Author Topic: Its 1965 All Over Again (Read 1220 times)

bowler · « **on:** January 02, 2014, 02:32:48 PM »

In the 1958 Catholic Church in American "was doing great"! Parents had been lulled into believing that they could "sub-contract out" their parental duties to the Catholic schools, and that the schools would take care of their children's moral upbringing better than they could.

Then just a few years later, they found that their children were having sex and drugs, and had lost the faith while "under the watch" of the Catholic schools.

We all lived this, and anyone that denies it must have had their head in the sand.

Today, I see the same exact thing happening in the SSPX, the same exact thing.

Parents open your eyes, the SSPX schools are not watching your children like you think, nor is it the "fortress against the World" that you might think it is.

OPEN YOUR EYES, you have no excuse today, for it happened before to you and your parents, and grandparents.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** January 02, 2014, 02:53:33 PM »

.

This needs fleshing out. What are the examples? High schools? Grammar schools?

One I can think of is the seminary at Winona -- anyone who sends their son there will be putting him into the hands of professors like Fr. Themann.

Who is Fr. Themann?

Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX, is the priest who was given the DIRTY WORK that +F didn't want to deal with, the dirty work of justifying +F's acceptance of Vat.II as a "Prudential decision" to which +F is entitled because he has the "grace of state."

He was given the dirty work and he undertook the project with zeal, making a 2-CD set of GARBAGE and has henceforth not dared to answer any of the real questions raised over his nefarious screed of 2-1/2 hours duration.

Fr. Themann has therefore deliberately misquoted the Summa of St. Thomas, and turned the definition of PRUDENCE inside out, to make it something that the Church has never before meant it to be, SEPARATED FROM PRINCIPLE.

It might sound like a little thing, a nuance, an also-ran in the world of ideas, but at this level of philosophy, one tiny error at the start can lead to a whole world of error in short order. If you make a left turn at the beginning of your journey, you will end up in a very different destination than the one you had intended.

Winona is no longer a place where you should send any creature, even a pet dog.

How about a goldfish? Okay, maybe a goldfish. But not a dog. Dogs can learn things.

.

Centroamerica · « **Reply #2 on:** January 02, 2014, 04:20:21 PM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

.

This needs fleshing out. What are the examples? High schools? Grammar schools?

One I can think of is the seminary at Winona -- anyone who sends their son there will be putting him into the hands of professors like Fr. Themann.

Who is Fr. Themann?

Fr. Daniel Themann, SSPX, is the priest who was given the DIRTY WORK that +F didn't want to deal with, the dirty work of justifying +F's acceptance of Vat.II as a "Prudential decision" to which +F is entitled because he has the "grace of state."

He was given the dirty work and he undertook the project with zeal, making a 2-CD set of GARBAGE and has henceforth not dared to answer any of the real questions raised over his nefarious screed of 2-1/2 hours duration.

Fr. Themann has therefore deliberately misquoted the Summa of St. Thomas, and turned the definition of PRUDENCE inside out, to make it something that the Church has never before meant it to be, SEPARATED FROM PRINCIPLE.

It might sound like a little thing, a nuance, an also-ran in the world of ideas, but at this level of philosophy, one tiny error at the start can lead to a whole world of error in short order. If you make a left turn at the beginning of your journey, you will end up in a very different destination than the one you had intended.

Winona is no longer a place where you should send any creature, even a pet dog.

How about a goldfish? Okay, maybe a goldfish. But not a dog. Dogs can learn things.

.

Am I mistaken or was it not Fr. Themann that was ordained in 2011? He is now a professor in the seminary? I know that a few old school professors have got to be delighted with seeing a recent student become a professor.

bowler · « **Reply #3 on:** January 02, 2014, 06:04:04 PM »

Quote

This needs fleshing out. What are the examples? High schools? Grammar schools?

Sex and drugs are not a problem till like 13 years of age and forward.

Frances · « **Reply #4 on:** January 02, 2014, 09:24:44 PM »

:dancing-banana:
bowler, I'm sorry to say you are wrong about the age at which sex and drugs are a "problem." In NYC, "tolerance" education starts in Kindergarten. ALL of my first graders in a nonpublic school "know" something about both, some more than others, naturally. In 2003, a third grade girl was expelled for giving "lessons" to other to other girls about the former. Two fifth graders have been expelled for bringing their parents' prescription drugs to school. Thankfully, under our current principal, hired 2005, there have been a minimum of such incidents. The world has a way of leaking in, even into the best of homes. I do not think it is fair to blame the school in this cases unless the schools are failing to teach, model, and adhere to correct moral standards. Perhaps things are different in very rural settings.
:confused1:Not to excuse wrongdoing, but how many sspx teachers, priests, parents were alive in 1965 and old enough to remember the changes and how they happened?

1st Mansion Tenant · « **Reply #5 on:** January 02, 2014, 09:45:05 PM »

"Sex and drugs are not a problem till like 13 years of age and forward."

Bowler- I have to ask, do you have kids? I remember being in Catholic school in the late 60's and the 4th & 5th graders definitely knew a lot about sex, and some were even experimenting. Those sweet little Catholic girls were often whispering and giggling not just about boys they thought were "cute", but who had "done it", or was going to, and with whom. I don't know what the boys talked about, but they sometimes snuck porn magazines in.The nuns made the garden by their little convent off limits because couples were making out behind the trees there. I also remember the "older" kids (7th- 8th) meeting a teen by the school fence to buy pot. All that behind the backs of those eagle-eyed nuns and the janitor and priest as well.

bowler · « **Reply #6 on:** January 02, 2014, 09:56:44 PM »

Quote from: 1st Mansion Tenant

"Sex and drugs are not a problem till like 13 years of age and forward."

Bowler- I have to ask, do you have kids? I remember being in Catholic school in the late 60's and the 4th & 5th graders definitely knew a lot about sex, and some were even experimenting. Those sweet little Catholic girls were often whispering and giggling not just about boys they thought were "cute", but who had "done it", or was going to, and with whom. I don't know what the boys talked about, but they sometimes snuck porn magazines in.The nuns made the garden by their little convent off limits because couples were making out behind the trees there. I also remember the "older" kids (7th- 8th) meeting a teen by the school fence to buy pot. All that behind the backs of those eagle-eyed nuns and the janitor and priest as well.

Yes, I have children. In 4th grade children should be 9 or 10. I was a boy, a popular boy athlete, yet girls were not on my mind till I was 12-13, and then I was too busy. It was not till I was 13-14 that I went bad. Girls was a different story, a girl in 4th grade could be going with boys 12 years old.

Anyhow, it was as you describe, and today it is the same in SSPX schools.