C
Calliso
Guest
Yep! and yeah your right about the marital rape thing! Really people who call the past the good old days are looking through rose colored glasses. There was a lot wrong.
- Status
E
edwest2
Guest
First, let me be clear. My comic book style vigilante idea was not meant to be taken seriously but to bring out the truth. And here it is “But what I am saying is that making it even harder then it already is which is what would happen if things went back to the so called good old days is not a good idea!”
So, just a like a horrific comic book put out by PETA. “Your dad loves killing!” And there’s a man on the cover, dressed in full fishing regalia with a crazed, mentally disturbed smile of glee as he joyfully guts a fish with blood and entrails flying everywhere.
Yep, good old dad. When he says he’s going for a drive, he’s actually picking up stray animals and putting them in a bag in the trunk of his car - because he loves killing! And when no one’s home, he takes the bag down to the basement, releases one animal at a time and joyfully guts it.
Yep, men today are pining away for the good old days because when they lay in bed they think about all the ways they can abuse their wife and/or girlfriend now that the good old days are back.
Give - Me - A Break.
Peace,
Ed
C
Calliso
Guest
Sheesh Ed you have me about pulling out my hair!!
I am not saying that all men want to abuse their wives. I am saying that there are some men that do abuse their wives and making it harder for them to get out of such situations like it was in the past is not a good idea! When you look for solution to a situation you try not to make the situation worse. And if things went back to the way they were it would be worse. There have already been examples of this in this thread I am sure there are many others.
E
edwest2
Guest
The good old days are coming back. The fear that any man will abuse you in a relationship has a simple, logical answer - avoid men. Instead of the eternal victim fiction.
So, here’s how it’s going to be:
Young Catholic boys and girls will be taught how to behave towards one another.
They will be taught these rules by God-fearing parents who know Church teaching.
The primary rule we were taught was, “No sexual intercourse before marriage. Period.”
They will be taught to take God and His rules seriously. He will no longer be some guy you visit at Church on Sunday, and gets taken for granted during the rest of the week. He will be part of your everyday life.
This will be the same order we were taught regarding male-female relationships:
The mother and father will also speak to their daughter. They will not want her to marry someone who is lazy or a drunk or an abuser of illegal drugs. The son will hear similar from his parents.
This is not something that is exclusive to the couple. Oh no. If the parents of either disapprove for some good reason then things may get called off. Or delayed.
Both will be taught to pay attention when the priest tells them that marriage is not to be entered into lightly. And that their union needs God at the center.
Both will be taught that God, open and honest communication, friendship, trust and love are essential. If you don’t really know each other now then there’s no point in getting married until you do. If you don’t enjoy each other’s company now while just going for a walk together or to the park together or even shopping, then what will you do after the ceremony?
They will be taught that sex will only be a tiny fraction of their day. The marriage bed is undefiled, but true commitment means work. Ideally, eight hours of sleep, followed by eight hours of work, taking care of the home or apartment, cooking and cleaning and washing clothes, and paying the bills. And being good role models to each other, strangers and your kids.
Yes, the kids will get sick. You may decide to home school. Your jobs may require some days apart and just the weekend. Plan. Talk it out. Make it plain, before the ceremony.
And finally, the other person must share your values even though you may have differing personal interests and hobbies. They will also be encouraged to make friends with other Catholics to encourage one another and to help bear one another’s burdens.
That is the good old days. Living in a committed Catholic Community surrounded by good role models. I lived in it and it worked. It inspires me to this day. NO it was not perfect, we had crime and all the rest. And there was no less need to go to Confession and Communion, but we also lived in a society that was supportive of our beliefs and values. We are the salt of the earth, and by the grace of God, will live as He taught us to live.
Peace,
Ed
So, here’s how it’s going to be:
Young Catholic boys and girls will be taught how to behave towards one another.
They will be taught these rules by God-fearing parents who know Church teaching.
The primary rule we were taught was, “No sexual intercourse before marriage. Period.”
They will be taught to take God and His rules seriously. He will no longer be some guy you visit at Church on Sunday, and gets taken for granted during the rest of the week. He will be part of your everyday life.
This will be the same order we were taught regarding male-female relationships:
- Date whoever you want and have fun. But today, your choices of “fun” will be more limited.
- If you like someone in particular and both agree to something a little bit more exclusive, there will be going steady.
- Courtship. If this is desired, both families get to know each other’s family. They will spend time developing a relationship with the other’s parents.
- Engagement. During all this time of getting to know each other, having fun together and sharing similar hopes and dreams, you get to the serious stuff. The man will go to the young lady’s father and announce his intention to marry her
The mother and father will also speak to their daughter. They will not want her to marry someone who is lazy or a drunk or an abuser of illegal drugs. The son will hear similar from his parents.
This is not something that is exclusive to the couple. Oh no. If the parents of either disapprove for some good reason then things may get called off. Or delayed.
Both will be taught to pay attention when the priest tells them that marriage is not to be entered into lightly. And that their union needs God at the center.
Both will be taught that God, open and honest communication, friendship, trust and love are essential. If you don’t really know each other now then there’s no point in getting married until you do. If you don’t enjoy each other’s company now while just going for a walk together or to the park together or even shopping, then what will you do after the ceremony?
They will be taught that sex will only be a tiny fraction of their day. The marriage bed is undefiled, but true commitment means work. Ideally, eight hours of sleep, followed by eight hours of work, taking care of the home or apartment, cooking and cleaning and washing clothes, and paying the bills. And being good role models to each other, strangers and your kids.
Yes, the kids will get sick. You may decide to home school. Your jobs may require some days apart and just the weekend. Plan. Talk it out. Make it plain, before the ceremony.
And finally, the other person must share your values even though you may have differing personal interests and hobbies. They will also be encouraged to make friends with other Catholics to encourage one another and to help bear one another’s burdens.
That is the good old days. Living in a committed Catholic Community surrounded by good role models. I lived in it and it worked. It inspires me to this day. NO it was not perfect, we had crime and all the rest. And there was no less need to go to Confession and Communion, but we also lived in a society that was supportive of our beliefs and values. We are the salt of the earth, and by the grace of God, will live as He taught us to live.
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
edwest2 said:
LOL. Let’s update this appropriately. If desired, the would-be fiance may go to the woman’s parents and announce his intent. If for whatever reason the woman is proposing, she may go to the man’s parents and announce her intent.
Similarly,
It is important to keep in mind the flexibility allowed. As circumstances differ, it may be appropriate to involve only one parent.
And not all women are attractive, and not all men are slaves to hormones.
No. The choice is between the couple. The parents have no right to make choices for their children once they reach adulthood, and certainly about a decision that can only be made by the couple.
Ideally, the couple will sleep enough and work enough. There is no need for that level of specificity.
C
Calliso
Guest
Yes those may have been the good old days you lived and that doesn;t sound too bad to me really. I mean I canl;t see anything wrong. I guess the point and I would make here though is not everyone grew up like you did you know what I mean? But I think we were basically talking about two different things. You I think were distinctly refering to your own experiences I was mainly refering to how things were as a whole in general. And one again no I donlt think any man is going to abuse me I wouldn;t be married if I thought that!
C
Calliso
Guest
Yeah true not to mention if they decide to have kids 8 hours of sleep would soon become a dream lol! Or they could get a cat like me that wakes you up at 3-5am ahah!LOL. Let’s update this appropriately. If desired, the would-be fiance may go to the woman’s parents and announce his intent. If for whatever reason the woman is proposing, she may go to the man’s parents and announce her intent.
Similarly,
It is important to keep in mind the flexibility allowed. As circumstances differ, it may be appropriate to involve only one parent.
And not all women are attractive, and not all men are slaves to hormones.
No. The choice is between the couple. The parents have no right to make choices for their children once they reach adulthood, and certainly about a decision that can only be made by the couple.
Ideally, the couple will sleep enough and work enough. There is no need for that level of specificity.
E
edwest2
Guest
The children will be taught that the parents have every right to guide them, just as they trusted and loved them and guided them as they grew up, they will trust them and love them as they guide them as they reach marriage age. THAT FICTION of separation will disappear.LOL. Let’s update this appropriately. If desired, the would-be fiance may go to the woman’s parents and announce his intent. If for whatever reason the woman is proposing, she may go to the man’s parents and announce her intent.
Similarly,
It is important to keep in mind the flexibility allowed. As circumstances differ, it may be appropriate to involve only one parent.
And not all women are attractive, and not all men are slaves to hormones.
No. The choice is between the couple. The parents have no right to make choices for their children once they reach adulthood, and certainly about a decision that can only be made by the couple.
Ideally, the couple will sleep enough and work enough. There is no need for that level of specificity.
As my mother told me. Her father was having a party when she was in her teens and it was getting late. His mother told everybody to go home, not in a mean way, but it was getting late. My mom’s dad, who was a little tipsy, did not get it. His mother said, “As long as I have breath in my body, I am still your mother.” He knew she loved him.
There is no updating required because if the kids are to be married, they will have in-laws who will call them son and daughter. And we are already seeing strong Christian communities with strong intergenerational ties with parents and grandparents and aunts and uncles from both sides and neighbors from both sides. We will and are loving one another. And we will and are not building communities of strangers but strong Catholic communities with people who live out their beliefs. Sure, there will still be a few bad apples.
But the dictatorship of separation will and has ended for these Catholic families and communities.
Peace,
Ed
D
Debora123
Guest
True story.
Like I said, some posts here only remind me why a certain degree of feminism is necessary.
E
edwest2
Guest
Not everyone grew up like I did. I knew that as a boy in the early 1960s. There was a Catholic home for wayward girls (that’s what it was called) and we learned what wayward meant. As kids, we met and enjoyed the company of a young teenage girl who ended up in our house in the early 1960s. We asked our mom what happened? We thought something was wrong. My mom only told us that she was having trouble at home, but we were so happy to put a smile on her face. I think my mom took her to the parish priest the following day. During lent, we were given a container to put spare change in. We were given plenty of examples of poor people and how they were living, and how important helping the poor was. To deny ourselves some candy and soda pop to help them. This we gladly did.
No, I know exactly what you are talking about. Exactly. However, with all due respect, please stop the negative - all men are potential abusers line. OK? Not because I imagine all men as saints as some think here. Oh no. We, as a people, were never all saints, but some were.
So instead of focusing on the future negative, focus on the call given to all Catholics: be holy as the One who has called you is holy. I’m seeing way too much negativity and even nihilism.
The abuse of women is a fact, but it’s not going to help with no one offering a single answer - not here, at least. It’s not helping anyone by forcing them to stare at the evils committed either in the past or now - it’s doing the exact opposite. Especially when the message is: and there’s no way out. You’re a victim forever.
Everyone, please. Stop that, unless you have an answer - just stop it.
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
Actually, the right that you assert exists only in a particular form.
The Catechism explains that marriage occurs between the bride and the groom:
1623:
The parents are not required for the sacrament to be valid.
The Catechism also speaks on the relationship between parents and child.
2199:
C
Calliso
Guest
Well I think we are talking past each other here. I never meant to indicate that every man out there is a potential abusers waiting to happen.
Just that it does happen.
C
Calliso
Guest
Yep people focus on the bad stuff of feminism mainly extremist feminism. But ignore the fact that before things really weren;t that great for women as a whole. Now of course experiences varied but still. This thread is a nice reminder that despite the bad name some radicals have given feminism nowadays it was as a whole a good and necessary thing.
I
In_Spiration
Guest
Excerpt from “The Frankfurt School: Conspiracy to corrupt,” an article in the March 2009 issue of Catholic Insight:
The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family - an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’
Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.
They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.
The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.
The School’s ‘Critical Theory’ preached that the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family - an idea directly linked to Engels’ Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State, which promoted matriarchy. Already Karl Marx had written, in the “Communist Manifesto”, about the radical notion of a ‘community of women’ and in The German Ideology of 1845, written disparagingly about the idea of the family as the basic unit of society. This was one of the basic tenets of the ‘Critical Theory’ : the necessity of breaking down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that ‘Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change.’
Following Karl Marx, the School stressed how the ‘authoritarian personality’ is a product of the patriarchal family—it was Marx who wrote so disparagingly about the idea of the family being the basic unit of society. All this prepared the way for the warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Marcuse under the guise of ‘women’s liberation’ and by the New Left movement in the 1960s.
They proposed transforming our culture into a female-dominated one. In 1933, Wilhelm Reich, one of their members, wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of ‘natural society.’ Eric Fromm was also an active advocate of matriarchal theory. Masculinity and femininity, he claimed, were not reflections of ‘essential’ sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought but were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined.’ His dogma was the precedent for the radical feminist pronouncements that, today, appear in nearly every major newspaper and television programme.
The revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear In Spiration,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.
That was splendid contribution and bang on target, if I may say. Thankyou for that (name removed by moderator)ut and I pray that it will be duly noted. Many of us, dear friend, have been only too aware of the Marxist origins of radical aberrant feminism - a most subversive ideology if there was. As long as God gives me grace I will never cease exposing and refuting its anti-Christian tenets.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
P
Portrait
Guest
F.A.O. Baelor
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response on page 11.
First, let me say by way of reply that the traditional Catholic Catechisms (teaching on the Fourth Commandment), uphold that the vocation of the married woman is best fulfilled within the home. Now, dear friend, that may not carry a great deal weight with you, but I think it does, nonetheless, demonstate that these Catechisms did reflect the consistent teaching of the Church throughtout the ages. This teaching has only been seriously challenged since the emergence of radical aberrant feminism and, I am sorry to say, the subversive ideology of this anti-Christian movement has been embraced, either wittingly or unwittingly, by not a few Catholic women (and some misguided men also).
An obligation is laid upon a woman to provide for the formation of her children and her exclusive concern is to be a helpmate to her breadwinning husband and to be a mother to her children. Thus her proper palce is within the home, as Sacred Scripture clearly states (Titus 2: 4,5).
This Christian teaching has also been reinforced in Sacred Tradition by the Popes when the woman’s emancipation movement began to gather momentum in the 20th. century. It is almost as if, by the divine providence, they anticipated the full-blown radical femenism of the 1960’s - the sad legacy of which we are having to contend with today, even within the Church.
Already in 1917, Pope Benedict XV warned that a revolution was making a particular effort to snatch women from the home and into the world of work.
“With the decline in religion, cultured women have lost their sense of shame along with their piety. Many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men. Others abandoned the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into current life” (Letter Natalis trecentesime 1917).
Poe Pius XI refered to the movement to liberate women from domestic home life and the rearing of children:
“It is the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raises within the wall of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery and become as among the pagans, the mere instrument of man” (Encyclical *Casti Connubii *1930).
Pius XI also points out opportunely that the best way to destroy Catholic family life “is to withdraw the wife from the family and the care of the children” and “thrust her instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as the man”.
This, dear friend, ultimately leads to a materialist collective society and actually to the degradation of true womanhood.
Pope Pius XII frequently addressed what he termed “the temptations of our day” for women to be lured by a “false independence” away from the family hearth and “the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage”.
He insists that to take a woman away from the family is to extinguish the flame in the hearth of the home:
“The atmosphere of the home cools, the family circle ceases to exist…and the centre of daily life will be found elsewhere for her husband, for the wife herself and for her children” (Allocution to newly-weds 1943 in The Woman and the Modern World, pp. 79-81).
The Pope was only too well aware that some women - both then and now - will protest rebelliously against this life of sacrifice, thus he wisely responds: “Do you really believe, however, that there is any true solid happiness here below not won through sacrifice and self-denial?”. For the wife and mother, it is those daily sacrifices for husband and children - "in an offi****ce given her by nature" - that will ensure the life of all to develop and flourish, and win her sanctification" (Allocution to newly-weds 1942, added emphasis mine).
These Popes being dead yet speak jolly forcefully to the present generation, plagued by radical aberrant feminism and could well have been written for today. Moreover, dear friend, if these excerpts do not give a good idea of what a grand and glorious vocation it is to be a full-time Catholic mother and wife, then I do not know what will.
The extracts cited above on the role of a wife at home need no elaboration from me, for they are perfectly clear in their meaning. The Popes are very rigorous in stating that a mother should remain at home. You will observe, dear friend, that they also considered the modern tendency to want to “emancipate the mother” to be bad. Therefore, any person seeking orientation need only apply those teachings - they have not become obsolete or irrelenvant, on the contrary they apply more than ever, given our present plight.
God bless, dear brother, and may you and all other contributors to the present thread have an enjoyable weekend, whatever you plan to do.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou again for your response on page 11.
First, let me say by way of reply that the traditional Catholic Catechisms (teaching on the Fourth Commandment), uphold that the vocation of the married woman is best fulfilled within the home. Now, dear friend, that may not carry a great deal weight with you, but I think it does, nonetheless, demonstate that these Catechisms did reflect the consistent teaching of the Church throughtout the ages. This teaching has only been seriously challenged since the emergence of radical aberrant feminism and, I am sorry to say, the subversive ideology of this anti-Christian movement has been embraced, either wittingly or unwittingly, by not a few Catholic women (and some misguided men also).
An obligation is laid upon a woman to provide for the formation of her children and her exclusive concern is to be a helpmate to her breadwinning husband and to be a mother to her children. Thus her proper palce is within the home, as Sacred Scripture clearly states (Titus 2: 4,5).
This Christian teaching has also been reinforced in Sacred Tradition by the Popes when the woman’s emancipation movement began to gather momentum in the 20th. century. It is almost as if, by the divine providence, they anticipated the full-blown radical femenism of the 1960’s - the sad legacy of which we are having to contend with today, even within the Church.
Already in 1917, Pope Benedict XV warned that a revolution was making a particular effort to snatch women from the home and into the world of work.
“With the decline in religion, cultured women have lost their sense of shame along with their piety. Many, in order to take up occupations ill-befitting their sex, took to imitating men. Others abandoned the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into current life” (Letter Natalis trecentesime 1917).
Poe Pius XI refered to the movement to liberate women from domestic home life and the rearing of children:
“It is the debasing of the womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman descends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raises within the wall of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery and become as among the pagans, the mere instrument of man” (Encyclical *Casti Connubii *1930).
Pius XI also points out opportunely that the best way to destroy Catholic family life “is to withdraw the wife from the family and the care of the children” and “thrust her instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as the man”.
This, dear friend, ultimately leads to a materialist collective society and actually to the degradation of true womanhood.
Pope Pius XII frequently addressed what he termed “the temptations of our day” for women to be lured by a “false independence” away from the family hearth and “the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage”.
He insists that to take a woman away from the family is to extinguish the flame in the hearth of the home:
“The atmosphere of the home cools, the family circle ceases to exist…and the centre of daily life will be found elsewhere for her husband, for the wife herself and for her children” (Allocution to newly-weds 1943 in The Woman and the Modern World, pp. 79-81).
The Pope was only too well aware that some women - both then and now - will protest rebelliously against this life of sacrifice, thus he wisely responds: “Do you really believe, however, that there is any true solid happiness here below not won through sacrifice and self-denial?”. For the wife and mother, it is those daily sacrifices for husband and children - "in an offi****ce given her by nature" - that will ensure the life of all to develop and flourish, and win her sanctification" (Allocution to newly-weds 1942, added emphasis mine).
These Popes being dead yet speak jolly forcefully to the present generation, plagued by radical aberrant feminism and could well have been written for today. Moreover, dear friend, if these excerpts do not give a good idea of what a grand and glorious vocation it is to be a full-time Catholic mother and wife, then I do not know what will.
The extracts cited above on the role of a wife at home need no elaboration from me, for they are perfectly clear in their meaning. The Popes are very rigorous in stating that a mother should remain at home. You will observe, dear friend, that they also considered the modern tendency to want to “emancipate the mother” to be bad. Therefore, any person seeking orientation need only apply those teachings - they have not become obsolete or irrelenvant, on the contrary they apply more than ever, given our present plight.
God bless, dear brother, and may you and all other contributors to the present thread have an enjoyable weekend, whatever you plan to do.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax:tiphat:
C
Calliso
Guest
As I understand it modern Catholism doesn;t require that a woman stay at home. Yes I would agree it is ideal for a parent to stay at home if you have kids. A parent doesn;t have to be the woman. Not all women would be the best choice to stay at home. They may make more then their husband so it makes more sense for the husband to stay home and or the husband just may be better with the children. No it is not in every womans nature to be a homemaker and mom. But the important thing here is choice women should have a choice in this. They shouldn;t be pigeonholed into one or two roles in their lives. Especially when this can have some not so good results. For instance women becoming trapped in abusive situations because society and laws make it near impossible to leave her husband.
It doesn;t really make it seem grand and glorious to me. If anything it sounds like it is trying to sugar coat the fact that women were seen as second class citizens and as lesser to men.
Personally I think what is best is a family doing what is best for themselves. And sometimes that means the woman staying home, sometimes it means both parents work and sometimes it means the woman works and the man stays home.
C
Calliso
Guest
Not to mention where do infertile married women stand in all this? It seems to people like Portrait women like this can never fulfill their true purpose in life…
E
edwest2
Guest
They have not. There will always be a remnant. But thanks for the article since it exposes the agenda and its roots.
Peace,
Ed
B
Baelor
Guest
Please show us the STANDING Church teaching that states this.
Please show us the STANDING Church teaching that states this.
The Church is not, because such a moral obligation has not been articulated, else it would have appeared when I asked on this thread.
- Status