Where did the anti-family vibe come from?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mschrank
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
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… 🤷
Not for anything there are numerous instances in the Bible where a woman who was thought to be infertile, ended up concieving a child.
 

The Popes are very rigorous in stating that a mother should remain at home.​

Which Popes are you speaking of, there is only one Pope at a time and I am pretty certain none of them ever stated that a mother needs to remain at home. Common sense says that it is more natural for a woman to stay at home with her children. Its kind of bizzare in the US that after 6 weeks (or 12 if you take decreased pay) that a woman hands her child to a day care center espeically considering the World Health Organization recommends women breastfeed their babies for 6 months.
 
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:
Portrait,

Thank you, again, for a well written and properly referenced group of examples. Even if one person reading it realizes the truth, it is to your credit. And please continue to persevere. We must speak the truth daily to counter the lies and deceptions being spread among the people.

Peace,
Ed
 
Not for anything there are numerous instances in the Bible where a woman who was thought to be infertile, ended up concieving a child.
And the women who are infertile and will remain? It is not as if all infertility is the same.
 
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.
please quit using the big red letters
 
Please… someone help me understand where this idea came from, why so many people believe in it, and what the heck is wrong with the world!
It goes back to the serpent in the garden, and the fact that misery loves company.
 
So did I-however I did go to Mass first
That doesn’t matter. The evil that is a smart, educated, working woman cannot be made up for with mass. I’m afraid you’ll have to attend an intensive reprogramming camp to learn your proper place in society. Especially if the liberals have managed to brainwash you to the point of PANTS!

Its ok for me though. I mean, I’m a hedonistic atheist. Who would expect anything less than a career?
 
That doesn’t matter. The evil that is a smart, educated, working woman cannot be made up for with mass. I’m afraid you’ll have to attend an intensive reprogramming camp to learn your proper place in society. Especially if the liberals have managed to brainwash you to the point of PANTS!

Its ok for me though. I mean, I’m a hedonistic atheist. Who would expect anything less than a career?
No Liberal brainwashed me into wearing Pants-it was my parents. in my day boys wearing skirts to school didn’t go over very well
 
Portrait,

Thank you, again, for a well written and properly referenced group of examples. Even if one person reading it realizes the truth, it is to your credit. And please continue to persevere. We must speak the truth daily to counter the lies and deceptions being spread among the people.

Peace,
Ed
With all due respect, having men argue a point to which they personally benefit does not really carry much weight with the women who potentially are disadvantaged by it. I stay home most of the time, but I have been able to attend graduate school while having small children and be a psychotherapist part time. My husband fully supports this and is the one who has really encouraged my pursuits–he does not feel emasulated in any way. Our family life is great, our daughters are happy and well behaved (and love Jesus very much!), and we are in a great place as a family. Times have changed.
 
“Where did the anti-family vibe come from?”

It came from selfishness.
 
With all due respect, having men argue a point to which they personally benefit does not really carry much weight with the women who potentially are disadvantaged by it. I stay home most of the time, but I have been able to attend graduate school while having small children and be a psychotherapist part time. My husband fully supports this and is the one who has really encouraged my pursuits–he does not feel emasulated in any way. Our family life is great, our daughters are happy and well behaved (and love Jesus very much!), and we are in a great place as a family. Times have changed.
Respectfully, times have not changed. As the years passed, people were gradually taught a dysfunctional version of family living. It is simply wrong. And the biggest lie of all from the radical feminists is this: it’s not about love or trust or respect, it’s about power. You are the eternal victim of men and you need to have power over them. Don’t trust anything they say because they will disadvantage you.

The clock or calendar changes nothing, only people do. I am totally unfamiliar with dysfunctional living. It is not normal. What I am familiar with is living by Church teaching where the dignity of both persons in a marriage is based on building on a strong foundation of friendship, trust and mutual self-giving. My point is and always will be: if you don’t really know, trust and understand the man in your life, don’t marry him. That problem has been greatly multiplied by men and women who jump into the sack, have a few good times, and never get to know each other until after the ceremony.

For example: I met one of the most beautiful women I had ever seen in a group setting. Even other women walked up to her and said, “You’re beautiful.” As we got to know each other, she told me she was divorced. I asked her what happened. “I had to kick my husband out of my house because I found out he was a nut!” I asked her how long she had been married. Nine months.

So I will continue to promote sound Church teaching and what love and commitment really means - not the ‘power over the other is required’ doctrine.

Peace,
Ed
 
F.A.O. Baelor

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Apologies for the delay in my response to your last post, but it is my custom to take a breather from the boards at weekends - I find I usually need it!

The citations from those pre-Vatican II Popes are still good and thus have not ceased to be standing Church teaching. Therefore the onus is upon you, dear brother, to show where a specific point has been declared invalid and no longer applicable in the 21st. century.

How long are the teachings of Paul VI, H.H. JPII or Benedict XVI good for? For example, if a Pope does not issue another encylical on birth prevention for the next 100 years, at what point are the faithful no longer obligated to obey Humanae Vitae and Evangelium Vitae?; If the magesterial teachings of the pre-VII Popes ‘go bad’ after a certain period of time, would not the same apply to post-VII Popes, or are we living now in some sort of unique theological time warp? Consider, dear friend, the case of the Catechism of the Council of Trent which is still good today and that our current Catechism cites it over 20 times and, indeed, refers to it as “a work of the first rank as a summary of Christian teaching” (para. 9). Forgive me, dear brother, but both in the current discussion and in others, you display an idee fixe with ‘standing Church teaching’, as if this was all that we had to take into account and that anything antecedent to the Second Vatican Council was of no great moment to you. My apologies if this is not the case, but the whole tenor of your posts certainly seems to suggest this.

Moreover, dear friend, I think it is imperative that those viewing this thread understand that the pre-Vatican II papal teaching that I referenced is not timebound, for the simple reason that it treats of immutable truths that are not subject to change or modification. For example, Pope Benedict XV spoke of “others abandon the duty of housewife, for which they were fashioned”; Pope Pius XI spoke of withdrawing “the wife from the family and the care of the children” and thrusting “her instead into public life and collective production under the same conditions as the man” and Pope Pius XII spoke of a “false independence” away from the family hearth and "the task assigned her for the good of society, by nature and by marriage" (added emphases mine). Now if this was true when the these Popes first uttered these words, then it is equally true today also, for how can such timeless teaching become obsolete and irrelevant with the passage of time? Moreover, if it is timeless truth, which it most decidedly is, then the faithful today ought to give heed to it, embracing it as authentic Catholic magisterial teaching that has continuing validity - especially in the age in which our lot is cast when radical aberrant feminism has poisoned the minds of multitudes of women (and men) with its false and pernicious ideology.

If you are of the opinion, dear friend, that this pre-VII Church teaching (also reflected in many Catechisms, under teaching on the Fourth Commandment) has ceased to be applicable and binding, then can you please show us where in ‘standing teaching’ it has been officially repudiated and declared invalid?

Finally, I think we should avoid falling into the habit of ascribing a creeping infallibility to almost everything uttered/written by post VII Popes, whilst choosing not to accept as binding anything said by the pre-VII Popes (unless it chimes with our modern viewpoint), almost dismissing it as worthless and timebound. That is not the approach of an authentic Catholic mind and neither is it showing a pious reverence for Sacred Tradition.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
 
I woudl also point out in this discussion that there is nothing in the bible against a working women. In fact that verse about the ideal woman is a working woman! Not to metion working women have been a norm through out history. Yes it is true many worked at or close to home. But my point is the idea that is was the norm until recently for the man to be the only breadwinner is false. But yeah just because for along time society expected women to be the primary housekeepers doesn;t mean they are designed to the the primary house keepers. I mean men can do a great job of that as well and there are some men who are stay at home dads as well that do a great job! Really its about what works best for each family. Maybe yours worked/works best with the woman staying at home but for some that would not work.
 
The citations from those pre-Vatican II Popes are still good and thus have not ceased to be standing Church teaching.
They never were binding Church teaching.
Forgive me, dear brother, but both in the current discussion and in others, you display an idee fixe with ‘standing Church teaching’, as if this was all that we had to take into account and that anything antecedent to the Second Vatican Council was of no great moment to you.
Please point out where I have mentioned Vatican II.
Moreover, dear friend, I think it is imperative that those viewing this thread understand that the pre-Vatican II papal teaching that I referenced is not timebound, for the simple reason that it treats of immutable truths that are not subject to change or modification.
The Papal teaching was not binding. Consider contraception, outlined in Humanae Vitae. Here is a list of Catechism entries involving contraception. Note the number of sections of the Catechism devoted to what you claim is a binding tenet.
Now if this was true when the these Popes first uttered these words, then it is equally true today also
First, non sequitur. Second, I fail to see how the teaching was infallibly declared or even established as a binding teaching. You still have not addressed either of these issues.
for how can such timeless teaching become obsolete and irrelevant with the passage of time?
Because not all teachings are absolutes, and some must be culturally contextualized. The death penalty, for example. Furthermore, some disciplinary teachings can change.
If you are of the opinion, dear friend, that this pre-VII Church teaching (also reflected in many Catechisms, under teaching on the Fourth Commandment)
All that matters is the current Catechism; this is the standing Church teaching.
has ceased to be applicable and binding, then can you please show us where in ‘standing teaching’ it has been officially repudiated and declared invalid?
The standing teaching incorporates that which is taught. Those things not in the standing teaching are by definition no longer standing.
 
They never were binding Church teaching.

Please point out where I have mentioned Vatican II.

The Papal teaching was not binding. Consider contraception, outlined in Humanae Vitae. Here is a list of Catechism entries involving contraception. Note the number of sections of the Catechism devoted to what you claim is a binding tenet.

First, non sequitur. Second, I fail to see how the teaching was infallibly declared or even established as a binding teaching. You still have not addressed either of these issues.

Because not all teachings are absolutes, and some must be culturally contextualized. The death penalty, for example. Furthermore, some disciplinary teachings can change.

All that matters is the current Catechism; this is the standing Church teaching.
has ceased to be applicable and binding, then can you please show us where in ‘standing teaching’ it has been officially
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top