Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Catholic Living in the Modern World => Topic started by: love alabama on October 25, 2011, 12:12:28 PM
-
What do you think of women playing in professional orchestras?
Should they be doing it?
-
What do you think of women playing in professional orchestras?
Should they be doing it?
I would say, it depends on whether or not it interferes with their family life.
Much better to be teaching children music than to be practicing hours a day for performances.
-
I would say it depends on whether they can play their instruments well.
-
In the past women were restricted from a lot of careers. This seems "unfair" but it should be remembered that every position that goes to a woman (and often affirmative action will be involved) removes a position that could have gone to a breadwinner. And the career woman, instead of passing her talents onto her children, genetically and by educating them, wastes her time on ambitions that in the greater scheme of things are of paltry importance. Paltry in any event, in comparison to motherhood.
It does seem unfair, I confess, to deprive talented women of opportunities, and I don't think it should be done systematically, but all forms of affirmative action should be removed. Moreover, it should be emphasized just how much more noble it is to educate children and pass on one's talents to another generation, than simply to gain public esteem at the sacrifice of what is best for one's family.
-
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
-
The playing of some instruments require positions that I consider improper for women. In order to play the tuba or the cello, one must spread his or her legs. Some might say that it's immodest for women.
-
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.
-
And the career woman, instead of passing her talents onto her children, genetically and by educating them, .
what do you mean by geneticaly?
-
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.
-
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.
I will give an example:
My sister was accepted to Harvard (she didn't go there, she went to "Catholic" Georgetown). She is going to be 40 on All Saints Day. She is very intelligent, and is an old maid.
She has a good paying job that could have to someone's husband.
Education doesn't turn women into intellectuals or people with important things to say or do, generally speaking.
Now it would have been much better for her to never go to college, IMHO.
-
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.
-
I wonder what Bp Williamson would think on this issue since he loves classical music.
-
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.
-
How many children did Elizabeth Tudor have?
The claim the "logic" is only in my head is absolute BS, typical of the delusional Raoul, since the ideas are from books 100 years ago decrying feminism.
Yes, talented women do tend to be college educated, and college education tends to reduce fertility.
I'm getting tired of Raoul's aggressive stupidity.
-
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.
-
Finally, it should be pointed out that the family planning organizations always emphasize the "education of women" - not education in the broadest sense - but in the sense of attending organized schooling on the masonic model. They know very well it's the most potent way to reduce fertility.
-
The difference between fiftiesism and integral Catholicism is that fiftiesism takes as its basis the fundamental cultural assumptions of the 50s (or at least at what people think they remember - they've accepted a lot of the changes since then, as any discussion about domestic violence, "marital rape" and child support, age appropriate for marriage demonstrates) and the Church practice of the 50s as the norms for judgment.
Integral Catholicism requires the analysis of the anti-Christian revolution in society, and demands that we seek to counteract it in a principled manner. This means looking back at history, at the changes, at what motivated changes, and understanding how to apply Catholic principles to modern social conditions. It means having the appropriate philosophy of history too - recognizing anti-Christian conspiracy, and not trying to identify oneself politically simply as being "Pro-life" - or identifying oneself with the old anti-Communists (a sentiment that has been transmogrified into anti-Islamic militarisim on behalf of Zionism), or identifying oneself as something anachronistic - for example - as a "monarchist."
To be anti-masonic requires an understanding of what masonry is and what it's objectives are. To understand modern society means being more than anti-masonic though. It means recognizing explicitly the role of the Jєωιѕн power and being prepared to resist it.
-
I will ask the site if they think the post I quoted by you made sense. If they say it does, I will apologize.
Nothing in the post mentioned universities being Masonic as the reason why they would "decrease fertililty." I read it as saying that higher-education decreases fertility. Which sounded like one of your exaggerated pet theories. And what did the study really say? Obviously a woman who is putting off children while she goes to college isn't having as many kids as a girl who is married at 18.
Telesphorus said:
It means having the appropriate philosophy of history too - recognizing anti-Christian conspiracy, and not trying to identify oneself politically simply as being "Pro-life" - or identifying oneself with the old anti-Communists (a sentiment that has been transmogrified into anti-Islamic militarisim on behalf of Zionism), or identifying oneself as something anachronistic - for example - as a "monarchist."
Now it's anachronistic to support the monarchy? You don't see that the monarchy is precisely what was attacked first and foremost by the Masons and thus restoring the monarchy is a key step in restoring Catholic society?
-
Modern coeducation and modern universities are masonic in inspiration. Feminist in inspiration. It is a well studied phenomenon that the more higher university education a woman has, the fewer children she is likely to have. Part of it is unnatural delay of marriage - but it goes beyond that.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue with someone who like a jackass resorts to saying "it's all in your head' when I explain something you can't or won't understand.
You aren't interested in discussing this matter rationally. You're interested in sniping at me, because that's what you do. That's how you interact with people.
As for "what the site thinks" - it's a fallacy to suggest that would prove me wrong in the slightest even if they all disagreed with me. Others on this site perfectly understand the reasons why modern universities are a very bad influence on people, especially on women.
As for monarchism, there's nothing wrong with supporting monarchy as a system of government, but the people obsessed with royal families and pretending that they could turn on a time machine and go back in time to a system (that had very grave deficiencies) are not approaching traditionalism seriously. Often they support monarchy but can hardly be considered traditionals. Monarchism does not make a person traditional.
I have you on ignore and I should continue to ignore your dirty sniping. You delusional freak.
-
http://web.maths.unsw.edu.au/~jim/fert.pdf
-
The fact that you brought up Elizabeth Tudor just shows that you were not interested in arguing with what I was saying at all but in just spouting off whatever came to the top of your head. The "virgin queen" harpy was childless and well-educated. And Raoul brings this up in opposition to what I'm saying? You show absolutely no desire to reason - you are sniping.
-
In James Franklin's research, the birthrate doesn't seem to drop so much, but it should be remembered that he is studying a pagan society that already had low birthrates, and that the birth rate does drop from above replacement to well below replacement at the level of women with PhDs. 100 years ago the results were more striking, still, even today, it is a fatal decline. Highly intelligent and educated women should have a higher birthrate than those who are not, because they should be able to understand philosophically the importance of motherhood. But in fact, "higher education" in this society almost always corresponds with "higher indoctrination." That is particularly striking on the Jєωιѕн question, where "better educated" people are actually less willing to admit the Jєωιѕн influence on society.
-
I have you on ignore and I should continue to ignore your dirty sniping. You delusional freak.
I know you have me on ignore. I also know you read all my posts anyway, yet keep me on ignore just so I'll have that strike against me; which shows your piteous level of pride.
Do you think there's anything Catholic about your behavior? Do you have any spiritual life or is it all about ranting and raving about feminists for you?
I will continue to disagree with things you are saying that strike me as incorrect, that is what everyone does on this site and it's part of conversation. Which you are incapable of having because you have some fantasy vision of yourself as this hero bringing truth to people, and you only want people to nod their head and agree with you, not to help you achieve the goal of reaching heaven.
This is not a private conversation that you can try to control with your total narcissism. No one is scared of you here. Got that?
-
Telesphorus said:
The fact that you brought up Elizabeth Tudor just shows that you were not interested in arguing with what I was saying at all
Did you even read what I wrote? I mentioned she was Protestant but said that her education was typical of well-bred girls in that time, which was a result of Catholic education.
-
I will ask the site if they think the post I quoted by you made sense. If they say it does, I will apologize.
Since you asked, I think its a trenchant point, and I also think it's clear what sort of education regime a man has in mind when he refers to college education of the last 100 years.
I am a monarchist though. Not in an ideological sense, but I recognize that monarchy is implied in the traditional worldview.
-
Twist in the wind all you want Raoul - you brought up a childless woman to counteract the point that education of women can reduce fertility. Of course it wasn't modern university education, in any case.
I've never once said women shouldn't be well educated. Anyone who thinks women are going to universities primarily to be educated today needs to have their head examined.
I'm sick of your stupid viciousness that arises from an out of control malevolent imagination. (something very common among trads) That's why I have you on ignore.
-
I hate to break it to you, but your writing isn't always as clear as you think. Not being in your head, as I said before, I am sometimes unaware of what you are saying. I will again ask the site if they think your post was clear; Graham has always kissed your butt, for whatever reason. Let's hear from a neutral party.
It is not at all unlikely that you would be against all higher education for females, considering the extremity of some of your views, and that is how I read your post.
You had better watch your tongue. You show abundantly that God is not on your side; you don't speak like a man of God.
-
I would point out that s2rea and Graham both noticed that you were after me with your obsessive calumnies with motivations that were clearly bad.
My views are not at all extreme. Except in this time period. In the past my views would be considered perfectly normal.
-
I will ask the site if they think the post I quoted by you made sense. If they say it does, I will apologize.
Since you asked, I think its a trenchant point, and I also think it's clear what sort of education regime a man has in mind when he refers to college education of the last 100 years.
Thank you Graham.
-
One problem is this whole thing about "your" views. Almost everyone here is against feminism; yet you clearly think you have some special angle on all of this that sets you apart.
It's not about "your" views, it's about the Church's views. For the most part, you adhere to that, but sometimes you go a little farther, or are unclear or garbled, or too extreme, and I am not the only one who has noticed it. That is probably due to your desire to stand out.
-
I will again ask the site if they think your post was clear; Graham has always kissed your butt, for whatever reason. Let's hear from a neutral party.
Don't goad me. Next time please find a more circuмspect way to speak your mind.
-
I hate to break it to you, but your writing isn't always as clear as you think. Not being in your head, as I said before, I am sometimes unaware of what you are saying. I will again ask the site if they think your post was clear; Graham has always kissed your butt, for whatever reason. Let's hear from a neutral party.
I notice that you've moved the goalpost from whether the argument made sense to whether Tele expressed it clearly. Which he did. Why don't you say something like "Oh, I see now. I misunderstood." Unless you just want to be argumentative.
It is not at all unlikely that you would be against all higher education for females, considering the extremity of some of your views, and that is how I read your post.
See, now you're admitting that your imagination coloured your reading.
-
What do you mean "Don't goad you?"
I expressed my mind the way I wanted to express it the first time. It's you who are goading.
Let me explain it to you again since you seem to be confused, and I think in this case, I was very clear. I am asking other people BESIDES you -- that means not you, not the guy who calls himself Graham -- if they thought Tele's post made sense. But so far it is just you who has piped up again.
I know you are a Tele fan, that's why I said I wanted neutral observers to comment; you are not neutral. That's why you are flattering him despite his deranged behavior, ultra-sensitive pride and name-calling which is flat-out un-Christian and has been for the last half a year he's been doing it.
If a neutral observer thinks that it does make sense, his post, then I will apologize for having misunderstood. Until then I'm saying that his post was weird and made little sense. I'm also saying that it is logical to assume that Tele might be against ALL higher education for women, considering the extremity of some of his views.
Graham said:
I notice that you've moved the goalpost from whether the argument made sense to whether Tele expressed it clearly. Which he did.
What is the difference? If it didn't make sense, how can he express it clearly? Have you ever tried to express something clearly that didn't make sense?
Wow. Just dealing with you two and getting involved with this I feel like I've entered a hall of mirrors. That is always what it's like when you get involved with Tele, I should know better by now.
-
Graham said:
See, now you're admitting that your imagination coloured your reading.
I admit I was trying to make sense out of what didn't make sense to me.
-
Nothing Tele says makes sense, he cites nothing, wants you believe his warped views which are not the truth but just counter cultural. He tries to get as far away from the modernist ideas as possible but he bypasses the truth and keeps on going then shouts out filth like Luther to anyone who disagrees with him even slightly. He feels he was wronged and now is allowing emotionalism to control him, this of course is much like how a woman's mind works so he has become like the effiminate pagans he so despises. The devil surely has a hold on him. He needs spiritual help and grace to overcome it, and until he stops being driven by the deadly sins of pride, anger and hatred I'm afraid he will continue to decend into the abyss.
As John Vennari said in his conference in Toronto, the path to hell is like a slide and the path to heaven like a rope, it is easy to slide down to hell but hard to climb up to heaven. with perserverance one can always climb back up if they have not already reached bottom(died) but it becomes harder and harder to climb the farther one slides down.
-
Well you probably wouldn't be considered neutral LordPhan, but you're no fan of mine either. So maybe that would make you neutral. But I'd like to hear from S2Srea.
He feels he was wronged and now is allowing emotionalism to control him, this of course is much like how a woman's mind works so he has become like the effiminate pagans he so despises.
That is a great point; that is indeed what the devil does. He turns us into what we hate. That is what hate does to you.
Yes, the devil's grip is clear. This just shows you how blind you can be. Tele would be outraged by this kind of language from Caminus, but he thinks he is justified using it himself because he's good and he's fighting against a world of people who are against him and who are "malevolent," a word that he uses constantly to describe everyone and their grandmother... Classic case of pride. Simply classic. It doesn't get more classic. The guy who has his back against the wall, thinks he's in a world of enemies, everyone is out to get him. You can almost hear the devil whispering "Just give in, tell them what they really are, don't let them get you down, you're great, they're jealous... "
People who reach this point often feel that they can get away with more than others can; because they're special. God relaxes the rules for them, you see. They can call priests liars, they can call everyone stupid and evil. Remember Christ and what he said about calling your brother a fool?
Another sign of pride is when someone cannot stand to be contradicted even in the slightest. Well look at Tele here. He is a walking raw nerve. If you so much as question the slightest little word from him, you are a malevolent creep. He thinks every syllable he utters is golden, is sacrosanct. He is truly trapped in his own head. If you talk to him in private, it is almost like a giant suction, everything is about him, you have to humor him the way you would a dangerous psychopath or else he'll blow up. No sense of humor about himself whatsoever. Everything about Tele is deadly earnest. He is apparently more important than Christ, who forgave those who smacked and spit on Him. But Tele won't even forgive those who try to help him! You have to treat him with the dignity he believes he deserves, which is to become part of his delusion and pretend that he's the center of the universe.
Some may say "Hey Raoul, you say he calls you names, yet you say he's trapped in his own head and a narcissist." That's not calling his names; that's saying the truth. I don't see how I'm supposed to not notice it. Whether what he is saying at any given moment is true or untrue, there is always something wrong with his approach. My calling Tele a narcissist when he is a narcissist is not the same as him calling me or others a freak or delusional or stupid or a liar, things that he has no proof for, while I have plenty of proof that he is an egomaniac and others said it before I even opened my mouth.
The solution is not for me or others to stop calling him an egomaniac when he still is one; the solution is for him to go to Mass, humble himself, and stop being an egomaniac. All the knowledge of history or feminism in the world means nothing; the spiritual life, which brings with it love and humility and patience, is what's blatantly lacking here.
-
Raoul is not interested in good faith discussion. (LordPhan lacks the intelligence for good faith discussion - but he's pulling a SS here - but that's beside the point). I make a point that is perfectly comprehensible and he uses it as a pretext for his vicious attacks - saying it's "all in my head". He is vicious, he is delusional, he talks about the "devil's grip" as though he can judge souls but he's a disgusting backstabber. I'm not the aggressor here, make no mistake.
I had to go on the offensive against Raoul, discussing his delusional tendencies, because of his vicious calumnies. And he's back at it - treacherous freak that he is. Raoul seems to have a problem with alcohol and with reasoning ability. But he figures he can spout off some obnoxious calumny that pops into his imagination and score some points - and he does it.
Using Elizabeth Tudor as a "counter-example" - shows his mind is not working correctly - he's incredibly sloppy. I remember him casting disdain on my quotation of the Sarajevo Trial transcript referring to Franz Ferdinand as the Heir to the throne - Raoul was claiming he wasn't the error - literally - whatever is in his sodden head at the moment trumps reality. He is obnoxious and totally untrustworthy.
-
Raoul is not interested in good faith discussion. (LordPhan lacks the intelligence for good faith discussion - but he's pulling a SS here - but that's beside the point). I make a point that is perfectly comprehensible and he uses it as a pretext for his vicious attacks - saying it's "all in my head". He is vicious, he is delusional, he talks about the "devil's grip" as though he can judge souls but he's a disgusting backstabber. I'm not the aggressor here, make no mistake.
I had to go on the offensive against Raoul, discussing his delusional tendencies, because of his vicious calumnies. And he's back at it - treacherous freak that he is. Raoul seems to have a problem with alcohol and with reasoning ability. But he figures he can spout off some obnoxious calumny that pops into his imagination and score some points - and he does it.
Using Elizabeth Tudor as a "counter-example" - shows his mind is not working correctly - he's incredibly sloppy. I remember him casting disdain on my quotation of the Sarajevo Trial transcript referring to Franz Ferdinand as the Heir to the throne - Raoul was claiming he wasn't the Heir - literally - whatever is in his sodden head at the moment trumps reality. He is obnoxious and totally untrustworthy.
-
I hate to break it to you, but your writing isn't always as clear as you think. Not being in your head, as I said before, I am sometimes unaware of what you are saying. I will again ask the site if they think your post was clear; Graham has always kissed your butt, for whatever reason. Let's hear from a neutral party.
I notice that you've moved the goalpost from whether the argument made sense to whether Tele expressed it clearly. Which he did. Why don't you say something like "Oh, I see now. I misunderstood." Unless you just want to be argumentative.
It is not at all unlikely that you would be against all higher education for females, considering the extremity of some of your views, and that is how I read your post.
See, now you're admitting that your imagination coloured your reading.
Raoul's irrationality and unwillingness to use his reason (with regards to me it apears) is manifest on this thread. He's all rhetoric and personal attack, no substance.
-
I just tried to read and understand the topic, but what I found was mainly cockfights like so many times here in the forum. I am not accusing certain persons.
But what was the topic again?
Are we traditional catholics by now really so estranged that in the end we just call names to each other (i.e. catholics!), like we see in so many threads by now here on Cathinfo? (And Cathinfo being one of the better places I found in the Internet, thanks to the two forum owners!)
Can't we catholics discuss politely (anymore?) ? Because if so, then we're no better than pagans or probably we're even worse. And since I'm no better than the typical Cathinfo user, I'm wondering what is the sense of all the Internet jabber of us catholics, when in the end we present us traditional catholics to the world like a horde of savages...
Maybe we should all pull the plug of our electronic devices and just pray, like hermits. I'll consult my pillow. Our Almighty God will pull the global plug very soon anyway.
-
I just tried to read and understand the topic, but what I found was mainly cockfights like so many times here in the forum. I am not accusing certain persons.
But what was the topic again?
Are we traditional catholics by now really so estranged that in the end we just call names to each other (i.e. catholics!), like we see in so many threads by now here on Cathinfo? (And Cathinfo being one of the better places I found in the Internet, thanks to the two forum owners!)
Can't we catholics discuss politely (anymore?) ? Because if so, then we're no better than pagans or probably we're even worse. And since I'm no better than the typical Cathinfo user, I'm wondering what is the sense of all the Internet jabber of us catholics, when in the end we present us traditional catholics to the world like a horde of savages...
Maybe we should all pull the plug of our electronic devices and just pray, like hermits. I'll consult my pillow. Our Almighty God will pull the global plug very soon anyway.
I'm sorry Ethelred, I suppose I should ignore his obnoxious remarks, but I'm sick and tired the garbage being thrown at me. He set out to disrupt this thread with personal attacks, as he done on many other threads.
He has a problem confusing his imagination with reality:
http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=12136&min=0&num=10
-
What do you mean "Don't goad you?"
I expressed my mind the way I wanted to express it the first time. It's you who are goading.
I mean don't tempt me to anger by saying things like I kiss Tele's butt. It corrupts the discussion; it should be no wonder why threads become personal and descend into outright name-calling when people talk so loosely.
Let me explain it to you again since you seem to be confused, and I think in this case, I was very clear. I am asking other people BESIDES you -- that means not you, not the guy who calls himself Graham -- if they thought Tele's post made sense. But so far it is just you who has piped up again.
I know what you wanted. Why shouldn't I continue to respond and point out your mistakes? You realize that other people read this?
What is the difference? If it didn't make sense, how can he express it clearly? Have you ever tried to express something clearly that didn't make sense?
The difference is once you realized that it did make sense (and you've implicitly admitted such by moving the goalpost), you should say "Oh, I see now. I misunderstood," or something to that effect. That's what a non-argumentative person would do.
By the way, if you write quote=Graham in square brackets the forum will put "Graham said" - you don't need to write it out seperately and bold it each time.
-
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.
Don't intelligent nuns (and priests) do that too?
-
Don't intelligent nuns (and priests) do that too?
Yes they do but they are making a religious sacrifice. That's a lot different than sacrificing family for a career. And there are far fewer nuns than there are intelligent women who have low fertility because of their degrees and careers.
-
Don't intelligent nuns (and priests) do that too?
Yes they do but they are making a religious sacrifice. That's a lot different than sacrificing family for a career. And there are far fewer nuns than there are intelligent women who have low fertility because of their degrees and careers.
Yes, but if intelligent women owe it to future generations to pass on their genes (which seems to be implicit in your complaint), then should they become nuns?
And isn't there a corollary that less intelligent women are harming future society's intelligence by having children?
It was observed 100 years ago that college educated women had much reduced fertility.
I can imagine that today a college educated woman's fertility would be reduced by reliance on contraception (so that nothing "inconvenient" happens during their time at college!), but 100 years ago? I wonder if it might have been because women who were less fertile were more likely to go to college.
-
Yes, but if intelligent women owe it to future generations to pass on their genes (which seems to be implicit in your complaint), then should they become nuns?
If they aren't dedicated to living chastely then they should be married and having children. If they say "I might marry someday" after doing X, Y, and Z ("goals") then they are putting the cart before the host.
And isn't there a corollary that less intelligent women are harming future society's intelligence by having children?
No, it's not a corollary at all. You are seriously lacking in reasoning ability Clare. Failing to pass on one's gifts on to the next generation by failing to have a healthy Catholic family life does harm future generations. But it does not follow that those without such gifts harm future generations by not providing a good that they cannot provide.
It is true, that illegitimacy, the collapse of marriage, promiscuity, welfare motherhood, etc, does pass down evil through generations.
I can imagine that today a college educated woman's fertility would be reduced by reliance on contraception (so that nothing "inconvenient" happens during their time at college!), but 100 years ago? I wonder if it might have been because women who were less fertile were more likely to go to college.
Contraceptive techniques were widely used among non-Catholic women (and among women in France) at that time. Part of the "education."
-
Graham said:
The difference is once you realized that it did make sense (and you've implicitly admitted such by moving the goalpost), you should say "Oh, I see now. I misunderstood," or something to that effect. That's what a non-argumentative person would do.
When did I ever say I was "non-argumentative"?
When people try to twist the truth, I argue with them. And I already corrected you about that idea of moving the goalposts.
Tele has far-flung extremist and incoherent ideas, lots of them are figments of his own imagination, but he will defend them to the death. Here in this thread he's making it about genetics, about talented women not having children -- Catholicism is not genetics.
His extremism, which like all extremisms is the truth ever so slightly tweaked, is why he sympathizes with Muslims. Therefore it makes sense to think that he is against all higher education for women, because sometimes his views are incoherent or quasi-Christian rather than Christian. So when he wrote this post that was completely incoherent and bizarre that was how I took it; and no apology is necessary.
Like many self-styled ultra-conservatives who take it too far, he has strange bursts of liberalism, as you can see when he complains about fathers being overprotective of their daughters; not exactly patriarchal there, is he? He can't see the difference between a girl who WANTS to obey her father out of respect, or who just happens to agree with him, and a father who is unjustly trying to stop her from marrying. Because it's obvious that if the girl wanted to marry him, she could, she is not locked in her house, she goes to college, etc.
But really it's about what serves him and his own interests, at least in his own mind.
How many times do I have to say it? You're not making me look bad; you're only making your own reading comprehension look bad. I said I would apologize when a neutral party, naming S2srea, told me that Tele's post made sense. For the third time, that's not you.
-
Telesphorus said:
No, it's not a corollary at all. You are seriously lacking in reasoning ability Clare. Failing to pass on one's gifts on to the next generation by failing to have a healthy Catholic family life does harm future generations. But it does not follow that those without such gifts harm future generations by not providing a good that they cannot provide.
The women at the colleges you are referring to were likely not predominantly Catholic. So your statistic is mostly irrelevant.
You posted another poll from modern-day Australia saying that less college-educated women are having children. Well, lots of those women are surely atheists or pagans. So by not having as many children aren't they helping to reduce heresy? Less babies raised in pagan and atheist families? A little reductio ad absurdum.
There is another premise that doens't work, which is that the most "talented" women go to college. Prove it. How do you know it isn't that the wealthiest women go to college, or the most ambitious, etc. What if many of the most talented women preferred to marry and raise kids instead? That's just an assumption, like so much of your reasoning. I mean -- define "talent." We're talking about the faith here; and that has little to do with talent.
These are the little flaws in your reasoning that, when stacked together, create a generalized confused impression. That happens because you think that everything that you think is automatically true, just because you think it. You also can't back down on even the slightest point, and can't debate, preferring to whine like a big baby. So there is an avalanche effect of Tele-style "données," assumptions that are passed off as Church teaching.
Catholic women not having as many children is one of the many bad fruits of apostasy. But that is what this is really about -- apostasy, which has numerous bad fruits, not just that one. You are putting women and their fertility and how they use it above the faith. Everything for you is about women, feminism, etc. And you draw these conclusions that are just far-out; you're making these connections that don't exist, and you present them as gospel truth.
The most talented women go to college and this reduces their fertility and this is bad because there are less talented women in the world and oh yeah, somehow this is tied in with Catholicism despite that most of these women weren't Catholic to begin with. Sorry, this is the kind of thing that might pass at a glance, but is largely incoherent and full of données. ( 1 ) How do you define "talent"? ( 2 ) How do you know that this "talent" would be inherited? ( 3 ) How do you know that the most talented women, according to your definition, go to college rather than doing something else? ( 4 ) Are these talented women Catholic? ( 5 ) Is Catholicism genetic? Is it passed down through DNA? ( 6 ) Is Catholicism based on having "talent," whatever that is? ( 7 ) Their fertility is reduced how, by waiting to have kids, or do Masonic lectures make their wombs shrivel up? ( 8 ) Whose poll is this and how do you know it's trustworthy? Etc. etc.
-
P.S. I'm not defending modern universities which we all know are evil. I'm trying to show Tele that he is making semi-random semi-Catholic connections in his head and that they aren't as coherent as he thinks they are.
-
I'll let other people cut through Raoul's humbug.
-
That is a step forward. Because if I am speaking humbug, which is entirely possible, you are not the person to cut through it.
Tele, no one gets to heaven by ranting and raving about feminists. Though much of what you say is certainly true, it is the motivation and the spirit behind it that bothers me and others, it's why Matthew started the "calling Tele out" thread. Clearly this all has a personal revenge motive. You only began criticizing the SSPX when you were kicked out of the chapel; you have gone on the rampage against universities far more than ever before because your love interest went to college and you feel this is what is keeping her from running off with you to have twenty children on a farm. Is it the college that kept her from doing that, or does she want to go to college because her foremost priority is not to be a mother, but rather personal ambition? Or does she need to go for financial reasons? Anyway, why don't you fall in love with someone whose priorities are the same as yours, instead of trying to wrench reality around to your imagination? I assure you, and everyone but you can see this, that if you are resigned to the will of God, and God's will is for you to be married, you will find the girl you're meant to marry. It is not supposed to be forced or coerced.
Free will, remember that? Learn to separate cause and effect. The Bible says that people will heap to themselves teachers with itching ears; heap TO THEMSELVES. The real cause of all this is lukewarmness and apostasy. The modern universities only provide a service to those who are already asking for it. They lie to those who want to be lied to, generally speaking. They are only an effect, not the cause.
You get to heaven by living the faith. Do you even have the faith any more, or is it all purely intellectual? You said here -- in public -- that you "used to be" in a state of grace. If you are not in a state of grace, why do you presume to teach others? Yet you say I claim to be able to read souls. YOU say YOURSELF you are not in a state of grace. And it doesn't exactly take ESP to see that your behavior isn't right.
Lastly, this Apostaasy is about God; not about you and your petty self-interests. So many people out there have their own agenda, they set themselves up as some little cult leader, they're out looking for adherents or fans. You claim to despise SSPX for being a "cult" yet you act exactly like that; you only admit people into your "club" who will say "Yes, sir, yes, Massah Tele." Which, unfortunately for you, are strange Muslim women and other assorted Facebook fly-by-night friends. You want people to agree with every little thing you say, otherwise you say that they have defective reasoning. Or else you launch into your robotic litany about "malevolent creeps" and "vicious" people. I have a hard time believing you have any prayer life left whatsoever, because there is nothing guarding your tongue.
You are not the Church; hate to break it to you. You are an emotion-driven guy who pours out the same rant in almost every single thread, almost every single post. Just stop posting for a while and collect yourself.
-
It is a sad fact that many Muslims are far superior in decency, honesty, class, manners, anyway you look at it so far as natural morality is concerned, in comparison with today's Catholics.
I'm sick of your vicious attacks, frankly I think you deserve a beating for your perfidy.
-
Is that what you would tell a priest in the confessional who saw you have an obvious problem with pride?
Do you have any sense of Catholic obedience? Or do you think this is just about having pet theories? Do you have a spiritual life? Do you pray every morning and every night?
Do you think by flattering your pride that I'd be helping you?
You backed yourself into a corner with your arrogance. There are only two ways out: Humble yourself, or continue blaming everyone else.
I have dealt with other people who are in the same boat. They can't accept any correction, and not just from me, but from the priest. They are ultra-sensitive, because not resigned to the will of God. The slightest little critical comment makes them burst out.
I wonder if you could even submit to any priest. I expect you're still honest, so tell me, could you? This cycle always has the same consequences. The person insists that they are being persecuted and everyone is against them, they're good and everyone else is bad. This gives them an excuse not to correct their behavior -- in your case, your name-calling rhetoric, which is most likely sinful, is obviously wrong and un-Christ-like to the extreme, but you keep doing it.
The devil, who has their ear, tells them that they are justified in "defending" themselves, because that's how they see it. Then they begin to lash out at anyone and everyone, alone in a world of enemies. Then they fall out. And it is very possible Tele is already fallen out.
GO TO MASS. It's very simple. You say you're a sede, though quoting Abp. Lefebvre; yet when I ask you if you're going to a sede Mass, no, you don't like those chapels, or some other lame excuse.
For those who are bored of all this, I apologize. I made a comment that was critical of one of Tele's posts, and of course he couldn't stand it and launched into yet another rant, and here we are. So basically unless I accept everything he says down to the slightest little detail -- which is unlikely, I don't even agree with St. Pius X on every little detail -- I'm afraid we're in for more of these exchanges, until one of us is gone.
-
Far superior to you in morality, decency, discretion, in their grasp on reality. Far superior to people like you and Fabiana. You're not a friend, never were. I don't think you're capable of genuine friendship.
-
I am incapable of a friendship that relies on my being a yes-man who is being intimidated by veiled threats.
Which, as the above post shows, are no longer so veiled...
-
You're a hypocrite Raoul, you're not sorry. You think nothing of viciously impugning other people the moment some malicious imagining pops into your head.
-
I would just like to point out again that my ideas on these subjects are logical - and they certainly aren't the product of my own thinking - I've gotten them from elsewhere. They're simply ideas that have been out of general circulation for a long time, because of the totalitarian drift of modern society.
-
I will again ask the site if they think your post was clear
On one hand I can sort of see what Tele is getting at. I don't think women even need to go to college, given that they are supposed to stay home when they have children. But saying the education of them leads to loss of intellegance in society is just a stupid statement to make.
-
I know what you wanted. Why shouldn't I continue to respond and point out your mistakes? You realize that other people read this?
If you're going to point out Raoul's mistakes, why not also point out Tele's mistakes? I'm seeing far too much of a "favorites vs. rivals" game being played on here lately. You like Telesphorus, and because of that you don't correct him for slandering Raoul. Everyone on this forum is obliged to stand up for what's right, even if it means correcting someone we like or generally agree with. I like Raoul, but you don't see me covering his back all the time. If I disagree with him on something, I let him know.
You've only been here a few months so you aren't aware of what Tele does when he argues with people. He holds grudges against people and uses ad hominem attacks against them. He has called me dumb atleast four times and put me on ignore after I offered him my friendship. Raoul didn't have to say that you kiss his butt, but it's true that you certainly defend him alot. You should correct him when he acts like that. Even if he turns on you, so what? There is a reason he has 9 ignores, he turns on nearly everyone who disagrees with him. Defending what's right is more important than defending someone you like.
-
SpiritusSanctus said:
On one hand I can sort of see what Tele is getting at. I don't think women even need to go to college, given that they are supposed to stay home when they have children. But saying the education of them leads to loss of intellegance in society is just a stupid statement to make.
Yes, we all get the general idea, modern universities are evil. Tele also should know this is not a discovery that he made, since he thinks all his thoughts are precious pearls that he alone has discovered. He is like Golem sitting over a hoard of gold which he calls HIS ideas. MY ideas; you are against ME when you disagree. Me me me me.
But Tele needs to learn that we are all pretty much on the same page here when it comes to feminismo. I hate to break it to him, but he didn't unearth a secret treasure that God gave to him alone, with which he is going to win the love of the populace and get the girl. He is just another Catholic ( hopefully ). Which should be more than good enough for him, considering he's a sinner and all, also like the rest of us... But sometimes you get the impression he wants to stand out and be super-original... That is how most heresies start, by the way. Some sectarian who wants to be the head of their own worshipful cult. Catholics fight through their pride, they take the last seat at the table if they want the first.
Anyway, yes, colleges are bad. But as sometimes happens, he gets that all mixed-in with more extravagant and peculiar ideas of his own imagination, based on connections that he makes in his own mind based on his personal experiences.
I am not the first to point this out. If Tele has a problem with people who see hsi, why doesn't he call Matthew vicious, stupid and a freak? One thing is for sure, that would cure the site of any more Raoul vs. Tele flare-ups.
-
Telesphorus said:
I would just like to point out again that my ideas on these subjects are logical - and they certainly aren't the product of my own thinking - I've gotten them from elsewhere. They're simply ideas that have been out of general circulation for a long time, because of the totalitarian drift of modern society.
Tele, the Church is all of the same mind on feminism. It is against it. Everyone here is against it, except some women who are slightly affected by it. You did not revive anti-feminist ideas. The Church which has never gone away has always been against feminism, against Masonry, and all the things we talk about on this forum.
-
If Tele has a problem with people who see hsi, why doesn't he call Matthew vicious, stupid and a freak? One thing is for sure, that would cure the site of any more Raoul vs. Tele flare-ups.
I've seen him say before that Matthew "bends over backwards to support his wife's modern views". If we keep seeing statements like that from Tele, then indeed this site will no longer have any Raoul vs. Tele or SS vs. Tele battles. As far as him calling you a freak, just ignore that. Of course someone who is full of pride will say it's everyone else who is the problem.
-
I do ignore it, I am aware he has no control of himself. He needs to go to Mass, end of story. Actually, what he needs is to confess and start again with a clean slate. You can't do what he's doing if you want to stay in God's favor.
-
But I'd like to hear from S2Srea...
....when a neutral party, naming S2srea, told me that Tele's post made sense.
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.
I don't know if I should get involved, but I disagree with this statement. It may be that my own experience, which is limited, leads me to disagree, but there is more than one case which disproves this theory with I've had with Traditional Catholics in my own life; that is my sister, who is a Traditional Catholic currently working on her doctorates, and that of the mother of my Priest, who was a professor, like my sister, and also had a Doctorates degree- and 10 children. My own sister has been married just over a year, just had her first child, and, by the grace of God, will have more. I don't know that it holds true in all cases.
I'm not saying all women should go to University, especially in these times, but there are cases where it can be done, and a woman can still lead a Catholic life and have many children while still contributing to society.
-
Well at least you understand it!
So I apologize for not being able to understand it in the way it was intended. To me it sounded like he was saying that higher education of women led to societal decay. I didn't immediately tie it together with Masonic modern universities because the poll he quoted was from 100 years ago.
-
Actually, no, you didn't understand it either, ha ha, you're just kind of talking about universities and women in general. Basically the post is like a Rohrschach blot, people see what they want to see in it. I say that objectively it doesn't make sense because he's mixing up too many disparate concepts in too short a space.
S2Srea said:
I'm not saying all women should go to University, especially in these times, but there are cases where it can be done, and a woman can still lead a Catholic life and have many children while still contributing to society.
He went further than that, he said that women going to universities made people stupider overall, and my question -- or one of them -- is by what yardstick do you judge stupidity? In terms of spiritual intelligence or in terms of technical ability and know-how? Because clearly modern society is only TOO intelligent in terms of the latter, it seems like kids pop out of the womb knowing how to program C++, but haven't a clue about God or any interest in Him.
So what he really means -- I think? -- is that going to colleges is harmful for their spiritual life. But that doesn't fit with what he's saying about "talented" women. That is why it's all mixed up. I know why he's talking about "talented" women but I'll leave it alone; needless to say it has to do with his personal situation.
You can't take a poll that refers to women in general and then apply it to Catholic women, anyway.
-
I don't know if I should get involved, but I disagree with this statement. It may be that my own experience, which is limited, leads me to disagree, but there is more than one case which disproves this theory with I've had with Traditional Catholics in my own life; that is my sister, who is a Traditional Catholic currently working on her doctorates, and that of the mother of my Priest, who was a professor, like my sister, and also had a Doctorates degree- and 10 children. My own sister has been married just over a year, just had her first child, and, by the grace of God, will have more. I don't know that it holds true in all cases.
I'm not saying all women should go to university, especially in these times, but there are cases where it can be done, and a woman can still lead a Catholic life and have many children while still contributing to society.
Your own experience doesn't trump the statistics. And I think it is naive to think that Catholics are shielded from the general causes that cause this phenomenon in the population as a whole. It is not sensible to believe most women can go to the university, traditional or not, without being negatively affected. You say your sister just had her first child. How many children would she have had if she had married earlier without a doctorate? If she has fewer children than she would have she's pulling the average down.
There are many factors at play in reducing the fertility of women who go to college, but it is statistically true and has been recognized to be true for a very long time that "better educated" women have lower fertility.
It's evident that Raoul is arguing for the sake of arguing (and for tearing me down - but that goes without saying). He speaks as though universities 100 years ago were not masonic (they were). In a total non-sequitur he brings up Church teachings as "being against feminism" as though those authoritative teachings don't have to be applied to concrete circuмstances and modern society. Let's not forget that the Church Magisterium has been silent on these issues for a long time. Unless you count what JPII said about it be Magisterium. But we can certainly look at how Catholic civilization dealt with these matters in the past. Certainly we can look at the Catholic practice of many centuries and come to a conclusion about what they believed about women and the university. I never said these ideas I'm considering are based on Church teachings per se - there's certainly nothing in them to contradict Church teachings - I'm saying they're based on reason. I don't need the Church to tell me that the reduced fertility of college educated women results in fewer intelligent children. Anyone with reason can see that. If Raoul had any reasoning skills at all he would be able to recognize that.
Raoul seems to see what he imagines and wants to see, and ignores the simple common sense arguments as though he can't read and understand the simplest things.
He personalizes everything and asserts without justification all sorts of things about other people and their motivation. He's garrulous and perverse.
-
Raoul is unable to recognize when his position is contradictory. I pointed out earlier many times where he contradicted what he had affirmed before when he decided to behave perfidiously towards me.
Here is another example, he has often spoken of the way trad women by their mid-20s seem to be more bitter and more tinged with feminist attitudes than younger trad women. And why is that? Isn't it quite obvious most said young women have been to the university? Can anyone seriously believe it isn't a factor?
He has been reduced to the saying the stupidest things - for example his line that I have to somehow prove that talented Catholic girls are likely to go the university instead of marrying. I need to prove that what everyone know about how people in this society typically progress in their education, especially when they're intelligent? I mean it is absurd grasping at straws just like his bringing up of Elizabeth Tudor - it really suggests intoxication to be so daft.
-
As for his carping about my spiritual life - that's none of his business. I would recommend to the rest of you to never confide anything to Raoul. He is a false friend. He talks about "pride" in a manner that is very common among busyboy trad weirdos. He shows no humility - it's clear he talks about other people's pride because he's hoping they abase themselves to boost his bloated ego. It's very common among trads, and very smarmy, sanctimonious behavior.
-
Your own experience doesn't trump the statistics.
Right- and I was clear to point out my experience is "limited". Everyone's experience is limited compared with any statistic. But how often does one make decisions on statistics compared to the amount of times they make a decision based on their personal experience?
You say your sister just had her first child. How many children would she have had if she had married earlier without a doctorate? If she has fewer children than she would have she's pulling the average down.
Well considering that she's 28, and women become fertile at, what, 15/16? If she had them out of wedlock (since she just got married), and was pregnant immediately after the birth of each child, she could have had 16 kids by now. But she just got married, had her first child right away, and technically, doesn't yet have a doctorate- she's working on it and will have it within the year I believe. So, she's not pulling the average down, but just had the chance to begin to pull it up. :rolleyes:
There are many factors at play in reducing the fertility of women who go to college, but it is statistically true and has been recognized to be true for a very long time that "better educated" women have lower fertility.
Well, I cant say that I've had time to study the matter actually, which is why I clarified my opinion was based on my limited opinion.
I'm curious, what does the church have to say about this, if anything?
-
The very fact that she's 28 when she was married rather proves the point, don't you think?
It can't be good for the moral well-being, let alone the fertility of women, (and the same thing is true for the men they marry - incidentally it's typical that women who have advanced degrees feel the need to "marry someone at their level" - this can make marriage difficult for them) to be 28 when they marry, on average. I'm not saying your sister shouldn't have done anything she has done, but it is certainly reasonable to expect, as you point out, she'll have fewer children than she probably would have if she had married earlier.
-
I'm curious, what does the church have to say about this, if anything?
If the purpose of education is a career but the purpose of marriage is motherhood that will then take priority over the career then it certainly seems to be working at cross purposes for women to get doctorates then get married right after.
-
The very fact that she's 28 when she was married rather proves the point, don't you think?
It can't be good for the moral well-being, let alone the fertility of women, to be 28 when they marry, on average. I'm not saying your sister shouldn't have done anything she has done, but it is certainly reasonable to expect, as you point out, she'll have fewer children than she probably would have if she had married earlier.
No she was ready earlier, but the guy she was engaged to ended up being a momma's boy/ scuмbag.
That, I don't think anyone anywhere has ever heard about a decrease in the fertility of women. Now, do people mean when they say that, "willingness to have children?" That's another question. But it almost seems silly they would be less fertile. Take the mother of my priest for example. 10 Children isn't necessarily a lot, but its not that few either.
And you prove the point yourself:"she'll have fewer children than she probably would have if she had married earlier." The fact she went to school didn't make her less fertile, but her age did. If she'd gotten married earlier, as was as traditional minded as she is now, she very well may have been on the same course of having more children by this time- but I guess we'll never know.
Lastly, what do you propose based on your conclusion? What and how much education should Catholic women receive, exactly?
-
The fact she went to school didn't make her less fertile, but her age did.
So you're saying she would have married, had children, and gone to school at the same time? Doesn't school consume time?
Lastly, what do you propose based on your conclusion? What and how much education should Catholic women receive, exactly?
Well I think they need some essentials and then the rest should be largely a matter of their own choice and leisure. Father Alphonsus Marie (who did the Los Gatos retreats - maybe he still does) says that a girl who has a high school diploma is ready for marriage - I don't know how he comes to that conclusion, but I would say any intelligent girl is usually ready for marriage by 17 or 18.
The best thing for an intelligent girl to do for her education is to marry an intelligent man to share an intellectual life with him, and to seek to increase knowledge as a matter of leisure.
-
Coeducational high school is truly a pernicious institution, but in fact can it really be argued that coeducational college is so much better, simply because the people are older? Yes it is better in part because of that, because the boys are somewhat caught up with the women.
But in high school you have a situation where boys are in the presence of women who are - simply as a matter of development - their social superiors. It is very harmful for adolescent to be stuck in the presence of a crowd of young women all day - either they end up sinning with them, or they end up being tempted and frustrated. I dare say few boys avoid those two outcomes. It is a degrading situation for boys and girls that age - and it needs to be rejected by Catholics.
It is a form of social control, one of the first steps in the feminist revolution.
A friend of mine is familiar with Comte and his theories - his scientific "religion" had woman worship (the sacred feminine) as a feature to be emphasized. Anyone who doubts the influence of Comte should look at the motto on the Brazilian flag, and then do a cursory examination of the moral state of the Brazilian people. The G in Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ can be said to stand for "generation" - the true purpose of the masonic high school is the manipulation of sɛҳuąƖity - I'm convinced of that. Watch any movie about high school students and it becomes clear what sort of ideology is being promoted, not just by movies, but by the schools they are based on.
-
Anyway, it would seem that exoterically at least, Comte was a conservative in some practical matters pertaining to the role of women, however, one should examine this quotation:
"In a word the new doctrine will institute the worship of Woman, publicly and privately, in a far more perfect way than has ever before been possible. It is the first permanent step towards the worship of Humanity."
-
Statistics are not real math, they can be manipulated in many ways. It is a modern belief that Statistics can prove something, but in reality you are not removing multiple variables or even identifying them so your conclusions will ultimately come from whatever you believed beforehand.
That is why there are thousands of these 'Statistical Studies' released every year, and that is why no matter what the results will end up 'proving' the belief of those who paid for them. Why? Because they are not searching for the truth, they are seeking to promote an agenda.
I do not know anything about this particular study but this should be kept in mind.
What safeguards did they use? What did they belief beforehand? How did they weed out various variables? These are questions that always need to be asked on any statistical study.
There is an old saying "Statistics are to be used like a Lamppost to a drunk, for support not enlightenment"
-
You are seriously lacking in reasoning ability Clare.
Natch!
Failing to pass on one's gifts on to the next generation by failing to have a healthy Catholic family life does harm future generations.
What has intelligence got to do with a healthy Catholic family life?? They might not be mutually exclusive, but they are certainly not synonymous.
-
Clare, while I don't agree with you on everything, you definitely are NOT lacking in reasoning ability. He says that to nearly everyone, just ignore him.
-
What has intelligence got to do with a healthy Catholic family life??
Another non-sequitur Clare. When I say you lack reasoning ability it's because I'm tired of responding to nonsense.
The absence of a healthy Catholic family life among gifted people leads to their failure to pass on their gifts to posterity.
They might not be mutually exclusive, but they are certainly not synonymous.
Who said they were?
-
Telesphorus said:
Another non-sequitur Clare. When I say you lack reasoning ability it's because I'm tired of responding to nonsense.
You see, it's okay for him to be rude and abrasive. Because he holds the Holy Grail of truth. But if I so much as say his post doesn't make sense, it justifies an avalanche of invective. He can say anything because he's Tele; he's special; he holds the key. But you can't question the slightest thing he says.
The absence of a healthy Catholic family life among gifted people leads to their failure to pass on their gifts to posterity.
( 1 ) What kind of gifts are you talking about?
( 2 ) Are they really passed on through DNA? I know a woman who can't sing at all whose daughter is an opera singer.
( 3 ) Does being gifted in the way you're talking about have anything to do with being Catholic? Being "talented" is not the foremost requirement for a Catholic mother; I doubt that St. Thèrese's mother and father were considered talented in any way, it was their devotion and piety that was extraordinary.
Translation: Tele was smitten with a girl who had certain "gifts" who went to college; Tele is angry she didn't marry him and he is trying to elevate his personal grudge into a philosophical category viz. it wasn't just a blow against him but a blow against the Catholic Church. In other words, he is doing what I hate the most, he is using the Catholic Church for his own personal agenda.
-
I love it when within five seconds of a post critical of Tele, the thumbs-down appears. I always imagine Tele's face as resembling that of the sour thumbs-down face up there. What satisfaction he must feel as his finger hits the key, and he has registered his discontent! Now all is right inside the locked-box that is his universe, where Tele -- in his imagination -- has total control and authority!
Tele is the kind of person that it gives you the willies to imagine as having power in the Church. Someone with a personal agenda, unable to judge rightly because of his passions, holding grudges.
Mater, if you're reading, would you like to tell the site how many times I've given thumbs-downs? Since you guys keep track.
Childish, petulant man-baby that you are acting like, Tele, you would do well to step away from the computer until you have pulled yourself together.
-
Some people know how to reason, and some people don't. Raoul and Clare belong to the latter category.
-
I know what you wanted. Why shouldn't I continue to respond and point out your mistakes? You realize that other people read this?
If you're going to point out Raoul's mistakes, why not also point out Tele's mistakes? I'm seeing far too much of a "favorites vs. rivals" game being played on here lately. You like Telesphorus, and because of that you don't correct him for slandering Raoul. Everyone on this forum is obliged to stand up for what's right, even if it means correcting someone we like or generally agree with. I like Raoul, but you don't see me covering his back all the time. If I disagree with him on something, I let him know.
You've only been here a few months so you aren't aware of what Tele does when he argues with people. He holds grudges against people and uses ad hominem attacks against them. He has called me dumb atleast four times and put me on ignore after I offered him my friendship. Raoul didn't have to say that you kiss his butt, but it's true that you certainly defend him alot. You should correct him when he acts like that. Even if he turns on you, so what? There is a reason he has 9 ignores, he turns on nearly everyone who disagrees with him. Defending what's right is more important than defending someone you like.
I've seen what he does, and you're right that I shouldn't gloss it over. Here's the thing: usually when he insults people, I agree with the sentiment behind the insult, but I don't agree with his insulting tone -- if that makes sense. So I didn't like it - in fact I really disliked it - when he called Raoul a delusional freak, although I agree that Raoul has shown a tendency to be paranoid, over-imaginative, and reductively psychoanalytical (not to mention argumentative. I must be admitted that he has at times shown a gift for discernment of spirits.). That he feels personally betrayed by Raoul is something to consider when it comes to evaluating such behaviour.
Or in numerous threads he has pointed out Clare's constant non-sequitur and strawman arguments but has a sad habit of insulting her for them. So, that agreement with the sentiment, combined with the fact that, somehow, his belligerence is one of the things I like about him, leads me to overlook his mistakes.
But I'm not going to go around correcting people like a schoolmarm. Raoul insulted me, not Tele, and that should sufficiently explain why I focused on Raoul.
-
Some people know how to reason, and some people don't. Raoul and Clare belong to the latter category.
According to you, anyone who disagrees with you belongs in the latter category.
I love it when within five seconds of a post critical of Tele, the thumbs-down appears. I always imagine Tele's face as resembling that of the sour thumbs-down face up there. What satisfaction he must feel as his finger hits the key, and he has registered his discontent! Now all is right inside the locked-box that is his universe, where Tele -- in his imagination -- has total control and authority!
LOL, my thoughts exactly.
-
But I'm not going to go around correcting people like a schoolmarm.
I never said you should. My point was if you're going to point out very minor mistakes from Raoul, you should also point out mistakes from Tele.
-
Raoul really cries out in pain at the use of the neg rep function against him. I must say the 2700 (the majority coming from very obsessed characters) or so downrates I've received are a badge of honor - the downrates I give to Raoul are because of his garrulous, vicious stupidity.
It's very obvious who the aggressors are here. Very obvious who wants to discuss the topic, and who is here to disrupt the conversation and antagonize me.
These threads follow a pattern. I make some comments, which usually get some positive feedback. Then Raoul and SS or Caminus swoop in with their snide insults and senseless abuse. I respond by calling it what it is, and then it appears from the rep that people disapprove of that. Well, they'd better face facts. These guys are not reasoning, they're the ones with the grudges.
-
Tele -- this is a discussion board. If you say something that strikes me as off or that I disagree with, as you sometimes do, more and more these days, then it is very likely that I will say something about it. If you don't like it, find somewhere else to go. Your petulant behavior does not scare me. All it accomplishes is to make me think of you as an incredibly unpleasant person. I am starting to dread even seeing your name pop up on the screen.
When you disagree with something, you speak up; that is what we do here. Hence "discussion" board or "chat" room or whatever you want to call it. If your only response to someone who disagrees is to fulminate like some kind of little spoiled brat, I don't know what to say to you. But it's not going to stop me from criticizing your posts, or giving you fraternal correction when I feel after prayer that it's necessary, capiche?
I will just let the site know my thinking and how this began. I want to make it all less personal from now on, but I will explain how it did get personal. What happened was, in our last private conversation, Tele had the gall to blame me for talking about his situation at the SSPX church on CathInfo, when he was the one ranting incoherently about it and I just tried to get the story straight. After he said this, there was an awkward silence during which he could probably tell I was appalled. It was simply delusional as well as ungrateful in the extreme. Then we lost contact as he was busy with other things.
However, later, he added insult by injury by going on Fisheaters and wallowing in the whole situation even more. So much for me being the one to spread his misfortunes around, which was already ridiculous in the first place. I made a passing comment about this on CI saying he was "seeking attention" which he was. But that, on top of the fact that he probably saw I lost respect for him and had become wary of him, made him blow up.
It is around this time I also stopped entirely believing his side of the story, because I see now how he is, which is best described as narcissistic or "ox-like." In a conversation, not everything is about him, he shows interest in subjects outside himself. But there are certain areas where you HAVE to take his point of view; he HAS to have the last word. It's not complex psychology -- he is building a place in his head where he feels safe, where he thinks no one can hurt him, and he uses verbal attacks, veiled threats, and not-so-veiled threats to try to make this happen. But I guarantee you, this is what women will pick up on, and it will not make it easy for him to get married, because it is evident he wants absolute control and that he is as "macho" as they come. He perceives this father of his love interest as "macho" simply because the guy stood in his way; but what if that father was really paternally responsible, and Tele is the one who's macho?
Tele's attraction to the Muslim religion, without question, is due to this overemphasis on paternal authority and oversubmissiveness of the woman, which he finds attractive. Tele wants a Bride of Tele, a woman who shares the same brain, who differs from him in nothing except for her sex. What makes it extra-dangerous is that he has convinced himself that all his thoughts are the Church's, not just his. But he embellishes and exaggerates, and in the condition he's in now, it's likely to get far worse before it gets better. His judgment is severly lacking. There is no way in HADES that I would marry him the way he is now if I were a woman. Can you imagine being trapped in the middle of nowhere with this? However, the potential is there, he could be a really good husband and Catholic, he just needs to be resigned to the will of God.
And that is the whole problem with Tele. There is no resignation to the will of God. He has the intellectual side of the faith mostly down -- though that is slipping as you might expect since his faith is at low ebb -- but true obedience, humility and charity is lacking. And that's not rash judgment because he has shown many signs of these flaws over and over. Obedience: He won't go to church and makes excuses, then complains about "trads," and "trad priests," making me think he simply refuses to put himself under priestly authority; humility, he is not resigned to the will of God and is obsessed with his own life and own ideas which he misrepresents as Catholic fact; charity, he thinks he can get away with any kind of verbal abuse.
In this instance, he doesn't really care who God wants him to marry; he tries to wrench the situation around to his own liking. The kind of girl he always talks about on this site, the pious, simple girl, is not the one he became obsessed with. I won't reveal anything specific about her on the site, but she is downright sophisticated and artsy. In her case, it's not feminism, it's being "gifted," because he still worships her. I'm not saying she's a feminist, but she's very much involved in the world, she's not at home sewing. What he wants is to take this girl he's attracted to, and turn her into this Catholic ideal, or semi-Catholic ideal. I have no idea how far he went into delusion to achieve his goal; but he went pretty far just from what I have seen on the site. I don't know what was going on, or who exactly was to blame for what, but the devil had a hand in it, that's for sure. And I no longer believe Tele had no responsibility in what happened and that it was all the fault of everyone else. I am kind of shocked I ever did believe it, because he clearly has problems with social interaction.
Tele cannot listen to reason though; that is why that is the accusation he makes against others. When people lash out like that, they almost always accuse others of their own faults. For instance, he has got it into his head that either the girl intended to marry him and was coming onto him for that purpose, or else she was a vile tramp who was teasing him -- and he won't accept the latter, because he idolizes the girl beyond all sense, so he is certain in his own mind that she intended to marry him. He can't comprehend the idea that a girl might be blossoming and might like male attention and might be putting out a flirtatious vibe without intending to marry anyone. For him, a girl is either a saint or a whore, not a flawed human being. But some Catholic girls go further than just flirting, they have sex before marriage and everything! I'm sure some revel in evil and have dark secrets. Welcome to the real world, Tele. But at this point, I'm not even sure he didn't imagine the whole thing, having seen his delusions in regard to me and others. If he thinks that I am the one who is to blame for talking about his situation on CathInfo, how can I believe anything that I hear from him after that? Clearly he distorts reality to fit his own needs and his own self-image.
Anyway, the girls who are already like his ideal, something tells me, he has zero interest in, they're too humdrum. Because Tele, deep down, is a dreamer and romantic. But Catholics should fight through that, they should accept reality, both when it serves them and when it doesn't.
-
I think we're finally now seeing who is really the narcissist here.
Everyone here can see that Raoul brings up my situation at church again and again - adding "fuel to the fire" so to speak. And now he confesses it's because I pointed out that he and Spiritus Sanctus were responsible in large part for adding fuel to the fire in the "courting 18 year old virgins" thread. I would point out the attitude towards my story that Raoul presented in that thread - in comparison to Jehanne, who was genuine and sympathetic. Raoul said "I need to find out if Tele is a creeper" - something to that effect anyway. Pretty loathesome guilty until proven innocent way of approaching the question. And while I was glad about some of the things Raoul said in the thread, he kept adding fuel to the fire in it - and even turned against me at times simply for saying things like I would prefer to marry a younger woman so that I will find her more youthful and attractive as she gets older. (and people call that "disordered.")
So now we get the confession from Raoul:
He stopped believing entirely my side of the story when I pointed out how he had added fuel to the fire in that thread. In other words, it had nothing to do with the facts, it strictly had to with him feeling aggrieved - because of his rather narcissistic personality. If you look at the way Raoul praises himself, it's evident he hasn't gotten over the problem he has confessed having had in the past. And since then he has been aggressive about it - regardless of the facts.
He is claiming that I insist other people "must have my point of view" - when in fact he is the one who continually jumps into these threads because I didn't accept his point of view.
The man's ideas about other people depend entirely on his feelings. This is was revealed best in the thread sedetrad posted about him having a "psychotic break."
Finally he rails against my dilemma that I posed about the nature of the girl's behavior. He minimizes the girl's behavior to being just a "flirtatious vibe" - because apparently he decided my accounting of what I witnessed is no longer believable because I offended him by pointing out he's garrulous and adds fuel to the fire (as he is doing here - for the express purpose of wounding me). It wasn't just a "flirtatious vibe" - it was conscious, deliberate acts of flirtation that went on for very close to a year - possibly longer, depending on how you measure it.
Now the dilemma I posed is this:
Either the girl had some feelings for me and lied about it, or she was truly a heartless tease (something I don't believe). Raoul himself in the original thread pointed out that a woman who would tease a man without any intentions to follow through in any way for over a year is really doing something very bad.
Finally we come to the next point, the misrepresentation of claiming that I believed "either she wanted to marry me or she was a dirty tease" - no - that's not what I said. Either she was interested in me with with the legitimate intentions (seeking a spouse) that Catholics have, or she was interested in attracting my attention for the purposes that loose women have. I don't believe the latter (particularly because she seemed very disappointed - it was very evident in the way she lowered her head sadly after our eyes met) when she found out about my bad financial circuмstances from the untrustworthy woman I confided in ), but in honesty, how can I know?
I do know this:
I was extremely foolish to believe someone as unhinged as Raoul could be a trustworthy friend. In the same way I was foolish about the apparent benignity of the people at that church.
As Graham says, being ingenuous is not a sign of narcissism. I'm starting to believe I detect disingenuousness in Raoul's very poorly argued posts. And then of course there is his confessed history of thinking of himself with delusions of grandeur.
-
I think anyone who has seen the way Raoul has come after me about this in thread after thread will believe when I tell them that it was not my trying to convince Raoul to agree with me in our private discussions that caused him to lose it and break off speaking to me. On the contrary, he was the one persistently demanding that I accept his point of view, and when I didn't, he couldn't handle it. It's pretty clear he's obsessed with posting about me and my situation at church. For some reason it really galls him that I wouldn't agree with him.
-
Another point - when I was without internet access for sometime, I assumed Raoul would want to chat again as we had been doing before, as friends. He was the one who decided to cut off communication - it wasn't because I was insisting he agree with me, but because I refused to agree with him. Apparently he can't handle it if his friends don't give into him about his views on their personal life.
-
I've been avoiding quoting Raoul but I think it's important to point out this line in particular:
What happened was, in our last private conversation, Tele had the gall to blame me for talking about his situation at the SSPX church on CathInfo, when he was the one ranting incoherently about it and I just tried to get the story straight.
However, later, he added insult by injury by going on Fisheaters and wallowing in the whole situation even more. So much for me being the one to spread his misfortunes around, which was already ridiculous in the first place. I made a passing comment about this on CI saying he was "seeking attention" which he was. But that, on top of the fact that he probably saw I lost respect for him and had become wary of him, made him blow up.
It is around this time I also stopped entirely believing his side of the story, because I see now how he is, which is best described as narcissistic or "ox-like."
Now we can see here really how Raoul's broken thought processes work. He didn't just say he was trying to get my story straight - (he certainly could have asked for that in a non-adversarial way) he said he was trying find out if I was a creeper. Then he says I added "insult to injury" to him by going on fisheaters. I added insult and injury to him by going to post on fisheaters? That is a bizarre statement. Let me point out right now I wasn't the one who brought up my situation on fisheaters. It was the other posters who started viciously attacking me on it, so much so that posters like Iuvenalis stopped posting there. Augustine Baker was banned because of that thread. I'm not surprised that Raoul, raised in this society and in LA, is acting just like the fisheaters were acting, albeit in a somewhat less crass (but even more obsessive) way.
So because of these perceived "insults" to him. (posting on FE is an insult to him?), he stopped believing my accounting of facts, that I simply recalled from memory and honestly recorded here. This shows that his opinions have no basis in facts, only in what he wants to believe at the moment.
As for the rest of Raoul's post about the girl, how supposedly I wanted to make her more domestic than she was at the time (she was very hearth and home, nature and country life oriented at that time), as though being a talented violinist somehow she is no longer a simple girl, no longer suited for being the wife of an intelligent man who sees her role is in the home?
I think this gets to the crux of the issue. When Raoul found out how special the girl was, that is when he decided, like so many other people decided, that someone like me was beneath someone like her. And I think there is some jealousy inherent in that. I think there is clearly an obsession on the part of Raoul in relating these stories.
And it is quite disgusting how Raoul is playing the gallery about how I'm supposedly "authoritarian" or "macho" because I simply believe about the role of women what Catholic men in Catholic societies believed in the past.
-
I think we're finally now seeing who is really the narcissist here.
Indeed, Mr. Big shot. And it's not Raoul.
And now he confesses it's because I pointed out that he and Spiritus Sanctus were responsible in large part for adding fuel to the fire in the "courting 18 year old virgins" thread.
Tele, I know you have me on ignore but I have a feeling you read my posts sometimes anyway. Do you want me to start a thread saying I am sorry for my behavior on the "courting 18 year old virgins" thread? Because I have said time and time again that my behavior on that thread, not only towards you but to several other people, was totally un-acceptable. So again, I can start a thread saying I am sorry for that if need be.
-
Do you realize SS that you are doing exactly the same thing you did before?
You're calling me a narcissist in so many words but then saying you're sorry at the same time? I don't think you figured anything out.
-
My point was that Raoul is not a narcissist. But you are right actually, I am contradicting myself. Sorry, I shouldn't have said that.
What I was apologizing for though was my behavior in March. I would appreciate it if we could "forgive and forget" and move on. So I await your response.
-
I will forget about it when I'm convinced you're not acting that way anymore.
-
So am I required to start an apology thread, or just leave it alone?
-
I already said what I hope you'll do. Stop acting the way you've been acting.
-
Very well...
-
One more thing: all these people in these families that have accused me of lying or being delusional know I'm not lying and that I'm not making anything up.
They know that because when they asked me about my work/money situation I told them point blank what it was. They know the reason they treat me like dirt is because of that situation, not because I'm some sneaky cad.
-
Care to elaborate Tele? That made no sense.