Unfair choice?

[PennyinCanada]

Boy, I would love to describe what I see as unfair by people who are totally secular!

What I saw in the working world of secular people. Married, the woman is expected to be on artificial contraception, (and long before she’s married) with all the health problems and risks associated with them. They must be available (now these are not my words but theirs) ‘whenever and how often’ her husband wishes because he wouldn’t even think of a bit of abstinence, because, after all, he’s married and his wife won’t get pregnant. (Why ladies volunteer this info, like He likes to be intimate at 4 am after he’s rested a bit.) The woman is expected to work full time, plus when she gets home, the lion’s share of the work falls on her shoulders. If there’s no food in the fridge or clean underwear, it’s really her that’s falling behind in the chores. (I’ve asked, *What’s your hubby doing *and they reply that they are tired and there’s football on TV. Again, not my words.) She is the one who gets up in the middle of the night with sick kids, (Kids don’t want daddy at 3 am) she takes care of all the dentist, haircut, and doctor appts. When the kids are older and life gets a bit easier, likely failing health of parents starts to demand time from their daughter. Perhaps they can no longer drive and they need haircut and doctor appointments. They need someone to take them for groceries, and maybe laundry is in the basement and they can no longer use stairs.

That’s my rant. I don’t have much respect for the folks who dislike the Church, have all kinds of misconceptions and opinions, when really, what is the world offering that’s better?

What is unfair is that Christ, the Sinless One, came and took my place on the Cross that I may take His place in Heaven! Now that is worth some time to explore and consider!

 

[carn]

…but it isn’t a rule.

I really don’t know how else for me or any other Catholic to word it… It is a “princpile” not a “rule” – Rule implies rigid set, unchanging criteria.
…

So sometimes the church talks about ideals… trying to teach principles that we should all AIM for.

Ok,there seems to be a difference, regarding the word rule (with me being here in the minority).
For me a rule is something allowing to determine under certain circumstances what ought to be. For me its a rigid set of unchanging criterias carrying serious punishment and a far beyond human achievable moral vague principles are both rules, though the later likely lack clarity and is not enforced.

But does not matter, because the OP relies on rather rigid rules with exceptions that are obvious for the individual trying to live by the rules and are not dependent on the evaluation of circumstances anyone might be in.

The Church DOES realize that mankind is in a fallen state, therefore, while it often times discusses ideals… it makes allowances for other states of being.

They should not have children out of a sense of obligation, when their hearts are not in it. – Because of their disordered state, they have a bigger problem to address and therefore, in a sense, have a valid reason to abstain from children… while they work out that disordered thinking.

Which of course is not true, if sin can be amond the exceptions, because anyone has sin and can, even if objective criteria do not show this, have valid reasons from abstaining.

Furthermore any statistics about devout catholics not having as many children as would be in a theoritical ideal situation, would only prove that either the catholics do not follow the catholic teaching regarding children or suffer from sin and therefore cannot live the ideal perfectly.
And concluding that among alarge group of humans many suffer from sin is a boring non-conclusion not showing anything.

@PennyinCanada
Most attacks against church do not aim at the church being not as good as alternatives, but at the church or her teaching not being good. So other things being worse does not counter the argument. You see this from the child abuse issue, from what i know, it seems that the incident rates in church “settings” are about as high as in non-church “settings” (e.g. secular schools, sports clubs), while the average severity of the crimes seems to be less in church “settings”, e.g. the number of actual rapes seems to be lower. But that of course does never impress anyone, when i use it in an argument. And thats not because many doubt the claim, it seems more that they think the church is seriously at fault even if children suffer less from criminals among their ranks as they normaly suffer from criminals among non-church ranks.

Regarding the share of household work, you should be sceptical, from my experience statements regarding own share are nearly always exagerated.

About the rest, i always ask myself how can those men not able to get up at 3AM look in the mirror. Shameful, independent of religion.

 

[SwissGuard25]

Where did the man who said this get his references?

To understand this argument we must understand why it is so important;
Modern Day Feminism.

You see pre-1970’s era Feminism used to be a positive movement. Certainly, no moral person would disagree with the early feminists’ belief that women should be able to vote and be treated as men’s equals. However, the modern feminist movement has taken things too far.

Modern feminism has twisted the ideal of males and females being equal, but different, into one of males and females being the same, which is obviously not true. It is not sexist in the slightest to say that, generally speaking, men are more skilled than women at manual labor, or that women are more skilled than men at homemaking. That’s not to say that every man’s place is strictly in the workforce or that every women’s place is strictly at home. It’s just an observable fact. Men are men, and women are women.

Modern feminism does not recognize this truth. They seek to destroy masculinity and femininity as separate but equal traits. Many of them wish to overthrow traditional marriage. They do not know the Catholic truth that men and women are creations of God that are distinct physically and spiritually.

They see their genders as something no more important to their personality than their hair color or height; gender is something that they want to separate completely from their being, when, scientifically and theologically, it is evident that this is not the case.

Also, contrary to what they would have you believe, “hardcore” feminists don’t want equality for men and women. They want femininity to be seen as superior; this is obvious from the myriad of television shows and movies that degrade masculinity as barbaric and stupid.

I’m not saying all feminists are lesbian misandrists who think men are idiots, but that seems to be the underlying belief of feminism, which is distinct from anti-sexism. Very much so.

Feminists see the Catholic Church as a threat to their “way of life” Due to the fact that the Catholic Church does not allow women to have a high place of authority in the Church. The Feminists see this as an insult and say that the Catholic Church is “ignorant” and “do not care about the rights of women” This cannot be further from the truth.

Q: What is it about a woman that prevents her ordination? In my discussions with proponents of women’s ordination it seems that all facts about history, custom, tradition, and apostolic authority take a backseat to this question.

A: The reason that women are not to be ordained is because they are not men. Sounds politically incorrect, doesn’t it? But the fact is that God created men to be men and women to be women. When God chose to incarnate, he did not just choose to become a human being; he chose to become a man. Just as he chose to incarnate into a specific time, place, people, family, and woman, so he chose to become a specific human being, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5). Thus, those human beings who serve as priests in the person of Christ are men and not women.

This shocking particularity of God is not limited to choosing men to become priests. To demonstrate this to proponents of women’s ordination, you might turn the question around and ask them what it is about men that makes them unfit to bear children. Surely a man is just as physically strong as a woman and psychologically and emotionally capable of the demands of giving birth. Surely he is not inferior to a woman. Isn’t it unfair to men that only women can have babies?

This line of logic descends into absurdity because women having children is a natural fact of life, something easily seen and understood. To shake one’s fist at the heavens and demand equal rights for men to give birth is to rail against the natural order. At that point you can establish that men being priests is a supernatural fact of life, and to object to it is to object to the supernatural order. The fact that the supernatural order cannot be seen and is not as easily understood as the natural order does not mean that the supernatural order does not exist