"Hard-Core Catholicism bursting out all over the place"

[fix]

Penny Plain:

You hope that your kids will grow up to be just like you, but the children of “orthodox” Catholics of the 40s and 50s became the “cafeteria Catholics” of the 60s and later. Children like, well, me. We are still Catholic, but we are not the “orthodox” Catholics our parents were.

What defines being a Catholic?

 

[Richardols]

Promotor Fidei:

In what way is it “a better lifestyle” if it leads to extinction for that group?

It is a common perception that a smaller family allows for a more comfortable lifestyle. For many, a more comfortable lifestyle equals a better lifestyle.

No pessimism involved!

Maybe not to you. Your statement, “it’s too late to reverse course” is pessimistic to me.

My observations are backed up by studies of birthrates over the last 40 years. Richard, these figures are not under dispute by any reputable demographer.

I wasn’t questioning the demographic facts, just your interpretation of those facts.

 

[kmktexas]

You hope that your kids will grow up to be just like you, but the children of “orthodox” Catholics of the 40s and 50s became the “cafeteria Catholics” of the 60s and later. Children like, well, me. We are still Catholic, but we are not the “orthodox” Catholics our parents were. It’s fairly likely your kids will remain Catholic, I suppose, depending on where you live. But I don’t think it’s so sure that your kids will be the same kind of Catholic you are.

Actually, I hope that my kids will grow up and be more faithful than I am, not “just like” me. There is one BIG difference this time around. Many orthodox Catholics of the 40s and 50s were deliberately mislead about the faith after Vatican II. That is an event that is being reversed rather than repeated. Not only that, most people of my generation were brought up by “good Catholic” parents who trusted the schools and CCD programs to be teaching the faith in accordance with the Church. It never occured to them that they needed to be vigilant about what was being taught to their children in so-called Catholic schools and programs. This generation is more cynical and not likely to repeat that mistake. (not that we won’t find new mistakes to make).

 

[Penny_Plain]

fix:

What defines being a Catholic?

Heh.

Pass.

 

[Maranatha]

fix:

What defines being a Catholic?

I believe a Canonical Law expert could answer this better but I understand that if you are baptized Catholic, then you are Catholic. This puts a potential gulf between what a Catholic should do (submit to the authority of the Magisterium) and what a Catholic may do.

 

[Richardols]

Maranatha:

I understand that if you are baptized Catholic, then you are Catholic.

I agree. Not much of a selection criterion, eh?

 

[fix]

Richardols:

I agree. Not much of a selection criterion, eh?

Let me rephrase then, how does one define a faithful Catholic.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Penny Plain:

And presumably most Catholics produce Catholic children, so we’re going to win, right?

In the USA, that’s the way the numbers read (I would include conservative Christians in that group). In Europe, Islam will win if nothing changes.

Hmm. You seem to want to view the liberalization of the Church in the 60s and 70s as part of an inevitable historic trend dating back to … Descartes and that crowd? I don’t think I buy it. I think you’re reading history retroactively.

So history has no effect on the present? And we have no effect on the future? And modern ideas owe nothing to what went before?

**I can just go by the ones I’ve met. No liberal clergy that I’ve met have strongly led people to deeper faith in God. Instead they fixate on social issues and solutions, mentioning God only in passing.

I’m glad to hear that you are fervent in your faith, Penny.

From what I have read here, there was a time in the US when the churches and seminaries were full, and they were full of what’s termed “the orthodox.” Catholics were breeding in record numbers, and so forth. That time was not so long ago – maybe the 50s? Then, somehow, it all went south and the seminaries became bastions of (booga, booga) liberalism.

There’s just too many assumptions in this hope.

The seminaries of the 50s taught liberal ideas. Modernism began infecting seminaries before 1900. Why do you think Saint Pius X issued the encyclical “Pascendi Dominici Gregis”?

dailycatholic.org/pascend1.htm

I attended seminary in the early '80s and they were using condemned textbooks that the instructors agreed with. Only one priest there inspired faith, the rest came across as psychologists training other psychologists. I heard from older priests that it was even worse in their day. Read “Goodbye, Good Men” some time if you want a picture of what I went through. Clergy-student sexual harassment in a seminary doesn’t make for a good environment to grow in holiness.

Thank God, the dominance of the secularists has been broken. My seminary has since been shut down for lack of students. The Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, an orthodox seminary, has 120 students and more on the way.

You hope that your kids will grow up to be just like you, but the children of “orthodox” Catholics of the 40s and 50s became the “cafeteria Catholics” of the 60s and later. Children like, well, me. We are still Catholic, but we are not the “orthodox” Catholics our parents were. It’s fairly likely your kids will remain Catholic, I suppose, depending on where you live. But I don’t think it’s so sure that your kids will be the same kind of Catholic you are.

My prayer is that they become more faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ and his apostles than I am. Many of my nine nephews and nieces are grown or near grown. So far so good.

That links neatly to the issues you raise about Islam in Europe. Modern culture corrupts religious extremism or orthodoxy, whichever term you choose. The Muslims who move to Germany may be orthodox Muslims. Their children, who grow up in German culture., maybe. Their grandchildren? Their grandchildren will be Germans. Maybe Muslm Germans, but they’ll be Germans.

Germany is a great example, thanks… they’ve had Islamic immigrants long enough to test your theory. In fact, few of children of the immigrants have enculturated. It’s why the government is so worried

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_36_18/ai_92589540
.
abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=289575&page=1

I’m sure that all of the other countries that Islam invaded hoped that they would enculturate. The opposite has always happened. This time could be different… but I’ve read lectures by mullahs who have timelines as to when they will have control of each country.

Do you think that Western secular/atheistic culture is superior to all others and destined to convert the world?

Are your children immune from the culture? Fat chance.

Are your children immune from your influence? You know they’re not.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Richardols:

It is a common perception that a smaller family allows for a more comfortable lifestyle. For many, a more comfortable lifestyle equals a better lifestyle.

Which is why that philosophy is failing. The secularists value comfort more than children. That’s why most have no qualms about killing them.

Maybe not to you. Your statement, “it’s too late to reverse course” is pessimistic to me.

Too late for the secularists if they do not convert, yes. No pessimism, but I do feel sad for them.

I wasn’t questioning the demographic facts, just your interpretation of those facts.

It’s a math equation. Many European native populations are halving every generation. If it weren’t for Islamic immigration, they would have been shrinking for some time already. I leave it to anyone to draw their own conclusions.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Promotor Fidei:

Clergy-student sexual harassment in a seminary doesn’t make for a good environment to grow in holiness.

I meant to add student-student to that list as well.

 

[Richardols]

Promotor Fidei:

The secularists value comfort more than children. That’s why most have no qualms about killing them.

There are also Christians who value smaller families over large ones, and the affordability of a smaller family is part of the reason. A woman isn’t a brood mare.

I can only speak for myself, but I’ve yet to meet a secularist who says that he has no qualms about killing children. Inflammatory statements like yours do nothing to advance dialogue, and I would think that we’re not here to damn those people, but to get them to change their ways.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Richardols:

There are also Christians who value smaller families over large ones, and the affordability of a smaller family is part of the reason. A woman isn’t a brood mare.

Were there no brood mares, there would be no horses.

I can only speak for myself, but I’ve yet to meet a secularist who says that he has no qualms about killing children.

Yet it does not stay their hands. I searched the web and found some who celebrate this practice, but their quotes were so offensive that I decided not to post them here.

I’ll agree with you in this, Richard: Most do feel qualms and tortured consciences, even abortionists themselves: clinicquotes.topcities.com/morequotes.htm

Inflammatory statements like yours do nothing to advance dialogue, and I would think that we’re not here to damn those people, but to get them to change their ways.

My purpose was to shock those who value comfort so highly out of their comfortable state. Abortion and birth control together are extincting native Europeans, Japanese and Russians.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

In my opinion, the situation today in Western secular/relativist culture is analogous to Brezhnev’s Soviet Union in 1982. It looked so very strong, no-one knew how fragile it was, but it was only seven years away from the fall of the Berlin Wall.

It is truly the Springtime of Evangelization, as Pope John Paul the Great said.

ignatius-press.world-stores.net/products/Springtime-of-Evangelization.html

 

[Richardols]

Promotor Fidei:

Were there no brood mares, there would be no horses.

Women, as opposed to horses, are more than that. You really sound enlightened - one of those who, if asked what the position of women in society should be would answer, “On their backs or on their knees.” The pious grinder-out of babies is no more.

 

[jlw]

Richardols:

Women, as opposed to horses, are more than that. You really sound enlightened - one of those who, if asked what the position of women in society should be would answer, “On their backs or on their knees.” The pious grinder-out of babies is no more.

The point, I think, was, “no women, no humanity”.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Richardols:

Women, as opposed to horses, are more than that. You really sound enlightened - one of those who, if asked what the position of women in society should be would answer, “On their backs or on their knees.” The pious grinder-out of babies is no more.

I’m surprised that you left out “and beat them regularly”.

Seriously, I believe no such thing. “On their backs or on their knees”, indeed. What nonsense.

“You really sound enlightened”… that’s nice of you to say! :tiphat:

Richard, based on other posts in this thread, it sounds like you are politically liberal but religiously orthodox. When I speak of secularists/relativists that would, of course, not include you.

Even regarding secularists I have always modified my sentences with “most”, “some”, never “all”. I am well aware that there are pro-life atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Kathryn Reed. You seem to be making assumptions about my political inclinations. I’m guessing that is whence comes the vitriol.

Chesterton stated my view on the role of women best:

‘Twenty million young women rose to their feet with the cry “We will not be dictated to,” and promptly became stenographers.’ --G. K. Chesterton (1874–1936), English author

‘Chesterton said that the two greatest enemies to freedom in our society are big government and big business. And they are also enemies of the family. Families are a nuisance to businesses that have to provide a living wage, health care plans, maternity leave, and have to put up with employees coming in late or going home early because a child is sick or missed the school bus. And families are a nuisance to the State because they interfere with regulation, standardization, officialism, and the secularization of everything sacred. Traditionally, the State has been subordinate to the family, but when the family loses its strength, the government gains extraordinary power over people’s personal lives. Chesterton says that without the family we are helpless before the State.’

chesterton.org/discover/lectures/16whatswrong.html

‘Gudge (capitalism) rules by a coarse and cruel system of sacking and sweating and bi-sexual toil, which is totally inconsistent with the family and is bound to destroy it. And Hudge (socialism-idealism) calls a women’s work freedom to live her own life, and says the family is something we shall soon gloriously outgrow.’

chesterton.org/discover/nutshell/hudgeandgudge.html

Modern feminism (not the first feminists) have given women abortion, divorce, and the feminization of poverty:

olin.wustl.edu/macarthur/working%20papers/wp-mclanahan3.htm

In short, the zeitgeist (spirit of the age) encourages women to be wage slaves, but punishes them for being mothers.

Personally, I am neither a capitalist nor a socialist. Both philosophies, I believe, are incompatible with Catholicism. I am a Distributivist, an economic philosophy embraced by several Popes including Leo XIII, Pius XI, and John Paul the Great.

mdemarco.web.wesleyan.edu/gkc/distrib/

 

[Richardols]

“On their backs or on their knees”, indeed. What nonsense.

I’m not so original. I didn’t make that phrase up.

Even regarding secularists I have always modified my sentences with “most”, “some”, never “all”. I am well aware that there are pro-life atheists, such as Christopher Hitchens and Kathryn Reed.

God bless you for that. I hate “unqualified” descriptions, which smack of broad-brushing. I always mention Nat Hentoff of the Village Voice as pro-life atheist, and the usual reaction here is that it’s impossible because a pro-life or a moral atheist is an “oxymoron.”

Personally, I am neither a capitalist nor a socialist. Both philosophies, I believe, are incompatible with Catholicism.

Indeed! Most conservatives here are quick enough to condemn socialism for various reasons, but capitalism is, and I agree with you that it should not be, the “conservative’s economic system.”

I am a Distributivist, an economic philosophy embraced by several Popes including Leo XIII, Pius XI, and John Paul the Great.

Not a reactionary among them! I ought to brush up on Distributivism, which I understand to be the economic philosophy most compatible with Catholic teaching.

BTW, a fine and interesting post.

 

[Promotor_Fidei]

Richardols:

BTW, a fine and interesting post.

Thank you, really! It’s been pleasant to have a truly interesting conversation. :clapping:

 

[snow_white]

Richardols:

No, in Little Rock, a good orthodox diocese, which was one of the dioceses that did not even have a single incident of priestly abuse.

If it’s awesome, there must be a lot of it. But, your claim is thin on the ground with substantiation…

What do you mean?
.

In fifty years I’ll be dead, and you’ll be an old woman. But, better late than never, eh?

I am not saying that you can see it in every parish and every town. But I am just giving personal examples that there is growth. Maybe it’s not to your standards, but nevertheless, it’s growth.

I use morally liberal because some people call themselves liberal Catholics but are still faithful to the magisterium. But by morally liberal Catholics I am meaning Catholics who are for birth control, women ordination, etc. I know I am being silly for being so ‘politically correct’. I am just hassled all the time for using the words conservative and liberal so loosely. So I thought if I was more specific, I wouldn’t confusing anyone. But obviously that didn’t work.

Exactly, better late than never. Rome wasn’t built in a day, right?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Richardols:

There are moral atheists whether you accept the fact or not. Read what they write.

And some of them put Catholics to shame - one does not have to be a theist or a Christian to be a decent human being.​

Fortunately for us, being a heel doesn’t stop one being a Chroistian ##