Author Topic: The issue of lack of jobs for young people today (Read 4516 times)

Telesphorus · « **Reply #45 on:** August 26, 2010, 08:53:30 PM »

Quote from: Sigismund

Quote from: sedetrad
I would like to point out my reply to an earlier thread to start a much needed conversation. This is the earlier thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Twentysomethings-second-childhood-good-or-bad

my reply:

Kicking them out into the street when they are 18 is a miserable anti-catholic and protestant idea.
Andy

I see how it is an anti-Catholic idea. I am not sure how it is Protestant.

It's definitely an American thing. The idea that at 18 you're out and have to support yourself, or it's time to pay "rent" or else.

It's very common. Very American.

CathMomof7 · « **Reply #46 on:** August 26, 2010, 11:38:37 PM »

Quote from: Arborman

Great post! I appreciate the time and effort it took to write it.

I have a service industry job in which I have had to work much harder than I ever thought possible, and received far less money than I should have. My wife has always had to work because there is no way to raise a family on what I have made. We used contraception and then after 3 kids I was sterilized. Because we were both working our fool heads off, racing home to pick up the kids from day care.

We never would have owned a house except for the generous gift of a down payment from my in-laws.

Now we were not living our faith although we always went to Mass. Thank God for a NO priest who constantly nagged about the importance of going to confession, I started to discover the Catholic faith. I repented of the sins of sterilization and contraception (I had it reversed). We met other families where the fathers made incredible sums of money and their wives stayed home and home schooled the children and my wife and I struggled with jealousy. I admit to fighting feelings of failure to this day, I had not made enough money and thus deprived my family of a traditional Catholic life. Of course we weren't living the faith anyway. Is it any wonder that all 3 have abandoned the faith. I have many regrets.

I think the future for our children will be similiar to what I have gone through. The best will succeed and do well, but most will struggle.

No, thank you. I needed this. My husband and I are converts--me from agnosticism, he from lapsed Catholic/atheist. We were both very modern people when we met and married. We became NO liberal Catholics when our 2nd son was 2. We never planned on more children, we contracepted, we were pro-choice, pro-feminists, the whole ball of wax. We lost EVERYTHING, including our marriage. It was a very, very traditional NO priest (thank God) who showed me the Truth and set me on the path, through St. Joseph, to restore my family. As hard as it was living non-Catholic in the modern world, it is more so living as Traditional Catholics. I have often found myself jealous of those who are better off financially than us. I can imagine what it must be like to not worry which bill will have to get put off this month or if there will be enough money to buy groceries. But God has always found a way to provide for us. When our son needed new sneakers, he was unexpectedly gifted with a new pair PLUS a pair of dress shoes. In our struggles, I know we pray more. I am expecting our 7th child. I can't imagine life without any one of them. The blessings they have brought us are immeasurable. I pray diligently that we don't loose any of them to the world.

Matthew · « **Reply #47 on:** August 27, 2010, 12:56:03 AM »

Quote from: Matto

Quote from: Matthew
Once again, CM is extreme in his views.

I am with CM on this one. If something is sinful to use as intended, it seems that it would be sinful to sell it to another or to have anything to do with such a sale. I once read that the Blessed Mother warned a girl who was dying to tell her friends that everyone who wears immodest clothing or has anything to do with the making or selling of immodest clothing will be lost if they do not repent. I thought I read about that on this forum, but I did a search and could not find that thread.

Yes, but the janitor who sweeps the floors at Wal-mart isn't responsible for the contraceptives in Aisle 13. He's not "selling" them -- nor is the cashier, nor is the stock boy. They have ZERO input on what is sold, and God knows that. But these people (cashier, stockboy, janitor) need to make an honest living. That's all they are looking for.

Matthew

CM · « **Reply #48 on:** August 27, 2010, 07:52:46 PM »

I agree, we could not say the janitor is culpable. Does this mean that you've retracted your previous assertion?

Quote from: Matthew

My understanding is that a Catholic could work at Wal-mart, even if part of his job was to stock the prophylactics aisle. He's not responsible for people buying them. Same goes for the cashier at the checkout line.

CM · « **Reply #49 on:** August 27, 2010, 07:54:43 PM »

Nevermind, I just posted after having read only up to "janitor" in your post, but I now see that you have not retracted it at all. No further questions, but I vehemently disagree with you (nothing new under the sun, eh?).

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #50 on:** August 28, 2010, 02:14:24 AM »

Some principles need to be employed. The principles of double effect, remote or proximate cooperation, and material or formal cooperation.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #51 on:** August 28, 2010, 02:31:05 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Sigismund
Quote from: sedetrad
I would like to point out my reply to an earlier thread to start a much needed conversation. This is the earlier thread: http://www.cathinfo.com/catholic.php/Twentysomethings-second-childhood-good-or-bad

my reply:

Kicking them out into the street when they are 18 is a miserable anti-catholic and protestant idea.
Andy

I see how it is an anti-Catholic idea. I am not sure how it is Protestant.

It's definitely an American thing. The idea that at 18 you're out and have to support yourself, or it's time to pay "rent" or else.

It's very common. Very American.

Even if it's an un-Catholic idea, it's not an anti-Catholic idea.

Telesphorus · « **Reply #52 on:** August 28, 2010, 02:36:11 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Even if it's an un-Catholic idea, it's not an anti-Catholic idea.

It depends on the application. I think universal college coeducation is un-Catholic and anti-Catholic.

Pushing kids out of the house at 18 as though that is normal does not seem like it has any conceivable basis in Catholic principles - but could certainly be opposed to them.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #53 on:** August 28, 2010, 02:38:46 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Even if it's an un-Catholic idea, it's not an anti-Catholic idea.

It depends on the application. I think universal college coeducation is un-Catholic and anti-Catholic.

Pushing kids out of the house at 18 as though that is normal does not seem like it has any conceivable basis in Catholic principles - but could certainly be opposed to them.

I agree, it does depend. But pushing kids out early is not per-se an anti-Catholic idea.

Even if it does not seem like it has any conceivable basis in Catholic principles; it would be un-Catholic.

In certain situations, for example if a non-Catholic parent who had an anti-Catholic animus, kicked out a Catholic child for those reasons, then it would be anti-Catholic.

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #54 on:** August 28, 2010, 02:44:58 AM »

Quote from: Telesphorus

I think universal college coeducation is un-Catholic and anti-Catholic.

quote]

Yes, universal college coeducation is against Catholic principles, even if parents are not cognizant of the fact.

MyrnaM · « **Reply #55 on:** August 28, 2010, 08:52:01 AM »

I can't imagine Catholic parents actually pushing their children out of the house at 18, the families I know do everything possible to keep their adult children at home, and grieve when one of them leaves on their own account.

The entire world, not only College, is the devils play pen, and parents today must prepare their children for what to expect. Pray for them constantly.

CM · « **Reply #56 on:** August 28, 2010, 11:50:39 AM »

Quote from: Roman Catholic

Some principles need to be employed. The principles of double effect, remote or proximate cooperation, and material or formal cooperation.

Quote from: Wikipedia, the principle of double effect

This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

* the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
* the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
* the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circuмstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

Now the good effect (temporarily feeding your family) does NOT outweigh the bad effect (MORTAL SIN, INFINITE MALICE AGAINST GOD).

Matthew · « **Reply #57 on:** August 28, 2010, 12:19:08 PM »

Quote from: CM

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Some principles need to be employed. The principles of double effect, remote or proximate cooperation, and material or formal cooperation.

Quote from: Wikipedia, the principle of double effect
This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

* the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
* the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
* the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circuмstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

Now the good effect (temporarily feeding your family) does NOT outweigh the bad effect (MORTAL SIN, INFINITE MALICE AGAINST GOD).

But the person who buys the condoms was already advertised to, taught they were good by teachers, etc., decided he wanted them, and went to the store to buy them. Wal-mart corporate decided to carry them at all their stores.

When looked at this way, HOW MUCH contribution is the stockboy contributing to Joe Public committing the sin of contraception?

And it's not infinite malice against God, it's "who knows how much" malice against an infinite God. You're confusing why the sin is infinite.

The small contribution by the truck driver carrying a couple boxes of them to the store (less than 1% of his cargo), the janitor, the stockboy, the cashier is miniscule and the justification of "I have to feed my family" is CERTAINLY enough to outweigh any evil done.

You haven't shown me any evidence that my assertion is wrong.

You haven't been Catholic nearly as long as I have, and I bet you haven't read as much as I have either. I've been traditional Catholic my whole life, which is over 3 decades long. I've read hundreds of books, and I attended a traditional Catholic seminary for 3 1/3 years. I think my Sensus Catholicus is in better working order than yours.

Let the readers be the judge. They can follow whose advice they think more prudent.

Matthew

Roman Catholic · « **Reply #58 on:** August 28, 2010, 12:31:55 PM »

Quote from: CM

Quote from: Roman Catholic
Some principles need to be employed. The principles of double effect, remote or proximate cooperation, and material or formal cooperation.

Quote from: Wikipedia, the principle of double effect
This set of criteria states that an action having foreseen harmful effects practically inseparable from the good effect is justifiable if upon satisfaction of the following:

* the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
* the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
* the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circuмstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm.

Now the good effect (temporarily feeding your family) does NOT outweigh the bad effect (MORTAL SIN, INFINITE MALICE AGAINST GOD).

Ok so you have looked at a principle and formed your opinion on the application of it. I disagree with your generalized reasoning and conclusion.

I agree with Matthew on this, and I am familiar with the moral theology that applies in this scenario.

Inordinate rigorism and scrupulosity are not virtues. They are obstacles to proper moral conduct.

Good priests have been trained in these matters. My advice to people is ask a good priest.

CM · « **Reply #59 on:** August 28, 2010, 01:19:48 PM »

I know very well why it IS an infinite offense against God; it derives its infinite from the infinite of the Being whom it offends.

Matthew, you obviously hold yourself and your learning in very high esteem.

Please explain to me, then, using your decades worth of knowledge, how a Catholic would not at least commit the sin of scandal by stocking shelves with condoms. And if this is not scandal or sinful, then must you not also argue that a chemist who specializes in latex and works solely for the condom manufacturer and who does nothing but improve on the quality of the latex of condoms, is also free from any guilt?