E
edwest2
Guest
Blaming everyone is called making a generalization. If one priest told you something wrong then contact the Bishop in your diocese and help solve the problem.
God bless,
Ed
- Status
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Vey sad that radical feminist propaganda still exists. During World War II, while their husbands were of getting shot at, women worked in factories. When their husbands came home, they had kids. I was born in the mid 1950s. Guess what? All the moms stayed home and raised their kids. Why? Because they brought them into this world. It made sense.
Then Betty Friedan who called the family “a comfortable concentration camp,” and others like her, began to sow seeds of discord. A few years after that, the radical feminist propaganda machine really started. “Sisters! Throw off the chains of your oppression!” The enemy? Men. All Men.
For people who are really afraid that their future spouse will hold them under their thumb for the rest of their lives. Stay away from men.
To Catholic women: Have a real relationship and friendship with the man you plan to marry. Ignore what the world is telling you.
God bless,
Ed
C
challam2010
Guest
I’m wearing my body armor, so here goes…
I read each post fairly carefully (excepting maybe the ones that were in living color) and not once did I see the word “conscience” – as in, follow your conscience to make your family’s decisions regarding children, careers, etc. Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has been quoted on the “supremacy of conscience,” although I know that’s not a popular concept on CAF. I thank God that it was one of the many good things that came from Vat II – that a fully-formed, adult conscience can be followed, trusting in God and His loving mercy.
I lived through the whole feminism cycle – heck, I may have even started it long before Friedan, Steinem & company took it to the media. It never made ANY sense to me that I would be paid less for the same (or even more responsible job) than my buddy Joe – yet, in the 1960’s until now, it’s true. Conditions are better today, but it’s still true in many, many cases. I fought the battle for many, many years – and I finally won.
I also lived through the years when it was not the norm for a wife/mother to work outside the home, yet I both wanted to and had to – not to support an upscale lifestyle but to support a family for the necessities. ABC? Of course – there was absolutely no question that it was needed, but in conscience, at that time, it kept me away from the Church.
In the 1970’s, when the breath of the Spirit flowed freely and we were blessed with the grace of finally being able to use our adult, informed consciences, I joyfully came back to the Church. I’m a celibate widow these days, but if I were still married and fertile, I wouldn’t hesitate to use that same conscience – and I wouldn’t lie awake at night worrying about hell.
I think that in the early days the ideals of feminism were laudible. Equal pay for equal work – the dignity of fulfilling work outside the home if that was necessary or desired – the freedom to be happily single, without judgment, if that suited a woman – and the ability through pharmaceuticals (or other means) to manage the size of one’s family.
I’ve never agreed nor supported the evil of abortion, which I think derailed the good the feminist movement did.
Before you start ranting, consider what one poster said – we were brought and taught the “new norms” of Vat II by our priests – we were counseled in the sacrament of Reconciliation by these same priests – were were told we were grownups, to pray about our situations and follow our consciences. I’m not sure what your credentials might be to controvert these priests or to question their counseling – nor to question the consciences of those who believe, before God, they’ve made the right decisions for their families.
In the black and white of written Church law lies a sea of gray that is our human hearts, our families’ welfare and our responsible adult actions. We are expected to act in every other aspect of our lives like grownups – why would this be any different?
It’s sweet to invoke the “greatest generation” and their families of the 1950’s – which was mine, also – but remember, theirs are the kids of the 1960’s and the sexual revolution. Nothing is perfect except God – not even the 1950’s families.
I read each post fairly carefully (excepting maybe the ones that were in living color) and not once did I see the word “conscience” – as in, follow your conscience to make your family’s decisions regarding children, careers, etc. Cardinal Ratzinger/Pope Benedict has been quoted on the “supremacy of conscience,” although I know that’s not a popular concept on CAF. I thank God that it was one of the many good things that came from Vat II – that a fully-formed, adult conscience can be followed, trusting in God and His loving mercy.
I lived through the whole feminism cycle – heck, I may have even started it long before Friedan, Steinem & company took it to the media. It never made ANY sense to me that I would be paid less for the same (or even more responsible job) than my buddy Joe – yet, in the 1960’s until now, it’s true. Conditions are better today, but it’s still true in many, many cases. I fought the battle for many, many years – and I finally won.
I also lived through the years when it was not the norm for a wife/mother to work outside the home, yet I both wanted to and had to – not to support an upscale lifestyle but to support a family for the necessities. ABC? Of course – there was absolutely no question that it was needed, but in conscience, at that time, it kept me away from the Church.
In the 1970’s, when the breath of the Spirit flowed freely and we were blessed with the grace of finally being able to use our adult, informed consciences, I joyfully came back to the Church. I’m a celibate widow these days, but if I were still married and fertile, I wouldn’t hesitate to use that same conscience – and I wouldn’t lie awake at night worrying about hell.
I think that in the early days the ideals of feminism were laudible. Equal pay for equal work – the dignity of fulfilling work outside the home if that was necessary or desired – the freedom to be happily single, without judgment, if that suited a woman – and the ability through pharmaceuticals (or other means) to manage the size of one’s family.
I’ve never agreed nor supported the evil of abortion, which I think derailed the good the feminist movement did.
Before you start ranting, consider what one poster said – we were brought and taught the “new norms” of Vat II by our priests – we were counseled in the sacrament of Reconciliation by these same priests – were were told we were grownups, to pray about our situations and follow our consciences. I’m not sure what your credentials might be to controvert these priests or to question their counseling – nor to question the consciences of those who believe, before God, they’ve made the right decisions for their families.
In the black and white of written Church law lies a sea of gray that is our human hearts, our families’ welfare and our responsible adult actions. We are expected to act in every other aspect of our lives like grownups – why would this be any different?
It’s sweet to invoke the “greatest generation” and their families of the 1950’s – which was mine, also – but remember, theirs are the kids of the 1960’s and the sexual revolution. Nothing is perfect except God – not even the 1950’s families.
E
edwest2
Guest
The difference between the 1950s and today is this - people have stopped trying. Throughout the early 1960s I was surrounded by adults who made mistakes, went to confession and tried to do better.
And I heard the propaganda. A bunch of strangers convincing men and women that You Can’t Control Yourselves! And later, Your Kids Can’t Control Themselves!
Wake up. Who put you to sleep? I was born in the mid 1950s. There was no birth control pill. The average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. 2.
Then, people began to believe the mythology that they could not control their own bodies.
No, I never said it was perfect, but I actually know one man who denied his own potential by accepting the false belief that a Leave It To Beaver life was simply an impossibility. My time growing up was like the Donna Reed Show.
But too many people accepted mediocrity for themselves. It’s too hard… I just can’t do it. It’s too hard… Yes, it’s not easy. But the alternative, I submit, is a lot worse.
God bless,
Ed
And I heard the propaganda. A bunch of strangers convincing men and women that You Can’t Control Yourselves! And later, Your Kids Can’t Control Themselves!
Wake up. Who put you to sleep? I was born in the mid 1950s. There was no birth control pill. The average number of kids in my neighborhood was two. 2.
Then, people began to believe the mythology that they could not control their own bodies.
No, I never said it was perfect, but I actually know one man who denied his own potential by accepting the false belief that a Leave It To Beaver life was simply an impossibility. My time growing up was like the Donna Reed Show.
But too many people accepted mediocrity for themselves. It’s too hard… I just can’t do it. It’s too hard… Yes, it’s not easy. But the alternative, I submit, is a lot worse.
God bless,
Ed
E
edwest2
Guest
Thanks to a group of dissidents, Humanae Vitae was not taught in seminaries in the 1970s. Instead, these future priests were told to tell parishioners that it was a personal conscience issue. That is why this widespread Artificial Birth Control mentality exists today.
God bless,
Ed
God bless,
Ed
P
puzzleannie
Guest
you can argue that point, but it is beside the main one you make in OP namely that feminist equates careers for women and ABC. Some notable feminists have advocated both, but the reasons so many Catholic women have embraced ABC are a lot deeper than feminism, and feminism is a movement too complex to reduce to those two things. You can make an argument of a connection but you will have to bolster it with evidence, not opinion. There is no either/or in wife & mother vs career, they are not in opposition. There are dozens of valid reasons for choosing either role, and dozens of valid reasons for combining them, putting stress on one role or the other as life conditions change. Don’t set up a moral issue where none exists. If you want to argue the social and family damage done by using ABC, then present your evidence–and it is weighty–and stick to that issue.
J
JReducation
Guest
I entered in 1969 and was in seminary until 1980. We were taught Humanae Vitae.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
F
faithfully
Guest
I don’t know. But after reading the thread that lead to the blog about who developed Planned ParentHood, and the quotes from our Supreme Court Justice… I’m even MORE appalled and concerned by the idea that our country has pushed abortion and BC more as a way to eliminate a race.
This goes WAY beyond feminism…
This goes WAY beyond feminism…
T
Timothy17
Guest
Dear Challam,
As the son of a businessman and corporate CEO, I can tell you the exact, simple reasoning for the difference in pay scale : modern, neo-liberal economics ; “science,” not sex. These guys don’t read Maxim Magazine, they read the Economist and the Harvard Business Report.
To assume that there is some vendetta in the business world against women is serious folly. These men - and women! - want one thing : money, and profit, and lots of it. Even if they don’t, they have to do it anyways, or else they are out of a job.
So why the disparate pay scale ?
Math.
Take the likelihood of maternity leave (wherein there is a pay-out without performance and the added business costs of temporary-replacement, etc.) and you get the approximate pay scale, based on the value-added of the position. The reason things have been doing better is partly because women are more willing to quit or change jobs due to pay, and further the advent of paternal leave, which increases the likelihood of a pay-out without performance for men as well. Above this, women are more likely to be educated, and better educated, than their male counterparts, though education is valuable only because of the time it saves in training, and as a demonstration of commitment, reliability and possibly intellect. Still, maternity leave is far more likely than its paternal counterpart, owing to the fact men are still paid more, so the financial hit is more taxing on a family’s income.
It has nothing to do with gender per se. It has to do with making money, pure and simple. Companies - especially stock driven companies - will never let a penny drop out of the goodness of their hearts, or a sense of fairness. It’s simply bad business, and a terrifying precedent (for them). Smart companies looking to corner the market on productive women will offer higher, equal or even better salaries to women ; however, again, this is for generating revenue - not from a philosophical desire to do right in the world. It’s a business strategy, pure and simple.
Any idiot in a conference room who would be stupid enough to say, “We should pay women less, because they are women” would be fired - not because what he (or she!) said was politically incorrect, but because that’s stupid reasoning in a business context. They’d be fired for applying a personal opinion to a business, which would threaten the soundness of the business overall. I assure you, if women were seen as profit-makers above and beyond men, they would be paid more and more, until men were paid comparatively little, and the proverbial coin would be flipped on its head. It may be this that has inspired the idea of the female, corporate business-heroine who feels she must out-perform, out-compete and in every way out-do her male competition, as if in order to justify herself or women in general.
It’s business : and no, I am not proud that’s the way business is by any stretch of the imagination, but we live in a world where Mammon is God and so it rules the day, and cold, hard, merciless statistics, facts, theories, strategies and figures determine the course of events.
To imagine women are paid less out of some antiquated bigotry is entirely mistaken. Basing strategies to fix the problem based on an incorrect thesis will not fix the problem, and the business world will out-wit any attempts to change that Rule of the Dollar, because they have everything to lose and nothing to gain by doing otherwise.
Pax,
Tim
C
challam2010
Guest
Tim –
Since you’re offering credentials, I have a few of my own. I was Director of Information Technology for a Fortune 100 company until 1994, when I quit to start my own (successful) business, in addition to writing for publication. I think I know what I’m talking about here as I’ve lived it.
The principles you detailed may be the underlying reasons NOW that women are paid less – but when I started working (in 1960) I don’t believe that was true. It wasn’t necessarily a conscious conspiracy at that time, but simply a reflection of how women THEN were perceived, before we were successful in our quest for (near) equality in the workplace.
At that time, women were just starting to enter the work force en masse and they were, almost always, employed in historically “feminine” positions (secretarial, other office work, retail clerking, teaching, service work, etc.) which did not qualify for higher salaries by their function.
However, when women literally worked their way up the corporate organizational chart, they were STILL paid less than their male counterparts. Sometimes it was just plain arbitrary – Jack and Jill doing the same job, Jack makes more bucks – and often the reasoning was that Jack was supporting a family (even when Jill may have also been…). This was particularly true if a woman worked in a traditional male industry, like construction.
In addition to the disparity in salary, there was also blatant discrimination regarding perqs, prestige, inclusion in activities, and respect from male executives.
We also had to deal with constant sexual harrassment – not the imagined or mild incidents of today that are protected by law, but the real “sleep with me now or you’re fired” kind that nearly every women of that era had to deal with.
I lived ALL of this and I fought the good fight for equality – as did the feminist organizations which literally forced employers and legislators of those years to make necessary changes; thank God for our success.
Of course companies can’t do that today – but where do you think the current laws originated? From exactly the above abuses.
Certainly, it now comes down to math – but at that time it also reflected the male-dominated culture which, frankly, didn’t know what to do with these savvy, qualified and ambitious (uppity) women. If you didn’t live during those times, this probably sounds bizarre and cartoonish – believe me, it is not.
I personally think that, in addition to the abortion horror, more current feminism has so changed the landscape that too many young women feel obligated to pursue a career when their own personal natural inclination and desire is to remain home as a homemaker and mother. I think the feminist agenda has harmed the American family by denigrating that particular choice – but I do thank God that women have a choice now, whereas in my mother’s generation they didn’t. Generally speaking, unless forced by economic circumstances, women remained homemakers before 1960 – and there are volumes of sociological studies about the frustration that some women felt in that limited situation.
Since you’re offering credentials, I have a few of my own. I was Director of Information Technology for a Fortune 100 company until 1994, when I quit to start my own (successful) business, in addition to writing for publication. I think I know what I’m talking about here as I’ve lived it.
The principles you detailed may be the underlying reasons NOW that women are paid less – but when I started working (in 1960) I don’t believe that was true. It wasn’t necessarily a conscious conspiracy at that time, but simply a reflection of how women THEN were perceived, before we were successful in our quest for (near) equality in the workplace.
At that time, women were just starting to enter the work force en masse and they were, almost always, employed in historically “feminine” positions (secretarial, other office work, retail clerking, teaching, service work, etc.) which did not qualify for higher salaries by their function.
However, when women literally worked their way up the corporate organizational chart, they were STILL paid less than their male counterparts. Sometimes it was just plain arbitrary – Jack and Jill doing the same job, Jack makes more bucks – and often the reasoning was that Jack was supporting a family (even when Jill may have also been…). This was particularly true if a woman worked in a traditional male industry, like construction.
In addition to the disparity in salary, there was also blatant discrimination regarding perqs, prestige, inclusion in activities, and respect from male executives.
We also had to deal with constant sexual harrassment – not the imagined or mild incidents of today that are protected by law, but the real “sleep with me now or you’re fired” kind that nearly every women of that era had to deal with.
I lived ALL of this and I fought the good fight for equality – as did the feminist organizations which literally forced employers and legislators of those years to make necessary changes; thank God for our success.
Of course companies can’t do that today – but where do you think the current laws originated? From exactly the above abuses.
Certainly, it now comes down to math – but at that time it also reflected the male-dominated culture which, frankly, didn’t know what to do with these savvy, qualified and ambitious (uppity) women. If you didn’t live during those times, this probably sounds bizarre and cartoonish – believe me, it is not.
I personally think that, in addition to the abortion horror, more current feminism has so changed the landscape that too many young women feel obligated to pursue a career when their own personal natural inclination and desire is to remain home as a homemaker and mother. I think the feminist agenda has harmed the American family by denigrating that particular choice – but I do thank God that women have a choice now, whereas in my mother’s generation they didn’t. Generally speaking, unless forced by economic circumstances, women remained homemakers before 1960 – and there are volumes of sociological studies about the frustration that some women felt in that limited situation.
J
Julianna
Guest
That is against the law and I would remind whoever said that of the fact. The fact that it was “spoken”…anyhoo…I would give a call to the nearest labor board and let them know what is going on. He can say, "No, I don’t think your candidate would suit the position…but to “add” because she has “children” is unlawful. There is no way whoever said that should get away with it.
F
faithfully
Guest
OH I KNOW! I was an independant recruiter at the time. I actually gave HIM the opportunity to rephrase what he said. He didn’t want to…
So, as an independant, I had no choice but to fire my client. He’s asking… so, do you have anyone else? ME: Nope, and I won’t be sending any of my amazing candidates your way ever again… Ba-Bye!
On another Note: I came across this years ago… It still makes me laugh, and shake my head. Perhaps if men weren’t so condensending, they wouldn’t have to deal with the die hards of today… There exists SOOOOO much truth to “you reap what you sow”
Guide to Hiring Woman - 1943
Keep in mind this article was printed in a Biz Mag… Not Maxim…
E
edwest2
Guest
I stand corrected. What I should have wrote was that while it was taught, the dissenters said that the Church’s teaching on artificial birth control would change ‘someday.’ The following article by Janet Smith, a well known speaker on Catholic Radio (and elsewhere), explains it clearly near the bottom of the page under the heading: How is your message received by Catholic clergy?I entered in 1969 and was in seminary until 1980. We were taught Humanae Vitae.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
catholiceducation.org/articles/sexuality/se0002.html
Thank you,
Ed
J
JReducation
Guest
This is true. It did happen and still happens. One of the many professors at the theologate was Fr. Charles Curren, who is a wonderful human being. However, Fr. Curran and the Vatican disagree on this issue.
For me, this was not a problem. I can only speak for myself. It was good to attend his lectures and hear him out and then read the document and commentaries by other theologians. Let me explain why it was good for me.
First, it helped me see where there were weaknesses in the original wording of the document. These weaknesses, in wording, not theology, left openings for people to disagree. Therefore, I learned a lot about paying attention to details like this. Today, when I hear a dissenting opinion, I don’t jump all over the person. I find myself being able to say, “OK, there is a gap in the manner that this stated and someone just jumped right through it.” When I explain the teaching to someone else, I’m careful to bridge the gap to keep them from falling into it. That being said, Father may disagree with me and say that he did not fall into a pothole. That’s OK. He can disagree with me.
Second, I found it very helpful to hear people disagree with the document and to hear why they disagreed. I can only defend something if I know why the other side objects to it. If they never say a word, but just go about their way, I have no idea that there is a problem. It’s like a marriage. You walk into a room and ask your spouse, "What’s the matter?
and she or he responds, “Nothing.” What are you supposed to do? Then you get slapped with divorce papers.
Finally, I have always found it fun to sit in a theology class and have to think, organize a response and then see if my point got through. To sit in a class where I never had to think, just memorize was very boring. I had many of those too. They were like Baltimore Catechism at the 800 level. In other words, they were just longer statements than the ones in the Baltimore Catechism. I’ll give you an example. “What is a sacrament?” The Baltimore Catechism gives you the brief answer. “A sign instituted by Christ to give grace.” In graduate school you got the 6000 word answer, with that same sentence as the topic sentence, but then it would go on and on to explain each word in that sentence, wihtout any discussion or any teasing of the mind. I got bored in classes like that. When I went down the hall and the Christology professor siad, “How can you explain the two natures in Christ?” Now we were cooking. This was going to be fun. It was hard work, because you had to do the leg-work, finding everything ever written on this subject and putting it together. The mandate was to prove it. There was no assumption that it could not be proven.
In studying Humanae Vitae, there was no a priori assumption that Paul VI was wrong. The a priori assumption was that you were too dumb to understand where he came from. It was your job to prove to the professor that you were not dumb, but that you could show where Paul VI was coming from. You did a lot of leg-work and made many trips to the library. We spent weeks on this document.
I guess that I’m trying to say that a lot depends on where you went to school and what kind of student you were. If you did your homework, Humane Vitae was challenging, but not an obstacle to the faith. On the contrary, to understand it in its entirety you must have strong command of scripture, Christology, sacraments, systematic theology, metaphysics, logic, eschatology, biology, sociology, Christian anthropology and moral theology. That’s why I alwasy liked Cardinal Levada’s dissertation. He pulls it all together for you.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
B
Bluegoat
Guest
When I was a student, this is how we were taught to approach ANY text. I still don’t understand how one can approach any POV from a purely critical position and think one will understand what the author was getting at. However, I saw many students in other departments taught that way.
E
edwest2
Guest
Humanae Vitae was a case where some theologians disagreed with a Papal document and succeeeded in confusing the issue for some. The Church teaching about artificial birth control is clear. A certain group, including Hugh Hefner, wanted sex for pleasure to become the overriding principle. I have brought this up before and I need to bring this up again - if people want other beliefs to not apply to them, like Christianity, when and why did they lose control over their own body? When did they decide that sex could not occur without a condom or The Pill?This is true. It did happen and still happens. One of the many professors at the theologate was Fr. Charles Curren, who is a wonderful human being. However, Fr. Curran and the Vatican disagree on this issue.
For me, this was not a problem. I can only speak for myself. It was good to attend his lectures and hear him out and then read the document and commentaries by other theologians. Let me explain why it was good for me.
First, it helped me see where there were weaknesses in the original wording of the document. These weaknesses, in wording, not theology, left openings for people to disagree. Therefore, I learned a lot about paying attention to details like this. Today, when I hear a dissenting opinion, I don’t jump all over the person. I find myself being able to say, “OK, there is a gap in the manner that this stated and someone just jumped right through it.” When I explain the teaching to someone else, I’m careful to bridge the gap to keep them from falling into it. That being said, Father may disagree with me and say that he did not fall into a pothole. That’s OK. He can disagree with me.
Second, I found it very helpful to hear people disagree with the document and to hear why they disagreed. I can only defend something if I know why the other side objects to it. If they never say a word, but just go about their way, I have no idea that there is a problem. It’s like a marriage. You walk into a room and ask your spouse, "What’s the matter?
and she or he responds, “Nothing.” What are you supposed to do? Then you get slapped with divorce papers.
Finally, I have always found it fun to sit in a theology class and have to think, organize a response and then see if my point got through. To sit in a class where I never had to think, just memorize was very boring. I had many of those too. They were like Baltimore Catechism at the 800 level. In other words, they were just longer statements than the ones in the Baltimore Catechism. I’ll give you an example. “What is a sacrament?” The Baltimore Catechism gives you the brief answer. “A sign instituted by Christ to give grace.” In graduate school you got the 6000 word answer, with that same sentence as the topic sentence, but then it would go on and on to explain each word in that sentence, wihtout any discussion or any teasing of the mind. I got bored in classes like that. When I went down the hall and the Christology professor siad, “How can you explain the two natures in Christ?” Now we were cooking. This was going to be fun. It was hard work, because you had to do the leg-work, finding everything ever written on this subject and putting it together. The mandate was to prove it. There was no assumption that it could not be proven.
In studying Humanae Vitae, there was no a priori assumption that Paul VI was wrong. The a priori assumption was that you were too dumb to understand where he came from. It was your job to prove to the professor that you were not dumb, but that you could show where Paul VI was coming from. You did a lot of leg-work and made many trips to the library. We spent weeks on this document.
I guess that I’m trying to say that a lot depends on where you went to school and what kind of student you were. If you did your homework, Humane Vitae was challenging, but not an obstacle to the faith. On the contrary, to understand it in its entirety you must have strong command of scripture, Christology, sacraments, systematic theology, metaphysics, logic, eschatology, biology, sociology, Christian anthropology and moral theology. That’s why I alwasy liked Cardinal Levada’s dissertation. He pulls it all together for you.
Fraternally,
Br. JR, OSF
And you bring up a valuable point. Wherever God puts you, the learning curve will not go away. Learning is hard work, even if God puts you into baseball. How hard can it be to hit a ball? Why the training and exercise routine? All of us need to go through this in order to understand the wisdom the Church passes on to us.
God bless,
Ed
- Status