Where did the anti-family vibe come from?

[lerapt78]

One particular example of a how a woman might try appropriating male charecteristics to themselves in contrast to their own feminine originality would be a woman who wants to be a provider and in order advance in a career path gives up motherhood through contraception or abortion.

Pax

Dan, I would really have to stress though that some women really just don’t want children. It *could *be an attempt to become more masculine, but it’s not always necessarily the case. I think it seems hard for people to conceive of this (and certainly these women are the minority), but it’s because women have never been afforded the opportunity to do anything else in previous generations. When we look at history, women were always homemakers. Since those women with different aspirations rarely had equal access to jobs that enabled them to support themselves, they pretty much all went with option #2, which was to get a man to support him and raise his children in exchange for that support. We really can’t tell if *all *of these women truly *wanted *children, or just did what was expected of them in those times. (This is not a rant, but simply stating a fact. )

I, for example, do not desire children. As a Catholic, I am open to life, and will accept children if they come, and would do what is best for them, even if that means staying home for at least the primary years of their lives. If children are *not *a part of my future, I can still envision myself as feeling fulfilled with my life. And I am *very *feminine and very domestic in the sense that I love to cook, I garden, I am trying to learn to sew, etc. It might be seem that children and domestic interest/femininity *must *be mutually inclusive, but that’s not always the case.

 

[NightHawk2005]

But marriage is not defined by each individual. It’s defined by God who created it. Procreation is the primary purpose of the marital act. As a priest put it to me today, married couples need to embrace both the cross and the ressurection of their marriage. That’s how they sanctify each other. Marriage involve sacrifice and yes suffering as well.

Of course marriage isn’t for everyone and there are other states of life that God calls people to which don’t involve sexual relations or children.

Pax Christi

I disagree. I think the primary purpose of marriage is love. Otherwise, God would have just given Adam several children and never bothered to create Eve. In Genesis, it’s said that a man will become joined to his wife as one flesh, and that portion never mentions children as part of that joining to become one flesh. You can have a marriage without procreation, but a real marriage without love is impossible, and as such, love is the primary purpose of marriage.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I disagree. I think the primary purpose of marriage is love. Otherwise, God would have just given Adam several children and never bothered to create Eve. In Genesis, it’s said that a man will become joined to his wife as one flesh, and that portion never mentions children as part of that joining to become one flesh. You can have a marriage without procreation, but a real marriage without love is impossible, and as such, love is the primary purpose of marriage.

Children are made by Love. It’s the total giving of each spouse to the other that makes possible procreation and also unites the couple. Marital relations (and a broader marriage relationship) that are not open to children has a serious lack in love.

Pax

 

[Dan_Daly]

Dan, I would really have to stress though that some women really just don’t want children. It *could *be an attempt to become more masculine, but it’s not always necessarily the case. I think it seems hard for people to conceive of this (and certainly these women are the minority), but it’s because women have never been afforded the opportunity to do anything else in previous generations. When we look at history, women were always homemakers. Since those women with different aspirations rarely had equal access to jobs that enabled them to support themselves, they pretty much all went with option #2, which was to get a man to support him and raise his children in exchange for that support. We really can’t tell if *all *of these women truly *wanted *children, or just did what was expected of them in those times. (This is not a rant, but simply stating a fact. )

I, for example, do not desire children. As a Catholic, I am open to life, and will accept children if they come, and would do what is best for them, even if that means staying home for at least the primary years of their lives. If children are *not *a part of my future, I can still envision myself as feeling fulfilled with my life. And I am *very *feminine and very domestic in the sense that I love to cook, I garden, I am trying to learn to sew, etc. It might be seem that children and domestic interest/femininity *must *be mutually inclusive, but that’s not always the case.

I appreciate what you have to say. I certainly don’t think all women who “act like men” or all men who “act like women” wake up in the morning and say “how can I act contrary to my sex today?” The pressures of society are very great, and many people do the wrong things without ill intent. I agree with all of that.

I also agree that not all men or women want children. That is perfectly fine. Marriage is not for everyone, and there are other states of life God calls people to.

I do struggle to see how a married man or woman could not want children and that be healthy for their marriage. I see it in a very similar light to a priest who didn’t want to celebrate the Mass. Oh sure, he’d celebrate it if he has to, but he’s really not interested. To me, I just don’t see why you become a priest if you don’t want to celebrate the Mass, nor do I see why you become married if you don’t want children.

Note, I’m not talking “my son just turned the kitchen in a disaster zone, and I have a hard time imagining another child right now”…that’s the type of frustrations everybody has. I’m talking about a sincere and steadfast position of not wanting children. If that’s what you’re talking about, then I don’t see how that is compatible with a healthy marriage.

I will say that a marriage can certainly be a full and holy marriage without children. God in His providence does not bless every couple with a child. Others He blesses with a few. Others He blesses with many. The importance is an openess to whatever number God has to offer. That openess is spiritual, mental, and emotional in addition to physical.

Pax

 

[lerapt78]

To me, I just don’t see why you become a priest if you don’t want to celebrate the Mass, nor do I see why you become married if you don’t want children.

I envision several reasons:

-Companionship
-Security
-A husband can also fill a woman’s need to care and nurture - I can see myself giving him a neck rub after a hard day, making his favorite meal as a surprise (just because), complimenting him and seeing him swell with pride. These are things that I can do for him that will make *me *happy by seeing *him *happy.
-And then naturally there are the more selfish desires (financial contribution, physical intimacy) that, if not born of God-pleasing desire, at least serve to explain *why *a woman would still want to be married.

I’m talking about a sincere and steadfast position of not wanting children. If that’s what you’re talking about, then I don’t see how that is compatible with a healthy marriage.

My position is sincere (although I’m rather apathetic about it), but it is not steadfast because I’m not actively planning to *prevent *motherhood.

The importance is an openess to whatever number God has to offer.

Absolutely.

 

[Dan_Daly]

I did not mean to imply that there are not many other good reasons a person could have to get married. I simply think that openess to children is an essential reason, and that openess includes some degree of desire for children.

There are plenty of reasons to be a priest but the Mass is at the heart of the priesthood. Likewise, parenthood is at the heart of marriage.

I’m not clear on what your plans are, I’m not clear on if you are even married at present, and I’m not asking for details that you don’t wish to offer. I would say that using NFP to try and minimize the chances of children, simply because of disinterest in parenthood, seems to fall short of the standards set by the Church for when such a practice may be an appropriate option.

On the other hand if you are not using contraception, and not seeking to avoid children with NFP, and simply are apathetic about children…I can understand that. Spiritual dryness comes in all different areas of life at different times. God gives us the grace we need *when we need it. *

It is a pleasure “meeting” you on here. God bless and Pax Christi.

 

[Portrait]

Correct. And yes, times DO change. At least Pope Leo is from the 1800’s instead of the 1500’s.

I’m not sure why this poster is only citing the old stuff (oh wait, yes I do).

It would be more conducive to cite a more current pope of our times, such as JPII. He had an awful LOT to say about women and about women’s vocations…

Dear Debora,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Certainly times do change and not always for the better, witness our current decadent post-Christian culture. Christians cannot but be aware of how powerful and insidious is the assault upon the faith which we hold, the faith we have assumed to be the foundation of Western culture. Current secularist humanism - a mish-mash of relativistic notions negating traditional values and absolutes - infects the very air that we breathe. There is a campaign to undermine all human acknowledgement of the transcendent, to whittle away all human respect for objective restraints on the individualistic self and to devalue good traditional norms, which emerged out of Christian civilisation. What we are observing today is the rapid decomposition of this Christian civilisation and we Catholics ought to be gravely concerned, but that is a topic for another time, dear sister.

The ‘old’ Church teaching which encouraged married women to devote themselves exclusively to being a wife and mother has not become obsolete with the passage of time, dear sister. The Church does not teach this and we cannot assume that because it is absent from our current Catechism, it is no longer valid or binding. The whole of the deposit of faith is not contained within the pages of the Church Catechism and the Church nowhere teaches that that is the case. What is true is that older spiritualities and older Church teaching are now being less emphasized, including the prominence given to the older teaching on family life, but that does not ipso facto render that teaching invalid and no longer authoritative by default. The traditional position of the Church has always been that it is proper for a husband to be the breadwinner, leaving the wife to nurture and educate the children and maintain a harmonious secure home environment. Now, dear sister, that is timeless teaching that is as wholesome and true today as it was in times past and if more modern familes adopted this model of family life, then they would soon come to see that it is indeed so. Unfortunately many, including not a few Catholics, have embraced uncritically the radical aberrant feminist propaganda of our times, which has convinced them that the old teaching of the old ways is always wrong and that we have moved beyond all that traditional stuff. Men are almost pre-disposed now to be intolerant of anything that was written the day before yesterday, which sadly severs their link with the collective wisdom of the ages. A return to the old paths is, however, the urgent need of the hour, for the good old ways of the good old days is the healthful remedy that is so much needed in the troublous and confused times in which our lot is cast. “Thus saith the Lord: ask for the anceint paths, where the good way is: and walk in it and find rest for your souls” (Jer. 6: 16).

Whilst there may not be the emphasis upon the older teaching, dear sister, the newer teaching certainly does not contradict it or overthrow it. In point of fact it confirms it and upholds it as good and true. For example, Familiaris Consortio supports the older traditional teaching when it says, “…society must be structured in such a way that wives and mothers are not in practice compelled to work outside the home, and that their families can live and prosper in a dignified way even when they themselves devote their full time to their own family”. H.H.JPII taught in this encyclical that wives should not be coerced into working outside of the home on account of economic pressures, societal expectations or their own husbands. Moreover, there is strong support in the encyclical for the maternal and family role of women, so common in the older teaching. Radical aberrant feminism has only succeded in causing the erosion and devaluation of traditional family life and this is a tragedy of the first rank and a blight upon contemporary society.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Walking_Home]

Such fixation/obsession – with controlling/dominating/oppressing women.

 

[Portrait]

I envision several reasons:

-Companionship
-Security
-A husband can also fill a woman’s need to care and nurture - I can see myself giving him a neck rub after a hard day, making his favorite meal as a surprise (just because), complimenting him and seeing him swell with pride. These are things that I can do for him that will make *me *happy by seeing *him *happy.
-And then naturally there are the more selfish desires (financial contribution, physical intimacy) that, if not born of God-pleasing desire, at least serve to explain *why *a woman would still want to be married.

Dear lerapt78,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Companionship most certainly, dear friend, for God has implanted a natural instinct in both sexes for close companionship and intimacy, which leads naturally to marriage. In marriage, both spouses give and receive mutual help in sharing and bearing the duties and difficulties of life and this in turn affords them security. However, good as these things are, it is within the marriage union that husband and wife satisfy the natural desire to found a family and to bestow their love and the best of what they have upon their children, born as the fruit of their love. Moreover, within marriage, human passions are well-directed and elevated to a noble purpose.

Chidren are a part of what used to be termed ‘the goods of marriage’. St. Augustine writes, “These are all the blessings of marriage, on account of which marriage itself is a blessing: offspring, conjugal faith and the sacrament” (The Good of Marriage, 24, 32 cf. Encyclical of Pius XI, Casti Connubii, 1930).

God’s original command, “Be fruitful and multiply” (Gen. 1: 28), makes of man and woman in holy wedlock His co-operators in the creation by His omnipotence of new human beings. As Christian parents, they are called not merely to preserve and propogate citizens of earth, but children of God and citizens of Heaven - man’s true destiny. The Church commends and encourages, dear friend, the generosity of those spouses who have a large family (Gaudium et Spes, art. 50; CCC para. 2373). Having children is, for the Catholic, the most natural thing in the world.

True, a man can do some womanly nurturing tasks, but that surely is not his natural or proper sphere of operation. There is, dear friend, no need for us to be ashamed of the traditional division of labour between men and women as if this somehow supported blatant male chauvinism. Of course there in nothing bad about a chap occasionally cooking a meal or putting the hoover over the carpet, especially if his wife is unwell or extremely jaded, but normally shopping, cooking and cleaning are exclusively a feminine preserve into which gentlemen should not trespass. The very fact that many consider such remarks downright ‘sexist’, evinces most clearly the extent to which radical aberrant feminist ideology has permeated our Western society, even among those who profess the religion of Christ. Moreover, St. Paul specifically said that it was women who were to be “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5), not men. It is women who are to be engaged in domestic affairs and rearing and educating children in godliness. Her key role is as a wife and mother, which has been ordered by the divine providence for her good and for the good of the wider society.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[NightHawk2005]

Children are made by Love. It’s the total giving of each spouse to the other that makes possible procreation and also unites the couple. Marital relations (and a broader marriage relationship) that are not open to children has a serious lack in love.

Pax

Disagree again. Marital relations without children have no lack of love, and might actually have more love because both partners are able to focus entirely on each other rather than have that energy diverted to raising children. When you don’t have to focus on anyone else, you have that extra energy to make your spouse feel loved, to do something wonderful for them, to make them feel like the most important person in the world.

That sounds like an abundance of love, not a lack of it.

 

[dsully]

Finally discerned through prayer when I was on one of the Catholic singles websites that marriage was not meant for me but rather that I was to pray for those who were married. As a pro-lifer, I’ve shown my support for the family as well by attending various March for Life events in Washington, D.C.

That is very admirable. I pray that God will bless you and allow you to continue in this ministry. Most likely it is bearing great fruit that you don’t even know of yet, but perhaps will know in Heaven.

Dan

 

[Portrait]

Here is John Paul II speaking on the different but complientary nature of men and women in Mulieris Dignitatem:

Note the warning to women not to try and take on masculine characteristics. This again points to the differences, which are good when properly understood and lived out in a Catholic manner that respects the dignity of both men and women.

And here’s Pope Pius XI in Casti Connubii:

and here’s Pope Leo XIII in Arcanum:

One of the benefits of reading what “old” Popes and “old” Catechisms say, is that you find they say essentially the same thing as “new” Popes and “new” Catechisms in a complimentary way. That’s because Christ didn’t found one Church that died out in the 1500s or the 1800s or the 1900s and another that we have today. He established ONE Church for all time.

Pax Christi

Dear Dan Daly,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

Jolly well said and I hope that your above remarks will be duly noted by any man who would be tempted to drive a wedge between the old and new teaching of Holy Mother Church, for the Popes do indeed speak with one voice. As you said in a previous post, dear brother, there is this tendency for some Catholics to adopt a sort of ‘sola -CCC’, as if there was no valid and authoritative teaching outside of its contents. For some, even those of a conservative bent, the current Catechism and what recent Popes have said is all that matters and nothing else is of any great weight. This, of course, is a novel opinion that cannot be supported by any *official *authentic Church teaching and exemplifies the very error that asserts that there is a difference in the teaching of the ‘old Popes’/‘new Popes’ and ‘old Catechisms’/‘new Catechism’.

What has changed is that in our modern secular culture the sexes have come to be regarded as equal, not merely in dignity, but also in identity. Thus it is hardly surprising that the words ‘mother’/‘father’ have become virtually interchangeable, irrespective of gender. Doubtless this is why you have the sad spectacle today of deviant homosexual ‘couples’ rearing children because, in their very warped thinking, they have deluded themselves that both both roles are embodied in the one gender. Doubtless, this is why you have the headship of the father being no longer accepted, even as a fact of nature, which results in children being bereft of a sense of a firm locus of authority within the home. Is it any wonder that our youth become insubordinate and unmanageable? We have probably not began to calculate the immense amount of damge to family life occasioned by godless radical feminism. As a society we have sowed to the wind and we are now reaping the whirlwind and things can only wax progressively worse, until we earnestly repent and return to those good anceint paths, wherein is the good way ordered by our loving Creator.

The remedy, dear friend, for all this confusion over the role of the sexes and their proper sphere of operation, is a return to the good ways of the old days and to distance ourselves from the godless ideology of our secular culture. How men and women today need to readjust their lives and homes to the healthy culture of bygone times, which valued family life and accepted the God-given roles of men and women.

God bless and thankyou for your splendid (name removed by moderator)ut to the discussion. Jolly good stuff, all of it. Keep up the good work, old chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Portrait blames almost everything on feminism(women). Yes men can be feminists but he goes on to define who the offenders are; and they are women. The only times that I have seen him blame something or someone else is when I’ve brought it up myself (eg. absent fathers). This is his singular answer for everything. I haven’t read enough of your posts to know if this is your issue or not but you are grouping yourself together with portrait so that is why I am mentioning him.

QUOTE]

Dear LucyLight,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

This and many of the discussions on CAF do centre upon radical aberrant feminism, for it is, without doubt, a topic that generates much debate and heated discourse. Many men are of the opinion that it has been the occasion of an immense amount of damage to family life, as well as being the cause of much confusion with respect to gender roles. Thus it may appear, dear sister, that I am giving a undue amount of time and emphasis to the topic, but surely no more than it warrants, given its pernicious and strange doctrine. There will, almost inevitably, be much copious discussion of feminism, especially on religious forums like these, dear sister.

However, I would not blame everything upon godless feminist ideology, but certainly it has much to answer for in terms of its destruction of the traditional family and the God-given roles of men and women. There are indeed other social problems that afflict our Western culture at the present time and absent fathers is decidedly one of them. These irresponsible men should be condemned in the strongest terms for their woeful failure to support their children. It is about time that these chaps faced their reponsibility and saw the rearing of their children the right and manly thing to do.

Sadly, dear sister, because men have abandoned the good old ways of the good old days, we are beset by many social ills, dysfunctional families, normalizing of homosexual deviant acts of depravity, debased television/film and sensory material and so on. However, radical aberrant feminism is a scourge upon our society and must be denounced and exposed, for it is decidedly a major source of the ‘anti-family vibe’, hence the protracted discussion of it in the current thread.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Calliso]

Personally I think the traditional family structure works for a lot of families. But feminism didn;t come out of no where for no reason. in a perfect world I think the ideal of having men always being the providors and women always being the housewives would work. But we donlt live in a perfect world. I guess I just donlt see how you could bring out a world where everyone lived in a traditional family and not bring some of the bad that went along with it. Because despite what some people like to think there was a lot wrong in the world back in the old days. We tend to look at the past through rose colored glasses I think.

 

[Nabooru]

^This is very true. There was a time in which it was okay to hit your wife if she was being troublesome, and beat your children if they were misbehaving. And that meant if they didnt act under your complete patriarchal control, you’d best beat it into them. There was a culture of control and abuse. Lots and lots of men in the past indulged in extramarital affairs, and back then their wives were just supposed to grin and bear if, even if he brought home a nice STD for her. Boys will be boys, after all. And if he was found out, the wife was blamed (see a theme here?) for not being attractive and pleasant enough, being disagreeable, getting too old and tired, etc.

 

[lerapt78]

True, a man can do some womanly nurturing tasks, but that surely is not his natural or proper sphere of operation. There is, dear friend, no need for us to be ashamed of the traditional division of labour between men and women as if this somehow supported blatant male chauvinism.

Well said, and I tend to agree.

I only have only two questions:

(1.) Do you think that in exchange for their unpaid labor, women should have equal authority over the husband’s finances and,

,
Cordial greetings and a very good day.

That was a jolly splendid post

Jolly well said

(2.) Why do you sound like a swashbuckling 18th century nobleman?

 

[lerapt78]

On the other hand if you are not using contraception, and not seeking to avoid children with NFP, and simply are apathetic about children…I can understand that. Spiritual dryness comes in all different areas of life at different times. God gives us the grace we need *when we need it. *

Not married, and respect the Church’s views on contraception. But if I may ask, what do you see to be the difference between using NFP to limit the number of children versus using it to minimize the chances of having children at all? Wouldn’t both cases be open to life? And aren’t both attempting to control the size of family?

It is a pleasure “meeting” you on here. God bless and Pax Christi.

Likewise

 

[Dan_Daly]

Not married, and respect the Church’s views on contraception. But if I may ask, what do you see to be the difference between using NFP to limit the number of children versus using it to minimize the chances of having children at all? Wouldn’t both cases be open to life? And aren’t both attempting to control the size of family?

Likewise

Interesting question. I don’t think I do see a difference between using NFP to try not having any children vs limiting the number. Did I say something that perhaps made you think I did?

To explain a bit more, a couple doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) get married and say “we’re planning on x number of children”, and then use NFP to try and reach that “target”.

A couple should always be praying and discerning about the possible conception next child. That’s it. As I said God gives the graces we need, when we need them. Don’t worry about child #4 when children #1, 2, and 3 don’t even exist yet.

So if just conditions exist to use NFP to avoid children, there’s no difference if it is a childless couple trying to minimize the chance of having their first child (and thus avoiding children all together for the time being) or a couple who already has been blessed with 10 children using NFP to try and minimize the possibility of conceiving #11.

Likewise, if the appropriate conditions do NOT exist to use NFP to try avoiding the conception of another child, it makes no difference if it is being used to try avoiding, #1 or #20, either way it’s still just as wrong.

I hope that explains things a bit better. It’s always a bit more difficult making oneself understood through impersonal message boards than it is in a face to face conversation.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

To add to the previous post, I do think a couple has to think very long and hard about getting married, if there would be conditions where they would try using NFP to avoid children from the onset of their marriage. Depending on what exactly is going on, it may make much more sense to simply delay the marriage until the impediments have been resolved.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Disagree again. Marital relations without children have no lack of love, and might actually have more love because both partners are able to focus entirely on each other rather than have that energy diverted to raising children. When you don’t have to focus on anyone else, you have that extra energy to make your spouse feel loved, to do something wonderful for them, to make them feel like the most important person in the world.

That sounds like an abundance of love, not a lack of it.

I said a marriage that is not OPEN to children is lacking in love. I alsp specifically mentioned that some married couples are open to children, and for any number of reasons are not blessed with children. Those marriages certainly are full and loving marriages.

However, you view of love appears to be seriously off to me. You make it sound like someone “runs out” of love, and if a child is created it will take up some of the love a spouse would have for their husband or wife.

Yes, children do take energy. A lot of energy some times. Yes, they can leave you feeling run down and tired, and not in the mood to be mushy with your spouse. Guess what? That’s all part of the love of a marriage.

In order to fully embrace the love of marriage, a couple has to embrace the love of Christ’s resurrection and the love of His crucifixion.

Pax