detailed suggestiosn to help answer her original post.....
-
I see high-functioning people do amazing things every day.
Let’s face it, there’s nothing truly incredible about PW’s story or timetable. We all personally know people who lead very busy lives. Just reflecting on that should suffice to reel the accusations back in – assuming there’s no emotional or ideological motive underlying them. For instance I know a woman who works a full-time job, a part-time job, takes classes several evenings a week, and has a three year old. Her situation and schedule are comparable to PW’s, minus the DIY attitude to housework, so I know for a fact that it’s possible. Then, I had a roommate who worked at the farmer’s market from 8am to 4pm, washed dishes downtown from 8pm to 12 midnight, was involved in political activism, played the guitar, piano, and violin, and still had energy to go to pubs and shows on his days off. Yesterday I read about a Jєωιѕн man in Vienna, between the wars, who IIRC ran a law firm, a factory, his household, and was a respected authority on Merovingian economics; this story was related in the autobiography of Eric Voegelin, who on top of his duties as a professor, published about 20,000 pages (or 35 large volumes) of high quality reflections on history, politics, and philosophy, and appears to have known 10 or 15 languages. Compared to some people, PW is plain lazy.
I also know that contradictions and seeming contradictions could be found in anybody’s post history, and this is not reason enough to accuse them of deception or fabrication and demand an apology. One can’t expect people taking part in casual conversation to talk about themselves, their lives, and their interests with laser-like precision. That’s not how normal people converse in that context, so one can’t reasonably subject their words to close analysis.
Graham I've know Muslim women that were married as young teens, extremely skilled in domestic activities, conservative Mennonite women who grew up and live in a subculture with limited feminism, Catholic and Evangelical women, none could possibly pull this off, especially working 2 -3 jobs and having a nursing baby. It's not just coincidence that most craft groups I've been to are full of women that are grandmothers/great grandmothers. When my son became a teenager, I started to attend occasionally, but I don't crank out the quilts, blankets, squares, etc like they can. They will even say my kids are grown and I'm retired. Even some volunteer based organizations won't allow a woman that works more than 20 hours a week in a leadership position.
Women who were raised on farms really struggled with their gardens due to the heat, but PW working 2-3 jobs and having a nursing infant successfully gardened without a hitch. She has a grain mill and bakes bread the morning she takes her daughter to the dr too. I have a grain mill too but I don't bake on days I going to the dr. Where is her child while she grinds the wheat? The sound would make a baby scream. She pointed out she does it fresh each time - she doesn't freeze it like many mothers do.
A single mother of a nursing infant has nothing to do on Sundays so she visits the elderly. When you are a single employed mom of an infant, there is always something you are behind on.. always. Babies get stressed and tired too being out so much too. A day off at home with the baby would be a relief. I've gone to help in an urgent situation before but it wasn't a matter of I have nothing to do. Things got put off and I got even more behind but I felt like what I went to help with was more urgent.
I know some high energetic women too and I envy what they accomplish, but they aren't doing the impossible.
-
Let’s face it, there’s nothing truly incredible about PW’s story or timetable. We all personally know people who lead very busy lives. Just reflecting on that should suffice to reel the accusations back in – assuming there’s no emotional or ideological motive underlying them. For instance I know a woman who works a full-time job, a part-time job, takes classes several evenings a week, and has a three year old. Her situation and schedule are comparable to PW’s, minus the DIY attitude to housework, so I know for a fact that it’s possible.
It's not a matter of being "busy", it's about making claims that are impossible. Ask that woman whose situation was comparable if she also ground her own wheat, baked her own bread, made her meals from scratch, did her laundry by hand, visited the elderly, gardened, nursed an infant, babysat, went on 4 hours sleep every single night etc... No way she did. She cut corners wherever she could to keep up. That's the quandrary of every working mother on the planet, even those with the help of a husband, that the home life suffers.
You say it's comparable "minus the DIY attitude to housework" LOL As if that little minus was the flick of a wrist.
Did your roommate do all that while nursing an infant and babysitting other kids? Or was his time entirely his own. Rhetorical, I know it was the latter.
None of you but Elizabeth whose situation I don't know, have any clue what you're talking about.
And Graham, if a person is telling the truth, close analysis holds up. "If you tell the truth, then you don't have to have a good memory."
-
Tiffany, we used the same word impossible. We must have planned that. :wink:
-
Wallflower, I'm with you on letting this dead horse rest. It's useless. We still don't have any real answers to real specific questions asked of her. It's just round & round the mulberry bush. Also the awful posts by the boys are just too much.
But I'd like one last thing before we close this chapter. You told the story of Laura from FE. Are you saying that she didn't have illnesses nor die? That it was all a fake? I'd love to hear the rest of that story, please. Also, who's Frank Abagnale? I'll try & look him up.
Frank Abagnale Jr is an interesting person, still alive. He is most known for his bank fraud but in this case I was thinking more of how he faked careers and it took people many months to realize it, if they ever did. He faked being a pilot, a teacher, a doctor and I can't remember what else. But to fake being a doctor and work among other doctors or a pilot among other pilots takes truly superior intelligence, a rare person would be able to do it successfully.
Laura would take a bit more time but it's also a curious story, even aside form this. I will try to write out a quick summary later tonight. I don't think PW IS Laura, just to clarify that. I just started to see more and more similarities in style and that's why my red flags started going up. The sudden changes in tone and personality in this thread particularly pretty much tipped over the "benefit of the doubt" I was trying to work through. Laura was quite successful though. She didn't push it until the whole conversion and death scene. Even as I write it I have no clue what her motivations could have been. It's a bit mind-boggling.
-
Notice again how PW throws in devaluing of other women not holding up to some standard. They just aren't attentive, organized, feminine enough. :popcorn:
-
Tiffany, we used the same word impossible. We must have planned that. :wink:
We also don't know what real domestic talent looks like!
-
How important is it to be dressed in modest clothing at home by yourself?
Very. You must accustom yourself to behaving in a manner that edifies you and strengthens your devotion to Our Lady and Our Lord. This is important in the privacy of your own home just as much as when you are out and about in public.
Dress modestly, live modestly.
Pray without cessation.
:whistleblower: The Captain said it all.
-
. My Mother-in-Law is 70,.
Wait a minute, that's IMPOSSIBLE. She lies about her age, and gets away with it.
-
Wallflower, I'm going to answer you once, thoroughly, and leave it at that. This thread is getting far too petty, and St. Paul says to avoid quarrels.
It's not a matter of being "busy", it's about making claims that are impossible.
That’s exactly what hasn’t been shown. All I’ve seen so far are lists of things she does, with the tacit assumption that she’s doing all of them all the time. But remove that assumption and you just have a list of petty tasks, some of which she might do only a few times a year, such as canning, or somewhat more often but still infrequently, like baking bread.
Ask that woman whose situation was comparable if she also ground her own wheat, baked her own bread
I know the woman fairly well, so I can respond without asking her. Bear in mind that there's no need for me to establish - in order to prove this to my own satisfaction, at least - that their schedules are nearly identical, simply that they are comparable. PW may in fact be busier than my acquaintance, but if the schedules are comparable, then PW's story is more than possible.
My acquaintance likes to go shopping and likely spends more time on that and her fashion hobby than PW spends on bread.
made her meals from scratch
I often saw her with a homemade lunch and she has talked about her daughter complaining that she always made chicken for dinner. Don’t act like making meals from scratch is so time consuming. I can make eggs and bacon in under 10 minutes. The question you’re not asking is what is PW cooking for herself? I doubt it’s Waldorf salad with basted quail. And no, it's usually not bread either, we've established that already.
did her laundry by hand
We don’t know the frequency, quantity, or PW’s actual method. I will concede that PW probably spends more time on laundry than my acquaintance does.
visited the elderly
Instead she makes time for dates and social events.
gardened
She watches TV a bit every week, I know that. That 1 or 2 hours per week is enough time to maintain a garden.
nursed an infant
This “timeslot” is filled with other obligations to her child and it remains comparable.
babysat
I mentioned that in addition to her full-time job, she held a part-time job and took courses. The part-time job and evening courses are comparable to PW's waitressing and babysitting.
went on 4 hours sleep every single night etc...
Where did PW say she goes on 4 hours' sleep every single night?
You say it's comparable "minus the DIY attitude to housework" LOL As if that little minus was the flick of a wrist.
You’ve shown a willingness to extrapolate every casual remark PW makes about something she likes doing (breadmaking, soapmaking, etc.) into some kind of formal expression of deep and abiding commitment. It's as if in your mind, her saying 'I like canning!!' becomes 'every second day I spend 2 hours canning, while the light is good; and in the heart of winter I eat nothing but food I've grown and canned myself.' Anyway, that's just a joke; the point being you've exaggerated what she says, then acted like her correcting you is an admission of deception for which she must apologize.
Did your roommate do all that while nursing an infant and babysitting other kids? Or was his time entirely his own. Rhetorical, I know it was the latter.
The point is he was very busy.
None of you but Elizabeth whose situation I don't know, have any clue what you're talking about.
I’m talking about very busy people, i.e., people who, like PW, are very busy, or are maybe even busier. Is that sinking in? There’s nothing uniquely difficult about caring for children, such that we have to separate it from all other forms of activity and class it in a league of its own. Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
And Graham, if a person is telling the truth, close analysis holds up. "If you tell the truth, then you don't have to have a good memory."
Close analysis is a misnomer for what you’re doing since it suggests an impartiality and sense of fairness you lack in this case. You are being hypercritical.
-
Wallflower, as complete as you thought of everything on PW's schedule, you left out the extraordinary amount of time she spends on the computer. Look at her stats for just this forum!! Reading, composing & then posting takes a LOT of time. Didn't she even write that she spends too much time on the computer?
I still don't know what to make of it all. I just know that somethin' just ain't right! But instead of calling on PW to answer (which, as you notice, she always manages to wiggle out of), the very people that truly tried to reach out to her & help her are the ones beaten over the head. I'm convinced that the women who tried to help her did so out of the goodness of their hearts & not to get her into the 'sisterhood'. And the men? Why so vehement against the women they THINK are feminists, yet don't really know?
What a statement she could have made to her father by not going to the NO mass! And maybe some day she'll explain how she knows the CMRI is cliquish if she never really went to see for herself.
-
Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
I wouldn't discredit that one too much. There are few jobs in this world where one is expected to perform a good variety of tasks and yet not allowed to focus on any one of them for more than 10 minutes* at a time. :baby:
*Note: time between task switching varies inversely with number of children. :smirk:
-
Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
I wouldn't discredit that one too much. There are few jobs in this world where one is expected to perform a good variety of tasks and yet not allowed to focus on any one of them for more than 10 minutes* at a time. :baby:
*Note: time between task switching varies inversely with number of children. :smirk:
And double the children quadruples the work load. :)
-
Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
I wouldn't discredit that one too much. There are few jobs in this world where one is expected to perform a good variety of tasks and yet not allowed to focus on any one of them for more than 10 minutes* at a time. :baby:
*Note: time between task switching varies inversely with number of children. :smirk:
And double the children quadruples the work load. :)
LOL Well, it sounds good, but I'm not so sure about that one. "Big" kids starting at about age 5 can be quite helpful. I have to plan and teach their schoolwork, but they now put away dishes, clean up the living and dining rooms, vacuum, etc. so it can be a bit of a trade-off.
-
I bet being a Catholic mother can be tough. And rewarding, I'd imagine. Keep up the good work and thank God for your husbands! :baby::applause:
-
PUBLIC CORRECTION TIME:
CatherineofSiena wrote me saying that she wasn't advocating that women go to college.
Her statement was confusing in context, in my opinion. But I gather that what she really meant, having read it over, is that she has been accused of being a feminist, because she has said that college is necessary for the calling of certain MEN, such as doctors and lawyers.
Since some people on the site believe that no one should ever go to college, they have decided this makes her a feminist. But her point is that the world needs Catholic doctors and lawyers -- male -- and there is no way to be one without going to a secular college.
I hope this is correct Catherine.
-
Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
I wouldn't discredit that one too much. There are few jobs in this world where one is expected to perform a good variety of tasks and yet not allowed to focus on any one of them for more than 10 minutes* at a time. :baby:
*Note: time between task switching varies inversely with number of children. :smirk:
And double the children quadruples the work load. :)
LOL Well, it sounds good, but I'm not so sure about that one. "Big" kids starting at about age 5 can be quite helpful. I have to plan and teach their schoolwork, but they now put away dishes, clean up the living and dining rooms, vacuum, etc. so it can be a bit of a trade-off.
I will defer to the expert, lol
-
Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
I wouldn't discredit that one too much. There are few jobs in this world where one is expected to perform a good variety of tasks and yet not allowed to focus on any one of them for more than 10 minutes* at a time. :baby:
*Note: time between task switching varies inversely with number of children. :smirk:
And double the children quadruples the work load. :)
I do not deserve nor do I desire a pedastal but being a mother, especially a homeschooling mom is a lot more than a simple list of menial housekeeping tasks.
When I was hospitalized for a month it took two people plus help from neighbors to.do what I do every day and that was without a nursing newborn/infant nor doing any of the extras like crafts with the.kids or things I enjoy doing for recreation.
-
Since some people on the site believe that no one should ever go to college, they have decided this makes her a feminist. But her point is that the world needs Catholic doctors and lawyers -- male -- and there is no way to be one without going to a secular college.
In case I'm one of the people you're refering to here who believe no one should ever go to college (others I believe have accused me of thinking this as well), let me clarify my position on college:
I never said that men should NEVER go to college. Obviously there are certain circuмstances that require it, such as being a doctor or lawyer. In general, however, I don't recommend that someone go to college, they really run the risk of losing their souls. I wouldn't object to earning a degree online, except it usually takes more time that way, and as I've said, degrees are over-rated and heavily pushed by the modern world. But at least online college is a much safer way of obtaining degrees.
-
Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
I wouldn't discredit that one too much. There are few jobs in this world where one is expected to perform a good variety of tasks and yet not allowed to focus on any one of them for more than 10 minutes* at a time. :baby:
*Note: time between task switching varies inversely with number of children. :smirk:
Yes, but I think men are the unsung heroes in some big families. It depends on the husband and the wife in question.
While the stay-at-home mom is kept famously busy, she also gets PLENTY of credit for it in Catholic circles. No one thinks about how hard the man's role is.
Maybe it's a bit of feminism crept in to our thinking? How many times have you heard the attitude "Well, it's his fault" and such? That's definitely the feeling I get from just about everything I read or experience. Every movie in existence certainly conveys this attitude. The modern world in general prohibits any compassion for the man, because they blame him for being open to God's will as regards family size.
The procreation and education of children is the primary end of marriage. So it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault for getting pregnant.
Both husband and wife "signed up" for this way of life on their wedding day.
Do you think the man's role is easy? Once his wife gets pregnant, she needs more sleep, has less energy, has days where she feels tired/off, and who do you think has to fill the void? When the baby comes along, instead of being tired due to pregnancy she's tired due to nursing the baby all night. So she STILL needs 2-3 hours more sleep every night.
I think the myth that, "The man gets to come home at 5:00, and it's his time to REST, his work is over -- whereas the wife never gets a day off, because the kids are always there..." is about as valid as the myth that stay-at-home mothers get to sit around watching soap operas and eating bon-bons all day.
NOTE: I believe BOTH of them are myths :)
In a busy household, I believe father and mother are equally busy and they should both be "sung" in the various songs of praise circulating on Facebook and e-mail lists.
-
Tiffany, can I ask what brand/model of wheat grinder you have that is loud enough to make a baby scream? Mine is not much louder than the vacuum cleaner and is very fast. Your comment about not being able to bake bread the morning of a doctor's appointment? It was my schedule that day that allowed me EXTRA time. Regardless, I didn't realize the world stopped turning when a day involves one extra errand. It was a well child check... not open heart surgery. Do you clear the entire calendar when your teenage son has sports practice or a music lesson? When you have to go to the post office or the bank?
It is funny how you claim you yourself (with one teenager) don't have enough time to be crafty etc. until he goes to bed (a teenager!) yet you have time to go back through my postings and analyze how I baked bread the morning of my daughter's checkup? That is sure an interesting use of ones free time. I bake...you go through posts from someone you have on ignore with a fine tooth comb and still haven't been able to show these supposed contradicting statements I've made. You have only vague accusations about how I (and loads of other women with many more children) can't possibly operate more efficiently than you.
Handwashing laundry = LESS time than leaving home to do it, so why this keeps being brought up is beyond me. I realized how true this was when it was -20 and blowing snow, and it has continued to be the reality for me. There are women who do machine laundry but have multiple loads a day because they do it for multiple people. Even when I had a newborn and went through onsies like crazy, it was still very doable, and yes, from time to time I have taken my laundry out and I always regret it...it seems like a waste of money and it is frustrating to do with a baby. Not to mention the "crowd" in such a place isn't always pleasant. People play music on their phones, the TV is always on something I shouldn't be watching. The smell of cigarette smoke comes in through the door. Just yuck. I have also taken things to my mom's (such as bedding which is hard to do at home) ...but I do the vast majority of laundry on my own...with homemade detergent, no less. It is the most efficient and cost effective method for ME.
And people who work no longer garden?! The majority of people with plots around mine are other employed people! The busiest time for harvesting has been 5:30-7 p.m. Small plot =/= farm. Today I discovered the family I am now working for has a huge container garden on their lower deck! Four kids, two full-time employed parents, mom is involved with the schools, dad coaches, activities every night, they belong to a family health club...yet somehow, they have more tomatoes than I do. Miraculous. The fact that you, can't imagine how it is possible to do some domestic things over the course of each week, speaks only to your own situation and abilities, not mine. flylady.com has some great ideas. If my home organization consulting business ever works out, I will be modeling my concept after hers.
Wallflower, I'm guessing you have more/older children than I do. As I am already learning, more kids=more mess. Just loading them to drive to school took far longer than I anticipated. I was a bit stressed because I'm big on punctuality, but 99% of the problem is these children don't seem terribly self sufficient...they are way over scheduled, but I still think they could improve when it comes to putting shoes on etc. Still very early to tell. In my case, I have one child who I don't have to convince to get in the car. I also found out today that cooking is difficult with a kitchen full. Not a very successful day, but I am going to start making somethings at home where I have less interruptions and bringing them to reheat, such as tonight--mashed potatoes.
There are hundreds of blogs of moms with way bigger families than me, who homeschool--which looks much more intense then my tedious office job, and they also garden, can, sew, bake, and cook for a crowd every.single.day. And then they blog about it. Amazing... Example: http://applegarthgardens.blogspot.com/ I admire...I don't decide that because I can't do all that it must be impossible for someone who is more efficient than me.
I often feel like I should be doing even more. Is that I enjoy these things that I don't find them daunting and impossible? I know other single moms who work as much as I did/do, go to school full time, go on dates, party/go to the bar on the weekends, play on volleyball leagues, go to the gym, go on weekend road trips and girl's weekends, sit at coffee shops, do things with their children's schools/activities. I do NONE of those things. The things I do take arguably less time, and most (like cooking) double as a hobby and a necessity. Please explain to me this crazy concept that says single moms of one child are anymore strapped for time than mothers of several children who homeschool and cook from scratch for a crowd...everyday.
Housework...let me repeat. I am a single woman with a baby. She makes a mess in/around the highchair...I clean it. She dumps out a basket of toys...we make it a silly game to put them back in. She empties out the cupboard...I consider purchasing those plastic locks. ;) I cook something, I wash the dishes. I spill something, I wipe it up. This is somehow far fetched? On what planet?? I can keep my bathroom very clean without very much work either. I'm the only person that uses it, and I'm very neat. Always have been.
I'm starting to understand why my boss at the office based my hours of the previous employee in that position. I found it very easy to get everything done AND I took pumping breaks. Lack of organization and failure to deal with clutter and finish tasks as they come in (instead of letting them pile up over the course of the hour, day, week...what have you) can save hours everyday. It may not be easy for every personality, but it isn't rocket science how it's done for someone who naturally like me. I have always enjoyed this skill area...which is why it would be a great business for me. As I told my Dad yesterday, just having your cupboards rearranged so that certain dishes, small appliances, utensils etc. are stored in a proper and efficient arrangement will save a ton of time preparing meals so you aren't digging through multiple drawers and cabinets.
It takes 5 minutes to run a vacuum through the living room or a bedroom. 2 minutes to sweep. I only need to steam mop every few weeks and that takes what? 10 minutes for my tiny kitchen?
I can't mentally handle clutter, therefore I have none. Mail gets sorted over the trash can. Everything accept daycare and rent were/are on autopay.
Really the only housekeeping duty I have to carve out a notable block of time for is dusting, because I collect antique dishes. That is the only thing I might "let go" for a few days longer than ideal. I also take time to clean out light fixtures and vacuum cobwebs every month or so. Not difficult.
Oh and somehow nursing is a problem? Did I miss the memo that stated you can't read, pray the rosary, post online etc while nursing? Formula feeding looks far more time consuming to me.
The exaggerated comments about my visiting the elderly? Seriously? An hour or so after mass is hardly saintly. It is quite sad that despite how we all make time for the internet, some find visiting a nursing home to be monumental.
All of this energy spent on this is a huge waste itself. There are indeed more pressing issues I could be talking about, yet here I am trying to defend myself against accusations and assertions that aren't even based on my actual words. I've never claimed to be a gourmet chef who cooks everyday, or a daily baker/crafter/soap maker. I've talked about things I like to do and make time for over a course of time.
As far as sleep? I have indeed been functioning on an unhealthy level of sleep for months now. Part due to work schedule, part to a battle with insomnia. I know this isn't sustainable long term without consequences to my health, but I remind myself that a mother of 3 who brings a newborn home would have to operate on the same level. Usually I get sleepy mid morning and again mid afternoon, but by the time I picked up my daughter from childcare, I'd feel better and end up right back to insomnia. This is one of the many reasons I prayed for a new career. I really hope I can get a healthier amount of sleep now that I'm down to one job again.
You know, I also love making hair bows and potpourri, though it has been awhile. I give myself a weekly pedicure. I sometimes get my mother's Sunday paper and clip coupons. I like to go to flea markets and farmers markets when I can. When I still regularly attended the NO, I'd go to Eucharistic adoration sometimes---with the baby!
At the end of the day, just the time spent defending myself is a waste. I would really truly prefer not to get sucked back into explaining my activities again and again...so telling me I'm a liar or doing the impossible, and making fun of me will be solely for your own entertainment. It is depressing.
And yes, I post a lot. I have never denied that and have in fact addressed/admitted it before. I had time at my office job (which was a lot of computer work) to read and post. Even at the bar, I sometimes posted from my phone...there isn't a lot going on Monday at midnight. I frequently post and nurse.
What a statement she could have made to her father by not going to the NO mass! And maybe some day she'll explain how she knows the CMRI is cliquish if she never really went to see for herself.
My father stopped going for Sunday obligation years ago. I don't see him much, especially sans mistress. The fact that he asked me to go really put me on the spot. But of course it was dumb anyway because he was just trying to bribe me into having my daughter participate heavily in his celebration of adultery (wedding). So you win.
Now for the hard part
As far as CMRI...cliquey was uncharitable. The point is, I have an anxiety problem. I have trust issues. You can say I'm being a victim, but I have been open about this problem of mine from my start here. Knowing that posters here are in close contact with all the priests made me realize how small it was. Now the fact that someone in this group actually called Fr. Hughes to check on me hasn't really helped sell it for me either, but I should probably figure out how to deal with that.
So yes, I lied about the priest I saw. Everything I relayed from my visit was actually from the NO priest who I hadn't seen in a long while, and who had brought me back to the church (albeit the NO church) when I was pregnant. I met him at bff's wedding early in my pregnancy. He baptized my daughter. I learned more from him about the Catholic faith over a period of months then I had in all the years of being a cradle Catholic before that. This is where I first learned a lot about modesty, Catholic marriage, roles of men and women, and even the existence of the TLM.
It is wrong to be dishonest (and there are consequences indeed) so I am not going to make an excuse. I will say, it isn't an easy thing to admit that I had missed counsel from this priest a lot, and I do trust him... even though pretty much everyone here is going to say that's wrong of me. Running the sede thing by him was a mistake (I figured it would be) but I feel like he is giving me the best advice he can in regards to my lifestyle etc. He is very orthodox, and I consider him a friend. Telling me that I would be more likely to find the kind of husband I want by going to TLM says a lot about him, I think. On the anon board, the post about valid priests was mine...I wanted to know if he was validly ordained. Of course, I got a mix of confusing answers. It is a lot to sort through and make sense of.
Nonetheless, I am sorry. It is a serious sin to be untruthful. I accept that everything else I say will rightfully come under a microscope, and my trustworthiness is damaged. I can't blame anyone for that. If anyone here feels particularly hurt my dishonesty about this, you can feel free to tell me that so I can apologize on a more personal level. I feel especially bad for those of you who have gone to bat to defend me. You have every right to be angry and upset with me.
I have only poor excuses for not going in the first place, and of course no excuse for lying about it. This has been weighing on me for awhile and I have avoided talking about a relationship with a traditional priest because of it. Like other bad decisions I've made in my life, the consequences are immense. I've avoided addressing this and contemplated disappearing completely...but whether I am banned or not, I knew I needed to give an explanation and an apology. I am not happy with myself at all, but getting into that will only be self victimization. As much as I want to throw in the towel sometimes, I know I can't do that.
...and yes Wallflower. I have once again managed to embarrass myself with a clothing comment. I am hurt that you think I do these things on purpose. What on earth would be my motivation for posting things that could make me look like I am unreformed?
When you grow up in a bubble (and I mean that in the nicest way possible...I plan to raise my daughter in as much of a bubble as I can) the way you interact with people is probably not something you have to spend much time thinking about. There are things women can say, and things they should not. I wish it was so cut and dry for me. I slip up a lot because of the way I was raised and the things I've been exposed to. This problem of mine will likely color any friendship or relationship I might have because I just plain old don't think about how things "sound" all the times. My intent is not to humiliate myself. It is unfortunate that Wallflower thinks I have some evil motive behind it. I am trying to watch myself better. I'm sorry that is so hard to understand.
It is the same thing with clothing. When long time traditional women have a "well duh!" attitude about it, and accuse me of have scruples, I am only trying to get it right. I am trying to reprogram my thinking and I don't always have the answers. What reads to some of you as a stupid post about nightgowns was a serious and honest question for me. Being made fun of for it is really hurtful.
There are a lot of things that people who have grown up with these values seem to take for granted. Since I've pretty much hit rock bottom when it comes to personal humiliation, I'll say that for awhile now I've wanted to ask about the specifics of courtship, but have been too embarrassed and worried about the reaction I would get. I have absolutely no idea what is and is not appropriate interaction for a traditional man and woman who are courting. It is really hard to find specifics. Some of you are probably laughing and shaking your head at my ignorance, but it is a real question I have. Is it okay to hold hands? To hug? To cuddle? No kissing until the vows are said? I have nothing to go on. Nothing. You think it is stupid question, yet I am clueless. I have had to deal with a completely distorted view on this matter. It is bad enough to think about all the risks and sacrifices involved in a man courting me in the first place...it is even worse to imagine I might humiliate the heck out of myself because I still don't know what exactly courting is. I think I could be a really good wife, but I have a self-inflicted uphill battle to prove myself.
While there are teachings that I've come to understand very well (like feminism and family "unplanning") I am still very uneducated in other areas. It is a humbling, humiliating, shameful reality. So when it is said that I speak eloquently about some things and sound like an idiot about others, it is simply a matter of being able to find the information. It is a lot easier to understand the role of women because much as been written about it. A lot more than specific-situation modesty and traditional courting rules. It is easy to feel something is completely right when you can refer back to scripture and trustworthy writings such as those about God's design for women. What is not so easy is how an unwed mother should live, dress, talk etc. I want a traditional marriage and family for myself and for my daughter. Getting to the point where that is possible (for me) involves a lot of question and a lot of embarrassment.
While it won't make much sense to a lot of others, this whole journey has been rather painful. The temptation to give up and do the typical single mom thing is always there. The pressure from disapproving friends and family is very, very real. I do not have personal support for what I am trying to do. It is nothing short of the Holy Spirit's refusal to leave me alone that keeps me crawling on. I am incredibly blessed to be able to see what won't leave my heart.
What might be easy for others isn't always so easy for me. I don't want sympathy...I am not trying to play victim... but I could sure use more prayers from anyone who is still willing to give them.
Finally, I keep saying this, but it really is not a good idea for me to be posting here for awhile, so I need to try and stick to that. I need to figure out my new career, stare at my daughter more, and put more time to prayer and cultivating a better interior life.
I'll be around, but I shouldn't keep getting caught up in threads like this with the state of my life at the moment.
Apologies again.
In Christ,
PW
-
I could sure use more prayers from anyone who is still willing to give them.
I will pray for you PW.
I am confident that many nice people here will also pray for you.
Your heart is in the right place.
I hope that you will not be discouraged, and that you will continued to post here.
You will learn from posting here.
We will gain from you posting here.
God Bless you, Penitent Woman.
God Bless your baby.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
PW, there are some very good Traditional sermons online on the subject of courtship. Since they come from traditional priests you can rest assured they will be of sound advice and counsel.
Here are two to get you started. And I will pray for you, too.
SERMON ON COURTSHIP (http://209-20-85-20.slicehost.net/content/2011-06-19-guidelines-courting)
DATING -- 6th and 9th Commandements (http://www.audiosancto.org/search.php)
Here is an article on courtship, written by a priest in 1937. I have read most, but not all of it, but it should be fine because of the year in which it was written.
PERTAINING TO COURTSHIP (http://www.olvrc.com/culture/Courtship.pdf)
-
Thanks, PW, you've answered my questions & that's all I really wanted. (and you answered some unintentionally!) Now I can get on with my life & allow you to get on with yours. I do feel vindicated now. Thanks again.
-
I can tell you one thing, PW, from what I have learned about Catholic courtship, what is deemed to be proper behavior and typical protocol seems to be as varied among trads as the fish are in the sea. I wish it was as straightforward as an instructional booklet, but alas i have not found it to be. I don't think I'd be wrong in saying that even some trads who have been trads for a long time have a hard time getting it straight. I have listened to those links that Jane suggested in the past (if they're the ones I think they are, I didn't click on them), and I gleaned a lot of goodness from them. If anyone else has any good readings or sermons on this I would greatly appreciate it as well. Thanks for the article, Jane.
BTW, thankyou for apologizing. That takes a lot of courage and humility, and I admire you for that. Good job!
-
Yes, but I think men are the unsung heroes in some big families. It depends on the husband and the wife in question.
While the stay-at-home mom is kept famously busy, she also gets PLENTY of credit for it in Catholic circles. No one thinks about how hard the man's role is.
Maybe it's a bit of feminism crept in to our thinking? How many times have you heard the attitude "Well, it's his fault" and such? That's definitely the feeling I get from just about everything I read or experience. Every movie in existence certainly conveys this attitude. The modern world in general prohibits any compassion for the man, because they blame him for being open to God's will as regards family size.
The procreation and education of children is the primary end of marriage. So it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault for getting pregnant.
Both husband and wife "signed up" for this way of life on their wedding day.
Do you think the man's role is easy? Once his wife gets pregnant, she needs more sleep, has less energy, has days where she feels tired/off, and who do you think has to fill the void? When the baby comes along, instead of being tired due to pregnancy she's tired due to nursing the baby all night. So she STILL needs 2-3 hours more sleep every night.
I think the myth that, "The man gets to come home at 5:00, and it's his time to REST, his work is over -- whereas the wife never gets a day off, because the kids are always there..." is about as valid as the myth that stay-at-home mothers get to sit around watching soap operas and eating bon-bons all day.
NOTE: I believe BOTH of them are myths :)
In a busy household, I believe father and mother are equally busy and they should both be "sung" in the various songs of praise circulating on Facebook and e-mail lists.
Yet again Matthew I feel I must praise this post that you wrote. While mothers are the front lines so to speak the man has a hard job as well. With the way our economy is set up the man has very little time with his children to begin with, having to work 2 jobs just to get enough money to live, and the father especially has a task to give the sons a manly toughness so to speak and spend time with the children just like the mother.
-
Do you think the man's role is easy? Once his wife gets pregnant, she needs more sleep, has less energy, has days where she feels tired/off, and who do you think has to fill the void? When the baby comes along, instead of being tired due to pregnancy she's tired due to nursing the baby all night. So she STILL needs 2-3 hours more sleep every night.
I think the myth that, "The man gets to come home at 5:00, and it's his time to REST, his work is over -- whereas the wife never gets a day off, because the kids are always there..." is about as valid as the myth that stay-at-home mothers get to sit around watching soap operas and eating bon-bons all day.
NOTE: I believe BOTH of them are myths :)
In a busy household, I believe father and mother are equally busy and they should both be "sung" in the various songs of praise circulating on Facebook and e-mail lists.
I would imagine things are easier when there's extended family or a supportive community.
-
Incidentally, that’s another way that women, especially conservative women, are put on pedestals: the whole “being a mother is the hardest job on earth” thing.
I wouldn't discredit that one too much. There are few jobs in this world where one is expected to perform a good variety of tasks and yet not allowed to focus on any one of them for more than 10 minutes* at a time. :baby:
*Note: time between task switching varies inversely with number of children. :smirk:
Yes, but I think men are the unsung heroes in some big families. It depends on the husband and the wife in question.
While the stay-at-home mom is kept famously busy, she also gets PLENTY of credit for it in Catholic circles. No one thinks about how hard the man's role is.
Maybe it's a bit of feminism crept in to our thinking? How many times have you heard the attitude "Well, it's his fault" and such? That's definitely the feeling I get from just about everything I read or experience. Every movie in existence certainly conveys this attitude. The modern world in general prohibits any compassion for the man, because they blame him for being open to God's will as regards family size.
The procreation and education of children is the primary end of marriage. So it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault for getting pregnant.
Both husband and wife "signed up" for this way of life on their wedding day.
Do you think the man's role is easy? Once his wife gets pregnant, she needs more sleep, has less energy, has days where she feels tired/off, and who do you think has to fill the void? When the baby comes along, instead of being tired due to pregnancy she's tired due to nursing the baby all night. So she STILL needs 2-3 hours more sleep every night.
I think the myth that, "The man gets to come home at 5:00, and it's his time to REST, his work is over -- whereas the wife never gets a day off, because the kids are always there..." is about as valid as the myth that stay-at-home mothers get to sit around watching soap operas and eating bon-bons all day.
NOTE: I believe BOTH of them are myths :)
In a busy household, I believe father and mother are equally busy and they should both be "sung" in the various songs of praise circulating on Facebook and e-mail lists.
Good point on calling out feminism. There also the attitude of if she is unhappy it is his fault. I've seen it supported on this board too in a sermon. If she is unhappy, angry, fill in the blank, it is his fault. When a man is abused by a woman, people will think it is his fault.
-
I could sure use more prayers from anyone who is still willing to give them.
I will pray for you PW.
I am confident that many nice people here will also pray for you.
Your heart is in the right place.
I hope that you will not be discouraged, and that you will continued to post here.
You will learn from posting here.
We will gain from you posting here.
God Bless you, Penitent Woman.
God Bless your baby.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
Me too, hope you stay around PW.....in "traddieland", you will learn some people under angry and needed to take it out on anyone and everyone, they live in a constant closed-fist-in-stomach world.......
stick around.....
-
One thing about this post re-affirms me in something....should I find my self a widower, even more encouraged now to remain unwed.....not worth the hassle..... :cheers: :geezer:
-
I could sure use more prayers from anyone who is still willing to give them.
I will pray for you PW.
I am confident that many nice people here will also pray for you.
Your heart is in the right place.
I hope that you will not be discouraged, and that you will continued to post here.
You will learn from posting here.
We will gain from you posting here.
God Bless you, Penitent Woman.
God Bless your baby.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
Me too, hope you stay around PW.....in "traddieland", you will learn some people under angry and needed to take it out on anyone and everyone, they live in a constant closed-fist-in-stomach world.......
stick around.....
You think that someone noticing someone else is lying is because they are "angry"? Interesting take. Of the posters in this thread, I am the least "angry" both here and in other threads.
-
many are angry, many vindictive and seem to go out of the way.........no one was named in my previous post you quoted......if I meant you, then would have said so......I was speaking in general
-
PW, nice post. A little bit of truth, thank you. At least one thing was straightened out.
As far as Tiffany's posting? Making her out to be a lesser woman than you because she is looking at your posts? Nice try but her time spent online is still less than yours. You tried to equal her time online to yours where you would rather be baking bread. Doesn't fly. Her time online should be compared straight across to your time online. This is an example of where you try to prop yourself up on some flimsy statement that looks ok on the surface but really doesn't work. And Tiffany has not been vague at all. She has been very specific in her knowledge of how these chores get done, whether she does them herself or knows other families who do.
Handwashing keeps being brought up because it would take hours to do. Think about it. Towels, kitchen rags, dishcloths, cleaning cloths, all your clothes and multiple changes (because you don't wear the same clothes to the office as you do to the bar), socks, underclothes, pj's, an infant's clothes, Sunday outfits, receiving blankets, sheets (every two weeks?), blankets (monthly?). Wash each piece well enough to be clean, wring it out -- which is actually tough to do by hand, hang it to dry (I don't know where you have the space). Then if you are handwashing, you will also need to be ironing all these clothes because hang drying doesn't do what a dryer does. Women of old dedicated whole days to this. Even if you did a little at a time, it still amounts to hours. But you are rarely home! You are gone to the office every weekday and gone to work or your coworkers every night. And judging by aaaallll the other things you claim to do, you are not spending hours at the laundry. Or if you are, you aren't doing the other things. Something has to give.
People who are employed absolutely have gardens. But are those people employed every day and every night? Unlikely. They probably have their nights free. Or as you mentioned with your new employer, they do container gardening. I would not have thought twice had you said you have a container of tomatoes at the house. However, you have a garden that gives enough produce to can. Do you know how much it takes to have enough to can? You have canned pickles, green beans and tomatoes. Unless you are only canning one or two jars each, which is a ridiculous amount of work for nothing, that [/i]has[/i] to be a good sized garden, requiring a good amount of time and attention, square foot gardening or not. But again, nice try to turn it around as if I'm just not woman enough. I've gardened my whole life, my family cans, I know what I'm talking about.
It doesn't matter how many children I have of what age. I am not comparing you to me, I am comparing you to reality. Those hundreds of blogs (that's a lot of time online there PW) of moms who homeschool and do all those things? THEY ARE SAHMs. That has been my point this whole time. Homeschooling is intense but they are HOME. They multi-task while at HOME. They are not out of the house working 60+ hours. And they have husbands and older kids to help.
Finding time to visit the elderly is not monumental. However in addition to aaallll the other things you claim to do on a weekly basis, yes it is just one. more. thing. Now I see you give yourself a weekly pedicure too. Lol. I think you are saying many things that are true, which is why you can go into detail about some things, but adding a whole bunch that isn't true, which is when you default into "you're just not good enough, homseschooling moms do it" etc... You aren't a homeschooling mom. Or maybe you are, and it's the rest of it that isn't true. God only knows at this point.
As far as the clothing. You came up here and came off as "desperate" to be blunt. Desperate for male attention. It was just an impression at first but in rereading your posts, it is crystal clear. The reason I say this is because the sɛҳuąƖ or semi-sɛҳuąƖ things you post about yourself and all the visuals of yourself in bikinis, cheerleading outfits, wet white shirts, nightgowns with little coverage, frequent talk of being hit on, emphasis on being attractive etc..., fit in to that. And that's where catherineofsienna came by and finally said what she said about finding a spiritual director to pass these things by, perhaps even in the confessional. It's also where I mentioned finding women who live the life to talk to. Otherwise you leave yourself open to the wrong kind of man. And if you do not have the foundation of traditional Catholic upbringing, you will not have the wherewithal to differentiate who is the wrong kind of man. Some are obvious, some are not. How would you know? It's also why I said way at the beginning to avoid men who would alienate you from other women. It's a red flag. Other women are the ones who could tell you what's appropriate behavior or not without you having to embarrass yourself in front of the men. But they are the ones you are consistently alienating. So are you really looking for advice or not? Are you really that embarrassed to be saying these things to the men or not? There may be a bit of shock if I started littering every 6 posts with talk of how the wind blew my skirt up the other day and I hope no one saw my lacy black panties. However, I don't. I don't need that kind of attention, I don't care if anyone knows if I'm attractive or not, I am happy and confident in my home life. kwim? If you are honest and don't have a feel for what's appropriate and truly want to know, you won't reject it when someone corrects you and turn it around as if you are being picked on. If you are playing a game to hook the men for fun, well that's what's insidious and ... it's working. And it would also be hugely ironic considering those games and female "wiles" are exactly what they complain about in the first place. It would be like a Fascinating Womanhood experiment on steroids.
-
Handwashing keeps being brought up because it would take hours to do. Think about it. Towels, kitchen rags, dishcloths, cleaning cloths, all your clothes and multiple changes (because you don't wear the same clothes to the office as you do to the bar), socks, underclothes, pj's, an infant's clothes, Sunday outfits, receiving blankets, sheets (every two weeks?), blankets (monthly?). Wash each piece well enough to be clean, wring it out -- which is actually tough to do by hand, hang it to dry (I don't know where you have the space). Then if you are handwashing, you will also need to be ironing all these clothes because hang drying doesn't do what a dryer does. Women of old dedicated whole days to this. Even if you did a little at a time, it still amounts to hours. But you are rarely home! You are gone to the office every weekday and gone to work or your coworkers every night. And judging by aaaallll the other things you claim to do, you are not spending hours at the laundry. Or if you are, you aren't doing the other things. Something has to give.
I forgot the cloth diapers which you've since somewhat backpedaled on. Cloth diapers are a chore all on their own. Women with washers even have difficulty keeping them clean. They trade less cost for more time spent washing. Yet you're washing yours in the bathtub at the flick of a wand? What about stripping them, boiling them in hot water, sunning them...?
-
How about everyone just let the thread fizzle out at this point?
-
How about everyone just let the thread fizzle out at this point?
:applause:
-
How about everyone just let the thread fizzle out at this point?
SS your hypocrisy stinks. I don't know how many times you and others smell fraud and clamor and demand and fight for bans. This thread, except again for your gang's behavior, has been much more civilized than your typical fake-hunts. You don't care this time because it's not you being passive-aggressively poked. It's not your life and dedication to your family being undermined. On the contrary you are being flattered. Elizabeth said if she's a fake she's much nicer than those with political agendas. I agree. But that's also what would make her more dangerous. I'm not in the habit of letting myself be jerked around, ask for advice, oh but you're picking on me, evil women. Honest people who truly want solid relationships don't start out lying to you and they don't twist your words and intentions. And if these are all little petty things, why lie or exaggerate in the first place? Because underneath, it is important. It reflects one's integrity which is really all we have when we get online.
-
Wallflower, I have experience hand-washing laundry, and it doesn't take nearly as much time as you seem to think it does - certainly not for one person and a baby. As for where to let it dry, you use a drying rack or put a line inside or out.
In fact if someone had to go out hang out at a laundromat it might take more time.
A lot of clothes don't get very dirty in regular use, they don't need a heavy washing to get sufficiently clean to wear.
-
Wallflower's claws come out.
:jester:
-
'It's also why I said way at the beginning to avoid men who would alienate you from other women. It's a red flag. Other women are the ones who could tell you what's appropriate behavior or not"
This right here is the essence of femitraditionalism. Women are to serve the group of women first - how they relate to their husbands must never cause alienation (ie, they must never cross the femitrad picket lines and refuse to ostracize someone the other hens want ostracized) from the dominant femitrad cliques.
-
I would say, even if I believed everything PW said was a fabrication, I would say wallflower and catherineofsienna have demonstrated the despicable games these trad women play to try to keep trad women (and indirectly the men) under their influence and afraid to cross them.
-
Wallflower's claws come out.
:jester:
That's what they're there for. God given.
But I suppose an intelligent and experienced woman who can see through BS and isn't afraid to call it is a disappointment to you.
-
'It's also why I said way at the beginning to avoid men who would alienate you from other women. It's a red flag. Other women are the ones who could tell you what's appropriate behavior or not"
This right here is the essence of femitraditionalism. Women are to serve the group of women first - how they relate to their husbands must never cause alienation (ie, they must never cross the femitrad picket lines and refuse to ostracize someone the other hens want ostracized) from the dominant femitrad cliques.
No, that's how women like PW save themselves embarrassment in front of men. If she referred to women about her nightgowns that have little coverage she wouldn't have to be embarrassed to find out it's not modest talk in mixed company. Problem solved.
-
No, that's how women like PW save themselves embarrassment in front of men. If she referred to women about her nightgowns that have little coverage she wouldn't have to be embarrassed to find out it's not modest talk in mixed company. Problem solved.
Seemed like a completely innocuous question to me.
No, the way these trad clique women operate is very apparent to me.
Often you will have some of the drunkest, craziest ones at the center of these cliques, and they use their influence to satisfy their petty jealousies. They are truly revolting, and their behavior is totally subversive of the Christian home.
I wouldn't want any wife of mine hanging out with these spoiled trad harpies.
And they would call that a "red flag" - I bet!
-
SS your hypocrisy stinks. I don't know how many times you and others smell fraud and clamor and demand and fight for bans. This thread, except again for your gang's behavior, has been much more civilized than your typical fake-hunts. You don't care this time because it's not you being passive-aggressively poked. It's not your life and dedication to your family being undermined.
What? I am being hypocritical for saying we should let this thread fizzle out? I think you just want this thread to continue so you can keep grinding your axe against PW. If you think you're pleasing God by wasting your time fighting over something stupid on a forum, think again. And when is the last time I demanded a ban? The last week this is all you want to post about. If you don't like me saying this thread needs to end, too bad. Quit whining.
-
No, that's how women like PW save themselves embarrassment in front of men. If she referred to women about her nightgowns that have little coverage she wouldn't have to be embarrassed to find out it's not modest talk in mixed company. Problem solved.
Seemed like a completely innocuous question to me.
No, the way these trad clique women operate is very apparent to me.
Often you will have some of the drunkest, craziest ones at the center of these cliques, and they use their influence to satisfy their petty jealousies. They are truly revolting, and their behavior is totally subversive of the Christian home.
I wouldn't want any wife of mine hanging out with these spoiled trad harpies.
And they would call that a "red flag" - I bet!
Nightgowns is one example. It works for many things. And that's a false analogy as you aren't talking to drunken crazy women here. You are talking to responsible, knowledgeable wives and mothers who have been traditional Catholic whether by birth or by conversion for far longer than PW. Not perfect but not idiots either. You may show very little respect for them, that's a problem with you, not them.
-
crazy women here.
No, I think you and catherineofsienna are both a bit crazy.
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
-
And we now know how a pack of wolves operate.
-
Exactly, Tele! She needs to be more modest, right? Especially on a public forum with men & women.
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
-
And we now know how a pack of wolves operate.
Indeed "we" do.
-
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk.
Speak for yourself, I've talked to plenty of women. :wink:
Speaking of modesty, I must ask you ladies yet again: do you wear trousers or just dresses?
-
There may be a bit of shock if I started littering every 6 posts with talk of how the wind blew my skirt up the other day and I hope no one saw my lacy black panties. However, I don't. I don't need that kind of attention, I don't care if anyone knows if I'm attractive or not, I am
:laugh2:
-
But I suppose an intelligent and experienced woman who can see through BS and isn't afraid to call it is a disappointment to you.
I've always preferred a physically attractive woman with strong character over some woman with "intelligence" which means more likely than not she is an elitist snob and very leftist. Not that I prefer bimbos either. :wink:
No the woman who takes pride in a healthy body and has the humility to submit to her husband is 1000 times more profitable for a nation than some "clever" weakling feminist who relies on Engels and Adorno for their literature.
-
Wallflower, I have experience hand-washing laundry, and it doesn't take nearly as much time as you seem to think it does - certainly not for one person and a baby. As for where to let it dry, you use a drying rack or put a line inside or out.
In fact if someone had to go out hang out at a laundromat it might take more time.
A lot of clothes don't get very dirty in regular use, they don't need a heavy washing to get sufficiently clean to wear.
Tele, I have 1 adult and 1 teen in my household. I have 3 dresses that I wear out and a couple pair of pjs to wear around the house. I wear my dresses multiple times for walking places. If I have an appointment or something I wear a clean dress. My son wears his jeans multiple times. Fridays we usually out for a homeschool activity. I usually spend Thursdays afternoon hand washing 2 pairs of his jeans, 2 - 3 tshirts, and a couple of socks/undies so he has a fresh oufit for Friday. It takes me all afternoon and sometimes early evening. Tele I'm not playing in the mud, I'm not on a farm or working with mechanic oil etc, the most dirt I get is cat hair :scratchchin: or spilled milk but you have to ring out wet stuff, it's weight, has nothing to do with "heavy" washing. The "heavy washing" is rubbing them or scrubbing them, that isn't the most tiring part for me.
How many apartments have a line outside? I throw a sheet over the fire exit railing and then put his stuff over that. It's a bad neighborhood that is why I get away with it. A drying rack is a good idea, but it's not real practical when you are alone with a baby once a baby is crawling. I used to use our apt laundromat and then to save $ on the dryer dry his diapers on the drying rack. A drying rack is great for socks and diapers and towels but for adult clothes and certainly for household thing like sheets or blankets, it doesn't hold much.
I don't hand wash everything but doing 2 oufits for him on Thursdays keeps me us going longer between needing the washing machine. It takes time though and it's tiring.
Laundry takes time if you hand wash or go to a laundromat, but it's far less exhausting to wash your clothes at a laundromat. You can put the clothes in, get a soda or a burger and sit in the car for 20 minutes while it washes or give your kids more quarter to burn in the video game. :roll-laugh1: Yes you carry the baby and the clothes, BTDT, it's not easy being alone with a baby period, but a machine washer is still easier. Everything is "done" when you walk out of there, the stuff is folded or at least cleaner than it was before in a bag. ;)
I can't imagine hand washing clothes when a baby is in daycare and working full time outside the home. This is why in her and now your posts stand out so much - it' impossible and it is written about with such ease. When my son was nursing and in daycare, my kind neighbor gave me $ to buy me additional work uniforms and more clothes for my son so I could go longer between washing. Just using a washing machine/dryer after being on the go for 12 hours was tiring. That was a "normal day" too not one of the days where something pops up. I woke up at 5:30, had to have my son at daycare by 6:30, zoom to clock in at 7 - clock out at 3:30 which was often 3:45 or 4, traffic was terrible this time of day, even though it wasn't a long distance, pick up my son -I would usually spend a little time there, after that perhaps stop for an errand at the shopping center next store to our place, if I was lucky I was home 5:30.
I right away would take a shower and gather up our clothes and put them in the washing machine. JUST THAT was tiring. I wan't ringing out anything and the clothes from the dryer went right into has diaper bag. No ironing or rewashing because the stain didn't get out.
This was working ONE 40 hour per week job too. Not a 40 hour a week job plus a second/third job as a babysitter and waitress. There is no way I could have hand washed all of our clothing.. no way. You need a new oufit each day for work and sometimes 2 -3 for the baby.
A few times (can count on my hand) when he had a stomach bug or I was sick - for whatever reason we were low in disposables or clean cloth ones - I would hand wash a couple diapers but usually the next day I would get more disposables.
When I was a SAHM I used to hand wash (really more like rinse than wash) his soiled diapers once, and then let them dry (sort of) on the inside of the diaper pail so they would not be real heavy to carry. (I did the same with the other ones too.) When we went to the laundromat they got washed 2x with the other diapers. I did not wash them until they were clean by hand.
If PW had wrote, baby was sick and I spend the evening hand washing, or I usually hand wash her church dress, that would been believable.
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
-
Tiffany said:
I usually spend Thursdays afternoon hand washing 2 pairs of his jeans, 2 - 3 tshirts, and a couple of socks/undies so he has a fresh oufit for Friday. It takes me all afternoon and sometimes early evening
I had myself, my husband and three children in nappies at one time (only used cloth, except for the rare outing) and we had no washing machine. I did everything by hand for 14 years.
So at the risk of getting off the subject of modest dressing at home, may I make a suggestion that you soak overnight and rinse in the morning. Handwashing can actually use less of your time and protects the clothing from much wear and tear. My towels lasted forever.
Now why not get off Penitenta's back? For goodness sake! 70 pages on (and off) this topic. It's pathetic!
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
Pere
I've been in circles where within 2 seconds of shaking your hand, the women want to know the details of your marital history and circuмstances of your child's birth. I've never been in a Catholic - trad or NO that is like that. Civil Remarriage and civil divorce is not uncommon in those circles like it is in the plain community. So I do understand that from plain people but my very limited experience with trads IRL none are like that.
I thought it was unnatural to draw attention that she was a single "unwed" mother. When asked if my husband was there (usually they ask if he is in the service) I usually say something like "It's just the two of us." There is no need to reveal more or to talk about DETAILS of how bad your child's father is. There is almost never a time (apart from talking to a priest or therapist) to reveal details more than something like "We didn't marry" or "I left due to abuse" or "There is no chance of reconciliation" something that communicates that status without too many details.
That was another red flag, some disordered women give many details about their former partners in a very short amount of time, to gain the sympathy of men. He will be her White Knight that isn't like that.
Honestly when I had a nursing baby I was too preoccupied with him and our life to give much thought to how others viewed me. So maybe they were scorning me and I didn't notice it.
I've found much support online without making me being unmarried a big issue.
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
You could be right. In that case I would hope she knows she can have a fresh start in truth.
But this is also what we were getting at in the very beginning with the advice to take these things to a priest or other women. That is the very advice that would save from embarrassment. That IS community support. Despite many of us having reservations about her story we put that aside and tried to be nice anyway. Just in case. I even offered maybe we could find an all-women's section to direct these things to (talk of nightgowns etc...). The response was "You're feminist, trying to control me because you're jealous." Huh? Clean out my ears, clarify. Oh, she said it again. And again. Something is really disconnected here.
You spoke of interior modesty. In the thread on modesty, where my suggestion is to create a women's section so we aren't giving anyone visuals of ourselves laying in bed uncovered by our nightgowns nursing our babies, that IS advice towards developing interior modesty. I even reassured her that I've taken part in discussions that I regret and have learned are not appropriate, so I"m not judging, I've just been there done that. Yet the person who said way earlier on "If I have to wear a scarlet letter, I want to hear it." "I don't know why but I always want to hear from the harshest." bis and bis and bis is all of a sudden so incredibly sensitive that advice to speak with priests or with other women about more private things and to be careful who she submits to is this devastating? Come on.
Something is not right.
-
I've not gone through PW post with a fine tooth combed.
1) Her very strong statements (against feminism or how trad life should be) followed by views that don't fit someone with those initial statements stood out to me. This was weeks before this thread.
I posted this to her when I was really trying to understand her POV in the no public schools topic in the Why Catholic Men Don't Marry Thread. She makes such broad statements and later on things she say do not fit someone with those initial things she said.
When I anwered ggreg question and told how there are single mothers who do homeschool, I get attacked and she inserts things I did not say. She uses that to go on how she needs a husband. Anything but this life she has idealized is attacked. She is not obsessed with caring for her daughter as Tele says. I think the obsession is with this idealization. The statement she makes about keeping her daughter in public school to show her the sins of her mother is crazy. PW again is a fake victim throwing her daughter under the bus (in her statement) to make her point. She also attacked single mothers who are single...they are just not feminine like she is.
I also posted to her in her marrying a widower and plan to homeschool his kids thread that it was an idealization. It's not real.
2) Another thing that really stood out is what we have talked about, all the things she does time wise and are skilled it. The ease of how she does it is what made me doubt in addition to the time. Nobody who bakes bread writes about it like she did, nobody.
3) The putting down of other women for being feminist while praising herself. Like her friend who asked her to babysit. Look at that thread how everyone got into it.
Or the children being served quck foods. Or just now with the not so subtle attack on WF that she has more children than PW so she just can't get it all done like PW can with one.
These are the thing that have stood out to me without even knowing the threads about meeting with a priest. I was public with posting to her, trying to warn her and sincerely understand her.
I will add intent now, she posts those broad statements to give some sort of impression she has traditional beliefs she does not have. That is why the inconsistencies are there. She wants others to think she has beliefs/values or abilities that she thinks they want to see. It's trying to be a chameleon.
Her non apology. Seriously, she completely fabricated this meeting and even made comments about the people there. She lied but not really part of it is true and have sympathy. Was she under duress to say she met with Fr CMRI? There was no reason to lie except to give the presentation she took action she did not. She even fabricated about gas of why she can't attend and something negative about the people there. It's more than just being uncharitable.
The real big issue is the only reason she acknowledged this lie was because she was caught. She still tries to spin it. Whoever the PW online person is, is very disordered character, wanting others to believe she is someone she is not. IMO this character is showing borderline and sociopath traits. Anything that she has not been caught in the lie she is backpedaling and attacking the person who called it out. She will keep creating drama in a passive aggressive way - going into waif/victim posting, presenting herself to be someone she is not, spinning things, changing the issue when she is called out something. She keeps people being sympathetic to her no matter what with the I just need to learn. Who here could deny someone saying that? That is my warning.
-
Can we get a women's section with a member list? It would be great to discuss some things not proper for men to read. The other Catholic site has this.
-
Can we get a women's section with a member list? It would be great to discuss some things not proper for men to read. The other Catholic site has this.
The day CatholicInfo starts immitating "the other Catholic site" (FishEaters) will be the day I bungee jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. :)
In all seriousness, if Matthew were to ever start immitating FE, I would leave. This isn't FE, we shouldn't be trying to make it like FE either.
I wouldn't want a men's section either. I think this forum is fine with the subforums it currently has.
-
PW did not tell us about visiting the Novus Ordo man, and made out that he was CMRI.
That was after all these people started to persecute her, about things that she had been truthful about.
They put her under too much pressure, and she wanted to keep some things private.
So she hid the truth.
That would not have happened without the bullying by these Feminists.
It is very possible that if these cruel women were pressured about their private lives, they would lie their heads off.
PW has the same right to privacy that they have.
But they have violated her right to privacy out of malice.
They put her under too much pressure.
So these Feminist bullies are to blame for PW trying to hide about going to that Novus Ordo man instead of to the CMRI.
-
PW has been far more open about her life than almost anyone on CathInfo.
She has told us a lot about herself, and about her housework, canning, baby-sitting, etc. She did not tell us about visiting the Novus Ordo man, and made out that he was CMRI.
That was after all these people started to persecute her, about things that she had been truthful about.
They put her under too much pressure, and she wanted to keep some things private.
So she hid about not visiting the CMRI priest.
That would not have happened without the bullying by these Feminists.
It is very possible that if these cruel women were pressured about their private lives, they would lie their heads off.
PW has the same right to privacy that they have.
But they have violated her right to privacy out of malice.
I have never seen anyone put under this kind of pressure to tell private details about their personal life before.
I have never seen anything like this on CathInfo before.
No wonder she became furtive and wanted to hide things.
Who can blame her for that?
And who can blame her for not wanting to disclose the name of the priest that she goes to for advice, to aggressive strangers on the internet?
Especially to people who obviously wish her harm.
She has been tormented here in a way that is inexcusable.
It says that PW was born in A.D 1989.
So she is a very young girl, who was possibly still in school as recently as A.D 2007.
She only made out that that man was not Novus Ordo, and was the other one after people had tormented and persecuted her.
And she was obviously frightened that she would also be picked on over returning to the Novus Ordo.
So she hid the truth. That would not have happened without the bullying she received here.
If these cruel Feminists had left her alone, none of that would have happened.
She was driven away from traditional Catholicism by what she went through at the hands of these bullying Feninists.
I am very disturbed at the way so much pressure has been put on this young girl to reveal so much about her personal life on an internet forum.
She has a right to privacy. That right has been wickedly violated.
She is brave young girl.
She has suffered greatly.
Good traditional Catholics will treat her with Christian charity.
-
Loriann's idea that there should be a women's section on CathInfo, with its own membership list is very bad.
The unrestrained cruelty of the Feminist women here, where what they say can be corrected by men, is amazing.
I dread to think what they would be like without anyone to put forward the true ideas about everything.
It would be horrific cruelty, combined with unopposed Feminism.
-
Can we get a women's section with a member list? It would be great to discuss some things not proper for men to read. The other Catholic site has this.
The day CatholicInfo starts immitating "the other Catholic site" (FishEaters) will be the day I bungee jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. :)
In all seriousness, if Matthew were to ever start immitating FE, I would leave. This isn't FE, we shouldn't be trying to make it like FE either.
I wouldn't want a men's section either. I think this forum is fine with the subforums it currently has.
Well, I wasn't referring to Fisheaters, fyi, but there are things a proper woman would not ask in front of men.
-
Loriann's idea that there should be a women's section on CathInfo, with its own membership list is very bad.
The unrestrained cruelty of the Feminist women here, where what they say can be corrected by men, is amazing.
I dread to think what they would be like without anyone to put forward the true ideas about everything.
It would be horrific cruelty, combined with unopposed Feminism.
ok
-
Can we get a women's section with a member list? It would be great to discuss some things not proper for men to read. The other Catholic site has this.
The day CatholicInfo starts immitating "the other Catholic site" (FishEaters) will be the day I bungee jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. :)
In all seriousness, if Matthew were to ever start immitating FE, I would leave. This isn't FE, we shouldn't be trying to make it like FE either.
I wouldn't want a men's section either. I think this forum is fine with the subforums it currently has.
Well, I wasn't referring to Fisheaters, fyi, but there are things a proper woman would not ask in front of men.
What Catholic site were you refering to, then? FE is the only one I know that has a subforum for women. Actually, though, it is a subforum ABOUT women. Men are still free to post in it.
-
Can we get a women's section with a member list? It would be great to discuss some things not proper for men to read. The other Catholic site has this.
The day CatholicInfo starts immitating "the other Catholic site" (FishEaters) will be the day I bungee jump off the Golden Gate Bridge. :)
In all seriousness, if Matthew were to ever start immitating FE, I would leave. This isn't FE, we shouldn't be trying to make it like FE either.
I wouldn't want a men's section either. I think this forum is fine with the subforums it currently has.
Well, I wasn't referring to Fisheaters, fyi, but there are things a proper woman would not ask in front of men.
The same thing applies to men, but we don't need a public forum for that! It would just defeat the purpose! :idea:
-
PereJoseph - The name Penitent Woman conjures up an image of sincere contriteness for past sins. A sure sympathy-getter. You think she's "trying to become a traditional Catholic"? You can't see by now that she wasn't on here to become a trad, but to find a trad husband? She was offered advice about seeing a trad priest & given books & links to read. Did she even ONCE mention what book she read or trad priest she met with? (it was a lie that she met with a trad priest). Since she's been on here how many TLM's has she attended? And you STILL hold on to your belief that she was on here to learn about tradition?? How much more is it going to take to make you see reality? 70 more pages?
She wants to get married NOW. I'm not making this up. She said it many times herself. She set out to present herself as the ideal wife since she has this idealized image of trad marriage, therefore she posts that she not only can make do on little sleep, but can cook delicious, healthy meals, care for a baby, be submissive to hubby, garden, can, pickle, sew, be submissive, organize a home, clean to perfection, has energy to have 2-3 jobs without batting an eyelash, swim, keeps fit, wants to submit to a husband, is thrifty, intelligent, shows charity by visiting the elderly, is very efficient, submissive, creative, willing to learn, wants to learn, bakes bread, is very open to more children, willing to move, submissive, is cute, wears clothes well, and most of all wants to submit to a trad husband. Tell me: do you know even one fourth of anything about anyone else posting here? She 'fessed up & repented - again. So even tho she took NONE of the previous advice, she now wants advice on courtship??!! She came here also to learn how to speak Tradese. Why on earth would anyone give her advice about courtship when PW will do what PW wants to do, no matter what. This advice will be only a veneer to be yet more attractive to a trad man. She needs to get her soul in order first & things will fall into place. Am I being a mean feminist? I'm trying to shine light on the truth. Not only for her but for the men attacking women for seeing things that they can't see. It's called women's intuition & is God-given for the weaker vessel.
So no, PereJoseph, no one is trying "to make her road harder or scaring her into another path". She's doing that herself.
Nadir - Don't worry. PW loves "people on her back". She wants/craves attention & it doesn't matter if it's negative. It's still attention.
I hope you now see tha pattern.
-
When you are part of a smaller culture, there are things you wouldn't be able to find enough "girlfriends " to help on the side. An example is ecological breast feeding etc.
-
OK all you feminists out there!! "FESS UP!!!
Which of you have been forcing PW to post all that personal stuff?? I want to know right now, because it wasn't me & Sede said we are violating PW's privacy.
So reveal yourself so we don't all have to be blamed for forcing her to post all those private things.
-
PereJoseph - The name Penitent Woman conjures up an image of sincere contriteness for past sins. A sure sympathy-getter. You think she's "trying to become a traditional Catholic"? You can't see by now that she wasn't on here to become a trad, but to find a trad husband? She was offered advice about seeing a trad priest & given books & links to read. Did she even ONCE mention what book she read or trad priest she met with? (it was a lie that she met with a trad priest). Since she's been on here how many TLM's has she attended? And you STILL hold on to your belief that she was on here to learn about tradition?? How much more is it going to take to make you see reality? 70 more pages?
She wants to get married NOW. I'm not making this up. She said it many times herself. She set out to present herself as the ideal wife since she has this idealized image of trad marriage, therefore she posts that she not only can make do on little sleep, but can cook delicious, healthy meals, care for a baby, be submissive to hubby, garden, can, pickle, sew, be submissive, organize a home, clean to perfection, has energy to have 2-3 jobs without batting an eyelash, swim, keeps fit, wants to submit to a husband, is thrifty, intelligent, shows charity by visiting the elderly, is very efficient, submissive, creative, willing to learn, wants to learn, bakes bread, is very open to more children, willing to move, submissive, is cute, wears clothes well, and most of all wants to submit to a trad husband. Tell me: do you know even one fourth of anything about anyone else posting here? She 'fessed up & repented - again. So even tho she took NONE of the previous advice, she now wants advice on courtship??!! She came here also to learn how to speak Tradese. Why on earth would anyone give her advice about courtship when PW will do what PW wants to do, no matter what. This advice will be only a veneer to be yet more attractive to a trad man. She needs to get her soul in order first & things will fall into place. Am I being a mean feminist? I'm trying to shine light on the truth. Not only for her but for the men attacking women for seeing things that they can't see. It's called women's intuition & is God-given for the weaker vessel.
So no, PereJoseph, no one is trying "to make her road harder or scaring her into another path". She's doing that herself.
Nadir - Don't worry. PW loves "people on her back". She wants/craves attention & it doesn't matter if it's negative. It's still attention.
I hope you now see tha pattern.
I get how that all makes sense to you, but to me it sounds like gossip. It was the same flaw with all the talk about Telesphosphorous. Yeah, yeah, yeah, whatever, maybe you are right, maybe you aren't, but in the end, it is really none of your business.
-
Gossip?! She's the one who posted it all without prompting on my part.
'None of my business??" It was posted on a public forum!! You think she did that so we would ignore her?
-
Okay, Thorn et al... She has been warned about her naivete and been told to see a trad priest. If she doesn't want to do it, and shoots herself in the foot, you have done your job.
Lots of women marry the wrong men. Women can be incredibly stupid; as can men. I think you saying that she wants attention is far more to the point, Thorn, but you are feeding into it.
PW will not listen to good advice. She systematically talks around people who are trying to help her, as if she is talking in front of the mirror and not having a conversation. It is like your words go into a black hole. I have dealt with more than one person like this, it is almost a constant theme in my life. I have learned that forcing the issue doesn't help; at a certain point you step back and give it to God.
She has her own thought patterns laid out already. I saw that a long time ago. What is the point of talking yourself blue in the face?
I realize I did this with Tele at one time, but that was when he was "changing," so I thought there was still a chance for him to turn around ( not that I'm defending myself, I did go too far ). Now that his personality is set in stone, there is no use in saying anything, all you can is warn other people away from him ( and pray for him, of course ).
The "funny" part of this thread is that those who are telling PW to see a priest, and thereby deferring to a higher authority, are the ones being treated as "bullies," and aggressive feminists who want to alter her mind; while Tele with his contemptuous talk of the traditional priesthood is some kind of sensitive hero.
So in one corner you have a group who is saying "See a priest." In another corner you have some young and maybe not-so-young dudes indulging themselves in the most obnoxious, arrogant behavior, who are saying "Listen to us." Yet the latter, who do not defer to any authority, and whose wayward ideas have been depicted only too vibrantly on this forum, portray themselves as the ones who are respecting PW and trying to help her. Meanwhile, they play the martyrs and the victims while they gang up to downrate posts of those who disagree with them -- utterly insufferable. Luckily their "power" is limited to a feebly populated Internet forum!
-
Good post & advice, Raoul. Think I'll heed it & go to bed. I pray I won't feel the need to post on this again.
-
Shut up, Thorn.
Get off Penitent Woman’s back.
You are sinning wickedly by persecuting and tormenting this young girl, with your malicious cruelty.
I choose my name because I was a thorn in the side of a few people even before I joined this forum.
That is the wrong attitude to have on a Catholic forum.
I was a thorn in this priest's side & have been a thorn in the side of others I've encountered along the Way.
Thorn displays a vile attitude.
I've been a thorn in his side & now even when I left his chapel & left him alone I must still prick his conscience.
Thorn is very, very, malicious.
Excuse the dripping sarcasm but you really deserve it. (I didn't pick Thorn (as, in the side of) for nothing.
Being a thorn in the side of other Catholics is obviously an important part of Thorn’s life.
Thorn, you chose your user name well. You certainly do cause a lot of suffering.
Thorn claims to be an ex-nun. Thorn also claims to be divorced.
I would have thought that a nun would have taken a vow of perpetual chastity.
So how is Thorn also divorced?
It sounds rather confusing.
But I believe Thorn.
I believe that Thorn is a divorced woman in her seventies, who somehow also manages to be an ex-nun.
After all, many ex-nuns are bitter Feminists. Many divorced women are bitter Feminists.
Thorn has claimed concern for PW, but I think that Thorn started this cruel, cruel attempt to humiliate this poor young girl.
So it is malice and hypocrisy from Thorn.
Thorn also dared to tell men like Tele and Spiritus that they should not give PW advice, because they are men.
So Thorn wanted to deprive PW of good advice. Then if PW was isolated she would in the bullying clutches of these Feminists.
Thorn, you are the last person fit to give advice to a young girl who wants to find husband and remain happily married.
You are, after all, a sadistic, divorced, ex-nun.
-
When I say they don't defer to any authority, I mean in this situation, in this matter of PW. They are not telling her to go see a priest; and Tele's attitude towards trad priests is well-known.
-
My advice to Penitent Woman is to steer clear of the novus ordites and seek out a traditional Church, preferrably the CMRI but the SSPX will do in a pinch.
Secondary advice is to use the edit feature more often. Perhaps try not adding as much personal information into her posts, since they do bug some of the other posters here tremendously.
-
So in one corner you have a group who is saying "See a priest." In another corner you have some young and maybe not-so-young dudes indulging themselves in the most obnoxious, arrogant behavior, who are saying "Listen to us." Yet the latter, who do not defer to any authority, and whose wayward ideas have been depicted only too vibrantly on this forum, portray themselves as the ones who are respecting PW and trying to help her -- utterly insufferable.
I think you're displaying hyperbole. Of course PW should see a Traditional priest. I never stated otherwise, and actually, no one else has either. Sede Catholic also advised her to see a Trad priest. I think everyone here is in agreement that she needs to see one.
The problem, Raoul, is that you're falling for the mindset put forth by certain posters in this thread. You think that because they advise her to seek guidance from a Trad priest means that they're the side in the right. They're the poor victims of abuse from the "other side" and from PW in your mind. One of these people said that a bad economy was reason enough for the woman to work outside the home, and said that the military could be an "option worth considering" for certain Trad families. THAT is where I'm opposing the other side, for their blatant feminism.
I suppose your retort could be that I am "falling" for the mindset put forth by Tele, as you have suggested before. Well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I side with Tele because he's right about feminism. Read what the Catechism of the Council of Trent and Popes Pius XI and Pius XII say about feminism, you'll see that Tele's views are in-line with theirs regarding feminism. The views of the poster I mentioned above are NOT in-line with their views. So you think you're doing justice by defending them when really you're only defending the un-defendable.
-
Sede Catholic wrote: "I am very disturbed at the way so much pressure has been put on this young girl to reveal so much about her personal life on an internet forum".
Huh?! She was pressured to reveal so much about her personal life here? Did you read her first couple posts from back in June when she joined?
They are filled with the most intimate detail some even downright scandalous as she described an act of fornication. Sorry for the language, I apologize for offending pious ears. But that is the fact of what she posted. (it was later removed at her request). No one pressured her to reveal those things. No one even knew her then, she was brand new and telling her story here in all manner of detail.
-
Jane, you joined this forum to pick on PW.
You are not making this a more pleasant place to be.
You joined a Catholic forum for the wrong reason.
Secondly, PW is new to Catholic tradition.
So she cannot be expected to phrase her posts in a perfectly traditional way.
And even you had to admit that PW asked Matthew to remove that post, which he did.
So what you have said is garbage.
-
Spiritus, though it is futile to say this again, my disagreeing with Tele does not mean I am pro-feminism. Jesus being against the woman taken in adultery being stoned, was not "for" adultery. If you don't get this distinction, and I know you don't, what can I say? But others do get it.
SpiritusSanctus said:
One of these people said that a bad economy was reason enough for the woman to work outside the home...
It is, if the woman in question is suffering from said bad economy and has no money.
-
Your problem, SS, is that you have accepted Tele's inflated view of himself as THE grand poobah of anti-feminism, because you have confused his bluster and extremism with righteousness. Therefore you also accept that those who don't agree with Tele's over-the-top ideas, must be feminists or too sympathetic to feminism. You have lost your sense of balance and moderation.
This is common; read about Jansenists and Pharisees again if you want to see what I mean. There is a reason the New Testament talks so much about this; the letter kills, the spirit vivifies.
-
You joined this forum to pick on PW.
You are not making this a more pleasant place to be.
That is not true, and for you to continue to say it does not make it true. You are rashly accusing me, and attributing false and ill motives to me. When PW stated she wanted information on courting, I posted links for 2 sermons and a traditional Catholic article for her to read. I offered to pray for her.
I have stated facts. I asked the question about the trad CMRI priest, which turns out she lied about. And I directly responded to your hysteria that PW was PRESSURED into revealing private details. That is not true, she revealed them on her own. You are a twister of words.
-
I apologize for what I said, if certain posters did tell PW to see a priest. I didn't see these comments. They certainly didn't push the issue like the "feminists" did, though.
-
Jane said:
That is not true, and for you to continue to say it does not make it true. You are rashly accusing me, and attributing false and ill motives to me. When PW stated she wanted information on courting, I posted links for 2 sermons and a traditional Catholic article for her to read. I offered to pray for her.
Nonsense, you are a feminist. You have been branded. Stop trying to wriggle out of it, it only makes you look more guilty. Plus it may shake the Gloria Steinem book loose from your purse. Now go get on your knees before Telesphorus and beg that he forgives you and absolves you of feminism; this is the only way that you can prove your innocence.
-
'It's also why I said way at the beginning to avoid men who would alienate you from other women. It's a red flag. Other women are the ones who could tell you what's appropriate behavior or not"
This right here is the essence of femitraditionalism. Women are to serve the group of women first - how they relate to their husbands must never cause alienation (ie, they must never cross the femitrad picket lines and refuse to ostracize someone the other hens want ostracized) from the dominant femitrad cliques.
Exactly, this insistence upon groupthink is a common tactic of communists & cultists such as the Heaven's Gate sect, Jim Jones's sect &c. (before dexterously sharpened beaks begin descending to rend my flesh, no, I'm not saying wallflower & allies are crazed communistical sectaries) If anything is disturbing, it is this petty persecution of any woman who dares refuse to accept her place in the pecking order, not the man who has the sense to prevent his wife from becoming ideologically contaminated thro' contact with feminists & semi-feminists.
-
Jane you are a trouble-maker.
You joined CathInfo to bully PW.
You are here because you are malicious.
Also, you told us yesterday that you were leaving CathInfo.
You have not left.
Are you not a person of your word, Jane?
Please answer that question.
If you stay - oh well.
If you leave - you definitely won’t be missed by many people here.
-
One of these people said that a bad economy was reason enough for the woman to work outside the home, and said that the military could be an "option worth considering" for certain Trad families. THAT is where I'm opposing the other side, for their blatant feminism.
Except that none of those issues were anywhere near this thread.
And bad economy IS a reason why women MAY need to work. I'm talking husband gets let go, downsized hours, can't make ends meet, not oh, we need more cable channels. Get a grip SS. I am almost begging you. Your ridiculousness on this has got to stop.
The military I've already told you I would not recommend and have a big problem with. However it's not as black and white as you like to think it is and some have managed to do well for themselves in safer, less controversial areas of the military. As hyper as you get about it, you'd think those in the military should be refused the Sacraments or something. That is excessive and wrong.
-
Sede you stated an inaccuracy when you said PW was PRESSURED into revealing personal things about herself online. Back it up. Who pressured her to come here and make the first couple posts which contain a run-down of her life? It is some of the most personal and intimate things written to strangers. You are lashing out at me with your female hysteria because I called you on it.
-
Jane said:
That is not true, and for you to continue to say it does not make it true. You are rashly accusing me, and attributing false and ill motives to me. When PW stated she wanted information on courting, I posted links for 2 sermons and a traditional Catholic article for her to read. I offered to pray for her.
Nonsense, you are a feminist. You have been branded. Stop trying to wriggle out of it, it only makes you look more guilty. Plus it may shake the Gloria Steinem book loose from your purse. Now go get on your knees before Telesphorus and beg that he forgives you and absolves you of feminism; this is the only way that you can prove your innocence.
:laugh1:
You know what's funny but I didn't bother responding to tradguy, I don't even know these stupid books they keep referring to. I don't know if those are the authors first or last names, if they are male or female (although I can guess). It really brings it home to me that they have no idea who they are talking to. Literally down-to-earth, regular traditional women. Me anyway, can't speak for anyone else.
It made me realize many of these guys have admitted they have never been in a trad parish or really had a trad social life. I have to remind myself of that more often, it really makes many of these behaviors and beliefs more understandable. Puts things into perspective. As did your longer post, thank you for that.
-
Sede you stated an inaccuracy when you said PW was PRESSURED into revealing personal things about herself online. Back it up. Who pressured her to come here and make the first couple posts which contain a run-down of her life? It is some of the most personal and intimate things written to strangers. You are lashing out at me with you female hysteria because I called you on it.
Ah, I wouldn't worry about him. He can't even figure out that a July CMRI thread came before a late August/Sept thread. Because this thread in August pressured her to lie about CMRI in July. Go figure.
-
Tiffany, can I ask what brand/model of wheat grinder you have that is loud enough to make a baby scream? Mine is not much louder than the vacuum cleaner and is very fast. Your comment about not being able to bake bread the morning of a doctor's appointment? It was my schedule that day that allowed me EXTRA time. Regardless, I didn't realize the world stopped turning when a day involves one extra errand. It was a well child check... not open heart surgery. Do you clear the entire calendar when your teenage son has sports practice or a music lesson? When you have to go to the post office or the bank?
It is funny how you claim you yourself (with one teenager) don't have enough time to be crafty etc. until he goes to bed (a teenager!) yet you have time to go back through my postings and analyze how I baked bread the morning of my daughter's checkup? That is sure an interesting use of ones free time. I bake...you go through posts from someone you have on ignore with a fine tooth comb and still haven't been able to show these supposed contradicting statements I've made. You have only vague accusations about how I (and loads of other women with many more children) can't possibly operate more efficiently than you.
Handwashing laundry = LESS time than leaving home to do it, so why this keeps being brought up is beyond me. I realized how true this was when it was -20 and blowing snow, and it has continued to be the reality for me. There are women who do machine laundry but have multiple loads a day because they do it for multiple people. Even when I had a newborn and went through onsies like crazy, it was still very doable, and yes, from time to time I have taken my laundry out and I always regret it...it seems like a waste of money and it is frustrating to do with a baby. Not to mention the "crowd" in such a place isn't always pleasant. People play music on their phones, the TV is always on something I shouldn't be watching. The smell of cigarette smoke comes in through the door. Just yuck. I have also taken things to my mom's (such as bedding which is hard to do at home) ...but I do the vast majority of laundry on my own...with homemade detergent, no less. It is the most efficient and cost effective method for ME.
And people who work no longer garden?! The majority of people with plots around mine are other employed people! The busiest time for harvesting has been 5:30-7 p.m. Small plot =/= farm. Today I discovered the family I am now working for has a huge container garden on their lower deck! Four kids, two full-time employed parents, mom is involved with the schools, dad coaches, activities every night, they belong to a family health club...yet somehow, they have more tomatoes than I do. Miraculous. The fact that you, can't imagine how it is possible to do some domestic things over the course of each week, speaks only to your own situation and abilities, not mine. flylady.com has some great ideas. If my home organization consulting business ever works out, I will be modeling my concept after hers.
Wallflower, I'm guessing you have more/older children than I do. As I am already learning, more kids=more mess. Just loading them to drive to school took far longer than I anticipated. I was a bit stressed because I'm big on punctuality, but 99% of the problem is these children don't seem terribly self sufficient...they are way over scheduled, but I still think they could improve when it comes to putting shoes on etc. Still very early to tell. In my case, I have one child who I don't have to convince to get in the car. I also found out today that cooking is difficult with a kitchen full. Not a very successful day, but I am going to start making somethings at home where I have less interruptions and bringing them to reheat, such as tonight--mashed potatoes.
There are hundreds of blogs of moms with way bigger families than me, who homeschool--which looks much more intense then my tedious office job, and they also garden, can, sew, bake, and cook for a crowd every.single.day. And then they blog about it. Amazing... Example: http://applegarthgardens.blogspot.com/ I admire...I don't decide that because I can't do all that it must be impossible for someone who is more efficient than me.
I often feel like I should be doing even more. Is that I enjoy these things that I don't find them daunting and impossible? I know other single moms who work as much as I did/do, go to school full time, go on dates, party/go to the bar on the weekends, play on volleyball leagues, go to the gym, go on weekend road trips and girl's weekends, sit at coffee shops, do things with their children's schools/activities. I do NONE of those things. The things I do take arguably less time, and most (like cooking) double as a hobby and a necessity. Please explain to me this crazy concept that says single moms of one child are anymore strapped for time than mothers of several children who homeschool and cook from scratch for a crowd...everyday.
Housework...let me repeat. I am a single woman with a baby. She makes a mess in/around the highchair...I clean it. She dumps out a basket of toys...we make it a silly game to put them back in. She empties out the cupboard...I consider purchasing those plastic locks. ;) I cook something, I wash the dishes. I spill something, I wipe it up. This is somehow far fetched? On what planet?? I can keep my bathroom very clean without very much work either. I'm the only person that uses it, and I'm very neat. Always have been.
I'm starting to understand why my boss at the office based my hours of the previous employee in that position. I found it very easy to get everything done AND I took pumping breaks. Lack of organization and failure to deal with clutter and finish tasks as they come in (instead of letting them pile up over the course of the hour, day, week...what have you) can save hours everyday. It may not be easy for every personality, but it isn't rocket science how it's done for someone who naturally like me. I have always enjoyed this skill area...which is why it would be a great business for me. As I told my Dad yesterday, just having your cupboards rearranged so that certain dishes, small appliances, utensils etc. are stored in a proper and efficient arrangement will save a ton of time preparing meals so you aren't digging through multiple drawers and cabinets.
It takes 5 minutes to run a vacuum through the living room or a bedroom. 2 minutes to sweep. I only need to steam mop every few weeks and that takes what? 10 minutes for my tiny kitchen?
I can't mentally handle clutter, therefore I have none. Mail gets sorted over the trash can. Everything accept daycare and rent were/are on autopay.
Really the only housekeeping duty I have to carve out a notable block of time for is dusting, because I collect antique dishes. That is the only thing I might "let go" for a few days longer than ideal. I also take time to clean out light fixtures and vacuum cobwebs every month or so. Not difficult.
Oh and somehow nursing is a problem? Did I miss the memo that stated you can't read, pray the rosary, post online etc while nursing? Formula feeding looks far more time consuming to me.
The exaggerated comments about my visiting the elderly? Seriously? An hour or so after mass is hardly saintly. It is quite sad that despite how we all make time for the internet, some find visiting a nursing home to be monumental.
All of this energy spent on this is a huge waste itself. There are indeed more pressing issues I could be talking about, yet here I am trying to defend myself against accusations and assertions that aren't even based on my actual words. I've never claimed to be a gourmet chef who cooks everyday, or a daily baker/crafter/soap maker. I've talked about things I like to do and make time for over a course of time.
As far as sleep? I have indeed been functioning on an unhealthy level of sleep for months now. Part due to work schedule, part to a battle with insomnia. I know this isn't sustainable long term without consequences to my health, but I remind myself that a mother of 3 who brings a newborn home would have to operate on the same level. Usually I get sleepy mid morning and again mid afternoon, but by the time I picked up my daughter from childcare, I'd feel better and end up right back to insomnia. This is one of the many reasons I prayed for a new career. I really hope I can get a healthier amount of sleep now that I'm down to one job again.
You know, I also love making hair bows and potpourri, though it has been awhile. I give myself a weekly pedicure. I sometimes get my mother's Sunday paper and clip coupons. I like to go to flea markets and farmers markets when I can. When I still regularly attended the NO, I'd go to Eucharistic adoration sometimes---with the baby!
At the end of the day, just the time spent defending myself is a waste. I would really truly prefer not to get sucked back into explaining my activities again and again...so telling me I'm a liar or doing the impossible, and making fun of me will be solely for your own entertainment. It is depressing.
And yes, I post a lot. I have never denied that and have in fact addressed/admitted it before. I had time at my office job (which was a lot of computer work) to read and post. Even at the bar, I sometimes posted from my phone...there isn't a lot going on Monday at midnight. I frequently post and nurse.
What a statement she could have made to her father by not going to the NO mass! And maybe some day she'll explain how she knows the CMRI is cliquish if she never really went to see for herself.
My father stopped going for Sunday obligation years ago. I don't see him much, especially sans mistress. The fact that he asked me to go really put me on the spot. But of course it was dumb anyway because he was just trying to bribe me into having my daughter participate heavily in his celebration of adultery (wedding). So you win.
Now for the hard part
As far as CMRI...cliquey was uncharitable. The point is, I have an anxiety problem. I have trust issues. You can say I'm being a victim, but I have been open about this problem of mine from my start here. Knowing that posters here are in close contact with all the priests made me realize how small it was. Now the fact that someone in this group actually called Fr. Hughes to check on me hasn't really helped sell it for me either, but I should probably figure out how to deal with that.
So yes, I lied about the priest I saw. Everything I relayed from my visit was actually from the NO priest who I hadn't seen in a long while, and who had brought me back to the church (albeit the NO church) when I was pregnant. I met him at bff's wedding early in my pregnancy. He baptized my daughter. I learned more from him about the Catholic faith over a period of months then I had in all the years of being a cradle Catholic before that. This is where I first learned a lot about modesty, Catholic marriage, roles of men and women, and even the existence of the TLM.
It is wrong to be dishonest (and there are consequences indeed) so I am not going to make an excuse. I will say, it isn't an easy thing to admit that I had missed counsel from this priest a lot, and I do trust him... even though pretty much everyone here is going to say that's wrong of me. Running the sede thing by him was a mistake (I figured it would be) but I feel like he is giving me the best advice he can in regards to my lifestyle etc. He is very orthodox, and I consider him a friend. Telling me that I would be more likely to find the kind of husband I want by going to TLM says a lot about him, I think. On the anon board, the post about valid priests was mine...I wanted to know if he was validly ordained. Of course, I got a mix of confusing answers. It is a lot to sort through and make sense of.
Nonetheless, I am sorry. It is a serious sin to be untruthful. I accept that everything else I say will rightfully come under a microscope, and my trustworthiness is damaged. I can't blame anyone for that. If anyone here feels particularly hurt my dishonesty about this, you can feel free to tell me that so I can apologize on a more personal level. I feel especially bad for those of you who have gone to bat to defend me. You have every right to be angry and upset with me.
I have only poor excuses for not going in the first place, and of course no excuse for lying about it. This has been weighing on me for awhile and I have avoided talking about a relationship with a traditional priest because of it. Like other bad decisions I've made in my life, the consequences are immense. I've avoided addressing this and contemplated disappearing completely...but whether I am banned or not, I knew I needed to give an explanation and an apology. I am not happy with myself at all, but getting into that will only be self victimization. As much as I want to throw in the towel sometimes, I know I can't do that.
...and yes Wallflower. I have once again managed to embarrass myself with a clothing comment. I am hurt that you think I do these things on purpose. What on earth would be my motivation for posting things that could make me look like I am unreformed?
When you grow up in a bubble (and I mean that in the nicest way possible...I plan to raise my daughter in as much of a bubble as I can) the way you interact with people is probably not something you have to spend much time thinking about. There are things women can say, and things they should not. I wish it was so cut and dry for me. I slip up a lot because of the way I was raised and the things I've been exposed to. This problem of mine will likely color any friendship or relationship I might have because I just plain old don't think about how things "sound" all the times. My intent is not to humiliate myself. It is unfortunate that Wallflower thinks I have some evil motive behind it. I am trying to watch myself better. I'm sorry that is so hard to understand.
It is the same thing with clothing. When long time traditional women have a "well duh!" attitude about it, and accuse me of have scruples, I am only trying to get it right. I am trying to reprogram my thinking and I don't always have the answers. What reads to some of you as a stupid post about nightgowns was a serious and honest question for me. Being made fun of for it is really hurtful.
There are a lot of things that people who have grown up with these values seem to take for granted. Since I've pretty much hit rock bottom when it comes to personal humiliation, I'll say that for awhile now I've wanted to ask about the specifics of courtship, but have been too embarrassed and worried about the reaction I would get. I have absolutely no idea what is and is not appropriate interaction for a traditional man and woman who are courting. It is really hard to find specifics. Some of you are probably laughing and shaking your head at my ignorance, but it is a real question I have. Is it okay to hold hands? To hug? To cuddle? No kissing until the vows are said? I have nothing to go on. Nothing. You think it is stupid question, yet I am clueless. I have had to deal with a completely distorted view on this matter. It is bad enough to think about all the risks and sacrifices involved in a man courting me in the first place...it is even worse to imagine I might humiliate the heck out of myself because I still don't know what exactly courting is. I think I could be a really good wife, but I have a self-inflicted uphill battle to prove myself.
While there are teachings that I've come to understand very well (like feminism and family "unplanning") I am still very uneducated in other areas. It is a humbling, humiliating, shameful reality. So when it is said that I speak eloquently about some things and sound like an idiot about others, it is simply a matter of being able to find the information. It is a lot easier to understand the role of women because much as been written about it. A lot more than specific-situation modesty and traditional courting rules. It is easy to feel something is completely right when you can refer back to scripture and trustworthy writings such as those about God's design for women. What is not so easy is how an unwed mother should live, dress, talk etc. I want a traditional marriage and family for myself and for my daughter. Getting to the point where that is possible (for me) involves a lot of question and a lot of embarrassment.
While it won't make much sense to a lot of others, this whole journey has been rather painful. The temptation to give up and do the typical single mom thing is always there. The pressure from disapproving friends and family is very, very real. I do not have personal support for what I am trying to do. It is nothing short of the Holy Spirit's refusal to leave me alone that keeps me crawling on. I am incredibly blessed to be able to see what won't leave my heart.
What might be easy for others isn't always so easy for me. I don't want sympathy...I am not trying to play victim... but I could sure use more prayers from anyone who is still willing to give them.
Finally, I keep saying this, but it really is not a good idea for me to be posting here for awhile, so I need to try and stick to that. I need to figure out my new career, stare at my daughter more, and put more time to prayer and cultivating a better interior life.
I'll be around, but I shouldn't keep getting caught up in threads like this with the state of my life at the moment.
Apologies again.
In Christ,
PW
Civility is dead :jester:
I notice that when I take time off from web forums I get a lot more reading done, than I do when I spend time reading posts! lol I also notice that reading books ends up taking a lot less time! (i usually have at least ten books on my reading list, plus other printed material...)
I like your comments about getting things done. It was kind of inspiring.
You seem like a "fighter." That's good. There's a lot of that to do.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BAOX-nW7SJ8
-
Therefore you also accept that those who don't agree with Tele's over-the-top ideas, must be feminists or too sympathetic to feminism. You have lost your sense of balance and moderation.
Nonsense. I don't agree with Tele's extreme posts and I also don't agree with the feminist statements which have been made in this thread.
I'm getting the impression that you haven't actually read the thread. I think you need a better idea of who and what it is you're defending before you accuse SS of being under some kind of Tele mind control.
-
Jane said:
That is not true, and for you to continue to say it does not make it true. You are rashly accusing me, and attributing false and ill motives to me. When PW stated she wanted information on courting, I posted links for 2 sermons and a traditional Catholic article for her to read. I offered to pray for her.
Nonsense, you are a feminist. You have been branded. Stop trying to wriggle out of it, it only makes you look more guilty. Plus it may shake the Gloria Steinem book loose from your purse. Now go get on your knees before Telesphorus and beg that he forgives you and absolves you of feminism; this is the only way that you can prove your innocence.
:laugh1:
You know what's funny but I didn't bother responding to tradguy, I don't even know these stupid books they keep referring to. I don't know if those are the authors first or last names, if they are male or female (although I can guess). It really brings it home to me that they have no idea who they are talking to. Literally down-to-earth, regular traditional women. Me anyway, can't speak for anyone else.
It made me realize many of these guys have admitted they have never been in a trad parish or really had a trad social life. I have to remind myself of that more often, it really makes many of these behaviors and beliefs more understandable. Puts things into perspective. As did your longer post, thank you for that.
Thank you for the humor, Raoul. It's needed and appreciated amongst all the hysteria from certain posters on this thread. I never heard of that book either.... Guess that means I might lose my membership in the Femitrad club? Do I have to make an appointment with this Telesphorus, or does he take walk-ins? Do I have to report back here after he sees me? Please, clue this feminist in, and don't hold back....I need the cure!
-
Jane, you are not funny.
You are malicious.
-
Gossip?! She's the one who posted it all without prompting on my part.
'None of my business??" It was posted on a public forum!! You think she did that so we would ignore her?
I think you are blaming the victim. Her making herself vulnerable, doesn't give you a license to abuse her. She didn't force you to. You did that all on your own. We should all be able to be that open with other, without fear of abuse, but unfortunately, people take advantage it.
It's about civility and that's rooted in charity.
-
Okay, Thorn et al... She has been warned about her naivete and been told to see a trad priest. If she doesn't want to do it, and shoots herself in the foot, you have done your job.
Lots of women marry the wrong men. Women can be incredibly stupid; as can men. I think you saying that she wants attention is far more to the point, Thorn, but you are feeding into it.
PW will not listen to good advice. She systematically talks around people who are trying to help her, as if she is talking in front of the mirror and not having a conversation. It is like your words go into a black hole. I have dealt with more than one person like this, it is almost a constant theme in my life. I have learned that forcing the issue doesn't help; at a certain point you step back and give it to God.
She has her own thought patterns laid out already. I saw that a long time ago. What is the point of talking yourself blue in the face?
I realize I did this with Tele at one time, but that was when he was "changing," so I thought there was still a chance for him to turn around ( not that I'm defending myself, I did go too far ). Now that his personality is set in stone, there is no use in saying anything, all you can is warn other people away from him ( and pray for him, of course ).
The "funny" part of this thread is that those who are telling PW to see a priest, and thereby deferring to a higher authority, are the ones being treated as "bullies," and aggressive feminists who want to alter her mind; while Tele with his contemptuous talk of the traditional priesthood is some kind of sensitive hero.
So in one corner you have a group who is saying "See a priest." In another corner you have some young and maybe not-so-young dudes indulging themselves in the most obnoxious, arrogant behavior, who are saying "Listen to us." Yet the latter, who do not defer to any authority, and whose wayward ideas have been depicted only too vibrantly on this forum, portray themselves as the ones who are respecting PW and trying to help her. Meanwhile, they play the martyrs and the victims while they gang up to downrate posts of those who disagree with them -- utterly insufferable. Luckily their "power" is limited to a feebly populated Internet forum!
You start out your post by insulting her and then you claim you want to help her. Are you kidding?
-
When I say they don't defer to any authority, I mean in this situation, in this matter of PW. They are not telling her to go see a priest; and Tele's attitude towards trad priests is well-known.
There's nothing wrong with asking people for advice.
-
:laugh1:
You know what's funny but I didn't bother responding to tradguy, I don't even know these stupid books they keep referring to. I don't know if those are the authors first or last names, if they are male or female (although I can guess). It really brings it home to me that they have no idea who they are talking to. Literally down-to-earth, regular traditional women. Me anyway, can't speak for anyone else.
It made me realize many of these guys have admitted they have never been in a trad parish or really had a trad social life. I have to remind myself of that more often, it really makes many of these behaviors and beliefs more understandable. Puts things into perspective. As did your longer post, thank you for that.
Yet again speak for yourself about "not having a social life" and "being a regular trad woman" whatever that means. Oh and by the way I do go to a "Trad parish." You'd like to know about those "stupid books." Those books change everyone who is not some feminist to really understand the vile nature of our culture these days. The whole point of cultural Marxism was for women to get dominance over men or for gender roles to be interchangeable, and to lower the birthrates in the Western world. It is thanks to the women in our world that the West is doomed. Feminism spells the death of any nation that embraces it, for "rights" for women leads to a society's decline. Might I suggest Marx, Engels, Fromm, Adorno, and Marcuse's literature to understand what it is I am speaking of.
Oh and by the way I have to question whether the men in your lives are strong men if they let you talk like this to a man.
-
I apologize for what I said, if certain posters did tell PW to see a priest. I didn't see these comments. They certainly didn't push the issue like the "feminists" did, though.
Many priests these days have been infected with leftist behavior. We definitely know an "intellectual" like yourself wouldn't change anything about that.
-
Exactly, this insistence upon groupthink is a common tactic of communists & cultists such as the Heaven's Gate sect, Jim Jones's sect &c. (before dexterously sharpened beaks begin descending to rend my flesh, no, I'm not saying wallflower & allies are crazed communistical sectaries) If anything is disturbing, it is this petty persecution of any woman who dares refuse to accept her place in the pecking order, not the man who has the sense to prevent his wife from becoming ideologically contaminated thro' contact with feminists & semi-feminists.
Women and minorities especially always congregate into groups to help their "causes."
-
When I say they don't defer to any authority, I mean in this situation, in this matter of PW. They are not telling her to go see a priest; and Tele's attitude towards trad priests is well-known.
There's nothing wrong with asking people for advice.
True enough, would add that PW should perhaps sit down with a good priest and get some good advice, practical.........
Asking other Catholics for support,etc is one of purposes of sites like CI, but sadly, as we see, this devolves very quickly into :fryingpan: and :really-mad2:, usually too :argue:
-
Gossip?! She's the one who posted it all without prompting on my part.
'None of my business??" It was posted on a public forum!! You think she did that so we would ignore her?
I think you are blaming the victim. Her making herself vulnerable, doesn't give you a license to abuse her. She didn't force you to. You did that all on your own. We should all be able to be that open with other, without fear of abuse, but unfortunately, people take advantage it.
It's about civility and that's rooted in charity.
true, who else do we talk to about these things? why after breaking a habit of posting on here, do you think I came back here after 1 1/2 yrs???? Took me awhile and deleting favorites to stay away from forums.......but, in the end, who the heck else do we talk to? our liberal Catholic friends? Prots? Worshippers at the Altar of Football???? attendees of the ACR (American Civil Religion)?
-
Shut up, Thorn.
Get off Penitent Woman’s back.
You are sinning wickedly by persecuting and tormenting this young girl, with your malicious cruelty.
I choose my name because I was a thorn in the side of a few people even before I joined this forum.
That is the wrong attitude to have on a Catholic forum.
I was a thorn in this priest's side & have been a thorn in the side of others I've encountered along the Way.
Thorn displays a vile attitude.
I've been a thorn in his side & now even when I left his chapel & left him alone I must still prick his conscience.
Thorn is very, very, malicious.
Excuse the dripping sarcasm but you really deserve it. (I didn't pick Thorn (as, in the side of) for nothing.
Being a thorn in the side of other Catholics is obviously an important part of Thorn’s life.
Thorn, you chose your user name well. You certainly do cause a lot of suffering.
Thorn claims to be an ex-nun. Thorn also claims to be divorced.
I would have thought that a nun would have taken a vow of perpetual chastity.
So how is Thorn also divorced?
It sounds rather confusing.
But I believe Thorn.
I believe that Thorn is a divorced woman in her seventies, who somehow also manages to be an ex-nun.
After all, many ex-nuns are bitter Feminists. Many divorced women are bitter Feminists.
Thorn has claimed concern for PW, but I think that Thorn started this cruel, cruel attempt to humiliate this poor young girl.
So it is malice and hypocrisy from Thorn.
Thorn also dared to tell men like Tele and Spiritus that they should not give PW advice, because they are men.
So Thorn wanted to deprive PW of good advice. Then if PW was isolated she would in the bullying clutches of these Feminists.
Thorn, you are the last person fit to give advice to a young girl who wants to find husband and remain happily married.
You are, after all, a sadistic, divorced, ex-nun.
Sede,
You gave me very good comforting advice through pm before and I am grateful for that.
You are giving sympathy to a predator who is playing on people's good nature and attacking Thorn for calling it out. This is not right. Thorn and I don't agree on issues but she is no way sadistic.
PW was revealed a great deal very quickly including statements her child's father made to her during relations. One of the other posters told her it was not right and the post was removed. There has been no pressure!
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
Fact is, she seems at least like she is trying to learn and grow in the Fide and move on from whatever past she has had........She is trying, in this garbage society, to raise a child correctly, etc...she is indeed looking for support.....many of us came here at CI, or FE,etc and were naive or made odd psots,etc.....Raoul did, I did, etc......we could all have stories to tell.....heck, I used to be an AMericanist an a Republican.. :shocked: :surprised:
-
How about everyone just let the thread fizzle out at this point?
:applause:
guess not :sad:
several more pages since this was posted...arrrr....and I added to it :cry:
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
Fact is, she seems at least like she is trying to learn and grow in the Fide and move on from whatever past she has had........She is trying, in this garbage society, to raise a child correctly, etc...she is indeed looking for support.....many of us came here at CI, or FE,etc and were naive or made odd psots,etc.....Raoul did, I did, etc......we could all have stories to tell.....heck, I used to be an AMericanist an a Republican.. :shocked: :surprised:
Belloc this is the thing none of us can say No to - the I need to learn. No matter what she does people want to teach, people attribute the bad behavior to a lack of knowledge of trad ways. It's nothing more than predator knowing which strings to pull to keep people sympathetic to them.
It's been called out exactly right whatever you say to help she twists and goes on about needing a husband. The issues she appears to be wanting info on are jut a gateway for her to express how she needs a husband or to make herself out to be a persecuted victim or to make some bold anti-feminist statements that don't seem to fit other things she says.
These are experienced mothers here that tried to help her. I'm a single mother too and have been one for a long time. That doesn't make me wise or an authority on trad things but I do understand the struggle first hand raising a child alone in this pagan society. I pm'ed her when I first came here about information on working from home (thinking perhaps she could quit one of her jobs or perhaps have a little extra for the laundromat, like she said she could only afford to hand wash her clothes) and also how to exempt from child support requirements if she need food stamps at some point. (She posted that as one of the responses of why not file for child support with public assistance.)
Like I said to Pere, I've been interacting with trads for years online none have ever made an issue of me being unmarried. I haven't been active all the time and KIT necessarily but have been online for several years. There is enough to talk about as far as mothering. Time when I've had an issue related to my son's father I was given a great deal of sympathy and prayers and encouragement.
-
Many of the posts here are textbook examples of the special type of backbiting by Church Ladies. These are the same types who always manage to get some type of job to helping the priest, or being in charge of something. They run off "Outsiders". I was informed by such a one that I was an "Outsider". Maybe they don't all use that term, but the object of their lack of charity will feel the sting of the gossip, the jealousy and so forth.
Thank goodness there are people who can see through this. I have tried to describe this phenomenon to people before without success, but this thread is a good example.
Seminarians should be trained to watch out for this type of dynamic, priests should know about this and take measures to assure they are not being manipulated by this type, or their male counterparts.
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
Fact is, she seems at least like she is trying to learn and grow in the Fide and move on from whatever past she has had........She is trying, in this garbage society, to raise a child correctly, etc...she is indeed looking for support.....many of us came here at CI, or FE,etc and were naive or made odd psots,etc.....Raoul did, I did, etc......we could all have stories to tell.....heck, I used to be an AMericanist an a Republican.. :shocked: :surprised:
Belloc this is the thing none of us can say No to - the I need to learn. No matter what she does people want to teach, people attribute the bad behavior to a lack of knowledge of trad ways. It's nothing more than predator knowing which strings to pull to keep people sympathetic to them.
It's been called out exactly right whatever you say to help she twists and goes on about needing a husband. The issues she appears to be wanting info on are jut a gateway for her to express how she needs a husband or to make herself out to be a persecuted victim or to make some bold anti-feminist statements that don't seem to fit other things she says.
These are experienced mothers here that tried to help her. I'm a single mother too and have been one for a long time. That doesn't make me wise or an authority on trad things but I do understand the struggle first hand raising a child alone in this pagan society. I pm'ed her when I first came here about information on working from home (thinking perhaps she could quit one of her jobs or perhaps have a little extra for the laundromat, like she said she could only afford to hand wash her clothes) and also how to exempt from child support requirements if she need food stamps at some point. (She posted that as one of the responses of why not file for child support with public assistance.)
Like I said to Pere, I've been interacting with trads for years online none have ever made an issue of me being unmarried. I haven't been active all the time and KIT necessarily but have been online for several years. There is enough to talk about as far as mothering. Time when I've had an issue related to my son's father I was given a great deal of sympathy and prayers and encouragement.
sounds then, that a good and steady confessor is really in order for counseling, preferably an older ,mature one and one that can spot needy or manipulative types, esp those that may-or may not-have "daddy issues"......as for child support and public assistance, that system is really screwed up and often, one gets lost in shuffles.......but what ever the situation is with the dad, he needs to either pay for his child or sign off being the parent with any legal attachements....
Sometimes people are get really messed up and kling to tradition as a seemingly calmly, steady rock, then resent those that are in the movement and react....Fr. McLucas ntoed this in a talk I have.....they want calm, stady life, but then resent it....
Not saying PW is this type nor anyone else here. But does happen....
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
Fact is, she seems at least like she is trying to learn and grow in the Fide and move on from whatever past she has had........She is trying, in this garbage society, to raise a child correctly, etc...she is indeed looking for support.....many of us came here at CI, or FE,etc and were naive or made odd psots,etc.....Raoul did, I did, etc......we could all have stories to tell.....heck, I used to be an AMericanist an a Republican.. :shocked: :surprised:
Belloc this is the thing none of us can say No to - the I need to learn. No matter what she does people want to teach, people attribute the bad behavior to a lack of knowledge of trad ways. It's nothing more than predator knowing which strings to pull to keep people sympathetic to them.
It's been called out exactly right whatever you say to help she twists and goes on about needing a husband. The issues she appears to be wanting info on are jut a gateway for her to express how she needs a husband or to make herself out to be a persecuted victim or to make some bold anti-feminist statements that don't seem to fit other things she says.
These are experienced mothers here that tried to help her. I'm a single mother too and have been one for a long time. That doesn't make me wise or an authority on trad things but I do understand the struggle first hand raising a child alone in this pagan society. I pm'ed her when I first came here about information on working from home (thinking perhaps she could quit one of her jobs or perhaps have a little extra for the laundromat, like she said she could only afford to hand wash her clothes) and also how to exempt from child support requirements if she need food stamps at some point. (She posted that as one of the responses of why not file for child support with public assistance.)
Like I said to Pere, I've been interacting with trads for years online none have ever made an issue of me being unmarried. I haven't been active all the time and KIT necessarily but have been online for several years. There is enough to talk about as far as mothering. Time when I've had an issue related to my son's father I was given a great deal of sympathy and prayers and encouragement.
sounds then, that a good and steady confessor is really in order for counseling, preferably an older ,mature one and one that can spot needy or manipulative types, esp those that may-or may not-have "daddy issues"......as for child support and public assistance, that system is really screwed up and often, one gets lost in shuffles.......but what ever the situation is with the dad, he needs to either pay for his child or sign off being the parent with any legal attachements....
Sometimes people are get really messed up and kling to tradition as a seemingly calmly, steady rock, then resent those that are in the movement and react....Fr. McLucas ntoed this in a talk I have.....they want calm, stady life, but then resent it....
Not saying PW is this type nor anyone else here. But does happen....
I wasn't saying for her to apply for it, I agree it is a screwed up system, it's not always the safety net some imagine it to be, I'm in straights myself right now, I was making the point that she was welcomed and given support from the women here and gave the example that I knew how it worked with child support and food stamps and sent her a pm about it.
I agree with mature confessor. I know what you mean in the last paragraph. You see the same with other very conservative groups too. I think this is more than someone wanting tradition because it will give them something and when it doesn't they are disappointed and rebel. I see predatory deceptive behavior.
-
sorry to hear of your own difficulties, let me know if I can help, PM me or otherwise.......been awhile since in law enforcement, working now in disability, let me know perhaps something can be helpful.......
-
Your problem, SS, is that you have accepted Tele's inflated view of himself as THE grand poobah of anti-feminism, because you have confused his bluster and extremism with righteousness.
Well, he is better at speaking out against it than anyone else here. You can call it the "grand poobah" or whatever, I just call it real Traditional Catholicism. Wallflower saying the military "could be an option worth considering" isn't real Traditional Catholicism. You've sided with wallflower and her "side" because you either have a poor understanding of what feminism is, or because you just want to oppose Tele and see him lose. Maybe both.
Therefore you also accept that those who don't agree with Tele's over-the-top ideas, must be feminists or too sympathetic to feminism. You have lost your sense of balance and moderation.
More hyperbole. I never said that anyone disagreed with Tele was a feminist. Anyone who disagrees with what the CHURCH teaches on the role of women in marriage is a feminist, not anyone who disagrees with Tele.
This is common; read about Jansenists and Pharisees again if you want to see what I mean. There is a reason the New Testament talks so much about this; the letter kills, the spirit vivifies.
No, I don't think what Tele says about feminism is Jansenism or Phariseeism.
-
Get a grip SS. I am almost begging you. Your ridiculousness on this has got to stop.
My "ridiculousness" is just fighting against feminism. I assure you that won't stop as long as I live.
The military I've already told you I would not recommend and have a big problem with. However it's not as black and white as you like to think it is and some have managed to do well for themselves in safer, less controversial areas of the military. As hyper as you get about it, you'd think those in the military should be refused the Sacraments or something. That is excessive and wrong.
Except I never said those in the military should be denied the Sacraments, nor do I believe it.
-
. It's nothing more than predator knowing which strings to pull to keep people sympathetic to them.
How can you be sure?
-
I am not talking about moral intentions, I simply stated a fact about what he needs to keep the site going, and that can be proven by the fact that this site has always thrived on controversies -- SGG, Bishop Fellay vs. Bp. Williamson, Tele, etc. It's like a soap opera here.
I meant to respond to this the other day, but never did. I think it's worth addressing.
First of all, the "Bishop Fellay vs. Bishop Williamson" controversy wasn't egged on by Matthew. If you go to any other Trad forum, whether it be Ignis Ardens, FishEaters, etc. there is constant bickering and division amongst SSPXers who are split on the questshion of whether or not there should be a deal, and which Bishop is in the right. The division over this on other forums is actually much larger than here, because CatholicInfo does not allow accordistas unless they can restrain themselves. So if you think that led to a lot of controversy here, go read elsewhere and it's far worse.
And yes, controversy does generate more traffic on a forum. The activity on most of the Trad forums out there exploded after the letters between the SSPX Bishops were leaked here. By the time they made their rounds, I'd imagine most of the Trad forums out there were experiencing record traffic, or close to it. The moderator doesn't have to egg controversy on to make it happen. Is there such a thing as too much controversy? Yes. FE has too much, in my opinion. I'd imagine every forum has too much from time to time. But to say that just this forum thrives on controversies isn't an accurate statement.
This site is rife with hoaxes; it still has not been explained where all these nαzι-tinged people came from or why Tele's point score went way up. Was Matthew bumping it up because he secretly favors his ideas? Did Tele bring people over from another site? While I can't say for sure, it was all more than fishy.
How would Matthew know where they came from? Is he a super moderator who knows who people are and where they came from the minute they sign up? Alaric came over from FishEaters, if that's one of the people you're refering to, and I assure you Tele didn't bring him or anyone else over from FE since he was banned from there.
And regarding something you said earlier in this thread that is burried somewhere, about how Tele's reputation suddenly "shot up", it is primarily because of the posts he makes about Bishop Fellay and the modern-day SSPX. Given your overall avoidance of the subject (and given the few posts you HAVE made on the subject, that suggested Bishop Fellay shares the same mindset of Archbishop LeFebvre, a completely false notion that only shows your ignorance on the matter and gives ammunition to the accordistas), you probably don't understand why the posts Tele makes on the subject are so good and well-liked.
Another reason is because the tables have turned regarding this forum's stance on Tele. Less than a year ago the only supporters he had were Graham and Sede Catholic (who, at the time, posted as "Sedevacantist MelFan"). Now that more anti-feminists such as TraditionalGuy20 have joined, combined with the fact that much of Tele's opposition (s2srea, LordPhan, and catherineofsiena) have quit, has made Tele more popular here than he once was. And we must recall that I am now a supporter of his as well, after being one of his "rivals" for a while, which I apologised to him publicly for in November.
That's all really just side issues, of course, that don't make a difference. Why should it concern you what Tele's reputation is? Reputation points are just that, mere points. If one is well-liked on a forum, fine. But it doesn't play a role in the salvation of your soul, which is the most important thing.
Finally, regarding your criticisms of Matthew's moderation, one cannot be expected to sympathize with a moderator unless they have actually been through the stressful experience of running their own forum. I've been a moderator since April, and being a moderator has given me a different perspective on forums, a perspective that only other moderators can really share.
Sure, I was sometimes critical of Matthew's moderating decisions before I opened my own forum. My constant whining about roscoe was a prime example. But when you moderate your own forum, you realize how difficult and stressful it is to own one, which is why I have since refrained from saying anything negative about Matthew since he has enough on his plate already. I now know how it feels to moderate a forum, and it isn't exactly a walk in the park. Wallflower will discover that soon after running her forum a while.
So PereJoseph is correct that we cannot and should not judge Matthew's moral intentions.
-
Get a grip SS. I am almost begging you. Your ridiculousness on this has got to stop.
My "ridiculousness" is just fighting against feminism. I assure you that won't stop as long as I live.
The ridiculousness in this particular point is in refusing to acknowledge that there are times of emergency that arise when a women may have to work. That refusal is there simply because you cannot lower your pride enough to agree with me when we do actually agree. You cannot separate in your mind and make distinctions between true disagreements and imaginary ones.
The military I've already told you I would not recommend and have a big problem with. However it's not as black and white as you like to think it is and some have managed to do well for themselves in safer, less controversial areas of the military. As hyper as you get about it, you'd think those in the military should be refused the Sacraments or something. That is excessive and wrong.
Except I never said those in the military should be denied the Sacraments, nor do I believe it.
I never said you did. I said you behave as though, "you get hyper as though". It's different. Whether you like it or not, there are some people who have done well for themselves, who are good traditional Catholics, who are in the military and all your blustering otherwise about how it's not "real traditional Catholicism" and all your pronouncements of "You aren't Catholic" etc... doesn't change that. But again because it's me your pride will not allow you to agree with truth. You have this imaginary fight with me that so many times I have tried to tell you is one-sided. We agree a lot more than we disagree.
-
We agree a lot more than we disagree.[/b]
in my humble and unsolicited opinion, perhaps then to agree to disagree, agree when possible and move on...........this thread really has dragged out and gone in different directions...
-
The ridiculousness in this particular point is in refusing to acknowledge that there are times of emergency that arise when a women may have to work. That refusal is there simply because you cannot lower your pride enough to agree with me when we do actually agree.
You misrepresented my position. Of course there are times when the woman must work, such as when the husband becomes disabled and cannot work. I have acknowledged plenty of times that there are emergency cases where the woman must work, wallflower.
The problem is that you stretch those "emergency cases" beyond their boundaries. A poor economy is not sufficient enough reason for the woman to work outside the home. You also believe that a married woman can work before she has children. While that may not necessarily be sinful, it is still wrong because it changes the roles of a man and woman in a marriage. The man is ALWAYS the breadwinner unless he can't work.
You can accuse me of "pride" all you wish, but defending what the Church teaches on the roles of a man and woman in marriage (as well as defending Telesphorus and PenitentWoman from the unjust attacks they receive from you and others) is not prideful. Sometimes I have let pride get in my way in the past, I admit that. There is nothing prideful about this, however. If you think I'm prideful, I'm sorry to hear it, but you're entitled to whatever position you wish to hold on me. It really makes little difference to me.
-
If any young woman in the military is a "good traditional Catholic" who is "doing well for herself" it is in spite of her environment, not because of it.
But frankly, when wallflower asseverates someone is a "good traditional Catholic" - who has "done well" - we should be clear we have no idea what this really means when she says it.
-
Women should not be "soldiers", women should not be in intimate mixed company with soldiers with roles that are hopelessly blurred.
This is common sense that all Catholics must accept. If they reject it they have a real problem with Catholic morality.
-
Women should not be "soldiers", women should not be in intimate mixed company with soldiers with roles that are hopelessly blurred.
This is common sense that all Catholics must accept. If they reject it they have a real problem with Catholic morality.
Precisely, Tele. Well said.
-
If any young woman in the military is a "good traditional Catholic" who is "doing well for herself" it is in spite of her environment, not because of it.
But frankly, when wallflower asseverates someone is a "good traditional Catholic" - who has "done well" - we should be clear we have no idea what this really means when she says it.
True, these days, cannot really support a Catholic going into the military, pray for them, love them-of course, but this Govt is too evil to serve, esp to die for or come back mentally/physically damaged.Know some men, including ex-soldiers, that feel this way too.
That said, Dr. White made a good point at the ISOC conference, that women have no buisness in the military, esp front line.....
-
Women should not be "soldiers", women should not be in intimate mixed company with soldiers with roles that are hopelessly blurred.
and then they :scratchchin: wonder why there are rapes, sɛҳuąƖ assualts and pregnancies/STD's and then, hand out contraceptives......one evil to another...... :devil2:
-
Women should not be "soldiers", women should not be in intimate mixed company with soldiers with roles that are hopelessly blurred.
This is common sense that all Catholics must accept. If they reject it they have a real problem with Catholic morality.
Precisely, Tele. Well said.
The femitrad mentality is this:
If the priests refuse to criticize it and the other women approve of it it must be OK, and anyone who says differently needs to feel their wrath.
They will defend women in the military and don't you dare suggest those women are in a horribly immoral environment causing harm to their souls because you're not allowed to even suggest trad girls are anything less than perfect - you must believe they're immune to the modern world and its propaganda, because admitting that they aren't might impinge on their "free will." (their freedom to be drunken party girls for years before they marry - yes most so-called trad women approve of drunkenness)
-
Oh and by the way I have to question whether the men in your lives are strong men if they let you talk like this to a man.
No need to worry about my husband. I do have a strong personality, so does he. I also love, respect and trust my husband, things that make submission much more fulfilling for both of us. Things that are necessary to the full Catholic understanding of it. You don't expect me to have those sentiments toward you, do you? You will find a wife eventually. I don't appreciate you trying to practice on me, neither does my husband. And before you object yes you are trying to practice when you get offended or perturbed or wonder about her home life when a random woman doesn't "submit" her intellect to you, aka agree with everything you say.
And as I said before, submission is not something given solely based on your sex so I don't know what you're expecting. That's part of it, not all of it, there are many men who prove themselves unworth of being followed unless you want to follow them to hell. So no it's not feminist to be careful in this regard. It takes a vow for a reason.
Not to mention I don't know what you really have to complain about. The talk to the men has not been nearly as disrespectful as your talk to the women. If you resent a woman's input that much go find yourself a man cave. As far as I know this is supposed to be mixed. The only other alternative is to learn to interact with us with even a semblance of personal decency. You don't have to agree but you don't have to take personal shots with every single post either. The men who gain respect usually have something substantial to contribute. It's just a thought.
I cannot stress enough that if you want to learn from the best of examples on this matter, find some source of meditation on the Fiat. I am most grateful to have had a strong foundation but everything I learned, I was taught in person at school, in parishes or with spiritual direction, so I have no links or resources to point you to. I'm sure they are out there and could be found with minimal digging.
-
The ridiculousness in this particular point is in refusing to acknowledge that there are times of emergency that arise when a women may have to work. That refusal is there simply because you cannot lower your pride enough to agree with me when we do actually agree.
You misrepresented my position. Of course there are times when the woman must work, such as when the husband becomes disabled and cannot work. I have acknowledged plenty of times that there are emergency cases where the woman must work, wallflower.
The problem is that you stretch those "emergency cases" beyond their boundaries. A poor economy is not sufficient enough reason for the woman to work outside the home. You also believe that a married woman can work before she has children. While that may not necessarily be sinful, it is still wrong because it changes the roles of a man and woman in a marriage. The man is ALWAYS the breadwinner unless he can't work.
I just gave you example of when a poor economy may have an impact. See, you make a statement "There may be cases of emergency" but have no idea how that is implemented in real life. Do you not recognize the examples I gave to be times of emergency? Those are real life examples, downsized, laid off, cannot make ends meet. How else do you think "husband cannot work" or "time of emergency" translates in real life? That's the problem. If I do not use your exact language you cannot expand your understanding enough to make the connection.
Working before children is another story. We can agree to disagree. Again it's not something I encourage but I'm not going to tell people they aren't Catholic over it either. That's a line you cross one too many times and I refuse to join you in it even if I agree that she is best at home.
-
Women today are taught to show disrespect to men as a class. To have contempt for men as a class. Not contempt for their immorality, no, they have contempt in particular for trad men. So much so that some of these trad women tell other trad women to avoid trad men.
Then we're supposed to imagine that they really respect their husbands, when they despise the male sex and the typical trad man, and openly disrespect and disparage such men.
-
Women should not be "soldiers", women should not be in intimate mixed company with soldiers with roles that are hopelessly blurred.
This is common sense that all Catholics must accept. If they reject it they have a real problem with Catholic morality.
No one has ever said that women should be soldiers. Ever.
And don't refer to Mrs Z's thread because it's not in there either. All that was meant in there is that if her daughter is determined and goes, what is she to do? Stick a gun to her head to keep her back? At some point, when you've fought as much as you can, which she intimated she had done, nothing more can be done. And when Mrs Z updated that things were looking up, all were grateful for it. So don't even go there.
-
All that was meant in there is that if her daughter is determined and goes, what is she to do? Stick a gun to her head to keep her back? At some point, when you've fought as much as you can, which she intimated she had done, nothing more can be done..
So you and others counseled acquiescence, which is wrong.
-
All that was meant in there is that if her daughter is determined and goes, what is she to do? Stick a gun to her head to keep her back? At some point, when you've fought as much as you can, which she intimated she had done, nothing more can be done..
So you and others counseled acquiescence, which is wrong.
Not at all. How far do you go in fighting Tele? Would you stick a gun to your daughter's head? How far would you go? If you had fought all you could and she was still determined? How far would you go to avoid "acquiescence"? At what point would you realize you must leave it to God and His grace?
-
wallflower said:
I just gave you example of when a poor economy may have an impact. See, you make a statement "There may be cases of emergency" but have no idea how that is implemented in real life. Do you not recognize the examples I gave to be times of emergency? Those are real life examples, downsized, laid off, cannot make ends meet. How else do you think "husband cannot work" or "time of emergency" translates in real life? That's the problem. If I do not use your exact language you cannot expand your understanding enough to make the connection.
That is like asking a baby veal to expand his weight class, wallflower. Those driven by pride and ego are spiritually and intellectually stunted, as a veal is physically stunted by being raised in a tiny compartment.
This is all Spiritus can see -- Against Tele, bad. With Tele, good. He is exactly like a brainwashed cult member with googly eyes.
This is not and has never been about feminism. It's about Tele's ego. It is not as if CathInfo was crawling with feminists before Tele found his pet cause. Rather, what happened is that Tele's fizzled courtship made him seek someone to blame, and to unleash his anger on, and that became the "femitrads." Before that incident, he was mostly passive and more constructive in his comments; afterwards, he began to style himself as some kind of anti-feminist crusader.
Tele's ever-expanding ego is not just content with railing against femitrads ( and yes, there is a feminist influence in the Church, there is also a Pharisee influence, an Americanist influence, etc., humans being imperfect ). He must actually INVENT imaginary enemies, imaginary femitrads, for him to fight against, thus portraying himself as the hero and valiant knight. And in order for this image to stick, all those who disagree with him must be seen as feminists or defenders of feminists so that, in effect, he is God Himself when it comes to this topic. To disagree with him is to be cast out into the outer darkness. The whole site must share his mind; no wonder the site has become an unattractive melange of white-power types.
This can be seen in that SpiritusSanctus, when listing those who are "against feminism," does not include me, but only Tele's circle.
You can't discuss anything rationally here anymore, you are either sucked into Tele's little coterie, or you are harassed by an arrogant band of self-styled "righteous" who really aren't. Then Matthew and others start thread after thread about feminism to feed into this STUPIDITY, so that's all the site is, people going around and around with this massive black hole of an ego known as Telesphorus. Look how almost no other topic takes off; everything has become about Tele and feminism. Or else it is about Tele and Co. working on someone naive like PW, which causes others to get involved once again, feeling they have to protect her.
Matthew will be held responsible by God for giving this man a forum to air out his rancorous, un-Christian attitude. It is merely a sick joke that having charity is the prerequisite for this site.
-
Marcelino said:
You start out your post by insulting her and then you claim you want to help her. Are you kidding?
As you can see, I said nothing to Penitent Woman in this thread until about 70 pages in, when I told her once to stay away from Tele.
Wallflower and CatherineofSiena and others were trying to help her, and I am defending them. So while I do hope she grows in the spiritual life, I am not one who has undertaken to be any kind of guide to her, feeling that others are handling that task capably.
Interesting how I and others are rampantly insulted here, and yet you take issue with me stating a plain fact, that PW is a bit neurotic and doesn't listen to good advice. That is something I would say to her face, in fraternal correction. How is that an insult? If you tell someone they need to try harder, or try less hard, or pray more, or work harder, is that an insult? You people are desperate.
-
You've done this before, Raoul. That is, seeing cօռspιʀαcιҽs that aren't there.
Remember when you accused me of being Caminus, and Wallflower of being Dulcamara (etc.)? That was very, very low and you were dead wrong about that. Sure you were younger -- maybe 34 years old instead of the current 36. But think about that -- you were THIRTY FOUR YEARS OLD and made that huge of a mistake.
I guarantee you you're making another one again.
Traditional Catholics talk about what they like to talk about. Battle of the Sexes is much more interesting than cooking recipes. That's just human nature. Feminism is much more pervasive in society today, hence it's a "hotter" topic, because it affects just about everyone.
I am running a Catholic forum; I can't mount a personal crusade against human nature. I can only keep the most obvious, flagrant sins out. I can't change human nature (what people find interesting, etc.), or the world.
Ironic that you rail against Telesphorus for his Quixotic crusade against trad-feminism -- saying that he's making up a conspiracy to defend his ego -- while you have your own tilting-at-windmills action going on against an alleged "Telesphorus conspiracy" on CathInfo.
Instead of femi-trads, it's white power trads and anti-feminist trads.
Do you see the hypocrisy, Raoul?
-
Hey Marcelino, let's listen to Jesus insult people in the Gospel today: "And which of you by taking thought, can add to his stature by one cubit?"
See, he is saying they are worrying and overthinking things, how dare He?!
You guys always use rabble-rousing tactics. The real point is the attitude of Tele and certain of his followers is not Catholic, and neither are the racist views espoused by some of you.
Even with SpiritusSanctus, he whitewashes Tele's abominable behavior, while being hyper-sensitive to the most minor faults of all those against Tele... Tele is his sacred monster who can do no wrong. It is not going to help your spiritual life to defend un-Christian behavior.
-
I also find it interesting that you're so sensitive to "white power" and "anti-feminism" and you live in California.
Don't you admit that JUST PERHAPS your opinion/belief/take on certain issues is going to be affected by living in California for YEARS?
California has got to be about the worst place for a Catholic to live, outside Las Vegas, NV.
A fish can't swim in sewage for years and still taste good.
-
Matthew said:
Instead of femi-trads, it's white power trads and anti-feminist trads.
Do you see the hypocrisy, Raoul?
No, I see a feeble attempt at SSPX-style psychological manipulation that you know full well will have no effect on me, yet you keep doing it.
Someone is right; and someone is wrong. Tele's attitude is uncharitable and arrogant. He is a racist -- openly. He insults the traditional priesthood wantonly. That is all WRONG. Cut-and-dried, wrong.
You are clearly sympathetic, at least to a degree, with some of Tele's attitudes on race. Show me who your friends are, I'll show you who you are. I am not saying you are racist, as I have not heard you using slurs, but I recall your old posts on this topic, when I used to be a bit more racist myself; thank God I have seen the dead end I was heading towards.
Yes, I made a mistake thinking you were Caminus, I could make it again today -- it has nothing to do with being 36 as opposed to 34, it has to do with the number of spooks infesting this site. That is why Wallflower and CofS think that PW is a fake, it's just something about this site that puts conspiracy theories in your brain, too much weirdness. Remember that one guy who was talking about the Ubermensch? And now we have brotherfrancis75 exalting Louis XIV? This site is crawling with weirdness.
How likely is it that a woman would appear out of nowhere acting like a damsel in distress who just needs to be saved by Tele? I can see why they think it's fake, but I remain unsure. Hearing she is supposed to be around 23 actually made me lean towards the opinion that she is not real.
-
Matthew,any chance we have reached the point where this thread may be locked? Seems we are going rather downward......your site, your call.....
-
I guess Raoul didn't read my post about Matthew and forums.
Raoul, you have a tendency to obsess over people you can't stand. You obsessed over smearing Caminus, even after he backed away. You have been doing it with Tele for a long time, now you're doing it with me.
Sorry Raoul, but you're a hypocrite. You engage in sinful slander against Tele all the time, and anyone who so much as defends him gets swallowed up by your rage. You are quick to point out the "problems" with Tele but are so caught up in your narcisisstic pride that you can't realize the wrongness of your own actions. It's no wonder Tele has the support he does, your obsession only drives more people to his side.
-
Raoul --
Number of spooks infesting the site?
You're right, Raoul, I should ban people when I see that little "Spook light" light up on my Admin control panel.
Wait a minute -- there is no such feature.
Sorry, but I'm not paranoid like you, nor do I automatically think the worst of people.
I think you'll find that some "cօռspιʀαcιҽs" are just human nature doing its thing. Particularly the cօռspιʀαcιҽs that come from your head -- the ones that you "discover".
And this is ME saying that, which is saying something! I believe in quite a few cօռspιʀαcιҽs: 9/11, fake moon landing, Pearl Harbor, Illuminati, Freemasonic infiltration of the Church, vaccines to cull the population, genetically engineered food, chemtrails, the list goes on.
I wish those above items were just "men being fallen men" on their own, but unfortunately in those cases I'm forced to conclude that it was a premeditated plot of more than one man (i.e., a conspiracy).
-
And it all started with a question about modesty...
-
taken on a life of its own......wonder if it will get bigger then the SGG thread :furtive: :popcorn:
-
How else do you think "husband cannot work" or "time of emergency" translates in real life? That's the problem. If I do not use your exact language you cannot expand your understanding enough to make the connection.
Wallflower, you're using another fallacy. This isn't about using "my language". This is about forming a view that is in line with the teachings of the Church. You don't seem to understand that this isn't about ME. It's not about what I think.
"Husband cannot work" does not translate into "downsizing". I'm talking about if he becomes ill or disabled. If he gets layed off and cannot find another job, then if the situation becomes bad enough, the woman could then get a job. That is actually quite rare, though. The point is that she must be compelled by NECESSITY to go out, as the Council of Trent stated.
Working before children is another story. We can agree to disagree. Again it's not something I encourage but I'm not going to tell people they aren't Catholic over it either. That's a line you cross one too many times and I refuse to join you in it even if I agree that she is best at home.
When did I say a woman who chooses to work before having children is not Catholic? I said it would not necessarily be sinful but that it would still unnecessarily put her in the role of the man in a marriage.
-
Even with SpiritusSanctus, he whitewashes Tele's abominable behavior, while being hyper-sensitive to the most minor faults of all those against Tele... Tele is his sacred monster who can do no wrong.
:laugh2:
This is more hyperbole. Wow, you're on a roll today, Raoul.
It is not going to help your spiritual life to defend un-Christian behavior.
Well, gee, that pretty much includes yourself for defending the un-Christian behavior towards Tele and PW. You say I'm defending un-Christian behavior, but you don't think it's un-Christian to spend your entire time on a Traditional Catholic forum bashing another man? Don't you know that attempting to ruin someone's reputation is a mortal sin? Not to mention repeatedly attempting to provoke someone.
But in your mind, everything you are doing is justified, and everything the "other side" does is Pharisee-like or un-Christian. To you, it has become all about winning. It doesn't matter who you have to side with, as long as someone is opposing Tele, that's the side you're on. Perhaps you should follow your own example. Remember what you wrote to Tele last year?
You think you're winning when you're really losing, Charlie Sheen. Why don't you wear a shirt that says "WINNING" just to drive home the irony.
Funny how you also say I think "against Tele" is bad and "for Tele" is good, when you have the exact same mindset, only it is reversed. I'm beginning to think that if Wallflower PMed you tomorrow and told you she had a change of heart and now sympathized with Tele, you would hold a never-ending grudge against her like you do with Tele and all of his supporters.
It would be nice if you were an actual contributer to this forum like you used to be instead of wasting your time incessantly bashing Matthew and Telesphorus. But if that's how you choose to spend your time, there is nothing I can do.
-
It is not as if CathInfo was crawling with feminists before Tele found his pet cause. Rather, what happened is that Tele's fizzled courtship made him seek someone to blame, and to unleash his anger on, and that became the "femitrads." Before that incident, he was mostly passive and more constructive in his comments; afterwards, he began to style himself as some kind of anti-feminist crusader.
LOL
Just shows how not-so-long you've been around here. The thread "Is Cathinfo Feminist Central?" happened at least a year before Tele even joined the site!
-
It is not as if CathInfo was crawling with feminists before Tele found his pet cause. Rather, what happened is that Tele's fizzled courtship made him seek someone to blame, and to unleash his anger on, and that became the "femitrads." Before that incident, he was mostly passive and more constructive in his comments; afterwards, he began to style himself as some kind of anti-feminist crusader.
LOL
Just shows how not-so-long you've been around here. The thread "Is Cathinfo Feminist Central?" happened at least a year before Tele even joined the site!
Raoul just got OWNED! hahaha
Face it, Raoul -- you're wrong. Again.
The issue of male/female roles, feminism, etc. is simply a hot topic in the Traditional Catholic world. Everyone has an opinion about it, it causes plenty of hot arguments, and it's a topic everyone is interested in (i.e., they care to read about and discuss it).
Don't lose one of your most redeeming traits, which is the ability to admit you were wrong and change your position accordingly. Don't be as blinded by ego as you claim Telesphorus is.
-
No need to worry about my husband. I do have a strong personality, so does he. I also love, respect and trust my husband, things that make submission much more fulfilling for both of us. Things that are necessary to the full Catholic understanding of it. You don't expect me to have those sentiments toward you, do you? You will find a wife eventually. I don't appreciate you trying to practice on me, neither does my husband. And before you object yes you are trying to practice when you get offended or perturbed or wonder about her home life when a random woman doesn't "submit" her intellect to you, aka agree with everything you say.
And as I said before, submission is not something given solely based on your sex so I don't know what you're expecting. That's part of it, not all of it, there are many men who prove themselves unworth of being followed unless you want to follow them to hell. So no it's not feminist to be careful in this regard. It takes a vow for a reason.
Not to mention I don't know what you really have to complain about. The talk to the men has not been nearly as disrespectful as your talk to the women. If you resent a woman's input that much go find yourself a man cave. As far as I know this is supposed to be mixed. The only other alternative is to learn to interact with us with even a semblance of personal decency. You don't have to agree but you don't have to take personal shots with every single post either. The men who gain respect usually have something substantial to contribute. It's just a thought.
I cannot stress enough that if you want to learn from the best of examples on this matter, find some source of meditation on the Fiat. I am most grateful to have had a strong foundation but everything I learned, I was taught in person at school, in parishes or with spiritual direction, so I have no links or resources to point you to. I'm sure they are out there and could be found with minimal digging.
Yes perhaps your "strong personality" is the problem here. Well I will give you this: at least you didn't outright say, "Oh you'll never find a wife!" so I will give you that for saying I will find one eventually, although I'm still young so I'm not in a huge hurry. :wink: Oh and might I add I don't automatically give respect to women, they have to earn it by showing good values. And I don't resent your input just know that I have very strong opinions on matters such as this as well. You ladies are acting as if I believe in Islamic law in dealing with women. Oh and I have given plenty of personal contribution to this website, just ask anyone besides the few leftists on here or ladies such as yourselves who see me as a nαzι, fascist, racist, sexist, etc. Perhaps I just don't believe in that upper class moral code about giving respect to elders and women simply because they are elders and women, even though they might be the most vile people for that nation in question nor the upper class sentiment that differences of opinion are vulgar.
Might I ask by the way what you mean by "practice on you"? What on earth does that mean? Oh and I'd like to add that I'm not afraid of your husband. Anytime he wants to get on here and debate or argue I'm for it. If he feels insulted by me "insulting you" I would give you my address so we could fight it out with our fists but there are too many wierdos on the Internet these days and I don't know who you are.
-
Women today are taught to show disrespect to men as a class. To have contempt for men as a class. Not contempt for their immorality, no, they have contempt in particular for trad men. So much so that some of these trad women tell other trad women to avoid trad men.
Then we're supposed to imagine that they really respect their husbands, when they despise the male sex and the typical trad man, and openly disrespect and disparage such men.
Oh they respect the sissies and wimpy husbands sure but a strong man with the soundness of character to dominate his wife with his "far-right views" oh no these women don't show respect to those kind of men. And this all has to do with feminism, in regards to the anti-male behavior.
-
No need to worry about my husband. I do have a strong personality, so does he. I also love, respect and trust my husband, things that make submission much more fulfilling for both of us. Things that are necessary to the full Catholic understanding of it. You don't expect me to have those sentiments toward you, do you? You will find a wife eventually. I don't appreciate you trying to practice on me, neither does my husband. And before you object yes you are trying to practice when you get offended or perturbed or wonder about her home life when a random woman doesn't "submit" her intellect to you, aka agree with everything you say.
By the way I wouldn't have fought back so hard had you not accused the "sexists" on here of not having an ordinary social life or not going out in the real world. It seemed as if you were calling the "sexists" on here mental or abnormal.
-
Could you so kindly help me out and elaborate on what you mean by this?
I don't want to stand out.
I think it's pretty much impossible not to stand out - these girls were even wearing too much make-up - I wouldn't say they were dressed in a particularly distinct way - it's just if you recognize the look, it's unmistakable. (long hair with natural hair color is another give-away - I really don't know how to describe clothes - they're either familiar or unfamiliar - sorry I can't give you details)
You will stand out as a Catholic. Just use your own sense of taste, avoid too much eccentricity, and don't worry about it.
You mean that bohemian-mommy look? Seen that in some Latin Rite circles,esp in Eastern Rite ones...
-
No need to worry about my husband. I do have a strong personality, so does he. I also love, respect and trust my husband, things that make submission much more fulfilling for both of us. Things that are necessary to the full Catholic understanding of it. You don't expect me to have those sentiments toward you, do you? You will find a wife eventually. I don't appreciate you trying to practice on me, neither does my husband. And before you object yes you are trying to practice when you get offended or perturbed or wonder about her home life when a random woman doesn't "submit" her intellect to you, aka agree with everything you say.
By the way I wouldn't have fought back so hard had you not accused the "sexists" on here of not having an ordinary social life or not going out in the real world. It seemed as if you were calling the "sexists" on here mental or abnormal.
I do not use the word sexist, nor did I make any accusations. What I realized was how far your impression of who you are talking to is from the reality. You read way more and are much more consummed by this than I am, which may be why you project it on to me and think that's how I live or how I think as well.
If you have a parish life then that part didn't apply to you. However there are many who do not and it isn't their fault, but it makes it more understandable to me that they don't realize what regular trad women are like. It's two and two I should have put together long ago. I mean if all you have to go by is Tele's description, which is how he justifies still being single, then yeah, why not have a huge chip on the shoulder. In real life though, many of these women do as much all in a day's work against feminism as you do reading a book.
As far as my husband, it just goes to show, again, what different planets we're on. You refer to strength in terms of "dominating" your wife and going for a street fight. When I refer to it, I'm thinking of how mature he is (even when your age), how responsible he is, how hard he works to provide for his family, how he tries to cultivate virtue and develop a prayer life. He strives to be a true leader. Leading =/= dominating. I'm sorry. They are very different and leadership is the Catholic thought, the Catholic influence, the Catholic way. You can keep dominating in your back pocket for times of emergency when you really need it, but I wouldn't suggest starting out that way. You want to be a leader, which is much more refined and takes people skills, not force. You don't have to take it from me either if you want to find feminist ghosts in this because I happen to be saying it. On this there is PLENTY of literature. Perhaps putting down your Engels and whoever else and picking up some Catholic authors might be a good place to start. Truly, you have the negative views downpat, how about picking up the positive ones to round things out?
-
I mean if all you have to go by is Tele's description, which is how he justifies still being single, then yeah, why not have a huge chip on the shoulder. In real life though, many of these women do as much all in a day's work against feminism as you do reading a book.
You are a real passive aggressive wallflower.
Let's just remind you what Matthew posted months ago (something you ignored in the very same thread by bringing up the age issue):
But, long story short, leave Telesphorus alone about his quest for a wife.
In fact most trad men are probably naive, because it's in their nature and upbringing to want to think the best of trad women.
-
You mean that bohemian-mommy look? Seen that in some Latin Rite circles,esp in Eastern Rite ones...
No, not bohemian, and not mommies.
-
You mean that bohemian-mommy look? Seen that in some Latin Rite circles,esp in Eastern Rite ones...
No, not bohemian, and not mommies.
more amish-y??
-
more amish-y??
No. It's subtle. Maybe fiftiesish?
Hems, hair length, hair color, colors and cut of their clothes, how they walk, etc.
-
I mean if all you have to go by is Tele's description, which is how he justifies still being single, then yeah, why not have a huge chip on the shoulder. In real life though, many of these women do as much all in a day's work against feminism as you do reading a book.
You are a real passive aggressive wallflower.
Let's just remind you what Matthew posted months ago (something you ignored in the very same thread by bringing up the age issue):
But, long story short, leave Telesphorus alone about his quest for a wife.
In fact most trad men are probably naive, because it's in their nature and upbringing to want to think the best of trad women.
Some are called to single life, some have not found that right someone and do not want to rush into a relationship.....some trads have met are going/looking outside the country as trad women prospects slim in USA....go figure.....
-
more amish-y??
No. It's subtle. Maybe fiftiesish?
Hems, hair length, hair color, colors and cut of their clothes, how they walk, etc.
Bingo, know what you mean, a sort of flash back to the "good" old days.....seen this too....
hey, there is agood article, written will warn you, by a self described 5 points/fundamentalist Calvinist that harpoons this "back to the 50's" inclination.....darn it, cannot locate it anyomore, but he slams the "go back to teh 50's, everythign wil lbe great" notion.......
Not minding retro in some ways, but it can get odd.....know of a guy thatcomes occ to my TLm and he dresses, kid you note, in clothes circa 1880!! Has a notehr guy, now, doing the same.....big tie, spats,etc.....even top hat and bollers
-
Some are called to single life, some have not found that right someone and do not want to rush into a relationship.....some trads have met are going/looking outside the country as trad women prospects slim in USA....go figure.....
These women in some of these groups are very obsessed with influencing who pairs up with whom - and with shutting out men who somehow, in someway, run afoul of their vanity, vanity that they pretend has to do with morality.
They will then try to goad their victim by telling people that no girl wants him or ever did want him, that he's crazy, a freak, etc.
They're very vindictive and manipulative people. And as you can see from all these threads they are obsessive on the topic.
-
There is a cliqu-ishness true enough, glad I am out of that and if widowed some day, dont want back in, at least, not in the USA.......after prefering honky's like myself, would consider asian or Hispanic perhaps, many tehre still humble and traditional, but either way, not worth it to me, plan if widowed, to stay single and try to :pray: more and stay busy.....do not envy the cat fights you sound like you have been mixed up in.......I recall some here at CI some yrs ago trying to play match maker, etc-PM me if you want more details, but not comfortable posting openly about other prior posters.....
-
more amish-y??
No. It's subtle. Maybe fiftiesish?
Hems, hair length, hair color, colors and cut of their clothes, how they walk, etc.
Bingo, know what you mean, a sort of flash back to the "good" old days.....seen this too....
hey, there is agood article, written will warn you, by a self described 5 points/fundamentalist Calvinist that harpoons this "back to the 50's" inclination.....darn it, cannot locate it anyomore, but he slams the "go back to teh 50's, everythign wil lbe great" notion.......
Not minding retro in some ways, but it can get odd.....know of a guy thatcomes occ to my TLm and he dresses, kid you note, in clothes circa 1880!! Has a notehr guy, now, doing the same.....big tie, spats,etc.....even top hat and bollers
Well, there were many pleasant things about the 1950s. My parents (born in the late 40s) were children in that decade, and they have fond memories of it. It was the last time that those raised prior to WWI had a lot of influence in our society - so things were in many ways "nicer" - granted there were many hardships, and much social change and many evils.
As for myself I'm enjoying shaving using my grandfather's razor and brush, I'm a sentimentalist. I like certain aspects of the 1950s, although it was surely a corrupt decade. But it was before Vatican II. When all else is said and done - that's a very very important fact and circuмstance. However bad the 50s might have been - it was before Vatican II.
-
True, corruption in society and Church was more subtle and under-radar more......
I can get into "old school" too, but there is an odd, time warp thing that is-as you put in prior-hard to describe fully....
-
I mean if all you have to go by is Tele's description, which is how he justifies still being single, then yeah, why not have a huge chip on the shoulder. In real life though, many of these women do as much all in a day's work against feminism as you do reading a book.
You are a real passive aggressive wallflower.
Let's just remind you what Matthew posted months ago (something you ignored in the very same thread by bringing up the age issue):
But, long story short, leave Telesphorus alone about his quest for a wife.
In fact most trad men are probably naive, because it's in their nature and upbringing to want to think the best of trad women.
Passive agressive is when someone insults others while pretending they aren't so that when the other person reacts, they look like the bully. It's like sneaky instigating, they don't take responsibility for their words or actions and play innocent when the one they poke gets upset. (I have a passive-aggressive sister in law, I know it well. The only cure is to cultivate a hard heart toward them if they remain unreformed. Try to work it out in case it's a misunderstanding but once a definite pattern emerges, you have no choice but to put a wall up. It's the only cure. They play on reaction, emotion and heart strings so the only way to stop it is to take those things out of your relationship. Don't react, don't care and they will go find the drama elsewhere.)
I take responsibility for what I said and stand by it as true. We all know the paradox that although 70% of your posts are colored by that incident, no one can refer to it in speaking to or of you. But in reality it's all in your hands. When you quit referring to it in all your opinions, then I can quit being forced to refer to it in refuting those opinions. And you can't deny it colors all your opinions. I've read your posts from before, you are not the same person and your views on all women are guided largely by your explanation for what happened. I have no choice but to address that when defending myself or trad women in general.
-
I mean if all you have to go by is Tele's description, which is how he justifies still being single, then yeah, why not have a huge chip on the shoulder. In real life though, many of these women do as much all in a day's work against feminism as you do reading a book.
You are a real passive aggressive wallflower.
Let's just remind you what Matthew posted months ago (something you ignored in the very same thread by bringing up the age issue):
But, long story short, leave Telesphorus alone about his quest for a wife.
In fact most trad men are probably naive, because it's in their nature and upbringing to want to think the best of trad women.
Passive agressive is when someone insults others while pretending they aren't so that when the other person reacts, they look like the bully. It's like sneaky instigating, they don't take responsibility for their words or actions and play innocent when the one they poke gets upset. (I have a passive-aggressive sister in law, I know it well. The only cure is to cultivate a hard heart toward them if they remain unreformed. Try to work it out in case it's a misunderstanding but once a definite pattern emerges, you have no choice but to put a wall up. It's the only cure. They play on reaction, emotion and heart strings so the only way to stop it is to take those things out of your relationship. Don't react, don't care and they will go find the drama elsewhere.)
I take responsibility for what I said and stand by it as true. We all know the paradox that although 70% of your posts are colored by that incident, no one can refer to it in speaking to or of you. But in reality it's all in your hands. When you quit referring to it in all your opinions, then I can quit being forced to refer to it in refuting those opinions. And you can't deny it colors all your opinions. I've read your posts from before, you are not the same person and your views on all women are guided largely by your explanation for what happened. I have no choice but to address that when defending myself or trad women in general.
Do you agree, though, sometimes there can be a clique thing going on, as is in any group? Sometimes can get personal and leave a scar......again, know of at least one incident w/former posters, again, rather not air publicly on a thread.....but.....
-
Tele, maybe you've already answered my question as much as you want to, but are you against women dressing like in the 50's? How would you like to see them dress/act/look like? Don't most men wear suits & ties just like men did in the 50's? So why do the women stand out & not the men?
Belloc - really? I'd like to see those men dressed 1880 style. Do they think they're going to a costume ball? Where would they even find spats nowadays?
I've never noticed any 50's or 1880's style where I go to church. Everyone dresses normally. I think it's not good to call attention to yourself by wearing a 'costume'. I don't consider the 50's look a costume look, btw. I actually like the 50's look. 1880's is going back a bit too far. Too extreme & odd for trad men to be caught up in 'fashion'.
Also, Tele, yes, I agree that there are women like you describe. But not all older women are like that. A lot of older women are very nice & involved with many things & don't need to be poking their noses in other people's business. So let's not paint all women with such a broad brush. Just like all men shouldn't be either.
-
Yes, there are vintage stores in my area and online, some big $$ for complete outfit....
Started with a guy with huge side burns coming to Church.......though he was an actor or something, stopping off before to attend Mass, but then-week after week and not just my little corner of sanity, but others saw him other churches.....then we had a guy that left our parish, started going somewhere else and he went from conservative tie/jacket,etc to the 1800's look......
My priest is fine with me wearing a Kilt-have not 2nd to needing it taken in a lot-as long as it does not draw attention to myself and distract........that of course is a cultural thing, not costume.....while back <hispanics were protesting and shut down a church, a lot of "my culture" this and that-put on the kilt and said "hey, this is MY culture".that church, btw, was not reopened by Bishop.....
-
. A lot of older women are very nice & involved with many things & don't need to be poking their noses in other people's business. So let's not paint all women with such a broad brush. Just like all men shouldn't be either.
true enough :cheers:
-
Well, there were many pleasant things about the 1950s. My parents (born in the late 40s) were children in that decade, and they have fond memories of it. It was the last time that those raised prior to WWI had a lot of influence in our society - so things were in many ways "nicer" - granted there were many hardships, and much social change and many evils.
As for myself I'm enjoying shaving using my grandfather's razor and brush, I'm a sentimentalist. I like certain aspects of the 1950s, although it was surely a corrupt decade. But it was before Vatican II. When all else is said and done - that's a very very important fact and circuмstance. However bad the 50s might have been - it was before Vatican II.
I do agree with you Tele that the 1940's and 1950's were a better time although as you mtnioned there were many evils such as the Frankfurt School ideology seeping into the teachers' colleges in the 40's and 50's, the Jews controlling our foreign policy, getting into World War II, the worst event in Western history, Hollywood being propagandist even back then, etc.
-
Wasn't going to bother responding to Sede's slap in the face, but I think some things need to be said.
I wonder what Sede's mother would think of her boy's latest post of "Shut Up" directed to a woman that he knew to be a mother & grandmother & ex-nun. Would she glow with pride that she raised him to think nothing of addressing a woman like that? And what about his dad? Would he think that he sure didn't raise a wimp or sissy? Would he think that was a manly thing to do?
fyi,Sede, you only posted what I had posted that was related to the thread that I was posting on at the time & was only about my journey of faith. You don't know the whole story! I am an ex-nun much like the mother of the Little Flower & others are also ex-nuns who went on to become mothers of trad children. God had other plans. I have correspondence from the Mother Superior which I've kept to this day, where she wrote about me trying again & she would recommend me. I won't get into that whole story. I've lived a wonderful, interesting life & have done many more things than what you posted. Actually the time I spent married & my other life experiences was what gave me the insight to peg PW on her first post, and now I've pegged you.
You will grow up, die as I will also & stand before the judgement seat of God. We will see one another face to face! Isn't that wonderful? Then you will meet the older woman that you so brazenly told to shut up & see what she looks like and how she acts. You will also see all the other women on this forum that I feel you misjudged. We were warning PW about certain men (Not necessarily those on this forum but IRL) because I, for one, felt that she could be a target for them just by the way she posted so naively. I spoke though experience and wouldn't want her to make yet another mistake. There was absolutely nothing mean about it. My last post regarding her was after the fact & to prove my point. Now, if she doesn't get herself to the TLM & actually BECOME a trad instead of merely knowing how to dress like one & then gets advice on how to ACT like a trad in courtship to have the veneer of traditionalism, then we will have to get on the horn and warn all trad men against her!! LOL
-
I do not use the word sexist, nor did I make any accusations. What I realized was how far your impression of who you are talking to is from the reality. You read way more and are much more consummed by this than I am, which may be why you project it on to me and think that's how I live or how I think as well.
If you have a parish life then that part didn't apply to you. However there are many who do not and it isn't their fault, but it makes it more understandable to me that they don't realize what regular trad women are like. It's two and two I should have put together long ago. I mean if all you have to go by is Tele's description, which is how he justifies still being single, then yeah, why not have a huge chip on the shoulder. In real life though, many of these women do as much all in a day's work against feminism as you do reading a book.
As far as my husband, it just goes to show, again, what different planets we're on. You refer to strength in terms of "dominating" your wife and going for a street fight. When I refer to it, I'm thinking of how mature he is (even when your age), how responsible he is, how hard he works to provide for his family, how he tries to cultivate virtue and develop a prayer life. He strives to be a true leader. Leading =/= dominating. I'm sorry. They are very different and leadership is the Catholic thought, the Catholic influence, the Catholic way. You can keep dominating in your back pocket for times of emergency when you really need it, but I wouldn't suggest starting out that way. You want to be a leader, which is much more refined and takes people skills, not force. You don't have to take it from me either if you want to find feminist ghosts in this because I happen to be saying it. On this there is PLENTY of literature. Perhaps putting down your Engels and whoever else and picking up some Catholic authors might be a good place to start. Truly, you have the negative views downpat, how about picking up the positive ones to round things out?
What? I'll tell you right now, that unlike the intellectuals on here, I don't read books all day, as you keep inferring. No, I work my tail off everyday to provide for myself and for my future family, when they come along some day, doing real manual labor, something most men these days curse and despise. And you consider fighting out a difference of opinion with your fists a "street fight"? Really? :laugh1:
Well I guess we do have a difference of opinion since I consider a strong man someone who keeps his wife and children in submission to him. I'd recommend reading The German Ideology in where Marx said that patriarchal males consider wives and children as property to find out where you got the notion that "dominating" a woman and children is a bad thing. And I don't read those books because I agree with them, obviously since I'm very right-wing, not leftist. I read them to know the enemy's words.
-
Some are called to single life, some have not found that right someone and do not want to rush into a relationship.....some trads have met are going/looking outside the country as trad women prospects slim in USA....go figure.....
As much as I criticize the women in America, I would never go to some foreign Asian or Arab country for some "trophy wife."
-
Oh, Brother! You don't even know what a trophy wife is! A trophy wife isn't a wife from a foreign country or culture. A trophy wife is a pretty, young thing that an older man marries & carries on his arm like a trophy. Get it? He's also usually divorced from his wife of his age.
And while I'm at it, it's every day, not everyday. Everyday is an adjective meaning 'ordinary', such as your everyday clothes. Every day is like 'every day & every nite ....'
Just trying to help.
-
Oh, Brother! You don't even know what a trophy wife is! A trophy wife isn't a wife from a foreign country or culture. A trophy wife is a pretty, young thing that an older man marries & carries on his arm like a trophy. Get it? He's also usually divorced from his wife of his age.
And while I'm at it, it's every day, not everyday. Everyday is an adjective meaning 'ordinary', such as your everyday clothes. Every day is like 'every day & every nite ....'
Just trying to help.
Yes thank you for the grammar advice, but unfortunately the edit option was already deleted from the post. Also it is a forum, not an English class and I'm horrible at typing as it is. You know what the problem is? Women are emotional creatures and you simply think with your emotions. Men use rational thought. Women are simply the passive part in marriage. The point is I believe in the importance of race and ethnicity.
-
Everyone knows that the Calamity Janes around here with their pacifist sympathies spell the doom for a nation when a strong man with the will of force needs to lead it. :wink:
-
Kindly tell us what's emotional about correcting English & giving the definition of a term. A lot of people can type & use correct English at the same time, btw.
Why can't you just say thank you for the time it took & let it go at that? I wasn't attacking you, just trying to smarten you up. Now, hopefully you will write better. Isn't that a good thing?
-
Kindly tell us what's emotional about correcting English & giving the definition of a term. A lot of people can type & use correct English at the same time, btw.
Why can't you just say thank you for the time it took & let it go at that? I wasn't attacking you, just trying to smarten you up. Now, hopefully you will write better. Isn't that a good thing?
As I said I believe in a patriarchal society where a woman submits her authority to a man. So it is actually the meaning of the words I write down, not the minor things such as grammar and syntax, that is more important. I also say the same with reading a book since those who understand the importance of a book "know more" than those who read the book and just simply recite it.
-
Thorn, et tu credo potest quieti corrigendi populi anglicus et scribere nunc. Forte, si vos Latine scit vos corrigere potest mei. :wink:
-
Thorn, et tu credo potest quieti corrigendi populi anglicus et scribere nunc. Forte, si vos Latine scit vos corrigere potest mei. :wink:
My Latin's rusty since I've been out of high school but I think it says: "Thorn, and you believe _ people, angels and to write now. _ it can be printed (?) to me (?)."
I can barely remember anything from my Latin class. :laugh1:
-
I can't really speak Latin that fluently, I just used a google translator to type that. It was sort of meant as a joke.
-
I can't really speak Latin that fluently, I just used a google translator to type that. It was sort of meant as a joke.
Ah I figured. What does it say entirely though?
-
Thorn, et tu credo potest quieti corrigendi populi anglicus et scribere nunc. Forte, si vos Latine scit vos corrigere potest mei. :wink:
My Latin's rusty since I've been out of high school but I think it says: "Thorn, and you believe _ people, angels and to write now. _ it can be printed (?) to me (?)."
I can barely remember anything from my Latin class. :laugh1:
It says this:
"Thorn, I think you can quit correcting people's english and writing now. Perhaps if you know Latin you can correct mine."
-
Thorn, et tu credo potest quieti corrigendi populi anglicus et scribere nunc. Forte, si vos Latine scit vos corrigere potest mei. :wink:
My Latin's rusty since I've been out of high school but I think it says: "Thorn, and you believe _ people, angels and to write now. _ it can be printed (?) to me (?)."
I can barely remember anything from my Latin class. :laugh1:
It says this:
"Thorn, I think you can quit correcting people's english and writing now. Perhaps if you know Latin you can correct mine."
Ah thank you. When I saw "panis anglicus" at first I thought it said "Panis Angelicus." :laugh1:
-
Where does it say panis?
-
Where does it say panis?
Ah excuse me I meant I thought it said "Panis Angelicus" instead of "populi anglicus."
-
Thorn, et tu credo potest quieti corrigendi populi anglicus et scribere nunc. Forte, si vos Latine scit vos corrigere potest mei. :wink:
My Latin's rusty since I've been out of high school but I think it says: "Thorn, and you believe _ people, angels and to write now. _ it can be printed (?) to me (?)."
I can barely remember anything from my Latin class. :laugh1:
Dont quit your day job, wink wink
-
Dont quit your day job, wink wink
I wouldn't want to. I know to the intellectuals on this website manual labor is disgraceful and should be looked down with contempt but actually those who do it should be awarded more respect than the snobbish intellectuals that look down on others with their elitist attitudes, lecturing about the greatness of diversity, tolerance, humanitarianism, free trade, etc. while they themselves sit in the safety of nice homes reading books all day. And contary to what the feminists say, women are attracted to the strong man, hence the attraction to the army.
-
Dont quit your day job, wink wink
And if you know anything about me, you would know I am far from stupid, hence the scholarship I was awarded after I graduated from high school and the library of books I have. :wink:
-
I have been following this conversation for a long time. My original advice, and that of others to PW was meant in charity to help her.
Marriage is a give and take thing. I know some will disagree, but parenthood, marriage, celibacy--all are lifestyles that one can have opinions about, but the understanding will change with one's experience. Neither my husband of 30+years no I are the same people we were when we knealt on that altar and exchanged our vows.
Submission is an interesting word. In English it carries a different connotation than in other languages where it may mean something more like yield.
A successful marriage is full of yielding/submitting to the other. In our house all heavy work is his, cooking is mine. But we both plant and garden, though I do all watering, lol. I do all laundry (because he tried to help when our daughter was little and it was not a good thing, lol, but it made him all the more dear to me). I shovel most of the snow, because it does not come on a timer when he is home, and I prefer he play a game of scrabble vs shovelling in the dark.
He has been a guy who has always been the leader of any situation he is in. At grad school, in the court, in his firm, during a major accident in which many were hurt...he is the Alpha male. But others and I submit to his will because all of his requests come with RESPECT. I have never heard him talk to an enemy, no less a relative or me, with rudeness. When you are right and you are following the Way of the Father, you needn't be disrespectful. So you single guys heed this advice...respect is the key to the totality of drawing one's life from and returning it to your spouse. Just an opinion.
-
So you single guys heed this advice...respect is the key to the totality of drawing one's life from and returning it to your spouse. Just an opinion.
While it is good that you seem to submit yourself to your husband, this is a typical bourgeoise attitude and a typical feminine attitude. Should we respect Marxists or liberals because they just happen to be elderly or women? Too often these boys who we call "men" in our society read the Bible and put pacifism and Christianity together and read the verse, "Judge not lest ye be judged," and consider that a green light to ignore someone else's immoral behavior. Did General Franco give respect to Communists in Spain? No he fought them and chased them away, and then told women to have large families.
-
Please, Guy, give it up! Your hole is getting deeper & deeper & you alone are digging it. No one that I know of looks down on laborers. St. Joseph was a laborer. My father was a laborer all his life, yet was posessed of uncommon common sense. Most of my family were laborers. I do have tho,an intellectual cousin & he doesn't have as much common sense as my father, but I still enjoy talking to him. Who ever said you were stupid? You do however have a lot to learn, but that will just take time. Relax & stop with the broad brushing in almost every post, take correction graciously and move on.
-
Who ever said you were stupid? You do however have a lot to learn, but that will just take time.
Loriann: "Don't give up your day job." *wink wink*
-
Guy, you're a bit too sensitive. That (what Loiann posted) doesn't equate to stupidity!
-
So you single guys heed this advice...respect is the key to the totality of drawing one's life from and returning it to your spouse. Just an opinion.
While it is good that you seem to submit yourself to your husband, this is a typical bourgeoise attitude and a typical feminine attitude. Should we respect Marxists or liberals because they just happen to be elderly or women? Too often these boys who we call "men" in our society read the Bible and put pacifism and Christianity together and read the verse, "Judge not lest ye be judged," and consider that a green light to ignore someone else's immoral behavior. Did General Franco give respect to Communists in Spain? No he fought them and chased them away, and then told women to have large families.
Your responses never seem to fit what you are quoting. Read what you quoted.
She is talking about spouses who are devoting their lives to one another and you are responding with Marxists or liberals or Communists. Can you not agree that spouses must respect each other?
Same with your response to my post. I said there are two ways of having a family be submitted (domineering vs leading) and you responded as if our difference is that you believe a family should be submitted. No, that's what we have in common.
The thing is that's all well and good to say but how does that play out in real life? What tone will you have with your wife and children? Will you act drill sargeant barking orders all the time? Wontonly smacking people around? Happy only when they are cringing? What? You have to study how that ideal of submission plays out 24/7 in real life situations.
Do you want to rule by fear which is the lowest common denominator or have your family follow your example in love? It's the same difference as getting to heaven because you fear hell or getting there because you love God. The former can work but you're usually miserable and completely miss the fullness of the relationship with God. The latter includes the former but elevates it to a higher and transformed level, like a cocoon to a buttefly, Old Covenant to New. Your reward is much greater with the latter. Domineering does not reflect the latter. Leader does. Domineering also does not reflect setting an example while leader does.
-
Your responses never seem to fit what you are quoting. Read what you quoted. She is talking about spouses who are devoting their lives to one another and you are responding with Marxists or liberals or Communists. Can you not agree that spouses must respect each other?
I think the husband should love his wife yes and the wife must respect and submit to her husband.
The thing is that's all well and good to say but how does that play out in real life? What tone will you have with your wife and children? Will you act drill sargeant barking orders all the time? Wontonly smacking people around? Happy only when they are cringing? What? You have to study how that ideal of submission plays out 24/7 in real life situations.
I'd probably act all "drill sergeant" to my sons yes so they would respect my authority and also have a manly toughness but I wouldn't do that to my wife or daughters unless they disagreed with my views on things. That's why I want a spouse who will at least be "right-wing" like myself. I don't believe in spousal or child abuse.
Do you want to rule by fear which is the lowest common denominator or have your family follow your example in love? It's the same difference as getting to heaven because you fear hell or getting there because you love God. The former can work but you're usually miserable and completely miss the fullness of the relationship with God. The latter includes the former but elevates it to a higher and transformed level, like a cocoon to a buttefly, Old Covenant to New. Your reward is much greater with the latter. Domineering does not reflect the latter. Leader does. Domineering also does not reflect setting an example while leader does.
No I believe in love and affection for a spouse and children.
-
Do you agree, though, sometimes there can be a clique thing going on, as is in any group? Sometimes can get personal and leave a scar......again, know of at least one incident w/former posters, again, rather not air publicly on a thread.....but.....
No you are right there are cliques. There are cliques no matter where you go, it's human nature. Those so into race should be the first to understand that people who are alike like to be together. Race is the lowest form of it, being strictly material, which is why most object to it being treated as the highest. There are other factors that are medium or higher that brings groups of people together and we should strive to get our priorites straight in this. People hang out with each other because they have the same Faith, the same philosophies, the same heritage, the same likes and dislikes as far as entertainment or hobbies or other people, the same financial class, the same political views, the same Church, the same school, the same work. The list of things in common that bring people together is long. Although cliques can be mean and often are, they are not necessarily bad in themselves.
In Tele's case people seem to forget we only have one side of the story. We only have one perspective. And one that has proven itself not to be objective. Is it wise to turn against all or most trad men, women and priests and have every opinion revolve around something we only know one side of? In fighting this I do not deny trads can be as sinful as anyone else, I have my own tales of being deeply hurt, and of hurting others, I just don't believe it is just to poison a whole well over it. People are complex.
-
Your responses never seem to fit what you are quoting. Read what you quoted. She is talking about spouses who are devoting their lives to one another and you are responding with Marxists or liberals or Communists. Can you not agree that spouses must respect each other?
I think the husband should love his wife yes and the wife must respect and submit to her husband.
The thing is that's all well and good to say but how does that play out in real life? What tone will you have with your wife and children? Will you act drill sargeant barking orders all the time? Wontonly smacking people around? Happy only when they are cringing? What? You have to study how that ideal of submission plays out 24/7 in real life situations.
I'd probably act all "drill sergeant" to my sons yes so they would respect my authority and also have a manly toughness but I wouldn't do that to my wife or daughters unless they disagreed with my views on things. That's why I want a spouse who will at least be "right-wing" like myself. I don't believe in spousal or child abuse.
Do you want to rule by fear which is the lowest common denominator or have your family follow your example in love? It's the same difference as getting to heaven because you fear hell or getting there because you love God. The former can work but you're usually miserable and completely miss the fullness of the relationship with God. The latter includes the former but elevates it to a higher and transformed level, like a cocoon to a buttefly, Old Covenant to New. Your reward is much greater with the latter. Domineering does not reflect the latter. Leader does. Domineering also does not reflect setting an example while leader does.
No I believe in love and affection for a spouse and children.
Thank you, that is reassuring to hear. You probably don't realize it but when you only speak of the "harsher" side, it gives the impression that this gentler side is non-existent.
Which is probably my trouble as well. I don't tell the stories of when DH has to put his foot down or when he has to appeal to obedience and I have to pray he's making the right decisions, so it probably seems like that never happens. They just aren't usually the things you talk about.
-
Thank you, that is reassuring to hear. You probably don't realize it but when you only speak of the "harsher" side, it gives the impression that this gentler side is non-existent.
Well let me ask you this. Do you agree that the training of the girl must be for the future wife and mother? The girl must get married and start having children early so she may have many children.
-
I'd also like to add in regards to the man, our way of regulating a man's salaries so he does not have enough to start a family, along with our jobs getting shipped overseas and women taking the jobs that men need also leads to the man not able to start an early marriage. Many social conditions leads a man to give up marriage and instead, pardon my language here, get acquainted with big-city whores for his "sɛҳuąƖ life" simply because the government can't find a solution to the housing problem to house these married couples.
-
Back to the original question:
Anyway women should obviously wear dresses of course and they should not have short hemlines either. An interior modesty would be a woman's duty as a wife and mother, i.e. taking care of the children, cleaning, cooking, spinning, etc. A woman should also stay in shape as well.
-
Well let me ask you this. Do you agree that the training of the girl must be for the future wife and mother? The girl must get married and start having children early so she may have many children.
Someone downthumbed this? Really?
-
Thank you, that is reassuring to hear. You probably don't realize it but when you only speak of the "harsher" side, it gives the impression that this gentler side is non-existent.
Well let me ask you this. Do you agree that the training of the girl must be for the future wife and mother? The girl must get married and start having children early so she may have many children.
My first training of daughters would be to love and serve God in order to foster any potential religious vocations. Second would be geared at that which is necessary for marriage, but I wouldn't encourage an early marriage unless the possibility of religious vocation has been ruled out.
For that matter, I wouldn't outright encourage an early marriage at all (neither would I discourage it) as I'm not aware that such has ever been taught to be necessary.
-
My first training of daughters would be to love and serve God in order to foster any potential religious vocations. Second would be geared at that which is necessary for marriage, but I wouldn't encourage an early marriage unless the possibility of religious vocation has been ruled out.
For that matter, I wouldn't outright encourage an early marriage at all (neither would I discourage it) as I'm not aware that such has ever been taught to be necessary.
Well you're right but think about this: we have a decline of birthrates right now. If there are no children how do you expect to see more nuns or sisters?
Early marriage is especially necessary for the woman so that she can have many children.
-
My first training of daughters would be to love and serve God in order to foster any potential religious vocations. Second would be geared at that which is necessary for marriage, but I wouldn't encourage an early marriage unless the possibility of religious vocation has been ruled out.
For that matter, I wouldn't outright encourage an early marriage at all (neither would I discourage it) as I'm not aware that such has ever been taught to be necessary.
Well you're right but think about this: we have a decline of birthrates right now. If there are no children how do you expect to see more nuns or sisters?
Early marriage is especially necessary for the woman so that she can have many children.
A declining birthrate is no individual's fault and would not be resolved by any individual either. Attempting to "take matters into your own hands" and insist on marrying or having your children marry at a given age rather than relying on God's timing would be foolish. Of course, having the opportunity for a large family would be a blessing, but none of us control at what point in our lives we meet someone suitable for raising a family with.
I'll do my best to raise and advise my children to serve God according to their individual strengths and weaknesses, pray for more religious vocations, and leave the timing and sorting of it all to Him.
-
Who ever said you were stupid? You do however have a lot to learn, but that will just take time.
Loriann: "Don't give up your day job." *wink wink*
I thought this was like a joke, and meant no implication, I thought it was funny. I am very sorry. I really was just laughing and thought you were pokiing a bit of fun at your translation with the wink wink, so I am very sorry- I should have been more careful.
-
What about the State? The State has no role in the promotion of marriages and children? We are supposed to leave it in God's hands? It seems that General Franco didn't believe that.
Well actually feminism has created this declining birthrate so one could say individual women, even though Jєωιѕн women started the movement.
I don't mean to be blunt but for my daughters I would emphasize the joy of responsibility in being a wife and mother, and tell them to forgo higher education. The emphasis needs to be placed on attracting the right kind of man, not one who has a large paycheck, but the sound man with good character.
-
Please, Guy, give it up! Your hole is getting deeper & deeper & you alone are digging it. No one that I know of looks down on laborers. St. Joseph was a laborer. My father was a laborer all his life, yet was posessed of uncommon common sense. Most of my family were laborers. I do have tho,an intellectual cousin & he doesn't have as much common sense as my father, but I still enjoy talking to him. Who ever said you were stupid? You do however have a lot to learn, but that will just take time. Relax & stop with the broad brushing in almost every post, take correction graciously and move on.
many of my family were engineers turned construction guys--you work a long, long, time, and you had better like what you do, and feel good about it. Honest work, whatever kind, honors the Father.
-
I thought this was like a joke, and meant no implication, I thought it was funny. I am very sorry. I really was just laughing and thought you were pokiing a bit of fun at your translation with the wink wink, so I am very sorry- I should have been more careful.
Ah I apologize as well, I'm not good at detecting sarcasm.
-
I thought this was like a joke, and meant no implication, I thought it was funny. I am very sorry. I really was just laughing and thought you were pokiing a bit of fun at your translation with the wink wink, so I am very sorry- I should have been more careful.
Ah I apologize as well, I'm not good at detecting sarcasm.
It wasn't sarcastic, though, just to confirm. I was laughing like a way to go. But I have seen a lot of dissention when one misses the sarcasm. Anyway, if you knew me you would see I poke a lot of fun at myself, too. :)
-
So you single guys heed this advice...respect is the key to the totality of drawing one's life from and returning it to your spouse. Just an opinion.
While it is good that you seem to submit yourself to your husband, this is a typical bourgeoise attitude and a typical feminine attitude. Should we respect Marxists or liberals because they just happen to be elderly or women? Too often these boys who we call "men" in our society read the Bible and put pacifism and Christianity together and read the verse, "Judge not lest ye be judged," and consider that a green light to ignore someone else's immoral behavior. Did General Franco give respect to Communists in Spain? No he fought them and chased them away, and then told women to have large families.
Pointing out someone's error can be done with respect. Fighting a war can be done with respect. (not raping etc) Telling your spuose they are very wrong can be done with respect.
-
Thank you, that is reassuring to hear. You probably don't realize it but when you only speak of the "harsher" side, it gives the impression that this gentler side is non-existent.
Well let me ask you this. Do you agree that the training of the girl must be for the future wife and mother? The girl must get married and start having children early so she may have many children.
My first training of daughters would be to love and serve God in order to foster any potential religious vocations. Second would be geared at that which is necessary for marriage, but I wouldn't encourage an early marriage unless the possibility of religious vocation has been ruled out.
For that matter, I wouldn't outright encourage an early marriage at all (neither would I discourage it) as I'm not aware that such has ever been taught to be necessary.
I agree.
-
Pointing out someone's error can be done with respect. Fighting a war can be done with respect. (not raping etc) Telling your spuose they are very wrong can be done with respect.
When it comes to Marxists and liberals and feminists though I don't use "respect." As for the spouse thing I'd go more along the lines of, "If you think that way you can leave my house!" I do agree about a just war though.
By the way do you ladies find anything wrong with a man being attracted to a physically fit and physically attractive woman. I've been told by a few women that this is "sick" and "wrong" because I don't acknowledge the girl's intelligence.
-
Pointing out someone's error can be done with respect. Fighting a war can be done with respect. (not raping etc) Telling your spuose they are very wrong can be done with respect.
When it comes to Marxists and liberals and feminists though I don't use "respect." As for the spouse thing I'd go more along the lines of, "If you think that way you can leave my house!" I do agree about a just war though.
By the way do you ladies find anything wrong with a man being attracted to a physically fit and physically attractive woman. I've been told by a few women that this is "sick" and "wrong" because I don't acknowledge the girl's intelligence.
I have noticed that you say that and cringed when I read it...we want to be loved for our whole package...body mind faith etc. I guess the question is this--if physical attraction takes priority, would you love her less if she became incapacitated or gained weight, or became less attractive, i.e., burned or something?
-
I have noticed that you say that and cringed when I read it...we want to be loved for our whole package...body mind faith etc. I guess the question is this--if physical attraction takes priority, would you love her less if she became incapacitated or gained weight, or became less attractive, i.e., burned or something?
Wait a minute...you "cringed" when you read it? What does that mean? Why would you crine after I typed something pretty basic?
First off physical attraction and physical fitness just take priority for me because of the emphasis of "smart women" in today's society. Is it wrong for me to be able to be attracted to my wife? I'd like to add a woman's character comes second to me because that is the making of the good wife and mother. Anyone from Catholic schools knows that the innoculation of Catholic values and the Faith takes precedence over intellectual values. Finally I don't care for bimbos either and would hope that my spouse is more book-smart than I am because she would be involved in the training of the children while I would be working but if that intelligence is used to spread leftist garbage I definitely prefer a stupid woman with strong character.
To tell you the truth I always cared more for athletics than acedemics so that is probably why I put physical fitness and physical attraction first. :wink:
-
Wallflower, one more thing not mentioned in the list of things PW did for attention from men: She said she was on a break at work 'and pumping milk for the baby'. So she established what she was doing during her break. But then every post where she said she was on a break, she just had to mention about the pumping too. We already knew that so why constantly remind us what you were doing? You almost felt like a voyeur reading her posts.
It never came across that way to me. She just comes across as being obsessed with her baby, which is completely natural.
Obviously she should have been more careful opening up to people who were going to use her words against her like this.
That's becasue you are a man and don't talk to women that much or know how regular women talk. You want to know how many times I've nursed and posted? But how many times have I talked about it? But I'm crazy so how about Mater, I'm sure she has nursed throughout the years CI has been up. I haven't seen her bring attention to it. Plenty of women are doing the same thing without broadcasting it unless there's a thread specifically about it. It's a more private and intimate side of life.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? And, in traditional societies, was this level of regret and embarrassment considered excessive ? Rather than a nefarious plot, to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
Fact is, she seems at least like she is trying to learn and grow in the Fide and move on from whatever past she has had........She is trying, in this garbage society, to raise a child correctly, etc...she is indeed looking for support.....many of us came here at CI, or FE,etc and were naive or made odd psots,etc.....Raoul did, I did, etc......we could all have stories to tell.....heck, I used to be an AMericanist an a Republican.. :shocked: :surprised:
:roll-laugh2:
-
. It's nothing more than predator knowing which strings to pull to keep people sympathetic to them.
How can you be sure?
Good question. Although, I'm still trying to figure out what is "predatory" about wanting a husband, when you're a single mother. :confused1:
-
Marcelino said:
You start out your post by insulting her and then you claim you want to help her. Are you kidding?
As you can see, I said nothing to Penitent Woman in this thread until about 70 pages in, when I told her once to stay away from Tele.
Wallflower and CatherineofSiena and others were trying to help her, and I am defending them. So while I do hope she grows in the spiritual life, I am not one who has undertaken to be any kind of guide to her, feeling that others are handling that task capably.
Interesting how I and others are rampantly insulted here, and yet you take issue with me stating a plain fact, that PW is a bit neurotic and doesn't listen to good advice. That is something I would say to her face, in fraternal correction. How is that an insult? If you tell someone they need to try harder, or try less hard, or pray more, or work harder, is that an insult? You people are desperate.
We should also correct our brothers and sisters in love and humility, when appropriate. Certainly you should be considerate of their sense of self-worth and not talk about them on a public forum as if they weren't "in the room" and as if they were little kids. Of course, I really don't think you should talk to kids with that much contempt. But then again, it is a temptation that I can fall into myself. However, I have noticed that I am much more tempted to do that, when somebody treats me that way, then if I am serving authorities who treat me with, not so common anymore, civility. So, pray for me!
Here's your post:
Okay, Thorn et al... She has been warned about her naivete and been told to see a trad priest. If she doesn't want to do it, and shoots herself in the foot, you have done your job.
Lots of women marry the wrong men. Women can be incredibly stupid; as can men. I think you saying that she wants attention is far more to the point, Thorn, but you are feeding into it.
PW will not listen to good advice. She systematically talks around people who are trying to help her, as if she is talking in front of the mirror and not having a conversation. It is like your words go into a black hole. I have dealt with more than one person like this, it is almost a constant theme in my life. I have learned that forcing the issue doesn't help; at a certain point you step back and give it to God.
She has her own thought patterns laid out already. I saw that a long time ago. What is the point of talking yourself blue in the face?
I realize I did this with Tele at one time, but that was when he was "changing," so I thought there was still a chance for him to turn around ( not that I'm defending myself, I did go too far ). Now that his personality is set in stone, there is no use in saying anything, all you can is warn other people away from him ( and pray for him, of course ).
The "funny" part of this thread is that those who are telling PW to see a priest, and thereby deferring to a higher authority, are the ones being treated as "bullies," and aggressive feminists who want to alter her mind; while Tele with his contemptuous talk of the traditional priesthood is some kind of sensitive hero.
So in one corner you have a group who is saying "See a priest." In another corner you have some young and maybe not-so-young dudes indulging themselves in the most obnoxious, arrogant behavior, who are saying "Listen to us." Yet the latter, who do not defer to any authority, and whose wayward ideas have been depicted only too vibrantly on this forum, portray themselves as the ones who are respecting PW and trying to help her. Meanwhile, they play the martyrs and the victims while they gang up to downrate posts of those who disagree with them -- utterly insufferable. Luckily their "power" is limited to a feebly populated Internet forum!
-
And it all started with a question about modesty...
:roll-laugh2:
-
:reading:
-
No you are right there are cliques. There are cliques no matter where you go, it's human nature.
The threat of ostracism and the destruction of reputation to those who don't go along with these little groups with their secrets and their hypocrisy is part of fallen nature, there is nothing Christian about it. Friendship, the freedom to associate is not what is being criticized here. What is being criticized is the tendency towards secretive, hypocritical groups designed to maintain a pecking order, with gossip and lies being the chief weapons.
Those so into race should be the first to understand that people who are alike like to be together.
Race has absolutely nothing to do with this, but it's typical for women to rely on whatever is the pc code of the day to try to defend their immoral behavior by trying to divert the discussion to a different topic.
Race is the lowest form of it, being strictly material,
This is a stupid comment. Let me know when "material" values aren't fundamental to a clique of church gossips. If there's one thing that's certain - you will always find vanity (for material objects), greed, jealousy and vice at the heart of these cliques.
which is why most object to it being treated as the highest. There are other factors that are medium or higher that brings groups of people together and we should strive to get our priorites straight in this. People hang out with each other because they have the same Faith, the same philosophies, the same heritage, the same likes and dislikes as far as entertainment or hobbies or other people, the same financial class, the same political views, the same Church, the same school, the same work. The list of things in common that bring people together is long.
These little groups have nothing to do with "bringing people together" - they are all about exclusion.
Although cliques can be mean and often are, they are not necessarily bad in themselves.
No one is going to call an honest circle of Christian friends a clique. A dishonest, manipulative, and vindictive group of lying gossips on the other hand, will earn the title.
In Tele's case people seem to forget we only have one side of the story. We only have one perspective.
I hope Matthew is reading this. You obviously have no intention of following his instructions.
And one that has proven itself not to be objective.
You are a liar.
Is it wise to turn against all or most trad men, women and priests and have every opinion revolve around something we only know one side of? In fighting this I do not deny trads can be as sinful as anyone else, I have my own tales of being deeply hurt, and of hurting others, I just don't believe it is just to poison a whole well over it. People are complex.
Women lying is not complicated behavior. It's immoral behavior, but it's obviously something most trads in cultish groups have no problem with.
-
We shouldn't be too hard on these women Tele. Women simply use their emotions first, instead of rational thought.
Also when there is sɛҳuąƖ immorality we know whose fault it is, and I'll give you a hint, it isn't the man's fault. :wink:
-
We shouldn't be too hard on these women Tele.
On the contrary, this woman in particular is here all the time because she's absolutely recalcitrant and vain. She should be banned.
Women simply think with their emotions cheifly, instead of rational thought.
Women are capable of moral agency and someone such as wallflower has no excuse for her behavior, and she knows it.
-
I agree with you, I was trying to be sarcastic. :wink:
The problem is in our feminized world we have today, as wallflower herself admits, a "woman only has to respect her husband" and not the other men she encounters. Hell as I said I have to question a man's integrity if they let their women act this vicious to other men.
-
I agree with you, I was trying to be sarcastic. :wink:
The problem is in our feminized world we have today, as wallflower herself admits, a "woman only has to respect her husband" and not the other men she encounters.
How often are men told to generically "respect women"? - if you suggest that women should show some sort of respect to men you get nothing but scorn. Women today literally believe they have no moral obligations to men.
Women who have no respect towards men are unlikely to truly respect their husbands.
Hell as I said I have to question a man's integrity if they let their women act this vicious to other men.
Men who let their wives and daughters run amok are a big problem.
-
I'm beginning to think that if Wallflower PMed you tomorrow and told you she had a change of heart and now sympathized with Tele, you would hold a never-ending grudge against her like you do with Tele and all of his supporters.
lol I had to chuckle at this SS. But as off the hinges as Raoul has been in this thread, nevertheless he would be much more likely to reverse course than wallflower. Wallflower is part of the sisterhood - inconvenient truths must perish.
One thing to watch out for is how wallflower pretends to make concessions but the reality is she always has an escape clause that allows her to justify any position she wants to later take.
Her line about men not being the victims of feminism really takes the cake. It's very revealing because it shows that many women today will not admit that women can owe men any sort of moral debts or obligations.
Even when it comes to the husband and his rights, for wallflower - "free will" is paramount.
-
Her line about men not being the victims of feminism really takes the cake.
Did she really say that? Wow she must have missed Valerie Solanis: "The male is a biological accident. The male has made the world a shitpile."
-
Oh they respect the sissies and wimpy husbands sure but a strong man with the soundness of character to dominate his wife with his "far-right views" oh no these women don't show respect to those kind of men. And this all has to do with feminism, in regards to the anti-male behavior.
Dominate isn't really the right word to use. It suggests the eclipse and degradation of the female personality. Rule is better. "Leadership" is a beloved term by churchy women because they can claim they would do what they're supposed to do but their husbands aren't clever or strong enough to "lead" them.
Leadership is a trait of generals and political rulers, men who have power to discipline and who effectively use that power. It's not a game of the husband walking in front of where the wife wants to go for the sake of appearances.
A Christian wife gives herself into her husband's power. Now most churchy women in this society know there's no social system to enforce the husband's power, so they have no intention of actually giving themselves into their husband's power.
-
I have noticed that you say that and cringed when I read it...we want to be loved for our whole package...body mind faith etc. I guess the question is this--if physical attraction takes priority, would you love her less if she became incapacitated or gained weight, or became less attractive, i.e., burned or something?
Wait a minute...you "cringed" when you read it? What does that mean? Why would you crine after I typed something pretty basic?
First off physical attraction and physical fitness just take priority for me because of the emphasis of "smart women" in today's society. Is it wrong for me to be able to be attracted to my wife? I'd like to add a woman's character comes second to me because that is the making of the good wife and mother. Anyone from Catholic schools knows that the innoculation of Catholic values and the Faith takes precedence over intellectual values. Finally I don't care for bimbos either and would hope that my spouse is more book-smart than I am because she would be involved in the training of the children while I would be working but if that intelligence is used to spread leftist garbage I definitely prefer a stupid woman with strong character.
To tell you the truth I always cared more for athletics than acedemics so that is probably why I put physical fitness and physical attraction first. :wink:
In one of your earlier posts you stated you were looking for an attractive woman, ohysically fit. I cringed because if that is not all of what a woman is. It made me cringe because many who built relationships around physical attributes alone. divorce when the man goes bald or the woman gains weight. If you build on love, you are on solid ground. If your love is handsome or pretty or athletic, all the better.
-
In one of your earlier posts you stated you were looking for an attractive woman, ohysically fit. I cringed because if that is not all of what a woman is. It made me cringe because many who built relationships around physical attributes alone. divorce when the man goes bald or the woman gains weight. If you build on love, you are on solid ground. If your love is handsome or pretty or athletic, all the better.
No I base my love for a woman based on if her character can be a good wife and mother.
-
I'd also add perhaps there is a little bit too much emphasis on romantic love these days, as if you can have a relationship with anyone you want simply because you "love" them.
-
I'd also add perhaps there is a little bit too much emphasis on romantic love these days,
I actually disagree with this. This is a popular thing to say, and not coincidentally it's also false, because maintaining an erroneous consensus about such topics is necessary for the culture destroyers to cloak their work. If you look at how the popular culture talks about "love" and "romance" one is hard-pressed to see any idealization of it. (certainly compared to the past) On the contrary, what is called "romance" is typically immoral productions for women.
There's absolutely nothing romantic about women saying they need a career before "settling down" - on the contrary - that's just about the polar opposite of romantic love.
-
If your love is handsome or pretty or athletic, all the better.
Well along with that for me if a woman can cook, clean, raise children, do the laundry, agree with me on like-minded views, etc. all the better. :wink:
-
I actually disagree with this. This is a popular thing to say, and not coincidentally it's also false, because maintaining an erroneous consensus about such topics is necessary for the culture destroyers to cloak their work. If you look at how the popular culture talks about "love" and "romance" one is hard-pressed to see any idealization of it. (certainly compared to the past) On the contrary, what is called "romance" is typically immoral productions for women.
There's absolutely nothing romantic about women saying they need a career before "settling down" - on the contrary - that's just about the polar opposite of romantic love.
I understand what you are saying Tele but I wasn't speaking of love arranged by class or that nature but I was speaking of "relationships" characterizied by animal standards of behavior. For me marriage's main priority should be birthing children for the benefit of the nation as a whole.
I agree with you about women getting careers by the way. What that does is force men out of jobs and makes the family itself crumble. While single women take a man's job these married women then look with poison at their husbands and demand "they work harder" as if a man can if the corporations want more women workers!
-
Thorn,
I requested that you cease your bullying of the young Catholic girl, PW.
You have not done so.
Thorn has yesterday made a new upsetting post mentioning the young Catholic girl, PW:
… if she doesn't get herself to the TLM & actually BECOME a trad instead of merely knowing how to dress like one & then gets advice on how to ACT like a trad in courtship to have the veneer of traditionalism, then we will have to get on the horn and warn all trad men against her!! LOL
Thorn should leave this poor young girl PW alone.
Thorn is the one who started this furious tirade against Penitent Woman, just over three weeks after PW joined CathInfo.
Thorn started her spiteful tirade against PW on 6 July, and it has continued over two months later.
These are some examples of Thorn’s bullying of PW from early July:
I read PW's post last nite & quite frankly didn't quite believe the story. A few things just didn't add up but I didn't down thumb her. Neither did I respond.
So now that I see the others' responses & have had time to think & at the risk of an onslaught of thumbs down - I still hesitate to believe this story for several reasons. I apologize upfront if I'm off the wall or wrong in this to PW, but I'm being truthful.
Look at this amazingly long list of insulting questions that Thorn grilled PW with on just one day:
This is in answer to PW & Capt McQuigg regarding my post that PW's story doesn't ring true to me. First tho, I need to clarify, as it looks like most people here never read my intro - that I'm not a 'he' but a 'she' & an old one at that.
There is dissonance or mismatched statements & it's hard to put your finger on it but I'm going to try. I will go by paragraphs.
1. She grew up in a terrible NO home with a feminist mother & adulterist father, w/o positive influence yet she loved going to church albeit NO. Question for PW: How did you take your spirituality into your own teenage hands? Were you an only child? So - you HAD to go away to college after H.S. Isn't that what most HS grads did then? What did you want or plan to do instead? …
2. If you grew up with a feminist mother & only knew the NO, how did you or could you discern at that young inexperienced age if the professors were radical & brainwashing the students? Isn't that all you knew anyway? Isn't that what you already heard at home? (See what I mean about dissonance?)
Those messages were already in your head from your terrible home weren't they?
If provocative dress bothered you, why didn't you work at McDonalds, Carl's Jr., Chucky Cheese, Pizza Hut or any number of other fast food joints around...
3 If your parents were so bad & you were already out of the house, why would their divorce send you into a depression, & even a deep depression? When your mother visited you & asked if you'd been with a man yet, did she suggest the pill? That would be the logical advice from a feminist after broaching that subject wouldn't it?
You were losing respect for yourself at the same time working where provocative dress was required. Why? especially if you wanted to 'wait for marriage' & you worked there willingly I gather. btw - where did you get that quaint idea of waiting?
4. Is this man the only man you met while in college? Did you make any friends in college or work - male or female? …
6. Why would he call you a whore if you were his? & had put up a fight? Obviously you're telling us that wasn't consenual so you're unjustly called a whore which you're not. Right?
7. Strange that you were raised by a feminist, further educated by them & steeped in the NO & yet you state the conservative, traditional mantra that you take no welfare because taxpayers shouldn't pay for your bad choices. Where, when & how did you learn that?
Trust me, thousands of us are frugal too & have had periods in our lives when money was scarce. No big deal there.
8. How many years did you go to college & did you graduate?
9. Where did you learn to cover your head in church? So far you've never mentioned the TLM & only know the NO & I've not seen anyone covering their heads in the NO but then I haven't been to very many NO. I'm just having difficulty understanding your story when all you've been around seems to be modernists & worse, yet you know quite a bit about tradition. Now your neighbor is a bouncer at a strip club & tempts you. More agony.
10. Indeed you do seem to be obsessing about finding a husband. You do need to work on yourself…
11. You feel that the Holy Spirit has called you to traditional Catholicism. How so? Where, when & how did you discover trad Catholicism? It couldn't have just shown up at your doorstep, did it? What would cause you to think you can't enter a trad church w/o a ring?
Did you read about keeping your daughter from others from tradition in action - the same website…
12. ALL you want is for a righteous man to not be afraid of you? Really? That's all you want? You may want to be a wife but God may have other plans. Then what?
Are your parents in the picture, or any siblings? What does your mother say & think now? …
Last question: Why don't you want to talk to a trad priest? If you're for real, he's the only one that can help you.
All that was from Thorn against PW in just one day, the 6 July.
No wonder poor PW wanted to get some privacy, and tried to hide the fact she had not gone to the CMRI less than a week later.
Thorn should just leave this poor young girl PW alone.
Thorn has criticized a post that I made, telling her not to keep bullying PW.
I had to speak bluntly to Thorn:
Shut up, Thorn.
Get off Penitent Woman’s back.
You are sinning wickedly by persecuting and tormenting this young girl, with your malicious cruelty.
I choose my name because I was a thorn in the side of a few people even before I joined this forum.[/size]
That is the wrong attitude to have on a Catholic forum.
I was a thorn in this priest's side & have been a thorn in the side of others I've encountered along the Way.[/size]
Thorn displays a vile attitude.
I've been a thorn in his side & now even when I left his chapel & left him alone I must still prick his conscience.[/size]
Thorn is very, very, malicious.
Excuse the dripping sarcasm but you really deserve it. (I didn't pick Thorn (as, in the side of) for nothing.
Being a thorn in the side of other Catholics is obviously an important part of Thorn’s life.
Thorn, you chose your user name well. You certainly do cause a lot of suffering.
Thorn claims to be an ex-nun. Thorn also claims to be divorced.
I would have thought that a nun would have taken a vow of perpetual chastity.
So how is Thorn also divorced?
It sounds rather confusing.
But I believe Thorn.
I believe that Thorn is a divorced woman in her seventies, who somehow also manages to be an ex-nun.
After all, many ex-nuns are bitter Feminists. Many divorced women are bitter Feminists.
Thorn has claimed concern for PW, but I think that Thorn started this cruel, cruel attempt to humiliate this poor young girl.
So it is malice and hypocrisy from Thorn.
Thorn also dared to tell men like Tele and Spiritus that they should not give PW advice, because they are men.
So Thorn wanted to deprive PW of good advice.
Then if PW was isolated she would be in the bullying clutches of these Feminists.
Thorn, you are the last person fit to give advice to a young girl who wants to find husband and remain happily married.
You are, after all, a sadistic, divorced, ex-nun.
The quotes from Thorn from 6 July and since, prove that what I said in the above post is true.
Thorn’s behaviour towards PW has been very sinful.
And Thorn has started a thread in which she raises the evil, untrue idea that Our Lady of Fatima is a deception of the devil.
Thorn said about Fatima:Where my belief that the devil MAY be involved comes from two things.
That is simply evil.
What kind of Catholic tries to persuade people that Our Lady of Fatima is an apparition from the devil.
-
Thorn also posted about my Father and Mother.
To respond to Thorn’s remarks concerning my Mother.
My Mother and Father both gave me a very good Catholic upbringing.
My Mother told me some what I know about bitter, old women like Thorn.
My Mother said: “Divorce makes women bitter.”
My Mother realized that many divorced women (although there are kind exceptions) are filled with bitterness.
As we know, divorced women often take their bitterness or cruelty out on young girls.
A fact that Thorn has so ably demonstrated on this thread.
My Mother did not raise me to talk rudely to ladies.
I talk to good Catholic ladies with great courtesy. As many CathInfo lady members are aware.
I spoke bluntly to Thorn because she does not behave in the way that a good Catholic lady would behave.
Thorn is a sadistic old woman who tries to discredit Our Lady of Fatima, and who has committed this astonishingly malicious onslaught against this young Catholic woman, PW.
To respond to Thorn’s remarks concerning my Father.
My Father and Mother both gave me a very Catholic upbringing.
My Father would approve of me defending a young Catholic woman who is in distress.
Thorn mentions happily married good Catholic people like my Father and Mother, and yet Thorn’s own marital status is one of sin and shame in the eyes of the Catholic Church.
It is an obvious fact to everyone that many divorced women are malicious towards other people.
No one can dispute that. And Thorn proves that.
She has shown so much malice towards the young Catholic woman, PW.
-
I hope that this poor young girl from a novus ordo background, who joined CathInfo to learn about traditional Catholicism, will now be left alone by Thorn and the others.
All this bullying has frightened PW away from traditional Catholicism, and back to the novus ordo.
It has turned her away from the truth.
How mortally sinful this wicked bullying is.
I hope that PW will be given support and Christian charity here, so that she comes to the truth.
Let us all do as much as we can to help this brave young Catholic lady to come to traditional Catholicism.
Could it be because she is a lonely unwed mother looking for a community for support and camaraderie, rather than a married woman with a husband and relatives with whom to talk about her baby and motherhood news and questions ? Since her name is "Penitent Woman," is it unfair to infer that at this time in her life a large portion of her identity revolves around her status as an unwed mother ? ...to me it all sounds like genuine confusion from a contrite and ashamed woman trying to become a traditional Catholic and feel comfortable around traditional Catholics (such that she can repair for her scandal, end her irregular situation, live a happy life, and save her soul). No need to make the road harder or scare her onto a different one.
Wise words, Pere Joseph.
This thread shows that Feminism is a lie.
Feminism does not protect women.
In reality, Feminism humiliates and bullies normal Catholic women, most of whom just want to be married, and have a husband, lots of children, and love and obey their husbands.
-
In one of your earlier posts you stated you were looking for an attractive woman, ohysically fit. I cringed because if that is not all of what a woman is. It made me cringe because many who built relationships around physical attributes alone. divorce when the man goes bald or the woman gains weight. If you build on love, you are on solid ground. If your love is handsome or pretty or athletic, all the better.
No I base my love for a woman based on if her character can be a good wife and mother.
That is good. It will make you love her more every day.
-
I'd also add perhaps there is a little bit too much emphasis on romantic love these days, as if you can have a relationship with anyone you want simply because you "love" them.
Love is important, but so are so many other qualities.
-
Dear PW,
I would like to answer the question that you asked at the beginning of this thread.
It is good to dress modestly even when alone.
You wondered if shorts are suitable in private.
No. I think that it is best to get rid of the shorts.
I hope that this helps you, good Penitent Woman.
God Bless you, Penitent Woman.
Yours,
Sede Catholic.
-
Sede, thank you and bless you (and others) for sticking up for me, but no worries... I will be okay.
I forgive those who have said not so nice things (the worst of all being called a predator) because the Lord knows the truth, and that is really all that matters.
Slanderous claims are very hurtful, but the Lord hears them just as I do. It is for him to deal with and not me. Anger leads to resentment and I don't have the strength right now for any more obstacles.
I'm not ready to be perfect...and I still have many fears to conquer, but I'm not giving up yet either.
Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ. Ephesians 4:31-32
-
You have suffered much.
You are a good Catholic young lady.
You should have been treated better here.
Hopefully now things will improve.
I am glad that you are continuing with your good resolutions about learning more about traditional Catholicism.
You are a brave young woman.
Good people know that you are not a predator. You have suffered very sinful calumnies here.
Many people here have come on to this thread to stick up for you.
You are very popular with the members of CathInfo.
You are one of the best posters here.
God Bless you, Penitent Woman.
-
Sede, thank you and bless you (and others) for sticking up for me, but no worries... I will be okay.
I forgive those who have said not so nice things (the worst of all being called a predator) because the Lord knows the truth, and that is really all that matters.
Slanderous claims are very hurtful, but the Lord hears them just as I do. It is for him to deal with and not me. Anger leads to resentment and I don't have the strength right now for any more obstacles.
I'm not ready to be perfect...and I still have many fears to conquer, but I'm not giving up yet either.
Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ. Ephesians 4:31-32
That is a very good post.
It is from a gentle and forgiving young Catholic lady.
You will be a very good traditional Catholic lady.
-
When were you ordained, Sede, & who ordained you?
-
I forgive those who have said not so nice things (the worst of all being called a predator) because the Lord knows the truth, and that is really all that matters.
Let all bitterness, and anger, and indignation, and clamour, and blasphemy, be put away from you, with all malice. And be ye kind one to another; merciful, forgiving one another, even as God hath forgiven you in Christ. Ephesians 4:31-32
That's the spirit! You are a good mother.
-
Thank you Sede. Nice to have such a gallant man around the forum. Not that there aren't others, but you've done a great service for us in your defence of Penitenta. May God bless you!
Penitenta, you have shown great virtue and I am sure there are many here who've noted it, again and again. God bless you and you little one!
-
Her line about men not being the victims of feminism really takes the cake.
Did she really say that? Wow she must have missed Valerie Solanis: "The male is a biological accident. The male has made the world a ####pile."
Trad guy this post is for you, not Tele, who has already ignored my clarification of this and continues to harp on it with his spin.
In summary, the word victim implies innocence. Men in general are not innocent in the rise of feminism. As Bishop Williamson put it in a conference, men revolted against God (which makes them misuse and/or not use their proper authority), the ripple effect is that women then revolt against men (feminism) and now we see that with parents gone nuts, children are revolting against parents. So you have a hierarchy, God to man to woman to child, and when there's something wrong, the cause and solution start from the top. IN GENERAL
In particular, there are men who suffer because of feminism. There is no doubt about that. I have stories in my own life of extended family members that I care about being hurt by crazy women. Nearly every divorce in my generation, among my cousins and younger uncles, was brought up by the woman. 2 of them just up and left, didn't even care to bring their children, left them with my cousins. It's sad and I resent how they hurt my loved ones, however I do realize it went both ways. My extended family does not practice the Faith, my cousins are not the model husbands themselves, confirming their families in grace. They suffer, however they are not victims. Everybody, male or female, is knee deep in this mess. The true victims are the children.
I also meant to say a while back that there's no need to be defensive about not being an intellectual. There is a difference between being intellectual and being intelligent. There are many kinds of intelligence and being an intellectual is only one type. You can be intelligent without being an intellectual. As long as you use the talents God gave you, that's what the right people will care about.
-
But who and what destroyed the family? Was it not the sex, drugs, rock n' roll, and women's liberation of our social, moral, and cultural revolution? I agree that mankind in general has turned its back on God.
Wallflower if you have the money, I'd recommend you get yourself these works to understand the Marxian and Jєωιѕн origins of feminism: Karl Marx's The German Ideology, Engels' The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State, works by Lukacs, Fromm, Adorno, Marcuse, etc. along with the works of Jєωιѕн women such as Betty Frieden and Gloria Steinem.
I'd like to add that I am not being defensive about not being an intellectual. I thank God I'm not for I despise intellectuals.
-
From The German Ideology:
The Family
[In the family] entirely empirical relations dominate. The attitude of the bourgeois to the institutions of his regime is like that of the Jew to the law; he evades them whenever it is possible to do so in each individual case, but he wants everyone else to observe them. If the entire bourgeoisie, in a mass and at one time, were to evade bourgeois institutions, it would cease to be bourgeois — a conduct which, of course, never occurs to the bourgeois and by no means depends on their willing or running [i.e., it is dictated by historical conditions]. The dissolute bourgeois evades marriage and secretly commits adultery; the merchant evades the institution of property by depriving others of property by speculation, bankruptcy, etc.; the young bourgeois makes himself independent of his family, if he can by in fact abolishing the family as far as he is concerned.
But marriage, property, the family remain untouched in theory, because they are the practical basis on which the bourgeoisie has directed its domination, and because in their bourgeois form they are the conditions which make the bourgeois a bourgeois, just as the constantly evaded law makes the religious Jew a religious Jew. This attitude of the bourgeois to the conditions of his existence acquires one of its universal forms in bourgeois mentality. One cannot speak at all of the family " as such ". Historically the bourgeois gives the family the character of the bourgeois family, in which boredom and money are the binding link, in which also includes the bourgeois dissolution of the family, which does not prevent the family itself from always continuing to exist. It's dirty existence as its counterpart in the holy concept of it in official phraseology and universal hypocrisy.
Where the family is actually abolished, as with the proletariat, just the opposite of what "Stirner" thinks takes place. Then the concept of the family does not exist at all, but here and there family affection based on extremely real relations is certainly to be found.
In the 18th-century the concept of the [feudal] family was abolished by the philosophers, because the actual family was already in the process of dissolution at the highest pinnacles of civilization. The internal family bond, the separate components constituting the concept of the family were dissolved, for example, obedience, piety, fidelity in marriage, etc.; but the real body the family, the property relation, the exclusive attitude in relation to their families, forced cohabitation — relations determined by the existence of children, the structure of modern towns, the formation of capital, etc. — all these were preserved, along with numerous violations, because the existence of the family is made necessary by its connection with the mode of production, which exists independently of the will of bourgeois society.
That it was impossible to do without it was demonstrated in the most striking way during the French Revolution, when for a moment the family was as good as legally abolished. The family continues to exist even in the 19th-century, only the process of its dissolution has become more general, not on account of the concept, but because of the higher development of industry and competition; the family still exists although its dissolution was long ago proclaimed by French and English Socialists and this has at last penetrated also to the German church fathers, by way of French novels.[A]
p. 194-5 [MECW p. 180]
[A] The sarcasm of Marx and Engels may not be retained in this shortened form; this statement is saracastic. Marx and Engels are explaining that ideas and novels alone cannot change the fact; only real changes in the relations of production, i.e. only through the establishment of communism, will the family actually be abolished.
-
From The Origins of the Family Private Property, and the State:
We thus have three principal forms of marriage which correspond broadly to the three principal stages of human development. For the period of savagery, group marriage; for barbarism, pairing marriage; for civilization, monogamy, supplemented by adultery and prostitution. Between pairing marriage and monogamy intervenes a period in the upper stage of barbarism when men have female slaves at their command and polygamy is practiced.
As our whole presentation has shown, the progress which manifests itself in these successive forms is connected with the peculiarity that women, but not men, are increasingly deprived of the sɛҳuąƖ freedom of group marriage. In fact, for men group marriage actually still exists even to this day. What for the woman is a crime, entailing grave legal and social consequences, is considered honorable in a man or, at the worse, a slight moral blemish which he cheerfully bears. But the more the hetaerism of the past is changed in our time by capitalist commodity production and brought into conformity with it, the more, that is to say, it is transformed into undisguised prostitution, the more demoralizing are its effects. And it demoralizes men far more than women. Among women, prostitution degrades only the unfortunate ones who become its victims, and even these by no means to the extent commonly believed. But it degrades the character of the whole male world. A long engagement, particularly, is in nine cases out of ten a regular preparatory school for conjugal infidelity.
We are now approaching a social revolution in which the economic foundations of monogamy as they have existed hitherto will disappear just as surely as those of its complement-prostitution. Monogamy arose from the concentration of considerable wealth in the hands of a single individuals man-and from the need to bequeath this wealth to the children of that man and of no other. For this purpose, the monogamy of the woman was required, not that of the man, so this monogamy of the woman did not in any way interfere with open or concealed polygamy on the part of the man. But by transforming by far the greater portion, at any rate, of permanent, heritable wealth – the means of production – into social property, the coming social revolution will reduce to a minimum all this anxiety about bequeathing and inheriting. Having arisen from economic causes, will monogamy then disappear when these causes disappear?
One might answer, not without reason: far from disappearing, it will, on the contrary, be realized completely. For with the transformation of the means of production into social property there will disappear also wage-labor, the proletariat, and therefore the necessity for a certain – statistically calculable – number of women to surrender themselves for money. Prostitution disappears; monogamy, instead of collapsing, at last becomes a reality – also for men.
In any case, therefore, the position of men will be very much altered. But the position of women, of all women, also undergoes significant change. With the transfer of the means of production into common ownership, the single family ceases to be the economic unit of society. Private housekeeping is transformed into a social industry. The care and education of the children becomes a public affair; society looks after all children alike, whether they are legitimate or not. This removes all the anxiety about the “consequences,” which today is the most essential social – moral as well as economic – factor that prevents a girl from giving herself completely to the man she loves. Will not that suffice to bring about the gradual growth of unconstrained sɛҳuąƖ intercourse and with it a more tolerant public opinion in regard to a maiden’s honor and a woman’s shame? And, finally, have we not seen that in the modern world monogamy and prostitution are indeed contradictions, but inseparable contradictions, poles of the same state of society? Can prostitution disappear without dragging monogamy with it into the abyss?
Here a new element comes into play, an element which, at the time when monogamy was developing, existed at most in germ: individual sex-love.
Before the Middle Ages we cannot speak of individual sex-love. That personal beauty, close intimacy, similarity of tastes and so forth awakened in people of opposite sex the desire for sɛҳuąƖ intercourse, that men and women were not totally indifferent regarding the partner with whom they entered into this most intimate relationship – that goes without saying. But it is still a very long way to our sɛҳuąƖ love. Throughout the whole of antiquity, marriages were arranged by the parents, and the partners calmly accepted their choice. What little love there was between husband and wife in antiquity is not so much subjective inclination as objective duty, not the cause of the marriage, but its corollary. Love relationships in the modern sense only occur in antiquity outside official society. The shepherds of whose joys and sorrows in love Theocratus and Moschus sing, the Daphnis and Chloe of Longus are all slaves who have no part in the state, the free citizen’s sphere of life. Except among slaves, we find love affairs only as products of the disintegration of the old world and carried on with women who also stand outside official society, with hetairai – that is, with foreigners or freed slaves: in Athens from the eve of its decline, in Rome under the Caesars. If there were any real love affairs between free men and free women, these occurred only in the course of adultery. And to the classical love poet of antiquity, old Anacreon, sɛҳuąƖ love in our sense mattered so little that it did not even matter to him which sex his beloved was.
Our sɛҳuąƖ love differs essentially from the simple sɛҳuąƖ desire, the Eros, of the ancients. In the first place, it assumes that the person loved returns the love; to this extent the woman is on an equal footing with the man, whereas in the Eros of antiquity she was often not even asked. Secondly, our sɛҳuąƖ love has a degree of intensity and duration which makes both lovers feel that non-possession and separation are a great, if not the greatest, calamity; to possess one another, they risk high stakes, even life itself. In the ancient world this happened only, if at all, in adultery. And, finally, there arises a new moral standard in the judgment of a sɛҳuąƖ relationship. We do not only ask, was it within or outside marriage? But also, did it spring from love and reciprocated love or not? Of course, this new standard has fared no better in feudal or bourgeois practice than all the other standards of morality – it is ignored. But neither does it fare any worse. It is recognized just as much as they are – in theory, on paper. And for the present it cannot ask anything more.
At the point where antiquity broke off its advance to sɛҳuąƖ love, the Middle Ages took it up again: in adultery. We have already described the knightly love which gave rise to the songs of dawn. From the love which strives to break up marriage to the love which is to be its foundation there is still a long road, which chivalry never fully traversed. Even when we pass from the frivolous Latins to the virtuous Germans, we find in the Nibelungenlied that, although in her heart Kriemhild is as much in love with Siegfried as he is with her, yet when Gunther announces that he has promised her to a knight he does not name, she simply replies: “You have no need to ask me; as you bid me, so will I ever be; whom you, lord, give me as husband, him will I gladly take in troth.” It never enters her head that her love can be even considered. Gunther asks for Brunhild in marriage, and Etzel for Kriemhild, though they have never seen them. Similarly, in Gutrun, Sigebant of Ireland asks for the Norwegian Ute, whom he has never seen, Hetel of Hegelingen for Hilde of Ireland, and, finally, Siegfried of Moorland, Hartmut of Ormany and Herwig of Seeland for Gutrun, and here Gutrun’s acceptance of Herwig is for the first time voluntary. As a rule, the young prince’s bride is selected by his parents, if they are still living, or, if not, by the prince himself, with the advice of the great feudal lords, who have a weighty word to say in all these cases. Nor can it be otherwise. For the knight or baron, as for the prince of the land himself, marriage is a political act, an opportunity to increase power by new alliances; the interest of the house must be decisive, not the wishes of an individual. What chance then is there for love to have the final word in the making of a marriage?
The same thing holds for the guild member in the medieval towns. The very privileges protecting him, the guild charters with all their clauses and rubrics, the intricate distinctions legally separating him from other guilds, from the members of his own guild or from his journeymen and apprentices, already made the circle narrow enough within which he could look for a suitable wife. And who in the circle was the most suitable was decided under this complicated system most certainly not by his individual preference but by the family interests.
In the vast majority of cases, therefore, marriage remained, up to the close of the middle ages, what it had been from the start – a matter which was not decided by the partners. In the beginning, people were already born married –married to an entire group of the opposite sex. In the later forms of group marriage similar relations probably existed, but with the group continually contracting. In the pairing marriage it was customary for the mothers to settle the marriages of their children; here, too, the decisive considerations are the new ties of kinship, which are to give the young pair a stronger position in the gens and tribe. And when, with the preponderance of private over communal property and the interest in its bequeathal, father-right and monogamy gained supremacy, the dependence of marriages on economic considerations became complete. The form of marriage by purchase disappears, the actual practice is steadily extended until not only the woman but also the man acquires a price – not according to his personal qualities, but according to his property. That the mutual affection of the people concerned should be the one paramount reason for marriage, outweighing everything else, was and always had been absolutely unheard of in the practice of the ruling classes; that sort of thing only happened in romance – or among the oppressed classes, who did not count.
Such was the state of things encountered by capitalist production when it began to prepare itself, after the epoch of geographical discoveries, to win world power by world trade and manufacture. One would suppose that this manner of marriage exactly suited it, and so it did. And yet – there are no limits to the irony of history – capitalist production itself was to make the decisive breach in it. By changing all things into commodities, it dissolved all inherited and traditional relationships, and, in place of time-honored custom and historic right, it set up purchase and sale, “free” contract. And the English jurist, H. S. Maine, thought he had made a tremendous discovery when he said that our whole progress in comparison with former epochs consisted in the fact that we had passed “from status to contract," from inherited to freely contracted conditions – which, in so far as it is correct, was already in The Communist Manifesto [Chapter II].
But a contract requires people who can dispose freely of their persons, actions, and possessions, and meet each other on the footing of equal rights. To create these “free” and “equal” people was one of the main tasks of capitalist production. Even though at the start it was carried out only half-consciously, and under a religious disguise at that, from the time of the Lutheran and Calvinist Reformation the principle was established that man is only fully responsible for his actions when he acts with complete freedom of will, and that it is a moral duty to resist all coercion to an immoral act. But how did this fit in with the hitherto existing practice in the arrangement of marriages? Marriage, according to the bourgeois conception, was a contract, a legal transaction, and the most important one of all, because it disposed of two human beings, body and mind, for life. Formally, it is true, the contract at that time was entered into voluntarily: without the assent of the persons concerned, nothing could be done. But everyone knew only too well how this assent was obtained and who were the real contracting parties in the marriage. But if real freedom of decision was required for all other contracts, then why not for this? Had not the two young people to be coupled also the right to dispose freely of themselves, of their bodies and organs? Had not chivalry brought sex-love into fashion, and was not its proper bourgeois form, in contrast to chivalry’s adulterous love, the love of husband and wife? And if it was the duty of married people to love each other, was it not equally the duty of lovers to marry each other and nobody else? Did not this right of the lovers stand higher than the right of parents, relations, and other traditional marriage-brokers and matchmakers? If the right of free, personal discrimination broke boldly into the Church and religion, how should it halt before the intolerable claim of the older generation to dispose of the body, soul, property, happiness, and unhappiness of the younger generation?
These questions inevitably arose at a time which was loosening all the old ties of society and undermining all traditional conceptions. The world had suddenly grown almost ten times bigger; instead of one quadrant of a hemisphere, the whole globe lay before the gaze of the West Europeans, who hastened to take the other seven quadrants into their possession. And with the old narrow barriers of their homeland f ell also the thousand-year-old barriers of the prescribed medieval way of thought. To the outward and the inward eye of man opened an infinitely wider horizon. What did a young man care about the approval of respectability, or honorable guild privileges handed down for generations, when the wealth of India beckoned to him, the gold and the silver mines of Mexico and Potosi? For the bourgeoisie, it was the time of knight-errantry; they, too, had their romance and their raptures of love, but on a bourgeois footing and, in the last analysis, with bourgeois aims.
So it came about that the rising bourgeoisie, especially in Protestant countries, where existing conditions had been most severely shaken, increasingly recognized freedom of contract also in marriage, and carried it into effect in the manner described. Marriage remained class marriage, but within the class the partners were conceded a certain degree of freedom of choice. And on paper, in ethical theory and in poetic description, nothing was more immutably established than that every marriage is immoral which does not rest on mutual sɛҳuąƖ love and really free agreement of husband and wife. In short, the love marriage was proclaimed as a human right, and indeed not only as a droit de l’homme, one of the rights of man, but also, for once in a way, as droit de la fem?", one of the rights of woman.
This human right, however, differed in one respect from all other so-called human rights. While the latter, in practice, remain restricted to the ruling class (the bourgeoisie), and are directly or indirectly curtailed for the oppressed class (the proletariat), in the case of the former the irony of history plays another of its tricks. The ruling class remains dominated by the familiar economic influences and therefore only in exceptional cases does it provide instances of really freely contracted marriages, while among the oppressed class, as we have seen, these marriages are the rule.
Full freedom of marriage can therefore only be generally established when the abolition of capitalist production and of the property relations created by it has removed all the accompanying economic considerations which still exert such a powerful influence on the choice of a marriage partner. For then there is no other motive left except mutual inclination.
And as sɛҳuąƖ love is by its nature exclusive – although at present this exclusiveness is fully realized only in the woman – the marriage based on sɛҳuąƖ love is by its nature individual marriage. We have seen how right Bachofen was in regarding the advance from group marriage to individual marriage as primarily due to the women. Only the step from pairing marriage to monogamy can be put down to the credit of the men, and historically the essence of this was to make the position of the women worse and the infidelities of the men easier. If now the economic considerations also disappear which made women put up with the habitual infidelity of their husbands – concern for their own means of existence and still more for their children’s future – then, according to all previous experience, the equality of woman thereby achieved will tend infinitely more to make men really monogamous than to make women polyandrous.
But what will quite certainly disappear from monogamy are all the features stamped upon it through its origin in property relations; these are, in the first place, supremacy of the man, and, secondly, indissolubility. The supremacy of the man in marriage is the simple consequence of his economic supremacy, and with the abolition of the latter will disappear of itself. The indissolubility of marriage is partly a consequence of the economic situation in which monogamy arose, partly tradition from the period when the connection between this economic situation and monogamy was not yet fully understood and was carried to extremes under a religious form. Today it is already broken through at a thousand points. If only the marriage based on love is moral, then also only the marriage in which love continues. But the intense emotion of individual sex-love varies very much in duration from one individual to another, especially among men, and if affection definitely comes to an end or is supplanted by a new passionate love, separation is a benefit for both partners as well as for society – only people will then be spared having to wade through the useless mire of a divorce case.
What we can now conjecture about the way in which sɛҳuąƖ relations will be ordered after the impending overthrow of capitalist production is mainly of a negative character, limited for the most part to what will disappear. But what will there be new? That will be answered when a new generation has grown up: a generation of men who never in their lives have known what it is to buy a woman’s surrender with money or any other social instrument of power; a generation of women who have never known what it is to give themselves to a man from any other considerations than real love, or to refuse to give themselves to their lover from fear of the economic consequences. When these people are in the world, they will care precious little what anybody today thinks they ought to do; they will make their own practice and their corresponding public opinion about the practice of each individual – and that will be the end of it.
Let us, however, return to Morgan, from whom we have moved a considerable distance. The historical investigation of the social institutions developed during the period of civilization goes beyond the limits of his book. How monogamy fares during this epoch, therefore, only occupies him very briefly. He, too, sees in the further development of the monogamous family a step forward, an approach to complete equality of the sexes, though he does not regard this goal as attained. But, he says:
When the fact is accepted that the family has passed through four successive forms, and is now in a fifth, the question at once arises whether this form can be permanent in the future. The only answer that can be given is that it must advance as society advances, and change as society changes, even as it has done in the past. It is the creature of the social system, and will reflect its culture. As the monogamian family has improved greatly since the commencement of civilization, and very sensibly in modern times, it is at least supposable that it is capable of still further improvement until the equality of the sexes is attained. Should the monogamian family in the distant future fail to answer the requirements of society ... it is impossible to predict the nature of its successor.
-
I am a layman. I am not a priest. I have not been ordained as a priest.
Thorn has strangely asked when I was ordained, and who ordained me.
I do not know why Thorn has asked such strange questions.
Possibly it is just sarcasm, or something else, from Thorn.
To clarify:
I am a layman. I am not a priest. I have not been ordained as a priest.
-
Thank you Sede. Nice to have such a gallant man around the forum. Not that there aren't others, but you've done a great service for us in your defence of Penitenta. May God bless you!
Penitenta, you have shown great virtue and I am sure there are many here who've noted it, again and again. God bless you and you little one!
Thank you, Nadir, for that kind post.
Thank you also, Nadir, for your kind words to me.
God Bless you, Nadir.
-
I'd also add perhaps there is a little bit too much emphasis on romantic love these days,
I actually disagree with this. This is a popular thing to say, and not coincidentally it's also false, because maintaining an erroneous consensus about such topics is necessary for the culture destroyers to cloak their work. If you look at how the popular culture talks about "love" and "romance" one is hard-pressed to see any idealization of it. (certainly compared to the past) On the contrary, what is called "romance" is typically immoral productions for women.
There's absolutely nothing romantic about women saying they need a career before "settling down" - on the contrary - that's just about the polar opposite of romantic love.
I think I kind of get where you're going with this. I've heard it said that old movies depicted women in "co-dependent" to men roles. And maybe even encouraged "co-dependency" in both people.
Personally, I think "co-dependent" is/has become a meaningless term.
The term seems to say something like, they both need each other and somehow that's a mental illness. So, then that would make marriage a disease producing institution. Unbelievable! But, I think that's the "modern" attitude towards traditional marriage and since traiditional roles lead to traditional marriage, well, those must be disease causers too! :jester: So, it seems like it is a way to destroy communities and turn people into rootless worker/consumer zombies.
Certainly, if you need someone to be with you permanently, you would fall under the category of "co-dependent" and hence, would be a "disease carrier!" :jester:
I guess that's one reason why being "needy" or "neediness" or "clinginess" is so looked down on and actually abhorred in our culture today.
No doubt, every single infant would fall under this category! No wonder they're so pro-abortion and so anti-child!
It seems like it is rooted in selfishness. :detective:
-
I have noticed that you say that and cringed when I read it...we want to be loved for our whole package...body mind faith etc. I guess the question is this--if physical attraction takes priority, would you love her less if she became incapacitated or gained weight, or became less attractive, i.e., burned or something?
Wait a minute...you "cringed" when you read it? What does that mean? Why would you crine after I typed something pretty basic?
First off physical attraction and physical fitness just take priority for me because of the emphasis of "smart women" in today's society. Is it wrong for me to be able to be attracted to my wife? I'd like to add a woman's character comes second to me because that is the making of the good wife and mother. Anyone from Catholic schools knows that the innoculation of Catholic values and the Faith takes precedence over intellectual values. Finally I don't care for bimbos either and would hope that my spouse is more book-smart than I am because she would be involved in the training of the children while I would be working but if that intelligence is used to spread leftist garbage I definitely prefer a stupid woman with strong character.
To tell you the truth I always cared more for athletics than acedemics so that is probably why I put physical fitness and physical attraction first. :wink:
Would you have any objection to a potential spouse having the same expectation of physical fitness for you?
-
Pointing out someone's error can be done with respect. Fighting a war can be done with respect. (not raping etc) Telling your spuose they are very wrong can be done with respect.
When it comes to Marxists and liberals and feminists though I don't use "respect." As for the spouse thing I'd go more along the lines of, "If you think that way you can leave my house!" I do agree about a just war though.
By the way do you ladies find anything wrong with a man being attracted to a physically fit and physically attractive woman. I've been told by a few women that this is "sick" and "wrong" because I don't acknowledge the girl's intelligence.
How likely is this approach to convert them? St. Francis de Sales observed that you catch more lies with honey than with vinegar. Not that i am especially good at practicing this myself of course, as some here may have noticed. :wink:
-
We shouldn't be too hard on these women Tele. Women simply use their emotions first, instead of rational thought.
Also when there is sɛҳuąƖ immorality we know whose fault it is, and I'll give you a hint, it isn't the man's fault. :wink:
Nonsense. If you expect to get some sort of pass on judgment day by blaming any sɛҳuąƖ immorality you might commit on women rather than repenting and taking responsibility for your own sinful choices, I am afraid you may be eternally disappointed by the result.
-
Well, Sede, I just assumed that since you could read hearts & minds & know for a fact that I have sinned to such a degree that you were broadcasting it to the world, you were a priest or else practicing without a license.
btw - I don't believe that PW is a predator & I think (just assuming again) that the poster who wrote that misused the term &/or used it in a way different than the way we normally use it.
-
Sorry, Sig, I downed your post when I meant to up it. So sorry - I couldn't change it,
-
Her line about men not being the victims of feminism really takes the cake.
Did she really say that? Wow she must have missed Valerie Solanis: "The male is a biological accident. The male has made the world a ####pile."
Trad guy this post is for you, not Tele, who has already ignored my clarification of this and continues to harp on it with his spin.
In summary, the word victim implies innocence. Men in general are not innocent in the rise of feminism. As Bishop Williamson put it in a conference, men revolted against God (which makes them misuse and/or not use their proper authority), the ripple effect is that women then revolt against men (feminism) and now we see that with parents gone nuts, children are revolting against parents. So you have a hierarchy, God to man to woman to child, and when there's something wrong, the cause and solution start from the top. IN GENERAL
In particular, there are men who suffer because of feminism. There is no doubt about that. I have stories in my own life of extended family members that I care about being hurt by crazy women. Nearly every divorce in my generation, among my cousins and younger uncles, was brought up by the woman. 2 of them just up and left, didn't even care to bring their children, left them with my cousins. It's sad and I resent how they hurt my loved ones, however I do realize it went both ways. My extended family does not practice the Faith, my cousins are not the model husbands themselves, confirming their families in grace. They suffer, however they are not victims. Everybody, male or female, is knee deep in this mess. The true victims are the children.
I also meant to say a while back that there's no need to be defensive about not being an intellectual. There is a difference between being intellectual and being intelligent. There are many kinds of intelligence and being an intellectual is only one type. You can be intelligent without being an intellectual. As long as you use the talents God gave you, that's what the right people will care about.
Maybe there is some truth to what you are saying, but today women benefit from feminism and men don't. So, the really strong support is going to come, as always, from the "losers," not the "winners," because people are basically selfish, not charitable (after 90 pages of this thread, we should all be convinced of that!) And that's where the fighters come from and this is a war. So, that appears to be, the way it is. Feminism "helps" women and "hurts" men, but only the men who identify as being victims of it, will be willing to make significant sacrifices, in order to fight against it. At least, that's how it seems to me.
-
I have noticed that you say that and cringed when I read it...we want to be loved for our whole package...body mind faith etc. I guess the question is this--if physical attraction takes priority, would you love her less if she became incapacitated or gained weight, or became less attractive, i.e., burned or something?
Wait a minute...you "cringed" when you read it? What does that mean? Why would you crine after I typed something pretty basic?
First off physical attraction and physical fitness just take priority for me because of the emphasis of "smart women" in today's society. Is it wrong for me to be able to be attracted to my wife? I'd like to add a woman's character comes second to me because that is the making of the good wife and mother. Anyone from Catholic schools knows that the innoculation of Catholic values and the Faith takes precedence over intellectual values. Finally I don't care for bimbos either and would hope that my spouse is more book-smart than I am because she would be involved in the training of the children while I would be working but if that intelligence is used to spread leftist garbage I definitely prefer a stupid woman with strong character.
To tell you the truth I always cared more for athletics than acedemics so that is probably why I put physical fitness and physical attraction first. :wink:
Would you have any objection to a potential spouse having the same expectation of physical fitness for you?
I was responding to an inquiry by Trad Guy about why some women object to his saying he wants a fit and pretty wife. I would have no objection to that as long it is part of the bigger package--my love, mind, and body.
-
Maybe there is some truth to what you are saying,
What she's saying shows that she's fundamentally a feminist. She's said many times before that feminism is some sort of payback and that it was a revolt against past conditions.
So she blames men, as a class, for feminism, therefore she will not admit they're generally the victims of wrongdoing by women operating under a feminist system with feminist motivations. As far as she's concerned men generally deserve what they get. If men are not victims of the feminist movement - one must conclude they are deserving what they get.
It follows then that she's a feminist. Understand that - when push comes to shove there is no accountability for women to men as far as she's concerned.
And that's where the fighters come from and this is a war. So, that appears to be, the way it is. Feminism "helps" women and "hurts" men, but only the men who identify as being victims of it, will be willing to make significant sacrifices, in order to fight against it. At least, that's how it seems to me.
Denying that men are victims of feminism implicitly means she accepts two premises:
1) men are getting what they deserve
2) feminism does not favor injustice against men on behalf of women. (because those who are treated unjustly are victims of injustice - according to her men are not victims of it)
She implicitly accepts those things, and refuses to retract her statement, because she's a feminist.
-
Would you have any objection to a potential spouse having the same expectation of physical fitness for you?
No, which is why I work out with sports and exercise every day.
-
I noticed she brought up that she has relatives who've been abused by the feminist system, and her response is to argue that somehow the men must have deserved the unjust treatment they received.
This really is the core of it. For a feminist, women must never be blamed, never accept blame, never admit they're wrong. Bad women must be immune from blame and punishment, the men must take responsibility for the wrong-doing of women.
That is feminism in a nutshell. You can take just about any controversy pertaining to feminism, and you will see it is always about making men (or their children) pay for women's bad choices or deficiencies and inadequacies.
Whether in marriage, motherhood, employment, whether it is about their paranoid disdain for men or even when it comes to simply being expected to tell the truth about their behavior, feminism says they don't have to keep their promises, they don't have to care for their children or respect their children's father, they don't have to have the same qualifications or capabilities for employment, they don't have to behave decorously and modestly or show any respect to men or the reputations of men, and they are given immunity to lie when they are embarrassed, regardless of the harm it might do to men.
Now men are the victims of these attitudes about women, and the response of the feminist is that if men were "better" if they were "real men," or if it weren't for some sort of deficiency that must exist so they can take the blame (which the feminist says they must) they wouldn't have to worry about all these injustices that women commit with impunity.
-
How likely is this approach to convert them? St. Francis de Sales observed that you catch more lies with honey than with vinegar. Not that i am especially good at practicing this myself of course, as some here may have noticed. :wink:
Here's a better question: did General Franco take the time to go out to the Marxists who attacked the Church and try to convert them, or did he actually chase them out of Spain?
-
Nonsense. If you expect to get some sort of pass on judgment day by blaming any sɛҳuąƖ immorality you might commit on women rather than repenting and taking responsibility for your own sinful choices, I am afraid you may be eternally disappointed by the result.
And then there are some "men" like yourself which seem to defend women no matter what they do. I have to question a man's strength if they do this. I am speaking of women thinking that they can be just as sɛҳuąƖly promiscuous as men. When the husband cheats on the spouse even, the woman who he is cheating on will sometimes wear provocative clothing.
-
I was responding to an inquiry by Trad Guy about why some women object to his saying he wants a fit and pretty wife. I would have no objection to that as long it is part of the bigger package--my love, mind, and body.
If Sigismund had taken the time to read further instead of jumping to accusations he would have noticed that I too am interested in athletics and a healthy body, so I am no hypocrite here. Along with the manual labor I do at my job I work out and play sports.
-
Now men are the victims of these attitudes about women, and the response of the feminist is that if men were "better" if they were "real men," or if it weren't for some sort of deficiency that must exist so they can take the blame (which the feminist says they must) they wouldn't have to worry about all these injustices that women commit with impunity.
Well Tele how do we explain "men" such as Sigismund who like to defend women, no matter their sɛҳuąƖ immorality?
-
I guess that's one reason why being "needy" or "neediness" or "clinginess" is so looked down on and actually abhorred in our culture today.
No doubt, every single infant would fall under this category! No wonder they're so pro-abortion and so anti-child!
It seems like it is rooted in selfishness. :detective:
Well men and boys shouldn't be 'clingy' or 'needy' or whine about their feelings for they need a manly toughness but yes the child is definitely looked down upon these days.
From an article in a feminist magazine:
"Thank God we weren't up at 6 a.m. taking care of a brat."
-
Pointing out someone's error can be done with respect. Fighting a war can be done with respect. (not raping etc) Telling your spuose they are very wrong can be done with respect.
When it comes to Marxists and liberals and feminists though I don't use "respect." As for the spouse thing I'd go more along the lines of, "If you think that way you can leave my house!" I do agree about a just war though.
By the way do you ladies find anything wrong with a man being attracted to a physically fit and physically attractive woman. I've been told by a few women that this is "sick" and "wrong" because I don't acknowledge the girl's intelligence.
How likely is this approach to convert them? St. Francis de Sales observed that you catch more lies with honey than with vinegar. Not that i am especially good at practicing this myself of course, as some here may have noticed. :wink:
On the line at the abortion clinic I can tell you that screaming whore, sinner and you are a murderer does nothing to stop the young woman from her intent. When those fanatics are there I pray very hard and try to establish eye contact first. The honey approach gets the woman to look at pictures, consider an ultrasound to hear or see her baby. We get good results that way, and most repent and become very strong Catholics and advocates for life. A sin occurred. But so did a miracle who deserves life. Many of the women were told God hates them. We tell them God hates the sin.
In the end, some people are born with a personality that pushes harder when pushed.
-
churchy women
That's a great tag for that type. Lots of them on Fisheaters.
-
Her line about men not being the victims of feminism really takes the cake.
Did she really say that? Wow she must have missed Valerie Solanis: "The male is a biological accident. The male has made the world a ####pile."
Trad guy this post is for you, not Tele, who has already ignored my clarification of this and continues to harp on it with his spin.
In summary, the word victim implies innocence. Men in general are not innocent in the rise of feminism. As Bishop Williamson put it in a conference, men revolted against God (which makes them misuse and/or not use their proper authority), the ripple effect is that women then revolt against men (feminism) and now we see that with parents gone nuts, children are revolting against parents. So you have a hierarchy, God to man to woman to child, and when there's something wrong, the cause and solution start from the top. IN GENERAL
In particular, there are men who suffer because of feminism. There is no doubt about that. I have stories in my own life of extended family members that I care about being hurt by crazy women. Nearly every divorce in my generation, among my cousins and younger uncles, was brought up by the woman. 2 of them just up and left, didn't even care to bring their children, left them with my cousins. It's sad and I resent how they hurt my loved ones, however I do realize it went both ways. My extended family does not practice the Faith, my cousins are not the model husbands themselves, confirming their families in grace. They suffer, however they are not victims. Everybody, male or female, is knee deep in this mess. The true victims are the children.
I also meant to say a while back that there's no need to be defensive about not being an intellectual. There is a difference between being intellectual and being intelligent. There are many kinds of intelligence and being an intellectual is only one type. You can be intelligent without being an intellectual. As long as you use the talents God gave you, that's what the right people will care about.
Maybe there is some truth to what you are saying, but today women benefit from feminism and men don't. So, the really strong support is going to come, as always, from the "losers," not the "winners," because people are basically selfish, not charitable (after 90 pages of this thread, we should all be convinced of that!) And that's where the fighters come from and this is a war. So, that appears to be, the way it is. Feminism "helps" women and "hurts" men, but only the men who identify as being victims of it, will be willing to make significant sacrifices, in order to fight against it. At least, that's how it seems to me.
There are many men who "benefit" from feminism. I use quotations b/c as we know, no one really benefits from immorality and sin, but in the short selfish term they think they do. As far as some societal issues such as women taking jobs from the men they certainly don't benefit at all, but on the personal level of wanting to live selfishly and without responsibility, they do. I don't think men are only to blame, women are as well, but it's not as though men were saints who were blindsided by this sudden inexplicable demonic change in women as some here would have us believe. There is ALWAYS cause and effect.
Feminists will abuse the abuse card and take it too far. For example WE know being home with children and not being able to vote is not abuse. There are many things they consider abuse that are not. But it doesn't mean there wasn't some abuse going on. With the changes in thought from the Protestant Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, Modernism came a change in behavior as well. When a man is not anchored in Christ (and not the Protestant Christ either) he is unable to lead his family properly. He leads them wayward and there are effects.
For example a woman being home with children, that in itself is not abuse; however belittling the vocation of a mother would be. Treating her as a lesser being or not appreciating her sacrifice would be. Not supporting her (as Matthew's post outlined earlier) when she is sick or pregnant makes things much more difficult on her. We can't deny this is often a problem. In fact my mother often says she almost envies her daughters the support they get from their husbands. Most of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers can attest to the fact that dad did nothing to help in the house. Whether she was puking her guts out pregnant with # 12, didn't matter, it was woman's work and dad wasn't going to touch a dish or a diaper. She was there to serve him, he had already done his man's work that day, period. That is another attitude that is "traditional". Women cannot manage a home and family alone but in response they threw out the baby with the bathwater, sadly, quite literally. Rather than identifying the lack of appreciation and/or help as a problem, the whole vocation was thrown out. Now they strive for the things men DO appreciate, the world and careers. Except now the men don't appreciate them taking those things from them either! So it would be much easier on everyone if men just appreciated the vocation of mothers and stepped in to help when needed. When that happens women are much more likely to be happy in that vocation and physically, emotionally, spiritually capable of persevering.
One of the biggest and this propels many women to be as immoral as men on purpose, is the double standard idea that men's immorality is to be excused because they are men but women must take responsibility, not only for their own sin but for the man's as well. Women were meant to be helpmates, not scapegoats and men as leaders of families have just as much responsibility as women to be a good example and confirm their families in grace. But this double standard is an old one, a "traditional" one. Which is why I sometimes say not all things that are traditional are traditional Catholic. Sin and error are just as old as truth.
That's why the word victim is a misnomer, they are not blameless. To think so would be to say that men are/were angels and women just up and went nuts for nothing one day. Those who consider men to be victims of it are not the ones to fight it as you say. At least, they may think they are but as long as they go about it pointing fingers everywhere else, they will not be half as successful as the men who take responsibility, either for their own personal actions or for those of their sex in general and determine not to repeat those mistakes in their own families. Especially since to consider men victims they are turning a blind eye on half the problem and cannot consider it in its entirety, which is essential if they want to find the right solution. We know in all other areas of life, the frame of mind one is in when they consider themselves to be victims makes them less successful because they are less likely to be able to think objectively so all things will revolve around themselves rather than the real problem and solution. This is no different.
That goes for women too and it's the problem with feminists. As long as they consider themselves victims of men, they are not able to see the problem clearly so their "solutions" will be off. Although they are at a disadvantage by having a lower place in the hierarchy, they aren't usually victims as they are tainted by original sin and can misbehave just as well as men. Some have been true victims. I'd say St Monica runs pretty close. Her husband abused her and their marriage yet she maintained her sanctity and didn't use it as an excuse to go wrong herself. I doubt she would insist upon or revel in the term though. There truly is a different frame of mind when thinking of oneself as a victim and I doubt she would have had the strength to persevere had she been in that frame of mind. She had recourse to God instead.
-
I have noticed that you say that and cringed when I read it...we want to be loved for our whole package...body mind faith etc. I guess the question is this--if physical attraction takes priority, would you love her less if she became incapacitated or gained weight, or became less attractive, i.e., burned or something?
Wait a minute...you "cringed" when you read it? What does that mean? Why would you crine after I typed something pretty basic?
First off physical attraction and physical fitness just take priority for me because of the emphasis of "smart women" in today's society. Is it wrong for me to be able to be attracted to my wife? I'd like to add a woman's character comes second to me because that is the making of the good wife and mother. Anyone from Catholic schools knows that the innoculation of Catholic values and the Faith takes precedence over intellectual values. Finally I don't care for bimbos either and would hope that my spouse is more book-smart than I am because she would be involved in the training of the children while I would be working but if that intelligence is used to spread leftist garbage I definitely prefer a stupid woman with strong character.
To tell you the truth I always cared more for athletics than acedemics so that is probably why I put physical fitness and physical attraction first. :wink:
Would you have any objection to a potential spouse having the same expectation of physical fitness for you?
I was responding to an inquiry by Trad Guy about why some women object to his saying he wants a fit and pretty wife. I would have no objection to that as long it is part of the bigger package--my love, mind, and body.
I actually meant that question to be addressed to trad Guy, not you. Sorry.
-
Would you have any objection to a potential spouse having the same expectation of physical fitness for you?
No, which is why I work out with sports and exercise every day.
Okay. As long as you are consistent. :smile:
-
How likely is this approach to convert them? St. Francis de Sales observed that you catch more lies with honey than with vinegar. Not that i am especially good at practicing this myself of course, as some here may have noticed. :wink:
Here's a better question: did General Franco take the time to go out to the Marxists who attacked the Church and try to convert them, or did he actually chase them out of Spain?
There are some people you can't negotiate with, sure. I don't disagree with you in this case, for example. I am just suggesting that not every opponent one might encounter deserves this kind of treatment. I am no tsure we are actually disagreeing here.
-
Nonsense. If you expect to get some sort of pass on judgment day by blaming any sɛҳuąƖ immorality you might commit on women rather than repenting and taking responsibility for your own sinful choices, I am afraid you may be eternally disappointed by the result.
And then there are some "men" like yourself which seem to defend women no matter what they do. I have to question a man's strength if they do this. I am speaking of women thinking that they can be just as sɛҳuąƖly promiscuous as men. When the husband cheats on the spouse even, the woman who he is cheating on will sometimes wear provocative clothing.
If a woman dresses immodestly, that is her sin and she will have to answer for it. This does not excuse a sin by someone else. Strong men take responsibility for their own sins, confess them and repent, and make restitution. They do not blame someone else for a choice they were free to make or not make.
-
I was responding to an inquiry by Trad Guy about why some women object to his saying he wants a fit and pretty wife. I would have no objection to that as long it is part of the bigger package--my love, mind, and body.
If Sigismund had taken the time to read further instead of jumping to accusations he would have noticed that I too am interested in athletics and a healthy body, so I am no hypocrite here. Along with the manual labor I do at my job I work out and play sports.
This is true, and I apologize.
-
Now men are the victims of these attitudes about women, and the response of the feminist is that if men were "better" if they were "real men," or if it weren't for some sort of deficiency that must exist so they can take the blame (which the feminist says they must) they wouldn't have to worry about all these injustices that women commit with impunity.
Well Tele how do we explain "men" such as Sigismund who like to defend women, no matter their sɛҳuąƖ immorality?
Can you point to a single statement from me anywhere on this forum in which I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women was okay? If so, please do. If not, I would say you owe me an apology. You know, like any strong man would apologize when he is mistaken.
-
Pointing out someone's error can be done with respect. Fighting a war can be done with respect. (not raping etc) Telling your spuose they are very wrong can be done with respect.
When it comes to Marxists and liberals and feminists though I don't use "respect." As for the spouse thing I'd go more along the lines of, "If you think that way you can leave my house!" I do agree about a just war though.
By the way do you ladies find anything wrong with a man being attracted to a physically fit and physically attractive woman. I've been told by a few women that this is "sick" and "wrong" because I don't acknowledge the girl's intelligence.
How likely is this approach to convert them? St. Francis de Sales observed that you catch more lies with honey than with vinegar. Not that i am especially good at practicing this myself of course, as some here may have noticed. :wink:
On the line at the abortion clinic I can tell you that screaming whore, sinner and you are a murderer does nothing to stop the young woman from her intent. When those fanatics are there I pray very hard and try to establish eye contact first. The honey approach gets the woman to look at pictures, consider an ultrasound to hear or see her baby. We get good results that way, and most repent and become very strong Catholics and advocates for life. A sin occurred. But so did a miracle who deserves life. Many of the women were told God hates them. We tell them God hates the sin.
In the end, some people are born with a personality that pushes harder when pushed.
Exactly.
-
One of the biggest and this propels many women to be as immoral as men on purpose, is the double standard idea that men's immorality is to be excused because they are men but women must take responsibility, not only for their own sin but for the man's as well.
This is a complete delusion on your part. The very idea that the so-called "double standard" "propels women to be as immoral as men on purpose" - the fact that you believe that is the actual motive of women's immorality shows another way in which feminism is about rationalizing evil behavior. (saying men can't be victims is one way to rationalize evil behavior. Saying women are motivated by men's actions to be "as evil as men" is another)
Women aren't "propelled to be as immoral as men" because of the so-called double standard. (there's nothing preventing women from preferring chastity in men as men prefer it in women - except for women's low regard for moral goodness) Like I said before, wallflower sees feminism as payback and such she has no empathy whatsoever for men who are victims of injustice. Oh no, if they were better men they'd have no trouble with these women who believe they're justified trying to be "as immoral as men" (which means as bad as the worst men, since corrupt women admire the worst men).
As for wallflower's refusal to use the word victim - it is a flat-out refusal to admit men can be undeserving of the evil women do them with the aid of feminist laws and social attitudes. You would never in a million years hear such a woman refuse to call women victims of "domestic violence" or victims of rape or of abandonment. But listen to her: men subject to false accusations, insanely vindictive behavior, betrayal, etc, these men are not victims of the feminist movement which helps to enable and enforce the commission of these injustices.
I read recently read the assertion that to expect a woman to be able to empathize with a man is like expecting a child to empathize with an adult. It's very rare. The vast majority of women are just not cut out to be authorities on what is just. This has often been remarked: women tend to lack a sense of justice.
Women like wallflower are a serious problem because when such women represent "conservative" attitudes feminism is going to continue to thrive among so-called trads.
-
Can you point to a single statement from me anywhere on this forum in which I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women was okay? If so, please do. If not, I would say you owe me an apology. You know, like any strong man would apologize when he is mistaken.
Neither does a strong man blab about his feelings getting hurt.
As to your question you just told me that if a woman dresses provocatively to attract a man to sin at the end of the day it is still the man's fault.
I think the way a man can abuse a woman is through alcohol, which makes him turn violent against his spouse and children.
-
deleted since posted twice
-
I read recently read the assertion that to expect a woman to be able to empathize with a man is like expecting a child to empathize with an adult. It's very rare. The vast majority of women are just not cut out to be authorities on what is just. This has often been remarked: women tend to lack a sense of justice.
Women like wallflower are a serious problem because when such women represent "conservative" attitudes feminism is going to continue to thrive among so-called trads.
Well, clearly you are what you read. I understand how you derive your view when I read qoutes like that. Women are far more into "justice" and are far better at sensing it. That is a large part of what mothers do. It is fellacious to think women cannot judge what is just. I think, if anything, they worry about it too much.
-
Well, clearly you are what you read. I understand how you derive your view when I read qoutes like that. Women are far more into "justice" and are far better at sensing it. That is a large part of what mothers do. It is fellacious to think women cannot judge what is just. I think, if anything, they worry about it too much.
As feminism has advanced we've seen the advance of injustice.
Perhaps you see what has happened as progress. But in fact, the increase in the power of women means greater injustice.
Someone like wallflower though, refuses to say the advance of feminism is an advance of injustice. Instead she says it is punishment for men that they cannot consider themselves victims of it, and that feminism is motivated by women responding to past outrages, that it's a kind of payback. So it's fairly evident she refuses to see feminism as injustice. On the contrary, though she may claim to be against feminism it's clear she is sympathetic with it and does not seriously oppose the attitudes behind it.
-
A society that gives more freedom and power to women also advances its own decline.
-
Deat Traditional Guy 20,
Particularly for a young man, you see things very clearly.
You understand about Feminism.
Like Tele, you do not compromise.
It is good.
God Bless you, Traditional Guy 20.
-
I read recently read the assertion that to expect a woman to be able to empathize with a man is like expecting a child to empathize with an adult. It's very rare. The vast majority of women are just not cut out to be authorities on what is just. This has often been remarked: women tend to lack a sense of justice.
Women like wallflower are a serious problem because when such women represent "conservative" attitudes feminism is going to continue to thrive among so-called trads.
Well, clearly you are what you read. I understand how you derive your view when I read qoutes like that. Women are far more into "justice" and are far better at sensing it. That is a large part of what mothers do. It is fellacious to think women cannot judge what is just. I think, if anything, they worry about it too much.
Absolutely. They fill their minds with this stuff and it's all they can see. I spoke on moral terms and even said most women are not victims of men since they are fallen themselves, so what does he do? Moves into legalities and pretends it's the same thing. It isn't. Legal speak is not the page I was on. "Victim of domestic violence" can be seen in two ways, morally and legally. Rather than clarify with me (or accept the clarifications I've already given in threads before) it's easier for him to lump it together and pretend I like that the legal system is feminist. This is the reason we shouldn't suffocate our minds with one topic in one perspective. Dead end.
-
Deat Traditional Guy 20,
Particularly for a young man, you see things very clearly.
You understand about Feminism.
Like Tele, you do not compromise.
It is good.
God Bless you, Traditional Guy 20.
Thank you but trust me had I not been thrown out of the stuffy classroom and into the real world so to speak I would still be a liberal ideologue (yes I started out as a liberal).
In all honesty women just don't have the self-confidence and drive to succeed that men do in this competitive world, and this is because of God. The momma bird DOES build the nest and so it is also that way with women so to speak.
-
Moves into legalities and pretends it's the same thing.
This just goes to show you wallflower thinks it's not the same thing when men are lied about, betrayed, stripped of their children. That is, as far as she's concerned, women can be "real" victims, "legal" victims, men cannot be.
It shows you she surrounds the idea of justice, of rights and obligations with a sort of cloud of unreality. Justice in this world doesn't exist to her. We're to save it for the Final Judgment. There's to be no judging who is in the right and who has been wronged. I do wonder how many women really understand the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King. It seems there's not much support for it from trad women. There's a kind of legal positivism that they've embraced.
ALL material consequences except in the most flagrant and extreme cases (and even there we have to be careful, feminist women will acquit women of almost any crime) must fall on men, women alone can be the legal victims. Men who are victims are so because they deserved it.
-
Moves into legalities and pretends it's the same thing.
This just goes to show you wallflower thinks it's not the same thing when men are lied about, betrayed, stripped of their children. That is, as far as she's concerned, women can be real victims, "legal" victims, men cannot be.
It shows you she surrounds the idea of justice, of rights and obligations with a sort of cloud of unreality. Justice in the real doesn't exist to her. We're to save it for the Final Judgment. There's to be no judging who is in the right and who has been wronged. I do wonder how many women really understand the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King. It seems there's not much support for it from trad women. There's a kind of legal positivism that they've embraced.
This is another sign of her incredibly strong support for feminism.
ALL material consequences except in the most flagrant and extreme cases (and even there we have to be careful, feminist women will acquit women of almost any crime) must fall on men, women alone can be the legal victims. Men who are victims are so because they deserved it.
It doesn't mean squat until you ask me to clarify how I bridge moral and legal. Much as you'd like to be, you are not my ventriloquist.
-
I do wonder how many women really understand the doctrine of the Social Reign of Christ the King. It seems there's not much support for it from trad women. There's a kind of legal positivism that they've embraced.
It's because - as I've already stated numerous times on this forum - such people have a false concept of what Traditional Catholicism is. Neo-Traditionalism has infiltrated the Trad movement, and the past few years it's been hitting the SSPX pretty hard. Real Trad women understand the Social Kingship of Christ, but a majority of people in the world - both male and female - don't understand it.
-
A society that gives more freedom and power to women also advances its own decline.
And societies that were MALE dominated did not decline?
-
Well, clearly you are what you read. I understand how you derive your view when I read qoutes like that. Women are far more into "justice" and are far better at sensing it. That is a large part of what mothers do. It is fellacious to think women cannot judge what is just. I think, if anything, they worry about it too much.
As feminism has advanced we've seen the advance of injustice.
Perhaps you see what has happened as progress. But in fact, the increase in the power of women means greater injustice.
Someone like wallflower though, refuses to say the advance of feminism is an advance of injustice. Instead she says it is punishment for men that they cannot consider themselves victims of it, and that feminism is motivated by women responding to past outrages, that it's a kind of payback. So it's fairly evident she refuses to see feminism as injustice. On the contrary, though she may claim to be against feminism it's clear she is sympathetic with it and does not seriously oppose the attitudes behind it.
AS feminism has advanced, we've seen a decline in cancer deaths.
As feminism has advanced we have seen an increase in foot size.
These two statements are true, but like your statement, I am not sure you can draw a logical conclusion that feminism caused any of the above.
Help me understand how injustice was increased.
-
A society that gives more freedom and power to women also advances its own decline.
And societies that were MALE dominated did not decline?
Of course male dominated societies are prone to declining because men are sinners, just like women. The thing is, Christ did not create women to have power and run societies. He created them to stay at home and raise their children. A Traditional priest once said that mothers are probably the closest earthly creature to God. But unfortunately, many mothers today neglect their real duties, instead putting their children in daycare while they go out and work just to have a fancy car or to take a luxurious vacation. Materialism is primarily to blame. It's all about money, money, money, power, power, power, careers, careers, careers with feminists.
Societies that will succeed will be ones where Jesus Christ is proclaimed as King. And of course, the Social Kingship of Christ does NOT include career women. So yes, that means (Traditional Catholic) men must hold the powers of authority, not women.
-
Deat Traditional Guy 20,
Particularly for a young man, you see things very clearly.
You understand about Feminism.
Like Tele, you do not compromise.
It is good.
God Bless you, Traditional Guy 20.
Thank you but trust me had I not been thrown out of the stuffy classroom and into the real world so to speak I would still be a liberal ideologue (yes I started out as a liberal).
In all honesty women just don't have the self-confidence and drive to succeed that men do in this competitive world, and this is because of God. The momma bird DOES build the nest and so it is also that way with women so to speak.
:)
-
Help me understand how injustice was increased.
That you don't see feminism as an advance of injustice says everything about your attitude towards it.
-
Yes it really is very illuminating.
There are many women who say they're against feminism but if you ask them if this is causing greater injustice they don't admit it. In a practical sense one is hard-pressed to find out in just what ways they would seriously try to undo the changes the feminists have brought about. I see it as a refusal to recognize that women's immorality causes serious, undeserved harm to others. And if it does do harm, they still must not be judged or punished for it. This is a particular danger with the pro-life movement. Many supposedly pro-life people do not see abortion as a crime like other crimes. That is, they don't really believe it should be punished.
-
Help me understand how injustice was increased.
That you don't see feminism as an advance of injustice says everything about your attitude towards it.
You did not answer my question. So feminism increased cancer survival rates and foot size too? Funny thing is I don't really have an attitude, but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
-
Yes it really is very illuminating.
There are many women who say they're against feminism but if you ask them if this is causing greater injustice they don't admit it. In a practical sense one is hard-pressed to find out in just what ways they would seriously try to undo the changes the feminists have brought about. I see it as a refusal to recognize that women's immorality causes serious, undeserved harm to others. And if it does do harm, they still must not be judged or punished for it. This is a particular danger with the pro-life movement. Many supposedly pro-life people do not see abortion as a crime like other crimes. That is, they don't really believe it should be punished.
I do not see that within the pro life movement at all. The people who I work with see it as a quest to 1) save an innocent from death and 2) Save a sinner from eternal damnation.
Now I have heard pro-abortion people call themselves pro life as a twisted way to draw the idea away from the fact that abortion is murder.
-
I would guess the least offensive thing feminists ever advocated for was the temperance movment. Perhaps some of them were concerned about labor conditions, but that wasn't really a woman's issue per se, the way the temperance movement was.
Of course I'm not in favor of the temperance movement, although it would be a bit much to say Catholics cannot support such a position, when many eminent Catholics did support it.
What's amusing is that the feminists would support temperance when excessive drinking was considered a male thing.
It certainly is fortunate women don't get drunk. At least, you're not allowed to look at a fish-eyed drunk girl and say she's drunk.
And women become "as bad as men" because of the "double standard"
It's incredible the way women can say these things with a straight face. Incredible.
To have sense of justice you also must possess some degree of rationality.
-
I would guess the least offensive thing feminists ever advocated for was the temperance movment. Perhaps some of them were concerned about labor conditions, but that wasn't really a woman's issue per se, the way the temperance movement was.
Of course I'm not in favor of the temperance movement, although it would be a bit much to say Catholics cannot support such a position, when many eminent Catholics did support it.
What's amusing is that the feminists would support temperance when excessive drinking was considered a male thing.
It certainly is fortunate women don't get drunk. At least, you're not allowed to look at a fish-eyed drunk girl and say she's drunk.
And women become "as bad as men" because of the "double standard"
It's incredible the way women can say these things with a straight face. Incredible.
To have sense of justice you also must possess some degree of rationality.
???Hugh???
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
-
Can you point to a single statement from me anywhere on this forum in which I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women was okay? If so, please do. If not, I would say you owe me an apology. You know, like any strong man would apologize when he is mistaken.
Neither does a strong man blab about his feelings getting hurt.
As to your question you just told me that if a woman dresses provocatively to attract a man to sin at the end of the day it is still the man's fault.
I think the way a man can abuse a woman is through alcohol, which makes him turn violent against his spouse and children.
It is his fault if he sins. It is her fault if she dresses provocatively. How is this even debatable? Are you actually saying that men can't control themselves when faced with temptation? If so, please stop carrying on about male strength. It seems to me that you believe that men are pretty much moral wimps.
And my feelings are not hurt. I simply asked that you verify your statement that I have stated that sɛҳuąƖ immorality is okay for women, and to acknowledge it if you were mistake. You know, like I apologized to you when I misconstrued something you posted.
-
For example a woman being home with children, that in itself is not abuse; however belittling the vocation of a mother would be. Treating her as a lesser being or not appreciating her sacrifice would be. Not supporting her (as Matthew's post outlined earlier) when she is sick or pregnant makes things much more difficult on her. We can't deny this is often a problem. In fact my mother often says she almost envies her daughters the support they get from their husbands. Most of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers can attest to the fact that dad did nothing to help in the house. Whether she was puking her guts out pregnant with # 12, didn't matter, it was woman's work and dad wasn't going to touch a dish or a diaper. She was there to serve him, he had already done his man's work that day, period. That is another attitude that is "traditional". Women cannot manage a home and family alone but in response they threw out the baby with the bathwater, sadly, quite literally. Rather than identifying the lack of appreciation and/or help as a problem, the whole vocation was thrown out. Now they strive for the things men DO appreciate, the world and careers. Except now the men don't appreciate them taking those things from them either! So it would be much easier on everyone if men just appreciated the vocation of mothers and stepped in to help when needed. When that happens women are much more likely to be happy in that vocation and physically, emotionally, spiritually capable of persevering.
Historically, the family was always ordered with the domestic duties and day to day child rearing falling to the mother. This was presumably based on the creation of women (in purpose and design) as well as Scripture that refers to the wife as helpmate to man, and as keeper of her home.
Maybe I am misunderstanding, but how could it be that all of the sudden (within the last century) women decided homemaking was too daunting and men weren't pitching in enough? --and somehow that is major reason women started to enter the workforce? Yet ironically, this rebellion largely happened decades after the suffrage movement? That just seems a bit oversimplified to me. I have a really hard time believing feminism was about dishes and diapers.
In an ideal Christian world a woman could call on her mother, mother in law, sister(s), or even a friend with shared values to help out when illness/childbirth prevents a mother from functioning as she normally would. It's true that we don't all live so ideally and so there is a degree of "you do what you need to do"--but generally speaking, I don't think it's a good idea to expect men to become more domestic. Diverging from God given roles too much creates a slippery slope. If my husband's income was cut, I wouldn't want his first thought be to ask me to go get a part time job before looking for additional work himself. So in the same sense, I wouldn't want to blame all my housekeeping issues on lack of vacuuming or towel folding from my spouse. I might appreciate if my spouse is more understanding during the times my plate is fuller, but just as he wouldn't ask me to take on his job/role, why would I consta.n.tly expect that from him?
The modern world has painted this picture that being a good father means changing diapers and giving baths. A father can love his children in other ways. Yes, he should hold his new baby and bond, but as the child grows, should he really spend his time with them in a "mothering" way?
Indeed, a good Catholic man who guides his family as Christ guides the church will love and appreciate his wife's amazing ability to bear his children. However, recognizing how important and beautiful pregnancy is, is not the same as how the modern world puts pregnancy on such a high pedestal that we start to believe it is some great sacrifice. Special parking spots for pregnant ladies? Excessive pampering? It all makes pregnancy look like either an awful disability and/or some grand and special undertaking that needs to be praised. Bearing children is natural. It is normal, and should be viewed as such. Glorifying and mystifying it is what justifies birth control. It sends a message to put off child bearing for as long as possible and limit family size.
The point is that a man can appreciate and support the vocation of motherhood, and love and honor his wife without turning into her domestic helper.
I guess I don't know what the root cause of feminism is, but I highly doubt it goes back to men not doing enough housework.
-
You are exagerrating what I wrote and not paying attention to the distinctions I made. As if feminism is about dishes and diapers!
-
You are exagerrating what I wrote and not paying attention to the distinctions I made. As if feminism is about dishes and diapers!
Whether she was puking her guts out pregnant with # 12, didn't matter, it was woman's work and dad wasn't going to touch a dish or a diaper.
Hmmmm! :facepalm:
-
Owned.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
-
You are exagerrating what I wrote and not paying attention to the distinctions I made. As if feminism is about dishes and diapers!
Well I'm sorry if I exaggerated, it just appeared from your post that you were saying women entered the workforce because men didn't appreciate their work around the home enough and didn't help out. I was debating that because it ignores history.
You mentioned older women envying the younger generations of more domestically helpful hubbies. What isn't being accounted for is what's lost when men are expected to be this way. Something always has to give. It's a slow progression.
-
You are exagerrating what I wrote and not paying attention to the distinctions I made. As if feminism is about dishes and diapers!
Whether she was puking her guts out pregnant with # 12, didn't matter, it was woman's work and dad wasn't going to touch a dish or a diaper.
Hmmmm! :facepalm:
It would show an incredible amount of density for anyone to think using those two examples within another example is what I maintain to be the crux of feminism. Especially since I clarified it to be an example. No one is asking for domestic maid husbands. However the OTHER extreme of not lifting a finger is not Catholic either. That was my point. I referrenced Matthew's post:
Yes, but I think men are the unsung heroes in some big families. It depends on the husband and the wife in question.
While the stay-at-home mom is kept famously busy, she also gets PLENTY of credit for it in Catholic circles. No one thinks about how hard the man's role is.
Maybe it's a bit of feminism crept in to our thinking? How many times have you heard the attitude "Well, it's his fault" and such? That's definitely the feeling I get from just about everything I read or experience. Every movie in existence certainly conveys this attitude. The modern world in general prohibits any compassion for the man, because they blame him for being open to God's will as regards family size.
The procreation and education of children is the primary end of marriage. So it's no more the man's fault than it is the woman's fault for getting pregnant.
Both husband and wife "signed up" for this way of life on their wedding day.
Do you think the man's role is easy? Once his wife gets pregnant, she needs more sleep, has less energy, has days where she feels tired/off, and who do you think has to fill the void? When the baby comes along, instead of being tired due to pregnancy she's tired due to nursing the baby all night. So she STILL needs 2-3 hours more sleep every night.
I think the myth that, "The man gets to come home at 5:00, and it's his time to REST, his work is over -- whereas the wife never gets a day off, because the kids are always there..." is about as valid as the myth that stay-at-home mothers get to sit around watching soap operas and eating bon-bons all day.
NOTE: I believe BOTH of them are myths :)
In a busy household, I believe father and mother are equally busy and they should both be "sung" in the various songs of praise circulating on Facebook and e-mail lists.
How do you think the bolded translates into real life? Perhaps, as examples, he would do a dish or change a diaper? Perhaps, as an example, he would take the children out to play? Perhaps, an example, he would switch a load from the wash to the dryer? Or help with homework? Perhaps he is mowing the lawn? Changing a tire? Cooking a meal?
The point is, as talented as women are and as much as this is their vocation, it is not meant for them to do alone and they cannot do it alone (isn't that what you believe PW? Or why would we want husbands? Are they strictly to be income-earners?) There was a phase, especially with the industrial revolution when men started working away from home rather than in the fields or on the farm, when they would come home and consider their work done. I don't have to read books to know this, I've seen it in previous generations. In more agricultural times the home life work load tended to be more balanced because the children w
ould be in the fields with their parents. Dad could watch them as mom and an older daughter went to make lunches. Dad was home for meals and breaks where he could be the primary disciplinarian. He did a lot of the teaching in a family, be it the trades as they worked beside him during the day, or reading as they rested in the evenings. The home life included ALL family members and fathers were a lot more involved because they were home too. Even if they were taylors or shop owners or butchers, it was a family affair and they did it from home or very near home.
There was a lot about past times that was different from today and that has to be considered. We can't choose which times God sets us in. We live in today's day and age where most men are away from the house all day long so when they come home they have to do a bit of double duty to keep their families together. Everybody is separated. Dad goes his way, Mom goes her way, kids go their way, yet somehow they are supposed to get together at night and magically be a family when they are all exhausted from a day away and have already given their best to others all day. It's nearly impossible to maintain a family that way.
In trad circles most mothers can keep a handle on things because they, at least, are home. But as has been pointed out during times of pregnancy, nursing or ill health, which happen often, they do need an extra hand. This is where, in agricultural times, dad would take the kids to the field and mom would stay home and try to get some chores done. Still sick but at least not trying to handle 10 other kids at the same time. Now, it doesn't work that way. She has to focus on handling the other kids first and dad can help with a few chores when he gets home. In past times older kids could help, now they are gone to school. It's not a matter of women all of a sudden not being superwomen, they never were, (otherwise we reduce husbands and fathers to being wage-earners and wage-earners only because mom does everything else); it's a matter of surrounding circuмstances changing with the way THIS society is set up and needing to adapt to how THIS society runs. Unless you can find a way out and work from home to try and recapture true family life where both father and mother parent the children, leaving mom more time and energy to focus on the household chores. That is one solution. And it's one that more and more people are turning to.
-
Somethings always gotta give. It's a slow progression.
Yes, I know. I believe that is my line.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
Roe V Wade was upheld by all men. Slavery was as well, though it was overturned by all men too.
Women were given the right to vote by men, too.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
Roe V Wade was upheld by all men. Slavery was as well, though it was overturned by all men too.
Women were given the right to vote by men, too.
So are you suggesting that society would be better off run by women?
-
Someone should just put up some photos of the females on the Supreme Court. I don't know how to do that.
*WARNING: they are scary**
Then we won't have to argue about slavery and other topics that have nothing to do with how messed up we have become due to Russia spreading her errors.
-
Someone should just put up some photos of the females on the Supreme Court. I don't know how to do that.
*WARNING: they are scary**
Then we won't have to argue about slavery and other topics that have nothing to do with how messed up we have become due to Russia spreading her errors.
Will do, Elizabeth.
So-called "Catholic" justice Sotomayor:
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRoBKnALWSULwffiX3IeTi1u1Z6yjfolZ6tLEHFc5H2tT1MEx4dDg)
Kagan, who I believe is a lesbian:
(http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTto9B7jwKERFSdBSP4pzHMEpg12hGO9PF-mVJ8gH42BHDxYCKCIA)
And finally, Ginsburg:
(http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSJ9LO5qvEMvqTCdt8BfOcQ-5Lbq5jzu6NA0I9h8rmSSc02O8Hy)
-
Thanks SS. (but they are not as horrifying as the ones I've seen!!)
Then there is the important writer Judith Butler, Ph.D from the European Graduate School in Switzerland. (The Myth of Gender, etc) Actually, if you checked out their faculty, you'd get an idea where feminism is ultimately leading the world.
It is very important for outdated philosophies about gender to erased from all memory in order to prepare the world for worshipping Baphomet.
-
You are exagerrating what I wrote and not paying attention to the distinctions I made. As if feminism is about dishes and diapers!
Whether she was puking her guts out pregnant with # 12, didn't matter, it was woman's work and dad wasn't going to touch a dish or a diaper.
Hmmmm! :facepalm:
Wow! 4 thumbs up for a Hmmmm! That'll do. I know I'm an intellectual genius.
On the more practical side, if she is "puking her guts out pregnant with #12", in all probability, there a few children around who can do the dishes and change a diaper, no?
-
You are exagerrating what I wrote and not paying attention to the distinctions I made. As if feminism is about dishes and diapers!
Whether she was puking her guts out pregnant with # 12, didn't matter, it was woman's work and dad wasn't going to touch a dish or a diaper.
Hmmmm! :facepalm:
Wow! 4 thumbs up for a Hmmmm! That'll do. I know I'm an intellectual genius.
On the more practical side, if she is "puking her guts out pregnant with #12", in all probability, there a few children around who can do the dishes and change a diaper, no?
I covered that in my post at the bottom of the last page. Not if they are in school, which they usually are. Then when they get home they can do a bit but they also have homework. In a typical family today everyone has to pitch in a bit in the evenings. IF they want an ordered home. If not, well then they won't care what mom can or can't accomplish in any given day. And no one says this is applicable to all women and all families, but many of them for sure. And even if it applies at one time, it won't at another. That's the thing about family life, you have to be flexible. It has too many ebbs and flows for a rigid person to survive.
-
The point is, as talented as women are and as much as this is their vocation, it is not meant for them to do alone and they cannot do it alone (isn't that what you believe PW? Or why would we want husbands? Are they strictly to be income-earners?)
Of course a husband is more than a paycheck.
I was simply basing my comments off your assertion that feminism was related to women abandoning their vocations as homemakers because they felt unappreciated.Tht seems to disproportionatly cast the blame on one sex, and all because he didn't do the dishes etc.
A man has many duties besides earning a living. He should lead his family spirituality. He should enjoy his children and be especially interested in doing things with his sons that set a good example of being a man. I'm just not sure that tossing him a dish towel and asking him to pitch in with the generally female chores or go bathe the baby is the best way to encourage him to be an involved father.
You didn't initially mention car repairs or other more "manly" household jobs.You mentioned diapers and dishes.
As far as how farm families worked? I have plenty of agriculture in my family history. I highly doubt fathers were bringing very small children (or 10 children total)out in the field so Mom could cook and clean. What I do know, is that mothers were more inclined to train their little ones to play independently. By 4-5 a little boy might go off with Dad for awhile, but girls stayed home to help with chores.
I wouldn't say that there is never a time for a man to tuck the kids in or bring home takeout. I just think that expecting fathers to cook and clean is maybe in a way asking him to compromise himself. Woman is helpmate to man, not the other way around.
Of course, I don't know how it plays out in real life, and individual families will have variations, such as if Dad loves to cook and wants to do that sometimes, or there might be a homeschooling subject that Dad is better at...but ideally, men aren't coming home to set the table or change diapers...and I don't think saying that is reducing him to a paycheck.
-
Owned.
Huh?
-
Owned.
Huh?
I was saying that wallflower got "owned" by Nadir.
-
Well, as I said, it was AN example of one extreme attitude of not lifting a finger because it's "woman's work" that was/is damaging, not only because it leaves her alone to do all, which she cannot and should not be expected to do, but also because the attitude behind it is demeaning.
Being able to discern one extreme in no way advocates the other extreme. If people cannot understand that or insist it does, I believe they are being wilfully ignorant.
-
Well, as I said, it was AN example of one extreme attitude of not lifting a finger because it's "woman's work" that was/is damaging, not only because it leaves her alone to do all, which she cannot and should not be expected to do, but also because the attitude behind it is demeaning.
Being able to discern one extreme in no way advocates the other extreme. If people cannot understand that or insist it does, I believe they are being wilfully ignorant.
Well it only seems extreme now because it's no longer the norm. You're right in saying we can't choose what time we live in, but we can't write off timeless Scripture either. Even conservative NO folks say that Catholicism is counter cultural. I think we are called to live as close to our design as we can. We have Eve...Adam's helpmate, we have Proverbs 31, we have Gospel references. Men and women are designed differently.We should try to recognize there is a reason for this, and strive to live accordingly.
-
Quote from St. John Chrysostom, taken from an article about modest dressing:
St. John Chrysostom (347-407), the illustrious Bishop of Constantinople and one of the 32 doctors of the Church, had this to say about women who dress immodestly: "You carry your snare everywhere and spread your net in all places. You allege that you never invited others to sin. You did not indeed by your words, but you have done so by your dress and your deportment. And much more effectively than you could by your voice. When you have made another sin in his heart, how can you be innocent? Tell me whom does this world condemn? Whom do the judges in court punish? Those who drink poison or those who prepare it and administer the fatal potion? You are more criminal than those who poison the body. You have given the death-dealing drink. You murder not the body but the soul, and it is not to enemies do you do this nor are you urged on by any imaginary necessity nor provoked by injury. But you do it out of foolish vanity and pride."
Very fitting quote regarding the importance of dressing modestly, I think.
-
What is the minimum of dress when there are no people of the opposite gender present? I mean if they are all ladies you can't lead them to sin by dressing improperly. can you?
-
Well, as I said, it was AN example of one extreme attitude of not lifting a finger because it's "woman's work" that was/is damaging, not only because it leaves her alone to do all, which she cannot and should not be expected to do, but also because the attitude behind it is demeaning.
Being able to discern one extreme in no way advocates the other extreme. If people cannot understand that or insist it does, I believe they are being wilfully ignorant.
Well it only seems extreme now because it's no longer the norm. You're right in saying we can't choose what time we live in, but we can't write off timeless Scripture either. Even conservative NO folks say that Catholicism is counter cultural. I think we are called to live as close to our design as we can. We have Eve...Adam's helpmate, we have Proverbs 31, we have Gospel references. Men and women are designed differently.We should try to recognize there is a reason for this, and strive to live accordingly.
So now you're back to insisting men should have no involvement in the home?
Can you make up your mind or are you playing games? Because it looks an awful lot to me like we're back to the same pattern of making strong statements then having nothing practical to back it up. Or switching up the story so you can slip in a little "innocent" dig.
Should a father be involved in his family life as more than just a breadwinner or not? There are two extremes, one is that they should not lift a finger and the other is that they should be domesticated. I am advocating neither of these, however you keep going back and forth, now insisting his not lifting a finger is not an extreme. That means you think he should not be involved beyond being a breadwinner. But we know you don't believe that, so really this is just a game to you. Getting another little dig in that if a woman needs a hand from her husband, she must not be woman enough, she's not recognizing differences or living accordingly. You are quite the piece of work.
-
What is the minimum of dress when there are no people of the opposite gender present? I mean if they are all ladies you can't lead them to sin by dressing improperly. can you?
Yes, you can. If they are lesbian, that is obvious.
But even if they aren't, women can develop body image issues by comparing each other. It's rampant today, women have all kinds of insecurities, anorexia, bulemia, and other eating disorders based on inordinate attention to the bodies of the same sex. It's ridiculous the things they get hung up on. It wouldn't be half the issue is everyone were covered up.
-
What is the minimum of dress when there are no people of the opposite gender present? I mean if they are all ladies you can't lead them to sin by dressing improperly. can you?
Yes, you can. If they are lesbian, that is obvious.
But even if they aren't, women can develop body image issues by comparing each other. It's rampant today, women have all kinds of insecurities, anorexia, bulemia, and other eating disorders based on inordinate attention to the bodies of the same sex. It's ridiculous the things they get hung up on. It wouldn't be half the issue is everyone were covered up.
Or might think to themselves, SHE's wearing a low-cut top, tight pants, belly exposed etc. so it can't be all that bad. The standard drops. That's how it works.
-
now you're back to insisting men should have no involvement in the home?
I never said that at all. I was just trying to illustrate how I've formed my opinions by looking back to scripture about design, purpose, and role of women. You are the only one making my statement into something personal.
I think I hold a valid opinion (which I've tried to back with Scripture) about a very important topic. I'm not going to continue though, since you are trying to make it personal (again) by questioning my motivations. I thought we could have a non-personal discussion and maybe learn something...but I don't want to fight over it.
Have a Blessed Monday everyone.
-
What is the minimum of dress when there are no people of the opposite gender present? I mean if they are all ladies you can't lead them to sin by dressing improperly. can you?
Yes, you can. If they are lesbian, that is obvious.
But even if they aren't, women can develop body image issues by comparing each other. It's rampant today, women have all kinds of insecurities, anorexia, bulemia, and other eating disorders based on inordinate attention to the bodies of the same sex. It's ridiculous the things they get hung up on. It wouldn't be half the issue is everyone were covered up.
Or might think to themselves, SHE's wearing a low-cut top, tight pants, belly exposed etc. so it can't be all that bad. The standard drops. That's how it works.
Yes, that's true too. Simply, example.
-
Can you point to a single statement from me anywhere on this forum in which I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women was okay? If so, please do. If not, I would say you owe me an apology. You know, like any strong man would apologize when he is mistaken.
I'd like to add to my statement Sigismund you can thank your beloved Jews for feminism.
-
Can you point to a single statement from me anywhere on this forum in which I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women was okay? If so, please do. If not, I would say you owe me an apology. You know, like any strong man would apologize when he is mistaken.
The funny thing is you probably "hate" women more than me for it is the open borders and bringing in all races into this country, which you seem to support as long as it is "legal" immigration, that leads to actual violence against women such as rape and murder.
-
now you're back to insisting men should have no involvement in the home?
I never said that at all. I was just trying to illustrate how I've formed my opinions by looking back to scripture about design, purpose, and role of women. You are the only one making my statement into something personal.
I think I hold a valid opinion (which I've tried to back with Scripture) about a very important topic. I'm not going to continue though, since you are trying to make it personal (again) by questioning my motivations. I thought we could have a non-personal discussion and maybe learn something...but I don't want to fight over it.
Have a Blessed Monday everyone.
That would be great if the design, purpose and role of women were a question. It isn't. I know women are domestic, I know they are helpmates, I am familiar with Scriptures and Catholic teaching. I live it daily. To insinuate otherwise, yet again, is insulting. The whole "these feminists are just jealous of me" a while back made your frame of mind quite clear, it won't be easy to convince you're coming from a neutral place after that.
Regardless, the question was, what do husbands and fathers do to be involved in the home, practically speaking? What do they do to support their wives in more difficult times? Unless he is involved in concrete ways, he is just an absent figurehead breadwinner who removes himself from family life and parenting. And unless they have money to hire someone, he ends up giving her more support in times of "puking with # 12". You don't like my first examples, so I flesh it out with more examples. That's not good enough either. But at the same time you claim to understand they need to be involved and it could vary by family. One minute a man should be involved, the next minute it's her job and hers alone because of Proverbs otherwise she is not living according to her role. The vascillating back and forth isn't conducive to true discussion or learning. Having a real discussion means giving real life examples of your ideas rather than falling back on vague statements.
-
That would be great if the design, purpose and role of women were a question. It isn't. I know women are domestic, I know they are helpmates, I am familiar with Scriptures and Catholic teaching. I live it daily. To insinuate otherwise, yet again, is insulting. The whole "these feminists are just jealous of me" a while back made your frame of mind quite clear, it won't be easy to convince you're coming from a neutral place after that.
Regardless, the question was, what do husbands and fathers do to be involved in the home, practically speaking? What do they do to support their wives in more difficult times? Unless he is involved in concrete ways, he is just an absent figurehead breadwinner who removes himself from family life and parenting. And unless they have money to hire someone, he ends up giving her more support in times of "puking with # 12". You don't like my first examples, so I flesh it out with more examples. That's not good enough either. But at the same time you claim to understand they need to be involved and it could vary by family. One minute a man should be involved, the next minute it's her job and hers alone because of Proverbs otherwise she is not living according to her role. The vascillating back and forth isn't conducive to true discussion or learning. Having a real discussion means giving real life examples of your ideas rather than falling back on vague statements.
Men don't remove themselves from their childrens' lives but mothers are the front lines in raising children.
-
That would be great if the design, purpose and role of women were a question. It isn't. I know women are domestic, I know they are helpmates, I am familiar with Scriptures and Catholic teaching. I live it daily. To insinuate otherwise, yet again, is insulting. The whole "these feminists are just jealous of me" a while back made your frame of mind quite clear, it won't be easy to convince you're coming from a neutral place after that.
Regardless, the question was, what do husbands and fathers do to be involved in the home, practically speaking? What do they do to support their wives in more difficult times? Unless he is involved in concrete ways, he is just an absent figurehead breadwinner who removes himself from family life and parenting. And unless they have money to hire someone, he ends up giving her more support in times of "puking with # 12". You don't like my first examples, so I flesh it out with more examples. That's not good enough either. But at the same time you claim to understand they need to be involved and it could vary by family. One minute a man should be involved, the next minute it's her job and hers alone because of Proverbs otherwise she is not living according to her role. The vascillating back and forth isn't conducive to true discussion or learning. Having a real discussion means giving real life examples of your ideas rather than falling back on vague statements.
Men don't remove themselves from their childrens' lives but mothers are the front lines in raising children.
Once again, that isn't disputed. Give concrete examples of what a father does to be involved in family life.
-
Once again, that isn't disputed. Give concrete examples of what a father does to be involved in family life.
Well one has to be careful with that, since because of today's economy a man has to work two jobs just to make ends meet so to speak, but I think taking time to schedule a vacation with your family would be a good thing, teaching your sons how to box, spending time with your daughters, reading a bedtime story, taking the kids to school in the morning, and of course having a Catholic family life, etc.
-
That would be great if the design, purpose and role of women were a question. It isn't. I know women are domestic, I know they are helpmates, I am familiar with Scriptures and Catholic teaching. I live it daily. To insinuate otherwise, yet again, is insulting. The whole "these feminists are just jealous of me" a while back made your frame of mind quite clear, it won't be easy to convince you're coming from a neutral place after that.
Regardless, the question was, what do husbands and fathers do to be involved in the home, practically speaking? What do they do to support their wives in more difficult times? Unless he is involved in concrete ways, he is just an absent figurehead breadwinner who removes himself from family life and parenting. And unless they have money to hire someone, he ends up giving her more support in times of "puking with # 12". You don't like my first examples, so I flesh it out with more examples. That's not good enough either. But at the same time you claim to understand they need to be involved and it could vary by family. One minute a man should be involved, the next minute it's her job and hers alone because of Proverbs otherwise she is not living according to her role. The vascillating back and forth isn't conducive to true discussion or learning. Having a real discussion means giving real life examples of your ideas rather than falling back on vague statements.
Men don't remove themselves from their childrens' lives but mothers are the front lines in raising children.
Once again, that isn't disputed. Give concrete examples of what a father does to be involved in family life.
Father is the head and mother the heart......both have functions in the home-woman to keep and run the home "buisness" if ya will, Dad over all........
-
. Give concrete examples of what a father does to be involved in family life.
you need examples? or do you want Trad20 to provide his views?
-
There is no historical justification for Feminism. What could they possibly point to as an excuse? Where was the world-wide persecution of women? Where were women, as a class, treated unjustly and contrary to how they ought to be treated? Where was the large-scale male abuse against women? Where is the historical justification?
Because they couldn't vote? They shouldn't be voting anyway.
Because they couldn't work? They're supposed to be in the home.
Because they couldn't get an education? They don't need it.
Because they had to take care of the house and the children? That's their job.
Because they couldn't have the final say in the home or in politics? That's how it's supposed to be.
Because they couldn't wear whatever they wanted? It's called decency.
Because they couldn't sleep with whoever they wanted? They should either be with their husbands or with no one.
There is absolutely no historical event that can be used to even attempt to justify Feminism. The socialists and republican democracies all have better arguments for their revolutions than the Feminists do, which says a lot about the evil of Feminism. The Socialist can at least point to the workers being oppressed and defrauded of just wages under the capitalist system. The democratic republicans can at least point to the peasants being taxed beyond what is necessary by the monarchies. Where is the Feminist excuse? There is none. Feminism is worse than even Socialism and democracy.
Well according to feminists man (I would say Western man but now we are trying to impose feminism on Islamic societies) created intolerant societies built on sexism, so that means there were no successful societies before 1900 haha.
No feminism is simply a way that women can have an excuse to abort and contracept their children out of existence since women just can't give that up, no matter the father's opinion on the matter.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
Roe V Wade was upheld by all men. Slavery was as well, though it was overturned by all men too.
Women were given the right to vote by men, too.
what I was going to say-Roe wa an all male Supreme Court...most then and later, upholding Roe were also, GOP appointed...
-
what I was going to say-Roe wa an all male Supreme Court...most then and later, upholding Roe were also, GOP appointed...
Reagan and Rockefeller signed the most liberal abortion laws in America at the time and Nixon's appointees all accepted Roe Vs. Wade. Remember though that feminism's rise did lead to a rise in that.
-
Truth
-
Feminism was started by the cultural Marxists and Jews, along with Jєωιѕн women, to convert Western women to have low birthrates and to destroy the gender roles. Simple as that.
And you're right it is unnatural, as shown by women being unable to compete with men at the workplace, if there was an actual fair play that is, which there isn't with affirmative action.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
Roe V Wade was upheld by all men. Slavery was as well, though it was overturned by all men too.
Women were given the right to vote by men, too.
So are you suggesting that society would be better off run by women?
No, I was responding to Elizabeht's comment about female justices of the Supreme Court, and suggesting that the all male courts upheld some pretty immoral behaviors, too.
-
Can you point to a single statement from me anywhere on this forum in which I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women was okay? If so, please do. If not, I would say you owe me an apology. You know, like any strong man would apologize when he is mistaken.
The funny thing is you probably "hate" women more than me for it is the open borders and bringing in all races into this country, which you seem to support as long as it is "legal" immigration, that leads to actual violence against women such as rape and murder.
Where I live the crime rate is exceedingly high and most perpetrators are low income, public aid, born American, and pitifully raised Chicagoans. If you look back in history every race that was emmigrating was the accused and the scapegoat for that era.
-
There is no historical justification for Feminism. What could they possibly point to as an excuse? Where was the world-wide persecution of women? Where were women, as a class, treated unjustly and contrary to how they ought to be treated? Where was the large-scale male abuse against women? Where is the historical justification?
Because they couldn't vote? They shouldn't be voting anyway.
Because they couldn't work? They're supposed to be in the home.
Because they couldn't get an education? They don't need it.
Because they had to take care of the house and the children? That's their job.
Because they couldn't have the final say in the home or in politics? That's how it's supposed to be.
Because they couldn't wear whatever they wanted? It's called decency.
Because they couldn't sleep with whoever they wanted? They should either be with their husbands or with no one.
There is absolutely no historical event that can be used to even attempt to justify Feminism. The socialists and republican democracies all have better arguments for their revolutions than the Feminists do, which says a lot about the evil of Feminism. The Socialist can at least point to the workers being oppressed and defrauded of just wages under the capitalist system. The democratic republicans can at least point to the peasants being taxed beyond what is necessary by the monarchies. Where is the Feminist excuse? There is none. Feminism is worse than even Socialism and democracy.
Well according to feminists man (I would say Western man but now we are trying to impose feminism on Islamic societies) created intolerant societies built on sexism, so that means there were no successful societies before 1900 haha.
No feminism is simply a way that women can have an excuse to abort and contracept their children out of existence since women just can't give that up, no matter the father's opinion on the matter.
But many women like me, who seem to be very feminist here, do not support the culture of death because they were properly taught by their families, not the news media or culture. Clothing and proper dress are the same things instilled by the family immediate, and extended. I worked very hard to find proper attire for my daughter and was frequently asked where I got it...and I would just as soon do laundry three times a week than have her wear somehting inappropriate.
-
Where I live the crime rate is exceedingly high and most perpetrators are low income, public aid, born American, and pitifully raised Chicagoans. If you look back in history every race that was emmigrating was the accused and the scapegoat for that era.
Or perhaps if you look at "The Color of Crime" report it shows that Blacks and Hispanics are the most likely to commit crime.
-
But many women like me, who seem to be very feminist here, do not support the culture of death because they were properly taught by their families, not the news media or culture. Clothing and proper dress are the same things instilled by the family immediate, and extended. I worked very hard to find proper attire for my daughter and was frequently asked where I got it...and I would just as soon do laundry three times a week than have her wear somehting inappropriate.
Feminism is much more than being "pro-abortion."
-
what I was going to say-Roe wa an all male Supreme Court...most then and later, upholding Roe were also, GOP appointed...
Reagan and Rockefeller signed the most liberal abortion laws in America at the time and Nixon's appointees all accepted Roe Vs. Wade. Remember though that feminism's rise did lead to a rise in that.
Yes, sadly 5 of 7 were Republicans...but that is why I do not vote by political affiliation, but by voting record and Life and the right to Life are my number one concerns at this point. If the Supreme Court tilts any more liberal, the die will be cast for the next thirty years...and the last two appointees are just idiots.
-
what I was going to say-Roe wa an all male Supreme Court...most then and later, upholding Roe were also, GOP appointed...
Reagan and Rockefeller signed the most liberal abortion laws in America at the time and Nixon's appointees all accepted Roe Vs. Wade. Remember though that feminism's rise did lead to a rise in that.
The culture of death is fully supported by males who do not want to support the life they have created--many a woman has been pressured by her husband, lover, or one night stand to abort. Both are complicit by engaging in immoral and sinful behavior to start with.
-
The culture of death is fully supported by males who do not want to support the life they have created--many a woman has been pressured by her husband, lover, or one night stand to abort. Both are complicit by engaging in immoral and sinful behavior to start with.
Abortion is a decision that women make, and that women support with their votes. Whatever guilt other parties involved may have, women make the choice, and they're the ones who have politically been the strong support for legal abortion.
-
But many women like me, who seem to be very feminist here, do not support the culture of death because they were properly taught by their families, not the news media or culture. Clothing and proper dress are the same things instilled by the family immediate, and extended. I worked very hard to find proper attire for my daughter and was frequently asked where I got it...and I would just as soon do laundry three times a week than have her wear somehting inappropriate.
Feminism is much more than being "pro-abortion."
Yes, but the statement was made that abortion is all feminist and I am responding that not all "feminists by your definition,( I am not considered feminist in any other circle)" support abortion.
The culture of Death is a good example of how men blame everything on the woman. She was the provocateur (I say he should have resisted) she was the sinner (he committed a sin too) and she alone is to blame. Good mothers must teach their sons and daughters that these things are wrong, and that we all make choices that we must be accountable for. If you say a woman wearing improper clothing (which I do not approve of) is the cause of a sɛҳuąƖ trist, you are saying a man has no control and is pretty base--like an animal instinct vs free will. I do not buy into that, and teach all of our young people to be chaste.
I agree more women push the issue. It sickens me.
-
There is no historical justification for Feminism. What could they possibly point to as an excuse? Where was the world-wide persecution of women? Where were women, as a class, treated unjustly and contrary to how they ought to be treated? Where was the large-scale male abuse against women? Where is the historical justification?
Because they couldn't vote? They shouldn't be voting anyway.
Because they couldn't work? They're supposed to be in the home.
Because they couldn't get an education? They don't need it.
Because they had to take care of the house and the children? That's their job.
Because they couldn't have the final say in the home or in politics? That's how it's supposed to be.
Because they couldn't wear whatever they wanted? It's called decency.
Because they couldn't sleep with whoever they wanted? They should either be with their husbands or with no one.
There is absolutely no historical event that can be used to even attempt to justify Feminism. The socialists and republican democracies all have better arguments for their revolutions than the Feminists do, which says a lot about the evil of Feminism. The Socialist can at least point to the workers being oppressed and defrauded of just wages under the capitalist system. The democratic republicans can at least point to the peasants being taxed beyond what is necessary by the monarchies. Where is the Feminist excuse? There is none. Feminism is worse than even Socialism and democracy.
I think if one looks at feminism in the light of superior demonic intelligence, understanding of its historical justification is easy.
In simple terms it's about the Queen of Heaven who will crush the serpent with her heel. She is the the Holy Mother of God, so Satan and his army are terrified of her. We all know she is the absolute highest of all that is feminine. The demons can only attack her by trying to pervert every single aspect of what being female means.
Feminism is about tricking people into bringing on the Antichrist, by assaulting the Mother of God. Legalised abortion spits at "the fruit of thy womb Jesus" by murdering in the womb, for example.
Maybe the 15 Mysteries of the Rosary are the historical justification, (or a good place to begin).
Probably every word and every traditional grace or virtue associated with the Rosary has it's Satanic ape in feminism. Making nuns almost extinct is a major historical event paving the way for feminism. Prestigious universities have been teaching the myth of gender for a really long time now. They are waaay past who changes diapers or who mows the lawn.
Most of all the discussions we have are about priests and bishops. We never discuss women religious, because there are not enough of them left to even think about! What demonic force made all the nuns vanish from our lives? If we had the nuns we are supposed to have, someone would have answered PW's initial question with, "Sister X taught us ___ _____, and it would have been the end of it, pretty much.
-
No, I was responding to Elizabeht's comment about female justices of the Supreme Court, and suggesting that the all male courts upheld some pretty immoral behaviors, too.
I think I see where we criss-crossed. I was using the feminist Supreme Court Justices as bitter fruits of the same immoral behaviors.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
Roe V Wade was upheld by all men. Slavery was as well, though it was overturned by all men too.
Women were given the right to vote by men, too.
So are you suggesting that society would be better off run by women?
No, I was responding to Elizabeht's comment about female justices of the Supreme Court, and suggesting that the all male courts upheld some pretty immoral behaviors, too.
Your argument doesn't stand, though. It's not logical. Did you read what I wrote about the Social Kingship of Christ? Yes, societies governed by men are prone to downfall as well because men are also sinners. But Christ created men to hold positions of authority and power, and created women to stay at home with their children. You seem to be defending the female justices on the Supreme Court, trying to shift the focus on the fact that the male justices have upheld immorality as well. Yes, that is true, but the fact that you would respond to Elizabeth's comment with a post like that makes me think that you see no problem with women being Supreme Court justices.
-
what I was going to say-Roe wa an all male Supreme Court...most then and later, upholding Roe were also, GOP appointed...
Reagan and Rockefeller signed the most liberal abortion laws in America at the time and Nixon's appointees all accepted Roe Vs. Wade. Remember though that feminism's rise did lead to a rise in that.
The culture of death is fully supported by males who do not want to support the life they have created--many a woman has been pressured by her husband, lover, or one night stand to abort. Both are complicit by engaging in immoral and sinful behavior to start with.
Men started feminism to start with...Rockefeller funded it........thats the kciker, the feminists are male-supported and founded....
-
No, I was responding to Elizabeht's comment about female justices of the Supreme Court, and suggesting that the all male courts upheld some pretty immoral behaviors, too.
I think I see where we criss-crossed. I was using the feminist Supreme Court Justices as bitter fruits of the same immoral behaviors.
Ahh, lol.Yes, these women are baby killers. Sadly, women politicians are villlified and made to appear crazy if they support life.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
Roe V Wade was upheld by all men. Slavery was as well, though it was overturned by all men too.
Women were given the right to vote by men, too.
So are you suggesting that society would be better off run by women?
No, I was responding to Elizabeht's comment about female justices of the Supreme Court, and suggesting that the all male courts upheld some pretty immoral behaviors, too.
Your argument doesn't stand, though. It's not logical. Did you read what I wrote about the Social Kingship of Christ? Yes, societies governed by men are prone to downfall as well because men are also sinners. But Christ created men to hold positions of authority and power, and created women to stay at home with their children. You seem to be defending the female justices on the Supreme Court, trying to shift the focus on the fact that the male justices have upheld immorality as well. Yes, that is true, but the fact that you would respond to Elizabeth's comment with a post like that makes me think that you see no problem with women being Supreme Court justices.
I am pointing out that immorality is present in male and female cultures. But I would rather have a pro-life woman than a pro-abortion male on the court.
-
but everytime I ask to understand better I get a tripe answer.
I shouldn't have to explain how injustice has increased under feminism. If you can't see the relation between the two things, it must be that you don't see feminism corrupting our laws.
Check out the women Supreme Court Justices, speaking of laws being corrupted.
Better still ,check out their photos.
Roe V Wade was upheld by all men. Slavery was as well, though it was overturned by all men too.
Women were given the right to vote by men, too.
So are you suggesting that society would be better off run by women?
No, I was responding to Elizabeht's comment about female justices of the Supreme Court, and suggesting that the all male courts upheld some pretty immoral behaviors, too.
Your argument doesn't stand, though. It's not logical. Did you read what I wrote about the Social Kingship of Christ? Yes, societies governed by men are prone to downfall as well because men are also sinners. But Christ created men to hold positions of authority and power, and created women to stay at home with their children. You seem to be defending the female justices on the Supreme Court, trying to shift the focus on the fact that the male justices have upheld immorality as well. Yes, that is true, but the fact that you would respond to Elizabeth's comment with a post like that makes me think that you see no problem with women being Supreme Court justices.
I am pointing out that immorality is present in male and female cultures. But I would rather have a pro-life woman than a pro-abortion male on the court.
perhaps in dire necessity.....like a female Queen....
-
. Give concrete examples of what a father does to be involved in family life.
you need examples? or do you want Trad20 to provide his views?
No, I have plenty of examples, but I was curious if tradguy had any. He came up with some good ones.
There's a disconnect between the idea that a man should be the head of the household, yet not do anything (or only the fun stuff) within it. That a wife is his helpmate, yet responsible for all of it. This was not so bad in cultures past when a father's work was a family affair, then both parents visibly worked together and complemented each other, filled in the gaps wherever needed.
But now when it takes him away all day, it's much less ideal and many families have to adapt or they will strain the family and specifically the wives unnecessarily. They are absent all day then come home with the attitude that they have done their work so they are absent in spirit in the evenings too. It's disasterous. Women then take on the role of head of household because they are actually in charge, fathers become mere income earners and no one is really connecting. Believe it or not for a man to get in the trenches when and where needed bolsters his place as head. It doesn't mean he is expected to do dishes every day as his job, but he may pitch in a couple times a week during a particularly difficult pregnancy for example.
You probably know this already but that's why I am asking for concrete examples from tradguy. When all is said and done we must be able to marry ideal and example or the ideal means nothing.
-
They are absent all day then come home with the attitude that they have done their work so they are absent in spirit in the evenings too. It's disasterous.
This is just ridiculous, considering how much less time household tasks take today compared to in the past.
This playing up the difficulty of homemaking to an exaggerated degree is ridiculous.
Wallflower's role here is to protect the sisterhood. They don't like the responsibility of housework, time to put men into a subservient role when they come home from work.
These games wallflower is playing are troubling signs about the mindset of trad women.
-
Go to any plain church, many farming or rural families with a home business and the men often are holding the babies and toddlers during service especially in young families where there aren't 6 older sisters competing for a turn. The men are part of daily life just like WF described.
-
Speaking of the "fair play" I was speaking of supposedly women can handle the terror of combat but they need federal protection against sɛҳuąƖ harassment? :rolleyes: They're talking about women flying jets into combat and all, what an upside-down world thanks to these feminist creeps.
-
PW, there are some very good Traditional sermons online on the subject of courtship. Since they come from traditional priests you can rest assured they will be of sound advice and counsel.
Here are two to get you started. And I will pray for you, too.
SERMON ON COURTSHIP (http://209-20-85-20.slicehost.net/content/2011-06-19-guidelines-courting)
DATING -- 6th and 9th Commandements (http://www.audiosancto.org/search.php)
Here is an article on courtship, written by a priest in 1937. I have read most, but not all of it, but it should be fine because of the year in which it was written.
PERTAINING COURTSHIP (http://www.olvrc.com/culture/Courtship.pdf)
These were helpful...it's just so different and it is a bit hard to imagine how it actually works. :(
The part about having a little brother or sister in the room as a chaperone...
Does my illegitimate child count? :facepalm:
-
PW, you said that the term 'illegitimate child' was very hurtful to you. No one is using that term now, out of respect I would image, & now you're calling her that??!!! Something is not right here. Usually mothers don't talk that way, but I guess this is a forum so that's different?
-
Owned.
Huh?
I was saying that wallflower got "owned" by Nadir.
Ah. I see.
-
I was making a sad joke, hence the face palm.
Of course I don't call actually call her that...it's just that it is sad to think about trying to put myself into the role of the girls talked about in the sermon.
I'm sorry that I keep screwing up.
-
Can you point to a single statement from me anywhere on this forum in which I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women was okay? If so, please do. If not, I would say you owe me an apology. You know, like any strong man would apologize when he is mistaken.
The funny thing is you probably "hate" women more than me for it is the open borders and bringing in all races into this country, which you seem to support as long as it is "legal" immigration, that leads to actual violence against women such as rape and murder.
And you still haven't answered my question. Can you point to a single instance in which i have said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women is okay?
It is clear you are not gong to, becasue you have made no such statement, and that you lack the integrity to acknowledge what may have been nothing more than a simple mistake. In a thread this size, it would be easy to forget who said what, and I have never imputed base motives to this. But, since you seem to want to prattle on about male strength rather than demonstrating it, you can talk to yourself.
-
Mothers generally don't make sad jokes about their children, even when they can't hear or understand it. But you just did call her that!!!! What do you mean 'you don't do that'?
I didn't read/listen to the sermon so I don't know what was said.
Something's not right here. Am I being PUNK'D?
Are you 'screwing up' to garner more attention &/or sympathy? Just a thought.
-
They are absent all day then come home with the attitude that they have done their work so they are absent in spirit in the evenings too. It's disasterous.
This is just ridiculous, considering how much less time household tasks take today compared to in the past.
This playing up the difficulty of homemaking to an exaggerated degree is ridiculous.
Wallflower's role here is to protect the sisterhood. They don't like the responsibility of housework, time to put men into a subservient role when they come home from work.
These games wallflower is playing are troubling signs about the mindset of trad women.
You give me too much credit. I don't know that I would discern these things on my own. I first heard of this particular problem in a sermon by Fr Doran (SSPX). He was addressing fathers and expelling the myth that it's normal for them to get home and put their feet up to be served hand and foot or watch football all night or go off into their own worlds through hobbies and such, emerging only to eat and maybe say the Rosary. He was saying this makes them nominal figureheads, they must be tuned to their family heart, mind, body and soul. It may have been a long day at work, but it's been a long day for all, it's not over yet.
And housekeeping is the "easiest" part of managing a family and home. But it's also the less urgent so it gets a lower priority to many other things. Hungry, colicky, teething babies; getting kids dressed/lunches made/on the bus or driven to school or homeschooling; appointments, errands; a phone call, a neighbor at the door; your turn to clean the Church, special conferences or ceremonies at Church, confession night; extra fundraising duties; the list of things that may (not always, but sometimes) get in the way of getting housework done is long.
During normal times it can be kept up but during more chaotic times it gets put off. That's why a hand with it makes such a huge impact. I notice some months and years are better than others, there are cycles. But as has been mentioned, Dad can pitch in in other ways as well, it doesn't have to be housework. Even taking the kids to the park or making a meal gives mom some free time to get other things done. Whatever they figure out works best according to their talents.
-
I was addressing PW, if you noticed. Not you.
It wasn't fake. Far from it. It wasn't an 'outrage'. Just a statement & a question.
Stop bullying me.
-
PW, did you understand what I posted to you? Do you understand my consternation in what you had posted about your daughter?
Do you support the guys supporting you in that manner by being rude & ugly to the women? Does that make you feel good that they support you in that way? I'm truly wondering & asking in all sincerity. Honest.
-
Are you not only bullying me, but threatening me too? Why are you so uptight?
Just ignore me if the truth hurts that much.
Stop bullying me. Let PW answer if she thinks I am. No one asked you or even posted to you.
-
PW, you said that the term 'illegitimate child' was very hurtful to you. No one is using that term now, out of respect I would image, & now you're calling her that??!!! Something is not right here. Usually mothers don't talk that way, but I guess this is a forum so that's different?
It's all about the context, Thorn. The statement can be true and yet hard to "swallow" when said by someone else. And so, a kind remark from another wouldn't include the phrase unless it was necessary to do so.
She's obviously not going to be offended by stating the fact herself. In this case, to dramatically show the disparity between her situation and the ideals mentioned in the sermon, the phrase was a useful tool and softening it would not been as effective in expressing her thoughts.
As the person referred to cannot read, I'm sure she won't be offended.
PS. If you didn't want public input, a PM would have been a better choice. :smirk:
-
How likely is this approach to convert them? St. Francis de Sales observed that you catch more lies with honey than with vinegar. Not that i am especially good at practicing this myself of course, as some here may have noticed. :wink:
Here's a better question: did General Franco take the time to go out to the Marxists who attacked the Church and try to convert them, or did he actually chase them out of Spain?
:roll-laugh2:
-
Would you have any objection to a potential spouse having the same expectation of physical fitness for you?
No, which is why I work out with sports and exercise every day.
Okay. As long as you are consistent. :smile:
Yeah, I see what you mean. After all, it wouldn't be right for fat guys to date fit girls. :jester:
(http://borderlessnewsandviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Equality.png) :jester:
-
Her line about men not being the victims of feminism really takes the cake.
Did she really say that? Wow she must have missed Valerie Solanis: "The male is a biological accident. The male has made the world a ####pile."
Trad guy this post is for you, not Tele, who has already ignored my clarification of this and continues to harp on it with his spin.
In summary, the word victim implies innocence. Men in general are not innocent in the rise of feminism. As Bishop Williamson put it in a conference, men revolted against God (which makes them misuse and/or not use their proper authority), the ripple effect is that women then revolt against men (feminism) and now we see that with parents gone nuts, children are revolting against parents. So you have a hierarchy, God to man to woman to child, and when there's something wrong, the cause and solution start from the top. IN GENERAL
In particular, there are men who suffer because of feminism. There is no doubt about that. I have stories in my own life of extended family members that I care about being hurt by crazy women. Nearly every divorce in my generation, among my cousins and younger uncles, was brought up by the woman. 2 of them just up and left, didn't even care to bring their children, left them with my cousins. It's sad and I resent how they hurt my loved ones, however I do realize it went both ways. My extended family does not practice the Faith, my cousins are not the model husbands themselves, confirming their families in grace. They suffer, however they are not victims. Everybody, male or female, is knee deep in this mess. The true victims are the children.
I also meant to say a while back that there's no need to be defensive about not being an intellectual. There is a difference between being intellectual and being intelligent. There are many kinds of intelligence and being an intellectual is only one type. You can be intelligent without being an intellectual. As long as you use the talents God gave you, that's what the right people will care about.
Maybe there is some truth to what you are saying, but today women benefit from feminism and men don't. So, the really strong support is going to come, as always, from the "losers," not the "winners," because people are basically selfish, not charitable (after 90 pages of this thread, we should all be convinced of that!) And that's where the fighters come from and this is a war. So, that appears to be, the way it is. Feminism "helps" women and "hurts" men, but only the men who identify as being victims of it, will be willing to make significant sacrifices, in order to fight against it. At least, that's how it seems to me.
There are many men who "benefit" from feminism. I use quotations b/c as we know, no one really benefits from immorality and sin, but in the short selfish term they think they do. As far as some societal issues such as women taking jobs from the men they certainly don't benefit at all, but on the personal level of wanting to live selfishly and without responsibility, they do. I don't think men are only to blame, women are as well, but it's not as though men were saints who were blindsided by this sudden inexplicable demonic change in women as some here would have us believe. There is ALWAYS cause and effect.
Feminists will abuse the abuse card and take it too far. For example WE know being home with children and not being able to vote is not abuse. There are many things they consider abuse that are not. But it doesn't mean there wasn't some abuse going on. With the changes in thought from the Protestant Revolution, the Age of Enlightenment, Modernism came a change in behavior as well. When a man is not anchored in Christ (and not the Protestant Christ either) he is unable to lead his family properly. He leads them wayward and there are effects.
For example a woman being home with children, that in itself is not abuse; however belittling the vocation of a mother would be. Treating her as a lesser being or not appreciating her sacrifice would be. Not supporting her (as Matthew's post outlined earlier) when she is sick or pregnant makes things much more difficult on her. We can't deny this is often a problem. In fact my mother often says she almost envies her daughters the support they get from their husbands. Most of our grandmothers and great-grandmothers can attest to the fact that dad did nothing to help in the house. Whether she was puking her guts out pregnant with # 12, didn't matter, it was woman's work and dad wasn't going to touch a dish or a diaper. She was there to serve him, he had already done his man's work that day, period. That is another attitude that is "traditional". Women cannot manage a home and family alone but in response they threw out the baby with the bathwater, sadly, quite literally. Rather than identifying the lack of appreciation and/or help as a problem, the whole vocation was thrown out. Now they strive for the things men DO appreciate, the world and careers. Except now the men don't appreciate them taking those things from them either! So it would be much easier on everyone if men just appreciated the vocation of mothers and stepped in to help when needed. When that happens women are much more likely to be happy in that vocation and physically, emotionally, spiritually capable of persevering.
One of the biggest and this propels many women to be as immoral as men on purpose, is the double standard idea that men's immorality is to be excused because they are men but women must take responsibility, not only for their own sin but for the man's as well. Women were meant to be helpmates, not scapegoats and men as leaders of families have just as much responsibility as women to be a good example and confirm their families in grace. But this double standard is an old one, a "traditional" one. Which is why I sometimes say not all things that are traditional are traditional Catholic. Sin and error are just as old as truth.
That's why the word victim is a misnomer, they are not blameless. To think so would be to say that men are/were angels and women just up and went nuts for nothing one day. Those who consider men to be victims of it are not the ones to fight it as you say. At least, they may think they are but as long as they go about it pointing fingers everywhere else, they will not be half as successful as the men who take responsibility, either for their own personal actions or for those of their sex in general and determine not to repeat those mistakes in their own families. Especially since to consider men victims they are turning a blind eye on half the problem and cannot consider it in its entirety, which is essential if they want to find the right solution. We know in all other areas of life, the frame of mind one is in when they consider themselves to be victims makes them less successful because they are less likely to be able to think objectively so all things will revolve around themselves rather than the real problem and solution. This is no different.
That goes for women too and it's the problem with feminists. As long as they consider themselves victims of men, they are not able to see the problem clearly so their "solutions" will be off. Although they are at a disadvantage by having a lower place in the hierarchy, they aren't usually victims as they are tainted by original sin and can misbehave just as well as men. Some have been true victims. I'd say St Monica runs pretty close. Her husband abused her and their marriage yet she maintained her sanctity and didn't use it as an excuse to go wrong herself. I doubt she would insist upon or revel in the term though. There truly is a different frame of mind when thinking of oneself as a victim and I doubt she would have had the strength to persevere had she been in that frame of mind. She had recourse to God instead.
Yeah, I think I know what you mean. I think you made a good point about responsibility. It's like if you live in a bad neighborhood, you should lock your doors. Of course, it still isn't your fault if you get robbed, even if you didn't lock all your doors! But, the police will probably get fed up with you, if you don't protect yourself well and end up a regular target. Still, that can seem pretty unfair to the victim of a robbery and quite frankly, it is. On the other hand, that's the way it is. I mean, america has high crime and our leaders caused that and the general public pays the price for it.
As far as feminism goes though, I don't really buy the argument that it was basically a response to men behaving badly. That seems like giving women in general credit for feminism and I don't believe it was a grass roots revolution; I think it was a top down revolution. I think our elites deliberately set out to cause this revolution. So, if I'm gonna give credit to anyone, it is our elites.
The whole working woman thing seems like kind of a joke. Why would a woman want to work, if her husband was able to support her. What is she supposed to be a masochist? :jester: Work's a curse! I think women work, because wages are too low for most men to support a family on their own, because our elites are taking advantage of us (there's plenty of wealth in america, it just is distributed unfairly and that seems to be getting worse). So, their wives work and naturally when they do, divorce is less economically threatening. And then when you layer that on with all the other changes that have been made, it's amazing that any families survive intact. I think it's the land of atomized worker/consumer zombies and it's that way by "design."
The idealization of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ seems like another expression of that atomized worker/consumer zombie "mold." :tv-disturbed:
-
You give me too much credit. I don't know that I would discern these things on my own. I first heard of this particular problem in a sermon by Fr Doran (SSPX). He was addressing fathers and expelling the myth that it's normal for them to get home and put their feet up to be served hand and foot or watch football all night or go off into their own worlds through hobbies and such, emerging only to eat and maybe say the Rosary. He was saying this makes them nominal figureheads, they must be tuned to their family heart, mind, body and soul. It may have been a long day at work, but it's been a long day for all, it's not over yet.
Oh I've heard the men need to do women's work sermons. I've heard it and I know the mentality it comes from. I've seen it first-hand. I've seen the kind of men who loved a pretext to hector their son-in-law and other men of the parish with that kind of talk. I've heard these deranged busybodies make derogatory comments about men who don't change diapers. They should learn to mind their own business. I've heard the situation where a young woman argues loudly and publicly in opposition to her new plumber husband's expectation to have a fresh clean towel after his shower every night.
While it's one thing to criticize men for disengaging from the household when they come home, it's quite another to be berating them for wanting to rest and relax after their day at work. It's contemptible indulgence of women's laziness and desire for power. And it's all too common among SSPX priests. The sisterhood's wants and desires come first though. Especially in the neo-SSPX.
-
As far as feminism goes though, I don't really buy the argument that it was basically a response to men behaving badly. That seems like giving women in general credit for feminism and I don't believe it was a grass roots revolution; I think it was a top down revolution. I think our elites deliberately set out to cause this revolution. So, if I'm gonna give credit to anyone, it is our elites.
The whole working woman thing seems like kind of a joke. Why would a woman want to work, if her husband was able to support her. What is she supposed to be a masochist? :jester: Work's a curse! I think women work, because wages are too low for most men to support a family on their own, because our elites are taking advantage of us (there's plenty of wealth in america, it just is distributed unfairly and that seems to be getting worse). So, their wives work and naturally when they do, divorce is less economically threatening. And then when you layer that on with all the other changes that have been made, it's amazing that any families survive intact. I think it's the land of atomized worker/consumer zombies and it's that way by "design."
The idealization of the ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖ seems like another expression of that atomized worker/consumer zombie "mold." :tv-disturbed:
Completely agree. That's the way I see feminism, and I think it needs to be pointed out more often. I think we play into the hands of feminists by accepting their own version of their origins. They have always been the establishment, from the very beginning.
Similar to Jews, in that they posture as anti-establishment when they are the establishment.
-
Thorn, the sermon is about courtship. In the part about not spending time alone with the person you are courting, it references a situation where the couple is at a family home and there are siblings around so you're not alone together.
I don't have that option, so trying to picture myself in that scene is difficult. I made a joke about my status and situation, by asking if the child I have by another man would suffice as chaperone. :facepalm:
Any man who was willing to give me a chance will essentially have to accept the fact that my daughter and I are a package deal. I know that's a lot to put on someone and it's overwhelming to think of the pain I could face. I wasn't looking for sympathy or attention... I was just trying to "laugh" at the sad, sad irony of needing a chaperone to keep things pure. I'm not sure there's any better way to keep a distance than a well timed dirty diaper or sudden need for a feeding.
The way courtship should be is really beautiful, but just over a year ago, I had no clue that people even used that terminology. I've only ever dated men. Courtship for marriage is exactly what I want, but that doesn't make it any less foreign and scary.
As far as the word "illegitimate"? I also used it in the title of another post. I love my daughter so terribly much that it hurts. Part of the reason I am so anxious is because I don't want her to grow up without a father. Despite what the rest of the world says about single motherhood not being any big deal, I don't take our situation lightly.
-
And you still haven't answered my question. Can you point to a single instance in which i have said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women is okay?
It is clear you are not gong to, becasue you have made no such statement, and that you lack the integrity to acknowledge what may have been nothing more than a simple mistake. In a thread this size, it would be easy to forget who said what, and I have never imputed base motives to this. But, since you seem to want to prattle on about male strength rather than demonstrating it, you can talk to yourself.
I already told you about your statement about at the end of the day the man is at fault, even though the women will wear provocative clothing to drag a man down to his base instincts, so to speak. Are you going to acknowledge Jєωιѕн women started feminism?
-
OK, PW, I see the point of the 'sad irony'. It was just such an 'in your face' statement after a period of calmness as to be a bit shocking to see. But my question to you is, "DO YOU SUPPORT THE WAY THE GUYS ACT IN SUPPORT OF YOU?" That is, in calling women vile names & attacking them? How come you can screw up by saying something that doesn't sound quite right & it's all sweetness & light towards you, but when I respond with a civil statement & question I get viciously attacked?
Mater, so you think the men's responses are perfectly normal & on the same plane as my post??! Why should I have to 'go behind the scene' & PM her to respond? My guess is that she gets a ton of PMs & mostly from the guys. I don't wish to 'get intimate' with her with PMs, thank you. I'm beginning to think that at some point Matthew or someone is going to jump out & yell Ha Ha! it was all an experiment to see how far you could be pushed! The responses from the guys who support her have been that abnormal.
-
Tele, so a man's work is finished when he clocks out from his job. When is the woman's work finished, may I ask?
-
PS: Personally I don't like to see men doing dishes & changing diapers, except of course in extreme cases such as the wife being very ill. I'm talking just normal everyday life.
-
Thorn you're really obsessed with PW and "the guys' responses." Had the women not been so insulting to the men on here perhaps it wouldn't have gotten this personal. So it's funny that when "the girls" get personal by calling the guys strange and abnormal that's okay but when "the guys" do it suddenly it's an insult and all the women on here call foul.
And if I may ask why did you type that you're sure PW gets tons of PMs from the guys? Are you trying to insinuate that the guys on this website have a crush on her or obsessed with her?
And who are "the guys" anyway?
-
Tele, so a man's work is finished when he clocks out from his job. When is the woman's work finished, may I ask?
When she dies, and if she taught her children well and obeyed her spouse then she will get her reward eventually in Heaven (with the Catholic faith of course).
-
Tele, so a man's work is finished when he clocks out from his job. When is the woman's work finished, may I ask?
Men and women have their respective duties. When a man comes home from his job that supports the family it's his wife's duty to serve him as the master of the house.
-
Thorn, I really do not get many messages from "the guys" as you put it. I can guess that the reason they make supportive comments is because they could see how I was being treated. I've never asked anyone to stick up for me...I've only thanked them when they have. With that being said, if they are going to be ridiculed for it or have insinuations made about it, then I would not expect that to continue.
I have a lot I'd like to add about the roles of men and women in the home, but I don't want for things to get personal. I just like sharing my view because I've come to have a very "old school' view of this issue. I don't see that expressed from a female point of view much.
-
Tele, so a man's work is finished when he clocks out from his job. When is the woman's work finished, may I ask?
Men and women have their respective duties. When a man comes home from his job that supports the family it's his wife's duty to serve him as the master of the house.
And there we have it. The master who knows not how to serve. Like a President who thinks the country is there for him rather than the other way around. A "small" break from Catholic thought that has big consequences. I don't know if I've ever been around such a concentrated number of Catholic men who are so set on demanding their rights, the fun part, while being so set on denying their responsibilities, the hard part.
For others who may benefit, a Rector's Letter from Bishop Williamson, interviewing Fr Doran.
www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/235.html
-
Tele, so a man's work is finished when he clocks out from his job. When is the woman's work finished, may I ask?
Men and women have their respective duties. When a man comes home from his job that supports the family it's his wife's duty to serve him as the master of the house.
he should also know how to do things, should said servant die, get sick or have to leave the home......I can fully take care of myself if need be, though few times have had to work and do the home, not fun-wife was in hospital.....house, pets and work, whew!!! but, dont need someone to do things........
Yes, we do all have roles.......
-
Tele, so a man's work is finished when he clocks out from his job. When is the woman's work finished, may I ask?
Men and women have their respective duties. When a man comes home from his job that supports the family it's his wife's duty to serve him as the master of the house.
And there we have it. The master who knows not how to serve. Like a President who thinks the country is there for him rather than the other way around. A "small" break from Catholic thought that has big consequences. I don't know if I've ever been around such a concentrated number of Catholic men who are so set on demanding their rights, the fun part, while being so set on denying their responsibilities, the hard part.
For others who may benefit, a Rector's Letter from Bishop Williamson, interviewing Fr Doran.
www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/235.html
though not equal, we share work......I emptied trash other night and dishwasher, crock pot had the dinner on and can do laundry,etc......I live in the house, part my responsibility......in no way does that dminish the male headship role...
-
And there we have it. The master who knows not how to serve.
What is the man doing at work?
Like a President who thinks the country is there for him rather than the other way around.
His house and his wife aren't for him?
A "small" break from Catholic thought that has big consequences.
The only break from Catholic thought is from you wallflower.
I don't know if I've ever been around such a concentrated number of Catholic men who are so set on demanding their rights, the fun part, while being so set on denying their responsibilities, the hard part.
I don't think I've ever seen a woman so hell-bent on refusing to admit the rights a man has, and refusing to admit the responsibilities a wife has.
-
Tele, so a man's work is finished when he clocks out from his job. When is the woman's work finished, may I ask?
Men and women have their respective duties. When a man comes home from his job that supports the family it's his wife's duty to serve him as the master of the house.
And there we have it. The master who knows not how to serve. Like a President who thinks the country is there for him rather than the other way around. A "small" break from Catholic thought that has big consequences. I don't know if I've ever been around such a concentrated number of Catholic men who are so set on demanding their rights, the fun part, while being so set on denying their responsibilities, the hard part.
For others who may benefit, a Rector's Letter from Bishop Williamson, interviewing Fr Doran.
www.sspxseminary.org/publications/rectors-letters-separator/rectors-letter/235.html
though not equal, we share work......I emptied trash other night and dishwasher, crock pot had the dinner on and can do laundry,etc......I live in the house, part my responsibility......in no way does that dminish the male headship role...
would add,not half bad a cook either :cool:
-
What you see in these threads, every single time, is that when the traditional obligations of women are discussed, no matter what the issue is, the women (who aren't full blown overt feminist like on FE) are answering it with "yes, but . . ." - and that "but" is always there, and it always means ultimately that she gets to decide if and when she feels she's obligated, at her pleasure. And the husband better accept her "but" or he's an unfeeling pig and a brute.
This attitude completely nullifies, in practice, the exercise of the husband's rights. In the same way the husband has been robbed of having any ability to see that his rights are enforced.
-
lot of obsessing over control, one can be a head and not crack a whip, which your posts come off as at times, a slave master with a driving whip..sorry if I am wrong anywhere on that or mis-construing...
most women here do not have a taint of feminism, yet you say "well they are not overt, but..." in your use of language.....
-
lot of obsessing over control, one can be a head and not crack a whip, which your posts come off as at times, a slave master with a driving whip..sorry if I am wrong anywhere on that or mis-construing...
Think you might have a problem with St. Peter, who mentioned that Sarah called Abraham her Lord.
The Sacrament of Matrimony is an agreement, and the reality is today's femitrads have no intention of being held to the traditional agreement and its moral requirements.
This is why you had people making excuses for Vox's civil marriage to the divorced Quis on FE. Because when push comes to shove, the religion becomes in their minds what they want it to be. And what they want is the power a feminist society gives them, without having to seriously be subject to the requirements of Catholic marriage.
most women here do not have a taint of feminism, yet you say "well they are not overt, but..." in your use of language.....
Sorry Belloc, but they definitely do, and they definitely have a problem with the traditional role that women used to play, which is why they're acting as though marriage in the past was horribly oppressive for women.
-
The obsession with control comes from wallflower and the other femitrads.
These women act as if the husband must be at the wife's beck and call when he returns from work, instead of the reverse, because they want total control.
They want total control over their obligations and whether they decide to fulfill them.
And they want the option to start trying to guilt men, and bring priests into it, if the men assert their rights in marriage.
-
I've never yet seen these femitrads simply accept their obligations without trying to bait and switch with their "yes, buts"- they are always withholding full assent to Catholic teachings on their marital obligations, because they are very comfortable in the position of power this feminist society gives them in marriage.
They get incensed at St. Thomas' assertion that it is not a sin if a husband out of zeal for justice has his wife executed of adultery. What's the real reason for that? Seems to me it is similar to their attitude towards Vox and Quis's civil marriage. That is, when push comes to shove, they're going to do what they want, and no man is going to stop them, and as for God's law, well, they "know" God would understand.
-
I've never yet seen these femitrads simply accept their obligations without trying to bait and switch with their "yes, buts"- they are always withholding full assent to Catholic teachings on their marital obligations, because they are very comfortable in the position of power this feminist society gives them in marriage.
They get incensed at St. Thomas' assertion that it is not a sin if a husband out of zeal for justice has his wife executed of adultery. What's the real reason for that? Seems to me it is similar to their attitude towards Vox and Quis's civil marriage. That is, when push comes to shove, they're going to do what they want, and no man is going to stop them, and as for God's law, well, they "know" God would understand.
My guess is that women dispute the double standard of sin...that basically says that men are whimps who can't control their instincts more than a basic animal, so blame it all on the women. I say stone them both.
-
My guess is that women dispute the double standard of sin...that basically says that men are whimps who can't control their instincts more than a basic animal, so blame it all on the women. I say stone them both.
The double standard today is that men are to be treated as predators by default and young women are to be treated as though they are angels regardless of the facts.
That's today's double standard, and it's false.
-
PW - so you think that I'm bullying you?
Mater - I don't mind 'public input' - I do mind being bullied & called ugly names. Do you think that's acceptable?
Tele - please explain how the wife is supposed to 'serve him as master of the house'. Let's assume that the house is neat & clean, the kids well-mannered & glad to see their dad & she has a nice supper on & ready to eat. Now go on from there - how's she supposed to serve him?
PW - what is the 'that' in your statement "...then I wouldn't expect THAT to continue". You think you're being bullied here?
If you are in a learning mode or role now, why do you want to share your views about trad life? Don't you think (as you yourself posted) that at this point it would be better for you not to post much? You don't see it 'expressed from a feminine view much' because the women here think it's pretty much a given. Also the guys attack them when they do try to express themselves. If you now have an 'old school view of this issue', what's there to discuss? We're all on the same page! btw - you still managed to dance around the mulberry tree & didn't answer my question. Care to now? "How do you feel about the way the guys act in supporting you by attacking the women by calling them names?"
Tele - can you say chauvanism? Look up the real definition. Also wasn't Sarah O.T.? No wife expects her husband to be at her beck & call when he returns home tired from work. Once again you take the outer fringes of society use it to coat the ordinary trad wife with a broad, ugly brush. Sad.
-
My guess is that women dispute the double standard of sin...that basically says that men are whimps who can't control their instincts more than a basic animal, so blame it all on the women. I say stone them both.
The double standard today is that men are to be treated as predators by default and young women are to be treated as though they are angels regardless of the facts.
That's today's double standard, and it's false.
Virtually every post in here blames the indecent activity on the immodest dress and demeanor of the women. Sounds like were just 'actin' like the animals..." Men and women are responsible. I thouroughly expect that my husband would repel an advance or a floozy or a scantily dressed woman out of love...not succuмb to lust like farm animals
-
No wife expects her husband to be at her beck & call when he returns home tired from work.
You are ignorant of how things are today.
I know a fellow, (my best friend for many years, I would still call him my best friend) whose wife would keep the home and garden channel on. When my friend came home from work, he was to start working on home improvement projects. Work, then hours of work fixing up the house for the wife watching HGTV. If he tried to say he wanted rest she would start the project on her own, even when incompetent to carry it out, effectively forcing him to finish the job. Otherwise she would nag about the mess she made.
You know not of what you speak and what these women are like.
There's a reason wallflower is so insistent men concede they must help out (outside of a true emergency). It's because these trad women want to feel entitled to demand chores be done when the husband gets home, and that's standard procedure among young "Christian" women these days. I'm not kidding. That is the reality.
There was a "white knight" poster here named LordPhan. He said it was a duty for the husband to make things "as pleasant as possible" for the wife.
Really, that should be reversed. Although to demand a situation "as pleasant as possible seems excessive. A man coming home from labor should have a pleasant environment and a wife anxious and eager to please him, who fears to show him signs of disrespect.
This is anathema to femitrads - they want control - they want an escape clause for every obligation, and they want the husband to be at their disposal, not vice-versa.
-
We should be more charitable, one toward the other.
-
The obsession with control comes from wallflower and the other femitrads.
These women act as if the husband must be at the wife's beck and call when he returns from work, instead of the reverse, because they want total control.
They want total control over their obligations and whether they decide to fulfill them.
And they want the option to start trying to guilt men, and bring priests into it, if the men assert their rights in marriage.
but, you seem to go to antoher extreme to counter and again, beginning to see why getting burned has perhaps colored your vision a little-hey, been there before, I understand and it is a shame.....but perhaps coloring a little your outlook......just saying....
-
Tele - please explain how the wife is supposed to 'serve him as master of the house'. Let's assume that the house is neat & clean, the kids well-mannered & glad to see their dad & she has a nice supper on & ready to eat. Now go on from there - how's she supposed to serve him?
hopefuly, he is not drifting toward Stepford.....
think "Dinner with the family" the short prop peice from teh 1950's lampooned on MST3K
-
Virtually every post in here blames the indecent activity on the immodest dress and demeanor of the women.
That's not true. You're talking about one poster you were arguing about saying that. Why are you addressing this point to me when I haven't argued that?
-
Tele were you still on FE during the thread about making a sandwich? I don’t recall one single woman who just said “Yes, I would make my husband a sandwich if he told me to.” Instead there were a hundred stipulations about the words he should use, his tone of voice, etc. That’s modern ‘traditional’ marriage for you!
-
We should be more charitable, one toward the other.
should, tis true and trying to be wo w/Tele in tone and words, but at 105 pages, this thread has taken on life of its own and not mostly, for the good....
-
. Although to demand a situation "as pleasant as possible seems excessive. A man coming home from labor should have a pleasant environment and a wife anxious and eager to please him, who fears to show him signs of disrespect.
you might want to start dating in very old school Hispanic or asian communities, if at that, for this is highly un-realistic and even in the most traditional Catholic homes, non-existant....you are likely with this take, to be alone for a long, long time or havea wife that really, is pathological......then again, might snap and do a burning bed on you........
BTW, my wife is NO feminist, but after 17 yrs, can tell you, this quote and the rest of the post, not happening my friend.......
your friend noted is no indicative of all and you likely are, again, colored to see a certain outcome of him or he might be an exception......
-
Tele were you still on FE during the thread about making a sandwich? I don’t recall one single woman who just said “Yes, I would make my husband a sandwich if he told me to.” Instead there were a hundred stipulations about the words he should use, his tone of voice, etc. That’s modern ‘traditional’ marriage for you!
Yes, I believe I brought it up. One of the mods there said her brothers would beat a man up if he asked "rudely" for his wife to bring him a sandwich.
Just about all of them suggested the wife didn't have an obligation to do it.
Nearly all of them. Such women have absolutely no intention whatsoever of fulfilling the traditional role in marriage. Wallflower is different in her practice but deep down the same non serviam attitude seems present.
-
you might want to start dating in very old school Hispanic or asian communities, if at that, for this is highly un-realistic and even in the most traditional Catholic homes, non-existant....
That's how it was in my family growing up, although my mother was never a particularly accomplished around the home, (she was better at caring for us and educating us children) she was traditional, and she is German American.
you are likely with this take, to be alone for a long, long time or havea wife that really, is pathological......then again, might snap and do a burning bed on you........
BTW, my wife is NO feminist, but after 17 yrs, can tell you, this quote and the rest of the post, not happening my friend.......
Don't assume that because you're in such a situation we're all in it. I agree with you though prospects for a truly traditional marriage are rapidly diminishing.
your friend noted is no indicative of all and you likely are, again, colored to see a certain outcome of him or he might be an exception......
Oh no I'm not. He had a domineering mother who trained him to it.
I'm always amazed at the mothers I see and how they behave and how it's the polar opposite of my mother's behavior - she would never act that way in a million years.
-
Tele were you still on FE during the thread about making a sandwich? I don’t recall one single woman who just said “Yes, I would make my husband a sandwich if he told me to.” Instead there were a hundred stipulations about the words he should use, his tone of voice, etc. That’s modern ‘traditional’ marriage for you!
I'm starting to think the younger generation often doesn't even have any inkling about how traditional marriage worked.
-
I ask politely, as I am polite in person most of time and not taugh to be rude......that said, if I want something, 9/10 will get it myself as it will be done way I want it to and I have 2 good legs, hands,etc......always could use the exercise......that and the wife has some health issues that I usually offer to get her something in reverse....neither of us "fear" the other nor act like an ass to the other....keps things friendly and calm, but push-shove, I make the decisions ultimately in those rare instances when need be......normally, things run smooth......feel no need to micro-manage and hate that myself...
-
I ask politely, as I am polite in person most of time and not taugh to be rude......that said, if I want something, 9/10 will get it myself as it will be done way I want it to and I have 2 good legs, hands,etc......always could use the exercise......that and the wife has some health issues that I usually offer to get her something in reverse....neither of us "fear" the other nor act like an ass to the other....keps things friendly and calm, but push-shove, I make the decisions ultimately in those rare instances when need be......normally, things run smooth......feel no need to micro-manage and hate that myself...
Okay Belloc, the point is, the man is lord of the home, he has a right to expect his wife to care for him and she should desire to do so.
-
and she is German American..
:applause:
me, part Prussian and Bavarian on that side of genetics...
-
I ask politely, as I am polite in person most of time and not taugh to be rude......that said, if I want something, 9/10 will get it myself as it will be done way I want it to and I have 2 good legs, hands,etc......always could use the exercise......that and the wife has some health issues that I usually offer to get her something in reverse....neither of us "fear" the other nor act like an ass to the other....keps things friendly and calm, but push-shove, I make the decisions ultimately in those rare instances when need be......normally, things run smooth......feel no need to micro-manage and hate that myself...
Okay Belloc, the point is, the man is lord of the home, he has a right to expect his wife to care for him and she should desire to do so.
would say fine, but it is also in tone and take, sometimes thigns get done this way not by lording over and demanding, but through more subtle means.....the result and effort is the same, with less :really-mad2: :fryingpan: and stress......takes time and yrs to learn
-
Tele were you still on FE during the thread about making a sandwich? I don’t recall one single woman who just said “Yes, I would make my husband a sandwich if he told me to.” Instead there were a hundred stipulations about the words he should use, his tone of voice, etc. That’s modern ‘traditional’ marriage for you!
I'm starting to think the younger generation often doesn't even have any inkling about how traditional marriage worked.
some might not, some a distorted view.....either too one way or another..tehre is a rise in some circles of modern people a abuse too, whereas women too often lack male role models and fathers, and take a lot of frap, including physical abuse, from men....it is a low self esteen and distorted role playing.......others are all Gloria Steinem :argue: :dwarf: :cussing:
-
although my mother was never a particularly accomplished around the home
Thanksgiving was always superb. I remember bringing some pieces of her pumpkin pies to some friends, an old man I used to help out - they were just delighted.
-
some might not, some a distorted view.....either too one way or another..tehre is a rise in some circles of modern people a abuse too, whereas women too often lack male role models and fathers, and take a lot of frap, including physical abuse, from men....it is a low self esteen and distorted role playing.......others are all Gloria Steinem :argue: :dwarf: :cussing:
If you've never seen some of these women yelling constantly at their children, I was a tutor for one she yelled at her teenage boy about "survival of the fittest" when he had trouble getting started on his assignments.
It's really unbelievable what people are like these days.
Oh, and then she would watch her Jane Austen movies.
-
although my mother was never a particularly accomplished around the home
Thanksgiving was always superb. I remember bringing some pieces of her pumpkin pies to some friends, an old man I used to help out - they were just delighted.
:dancing-banana: :ready-to-eat:
-
some might not, some a distorted view.....either too one way or another..tehre is a rise in some circles of modern people a abuse too, whereas women too often lack male role models and fathers, and take a lot of frap, including physical abuse, from men....it is a low self esteen and distorted role playing.......others are all Gloria Steinem :argue: :dwarf: :cussing:
If you've never seen some of these women yelling constantly at their children, I was a tutor for one she yelled at her teenage boy about "survival of the fittest" when he had trouble getting started on his assignments.
It's really unbelievable what people are like these days.
Oh, and then she would watch her Jane Austen movies.
not sure, but did not Austen have a very trad view of society/women? not really recalling at this point.....
Some either yell or allow for anything.....a reall bummer going out in public and to eat, shop,even Church.....
-
Sacred is my hearth:
sacred hold thou my house.
(He takes off his armor, and gives it to Sieglinde.)
(to Sieglinde)
Set the meal now for us!
(Sieglinde hangs the arms on the branches of the
ash tree, fetches food and drink from the storeroom,
and prepares supper.)
-
Oh, and then she would watch her Jane Austen movies.
It has to do with the craziness of these women. They go from their mad chiding of their children to their costume film reveries.
-
Oh, and then she would watch her Jane Austen movies.
It has to do with the craziness of these women. They go from their mad chiding of their children to their costume film reveries.
ODD FOLKS :surprised: :confused1:
-
Virtually every post in here blames the indecent activity on the immodest dress and demeanor of the women.
That's not true. You're talking about one poster you were arguing about saying that. Why are you addressing this point to me when I haven't argued that?
To clarify--I am not saying every post blames women; just that virtually every post that talks about adultery or immoral behavior blames women and makes the men sound helpless...and it is more than one man, Telesphorus.
-
27 minutes and no response, til now..could it be :scratchchin: this thread is, finally, peteriing out?? :dancing-banana: :jumping2: :sign-surrender:
-
I'm not sure what is meant by the term "plain community" but I live an area with a notable Amish population, and while you do see the fathers holding the babies, I can almost guarantee you that those men are not changing diapers, mashing potatoes, or sweeping the kitchen floor. I make this point only because the original comment about women not feeling appreciated referred to domestic tasks such as dishes and diapers. I think it is really a bit unfair to the farm wives of 100 years ago to insinuate they had more help around the house/more time to get things done. Where is the evidence of this?
There are many reasons why I feel very strongly that men should not be expected to participate in the domestic or motherly functions of a household. One of those reasons is that it simply renders the title of "head of the household" meaningless. Women get offended by this and find it demeaning even though it was given to us by God. This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this. On the non-traditional Catholic boards, women would use all sorts of fancy wording and creative interpretation to get around the true meaning of headship. They would say it is solely spiritual headship...or maybe one of the more conservative ones would concede that the man gets to be the tie breaker when it comes to certain issues. They pretty much all dissolved the title in some way.
I think that asking a man to wash dishes also dissolves the title. Why? Because a household is, in many ways, an operation like any other. Before anyone accuses me of watering down Catholic marriage to an employee/employer relationship, please know that I understand there are differences, however, what is the same is that in order for any operation to work, defined roles have to exist. At my former job if I had found myself unable to get my filing done, would I walk up to my boss (the "head" of the business operation) and ask him if he would do the files for me because I couldn't keep up? Of course not. I might ask for a break or an extension or something, but I would never think to actually put my duties on his shoulders. In the same sense, my boss isn't going to ask me to do things that fall under his job description. In the home life, if my husband is feeling particularly worn or stressed, is he going to turn to me and ask me to go to his employer and do his work for him? No. Isn't it a double standard to ask that of him?
Now, this is where I'm told that I can't make up my mind about a man's role in his home, but the truth is there is a world of difference between "diapers and dishes" and participating in family life. It was mentioned that a man cannot be spiritually present if he goes and lounges...well how exactly does handing him a crying toddler and list of honey-do's help him to be spiritually present? Even the secular Dr. Phil makes the point that when a man leaves his job for the day, he needs transition time before he can re-enter his home life. That's just normal. I don't think men are designed to shift emotional gears as quickly and easily as women. Shouldn't a man have some time to diffuse for a bit so that any stress lingering over from the workday isn't taken out on the family? Who wants a wound up grumpy husband? I remember how "pleasant" that was from my own childhood.
Every man should be greeted at the door with warmth. A woman as keeper as the home has the duty to try and make the house a comfortable and welcoming place. I can very easily imagine that some days this is easier than others, but really, how hard is it to run to the bathroom and check the mirror so you at least appear to be a joyful homemaker and not like you've been on the internet all day? (lol--that isn't a dig, I check online way too much and if I had a husband to be accountable to, I would need to restrain myself or I won't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about not being able to do all my jobs) Anyway...how long does it take to grab a basket and gather up all the stray toys that are in the living area? Is it really that far fetched to say that a half hour before Daddy comes home the children should be taught to help tidy up the house and get ready for dinner? Am I that crazy to imagine that could actually work at least most of the time? And if it doesn't, can't you just play it off with a little extra affection? Is this really only a thing that strict protestant and mormon mothers do? Because they sure blog about it and write about it a lot. "Fascinating Womanhood" has been mentioned and recommended on this board. I haven't read more than the summary, but what would the author say about men coming home to work around the house? Catholic mothers should care about Titus 2 training as well.
So examples were asked for. I'm sure some will laugh at my ideas and think they are unrealistic. I guess time will tell, but I like to plan, and I've read so much about this, so here are some ways I can think of where a husband can support his wife, as a homemaker, without giving a way his sense of authority and honor in his home:
-Mom isn't feeling well and cooking dinner increases her nausea. If the budget allows, it would be very kind of her husband to bring home pizza one night, or be accepting of lighter, simpler meals for awhile if it is an ongoing thing such as sickness due to pregnancy. A loving husband who comes home to a nice dinner 99% of the time and can trust his wife isn't just being lazy, will probably not have an issue with this. There is no need for him to put on an apron and take over. He can trust it is a temporary change and temporarily adjust his expectations accordingly--all without stepping foot into the kitchen.
-Mom is struggling to keep up with a new baby at home. Does Dad take off from work and risk his job? Or does he have to spend his evenings trying to "mother" and be domestic and probably not be able to accomplish much anyway (because it isn't his nature) and then everyone is tired the next day? That doesn't sound like a good way to handle it. It would however, ideally, be very thoughtful of a husband to try and enlist some temporary help for her. He could call up a relative or a friend, or even a young girl from Church to come help out with the children for a day or two. --If a foreman can't meet the demands of his work site, does he call in his wife and hand her tool belt? No, he reevaluates and decides what can be done to make it work. ...And yes, not everyone can get extra help, but even one day where Grandma comes over to mind the little ones...how much could get done? That's a lot of time to catch up on laundry and cleaning. If no help is available at all, then a loving father might bite his tongue about dusting or some other chore that has fallen behind, because he can trust his wife will get to it when she is better. Those kinds of chores aren't so life or death that they require Dad to start playing substitute housekeeper. Just by being soft about it, he is "helping" her.
-It's too cold to bring the baby and a gaggle of children to the store. Dad could stop and get some groceries. I don't think this is domestic. In fact, errand running by mothers is a relatively new thing that started when families were more likely to own two vehicles. If historically Dad had to hunt to bring home his family's dinner, then grabbing a few groceries is just the modern version of that. If he really doesn't like to shop but Mom still has a reason to keep the children home for this trip, then maybe she could run after they are tucked in bed.
There are other really simple things that a loving man could do for his wife to keep her motivated. Just sweet little things like reminding her she is beautiful. I don't believe in the whole "chore play" mindset of modern mothers. I don't find it attractive to watch men be domestic. I don't consider doing chores or baby care to be time spent with the family anyway. Yes, he should play with this children, teach them, lead them in prayer and just generally enjoy them. He shouldn't mother them.
I also think that there is a lot to be said for being organized. I've learned my lesson about posting links to prot blogs, but there is a blogger who gave me the idea of having a home binder. I don't really need a full one (I use mine for just recipes) but I am starting one for my job now. It will essentially be an operations manual and contain schedules for chores, meal plans etc. The idea is to keep a lot of notes and then look it over and think about what could be done differently to make things work better.
I can remember on expecting club board how some of the women were spending the final weeks of their pregnancies preparing meals to freeze and have available for the first weeks home with baby. You can buy aluminum pans for a buck at the dollar store, and then it takes, what? 30 minutes to put together a lasagna or casserole and freeze it? It takes planning, but so do many vocations. When we can't do our job, we are supposed to make adjustments. I don't understand why the automatic reaction would be to put more of a burden on your spouse. I'm sorry, but to me, that cannot logically be squared up with the concept of being a helpmate.
It is a bit disheartening to constantly be told the role of homemaker is so burdensome and absent of fulfillment. Maybe I'll eat my words some day, but I'd like to believe that will a joyful heart I will find it rewarding and not miserable. I've have always liked domestic things, and I have always love to take care of people. It doesn't bother me to serve others, and it especially wouldn't bother me to serve those who love me. Yet talking about it is considered wrong. Obedience is viewed as a bad word. Desire to submit should not be talked about--it's either a necessary evil that is tolerated only because we can't erase scripture, or, (if it isn't manipulated into a different meaning entirely) it is something be ashamed of. It is sad that would should be normal and natural has had to play tug of war with modern ideas that tell a woman she shouldn't be expected to do all that her job entails--that she should be able to pass it off to her husband when she can't. In drastic circuмstances, most men could figure out how to wash a dish or change a diaper, but to make a man more domestic is not something that should be required of him, IMO. Just like women shouldn't have to work outside the home in all but the most desperate circuмstances.
Is it possible to marry a jerk who is never satisfied and is constantly harsh and cruel with his wife? Sure...and would it be hard to serve a man who is like this? I'm sure it would be. I guess if you marry someone like that, then you just have to think of it as serving the Lord by taking on your role despite your circuмstances. The better idea would be to only marry someone who loves you and regards you like the Proverbs woman...above rubies or pearls.
-
I'm not sure what is meant by the term "plain community" but I live an area with a notable Amish population, and while you do see the fathers holding the babies, I can almost guarantee you that those men are not changing diapers, mashing potatoes, or sweeping the kitchen floor. I make this point only because the original comment about women not feeling appreciated referred to domestic tasks such as dishes and diapers. I think it is really a bit unfair to the farm wives of 100 years ago to insinuate they had more help around the house/more time to get things done. Where is the evidence of this?
There are many reasons why I feel very strongly that men should not be expected to participate in the domestic or motherly functions of a household. One of those reasons is that it simply renders the title of "head of the household" meaningless. Women get offended by this and find it demeaning even though it was given to us by God. This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this. On the non-traditional Catholic boards, women would use all sorts of fancy wording and creative interpretation to get around the true meaning of headship. They would say it is solely spiritual headship...or maybe one of the more conservative ones would concede that the man gets to be the tie breaker when it comes to certain issues. They pretty much all dissolved the title in some way.
I think that asking a man to wash dishes also dissolves the title. Why? Because a household is, in many ways, an operation like any other. Before anyone accuses me of watering down Catholic marriage to an employee/employer relationship, please know that I understand there are differences, however, what is the same is that in order for any operation to work, defined roles have to exist. At my former job if I had found myself unable to get my filing done, would I walk up to my boss (the "head" of the business operation) and ask him if he would do the files for me because I couldn't keep up? Of course not. I might ask for a break or an extension or something, but I would never think to actually put my duties on his shoulders. In the same sense, my boss isn't going to ask me to do things that fall under his job description. In the home life, if my husband is feeling particularly worn or stressed, is he going to turn to me and ask me to go to his employer and do his work for him? No. Isn't it a double standard to ask that of him?
Now, this is where I'm told that I can't make up my mind about a man's role in his home, but the truth is there is a world of difference between "diapers and dishes" and participating in family life. It was mentioned that a man cannot be spiritually present if he goes and lounges...well how exactly does handing him a crying toddler and list of honey-do's help him to be spiritually present? Even the secular Dr. Phil makes the point that when a man leaves his job for the day, he needs transition time before he can re-enter his home life. That's just normal. I don't think men are designed to shift emotional gears as quickly and easily as women. Shouldn't a man have some time to diffuse for a bit so that any stress lingering over from the workday isn't taken out on the family? Who wants a wound up grumpy husband? I remember how "pleasant" that was from my own childhood.
Every man should be greeted at the door with warmth. A woman as keeper as the home has the duty to try and make the house a comfortable and welcoming place. I can very easily imagine that some days this is easier than others, but really, how hard is it to run to the bathroom and check the mirror so you at least appear to be a joyful homemaker and not like you've been on the internet all day? (lol--that isn't a dig, I check online way too much and if I had a husband to be accountable to, I would need to restrain myself or I won't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about not being able to do all my jobs) Anyway...how long does it take to grab a basket and gather up all the stray toys that are in the living area? Is it really that far fetched to say that a half hour before Daddy comes home the children should be taught to help tidy up the house and get ready for dinner? Am I that crazy to imagine that could actually work at least most of the time? And if it doesn't, can't you just play it off with a little extra affection? Is this really only a thing that strict protestant and mormon mothers do? Because they sure blog about it and write about it a lot. "Fascinating Womanhood" has been mentioned and recommended on this board. I haven't read more than the summary, but what would the author say about men coming home to work around the house? Catholic mothers should care about Titus 2 training as well.
So examples were asked for. I'm sure some will laugh at my ideas and think they are unrealistic. I guess time will tell, but I like to plan, and I've read so much about this, so here are some ways I can think of where a husband can support his wife, as a homemaker, without giving a way his sense of authority and honor in his home:
-Mom isn't feeling well and cooking dinner increases her nausea. If the budget allows, it would be very kind of her husband to bring home pizza one night, or be accepting of lighter, simpler meals for awhile if it is an ongoing thing such as sickness due to pregnancy. A loving husband who comes home to a nice dinner 99% of the time and can trust his wife isn't just being lazy, will probably not have an issue with this. There is no need for him to put on an apron and take over. He can trust it is a temporary change and temporarily adjust his expectations accordingly--all without stepping foot into the kitchen.
-Mom is struggling to keep up with a new baby at home. Does Dad take off from work and risk his job? Or does he have to spend his evenings trying to "mother" and be domestic and probably not be able to accomplish much anyway (because it isn't his nature) and then everyone is tired the next day? That doesn't sound like a good way to handle it. It would however, ideally, be very thoughtful of a husband to try and enlist some temporary help for her. He could call up a relative or a friend, or even a young girl from Church to come help out with the children for a day or two. --If a foreman can't meet the demands of his work site, does he call in his wife and hand her tool belt? No, he reevaluates and decides what can be done to make it work. ...And yes, not everyone can get extra help, but even one day where Grandma comes over to mind the little ones...how much could get done? That's a lot of time to catch up on laundry and cleaning. If no help is available at all, then a loving father might bite his tongue about dusting or some other chore that has fallen behind, because he can trust his wife will get to it when she is better. Those kinds of chores aren't so life or death that they require Dad to start playing substitute housekeeper. Just by being soft about it, he is "helping" her.
-It's too cold to bring the baby and a gaggle of children to the store. Dad could stop and get some groceries. I don't think this is domestic. In fact, errand running by mothers is a relatively new thing that started when families were more likely to own two vehicles. If historically Dad had to hunt to bring home his family's dinner, then grabbing a few groceries is just the modern version of that. If he really doesn't like to shop but Mom still has a reason to keep the children home for this trip, then maybe she could run after they are tucked in bed.
There are other really simple things that a loving man could do for his wife to keep her motivated. Just sweet little things like reminding her she is beautiful. I don't believe in the whole "chore play" mindset of modern mothers. I don't find it attractive to watch men be domestic. I don't consider doing chores or baby care to be time spent with the family anyway. Yes, he should play with this children, teach them, lead them in prayer and just generally enjoy them. He shouldn't mother them.
I also think that there is a lot to be said for being organized. I've learned my lesson about posting links to prot blogs, but there is a blogger who gave me the idea of having a home binder. I don't really need a full one (I use mine for just recipes) but I am starting one for my job now. It will essentially be an operations manual and contain schedules for chores, meal plans etc. The idea is to keep a lot of notes and then look it over and think about what could be done differently to make things work better.
I can remember on expecting club board how some of the women were spending the final weeks of their pregnancies preparing meals to freeze and have available for the first weeks home with baby. You can buy aluminum pans for a buck at the dollar store, and then it takes, what? 30 minutes to put together a lasagna or casserole and freeze it? It takes planning, but so do many vocations. When we can't do our job, we are supposed to make adjustments. I don't understand why the automatic reaction would be to put more of a burden on your spouse. I'm sorry, but to me, that cannot logically be squared up with the concept of being a helpmate.
It is a bit disheartening to constantly be told the role of homemaker is so burdensome and absent of fulfillment. Maybe I'll eat my words some day, but I'd like to believe that will a joyful heart I will find it rewarding and not miserable. I've have always liked domestic things, and I have always love to take care of people. It doesn't bother me to serve others, and it especially wouldn't bother me to serve those who love me. Yet talking about it is considered wrong. Obedience is viewed as a bad word. Desire to submit should not be talked about--it's either a necessary evil that is tolerated only because we can't erase scripture, or, (if it isn't manipulated into a different meaning entirely) it is something be ashamed of. It is sad that would should be normal and natural has had to play tug of war with modern ideas that tell a woman she shouldn't be expected to do all that her job entails--that she should be able to pass it off to her husband when she can't. In drastic circuмstances, most men could figure out how to wash a dish or change a diaper, but to make a man more domestic is not something that should be required of him, IMO. Just like women shouldn't have to work outside the home in all but the most desperate circuмstances.
Is it possible to marry a jerk who is never satisfied and is constantly harsh and cruel with his wife? Sure...and would it be hard to serve a man who is like this? I'm sure it would be. I guess if you marry someone like that, then you just have to think of it as serving the Lord by taking on your role despite your circuмstances. The better idea would be to only marry someone who loves you and regards you like the Proverbs woman...above rubies or pearls.
-
Hunding in Die Walkuere said:
Sacred is my hearth:
sacred hold thou my house.
(He takes off his armor, and gives it to Sieglinde.)
(to Sieglinde)
Set the meal now for us!
(Sieglinde hangs the arms on the branches of the
ash tree, fetches food and drink from the storeroom,
and prepares supper.)
Hunding is not supposed to be a sympathetic character, Tele... Not that Wagner's opinions mean much.
-
Belloc said:
would say fine, but it is also in tone and take, sometimes thigns get done this way not by lording over and demanding, but through more subtle means.....the result and effort is the same, with less and stress......takes time and yrs to learn
Words of wisdom Belloc.
-
um, heck, we were doing good, I goofed and jinxed it.... :sad:
-
Belloc said:
would say fine, but it is also in tone and take, sometimes thigns get done this way not by lording over and demanding, but through more subtle means.....the result and effort is the same, with less and stress......takes time and yrs to learn
Words of wisdom Belloc.
thanks, :cheers: despite the rep, I do try..and have had enough experience over the yrs, good and bad..
-
I will bite one more time, just in case.
Women get offended by this and find it demeaning even though it was given to us by God. This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this.
Contrary to the imaginary world that you and Tele share, no one here is nauseated by this. This is the frame of mind that gets you in trouble (that you are the oooonly one around who is anti-feminist). Not that you assert that a man is the head of the house, that's not what is nauseating here. The attitude that you have cornered the market on this, that is nauseating. Two unmarried people who don't just share ideas, no, they know it all and are here to correct those living the life. If you are sincere in wanting to know how you "manage to keep screwing up" -- These little comments get you in trouble.
Even the secular Dr. Phil makes the point that when a man leaves his job for the day, he needs transition time before he can re-enter his home life. That's just normal.
Every man should be greeted at the door with warmth.
Who said he can't have a transition time? Do you not understand what "put his feet up all night or watches football all night mean? Why assume we are promoting the other extreme of not having any time at all?
I check the mirror before DH comes home. I make sure to make it a nice place for him to come home to. We are happy to see him. Dinner may or may not be ready immediately, depending on how the day went or what is planned for the evening. However I don't discuss MY daily life specifically up here. Some things I talk about apply, some don't. But I've grown up in and among large families and have a lot of experiences to draw on. What do you want from me? That I detail for you all the little things I do? Is that what it would take before you accepted that I live this life? Does not the detailing of childcare, cooking, cleaning, love for Dh etc... in my posts not already speak to that?
I don't understand what the connection is in your mind between "things are chaotic, sometimes I need DH's help" to "oh what's so hard about welcoming him" "why can't you pretty up a bit?". Because I say the former it means I don't do the latter?
Many of your examples include having extra money or extended family nearby. Good for you if you can find that, they do help. Extended family nearby is another ocncrete example of things that helped families in times past but aren't applicable now in gypsy America. We've had some times with it and others without. We adjust accordingly.
I don't consider doing chores or baby care to be time spent with the family anyway.
Then you have a very distorted view of how families spend their time. Especially when young.
It is a bit disheartening to constantly be told the role of homemaker is so burdensome and absent of fulfillment. Maybe I'll eat my words some day, but I'd like to believe that will a joyful heart I will find it rewarding and not miserable. I've have always liked domestic things, and I have always love to take care of people. It doesn't bother me to serve others, and it especially wouldn't bother me to serve those who love me. Yet talking about it is considered wrong. Obedience is viewed as a bad word. Desire to submit should not be talked about--it's either a necessary evil that is tolerated only because we can't erase scripture, or, (if it isn't manipulated into a different meaning entirely) it is something be ashamed of. It is sad that would should be normal and natural has had to play tug of war with modern ideas that tell a woman she shouldn't be expected to do all that her job entails--that she should be able to pass it off to her husband when she can't. In drastic circuмstances, most men could figure out how to wash a dish or change a diaper, but to make a man more domestic is not something that should be required of him, IMO. Just like women shouldn't have to work outside the home in all but the most desperate circuмstances.
Here again, where in your mind is there a connection between knowing the intimate difficulties of married life with children and "you're not happy, you're not joyful, you don't like domestic things, you won't obey, you won't submit"? I speak very highly of marriage, of husbands and wives sacrificing for each other, of the love they share. This draws from my own experience. It is more than possible to know the weight being carried yet still love that weight and choose it all over again.
-
Belloc said:
would say fine, but it is also in tone and take, sometimes thigns get done this way not by lording over and demanding, but through more subtle means.....the result and effort is the same, with less and stress......takes time and yrs to learn
Words of wisdom Belloc.
I agree. It's what I was getting at with the longer post way back about ego and will. He sacrifices his ego, she sacrifices her will, they both give to each other freely and in giving they receive all they need and more. So much more peaceful and fulfilling way to operate.
-
um, heck, we were doing good, I goofed and jinxed it.... :sad:
:fryingpan:
:smirk:
-
Hunding in Die Walkuere said:
Sacred is my hearth:
sacred hold thou my house.
(He takes off his armor, and gives it to Sieglinde.)
(to Sieglinde)
Set the meal now for us!
(Sieglinde hangs the arms on the branches of the
ash tree, fetches food and drink from the storeroom,
and prepares supper.)
Hunding is not supposed to be a sympathetic character, Tele... Not that Wagner's opinions mean much.
That's not the point. Watch the end of The Quiet Man.
In just a couple generations we've gone to the man of the house being expected to supplicate for his wife to do her duty.
As if he doesn't walk on pins and needles he doesn't deserve it.
-
um, heck, we were doing good, I goofed and jinxed it.... :sad:
:fryingpan:
:smirk:
I prefer down time to, esp as going to gym tonight, have a headache and sleep poorly last night......
wife likely wil ldo dinner tonight full,y sometimes I help if feeling better and not tired....or we go out..... :ready-to-eat:
-
My words are in purple:
I will bite one more time, just in case.
Women get offended by this and find it demeaning even though it was given to us by God. This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this.
Contrary to the imaginary world that you and Tele share, no one here is nauseated by this. This is the frame of mind that gets you in trouble (that you are the oooonly one around who is anti-feminist). Not that you assert that a man is the head of the house, that's not what is nauseating here. The attitude that you have cornered the market on this, that is nauseating. Two unmarried people who don't just share ideas, no, they know it all and are here to correct those living the life. If you are sincere in wanting to know how you "manage to keep screwing up" -- These little comments get you in trouble.
I don't think I am the only one who feels that way, I'm sure lots of women here do, it is just that I haven't found a lot of Catholic women are who willing to talk about it. I don't know why that is, maybe there is a good explanation for that. Still, my ideas aren't imaginary, it seems there are plenty of women out there who can run their households without domestic help from husbands. I guess everything that I've read about it must be a lie?
Even the secular Dr. Phil makes the point that when a man leaves his job for the day, he needs transition time before he can re-enter his home life. That's just normal.
Every man should be greeted at the door with warmth.
Who said he can't have a transition time? Do you not understand what "put his feet up all night or watches football all night mean? Why assume we are promoting the other extreme of not having any time at all?
It was an example, lots of women lay in on their husbands the moment he enters the door.
I check the mirror before DH comes home. I make sure to make it a nice place for him to come home to. We are happy to see him. Dinner may or may not be ready immediately, depending on how the day went or what is planned for the evening. However I don't discuss MY daily life specifically up here. Some things I talk about apply, some don't. But I've grown up in and among large families and have a lot of experiences to draw on. What do you want from me? That I detail for you all the little things I do? Is that what it would take before you accepted that I live this life? Does not the detailing of childcare, cooking, cleaning, love for Dh etc... in my posts not already speak to that?
I didn't ask you for anything. This is general, not personal. It is for discussion purposes, not a side by side comparison.
I don't understand what the connection is in your mind between "things are chaotic, sometimes I need DH's help" to "oh what's so hard about welcoming him" "why can't you pretty up a bit?". Because I say the former it means I don't do the latter?
I was expressing my feelings on whether or not it is good to ask DH for domestic help. If I ever have a DH, I will avoid for the reasons I stated. You are free to disagree with those reasons.
Many of your examples include having extra money or extended family nearby. Good for you if you can find that, they do help. Extended family nearby is another ocncrete example of things that helped families in times past but aren't applicable now in gypsy America. We've had some times with it and others without. We adjust accordingly.
"Adjusting accordingly" could justify stay at home dads or all sorts of things that move away from God's design. I'd rather look at it as "live as close to design as possible" and work to make it even more possible.
I don't consider doing chores or baby care to be time spent with the family anyway.
Then you have a very distorted view of how families spend their time. Especially when young.
I'll take your word for it, but I am curious what there is to do in the evenings besides clean up dinner and bathe the children/do the bedtime routine? Shouldn't other chores be worked on during the day, ideally?
It is a bit disheartening to constantly be told the role of homemaker is so burdensome and absent of fulfillment. Maybe I'll eat my words some day, but I'd like to believe that will a joyful heart I will find it rewarding and not miserable. I've have always liked domestic things, and I have always love to take care of people. It doesn't bother me to serve others, and it especially wouldn't bother me to serve those who love me. Yet talking about it is considered wrong. Obedience is viewed as a bad word. Desire to submit should not be talked about--it's either a necessary evil that is tolerated only because we can't erase scripture, or, (if it isn't manipulated into a different meaning entirely) it is something be ashamed of. It is sad that would should be normal and natural has had to play tug of war with modern ideas that tell a woman she shouldn't be expected to do all that her job entails--that she should be able to pass it off to her husband when she can't. In drastic circuмstances, most men could figure out how to wash a dish or change a diaper, but to make a man more domestic is not something that should be required of him, IMO. Just like women shouldn't have to work outside the home in all but the most desperate circuмstances.
Here again, where in your mind is there a connection between knowing the intimate difficulties of married life with children and "you're not happy, you're not joyful, you don't like domestic things, you won't obey, you won't submit"? I speak very highly of marriage, of husbands and wives sacrificing for each other, of the love they share. This draws from my own experience. It is more than possible to know the weight being carried yet still love that weight and choose it all over again.
I was sharing my feelings, I never once referenced you. You have personalized my words and applied them to yourself. If you know you are joyful and obedient, why be defensive? Why are you so bothered by me sharing my opinion? It is the one thing I feel like I have really figured out and you just keep blasting everything I say. I wish we could discuss this differently. It is hard for me to be open minded when you instead of giving good reasons why my view is flawed, you take it as an attack on yourself. That isn't productive, but I'd love if you could be more specific so I can learn.
-
I was sharing my feelings, I never once referenced you. You have personalized my words and applied them to yourself. If you know you are joyful and obedient, why be defensive? Why are you so bothered by me sharing my opinion? It is the one thing I feel like I have really figured out and you just keep blasting everything I say. I wish we could discuss this differently. It is hard for me to be open minded when you instead of giving good reasons why my view is flawed, you take it as an attack on yourself. That isn't productive, but I'd love if you could be more specific so I can learn.
It's amusing she said she was nauseated by what you said. Right after she denied that people are nauseated by the sorts of things you say.
-
Disengaging from the family with football on TV or some other hobby that absorbs too much time is really a separate issue from the question of helping with domestic duties around the house.
-
Wallflower, one thing I want to say is that I am not offended by you or anyone going through my ideals and explaining why they are unrealistic or flawed. As I have admitted, I'm speaking rather ideologically and not from experience. I still think my points are at least somewhat valid because I am basing my ideals on scripture, but I expect to induce a few eye rolls because I do tend to romanticize and be incredibly optimistic. I read blogs or postings of mothers with lots of little ones manage to organize their homes and run them efficiently. I admire how wonderful it seems and wish to channel that happiness. I've asked questions too, and that is where I have learned. The internet has been my Titus 2, in a way. If my understanding is deficient, and you wish to provide me a different view, I am truly open to hearing it.
All I ask is that you try to respond only to my ideas, and not read into everything I say as an attack on you or how your family operates. I have no idea how your life works, and I just kindly ask that you not take everything so personally by applying my words to yourself. I can't see your family life, I only know your opinions as stated. It would be nice if you gave some practical examples of why I am wrong, instead of getting so upset.
I genuinely want a positive discussion.
P.S. I don't see where I corrected anyone. I don't know your specifics. I was responding to your general comment about how men won't touch diapers and dishes.
-
Disengaging from the family with football on TV or some other hobby that absorbs too much time is really a separate issue from the question of helping with domestic duties around the house.
This was a point I was trying to make. I am accused of going from one extreme to the other, but I made it clear that men should be involved in family life. I was simply trying to make clear that involvement should not transcend traditional roles. Children should grow up seeing clear definition between the behaviors and duties of men and women.
-
Women get offended by this and find it demeaning even though it was given to us by God. This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this.
WF: Contrary to the imaginary world that you and Tele share, no one here is nauseated by this. This is the frame of mind that gets you in trouble (that you are the oooonly one around who is anti-feminist). Not that you assert that a man is the head of the house, that's not what is nauseating here. The attitude that you have cornered the market on this, that is nauseating. Two unmarried people who don't just share ideas, no, they know it all and are here to correct those living the life. If you are sincere in wanting to know how you "manage to keep screwing up" -- These little comments get you in trouble.
I don't think I am the only one who feels that way, I'm sure lots of women here do, it is just that I haven't found a lot of Catholic women are who willing to talk about it. I don't know why that is, maybe there is a good explanation for that. Still, my ideas aren't imaginary, it seems there are plenty of women out there who can run their households without domestic help from husbands. I guess everything that I've read about it must be a lie?
I did not say your ideas were imaginary. I said the world in which you believe you and you alone are anti-feminist is imaginary.
-
I did not say your ideas were imaginary. I said the world in which you believe you and you alone are anti-feminist is imaginary.
I don't believe that at all. There are lots of women who feel this way. There are lots of reasons they might not state it on this board. I enjoy discussing the topic because I like to put my thoughts and daydreams into writing. Some women are more quiet, or simply don't want/need to talk about it. It's probably better to be that way, but I'm not there yet. I still feel like my exact feelings aren't well represented. Maybe it is because I am used to boards exclusively for mothers, and not mixed groups. Regardless, it shouldn't be a taboo subject. I bet everyone can learn something.
Maybe even the single men can learn something about women and families. Maybe they already have.
-
I was sharing my feelings, I never once referenced you. You have personalized my words and applied them to yourself. If you know you are joyful and obedient, why be defensive? Why are you so bothered by me sharing my opinion? It is the one thing I feel like I have really figured out and you just keep blasting everything I say. I wish we could discuss this differently. It is hard for me to be open minded when you instead of giving good reasons why my view is flawed, you take it as an attack on yourself. That isn't productive, but I'd love if you could be more specific so I can learn.
You don't have to say my name. It's implied by statements like "This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this." Then when I say we aren't nauseated by the ideals you express just the attitude that you know better than anyone else, you switch it again to us being nauseated by the ideals. It's a shifty and terribly annoying little word game.
When discussing why a man should not pick up a dish your reply is "why can't you welcome him?" and going on and on about other things as if a husband doing a dish means the wife (me, as it's my example) is not obedient or submissive or joyful etc... Let's not insult the intelligence here. There are ways in which you manage to imply these things in every post you make.
-
I'm with Belloc. How about locking this thread now, please? 109 pages is much too long.
-
I did not say your ideas were imaginary. I said the world in which you believe you and you alone are anti-feminist is imaginary.
I don't believe that at all. There are lots of women who feel this way.
Right. But the actual ladies you're discussing with, you believe it of them. That's the point. Within this little circle of those discussing, only you are anti-feminist.
-
Truly anti-feminist women are rare. This is the sad realization of my life.
-
When discussing why a man should not pick up a dish your reply is "why can't you welcome him?" and going on and on about other things as if a husband doing a dish means the wife (me, as it's my example) is not obedient or submissive or joyful etc... Let's not insult the intelligence here. There are ways in which you manage to imply these things in every post you make.
You just completely made that up. I said stuff that stated or implied my feelings on being a good Catholic wife in my very first posts here, long before I knew how anyone would respond to it. It took me awhile before I even realized my views were extreme here.
I've said these things in far less receptive environments too. I state my feelings, as is, responding to the topic at hand. You turn everything into a personalized quotation. It isn't meant to be that way.
I even apply things to myself. For example, I went to college, but I think college for women is a bad idea.
Shall we agree to disagree and let it go? I'm sure we both have something domestic we could be doing. :wink:
(That's a joke...not snark...I definitely have other things I could be doing) =)
-
If my understanding is deficient, and you wish to provide me a different view, I am truly open to hearing it.
You may think you're open to it but you aren't. You have repeatedly proven that you aren't.
Everytime someone uses examples to show you how things may not always be ideal, you won't accept them. You turn it into a personal fault with them. Rather than admitting that yes maybe life throws curveballs and things aren't always ideal even if you try, and learning from the examples being put forth, it's -- well, homeschool moms do it, blogs moms do it, hey here's how you can get more organized, how hard is it to look in the mirror, nursing isn't that hard, pregnancy isn't that hard, I did it, obedience is seen as a bad word, be like Proverbs 31 etc...
It's like those dolls that you pull the string and they say a few phrases. No matter what you say to them you get the same responses. Someone who is constantly rejecting examples given and the experience of people who are there does not come across as being willing to learn.
Unless you ARE willing to learn but not from us. Then what I said about thinking you know it all (in this circle) and are here to correct us would be right. Either way, you're either willing to learn and need to show that in ways other than cheap talk or you're here to correct and might as well admit it. You can't have it both ways.
-
Extended families were basically destroyed in the first half of the 20th century. We need them back. We don't need to go back to family farms to do that.
-
When discussing why a man should not pick up a dish your reply is "why can't you welcome him?" and going on and on about other things as if a husband doing a dish means the wife (me, as it's my example) is not obedient or submissive or joyful etc... Let's not insult the intelligence here. There are ways in which you manage to imply these things in every post you make.
You just completely made that up. I said stuff that stated or implied my feelings on being a good Catholic wife in my very first posts here,
:facepalm: You just said all those things a couple posts back. Implying that those who disagree with you on dishes don't believe them.
-
Extended families were basically destroyed in the first half of the 20th century. We need them back. We don't need to go back to family farms to do that.
I agree. We are working on getting there. My parents and a few married siblings already live very near each other. They provide a huge amount of support to each other. As it stands DH and I only have each other so we do what we have to do. There are ladies around and we all help each other out for meals after a baby and such but for the everyday trials you need family around. You can't foist that on friends and good hearted strangers. We wanted to be home this year but it may be in yet another year.
-
Making enough money to support a family is very challenging these days. Employers demand far more from their employees than they used to. Most employees don't even get coffee breaks anymore and often work right through lunch, even though they are expected to do, what used to be, the work of two or three people.
Mothers don't have the support they used to get from their extended families anymore. So, they have to do everything by themselves.
At the end of the day, both of them are exhausted.
Obviously, this goes a long way in explaining the low birth rate. So, if you want a big family, you need to be a hero.
-
:chef:
-
Obviously, this goes a long way in explaining the low birth rate. So, if you want a big family, you need to be a hero.
Lol, on that note, my time is up.
-
Making enough money to support a family is very challenging these days. Employers demand far more from their employees than they used to. Most employees don't even get coffee breaks anymore and often work right through lunch, even though they are expected to do, what used to be, the work of two or three people.
Mothers don't have the support they used to get from their extended families anymore. So, they have to do everything by themselves.
At the end of the day, both of them are exhausted.
Obviously, this goes a long way in explaining the low birth rate. So, if you want a big family, you need to be a hero.
The economy is far worse for ethnic Americans than for the migrant wave:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-january-jobs-half-of-new-jobs-go-to-immigrants-96-to-hispanics
-
You may think you're open to it but you aren't. You have repeatedly proven that you aren't.
I've tried to fix our communication issue, but it isn't happening. I really wanted a friendly end, but you've made up your mind about me and short of submitting to your views, I don't think we can get anywhere. You seem angry.
I don't want to do a trad hair flip, so I'll try one more time...agree to disagree... for at least a week or so? LOL
Avoid further nauseating everyone who has been subjected into a severely mutated pajama discussion?
I think Blessed Mother would want us to just leave it be for awhile.
Agree?
-
Making enough money to support a family is very challenging these days. Employers demand far more from their employees than they used to. Most employees don't even get coffee breaks anymore and often work right through lunch, even though they are expected to do, what used to be, the work of two or three people.
Mothers don't have the support they used to get from their extended families anymore. So, they have to do everything by themselves.
At the end of the day, both of them are exhausted.
Obviously, this goes a long way in explaining the low birth rate. So, if you want a big family, you need to be a hero.
The economy is far worse for ethnic Americans than for the migrant wave:
http://www.vdare.com/articles/national-data-january-jobs-half-of-new-jobs-go-to-immigrants-96-to-hispanics
I think our leaders pander to those groups for political support, but also for practical reasons as well. White men will go to work. White women need to be lured into the work place, because they'll stay home instead. And immigrants are just like women in that regard. Blacks are not historically known for their eagerness to go to work either. :laugh1:
I think it's about keeping wages low and working conditions poor.
-
Blacks are not historically known for their eagerness to go to work either. :laugh1:
Marc you racist! :laugh1:
-
Blacks are not historically known for their eagerness to go to work either. :laugh1:
Marc you racist! :laugh1:
(http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51fASuxNHLL._BO2,204,203,200_PIsitb-sticker-arrow-click,TopRight,35,-76_AA300_SH20_OU01_.jpg) :jester:
-
Tele were you still on FE during the thread about making a sandwich? I don’t recall one single woman who just said “Yes, I would make my husband a sandwich if he told me to.” Instead there were a hundred stipulations about the words he should use, his tone of voice, etc. That’s modern ‘traditional’ marriage for you!
I think Graham's got a point!
-
you might want to start dating in very old school Hispanic or asian communities, if at that, for this is highly un-realistic and even in the most traditional Catholic homes, non-existant....
That's how it was in my family growing up, although my mother was never a particularly accomplished around the home, (she was better at caring for us and educating us children) she was traditional, and she is German American.
you are likely with this take, to be alone for a long, long time or havea wife that really, is pathological......then again, might snap and do a burning bed on you........
BTW, my wife is NO feminist, but after 17 yrs, can tell you, this quote and the rest of the post, not happening my friend.......
Don't assume that because you're in such a situation we're all in it. I agree with you though prospects for a truly traditional marriage are rapidly diminishing.
your friend noted is no indicative of all and you likely are, again, colored to see a certain outcome of him or he might be an exception......
Oh no I'm not. He had a domineering mother who trained him to it.
I'm always amazed at the mothers I see and how they behave and how it's the polar opposite of my mother's behavior - she would never act that way in a million years.
Yeah, it's like the domineering mother/wife has become an ideal/role model for women in general. Her opposite is no longer the culture's ideal mother/wife.
-
Virtually every post in here blames the indecent activity on the immodest dress and demeanor of the women.
That's not true. You're talking about one poster you were arguing about saying that. Why are you addressing this point to me when I haven't argued that?
To clarify--I am not saying every post blames women; just that virtually every post that talks about adultery or immoral behavior blames women and makes the men sound helpless...and it is more than one man, Telesphorus.
We live in a culture where there are naked women plastered everywhere. You can't get an ice cream cone, without seeing lots of pictures or real life girls in skin tight clothes. It's just everywhere. What do you expect!
Men cannot control their passions, without divine help. They are far more inclined to give into temptation, than to resist it. Yet, they live in a culture where the overwhelming majority of women think it is no big deal to stir that up in men. They almost always deny any responsibility for it. So again, what do you expect!
-
Penitent Woman, I have been following this for a long time, and I wrote the longest response, and it was vaporized, lol.
With respect, in a nutshell--your image of marriage is pretty idealized. Like my image of motherhood was--I was a principal and knew kids for 17 years...but my daughter humbled me. So marriage will probably humble some of your image,
I know someone criticized my point of view that you can't know it fully til you have been there, but I stand by that. You can empathise and advise, but it is different.
The good news is that marriage is two becoming one--a team. So you learn--my husband of 30 years loved reading to and rocking our daughter. After a long day of the rat race that gave him much pleasure. One of my best memories was him swinging her as they sang Jesus loves me awfully loud, lol.
I will shovel snow while he is at work, so he has more down time.
We all know he wants a laundry list report of our day's activities, but after a half hour of relaxing. You give you take.
I'll tell you a little secret, though...I get more done when he is out of town, lol, so I think you willl see a difference in your time.
Fo those of us who are married, it hurts to hear statements of you should or you should not do whatever. Just like I probably offend unmarrieds by saying they can't comprehend the fullness of it all.
As for your "illegitimate" daughter--as you know I work with moms who have had similar events in their life. You have repented. You have confessed. Leave it be. She is your daughter, a miracle from God. Be blessed with her. They grow up so fast--you'll be surprised. I can only hope your girl is as deeply in love with God and mom, as mine is.
-
Virtually every post in here blames the indecent activity on the immodest dress and demeanor of the women.
That's not true. You're talking about one poster you were arguing about saying that. Why are you addressing this point to me when I haven't argued that?
To clarify--I am not saying every post blames women; just that virtually every post that talks about adultery or immoral behavior blames women and makes the men sound helpless...and it is more than one man, Telesphorus.
We live in a culture where there are naked women plastered everywhere. You can't get an ice cream cone, without seeing lots of pictures or real life girls in skin tight clothes. It's just everywhere. What do you expect!
Men cannot control their passions, without divine help. They are far more inclined to give into temptation, than to resist it. Yet, they live in a culture where the overwhelming majority of women think it is no big deal to stir that up in men. They almost always deny any responsibility for it. So again, what do you expect!
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
-
Extended families were basically destroyed in the first half of the 20th century. We need them back. We don't need to go back to family farms to do that.
We had no farms, but I grew up with 4 grandparents and 4 great grandparents within three blocks of my home. My daughter grew up within a mile of all grandparents two great grandparents five aunts and uncles...you don't need the farm to continue that extending, fortunately.
-
Virtually every post in here blames the indecent activity on the immodest dress and demeanor of the women.
That's not true. You're talking about one poster you were arguing about saying that. Why are you addressing this point to me when I haven't argued that?
To clarify--I am not saying every post blames women; just that virtually every post that talks about adultery or immoral behavior blames women and makes the men sound helpless...and it is more than one man, Telesphorus.
We live in a culture where there are naked women plastered everywhere. You can't get an ice cream cone, without seeing lots of pictures or real life girls in skin tight clothes. It's just everywhere. What do you expect!
Men cannot control their passions, without divine help. They are far more inclined to give into temptation, than to resist it. Yet, they live in a culture where the overwhelming majority of women think it is no big deal to stir that up in men. They almost always deny any responsibility for it. So again, what do you expect!
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
Nevertheless.
-
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
Of course there are two sides to the same coin. One could also say women need to grow up and get out of this anti-male behavior.
-
Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me. I'm sorry your original one was eaten.
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent. If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea. I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.
If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models. It's sad. Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library. Immodesty is an accepted norm. I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.
When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me. I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment. :facepalm:
He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it. While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement. I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity. It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.
I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it" sin can be as simple as an impure thought. I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.
-
Extended families were basically destroyed in the first half of the 20th century. We need them back. We don't need to go back to family farms to do that.
We had no farms, but I grew up with 4 grandparents and 4 great grandparents within three blocks of my home. My daughter grew up within a mile of all grandparents two great grandparents five aunts and uncles...you don't need the farm to continue that extending, fortunately.
Unfortunately, I don't think your experience is the norm anymore.
-
Besides the provocative clothing there are other situations that lead people to sin, such as dirty movies, filthy magazines, blasphemous books, romance novels, pornography, the soaps, television, the local drugstore with porn on the magazine rack and handing out condoms to teenagers, sɛҳuąƖ education in school, the school and even churches handing out condoms, Hollywood celebrating teenage pregnancy, the local videostore with porn, etc.
-
Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me. I'm sorry your original one was eaten.
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent. If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea. I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.
If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models. It's sad. Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library. Immodesty is an accepted norm. I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.
When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me. I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment. :facepalm:
He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it. While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement. I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity. It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.
I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it" sin can be as simple as an impure thought. I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.
Exactly! You don't have to act on it to sin!!!!
It's like the saying, you can't live in a sewer, without smelling like filth.
Our culture is just one big fat occassion to sin. And it shows.
-
Exactly! You don't have to act on it to sin!!!!
It's like the saying, you can't live in a sewer, without smelling like filth.
Our culture is just one big fat occassion to sin. And it shows.
Our cultural life and 'American values' requires at the least a confessional, at the most an exorcist.
-
Besides the provocative clothing there are other situations that lead people to sin, such as dirty movies, filthy magazines, blasphemous books, romance novels, pornography, the soaps, television, the local drugstore with porn on the magazine rack and handing out condoms to teenagers, sɛҳuąƖ education in school, the school and even churches handing out condoms, Hollywood celebrating teenage pregnancy, the local videostore with porn, etc.
We live in a cesspool and it profoundly effects the way people think and behave.
We should be surprised by civility :jester:
-
Exactly! You don't have to act on it to sin!!!!
It's like the saying, you can't live in a sewer, without smelling like filth.
Our culture is just one big fat occassion to sin. And it shows.
Our cultural life and 'American values' requires at the least a confessional, at the most an exorcist.
Ask Jack in the box. I think it probably needs the exorcism. Problem seems though, that we don't have a church that's strong enough to handle it. So, it seems like we're stuck in it.
-
Hunding in Die Walkuere said:
Sacred is my hearth:
sacred hold thou my house.
(He takes off his armor, and gives it to Sieglinde.)
(to Sieglinde)
Set the meal now for us!
(Sieglinde hangs the arms on the branches of the
ash tree, fetches food and drink from the storeroom,
and prepares supper.)
Hunding is not supposed to be a sympathetic character, Tele... Not that Wagner's opinions mean much.
That's not the point. Watch the end of The Quiet Man.
In just a couple generations we've gone to the man of the house being expected to supplicate for his wife to do her duty.
As if he doesn't walk on pins and needles he doesn't deserve it.
I liked that movie!
-
Disengaging from the family with football on TV or some other hobby that absorbs too much time is really a separate issue from the question of helping with domestic duties around the house.
Yeah, I'd think after work you need to decompress (gym seems ideal for that), then go home and connect with your family. Life at 70mph. :laugh1:
-
I was sharing my feelings, I never once referenced you. You have personalized my words and applied them to yourself. If you know you are joyful and obedient, why be defensive? Why are you so bothered by me sharing my opinion? It is the one thing I feel like I have really figured out and you just keep blasting everything I say. I wish we could discuss this differently. It is hard for me to be open minded when you instead of giving good reasons why my view is flawed, you take it as an attack on yourself. That isn't productive, but I'd love if you could be more specific so I can learn.
You don't have to say my name. It's implied by statements like "This isn't the first board where I've nauseated women by stating things like this." Then when I say we aren't nauseated by the ideals you express just the attitude that you know better than anyone else, you switch it again to us being nauseated by the ideals. It's a shifty and terribly annoying little word game.
When discussing why a man should not pick up a dish your reply is "why can't you welcome him?" and going on and on about other things as if a husband doing a dish means the wife (me, as it's my example) is not obedient or submissive or joyful etc... Let's not insult the intelligence here. There are ways in which you manage to imply these things in every post you make.
Who's the "we?"
-
I did not say your ideas were imaginary. I said the world in which you believe you and you alone are anti-feminist is imaginary.
I don't believe that at all. There are lots of women who feel this way.
Right. But the actual ladies you're discussing with, you believe it of them. That's the point. Within this little circle of those discussing, only you are anti-feminist.
That's not correct. They don't post a lot on this thread, but they have. Whatever girl clique you think you've got going, it is not the only game in town.
-
Ask Jack in the box. I think it probably needs the exorcism. Problem seems though, that we don't have a church that's strong enough to handle it. So, it seems like we're stuck in it.
Yeah had we truly had a moral government they'd put Disney out of business. That's one thing I can agree with the Islamic world about: they don't want anything to do with our values of feminism or our sick culture.
-
How important is it to be dressed in modest clothing at home by yourself? For example, does a person who lives alone need to worry about buying modest pajamas? Does it offend God to wear modern nighttime attire if no other human (old enough to make note of it) would ever see it?
100+ pages and I have solved my own dilemma.
(http://s.ecrater.com/stores/68492/4e096b1b612e0_68492n.jpg)
Just need a large barrel curling iron, an aerosol can of Aqua Net hairspray, and I can pull off this look. Modest, retro, and in a DIY pattern. Could not ask for more.
-
Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me. I'm sorry your original one was eaten.
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent. If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea. I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.
If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models. It's sad. Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library. Immodesty is an accepted norm. I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.
When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me. I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment. :facepalm:
He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it. While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement. I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity. It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.
I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it" sin can be as simple as an impure thought. I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.
Both men and women need to be chaste and resist.
-
Extended families were basically destroyed in the first half of the 20th century. We need them back. We don't need to go back to family farms to do that.
We had no farms, but I grew up with 4 grandparents and 4 great grandparents within three blocks of my home. My daughter grew up within a mile of all grandparents two great grandparents five aunts and uncles...you don't need the farm to continue that extending, fortunately.
Unfortunately, I don't think your experience is the norm anymore.
It is a norm for about a third of the people in the area in which I live, and everyone knows your name--a good way to keep behavior in check,
-
Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me. I'm sorry your original one was eaten.
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent. If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea. I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.
If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models. It's sad. Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library. Immodesty is an accepted norm. I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.
When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me. I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment. :facepalm:
He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it. While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement. I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity. It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.
I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it" sin can be as simple as an impure thought. I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.
Exactly! You don't have to act on it to sin!!!!
It's like the saying, you can't live in a sewer, without smelling like filth.
Our culture is just one big fat occassion to sin. And it shows.
But we can resist sinful thoughts with the help of the saints...and yes, we must resist the culture...communities can fight.
-
Penitent Woman--I am hoping you can comment on the othe part of my longer post--do you think you might have an idealized view?? I think all women do before marriage.
-
Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me. I'm sorry your original one was eaten.
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent. If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea. I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.
If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models. It's sad. Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library. Immodesty is an accepted norm. I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.
When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me. I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment. :facepalm:
He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it. While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement. I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity. It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.
I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it" sin can be as simple as an impure thought. I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.
Both men and women need to be chaste and resist.
The point was that for man to resist impure thoughts, when constantly bombarded with impure images, is a major challenge and isn't necessarily a matter of growing up. Do you not agree that the one who serves the poison is sinning herself BECAUSE she creates a strong occasion of sin for another? I'm certain she has to answer to the Lord for not just her own sins, but at least partially for any he commits as a result.
-
Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me. I'm sorry your original one was eaten.
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent. If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea. I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.
If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models. It's sad. Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library. Immodesty is an accepted norm. I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.
When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me. I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment. :facepalm:
He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it. While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement. I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity. It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.
I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it" sin can be as simple as an impure thought. I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.
Both men and women need to be chaste and resist.
The point was that for man to resist impure thoughts, when constantly bombarded with impure images, is a major challenge and isn't necessarily a matter of growing up. Do you not agree that the one who serves the poison is sinning herself BECAUSE she creates a strong occasion of sin for another? I'm certain she has to answer to the Lord for not just her own sins, but at least partially for any he commits as a result.
I am saying that the men who say her dress made me do it and blame the woman need to look at themselves.
-
Penitent Woman--I am hoping you can comment on the othe part of my longer post--do you think you might have an idealized view?? I think all women do before marriage.
I may have an idealized view, but it mostly pertains to how I would like myself to be, and how I really think I can be. I try not to spend much time imagining how exactly a spouse would be in a marriage, because I don't want to fall in love with an idea. I want to fall in love with a person.
Of course, if you meet someone and you think about them a lot, it is hard not to imagine how life could be. I think that is pretty normal.
I don't expect a perfect marriage, but I expect a lot from myself in a marriage. I know that any man that marries me will deserve the absolute best. To be able to love my daughter as his own is asking something really huge. I know what a sacrifice that would be for a traditional man who values purity and a traditional family. I'm lucky, in a way, that the Lord has blessed me to be domestic, and girly, and to desire a big family and to enjoy serving others. If I struggled with those things, I would probably have no chance at all.
-
PW, I asked you a specific question, twice, & you posted a full page essay saying nothing that we don't already know & even agree on & yet managed to not answer yet again. How do you feel about the guys that support you that attack the women & call them names? Do you support that?
Tele, you didn't answer either. Please explain how the wife is to 'serve him as the master of the house'? Let's assume that the house is neat & clean, the kids well mannered & glad to see their dad come home from work & she has a nice supper ready with chocolate cake made from a recipe that she got from his mother. She is heavy with child #12 & a bit tired but greets him with a big smile, hug & a kiss. Now go on from there --- How's she to serve him? Let's say this is you & a wife if you like so you can tell me what it SHOULD be like, not like how you see other people around you.
Mater didn't answer either. What's up with people telling about ONE family out of a million, old movies, FE, other's actions & theories, etc., yet when asked a specific question directed to them they continue to post about everything but answer a direct question?
-
Thorn, I'm sorry you felt attacked. I don't like name calling and I wish it didn't happen. Civility is important.
Is that a good enough answer? I'm not sure why I would need to call out specific men and criticize their behavior. It can publicly be known that I think everyone should avoid addressing others sinfully.
-
And you still haven't answered my question. Can you point to a single instance in which i have said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women is okay?
It is clear you are not gong to, becasue you have made no such statement, and that you lack the integrity to acknowledge what may have been nothing more than a simple mistake. In a thread this size, it would be easy to forget who said what, and I have never imputed base motives to this. But, since you seem to want to prattle on about male strength rather than demonstrating it, you can talk to yourself.
I already told you about your statement about at the end of the day the man is at fault, even though the women will wear provocative clothing to drag a man down to his base instincts, so to speak. Are you going to acknowledge Jєωιѕн women started feminism?
I understand what you said. I am asking you to point out where I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality on the part of women is okay.
Did Jєωιѕн women start feminism? Perhaps. I am hardly an expert on the subject. I am sure some of the women who started feminism, whatever that means historically, were Jєωιѕн.
-
PW - where did I ask you to call out certain men??!!! Yes, it's a good enuf answer.
-
Why does this say 228 pages all of a sudden?
-
Matthew did something. As I was about to post awhile ago the screen went blank & it said error. I lost my post. I left & when I came back the #'s were all changed & all the ignores were gone.
-
Likers & critics are all changed too.
-
So as not to add yet another topic of conversation to this thread, you can see here:
http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/CathInfo-hosting-problems
:smile:
-
You're right Thorn, I didn't notice.
Thanks Mater.
-
Loriann, first, thank you for your post to me. I'm sorry your original one was eaten.
Men need to grow up. The image of their wife and the blessed mother should be able to obviate all other things. Immoral dressing is immoral. but so is acting upon it by the guy--this post makes it sound like men are just barn animals with no control.
On this comment, I have to say I think you're over simplifying the issue. In some situations men are responsible for the company they keep and the places they frequent. If you go to a bar that you know will have servers in immodest dress, well--avoiding that establishment is good idea. I don't think that is what Marcelino is talking about though.
If you go to a shopping mall that has Aerie, Victorias Secret, or Abercrombie, you simply cannot avoid being exposed to gigantic images of nearly nude models. It's sad. Custody of the eyes is important, but would be hard for anyone to completely miss it.
There are many other situations where people can't control what they are exposed to. The park, the beach, even the library. Immodesty is an accepted norm. I was very much a "good girl" in high school and I am ashamed of the way I dressed. In my mind it was preppy and cute...in reality...not so much.
When I first really thought about modesty it was because a priest brought it up to me. I was always dressed fine for mass, but one time I had catechism class and didn't choose wisely. After the class we were talking and he presented the idea that maybe my disastrous dating history (inability to find a guy who didn't expect intimacy right away) had something to do with the type of man I was attracting in the first place. It was embarrassing and sort of offensive, but sadly I knew exactly why it was being brought up at this moment. :facepalm:
He later gave me some things to read and one of them talked about how the person who administers the poison, might actually be even more at fault than the one who drinks it. While modesty has been a process, I really did start to think about it differently right from that statement. I came to understand it even more after coming on this board and realizing that there really are guys who appreciate purity. It was a sad but important discovery. It came a little too late for me in some ways, but it is hard to have complete "regret" when you have a child.
I think the disconnect might be in the idea of "acting upon it" sin can be as simple as an impure thought. I don't envy men that have to be exposed to immodesty against their will all.the.time. and then have to keep from impure thoughts.
Both men and women need to be chaste and resist.
The point was that for man to resist impure thoughts, when constantly bombarded with impure images, is a major challenge and isn't necessarily a matter of growing up. Do you not agree that the one who serves the poison is sinning herself BECAUSE she creates a strong occasion of sin for another? I'm certain she has to answer to the Lord for not just her own sins, but at least partially for any he commits as a result.
I am saying that the men who say her dress made me do it and blame the woman need to look at themselves.
It isn't "all or nothing."
-
Awww, nobody picked up on my full circle pajama post.
This is the thread that never ends... it just goes on and on my friends...
-
And you still haven't answered my question. Can you point to a single instance in which i have said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality by women is okay?
It is clear you are not gong to, becasue you have made no such statement, and that you lack the integrity to acknowledge what may have been nothing more than a simple mistake. In a thread this size, it would be easy to forget who said what, and I have never imputed base motives to this. But, since you seem to want to prattle on about male strength rather than demonstrating it, you can talk to yourself.
I already told you about your statement about at the end of the day the man is at fault, even though the women will wear provocative clothing to drag a man down to his base instincts, so to speak. Are you going to acknowledge Jєωιѕн women started feminism?
I understand what you said. I am asking you to point out where I said that sɛҳuąƖ immorality on the part of women is okay.
Did Jєωιѕн women start feminism? Perhaps. I am hardly an expert on the subject. I am sure some of the women who started feminism, whatever that means historically, were Jєωιѕн.
Apparently, jews have always been at the vanguard of revolution in western civilization, at least for the last 2000 years or so. :laugh1:
-
Several days ago, I again rebuked Thorn because she continued bullying the young Catholic girl, PW.
Thorn has not heeded my rebuke.
Thorn has also been trying to persuade the members of CathInfo that Our Lady of Fatima could be an apparition of the devil.
That is a wicked thing for Thorn to do.
In the last three or four days, Thorn has made another NINE posts bullying the young Catholic girl, PW.
This has spilled onto yet another thread.
This has to stop.
I have no wish to continually confront Thorn over this issue.
But I will not sit back and watch a young lady who joined CathInfo to find out about traditional Catholicism be bullied until she has to leave the forum.
Only Thorn can stop this.
If Thorn stops bullying the young Catholic lady, PW, then I can stop having to publicly explain Thorn’s motives.
Every time Thorn bullies PW, I will be ready to respond.
So it is in Thorn’s best interests to stop bullying this young lady.
Only Thorn can stop this.
In just the last three or four days, Thorn has bullied PW with the following comments:
PW, you said that the term 'illegitimate child' was very hurtful to you. No one is using that term now, out of respect I would image, & now you're calling her that??!!! Something is not right here. Usually mothers don't talk that way, but I guess this is a forum so that's different?
Mothers generally don't make sad jokes about their children, even when they can't hear or understand it. But you just did call her that!!!! What do you mean 'you don't do that'? …
Something's not right here. Am I being PUNK'D?
Are you 'screwing up' to garner more attention &/or sympathy? Just a thought.
PW, did you understand what I posted to you? Do you understand my consternation in what you had posted about your daughter?
Do you support the guys supporting you in that manner by being rude & ugly to the women? Does that make you feel good that they support you in that way? I'm truly wondering & asking in all sincerity. Honest.
OK, PW, I see the point of the 'sad irony'. It was just such an 'in your face' statement after a period of calmness as to be a bit shocking to see. But my question to you is, "DO YOU SUPPORT THE WAY THE GUYS ACT IN SUPPORT OF YOU?" That is, in calling women vile names & attacking them? How come you can screw up by saying something that doesn't sound quite right & it's all sweetness & light towards you, but when I respond with a civil statement & question I get viciously attacked?
Mater, so you think the men's responses are perfectly normal & on the same plane as my post??! Why should I have to 'go behind the scene' & PM her to respond? My guess is that she gets a ton of PMs & mostly from the guys. I don't wish to 'get intimate' with her with PMs, thank you....
PW - so you think that I'm bullying you?
Mater - I don't mind 'public input' ...
PW - what is the 'that' in your statement "...then I wouldn't expect THAT to continue". You think you're being bullied here? If you are in a learning mode or role now, why do you want to share your views about trad life? Don't you think (as you yourself posted) that at this point it would be better for you not to post much? ...
you still managed to dance around the mulberry tree & didn't answer my question. Care to now? "How do you feel about the way the guys act in supporting you by attacking the women by calling them names?"
Tele - can you say chauvanism? ...
PW, I asked you a specific question, twice, & you posted a full page essay saying nothing that we don't already know & even agree on & yet managed to not answer yet again. How do you feel about the guys that support you that attack the women & call them names? Do you support that?
Tele, you didn't answer either. Please explain how the wife is to 'serve him as the master of the house'? Let's assume that the house is neat & clean, the kids well mannered & glad to see their dad come home from work & she has a nice supper ready with chocolate cake made from a recipe that she got from his mother. She is heavy with child #12 & a bit tired but greets him with a big smile, hug & a kiss. Now go on from there --- How's she to serve him? Let's say this is you & a wife if you like so you can tell me what it SHOULD be like, not like how you see other people around you.
Mater didn't answer either. ...
PW - where did I ask you to call out certain men??!!!...
If you didn't want the ATTENTION, PW, why did you post on a PUBLIC forum? …
This must stop.
Thorn’s amazing cruelty to this poor young lady must end.
Thorn is an astonishingly vindictive old woman.
PW has had several Feminist critics here.
More than one of these are not happily married women.
That is a very big reason why they have been bullying this young lady, PW.
Thorn is an ex-nun who has left the convent.
That is scandal enough. But Thorn somehow combines that with being divorced.
Thorn is a divorced ex-nun, which explains exactly why she is so bitter and sadistic towards this young girl.
Some divorced women try to get on with their lives.
Many divorced women spend years sadistically taking their bitterness out on others.
Thorn is clearly in that group.
Thorn admits that she chose her user name because she is a Thorn in the side of other people.
So Thorn even has a sadistic reason for choosing her user name.
Being a Thorn in the side of other traditional Catholics is the wrong reason for posting on a traditional Catholic forum.
-
Other people have criticised Thorn's continued bullying of PW:
Thorn you're really obsessed with PW and "the guys' responses." Had the women not been so insulting to the men on here perhaps it wouldn't have gotten this personal. So it's funny that when "the girls" get personal by calling the guys strange and abnormal that's okay but when "the guys" do it suddenly it's an insult and all the women on here call foul…
Yes, exactly. Well said.
Well done, Trad Guy.
PW, you said that the term 'illegitimate child' was very hurtful to you. No one is using that term now, out of respect I would image, & now you're calling her that??!!! Something is not right here. Usually mothers don't talk that way, but I guess this is a forum so that's different?
It's all about the context, Thorn. The statement can be true and yet hard to "swallow" when said by someone else. And so, a kind remark from another wouldn't include the phrase unless it was necessary to do so.
She's obviously not going to be offended by stating the fact herself. In this case, to dramatically show the disparity between her situation and the ideals mentioned in the sermon, the phrase was a useful tool and softening it would not been as effective in expressing her thoughts.
As the person referred to cannot read, I'm sure she won't be offended.
PS. If you didn't want public input, a PM would have been a better choice. :smirk:
Dear Mater, thank you for saying that. It needed to be said. And you said it.
Thank you, Mater.
Stop with your fake outrage already. It's clear you're just trying to bully her. You and the rest of your Frankfurtian Marxoid cultists.
There's nothing honest or sincere about you. You're just an obnoxious and aggressive Feminist bully.
For the sake of the world and its salvation, I can't wait until old Feminists like you finally die so you can stop corrupting younger women.
Very good, forthright words.
You spoke well, PaxRomanum.
These three posters have all spoken well.
-
I do not wish to continue this argument.
I have suggested to PW that she uses the ignore button for Thorn.
Then Thorn’s sinful, sadistic comments will no longer upset PW.
And when Thorn bullies PW, I can respond instead.
If Thorn stops bullying this young lady, then I will be able to stop publicly rebuking Thorn for it.
Only Thorn can end this.
Thorn is bullying PW, because Thorn is a sadistic, divorced ex-nun.
Because Thorn is divorced, she is taking her spite out on the young Catholic lady, PW.
-
This thread proves some very important points:
Feminists bully good Catholic women.
Because Feminism is anti-Catholic, and Feminism is from the devil.
-
I don't believe Tiffany is a feminist. I think there's just tension on the board, and it's best to let this thread die down.
-
Dear God- dba SedeCatholic: I say this because I see you're reading minds again by "explaining Thorn's motives". Grand of you.
No one is bullying PW.
You are bullying me.
PW didn't answer when I asked her outright if she was being bullied.
I took that to mean that she wasn't.
It took 3 tries to get an answer from her about the bullying directed at me.
Her non-answer answer was "If I FELT like I was...., all should be acting civilly."
It doesn't matter how I FELT. Was I or wasn't I being attacked by her supporters?
She's a master at seeming to answer a question by really not.
Yes, Sede, I've been a thorn in the side of a few politicians, priests, nuns, newspaper & magazine editors- both secular & religious, teachers & school board members, among others. I've had my share of victories, too.
It's a dirty (& mostly thankless) job, but somebody's got to do it. Better to be pricked in this life than in the next. Maybe God was pleased with my offer to give my life in the cloister, but wanted me in the world instead, to be a thorn in the side of some people who need a poke or 2. I know. It hurts, but sometimes truth hurts & is good for you. Also I'm an equal opportunity thorn.
Now, Sede, since you know sooo much, I have a question for you. Let me give you the scenerio first. btw - I really, really do want an answer, please.
A girl is raised a trad Catholic & her parents sheltered her while she was growing up. No TV in the home till hi school or thereabouts & no sitting for hrs in front of it. Rarely went to movies & those were carefully chosen. Now the next part you're not going to agree with so please don't focus on that in order to answer the question. For various reasons, she did go out in the world (that's the part you're not going to like but try to understand that there were reasons) but was still a bit sheltered as she was an elementary teacher surronded by kids & older women. She didn't have much of a social life as she poured herself into her work, & there was plenty of it! All her parents, aunts & uncles & everyone she had ever associated with were good decent people. There was never any drama. She met a man who could charm the feathers off a goose & she was the goose. She was naive & thought," why would he lie to me? He says he loves me so why would anyone that loved me lie?
They married. After several children, it became clear that he wasn't quite what he had portrayed himself. She denied him nothing, was fit even after several children, made some of the children's clothes & even some of her dresses, kept the house neat & clean, taught the children (who were always quiet & respectful),
etc., etc., . He was a cop & worked nites. He was stressed & passed over for promotions. He couldn't very well take out his frustrations on the captain so he would come home & take it out on her. She honestly tried everything. If she tried to comfort him, he'd fling her away, If she then tried to lighten the mood the next time it happened, he accused her of making light of a serious situation. etc. His moods got darker & darker. She was greatly concerned. He pulled a gun a her. One nite he threw her out of the house. On & on. She sought advice.
She left him (to make a looong story short.) & went into hiding. She got a divorce & spent the rest of her life caring for the children & working nites so she could be home during the day. She never dated & never married. He went on to marry 3 more times & all 3 ended in divorce. She & the lawyer who handled the divorce believed that he was indeed dangerous & could kill her & the kids & then probably kill himself if she stayed. Years later she got his psych report & it indeed was scary. The children grew up to be all happy, healthy productive human beings. To this day she believes that she did the right thing by leaving.
Now for the question: Are you posting that the Catholic Church would have required her to stay with him?
-
Thorn is prolonging this.
I would like this to end.
Thorn is preventing that by her foul, cruel tormenting of this young lady.
Thorn has made TEN POSTS bullying PW in just a few days.
Thorn has just made yet another post bullying PW.
PW didn't answer when I asked her outright if she was being bullied.
I took that to mean that she wasn't.
What a depraved comment.
Thorn and those cruel Feminists frightened PW into silence. PW hardly posts here now.
Then Thorn claims that silence means she has not bullied PW.
Anyone who has read Thorn’s endless posts against PW can see that they are full of cruelty and wickedness.
It took 3 tries to get an answer from her about the bullying directed at me.
Her non-answer answer was "If I FELT like I was...., all should be acting civilly."
It doesn't matter how I FELT. Was I or wasn't I being attacked by her supporters?
She's a master at seeming to answer a question by really not.
Thorn continually persecutes PW with a vast list of questions and insults.
Thorn has no authority to endlessly question this young lady.
Thorn also blasphemed in her bitter, bitter post.
Blasphemy is very sinful.
Thorn has evilly claimed that she is being bullied.
Thorn is a liar. No one has bullied Thorn here.
Many men, and some women, have rebuked Thorn for her bullying of PW.
The men of this forum have simply stuck up for a poor young girl being persecuted by a sadist.
Thorn has now made TEN POSTS bullying PW in just a few days.
Thorn started this whole wicked, cruel tirade of bullying against PW on 6 July and 7 July.
Then other vindictive women joined in.
In has gone on for over TWO MONTHS.
This is utterly disgusting.
Only Thorn can stop this, Thorn.
I have no wish to quarrel with her.
Thorn denies bullying PenitentWoman.
Thorn’s bullying of PenitentWoman is very cruel and viscious, and is apparent to anyone of good will.
I have advised PW to use the ignore button to ignore Thorn.
So Thorn’s sadistic, cruel tirade will just be a waste of breath.
I hope that Thorn will choose to leave PW alone.
Then I can stop rebuking Thorn.
-
Thorn, whenever you pick on PenitentWoman, I intend to be ready to publicly rebuke you.
I will not let you bully her, so all you can do now is damage your own reputation even further.
You posted some nonsense about your divorce, and asked me to comment on it.
I have no interest in your farcical private life.
Especially not in your highly unreliable, untrustworthy version of what happened.
Your own account of your own divorce is obviously going to be very untrustworthy.
The only relevance that your divorce has to this, is that it explains your astonishing level of bitterness and sadism towards this young girl.
My concern here is with your cruelty.
Thorn, you cannot win this.
You are going to leave PenitentWoman alone.
So I suggest that you simply accept that reality.
Whenever you sink your claws into her, expect a public rebuke from me.
It will be a source of shame to you.
Then, like the Pavlov dog thing, you will gradually realize that bullying PW causes you more suffering than it causes her.
Simply end this, Thorn.
I have no wish to quarrel with you.
But you are going to leave this young Catholic lady alone.
So do it voluntarily.
That is best for you.
But if your love of sadism is too strong for you to give up the bullying, then I will feel free to criticize you.
There is a simple solution to this, Thorn.
Never speak to PW again.
Never criticize PW again.
Then this stops.
Thorn, it is up to you. The decision is yours.
-
There you go - reading minds again! Where did I say that that scenerio was about me? Sorry, I should have been clearer. Let's call her Jane Doe. Now will you answer the question? Take me out of the picture. Thanks.
-
Thorn, I have no interest in your unreliable version of what happened in your divorce.
I did not even read all that lengthy, selfish rambling of yours.
I cannot be bothered commenting on it.
My concern here is to stop your cruelty to PW.
Thorn, your divorce is only relevant to that in so far as it explains why you are so embittered and malignant.
-
OK no problem if you can't answer.
You're quite the piece of work, I must say.
-
232 pages! Is this a forum record?
-
Sede, your posts are as 'entertaining' & repetitive as when you were on as Mel Fan.
guitarplucker - the thread really isn't that long. Matthew changed the settings & also only has 5 posts on a page where there used to be 10. It was in the 100's when it changed. But yes, it is a lengthy thread. Don't worry I'll be soon finished with this clown who thinks he can read minds. It was too hot to work today so I entertained myself with CI.
-
Thorn said:
Thorn also blasphemed in her bitter, bitter post.
Blasphemy is very sinful.
Where did she do that?
-
A down thumb for just asking a question? Really?
-
Thorn said:
Thorn also blasphemed in her bitter, bitter post.
Blasphemy is very sinful.
Where did she do that?
Raoul, Thorn blasphemed in the first line of her post which just precedes my post which you have quoted.
-
I want to actually answer the question raised at the beginning of this thread.
It is important to always dress modestly, even when we are alone.
Secondly, women should wear long night clothes that completely cover their legs and their ankles.
Women should definitely not wear pyjama trousers, or any other kind of trousers.
Thirdly, shorts are a sinful garment for women to wear because they are primarily a male garment.
Also, they are immodest. For that reason men, women, and children should not wear shorts.
Finally, all skirts should completely cover the ankles.
A prostitute in the nineteenth century would not have worn a skirt that showed her ankles.
Traditional Catholic women should dress more decently than prostitutes of former times.
Traditional Catholic women should always dress the way Our Lady would dress.
Our Lady of Fatima, in the twentieth century, was clothed perfectly and entirely modestly.
We can perhaps learn from this that even in our own time, women should dress as Our Lady dressed.
Perhaps that is one of the lessons that we are meant to learn from Fatima.
-
I also want to say that we have been very fortunate to have the contributions of Telesphorus on this thread.
Telesphorus understands Feminism better than anybody else that I am aware of living anywhere on earth.
I do not know anyone ANYWHERE who writes as accurately about Feminism as Telesphorus.
I know a great deal about Feminism.
After Tele, I possibly understand Feminism better than anyone else on CathInfo.
But Telesphorus understands Feminism in a way that is simply amazing.
I realize that his understanding of it exceeds my own.
If any man or any woman wants to learn the reality about Feminism, just read Telesphorus’s posts on CathInfo.
-
I also want to say that we have been very fortunate to have the contributions of Telesphorus on this thread.
Telesphorus understands Feminism better than anybody else that I am aware of living anywhere on earth.
I do not know anyone ANYWHERE who writes as accurately about Feminism as Telesphorus.
I know a great deal about Feminism.
After Tele, I possibly understand Feminism better than anyone else on CathInfo.
But Telesphorus understands Feminism in a way that is simply amazing.
I realize that his understanding of it exceeds my own.
If any man or any woman wants to learn the reality about Feminism, just read Telesphorus’s posts on CathInfo.
Thank you for the high praise Sede, but I do not think I have an understanding so much greater than others.
I do have some perspective though. It is only when one is familiar with a truly traditional minded woman that one can really have a good perspective on feminism, because you can't understand how feminism corrupts women unless you know a woman largely uncontaminated by it.
-
Feminism is the result of malformation of the conscience, so that the hardened feminist has no horror of sin.
This malformation of conscience is greatly exacerbated by systematic social engineering.
Feminism takes a woman's natural frailty and weakness, the tendency to evil which has always existed in women, and exploits it to the maximum. The conscience is strangled by ignorance, bad example, vanity, contempt, and hatred.
-
I also want to say that we have been very fortunate to have the contributions of Telesphorus on this thread.
Telesphorus understands Feminism better than anybody else that I am aware of living anywhere on earth.
I do not know anyone ANYWHERE who writes as accurately about Feminism as Telesphorus.
I know a great deal about Feminism.
After Tele, I possibly understand Feminism better than anyone else on CathInfo.
But Telesphorus understands Feminism in a way that is simply amazing.
I realize that his understanding of it exceeds my own.
If any man or any woman wants to learn the reality about Feminism, just read Telesphorus’s posts on CathInfo.
Thank you for the high praise Sede, but I do not think I have an understanding so much greater than others.
I do have some perspective though. It is only when one is familiar with a truly traditional minded woman that one can really have a good perspective on feminism, because you can't understand how feminism corrupts women unless you know a woman largely uncontaminated by it.
Dear Telesphorus,
That is very humble of you to say that.
However, you are the person who explains the evils of Feminism the best.
I do not know of anyone, living anywhere on earth, who does it as well as you.
Explaining the evil of Feminism is so important in this Apostate Age.
I commend you for it.
God Bless you, Telesphorus.
Yours, Sede Catholic.
-
Sede Catholic said:
Raoul, Thorn blasphemed in the first line of her post which just precedes my post which you have quoted.
She sarcastically compared you to God, since you act like you think you are God in certain ways. Explain to me how that's blasphemy. Do you think you can just accuse others of major sins with impunity, even a child would know what she said isn't blasphemy.
-
It is obvious that Thorn blasphemed.
Raoul, you have a very disturbed soul.
Raoul, you joined this thread because Tele was on it.
It is just your insanity about Tele that is causing this.
For some reason you are trying to prolong this.
I am tired of this argument with Thorn.
I think that PW is tired of this argument with Thorn.
I think that most people here are tired of this argument with Thorn.
Possibly even Thorn is now tired of it.
So why, Raoul, are you POINTLESSLY keeping it going?
Why, Raoul, are you so obsessed with Tele?
Act like a man, and come back on here and answer the latter question.
-
Raoul did not more to extend this thread than you, Sede, did. Tele, Thorn, Trad Guy, Myself. SS and Sigi and a few others, too--I am new here but clearly there are some past issues among some of you.
But Sede I say this--to level charges of blasphemy--that is quite serious and should not be just dropped like a bomb. The accused should have the opportunity to be defended, and leveling such a charge requires explanation.
-
I gave an explanation.
Loriann, you jumped into CathInfo and spouted weird, heterodox ideas about Saint Paul.
Your posts are a long contorted swathe of Feminist garbage.
You are not even a traditional Catholic.
I would guess you attend the Novus Ordo.
Earlier in this thread, you claimed that Matthew had insulted you about your infertility.
So you are all oversensitive and selfish about yourself.
You are overwrought when Matthew alludes to you in gentle terms.
You could have spoken out against the deplorable behaviour earlier on this thread.
But you did not. Are you only concerned with yourself?
Why suddenly find your voice now?
Loriann, what you have just posted is not true.
Thorn blasphemed, and anyone can see that.
I suggest we let this thread end here.
-
God has a sense of humor with us poor mortals, unlike some uptight people on this forum. The hubris, & the epithets being flung at people are quite disturbing.
-
I gave an explanation.
Loriann, you jumped into CathInfo and spouted weird, heterodox ideas about Saint Paul.
Your posts are a long contorted swathe of Feminist garbage.
You are not even a traditional Catholic.
I would guess you attend the Novus Ordo.
Earlier in this thread, you claimed that Matthew had insulted you about your infertility.
So you are all oversensitive and selfish about yourself.
You are overwrought when Matthew alludes to you in gentle terms.
You could have spoken out against the deplorable behaviour earlier on this thread.
But you did not. Are you only concerned with yourself?
Why suddenly find your voice now?
Loriann, what you have just posted is not true.
Thorn blasphemed, and anyone can see that.
I suggest we let this thread end here.
Others put the Pauline heterodoxy in my words, not me.
To assume one's childlessness is a choice, is an insult, when it is not one's choice. It just fits the femininst narrative you have.
You haven't read much if you are "guessing" I attend NO. I have been honest that this is the place where I am tryiing to learn more about Trad Catholics. I have spoken intermittently throughout this thread.
Blasphemy is a serious charge. I would not stand by and say nothing.
You are pretty pompous. You clearly have your favorites here. That is fine--just own up to it.
-
SS and Sigi and a few others, too--I am new here but clearly there are some past issues among some of you.
Actually, I've been calling for this thread to be locked for weeks. And I was accused of "hypocrisy" by wallflower in the process, for whatever reason.
I will say again that this thread is absurd and should be locked. If it's not locked, we should all just let it fizzle out. PW isn't even posting much anymore, why are we continuing this nonsense?
God has a sense of humor with us poor mortals, unlike some uptight people on this forum.
Well, I have a sense of humor, so you can't be refering to me. :dancing-banana:
-
SS and Sigi and a few others, too--I am new here but clearly there are some past issues among some of you.
Actually, I've been calling for this thread to be locked for weeks. And I was accused of "hypocrisy" by wallflower in the process, for whatever reason.
I will say again that this thread is absurd and should be locked. If it's not locked, we should all just let it fizzle out. PW isn't even posting much anymore, why are we continuing this nonsense?
God has a sense of humor with us poor mortals, unlike some uptight people on this forum.
Well, I have a sense of humor, so you can't be refering to me. :dancing-banana:
I was debating whether to post so you were the last post, lol. My point was that one person didn't feed it alone.
Cant be me either, lol I have a dancing banana too
... :dancing-banana:
-
I have a great sense of humour, myself.
It just doesn't show here much.
I would use use that dancing banana, but people have said disturbing things about it. :jester:
-
SS, can you 'splain why the thread should be locked if people are still posting? If it's absurd, why are you here?
It's sure been a good place to see some posters true colors - & it ain't a pretty or edifying sight either. Sede can be so sweet if you agree with him, but if you don't, then watch out! All h**l will break out. Literally! He doesn't discuss, just throws ugly, untrue words at the person.
-
SS, can you 'splain why the thread should be locked if people are still posting? If it's absurd, why are you here?
Since when does people still posting in a thread mean it shouldn't be locked?
I ony responded to what you and Loriann wrote. Sometimes you focus on the insignificant.
-
Secondly, women should wear long night clothes that completely cover their legs and their ankles.
Women should definitely not wear pyjama trousers, or any other kind of trousers.
Thirdly, shorts are a sinful garment for women to wear because they are primarily a male garment.
Also, they are immodest. For that reason men, women, and children should not wear shorts.
Finally, all skirts should completely cover the ankles.
The Church does not teach this.
-
Oh, Clare, you just don't get it. If Sede said it, then it must be true & obeyed. It doesn't matter what the church teaches or doesn't teach. All that matters is what Sede dreams up, & don't you forget that!!
-
There is a lot said here that is not of church teaching, but strong opinion.
-
There is a lot said here that is not of church teaching, but strong opinion.
Two more down thumbs and I am .500!! :roll-laugh1:
-
Secondly, women should wear long night clothes that completely cover their legs and their ankles.
Women should definitely not wear pyjama trousers, or any other kind of trousers.
Thirdly, shorts are a sinful garment for women to wear because they are primarily a male garment.
Also, they are immodest. For that reason men, women, and children should not wear shorts.
Finally, all skirts should completely cover the ankles.
The Church does not teach this.
Not seen ANYTHING that states skirts have to be to the floor, have seen guidlines as to length to the knees......and NOTHING on men and shorts.....
me thinks, someone is missing Protestant-white bred, neo-Puritan Amerika.... Sede Catholic=Father Knows Best??
-
Thirdly, shorts are a sinful garment for women to wear because they are primarily a male garment.
Also, they are immodest. For that reason men, women, and children should not wear shorts.
Finally, all skirts should completely cover the ankles.
St Michael is always improperly dressed. I mean, if men's shorts are unacceptable, how much worse is this attire?
(http://www.luckymojo.com/archangel-michael.jpg)
(http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/images/stmich1.gif)
(http://www.discerninghearts.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/michael_archangel.gif)
(http://www.tldm.org/directives/St%20Michael.jpg)
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
Sede said that shorts were immodest and should be worn by no one, man, woman, or child.
Ok, he didn't mention angels!
Anyhow, the Church appears to have no objection to depicting an angel appearing as a man, dressed, what could be regarded as improperly.
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
Sede said that shorts were immodest and should be worn by no one, man, woman, or child.
Ok, he didn't mention angels!
Anyhow, the Church appears to have no objection to depicting an angel appearing as a man, dressed, what could be regarded as improperly.
Well St Michael has always been a riddle--how can an Archangel be a saint, by definition, LOL
:dancing-banana:
-
Well St Michael has always been a riddle--how can an Archangel be a saint, by definition, LOL
Saint means Holy. So you have churches dedicated to St. Saviour. It means Holy Saviour.
-
Well St Michael has always been a riddle--how can an Archangel be a saint, by definition, LOL
Saint means Holy. So you have churches dedicated to St. Saviour. It means Holy Saviour.
If you dress immodestly inside the house don't look at a mirror. :laugh1:
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
Sede said that shorts were immodest and should be worn by no one, man, woman, or child.
Ok, he didn't mention angels!
Anyhow, the Church appears to have no objection to depicting an angel appearing as a man, dressed, what could be regarded as improperly.
Well St Michael has always been a riddle--how can an Archangel be a saint, by definition, LOL
:dancing-banana:
Saints are all who are in Heaven, other than God, I believe. Technically, Saint Michael is neither male or female but a pure spirit. I think I'm right on that. But he is given a male's name and probably has appeared as a male. God is pure Spirit and He is rightly referred to always in the masculine gender as God is refferred to "Father" and "Son" and the Holy Ghost is referred to by Jesus as "He".
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
Sede said that shorts were immodest and should be worn by no one, man, woman, or child.
Ok, he didn't mention angels!
Anyhow, the Church appears to have no objection to depicting an angel appearing as a man, dressed, what could be regarded as improperly.
Angels don't really wear shorts, though.
-
Well St Michael has always been a riddle--how can an Archangel be a saint, by definition, LOL
Saint means Holy. So you have churches dedicated to St. Saviour. It means Holy Saviour.
Actually Saint means a resident soul of Heaven, known or unknown. Angels were creatures of God, created by God...dead people do not become "angels" as many say. Saint Michael is an enigma. Blame the English, lol
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
Sede said that shorts were immodest and should be worn by no one, man, woman, or child.
Ok, he didn't mention angels!
Anyhow, the Church appears to have no objection to depicting an angel appearing as a man, dressed, what could be regarded as improperly.
Angels don't really wear shorts, though.
I always wonder about angels unaware--and whether people who magically appear sometimes are angels.
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
Sede said that shorts were immodest and should be worn by no one, man, woman, or child.
Ok, he didn't mention angels!
Anyhow, the Church appears to have no objection to depicting an angel appearing as a man, dressed, what could be regarded as improperly.
Well St Michael has always been a riddle--how can an Archangel be a saint, by definition, LOL
:dancing-banana:
Saints are all who are in Heaven, other than God, I believe. Technically, Saint Michael is neither male or female but a pure spirit. I think I'm right on that. But he is given a male's name and probably has appeared as a male. God is pure Spirit and He is rightly referred to always in the masculine gender as God is refferred to "Father" and "Son" and the Holy Ghost is referred to by Jesus as "He".
1st Sphere
Seraphim, Cherubim, Thrones
2nd Sphere
Dominions, Virtues, Powers
3rd Sphere
Principalities, Archangels, Angels
El ia actually the name of God, so Gabri el means messenger of God. Micha el means One who is Like God, and he is the Arch angel, chief of them all in Hebrew tradition.
-
Perhaps the advice on this link will help people to understand the requirements of true modesty:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
-
Good to mention men's clothing too.
It could be 20 degrees out and my neighbor feels the need to stand out on his balcony shirtless.
I don't believe it's the same thing for men, we're allowed to be shirtless, we don't have breasts.
-
St. Michael's not a woman.
Sede said that shorts were immodest and should be worn by no one, man, woman, or child.
Ok, he didn't mention angels!
Anyhow, the Church appears to have no objection to depicting an angel appearing as a man, dressed, what could be regarded as improperly.
Angels don't really wear shorts, though.
Indeed.
But surely a short skirt is even less modest than shorts, and we are exposed to images of an angel appearing as a man wearing what is, basically, a short skirt.
If it's sinful for actual men to dress thus, or in shorts, then why is it ok to show images of what to all appearances looks like a man dressed the same?
(I don't think it is per se sinful, but if one were to follow Sede's rules, one would have to find it so.)
-
Perhaps the advice on this link will help people to understand the requirements of true modesty:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
Good info, but nothing against men/shorts and nowhere does it mandate womne=dress down to the floor.......we are not amish.......
-
Good to mention men's clothing too.
It could be 20 degrees out and my neighbor feels the need to stand out on his balcony shirtless.
I don't believe it's the same thing for men, we're allowed to be shirtless, we don't have breasts.
not the point, about good taste..rarely do I go shirtless and never in public, its inappropriate.....
-
Perhaps the advice on this link will help people to understand the requirements of true modesty:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
Good info, but nothing against men/shorts and nowhere does it mandate womne=dress down to the floor.......we are not amish.......
Furthermore, do any trad school uniforms follow Sede's stipulations?
Young boys wear shorts. Although I do remember a distinction being made between shorts and short trousers. Two completely different things, of course!
-
So-called trad schools are deficient if they do not promote Catholic modesty.
How angels are depicted in art is irrelevant to moral guidelines on how human beings should dress.
Angels do not wear shorts, and even if they did they would not be tempting anyone.
There is no temptation in Heaven.
On earth, shorts are immodest clothing. They are exposing the legs. They are immodest.
Also, shorts are male clothing. So shorts should not be worn by women.
A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel…
This sign was put up where Padre Pio heard Confessions:
By Padre Pio's explicit wish, women must enter the confessional wearing skirts at least 8 INCHES BELOW THE KNEE. It is forbidden to borrow longer dresses in church and to wear them to confession.
Padre Pio put up this sign:
The Church is the House of God. It is forbidden for men to enter with bare arms or in shorts. It is forbidden for women to enter in trousers, without a veil on their head, in short clothing, low necklines, sleeveless or immodest dresses.
Man himself does not escape from the inclination of exhibiting his flesh: some go in public, stripped to the waist, or in very tight pants …They thus commit offenses against the virtue of modesty. They may also be an occasion of sin (in thought or desire) for our neighbor.
How angels are depicted in art is irrelevant to moral guidelines on how human beings should dress.
That is obvious.
Skirts covering the ankles were the norm in Catholic countries before the twentieth century.
So Catholic women’s skirts should cover the ankles today.
Again, that is obvious.
Genuine Catholics have a sensus Catholicus which will inform them of these matters.
Women should follow "Marylike Standards of Modesty in Dress".
In other words, dress like Our Lady.
That is the way that good Catholic women dressed less than a hundred years ago, in many Catholic countries.
This link provides information for any Catholic women who want to know how to dress properly:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
The Marylike Standards
for Modesty in Dress
(as set down by the Vatican)
"A dress cannot be called decent which is cut deeper than two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat; which does not cover the arms at least to the elbows; and scarcely reaches a bit beyond the knees. Furthermore, dresses of transparent materials are improper."
--The Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI
1. "Marylike" means modesty without compromise -- "like Mary," Christ's pure and spotless Mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending to the wrists; and skirts reaching the ankles.
3. Marylike dresses require full and loose coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; the cut-out about the neck must not exceed "two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth around the back of the neck.
4. Marylike dresses also do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics -- laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. -- unless sufficient backing is added. Fabrics such as laces, nets, organdy may be moderately used as trimmings only.
5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.
8. Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.The standard set by the Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI (quoted above) is meant to delineate between "decent" and indecent; it would be sinful to wear clothes which "cannot be called decent." We expect that members of the Fatima Crusade, who are resolved to make reparation for the sins of the world -- especially of immodest and impurity, will do far more than the minimum. They will truly strive to imitate the Blessed Virgin Mary in the virtue of modesty. Keep this guide with you when buying clothes. Make sure that you purchase or make only garments which meet the Marylike Standards.
"Be Marylike by being modest -- be modest by being Marylike."
The whole problem of immodest clothing has been greatly exacerbated by Feminism.
Feminism is utterly satanic.
One of its vile fruits is that even some Traditional Catholic women now dress far worse than whores.
A prostitute in the nineteenth century would have dressed with a skirt covering her ankles, her front covered up to her throat, her head covered, and long sleeves.
And that is a prostitute trying to attract male clients !!!
Traditional Catholic women are obliged on pain of mortal sin to dress modestly.
Women should follow "Marylike Standards of Modesty in Dress".
In other words, dress like Our Lady.
That is the way that good Catholic women dressed less than a hundred years ago, in many Catholic countries.
This link provides information for any Catholic women who want to know how to dress properly:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
I heartily exhort everyone to read the article. It is very, very good.
Feminists loathe the true Catholic concepts about how women should dress.
Padre Pio refused to hear the Confessions of women whose skirts were not AT LEAST eight inches below the knee.
So Padre Pio knew their skirts should have been much longer than that, but less than that was so sinful that he would not hear their Confessions.
So Padre Pio would certainly have approved of women wearing skirts that cover the ankles.
-
This link provides information for any Catholic women who want to know how to dress properly:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
1. "Marylike" means modesty without compromise -- "like Mary," Christ's pure and spotless Mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending to the wrists; and skirts reaching the ankles.
3. Marylike dresses require full and loose coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; the cut-out about the neck must not exceed "two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth around the back of the neck.
4. Marylike dresses also do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics -- laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. -- unless sufficient backing is added. Fabrics such as laces, nets, organdy may be moderately used as trimmings only.
5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.
8. Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.The standard set by the Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI (quoted above) is meant to delineate between "decent" and indecent; it would be sinful to wear clothes which "cannot be called decent." We expect that members of the Fatima Crusade, who are resolved to make reparation for the sins of the world -- especially of immodest and impurity, will do far more than the minimum. They will truly strive to imitate the Blessed Virgin Mary in the virtue of modesty. Keep this guide with you when buying clothes. Make sure that you purchase or make only garments which meet the Marylike Standards.
"Be Marylike by being modest -- be modest by being Marylike."
-
:facepalm:
This skirt is similar to the ones I invested in this past spring.
(http://s7.jjill.com/is/image/JJill//713754_AOC?$xlthumb170x$)
Is that good enough?
And can I wear leggings underneath so I don't freeze to death when I am scraping snow from my windshield in a blizzard?
I know some people think this is a silly thing to worry so much about, but I am really struggling to figure it out. :sad:
I have not made many observations at church yet, but these dresses are close to what I have noticed. Not good enough, right?
(http://www.shabbyapple.com/images/Product/icon/1203.jpg)
(http://www.beautifullymodest.com/product_images/u/407/D6232%281%29-1__90116_tiny.jpg)
Please don't get mad at me if those images are offensive. :(
-
PW I wouldn't get really obsessed about it, haha.
One need not get $200 dresses to dress modestly. One can wear simple dresses in terms of modesty and be okay.
I mean modesty is good and all but first we must attack the other 'toxins' in our way of life so to speak, such as our vile culture and the sɛҳuąƖ revolution.
Also a woman can be as modest as she wants to but if she believes in the Marxian and Jєωιѕн principle of feminism then the modesty outside of the body is null.
-
On earth, shorts are immodest clothing.
One shouldn't get too much into this. Remember when doing a heavy workout shorts are NOT immodest clothing but will help you NOT get a heatstroke.
-
PW I wouldn't get really obsessed about it, haha.
One need not get $200 dresses to dress modestly. One can wear simple dresses in terms of modesty and be okay.
I mean modesty is good and all but first we must attack the other 'toxins' in our way of life so to speak, such as our vile culture and the sɛҳuąƖ revolution.
Also a woman can be as modest as she wants to but if she believes in the Marxian and Jєωιѕн principle of feminism then the modesty outside of the body is null.
I'm trying not to obbsess, but I have to build up a wardrobe and I'd rather not get it wrong.
I am very thrifty and shop consignment stores or clearance sections... those images were just examples of styles.
-
I'm trying not to obbsess, but I have to build up a wardrobe and I'd rather not get it wrong.
I am very thrifty and shop consignment stores or clearance sections... those images were just examples of styles.
Well the dress should obviously have long hemlines but that's really the only specific I can think of, as in pre-1920's hemlines, before the hemlines started to get shorter. The dress also shouldn't be fashionable or snobby but be simple and useable for housework and outdoor work.
-
I'd also like to add for 'home exercises' there are sites which sell exercise dresses.
-
Dear PW,
The first skirt nearly reaches the ankles, so a little longer and that one would be fine.
The other two skirts are not modest clothing.
Also, apart from length, women need to make sure that skirts (and also other clothing) are not "figure-hugging".
In other words, the clothing should not highlight the woman's figure, but should obscure the woman's figure.
Alls this is explained in a very clear way in the link which I provided earlier.
I advise women to print this out and take it with them when they are shopping for clothes.
Here it is again:
This link provides information for any Catholic women who want to know how to dress properly:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
1. "Marylike" means modesty without compromise -- "like Mary," Christ's pure and spotless Mother.
2. Marylike dresses have sleeves extending to the wrists; and skirts reaching the ankles.
3. Marylike dresses require full and loose coverage for the bodice, chest, shoulders, and back; the cut-out about the neck must not exceed "two fingers breadth under the pit of the throat" and a similar breadth around the back of the neck.
4. Marylike dresses also do not admit as modest coverage transparent fabrics -- laces, nets, organdy, nylons, etc. -- unless sufficient backing is added. Fabrics such as laces, nets, organdy may be moderately used as trimmings only.
5. Marylike dresses avoid the improper use of flesh-colored fabrics.
6. Marylike dresses conceal rather than reveal the figure of the wearer; they do not emphasize, unduly, parts of the body.
7. Marylike dresses provide full coverage, even after jacket, cape or stole are removed.
8. Marylike fashions are designed to conceal as much of the body as possible, rather than reveal. This would automatically eliminate such fashions as slacks, jeans, shorts, culottes, tight sweaters, sheer blouses, and sleeveless dresses; etc. The Marylike standards are a guide to instill a "sense of modesty." A girl or woman who follows these, and looks up to Mary as her ideal and model, will have no problem with modesty in dress. She will not be an occasion of sin or source of embarrassment or shame to others.The standard set by the Cardinal Vicar of Pope Pius XI (quoted above) is meant to delineate between "decent" and indecent; it would be sinful to wear clothes which "cannot be called decent." We expect that members of the Fatima Crusade, who are resolved to make reparation for the sins of the world -- especially of immodest and impurity, will do far more than the minimum. They will truly strive to imitate the Blessed Virgin Mary in the virtue of modesty. Keep this guide with you when buying clothes. Make sure that you purchase or make only garments which meet the Marylike Standards.
"Be Marylike by being modest -- be modest by being Marylike."
-
:facepalm:
This skirt is similar to the ones I invested in this past spring.
(http://s7.jjill.com/is/image/JJill//713754_AOC?$xlthumb170x$)
Is that good enough?
And can I wear leggings underneath so I don't freeze to death when I am scraping snow from my windshield in a blizzard?
I know some people think this is a silly thing to worry so much about, but I am really struggling to figure it out. :sad:
I have not made many observations at church yet, but these dresses are close to what I have noticed. Not good enough, right?
(http://www.shabbyapple.com/images/Product/icon/1203.jpg)
(http://www.beautifullymodest.com/product_images/u/407/D6232%281%29-1__90116_tiny.jpg)
Please don't get mad at me if those images are offensive. :(
They all seem fine. Try not to be scrupulous.
-
Hmm I don't know why I got a downvote for saying one should wear shorts when exercising. When I run and lift weights, along with boxing, I wear jogging shorts.
-
Trad Guy, shorts are intrinsically immodest.
They are not an option for traditional Catholics.
-
Trad Guy, shorts are intrinsically immodest.
They are not an option for traditional Catholics.
So when you jog you would wear trousers in summer?
That seems very impractical to me, nevermind the fact you would lose your physical stimulus by overheating.
-
Well the dress should obviously have long hemlines but that's really the only specific I can think of, as in pre-1920's hemlines, before the hemlines started to get shorter.
I was in a musical called "Good News" that was based in the 1920's. The hemlines were ridiculous. I've always wondered if the costumes were historically accurate.
The dress also shouldn't be fashionable or snobby but be simple and useable for housework and outdoor work.
Awww yes, nothing too fancy when I am out in the barn tending to the cows in -50 windchill...lol.
I'd also like to add for 'home exercises' there are sites which sell exercise dresses.
I have an "exercise skirt" from a modest clothing company.
-
Jogging in shorts is definitely not acceptable for a traditional Catholic.
Even if we think that it causes some minor inconvenience, we have to dress modestly.
-
Tele- Thank you for your opinion. I used to love shopping, but now it gives me anxiety.
Sede- It is really hard to find the kind of clothing you describe. :(
-
Dear PW,
Do not worry.
I will find out where you can get modest clothes, and I will post about it.
-
Trad Guy, shorts are intrinsically immodest.
They are not an option for traditional Catholics.
So when you jog you would wear trousers in summer?
That seems very impractical to me, nevermind the fact you would lose your physical stimulus by overheating.
Here you go: :laugh2:
(http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/yhst-71400586895278_2161_1870298372)
-
I was in a musical called "Good News" that was based in the 1920's. The hemlines were ridiculous. I've always wondered if the costumes were historically accurate.
It was true I'm sure. The fashion of the 1920's was horrible.
-
Jogging in shorts is definitely not acceptable for a traditional Catholic.
Even if we think that it causes some minor inconvenience, we have to dress modestly.
Well I'm sorry but having an obsesssion with fine clothes seems to me an upper-class prejudice, when we should instead have an obsession about a healthy body and the cultivation of physical beauty. I like to dress very simple, considering I am a working-class man, and no simple does not mean sloven dress. Now usually I will wear trousers and jeans EXCEPT when exercising. I also don't wear suits either except for Sunday Mass when it is a simple two-button suit. Trust me I'm the 'low-life' there at my Church with everyone wearing fedoras, double-breasted suits, and trench coats, as if I came into a 1930's press conference.
-
...
They all seem fine. Try not to be scrupulous.
Dear Tele,
Padre Pio insisted that women's skirts must be: "...at least eight inches below the knee."
Padre Pio wanted women to wear longer skirts than that.
But eight inches was the very minimum length below the knee that he would tolerate women to wear.
Padre Pio was not being scrupulous.
Those skirts are only knee-length.
Therefore, they are sinful.
-
Sede, we have to distinguish between what is best and what is sinful.
PW's best bet is to search catalogues that specialize in "modest" apparel, and to contact young seamstresses who specialize in making modest clothes.
-
The point is that Padre Pio believed it to be a sin for women to wear skirts shorter than eight inches below the knee.
PW seems the type of lady who would rather not compromise.
I am actually going to find out where such clothes can be bought.
Tele, that is an excellent idea of yours about finding a seamstress who specializes in making modest clothes.
-
Jogging in shorts is definitely not acceptable for a traditional Catholic.
Even if we think that it causes some minor inconvenience, we have to dress modestly.
Well I'm sorry but having an obsesssion with fine clothes seems to me an upper-class prejudice, when we should instead have an obsession about a healthy body and the cultivation of physical beauty. I like to dress very simple, considering I am a working-class man, and no simple does not mean sloven dress. Now usually I will wear trousers and jeans EXCEPT when exercising. I also don't wear suits either except for Sunday Mass when it is a simple two-button suit. Trust me I'm the 'low-life' there at my Church with everyone wearing fedoras, double-breasted suits, and trench coats, as if I came into a 1930's press conference.
Trad Guy, it is not about fine clothes. It is about modest clothes.
Also, we should not have an obsession about a healthy body.
And we should definitely not have an obsession about the cultivation of physical beauty.
We really should not be deliberately cultivating physical beauty.
-
I should not have touched this thread with a 10 foot pole. I'm sorry.
Scruples over clothing creates an occasion of sin for vanity for me, so I will bring it to prayer.
I don't want to compromise, but I also have to not look so different that my employers worry I've joined a cult or my mother has me institionalized.
I'm teaching myself to sew, but making your own clothing can be very expensive compared to thrift stores or even good sales at department stores. Fabric is expensive.
My only remaining question is about the leggings. This is for my daughter too, because long baby dresses are usually not much past the knee.
-
Trad Guy, I cannot think of a single Saint who deliberately cultivated physical beauty.
The Catholic Faith requires modesty, not beauty.
-
What about stockings for your baby, PW?
They should not be see-through or flesh-coloured.
The Vatican once condemned flesh-coloured stockings, if I recall accurately what I have read.
-
PW, I will find out where ladies can obtain modest clothes, and I will post about it on CathInfo.
-
Pope Pius XI condemned the sin of women wearing pants.
I think that Pope Pius XI's condemnation of women wearing pants was in A.D. 1929, or shortly after.
-
No need to find a seamstress Sede and Tele. PW has apparel sewing skills, she mentioned before she is skilled in repurposing clothing.
-
So-called trad schools are deficient if they do not promote Catholic modesty.
How angels are depicted in art is irrelevant to moral guidelines on how human beings should dress.
Angels do not wear shorts, and even if they did they would not be tempting anyone.
There is no temptation in Heaven.
But we are on earth, and these artworks are displayed on earth to be viewed by us human beings.
On earth, shorts are immodest clothing. They are exposing the legs. They are immodest.
Then St Michael the Archangel is being depicted as an immodestly dressed man exposing his legs.
Also, shorts are male clothing. So shorts should not be worn by women.
If they shouldn't be worn by men, they are not male clothing either!
A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel…
And it does not identify trousers as male apparel. Male and female apparel back then were more similar than they became when men started wearing trousers.
How angels are depicted in art is irrelevant to moral guidelines on how human beings should dress.
That is obvious.
If exposing legs is an occasion of sin, then it matters not whether the individual depicted is human or a humanoid angel surely.
Skirts covering the ankles were the norm in Catholic countries before the twentieth century.
So Catholic women’s skirts should cover the ankles today.
Again, that is obvious.
You are demanding more than the Church does.
-
Also a woman can be as modest as she wants to but if she believes in the Marxian and Jєωιѕн principle of feminism then the modesty outside of the body is null.
I agree. It would be as how Our Lord anathematized the Scribes and Pharisees: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness" (S. Matt. cap. xxiii., 27).
However, I have never met a woman who dresses modestly and yet subscribes to Marxist and feminist ideologies. Such a thing would be as rare as the dodo bird.
Ineluctably, just as belief determines behavior, so behavior (particularly when repeated to the point of habit) influences belief.
I have met young women who are of "conservative" Protestant sects who do dress modestly, but they do not espouse feminist notions. Perhaps on account of this they dress modestly. However, since they do not have Our Lady as exemplar and patroness, some of these young women do not always persevere in modesty of dress or comportment, as the pernicious influence of the world and the concupiscence of the flesh compel them to abandon wholesome habits of dress.
This is the most important thing for Catholics (both women and men, boys and girls) to remember: an earnest and generous devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary will inevitably lead to the self-abnegation and mortification of the senses and the will that shall enable one to be modest in both dress and comportment.
True devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary ---> self-abnegation in all things ---> interior and exterior mortification ---> modesty in dress and comportment ---> prayerful perseverance therein : this is how it usually works in most interior souls.
-
Pope Pius XII, with the Harlem Globetrotters, and some apparently indecently dressed women, 1952:
(http://si.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-BH135_pius19_20080414134821.jpg)
-
Leave it to Clare to find a picture of the Pope with the Harlem globetrotters.
You must have watched a lot of Scooby Doo as a child.
-
Leave it to Clare to find a picture of the Pope with the Harlem globetrotters.
You must have watched a lot of Scooby Doo as a child.
Not a great deal, but a bit. Those two girls' skirts were too short, as I recall!
The photo above on the previous page is in "The Pope Speaks". There's also a nice pic of Pius XII with a little birdy in his hand.
-
PenitentWoman, I really think your best bet is to seek guidance from a Traditional priest on how to dress. They will set you in right direction.
-
Skirts covering the ankles were the norm in Catholic countries before the twentieth century.
So Catholic women’s skirts should cover the ankles today.
Again, that is obvious.
You are demanding more than the Church does.
Since conciliar Rome demands no true moral standards, I would hope so.
Your comments are illogical.
How an angel is depicted in religious art is irrelevant to moral theology concerning how people should attire themselves.
If they shouldn't be worn by men, they are not male clothing either!
That, too, is illogical.
Shorts were originally male clothing. They are simply immodest male clothing. Because they should not be worn by men, does not mean that they cease to be male clothing.
Pants are male clothing, irrespective of whatever irrelevancies you bring to bear to suggest otherwise.
Pope Pius XI condemned women wearing pants.
So you should have the humility to hear the Church.
If exposing legs is an occasion of sin, then it matters not whether the individual depicted is human or a humanoid angel surely.
What is depicted in religious art concerning angels in Heaven is not going to have the same effect of arousing lust, as seeing half-naked people walking around us on earth.
If exposing legs is an occasion of sin, then it matters not whether the individual depicted is human or a humanoid angel surely.
Again, you are confusing what we see in religious art, with what we encounter in our lives.
If someone sees a picture of an angel with part of the leg visible, that is not going to have the effect on him that seeing a girl wearing a miniskirt will have.
And likewise, a woman could see a picture of an angel without the same possibility of temptation as she would have in seeing a man wearing shorts.
That is obvious.
Your interjections into this thread are confusing those who are trying to learn how to dress modestly.
If you lead people into lax morality, how will you answer to God for any souls that are lost because of your actions.
Feminists detest true modesty.
Padre Pio believed that women’s skirts were sinful if they were not at least eight inches below the knee.
So he obviously would have agreed with what I have said.
Any good priest in the nineteenth century would have agreed with what I have said.
Skirts covering the ankles were the norm in Catholic countries before the twentieth century.
So Catholic women’s skirts should cover the ankles today.
Again, that is obvious.
Good Catholic women should want to dress like Our Lady.
That is the way that good Catholic women dressed less than a hundred years ago, in many Catholic countries.
This link provides information for any Catholic women who want to know how to dress properly:
http://www.salvemariaregina.info/Modesty.html
-
Leave it to Clare to find a picture of the Pope with the Harlem globetrotters....
Yes, how can someone find a picture like that?
And most of us know that that picture was HIGHLY unusual for that Pope.
-
No need to find a seamstress Sede and Tele. PW has apparel sewing skills, she mentioned before she is skilled in repurposing clothing.
You just completely made that up. I never once said that I was "skilled" in anything related to sewing. I mentioned that I had the idea to repurpose sundresses into aprons. Any other time I've mentioned sewing I have talked about how I am learning. Does it make you feel good inside to make fun of me?
Also a woman can be as modest as she wants to but if she believes in the Marxian and Jєωιѕн principle of feminism then the modesty outside of the body is null.
I agree. It would be as how Our Lord anathematized the Scribes and Pharisees: "Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you are like to whited sepulchres, which outwardly appear to men beautiful, but within are full of dead men's bones, and of all filthiness" (S. Matt. cap. xxiii., 27).
However, I have never met a woman who dresses modestly and yet subscribes to Marxist and feminist ideologies. Such a thing would be as rare as the dodo bird.
Ineluctably, just as belief determines behavior, so behavior (particularly when repeated to the point of habit) influences belief.
I have met young women who are of "conservative" Protestant sects who do dress modestly, but they do not espouse feminist notions. Perhaps on account of this they dress modestly. However, since they do not have Our Lady as exemplar and patroness, some of these young women do not always persevere in modesty of dress or comportment, as the pernicious influence of the world and the concupiscence of the flesh compel them to abandon wholesome habits of dress.
This is the most important thing for Catholics (both women and men, boys and girls) to remember: an earnest and generous devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary will inevitably lead to the self-abnegation and mortification of the senses and the will that shall enable one to be modest in both dress and comportment.
True devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary ---> self-abnegation in all things ---> interior and exterior mortification ---> modesty in dress and comportment ---> prayerful perseverance therein : this is how it usually works in most interior souls.
Hobbledehoy, this was a very nice post.
Devotion to Blessed Mother has played a major role in my understanding of the "why" of modesty. I need to keep bringing my worries and doubts to her so I can fully understand the specifics of "how." She has revealed so much about life and womanhood to me in the past year and half of praying the rosary, I know there is so much more to come. When you can feel that spiritual connection to our Lady, it gives the greatest feeling of feminine grace.
In the same way that it feels good to head cover for prayer, it feels good to dress better all around too. When you are close to Blessed Mother, you do want to be more like her. Wearing long skirts has made me feel more lady like, and that may be just as important as the modesty they offer.
-
Leave it to Clare to find a picture of the Pope with the Harlem globetrotters....
Yes, how can someone find a picture like that?
How? It was in a book I have of Pius XII quotes, and then I looked to see if it was online anywhere. Not difficult.
-
You are demanding more than the Church does.
Since conciliar Rome demands no true moral standards, I would hope so.
You are demanding more than the pre-conciliar Church did.
Shorts were originally male clothing.They are simply immodest male clothing. Because they should not be worn by men, does not mean that they cease to be male clothing.
Pants are male clothing, irrespective of whatever irrelevancies you bring to bear to suggest otherwise.
They were originally clothing that men wore first. There is no Divine Writ saying that clothes bifurcated below the waist are masculine. Men never used to wear them. It is not in revelation. It is a man-made fashion, and not divinely inspired.
Pope Pius XI condemned women wearing pants.
Specifically? Where?
What is depicted in religious art concerning angels in Heaven is not going to have the same effect of arousing lust, as seeing half-naked people walking around us on earth.
Now, there's a strawman! I'm not advocating half-naked people walking around.
Again, you are confusing what we see in religious art, with what we encounter in our lives.
If someone sees a picture of an angel with part of the leg visible, that is not going to have the effect on him that seeing a girl wearing a miniskirt will have.
And I am not advocating women wearing miniskirts. I do not think that skirts which do not cover the ankles are miniskirts.
Your interjections into this thread are confusing those who are trying to learn how to dress modestly.
I think that is what you are doing, by making out that things which are not immodest, are.
-
People can have legitimate differences over what is acceptable. There is less room for debate over what is best.
The reason we've seen this slide is because of attitudes like Clare's.
They never seriously countenance a return to old standards, and they approve the slide, in one way or another.
-
Trad Guy, I cannot think of a single Saint who deliberately cultivated physical beauty.
The Catholic Faith requires modesty, not beauty.
There were Saints who were 'beautiful' though of course.
And we are talking of a man finding a woman for marriage here and for that the cultivation of physical beauty is important for the woman and a healthy body is important for both the man and woman.
Anyway I agree that women shouldn't wear trousers.
-
Clare, do you like pants for the comfort? I don't miss jeans or slacks at all.
Ironically, Target just had soft fleece long skirts on clearance in grey and turquoise for $4.50. Too casual for a lot of things but justt as comfy as sweatpants/yoga pants. I wonder if long skirts are becoming more common because of the growing Muslim population where I live. I see a lot more head scarves too.
Spiritus, the reason I've asked here is because I just want an idea of what other women specifically wear themselves and what men view as modest when seeing a woman. Reading a list of guidelines and seeing them modeled nowhere is very frustrating. Women who grew up traditional or have been at this longer than me are used to seeing living models of modesty. I have anxiety because I need to show sincere repentance for past dress, but I cannot reasonably walk around dressed like I just stepped out of a time machine without drawing an excessive amount of attention to myself. I understand it gets annoying, I thought maybe pictures would help, but maybe I just need to trust myself. It sounds stupid, but it's important to me because of my past. I am not trying to be annoying.
-
The wearing of trousers for women comes from left-wing feminism and from the Jєωιѕн fashion industry to create a 'masculinized' image for women which is unnatural.
-
Spiritus, the reason I've asked here is because I just want an idea of what other women specifically wear themselves and what men view as modest when seeing a woman. Reading a list of guidelines and seeing them modeled nowhere is very frustrating. Women who grew up traditional or have been at this longer than me are used to seeing living models of modesty. I have anxiety because I need to show sincere repentance for past dress, but I cannot reasonably walk around dressed like I just stepped out of a time machine without drawing an excessive amount of attention to myself. I understand it gets annoying, I thought maybe pictures would help, but maybe I just need to trust myself. It sounds stupid, but it's important to me because of my past. I am not trying to be annoying.
Well, I'm not suggesting that you're being annoying, PW. I am just saying that a Traditional priest will be able to give you proper guidelines on modest dress, more-so than laypeople will be able to.
-
The wearing of trousers for women comes from left-wing feminism and from the Jєωιѕн fashion industry to create a 'masculinized' image for women which is unnatural.
As does shorter hair.
Thing is, a thing can still be objectively not sinful regardless of who encouraged it and why.
The Jews are not infallible!
-
The wearing of trousers for women comes from left-wing feminism and from the Jєωιѕн fashion industry to create a 'masculinized' image for women which is unnatural.
As does shorter hair.
Thing is, a thing can still be objectively not sinful regardless of who encouraged it and why.
The Jews are not infallible!
Actually, I have very long hair and a beard for the very reason that short hair is an innovation of freemasons and pagans.
-
The wearing of trousers for women comes from left-wing feminism and from the Jєωιѕн fashion industry to create a 'masculinized' image for women which is unnatural.
I think now, the way they are designed, the bigger problem with pants is that they are too revealing on women.
As does shorter hair.
Thing is, a thing can still be objectively not sinful regardless of who encouraged it and why.
Isn't there a biblical reference against women with short hair? Or am I just imagining that?
-
...
Isn't there a biblical reference against women with short hair? Or am I just imagining that?
Yes, PW, there is a verse from the Bible.
Women should have long hair.
Read Saint Paul: I Corinthians. 11. 15:
But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
-
Women should have long hair.
Read Saint Paul: I Corinthians. 11. 1-15:
Be ye followers of me, as I also am of Christ. Now I praise you, brethren, that in all things you are mindful of me: and keep my ordinances as I have delivered them to you. But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God. Every man praying or prophesying with his head covered, disgraceth his head. But every woman praying or prophesying with her head not covered, disgraceth her head: for it is all one as if she were shaven.
For if a woman be not covered, let her be shorn. But if it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head. The man indeed ought not to cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman, but the woman for the man. Therefore ought the woman to have a power over her head, because of the angels.
But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord. For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God. You yourselves judge: doth it become a woman, to pray unto God uncovered? Doth not even nature itself teach you, that a man indeed, if he nourish his hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman nourish her hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.
-
As does shorter hair.
Thing is, a thing can still be objectively not sinful regardless of who encouraged it and why.
The Jews are not infallible!
Who here supports short hair? I support women with long hair.
-
Actually, I have very long hair and a beard for the very reason that short hair is an innovation of freemasons and pagans.
No it just makes you look like an idiotic leftist hippie.
-
Actually, I have very long hair and a beard for the very reason that short hair is an innovation of freemasons and pagans.
No it just makes you look like an idiotic leftist hippie.
You must hate pictures of The Son of God.
Do you appreciate the work the woman did on that Fresco in Italy or Spain or wherever it was?
Christ with a flat top, clean shaven. That's the American way to look at God!
-
Christ with a flat top, clean shaven. That's the American way to look at God!
Hmm well it is well known that the leftists in the 60's were the ones with the beards and long hair while the ones on the Right were the ones who had short hair and were clean shaven.
-
Christ with a flat top, clean shaven. That's the American way to look at God!
Hmm well it is well known that the leftists in the 60's were the ones with the beards and long hair while the ones on the Right were the ones who had short hair and were clean shaven.
Because the history of the world hinges on the political fashion of the 1960's.
I seem to remember reading about how modernists in the 50's depicted Christ with a flat top, as a way of fitting him into society.
I do have long hair and a beard. Such was the fashion of Christian men, for longer than has been "traditional" to have short hair. Short hair really is an innovation of masons and is culturally pagan. Fact.
Short hair isn't evil, of course. Just to illustrate a point. Go ahead and let the thumb-downs fly, I've done my weekly posting. Back to FE.
-
Because the history of the world hinges on the political fashion of the 1960's.
I seem to remember reading about how modernists in the 50's depicted Christ with a flat top, as a way of fitting him into society.
I do have long hair and a beard. Such was the fashion of Christian men, for longer than has been "traditional" to have short hair. Short hair really is an innovation of masons and is culturally pagan. Fact.
Short hair isn't evil, of course. Just to illustrate a point. Go ahead and let the thumb-downs fly, I've done my weekly posting. Back to FE.
Long hair is pagan as well if you look at the Germanic barbarians.
And I don't thumb down anyone or ignore anyone by the way but go ahead and go back to FE if that's what you want. By the way I wasn't talking about a flat-top I was talking about 'short hair' as in a regular haircut.
-
As does shorter hair.
Thing is, a thing can still be objectively not sinful regardless of who encouraged it and why.
The Jews are not infallible!
Who here supports short hair? I support women with long hair.
Short hair on women never gets condemned as a dangerous trend, except by Protestants.
Not that I think it should be (my hair is fairly short), just that it seems strange that it doesn't get condemned.
-
Clare, do you like pants for the comfort?
Who says I "like" them? I just don't disapprove of them. Do I "like" them? I'm indifferent. As long as they're feminine and modest (which is possible), then I see nothing wrong with wearing them.
I don't miss jeans or slacks at all.
Neither do I.
I wear long skirts most of the time. One of which covers my ankles, and I keep standing on the hem when going upstairs or standing up from sitting!
I wear tracksuit trousers (with a tunic over) for physiotherapy, and I wear pyjamas at night. Apart from that I wear long skirts.
-
Clare, do you like pants for the comfort?
Who says I like them? I just don't disapprove of them. Do I "like" them? I'm indifferent. As long as they're feminine and modest (which is possible), then I see nothing wrong with wearing them.
I don't miss jeans or slacks at all.
Neither do I.
I wear long skirts most of the time. One of which covers my ankles, and I keep standing on the hem when going upstairs or standing up from sitting!
I wear tracksuit trousers (with a tunic over) for physiotherapy, and I wear pyjamas at night. Apart from that I wear long skirts.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to imply you liked them. I was just curious.
I know what you mean about stepping on the hem with really long skirts. I have a couple like that. One I bought specifically to wear with heels (another controversy) and be long enough for mass. I just don't wear that one at home.
I guess I don't know what you mean by feminine pants. If they are loose enough to be modest, wouldn't they look like something a man would wear?
-
Jogging in shorts is definitely not acceptable for a traditional Catholic. Even if we think that it causes some minor inconvenience, we have to dress modestly.
In late February (the Lenten Ember Saturday) here in central Florida, my outdoor thermometer shows 86 degrees F this afternoon in the shade (immediately before this posting); it's mounted where it receives no direct sunlight at all. In late June, all of July & August, and early September, the highs will routinely exceed 90 degrees F, accompanied by an oppressive 80--90% humidity, with waaay too little remedial cooling overnight.
Where I jogged in central California, it wasn't rare for summer midday temperatures to exceed 100 degrees F. Working as an engineer in the cubicles of high-tech companies, the midday lunch-break was my only viable time for serious exercise.
How shameful of me not to recognize that I was committing the sin of immodesty by wearing shorts, sometimes without a shirt, instead of wearing a cassock, while running in summertime on public roads to the top of 800-ft.--or much taller--foothills! The latter attire would've been so illogical that it never would've occurred to me to seriously consider it.
It appears that you're unaware that if heat exhaustion worsens to heat stroke (http://www.medicinenet.com/heat_exhaustion/article.htm), it's not merely a minor inconvenience, but a genuine medical emergency. I've experienced a mild form of it on a 100-mile bicycle ride, one for which I was underprepared by youthful bravado. Perhaps you have been spared any comparable medical experiences.
But thank you for providing me with an unintended additional answer to my occasional--albeit mostly rhetorical--religious question: "What could ever have caused me, years ago, to fall away from the Catholic Church?"
-
It appears that you're unaware that if heat exhaustion worsens to heat stroke, it's not merely a minor inconvenience, but a genuine medical emergency. I've experienced a mild form of it on a 100-mile bicycle ride, one for which I was underprepared by youthful bravado. Perhaps you have been spared any comparable medical experiences.
Is it necessary to jog in very hot weather, to take 100 mile bicycle rides in heat?
But thank you for providing me with an unintended additional answer to my occasional--albeit mostly rhetorical--religious question: "What could ever have caused me, years ago, to fall away from the Catholic Church?"
Because someone is opposed to shorts?
-
It appears that you're unaware that if heat exhaustion worsens to heat stroke (http://www.medicinenet.com/heat_exhaustion/article.htm), it's not merely a minor inconvenience, but a genuine medical emergency. I've experienced a mild form of it on a 100-mile bicycle ride, one for which I was underprepared by youthful bravado. Perhaps you have been spared any comparable medical experiences.
Were you wearing shorts during this 100 mile ride?
-
Is it necessary to jog in very hot weather, to take 100 mile bicycle rides in heat?
The practical alternative in Florida would be to hide indoors--in air conditioned comfort that guzzles electricity--for 7 months out of the year, more or less: from late March until mid October.
Thus abandoning more than half a year of low-cost opportunities not only to improve cardiovascular fitness and endurance, and to fight off counterproductive & unattractive weight-gain, but also to produce that sunlight-dependent essential vitamin D.
One might wait for days when the seasonally frequent thunderstorms cool the summer air to more refreshing temperatures, but the recent dramatic Shrove-Monday night photo of the dome of St. Peter's should be a potent reminder of the hazards of using thunderstorms as an opportunity for more comfortable outdoor exercise.
One's schedule might allow exercise before sunrise or after sunset, but that can be very hazardous, even in high-viz athletic attire, striving to push personal athletic limits while remaining alert enough to dodge inattentive morning or evening commuters.
To summarize my answer for the locations I cited: Yes.
Your mileage may vary.
-
The alternative to 100 mile bike rides in sweltering heat is to be indoors?
Obviously no one needs to risk heat stroke. That doesn't mean it's right the way people ride bicycles today. It violates decorum.
Long clothes really are not nearly the problem people make them out to be. I almost never wear shorts and seldom wear short sleeves. It's not a problem for me.
-
Jogging in shorts is definitely not acceptable for a traditional Catholic.
Even if we think that it causes some minor inconvenience, we have to dress modestly.
What an ignorant blanket statement. I can agree with this comment in regard to people (primarily females of ALL ages) who purposely, or out of incognizance due to social engineering from a decayed culture, wear shorts so small, which is unfortunately the sign of the times, the lower parts of their gluteus maximus is showing; but there are modest athletic shorts (covering well below mid-thigh or to the knee) that can be worn that serve a necessary functional purpose - ventilation, wicking perspiration, mobility, etc.
-
All shorts are immodest.
That applies to shorts worn by anyone of either sex.
If any parts of the legs are naked, there is no modesty.
That is obvious.
No Catholic prior to the twentieth century would have disputed that.
Any traditional Catholic should be able to understand that.