So the ideal Catholic man is to be a feared tyrant in his family, who chooses to be kind/gentle when it pleases him? After all, even a tyrant demands to be allowed to be nice if he FEELS like it.

I don't think that's how St. Joseph would have behaved.

Demanding respect, and NOT being your child's "friend" is one thing. Being an ogre is another.

It has nothing to do with feminism or modernism.

I guess now I see why people chose to post anonymously in the original thread. I would've done the same had I known a simple sentence from my post would be used to start a new thread and be held up to ridicule.

I'm pretty sure Telesphorus must understand how you feel about it, Charlemagne. It is wrong of Matthew to do this. By the way, Tele has the same right as anyone to post anonymously.

Besides  it seems the guy in question has been prevented from contracting into a bigamous "marriage". It's a sad story though not real appropiate example in my opinion.  

Anger needs to be controlled. I do agree with your original remark, made innocently enough.

Matthew,
A minor point, but Our Lord was angry at least twice in Scripture:

With the money lenders in the Temple.

With the Pharisees who challenged Him about healing on the Sabbath.

It seems to me that He was angry when He cursed the fig tree as well.  

No one denies this.

I think Matthew's point is that a man should be able to express his anger without losing it.

I'm pretty sure Telesphorus must understand how you feel about it, Charlemagne. It is wrong of Matthew to do this. By the way, Tele has the same right as anyone to post anonymously.

Besides  it seems the guy in question has been prevented from contracting into a bigamous "marriage". It's a sad story though not real appropiate example in my opinion.  

Anger needs to be controlled. I do agree with your original remark, made innocently enough.

Thank you Nadir.  There is obviously a lot of confusion about what is decent behavior and how Catholics are supposed to treat their neighbors.

.


It seems to me that mothers are largely responsible for how their
sons learn to control or cope with their anger.  When I have known
grown men to whine or fuss or complain, I have found that their
mothers are prone to give them comforting attention to 'calm them
down.'  Then they grow up thinking that throwing a tantrum is a
way to get what they want.  They might not even be aware
they're doing it, because it comes naturally to them.  

So too with anger.  I knew a man who went into fits of rage when
some simple thing didn't go his way.  He would place his feet apart
about 36 inches, bend his knees, put his hands on his knees,
hyperventilate, and start ROARING.

I think the cartoonist who draws Dilbert (Scott Adams) must have
known him! (Maybe he knows a close relative?)

There is no way he never did that as a child.  This was quite
repulsive to see.  A video of that would be enough to make any
woman lose interest in him in two seconds.

Another man, who was a concrete coring man, when the machines
didn't work to his expectations, would throw down an expensive
diamond blade on the ground and stomp on it.  What does he
expect to accomplish?  Certainly any woman who sees that would
have an entirely different outlook on him.  

I don't think that anger itself is such a bad thing, but rather what a
man chooses to do with it is what is important. It can be a great
motivator, but out of control it is quite unseemly.

I know a trad priest who preaches that hatred or anger, and murder
are the same thing, and that anger is forbidden by the 5th
Commandment, for when one communicates anger to someone, it
is the same thing as killing love, and since God is love, well, you
get the picture?  

I guess now I see why people chose to post anonymously in the original thread. I would've done the same had I known a simple sentence from my post would be used to start a new thread and be held up to ridicule.

RIDICULE?

Are you serious?

Now your response (above) might deserve ridicule, but I wasn't ridiculing you in the OP.

What part of

"This deserves discussion."

is ridicule?

Can't I start a decent, philosophical discussion/thread without a bunch of thin-skinned "sensitives" getting all bent out of shape about it?

Was I to assume you were ashamed of a post that you publicly made?