What do you think of women playing in professional orchestras?

Should they be doing it?

I would say it depends on whether they can play their instruments well.

All those who, among the faithful, have some talents, will find no better way to employ them for the good of Religion and the pleasure of God, than by putting them at the service of the instruction of youth, to inspire them with Christian sentiments that will preserve them from the corruption and incredulity of our times.

from "Our Duty in Times of Silent Persecution" by Rev. Fr. Pierre de Cloriviere, written during the first years of the French Revolution, and included in the most recent letter from the STAS rector

In Christ's Kingdom, older women (the married, the widows and those who are consecrated virgins) are commanded by the Apostle St. Paul to teach the younger women. The younger women (the unmarried, the youth and novices) are to receive said instruction and learn how to keep a home (where applicable) and how to devote themselves more fully to God.

I understand the good and suitable place that the arts, like orchestras, etc can occupy in the world, but there are some incontrovertible facts in play here:

1) A position in an orchestra is more often than not a PAID position, or, at the very least, a position that requires a great commitment of time and effort. Either way, a woman would have to be away from home a great deal of time, thus, by default, neglecting or putting off responsibilities that should have greater priority. It is not enough that a person attends to their duties whenever they feel they can; God gives us a hierarchy of duties and we are to fulfill those duties in their proper times.

2) As was quoted earlier, the instruction of youth is far more important than the aesthetic value of the playing of an orchestra. Teaching children is of vital importance because it was commanded by Scriptural injunction and because children need to have their prerogatives formed by obedient souls, not by upwardly-mobile go-getters who chase after the 'first chair' in some ensemble.

3) There is a DEARTH, a deadly and heartbreaking paucity, of people willing to serve THE CHURCH, IN THE CHURCH, FOR THE CHURCH'S SAKE. We have too many people running around talking about their 'apostolates' and their 'ministries', which, being divorced from an actual vocation to religious life, are nothing more than a Protestant idea. People go about saying that they have 'a ministry outside the church', or that 'their gift to God and to His people is to use their gifts in the world', which is generally a euphemism for 'I want a better-paying or more prestigious venue in which to use my talents'. Why on Earth are people who call themselves faithful Catholics not beating down the doors of their church rectory to BEG their pastor to let them serve the Body of Christ with their gifts WITHIN the context of Mass and at other important times?

Honestly... there are too many questions about what is permissible in the world and not nearly enough questions about how we can more ully devote ourselves to Our Lord. I am not trying to be a downer or seem as though I am against the arts, but these things MUST take a secondary place in comparison with the privilege of assisting our shepherds with their holy duties at Mass. Any chance we have to beautify anything should first be spent beautifying Our Lord's Houses and decorating His Altars with the love of our hearts and the gifts of our hands; after all, it is God, Our Father and the Giver of every good gift, who was pleased to bless some of us with these talents; they are His, and we should offer them to Him in thanksgiving.

St. Cecilia, pray for us.

Immaculate Heart of Mary, triumph soon.

Sacred Heart of Jesus, have mercy on us.

Quote from: Telesphorus

 And the career woman, instead of passing her talents onto her children, genetically and by educating them, .

what do you mean by geneticaly?

I mean, that talented women who have few or no children do not pass on their genetics that are responsible for their inborn talents.  It was observed 100 years ago that college educated women had much reduced fertility.  So it has the very pernicious effect of reducing the fertility of the most intelligent women, which means fewer intelligent children in the next generation.  The college education of women leads to a decline in the average intelligence of society.

Modern society has adopted the premise that wives owe their husbands nothing, and that there are no consequences for refusing to their duties.

No consequences for not having children.
No consequences for not properly educating the children (having a career, sending kids to daycare)
No consequences for not paying the marriage debt.
No consequences of infidelity.
No consequences for failing to take care of the house, for not knowing how to cook,
No consequences for being abusive of their husbands.
No consequences for making dishonest complaints to the authorities, for filing frivolous lawsuits, etc.

That's modern society, and the situation can only be rectified by giving men the leverage they had in the past.  The phony "career opportunities" for women are destroying the American economy.  Most of those "careers" are in absurd and unnecessary jobs, like retail sales, restaurants, promotions, advertising etc.

We don't need women as lawyers, and we don't need nearly as many female doctors as we have either.

Telesphorus said:  

I mean, that talented women who have few or no children do not pass on their genetics that are responsible for their inborn talents.  It was observed 100 years ago that college educated women had much reduced fertility.  So it has the very pernicious effect of reducing the fertility of the most intelligent women, which means fewer intelligent children in the next generation.  The college education of women leads to a decline in the average intelligence of society.

Tele, read that paragraph over.  Do you really think that makes sense to anyone who doesn't live in your head?  

There is a contradiction even within your own logic, in that "talented" women are not necessarily the same ones who go to college.  Nor are the girls who go to college necessarily the most intelligent.
 
Do you know how educated girls used to be in the heyday of the Church?  They were taught Latin, mathematics, and other difficult subjects.  They were rigorously taught from the time they were small children.  Even a Protestant like Elizabeth Tudor was fluent in Latin and many other languages, having had a similar education to the well-heeled Catholic girls.  

So this right there knocks out your idea that education of women leads to loss of intelligence in society!  That would be to slam the work of the holy men and women who taught these girls what they did.  You are just taking your anti-feminist ideas way too far.  

It is men and women being taught by Masonic, liberal, Judaized colleges that leads to the decay of society.  Not women being educated at a high level.  It all depends on the nature of the education.  As for whether people are less intelligent today, it depends how you define intelligence.  No age has accomplished as many scientific and medical feats, but obviously what our age lacks is obedience to the will of God; professing themselves wise, they became fools.  But they can do lots of amazing things on a technological level.

Another thing: I never said I was against the education of women.  I'm against the college track for women as it has been contrived by this masonic society.

Didn't exist in Catholic societies.  Women didn't go to university.