The following comes from a July 28 story on TheFederalist.com.
Feminists say one thing, but do another, and pop feminism doesn’t have the intellectual grounding to notice.
If you Google “I’m not a feminist, but…,” you will find many articles with lists of famous disavowals of feminism, ranging from Katy Perry (who later recanted after her divorce) to Sandra Day O’Connor. But Google doesn’t do the longevity of the phrase justice. I’ve come across it in research back to the 80s when feminists were just as exasperated with movement defections as they are now.
For decades, this “but” has annoyed feminists because they see wildly successful women, who obviously benefited from feminist achievements in the workplace, shun the label. As the list of famous not-a-feminists grows, popular feminist reaction has moved from incredulity to anger to where it currently rests: instruction.
In the latest high-profile disavowal back in April, Shailene Woodley, the lead actress in the Divergent franchise and The Fault in Our Stars, declared feminists shamed her for not knowing what feminism is about. (See, for example, “Shailene Woodley’s Definition of Feminism is Really, Really Problematic” or the subtitle for another article: P.S. Feminists don’t hate men.) But the actresses are better-informed than the scolds, who usually quote one of the many versions of “feminism is the radical notion that women are people and people are equal.” Rachel Held Evans opened a recent post, “We Need Feminism…” with this inaccuracy. This is lovely sentiment, but actions speak louder than words.
In practice—and practice is what the refusers pick up on—contemporary feminism neither is nor was about simple equality. In practice, it is anti-domestic, anti-men, and frankly anti-woman. And if declared feminists bothered to look back and examine their own movement as critically as they do young starlets’ statements, they would find a history radically different from the notion that “women are people, too.”
I will start with anti-domesticity, because the story about how feminists can believe feminism isn’t anti-domesticity provides some illuminating background for other feminist confusion.
No professor ever assigned The Feminine Mystique to me, but I read it in my mid-20’s when I realized how poorly a BA had prepared me for American intellectual debate. (Some of that was my fault. I wasn’t always a motivated student.) The anti-domestic language of Friedan’s book turned me off so that I slammed it shut before reading the one decent chapter, the epilogue, “A New Life Plan for Women.” I reached for Simone de Beauvoir, which was worse. To be a feminist, it seemed, one couldn’t be a traditional woman and one had to act like man. Those did not appeal to me. (I spent the next few years as an Objectivist, but that is another story.)
For years afterward, I got incredulous and defensive every time someone claimed feminism was about choosing the life we wanted, even if it was a traditional life. Eventually, I honed my rebuttals, adding references to modern anti-domesticity scholars like Linda Hirshman of Get Back to Work fame, but I did not discover the source of the problem until feminist blogs celebrated the 50th anniversary of The Feminine Mystique in early 2013.
I was reading Slate in bed, as one does. (No? Just me?) They ran a series by some of their more prolific female writers who admitted they had never read “The Feminine Mystique.” My husband noticed my agitation—it was hard to miss—and when I explained he asked, “Isn’t Friedan one of the foundational writers of modern feminism?” I sputtered, “One of?! Try THE foundational writer!”
Even if Friedan fell out of favor later—and she did, for arguing against the anti-motherhood and anti-male mood of the movement in the 70s, in fact—her book had such an impact on the women’s movement in the early 60s, the Second Wave, it should be required reading just to understand the mood and motivations of the movement. Surely some feminists were students of history and knew to study popular contemporaneous works to understand Something Past. I thought the Slate series had to be an anomaly. It wasn’t.
To read the entire story, click here.
When you look at all the femi-nazis that are stomping around, you see that the majority of them are neither happy, nor really proud to be a woman. Most of them are crabby, and are like Hillary Clinton, or like Rosanne Barr.. They seldom wear dresses and act very masculine.with their polyester pant suits, and short hair. Make up, earrings, bracelets and necklaces are seldom worn by these man haters.When they walk, it is more like a military march than a gentle promenade. Many of them are mean and hateful, and very bellicose, all of which are not feminine traits. Watching a film produced before 1964, you can see the various differences between male and female characters. In today’s films, one can hardly tell the difference since males are now more feminine and weak, while the females are macho, strong and show leadership qualities. Scripture says that GOD MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, but now with the culture allowing women in combat, playing violent sport games, and doing construction work there is hardly any difference anymore between the sexes. By making themselves equal and oftentimes greater than men, the women of today have lost respect and have denigrated themselves a great deal. Unfortunately the Church has helped the feminists by sissifying the Mass, hymns, prayers and translations of classical Catholic literature. Karl Marx, Stalin and the communists are responsible for this breakdown of the genders, as well as Satan, who is the father of lies, and the master of deceit. Because the Moslems will not cater to this insanity, the world hates them; but they may be, even with their horrible laws, the ones who save women from themselves and the evil feminist movement.
Women shouldn’t work construction? All women have lost respect and have denigrated themselves? Your comments are sickening and clearly display your misogynistic ethos.
Unfortunately, clerical misogeny is rather rampant, as Fr. Karl exemplifies.
No, Father Karl is not a misogynist. He is older as I am and just remembers a time when things were far better between men and women. I remember when I got on an elevator in a clothing store in my early twenties in a skirt and blouse or a dress and an older gentlemen tipped his hat as though I were a queen. I too remember the time I was also in my twenties waiting on a corner for a bus to take me home from work when a young man in his early thirties walked up to me with three huge bouquets of flowers and handed me one. He said that he was giving them out in honor of his wife who had just passed away. Sad to say, only about a few years later things got bad in that downtown area and porn stores, and, no kidding, a homosexual bar were brought in nearby. A woman could not walk down some of the streets without be harassed. That was just before I decided to quit my job and stay home with my daughter while my husband worked. Yes, some women lost a lot I think by trying to act like men And for every “successful” woman, there is another women having to work in daycare or as a nanny to take care of her children if she has any..
The above Anonymous post on Aug. 3 at 12:20 a.m. is mine. For some reason my name did not go on.
Anne T thank you for defending Father Karl. God bless you.
There is no such thing, as “misogeny!” That word really means: hate, period! Fr. Karl appreciates women, you don’t! A NORMAL and delicate woman, saying she wants to work in construction?? No way! But allow some “different” kinds of women who are big, tough, and strong, to apply for and get the construction jobs, if they want! And give them respect and dignity! Just don’t call it a “normal” and “usual” thing, because it’s not! It is definitely UNUSUAL!! Also, one should pay women and men equally! Not so long ago, men were the breadwinners, so they were given large salaries, to cover the needs of themselves and their wives and children! Almost all of America was married, with families! And the women cared for their children and homes– a full-time job to do, if done well! Give this NORMAL job of married ladies, EQUAL RESPECT and DIGNITY!! As for the few who sadly are “different,” and not like others– bless them and find a place for them, quietly, that’s all! Be kind to all! And tell the crazy, immoral, misfit “radicals,” NO!! GROW UP!!
Linda Marie, in a lot of families, the women worked. They did piecework or raised chickens or took in laundry or ironing or sold Avon. They were teachers or nurses or secretaries. Some taught piano or worked in diners or were hairdressers or cleaned homes. Salaries were not large, but people did not have all the consumer items and the sense of entitlement that they deserved them back then. People made do or did without. It was a big deal to be able to afford a car or a house. Kids got jobs and contributed to the family income as well by shining shoes or selling and delivering newspapers or selling vegetables grown in the garden. You are really talking about a small percentage of married women who did not work. “10 that toil where 1 reposes.” Women that did not work were often busy with church functions and civil societies and community services.
Anonymous, I think Linda Maria knows that. Didn’t she say being a housewife was full time work if I read her post correctly? I used to make almost all my family’s clothing and got very professional at it. I am sure she did such things too. My grandmother and mother made food from scratch and canned at home. I am sure Linda Maria did such things also.
I did not mean to say that married women, who cared for their children and homes, in days of the past– never worked! What I did say, is that the husband was expected to be the big breadwinner, in days of the past– so that is exactly why employers paid the men the biggest salary! The husbands were expected to support their wives and children, as the main breadwinners! Of course– many women worked (usually, only part-time), as you mentioned! They brought in usually extra money for the needs of their families! But this money was not usually the main “breadwinner’s” kind of salary, for the major source of family support! In the case of a divorce– the husband was expected to pay alimony and child support, even if the divorced wife was working– because he was the main breadwinner! The husband was paid more, not because he was “born male,” and everyone “hated women,” but because he was the main breadwinner, and had to support a wife and children!!
To equate this movement with the nazi goes way too far, Father. I agree that there were good things and bad things that came out of feminism, but as a whole, it was mostly good. My two daughters, though not invoked actively are an examples of women who are both good mothers and have professional lives. Without Feminism, this probably could not have happened. So when I hear the word Fem Nazi coming form a priest, I think of how hateful some in Roman Catholicism can be..
Hateful rdp ha!!! what I was raised in a radical femi-nazi dripping with hatred for men. The end results are pretty pathetic a family split apart, abuse, and father dead from a suicide. Feminism is a blight on humanity and a curse for men, one of reasons I am filled with hate and contempt for gays, lesbians and feminists
Fr. Karl , I can’t believe that a Christian person would write what you wrote. Starting with the ‘femi-nazi” comment, how much more hateful could you get? I’m only 75 years old, so I can’t talk about what it was like in the old days, but my mother worked full time as did my father and she was anything but a nazi. So many of my friend’s mothers worked to support the family. They were not nazi. Women were finally given the vote. That didn’t make them nazis! Women today are well educated and getting more so. There are more women in college now than men. The Business Schools are filled with women. They are CPAs, lawyers, engineers, etc. Keep in mind, that at one time we nearly demanded the women raise the children; about the only professional job a woman could get was as a teacher. Today, women can do just about any job they want. They run our great corporations, our hospitals, sit in the legislatures in our states and at the national level. They sit in the Cabinet, represent countries at the UN, etc.. What I saw in your comment was hatred of women, an unwillingness to change if it would hurt the male species, wanting to ensure that women knew their place, etc. Surely you come from another age, where women were treated like chattel. Shame on you!
Why is a priest complaining about women not wearing makeup and jewelry?
Mean and hateful aren’t feminine traits?
I understand your post Fr. Karl……by the grace of God, I was able to “resist” the feminism outbreak…….I stayed a femmine woman, raised my children myself, cared for our home, our finances, etc and my husband (the main breadwinner, who worked, and worked and is still working) and I worked when the children were in school or when they left the nest. I retired from a well paying job to care for all of my grandchildren so that they wouldn’t be put in daycare or with strangers. Believe me it was hard because if you were “just” a homemaker you were treated by the femminist as a second class citizen. I’m proud to be a woman and understand God’s scared plan…..which I now try to share with young women around me. I feel so blessed to be able to care for my family’s needs.
SandraD, I hear what you’re saying. Many stay-at-home-Moms get nothing but grief from other women who disparage their being wife/mother as being little more than a cookie-baker or a sponge. Kind of like those who falsely hold that the Blessed Mother, because she was without sin, somehow led a life where she was transported over even the rocks on the ground by a band of angels and never suffering or what work is.
Women are often far harder on other women. It is a sad reality. So God bless you for doing that which is the hardest for many, giving up what ‘looked’ to be the better thing ‘a well paying job’ to give your grandchildren what they need the most – YOU. Not some stranger whose main concern in caring for them, despite all good intentions, is to make money. I hope your grandchildren’s parents understand how truly blessed they are.
Ann Malley: I am a stay-at-home homeschooling mom of 4. I once had to go to a dinner with my husband for his job where there were other couples there. The women all had their careers. I am a somewhat quiet person so I wan’t saying too much. I had one of the women ask me what I did for a living. I told her that I was a stay-at-home homeschooling mom. She then, in a very demeaning and snobbish way, said to me, ” What do you do all day! I would be bored to tears!” I then looked her right in the eye and I said in a very sarcastic tone, ” Not much. I just sit around, watch soap operas, and do nothing except eat and sleep. I just make sure that my kids don’t draw blood when they fight, and I make sure my husband knows what housework needs to be done when he gets home at night after working all day long!” She never said anything to me the rest of the night. If women want their careers, that is their choice, but I hate it when women think because other women stay at home and take care of their families that they are lazy or have nothing or no life. If someone were to offer me a million dollar a year job I would immediately and proudly decline. No amount of money is worth it to me or my family. By the way: I also do babysit other womens’ children every weekday too.
Again, RR, you and I seem to have experienced much the same. Good for you in responding the way you did. Spoke volumes.
God bless you for taking care of your family. Many women will also openly admit that they do NOT have to work because of finances or other circumstances. They openly admit that they do NOT want to stay at home with their children. Yes, that is their choice but how blessed are your children to have a mom who has not missed pivotal moments that define and help shape their characters and most importantly their souls.
SandraD right on! I being, a stay at home mum, felt at times disrespected as if my role,in raising my family, taking care of my hubby and the household was not important. But I know better. I use to work when my kids where smaller but then when I got pregnant again, my hubby and I made sacrifices for me to stay home. It is certainly a rewarding and yet a very hard job. The negative pressures I felt while doing the right thing sometimes brought me to tears. Even our men that are raised today, don’t see the importance of a woman’s role and the importance for them to be home and raise their children. The way this life is, most families can’t endure/afford giving up a parent to stay at home.
Is it OK for adult women to vote in secular elections? Inherit property? Hold earned professional designations?
Or is it OK to pay them seventy to eighty percent of the male wage for identical work?
Mike Magee, do you really think most women can handle a fire hose on their own, or carry a six foot plus man out of a burning building? Not many I would say, and I think this is what Fr. Karl is getting at.
…or a woman carrying a wounded soldier off the front lines in battle. I’m with you Anne T. And Fr. Karl!
Anne, ask the women who serve in our fire departments. They too must pass physical test the same as men. The only “job” a woman can’t do that a man can do is serve as a sperm donor. Every other job is open to them! Stop putting women down and treating them like china dolls that will break at the slightest touch. Your innuendo is beyond the pale.
Oh, please, Bob One. Women do not belong in the trenches I remember when Patricia Shroeder castigated Newt Gringrich for saying women should not serve in the trenches. Although I do not always agree with him, he was right on that one. Later Shroeder was running for some office and some reporters gave her a bad time, and she started crying. I thought to myself, “That woman could not last in a trench five minutes, yet she wants the rest of us to be there. I also have a relative who is an ex marine. He got into trouble because he was treating the women like he would treat the men under him when training them after he retired. It is some program thats name I do not know.. In other words he had to handle them with kid gloves. By the way, you are talking to a woman, me, who used to work fourteen hours straight, with a few breaks in between, jogging down paper in a bindery and then went to work at another job during the week when my daughters were going to college. Nevertheless, I would not do it again as I have had five hernias than were fixed by doctors from the hard work I have done during my lifetime.. I also believe some of the stress very well might have contribute to my having had cancer three times over the last twenty-three years. There.are just some jobs most women cannot do as well as most men. Period!
Thank you for your post, Anne T. And the reality check.
That said, for all the supposed treat women the same as men malarky out there, I’d have a REAL issue with my husband if he treated a woman the same as a man on a battlefront. In other words, if my husband was so desensitized to the differences between men and women on the battlefront, how could I expect him to actually be the defender, protector, and gentle ‘man’ when he got home?
It is natural for men to go above and beyond to protect women and children. Do we really want to strip that away for the sake of some political agenda that is completely out of touch with reality?
Regardless of whether women belong “in the trenches”, women should not be referred to as Nazis. It is a disgusting slam that does not befit a Christian, let alone a priest.
Good grief, YFC. Being Catholic does not eliminate one’s ability to make colorful and often spot-on observations. Nobody is saying all feminists are Nazis, but the lock-step, brainwashed killer instinct of some of those in modern day movements sure does evoke the image.
That said, not all those in the Nazi party were horrible war criminals either. So we could say the term Nazi itself, if used to indicate anything outside of one who was a member of the Nazi party, is a ‘disgusting slam’. Please. Let’s use some common sense and also not pretend that Catholic priests are required to use nicey speech instead of conveying powerful images that get to the heart of matters.
Thank you for your August 4, 2014 at 1:15 am post! It is excellent!
Ann Malley, I’ve just had a flash of insight! Since you specifically disagree with almost everything I post, including your “Good Grief” lecture to me today at 3:46 PM, in which you actually DEFEND the use of the word Nazi to describe feminists, you even go so far as to defend real life Nazis of World War II. GOOD GRIEF INDEED!
I literally believe that if I want you to say something sane, I have to say the opposite of what I really intend to say: So, I want to announce that I have joined an SSPX chapel, I think Vatican II was the worst thing that ever happened, and I think women should spend their days wondering how they can be submissive to their husbands.
Defending actual Nazis, Ann Malley, you have really taken the cake.
With all the ‘flashes’ you’re experiencing, if I didn’t know you were a man, I’d say you may want to look into treatment to ease your menopause. Either way, you’re an irrational creature.
That said, much like with your pet protected group, it is not the ideology of Nazism that is protected, but rather the intent of the individual. Not every young man in the German army was the evil demon or the anti-semetic nut you may think they were. There were young men conscripted into the military, YFC. I have close friends who were children during the time of Hitler, very good solid Catholic friends who know what it was like. Friends who suffered very much. Have you ever gone past the stereotype of demonetization of the individuals – outside your pet project of protected group of misunderstood?
You’re always against blanket definitions of people and their motives when it comes to your favored group, but your weeping heart has no understanding whatsoever of a 17 or 18 year old young man drafted in Germany. You the advocate of ‘you think it’s a choice’ actually think that every German soldier during WWII and before was anti-semetic? Good grief indeed.
News flash: education is a beautiful thing, YFC. You might want to try it beyond finding the excuse to force Catholics to accept the unnatural as natural. So Nazism is bad, that’s why we do not promote it for it is an evil thing that can bring down those who have no desire to be what the name implies, much like other ideologies regarding so-called lifestyle ‘choices’ can and do bring down myriad innocents, forcing them into a lifestyle that perverts the flesh and kills the soul.
Ann Malley, now, you had to know this was offensive. Why would a Christian woman make a choice to offend others and God?
Ann Malley, what would be irrational would be to imply, as you are doing, that Father Karl’s intent was to compare feminists to those Germans men forced into the German army. Is that really rational? Or to think that a person anyone including myself or Father Karl even refers to such conscripted Germans as Nazis at all. You know that you are the irrational party here, which is why you have to drum up another insult against me. Other posters are calling you out on your tactic to turn every conversation into an opportunity to personally insult the person you disagree with.
Here’s I think might be behind your irrational defense of Nazis, which you double down on in this morning’s post: I think you may have learned a bit too much from Bishop William Richardson, the SSPX bishop, first excommunicated by Rome for his illegal schismatic ordination, then expelled from the SSPX itself for insubordination. In between, he was convicted by German courts of denying the holocaust (overturned on appeal), but subsequently convicted on incitement. He is widely known as antisemitic, and claims that Nazi Germany did not use gas chambers and that a total of between 200,000 and 300,000 Jews were killed. (wikipedia).
See, according to Bishop Richardson, and Ann Malley, the Nazi’s really weren’t so bad after all.
Focus on being well, Anonymous. You must really feel threatened.
God bless you anyway :)
Sorry “anonymous” post at 10:02 aug 5 was mine.
“Focus on being well, Anonymous. You must really feel threatened.” = BINGO!
Ann Malley, Excellent response! Yes, these are the transparent voices who will work at presenting themselves as being “under the banner while really pretending to be in full communion” and all while they are only adhering to the compromised expressions of perennial AMBIGUITY.
Hey why don’t you get your facts straight its Bishop Williamson..Ann M this is what liberals do when they are threatened they insult
Canisius, you are correct, I mistakenly inverted the Bishop’s name in my post at 10:02 AM. Here is updated information about the Bishop: https://www.searchlightmagazine.com/archive/neo-nazis-the-catholic-church-and-council-property
Thanks Catherine and Canisius. And, YFC, like I said, look to the individuals instead of attempting to black ball entire groups that you know nothing about. (Isn’t that the message you always send, YFC?) Just because tradition threatens your amoral agenda in some way is no cause to go off half cocked.
Read up. Learn. Discern. It’d be good for you to break out of your usual reading material. But FYI, Bishop Williamson is no longer affiliated with the SSPX. Not sure if you understand or accept that. But that is no matter as you are seemingly bent on the agenda you want to prop up no matter what. Rumor mongering is part of that, so have at it. It’s nothing I’m unaccustomed to battling.
Dear Ann Malley – You as an individual have now proven yourself in writing to be an apologist for Nazis. No group black balling here, you have demonstrated it yourself. But I now have insight on where you got that way, or perhaps one of the things that draws you to SSPX.
That’s a cheap shot to say that this person is in full communion or transparent voices, pull the rod out of your own eyes before you preach at anyone else. When we know its not so…your cheap shot from August 5, 2014 at 3:28 pm, Catherine is incorrect, nobody has said that people who promote unnatural things are in full communion. So hypocritical. Its irrelevant on what you try to sell here. Coming from you and the insane ill assumptions of yours of over assuming and with false accusations on those faithful to Rome, are telling. People have free will, whether they be in full communion with the church or not,(even those in schism) sinners are everywhere in house and out. Stop making it about the image of being in full communion, as if this person represents the whole church and you knew very well that “not so called Catholics” will not always be loyal and be in full Communion, you think ye better than him, but humility will serve you well when you look in the mirror before you throw a cheap shot like that again. Throwing everyone under the bus and not recognizing that your comment made no real solid point, but instead it keeps on adding a prejudice and a slander to the people who are really in full communion and who fear the Lord.
“In the Church God has placed apostles, prophets, teachers, and every other working of the Spirit, of whom none of those are sharers who do not conform to the Church, but who defraud themselves of life by an evil mind and even worse way of acting. Where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; where the Spirit of God is, there is the Church and all grace” (Against Heresies3:24:1 [A.D. 189]).
“[The spiritual man] shall also judge those who give rise to schisms, who are destitute of the love of God, and who look to their own special advantage rather than to the unity of the Church; and who for trifling reasons, or any kind of reason which occurs to them, cut in pieces and divide the great and glorious body of Christ, and so far as in them lies, destroy it—men who prate of peace while they give rise to war, and do in truth strain out a gnat, but swallow a camel. For they can bring about no ‘reformation’ of enough importance to compensate for the evil arising from their schism. . . . True knowledge is that which consists in the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place [i.e., the Catholic Church]” (ibid., 4:33:7–8).
Like I said before, be well, YFC. Try anyway.
I realize now, too, that I should not have worked so hard unnecessarily on a Sunday. I think I got a little greedy for the money and later paid the consequences for it. I should have at least kept it down to just 8 hours. The Lord gave us the Sabbath to worship him and to rest ourselves. I think Fr. Karl would agree.
There is no cheap shot here, Abeca, as the persons presenting this ambiguity are the ones portraying themselves as being in full communion. Not you. (That is the issue, those portraying themselves in full communion as pertains to the ‘law’ while not being in full communion as pertains to the Faith.)
You write: “..Its irrelevant on what you try to sell here. Coming from you and the insane ill assumptions of yours of over assuming and with false accusations on those faithful to Rome, are telling.”
And yet those Bishops who falsely persecuted St. Joan of Arc were in full communion – at least that is what they were perceived as being which is what gave them any authority in the eyes/mind of the people to burn St. Joan at the stake. These men were later declared heretical according to Anonymous in the post below.
If you do not see the comparison in what is going on today, that is one thing, but it is no reason for you to paint Catherine as ill willed, irreverent, or anything else. The only one’s ‘selling’ anything are those that sell the idea that full communion depends on where you sit in the pew and not what you hold to be the Faith.
Bob One ask the men who serve with these women why the test standards were changed for sole purpose of making women pass…
Sorry, Bob One. With a husband who served on the front lines and beyond, I know reality from that which is politically correct. That said, I’m the furthest thing from a ‘china doll’. I’d laugh out loud and likely so would you if you ever said that to my face as would those who tend to call me ‘Ellie Mae’ in honor of the Beverly Hill Billies gal who used to be rather rough, tough, able to shoot, wrassle, etc.
But whether you like it or not, there are differences between men and women. That’s just reality, Bob One. That said, there are men who I wouldn’t want to rely on to heft my husband wounded off the front lines, or from behind enemy lines. Let’s get real here.
“Your innuendo is beyond the pale,” is the most absurd and contrived line of nonsense. Or would you attempt to encourage girls to become linebackers? Attempting to play God and rewrite REALITY is beyond the pale, Bob One. It’s also a lie.
Your husband would be better off with Diane Nyad trying to help him than many of the men I know.
This is the point: Strong women don’t have to be refused the opportunity to do something they can do because people have decided that women are weak.
And again, men do not have to be denied doing something they want to do because society deems it unmanly.
People are individuals with talents and abilities that God gave them to use for the good of others.
Men should not become line backers. It makes for a very bad mal a tete.
“…Your husband would be better off with Diane Nyad trying to help him than many of the men I know.” Perhaps you don’t know the right kind of men, Anonymous.
The point is men and women, as a general rule, are created differently. Thank God for it. That said, there are plenty of men I wouldn’t want on Special Forces either. And they’re not. I thank God for that, too.
Don’t take your individuality to the extreme to think that you’re that unique. The names male and female are not swear words to be avoided at all costs. And God also created them, male and female, with complimentary differences.
Otherwise we should all get real, round up the women, take them to Amazon island and only call in the men for sperm donation. But I’ll admit on some days that seems rather appealing. :)
Why do you have to be so condescending and degrading?
It’s a matter of perception, Anonymous. You may want to ask yourself why you’re so touchy.
Adds another insult instead of an apology. I am now sure you are not serious about Christianity.
Like I said, Anonymous, you may want to examine why you’re so touchy. Being Christian doesn’t mean falling all over oneself to apologize for imagined slights. That leads people to think that their imagination is reality. That would be encouraging you in delusion.
Is it compulsion?
Fr. Karl, I certainly get what you are saying and agree with most of it, but with all due respect most Muslims go too far the other way with Mohammed having married a child of only 10 when he was in his fifties in an age when Jewish and Christian women were about fourteen when married. He also married many wives whom no one really believes he made all happy. On the other hand Simone Beauvoir, who wrote “The Second Sex”, went too far the other way only ending up old and wrinkled before her time by trying to act like a man and alone with no children, even spiritual ones. Surely there has got to be a middle ground. As the saying goes, “Virtue is in the middle.” And I have, by the way, always kept myself as attractive and as slim as possible for my husband and even am so fond of jewelry, I often have to clean out my jewelry box and give some to others, or I would be guilty of greed.
Ann T you are totally sensible, you make good common sense and I agree with you. : )
Thank you, Abeca Christian. The Anonymous post on August 3 at 12:20 a.m. is mine also. I just put a note under it to that effect..
I certainly hope if the roof caves in in a burning building, Bob One’s lady friends will be able to carry him out. (Got to laugh at that one.)There is another problem with all this extreme female, male “equality” stuff. The navy or coast guard wanted to station a young man recently married alone in a lighthouse with a pretty young woman other than his new bride. Cardinal O’ Connor, when he was alive, was asked by the young man to write a letter for him saying it was not proper.. The sailor was afraid something would happen to ruin his marriage..
Too much of this palsy walsy between fellow co workers is the cause of so many affairs and divorces when people are not careful. .If is only common sense to avoid a near occasion of sin, but of course some in authority just do not give a hoot about marriages. The more divorces the better as far as they are concerned. The more children without fathers is just great, after all — who needs them or mothers either? Or just rip the child up or burn it to death in the womb by abortion.
I also asked a younger woman in the Navy one time if she thought it was good for women to serve aboard ships with men. Her answer was, “No way! men are animals when they have been out to sea too long.” And she was no “china doll” as Bob One would put it. Well, so much for my spiel. I hope it pricked some consciences. .
Thank you, too, Anne Malley, for your comment. They don’t fool us. They keep trying to make a man out of me, but they haven’t done it yet.
“…They keep trying to make a man out of me, but they haven’t done it yet.”
That’s a funny one, Anne, as the opposite end of the spectrum is the attempt to make a woman out of men. Good grief. But nobody is trying to play God here? Just ‘equaling the playing field’. Please!
Thanks for your common sense and sharing your on the ground experience of LIFE!
That’s good you clarified. Anne T check if your computer can automatically post your name. Sometimes the computer will save your name so it won’t post as anonymous. I made sure mine does, it works great! Thanks Anne T and YFC for clarifying that your post was from you. Try adding the cookie that saves your name, so it pops in automatically. Just a thought. = )
My mother LAUGHED at the radical feminist movement! She was of Italian origin, beautiful and feminine– and also very strong-minded, communicative, honest, and loving, always living by the Truth, by what is most definitely either “right” or “wrong,” with lots and lots of LOVE!! No– she did not need some goofed- up, atheist lesbians, with their “radical hippie socialist feminist garbage,” to run her life for her, and tell her who she was, and how to live! God made Man and Woman, and you marry, raise a family, go to Church, trust God, live by what God says– good enough!! Her mom was exactly the same! “Queen of the Home,” “rule the roost,” with LOVE, and feminine, strong, beautiful– with the GUTS to live by what God says, simply, and to be a beloved Role Model, for others!! The “Lady of the Home,” is “Queen,” imitating the example of the Blessed Mother!! The Man is like Christ, or St; Joseph—- strong, virtuous, protective, hard-working, sacrificial for his Bride and their little children—- and also, tender and caring– but very masculine!! The two are complimentary! Men are men, women are women– both different, and both equal, in God’s eyes!!
Because Christ redeemed us, Catholic women should model their lives after the Blessed Mother, and Catholic men should follow the example of Saint Joseph, and other virtuous saints. Sister Francis, my 3rd grade teacher told us CAN YOU PICTURE OUR LADY DOING THE ‘TWIST'(a dance from the 60’s)? Can you picture any of the saints doing the immoral and unnatural acts that are so common today? God created men and women to COMPLEMENT each other,not to COMPETE with each other. Women were created by GOD to nurse and nurture, and maintain, while men were created to build, to plant, to hunt and to protect. That is why there is a difference between male and female bodies. Regarding the Moslems, I KNOW they do not treat women correctly, but there are not very many abortions there, hardly any birth control, and at least one can tell the difference between male and female roles. It is our Western culture which has degraded women and instilled in them the desire to be men. It was the Catholic Church which uplifted women from what they were in the pagan cultures, and gave them their proper dignity, which was around until the revolutionary 1960’s.
Women do not desire to be men. That is not what feminism is. Feminism is about equal rights. We should not support abortion or contraception or women becoming priests.
You may be thinking of a radical form of feminism.
Do you believe that women should have equal political rights as men?
Economic rights? Social rights?
What right that men have do you think women should not have?
What responsibility that men have do you think women should not have?
What right that women have do you think that men should not have?
What responsibility that women have do you think that men should not have?
In some ways, society has given more rights to women. Some feminists also promote equal rights for men
Anonymous, all of your questions regarding does a man or woman have or not have this right or another right are generally ludicrous. God gave life to, and sustains life for, both men and women. In return for this gift to both men and women, both sexes have a responsibility to God and to one another. Arguing and legislating over so called rights, such as “a woman has a right to fight in combat”, or “a man has a right to stay home and nurse a baby” misses the higher calling of both men and women.
You must not know history.
Man has not always followed God’s design.
Your argument has too much logic and common sense in it to be understood by Anonymous, Tracy. But thank you for posting so the rest of us know that logic is still out there. Something to be valued, not feared.
Anonymous have you heard some of the things that come out of the mouth of Rosanne Bar…or whatever her last name is, wow. Poor witness that is for sure. Regrettable so, the things that came out of her mouth decent people called potty mouth to be polite. Graphic and its too bad that our youth have to be exposed to people like her. She is totally not feminine.
Pray the rosary, after you say a whole rosary you are giving our lady a spiritual bouquet of roses. Jesus wants us to walk with Him, while we carry our cross. When it gets heavy, trust in our Beloved Jesus.
Father Karl, the women in Moslem countries do as they do because the totalitarian regimes will kill them if they don’t.
I know many Moslem women who love their role in their culture…….they are women who take care of their homes, their families and their husbands–they feel protected and revered……..you (Anony), may be speaking about “radical” Moslem’s who do unGodly things to their women–just like many American men who degrade and use women. There are Godly men and unGodly men everywhere in this world.
Agreed, Fr. Karl.
It’s strange that this argument should go on for so long. My wife and I married in 1968, at a time when couples with “teen” in their ages had an 87% chance of being divorced five years later. All the strident feminism that took place a few years later was actually laughable. It was just people who found an excuse to hang their rage upon, a cause. They were and are Lenin’s “useful idiots”., as the culture now follows the ancient “divide and conquer” paradigm. First convince a group they are being abused, then convince them you’re their new savior. Old tactics, new dupes. We raised two daughters and a son. My daughters are capable, independent women who have chosen to marry and have children. One taught Kindergarten for ten years – she’s one of the toughest and most competent people I’ve had the privilege of knowing. She cannot grocery shop without being stopped by grateful parents of her students.
My daughters represent the majority of women, they just aren’t loud and strident. We need to notice folks like them, to put the nastiness of “feminism” (whatever that really is) in perspective and keep it there.
For those who say women don’t belong in the trenches, try telling that to Israel, which is constantly fighting to maintain its very existence.
Women and men serve their country!
So go help them, Max.
Women and children should be protected by MEN……women should not be in combat….ever.
Max our men need to continue to hold a personal responsibility and when women are indoctrinated to an extreme of feminism, they are less likely to know what that responsibility is. Only men can teach each other that. Not woman teaching men how to be men. Its manning up, as the expression goes. In this conversation manning up is used to encourage, to edify what belongs to men, as God has ordained to men, and femininity is for woman as God has intended. We each have special roles requiring special responsibility, not meaning that women should ever be helpless or vulnerable.
When my mum was a child, my own grandpa, her papa taught her how to shoot a gun, to defend herself in case due time. People are misunderstanding that our role of womanhood, is not to be vulnerable but to do our part as God has intended, that is why Father Karl asked us to model after our blessed Mother Mary. Times change, women can work and be blessed to help more, its all good, as long as we do not compromise what is important to Christ our Lord and family etc.
SandraD, good point. Godless statists seem to like it when the State becomes powerful by taking over the God given role of men. Statist call it “equality” when a woman leaves her nest to become “equal” to men who go out daily into the drudgery of the workforce. Statists call it “equality” when women become wage slaves. In my humble opinion, I’ll take God’s design for men and women any day.
If folks were assaulting the homeland, I’d be well and able to pick up a rifle in defense, Max. Nobody is advocating a quivering, inept femininity. But sending young women – especially those of childbearing years – purposely into harms way is wrong in my opinion. And gravely disordered.
Most of the rigid feminists are actually very unhappy people. Their basic approach to life is the “we hate men” position, which is not a good foundation to build a fulfilling relationship with anyone, male or female.
Feminists dumped the “soft male” of the `70s in large numbers because they were just too soft and too passive to make much of a difference in their marriages. Feminists of the `60s cheered the arrival of the 1970s soft men, then jettisoned the concept as unfulfilling in the 1980s.
Feminists have played a leading role in damaging the black family unit in our culture because they are always telling black women that there is no need for a man in their life to be either a provider or father for their children. Our prisons, addition recovery units, and unemployment offices are filled to capacity with black men who never had a strong male in their life to mentor them of what it is to be a black male.
Interesting comments you made Anonymous, good ones to think about. It is probably the effects I felt growing up so young in the 80’s. We didn’t know what hit us. Even for guys. later in high school years, I recall the popular notion of girls saying that girls are better and that we don’t need men. Just awful, its a good thing I was busy with church and my youth group, that kept me from being indoctrinated in that mentality, I survived the public high school years! Praise God. I do believe that feminism was meant for good but it turned out bad, I am with the believe that women should take care of themselves, develop helpful skills etc, to better themselves without compromising of course, their femininity, the way the Lord made us, after all we are blessed in every way. Woman can be vulnerable too, so I admire women who fear the Lord and who better themselves. Its important for women to learn to protect themselves too, it would be unjust to not give women tools to protect and better themselves. Its good for us to learn to use guns, its good to learn self defense, to cook and care for our family. Even work a part time job to keep building our retirement. My mum was always a stay at home mum, she even babysat to help have extra money but now she is disabled and dependent only on the small benefits that she gets through my dad, due to my dad’s benefits only because he has passed away. She doesn’t have much of benefits because being a stay at home mum, there is no benefits given not unless your husband prepared some before he passes away but due to us being a low income family, my dad couldn’t afford to put money aside for my mum’s retirement or disability etc.
We are to fear the Lord.
I reflect in Proverbs 31:10-31.
Israel is NOT a Christian country. Up until recently, the Vatican had no diplomatic status with Israel. Some of the ideas that Israel holds are based on Communism (women in the combat zone of the military). These are facts, not fiction, and can be found. Women have NO place in the military in a civilized, Christian society!
Father Karl, you are correct that Israel is not a Christian country, but it allows all forms of religion within its borders, unlike its neighbors. To say that women in the military is communism is, with all due respect, stupid. Your attitudes and beliefs are from another world and another age. Women, my wife, my daughters, my grand daughters, and all women deserve to be treated as equals. They have the right to vote, to live in freedom, to be treated as equal human beings, to have a good education, to have good jobs, etc. They should not be denied any right that a man has, including the right to serve their country. Please join our current century. A civilized, Christian society would not deny them equal rights. You, Sir, are asking us to treat women in a non-civilized and non-Christian way. Or you are pulling our legs.
Bob One, women in the military is not a “current century” idea. Many pagan tribes in Northern Europe had women warriors. Boadica was one. She was a pagan queen, It was a Christian saint — I do not have the time to look up his name now — who got Christian women out of the military in the earlier years of European Christianity — because he felt the men, for the most part, needed to protect women and children. As the book of Proverbs says, “There is nothing new under the sun.” Civilizations rise and fall. Some of them even might have had electricity or something like automobiles. Archeologists know that there was modern type plumbing on the island of Santorini before a volcano destroyed it. That civilization had become very decadent. Draw you own conclusions.
Father Karl, how do you explain Saint Joan of Arch? Seems I’ve heard a good explanation regarding her, but I can’t recall what it was.
I am not cool with the idea of pretty women getting blown to pieces by land mines. Perhaps some women don’t mind having less competition for dates.
Bob One, The real irony here is that you “sir” while criticizing Father Karl have unwittingly helped to usher in a non-civilized group of paganized pro-abort feminists who would agree with you 100% That is nothing to be proud of “sir” . Also, this priest’s name is “Father Karl” and you are disrespectfully addressing a faithful Catholic priest who has personally heard thousands of confessions over the many years and listened to the broken families and aftermath of destroyed lives by those who also call artificial contraception, a woman’s equal right. Many men fell right into lockstep with their promoting of not just some but “all” equal rights for women. They never stopped to consider that they were also in many ways promoting the culture of death with artificial contraception, abortion and euthanasia and now same sex marriage. Many of these men have become Marlo Thomas or Oprah Winfrey robot men. These feminized men are very intuitive and astute when it comes to recognizing a nice glass of fine wine or discussing Bon Appétit Magazine recipes but this is not an Epicurean blog, This is a faithful Catholic website Bob. Father Karl is truly trying to help all of us get to heaven and you are insulting and disrespecting him for it.
1. fond of or adapted to luxury or indulgence in sensual pleasures; having luxurious tastes or habits, especially in eating and drinking.
continued from August 4, 2014 at 10:50 pm
Do you realize that your big broad feminized paint brush of promoting equal rights for women has included many evils. Try taking back just one of those now legal equal rights and we will see just how much your other words about equal rights are valued by feminists.
wow such hostility Catherine!
You would likely admonish Christ outside the temple to put down the whip and speak ‘kindly’, Anonymous. What spirit animates you?
Ann Malley, that was another nasty thing to say. Why can’t you obey Jesus? You seem to not even to want to. It seems all about getting one off. If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything. Try to model yourself on the Blessed Mother, not Sue Ann Nivens.
Feigning ignorance is nasty, Anonymous, as you harm your closest neighbor. Yourself. No wonder you have such a false concept of charity. You understand, of course, that if you love others by way of such a skewed lens, the ‘love’ will be as distorted as that which you promote here.
Try taking responsibility for your land mine provocations. To do any less is dishonest. Christ calls us to be truthful. I know you want to be Christlike, so go all the way and be honest. Christ spoke directly. You should try it.
But likely you would find being called a whited sepulcher offensive.
Peace be with you.
No I would find being called a whited sepulchar wrong because I am not whited.
What would you say to it?
14. Am I given to dwelling on other people’s weaknesses or faults?
15. Have I been cheerful today in my dealings with others?
16. Do I control my uncharitable thoughts as soon as they arise in my mind?
From Father John Hardon’s Examination of Conscience (Sins against Charity)
Anonymous, by calling Catherine hostile while not explaining why you came to that conclusion, you violated numbers 14, 15, and 16. In my opinion, Catherine’s words to Bob One, were offered in Christian Charity and were stated clearly and concisely. Since Bob One posted his illogical opinions on this forum, it would have been uncharitable to leave them unchallenged. Catherine is a true soldier of Christ. You, however, by your quick rash comments, which lack substantiation, only proves that you are a successful “drive by” accuser.
I am the anonymous who posted the examination of conscience. I am not the anonymous who posted the hostility remark.
Do you consider the post you left at 12:32 charitable?
This is an honest question.
Well said, Tracy, as usual!
Thank you Tracy for your very supportive post! God bless you!
Having women with so-called equal rights takes a load off of many men, Catherine, so the temptation to promote it is understandable. For while women are fighting to be out there doing a so-called man’s job and bringing home the bacon, I do not see men dedicated to maintaining the home or even sharing said duties 50/50. That’s a joke.
This women’s movement has led to the lazy lion syndrome in my view. Men taking it easy, letting the females go out and bring down the food, then taking first dibs only to fall asleep on the Savannah under a convenient tree. If another male comes along to deprive them of this win/win scenario, then they might get a little defensive. But not for the sake of the females, but rather so that they might continue enjoying being King.
Will the real anonymous please stand up?
Ski Ven gotta love you. I mean that in a good way. You usually come up with hilarious comments with a good message to them. Especially your comments from August 4, 2014 at 5:02 pm. Good one. = ) Some conversations get too heated so a little sense of humor with a good message, helps.
It made my evening, I’ll have a good night sleep, tee hee. Well I look forward to chatting with you some other week. Praise Be Jesus Christ.
Father Karl, if you want even more people to leave the Church, keep talking.
Yes, Fr. Karl, keep talking so that those in the pews who desire nothing but the perversion of truth will either man up and accept Church teaching or be honest and move on to something that better suits their personal idea of what God and Church should be.
Keep talking, Fr. Karl. And God bless you!
Ann Malley, the expression “man up” is really offensive. Maybe you knew that and didn’t care-but just in case you didn’t, I wanted to let you know.
Like I said, you may want to ask yourself why you’re so touchy. You seem to misunderstand the term offensive.
causing someone to feel deeply hurt, upset, or angry.
synonyms: insulting, insolent, derogatory, disrespectful, hurtful, wounding, abusive;
Or are we going to try to redefine THAT now, too?
“Or are we going to try to redefine THAT now, too?” = Yes, we are! It’s called feeling very THREATENED so you call the truth OFFENSIVE.
Threaten – Verb
To cause (someone or something) to be vulnerable or at risk; endanger.
synonyms:endanger, be a danger to, be a threat to, jeopardize, imperil, put at risk,
IOW ..Those who promote and love the self-serving pastoral practice known as *CALCULATED AMBIGUITY* are extremely threatened and feel that they are at risk of losing the status quo whenever they are hearing the fullness of Truth.
I’m sorry you’re so easily offended, Anonymous. That’s as good as it’s going to get for my using the phrase man-up in proper context. And as the term was used to suggest how one should step up and accept the challenge of Church teaching, I don’t retract the sentiment.
You should read more in the dictionary, however:
(of a person) oversensitive and irritable.
synonyms: sensitive, oversensitive, hypersensitive, easily offended, thin-skinned, high-strung, tense;
In other words, if you are oversensitive to the point of believing that manning up to accept Church teachings is offensive language on a Catholic website, you’re looking to be offended. That’s unhealthy. For you.
Much like some women who want to be treated like men only in so far as they want and then the man is supposed to magically shift gears to begin treating the same woman like a woman. It’s confusing, Anonymous. Unfair. False advertisement. And unhealthy all the way around.
So please, don’t come to a Catholic website and then pretend offense when the message is to uphold Catholic teaching. Either that or you’ll have to find a method to deliver a list of approved words or an electronic filter for what comes naturally to most. That is, speaking freely.
Ann Malley and Catherine, I’ll bet you know a lot of touchy people.
No, Anonymous, most folks I know talk freely and relax and exchange ideas without looking for insult at every turn. That’s obsession. So get over it already.
“Ann Malley and Catherine, I’ll bet you know a lot of touchy people.”
We sure doI Lots of huggy touchy people! I have not personally met Ann but I have a pretty good sense about her dealings with people. Ann Malley is incredibly fair and kind but no pushover for ambiguity nonsense. So I will be happy to let you know that people are often trying to hug us and give kisses on the cheek everywhere we go. One priest who I charitably had many good conversations with about persecuting traditional Catholics came full circle and he was so sorry for hurting them. This priest was obeying his superior, the bishop. The priest was being ordered to unfairly mistreat and silence Catholics while removing many traditions. Yes, I did say mistreat. At that time, I did speak with the bishop about that too. The bishop kept placing the entire blame on the priest which was so unfair and unjust and I asked the bishop to please stop throwing that poor priest under the bus when that priest was ONLY FOLLOWING his (the bishop’s) explicit and cruel orders. The bishop’s face became beet red because he already knew that this was the case. He never responded to that truth either. The priest who came full circle ended up giving me a kiss on the cheek in front of all of the people who he had once hurt. So I am sorry to disappoint you. People actually respect and love those who tell the truth. I am also very sorry that you are feeling isolated and threatened whenever you hear what the Church actually teaches without the layered veils of ambiguity. .
continued from August 6, 2014 at 4:59 pm
Anonymous, You might try coming out of the dark shadows into the sunlight yourself for some Vitamin D and hugs. You remind me of my fallen away Catholic neighbor who noticed my pro-life bumper sticker and she was so threatened by that. She walked up to my car and told me that she wanted me to know that all of her friends had gotten abortions and that it was really *no big deal*. I told her that it was a *big deal* for the children who were never born and that I was so sorry that she could not see that. I looked right in her eyes and I asked her if she had ever had an abortion and she would not answer. I said. “If it’s *no big deal* then why did you walk all the way over to my car to tell me that abortion was *no big deal* and why are you all of the sudden now acting like my question is a BIG DEAL if it’s *no big deal*?.
BTW The bumper sticker on my car read. ” It is a great spiritual poverty when a child must die in order for someone to live as they wish.”
Two days later this very same neighbor knocked on my door and gave me a big touchy hug. She then said, “I want you to know that I carry the rosary that you gave me a long time ago everywhere I go, especially on airplanes. Then she asked me if I would please pray for her mother who was very ill. You see anonymous, my neighbor was very much like you. Ambiguously flip flopping about certain topics without conviction. Threatened when faced with the truth while lashing out at those who remind them of what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
Catherine, I am sorry for the zinger but it is interesting that you felt the need to portray me as a Catholic who flip flops (I don’t) who is threatened by what the Catholic Church actually teaches (I’m not) and who lashes out at those who remind them of it (I am curious why you think you would remind of that-I’m looking at your posts above and I do not see anything that is about what the Catholic Church teaches.) It is interesting also that you felt the need to compare me to someone who persecuted trad Catholics (I don’t) someone who is pro-choice (I’m pro-life) and someone who does not get enough hugs. (Don’t know what to say about that). I also noticed that you had to brag about how you are spiritually good for people so I assume that my zinger was hurtful to you and you felt put down and needed to build yourself back up. (yeah-OK, it was insult humor-you two do that all the time-but I guess it is different when the shoe is on the other foot). I will try to remember how sensitive you are and not zing you again.
Sorry again. Blessing and peace of Christ.
It is astonishing to me that when people object to ad hominem attacks and insults, the reply is to equate those insults with church teaching, as Ann Malley does at 5:35, and Catherine equates insults with “truth” at 4:59 (in a post which, by the way, uses a loophole in the word limit rules). It also goes to Father Karl’s use of the word Nazi to describe people, while claiming that he was merely teaching what the Church teaches.
This is nonsense folks. People can disagree without using insults, and when we do slip and use insults, we shouldn’t try to pretend those insults as though they are de fide statements. I’m pretty sure even the most heretical of us wouldn’t honestly claim that use of public insults, public shaming, and such are the core of their faith.
YFC, if you are astonished by plain speech, then perhaps you should look into why you are so easily offended. Seriously. If you are desirous of being Christian yourself, you could at the very least ask a person how something was intended before going off and categorizing folks based on word choices.
You do not like to be categorized. And yet you rush to offense. My comment man up was part of a post meant to encourage him to continue his necessary work. Your post directly above, August 4, 2014 at 5:38 pm, was intended to insult Fr. Karl, as if merely speaking one’s mind and the observations from his perspective is what’s driving people from the Church. Was that Christian? Was that kind speak? No.
You also couldn’t be more wrong as in many cases people leave Church because they cannot abide the saccharine anymore. And yet you do not consider your post hateful? I find that incredibly hard to believe in light of the usual intelligence of your posts. The same goes for your going down the rabbit hole in attempting to twist what I post in defense of Fr. Karl’s duty to speak the truth.
You’re displaying an unhealthy pursuit of victimization, YFC, grasping at words that speak clearly as if they are some form of stigmata for you. They’re not you know.
(You may want to examine your own conscience with regard to attempted public shaming, YFC. And a priest, no less.)
Anonymous writes, “…(yeah-OK, it was insult humor-you two do that all the time-but I guess it is different when the shoe is on the other foot).
You may believe others are engaging in insult-humor, but that is your misconception, Anonymous. I do not see anything insultingly humorous in what Catherine says or even what I post although others may want to perceive it that way in order to dismiss whatever they don’t like. That’s their choice. But even so, you shockingly dipped to the supposed level that you yourself consider sinful. You *intentionally* insulted another via an attempt at humor.
So it would appear that you are at the very least coming to terms with the reality that you’re no innocent. This is progress. God bless and congratulations! Perhaps next you can work on your own issues regarding bragging.
God bless you, Catherine, for speaking the truth to your neighbor! No doubt this woman, despite the initial pain, has had a far better time healing since recognizing the wound of abortion.
Ann Malley, I admit I am a bee yatch sometimes.
I don’t try to hide it behind “speaking Truth”
and I say I’m sorry and try not to do it again.
Thank you Ann Malley for cutting through all of the contrived distractions!
I’ve learned my Mark from Pa lesson. Nothing you say is going to change them. They glory in being as they are.
Anonymous, thank you for your admission. You are doing it again, however, in that you seem to equate speaking truthfully, that is truthfully about one’s experiences and one’s understanding of what the Church has always taught as little more than some fake shield.
That tells me that you do not understand or at least do not wish to understand that I’m coming from the position of being very serious when I say I’m attempting to relay Truth as I’ve been taught and as I understand the Church teaching.
For whatever reason you seem to believe my position is a joke of some sort or some personal ax, but to what purpose? You may just get kicks on CCD, but that doesn’t mean that others are on CCD for the same reasons or that their reasons cannot run far deeper than you imagine.
That said, perhaps I am taking what others say in the name of the Church here on CCD or in the name of that which is Catholic too seriously. That is why I respond in the fashion I do, taking what folks say as if they truly mean it and have the desire to discuss, learn, share, grow in understanding. If that is not your purpose, forgive my misinterpreting you. Unfortunately such misinterpretation is only added to by continued use of an Anonymous moniker when attempting to hold conversation or expect continuity with regard to one’s position.
Ann Malley, I said I was astonished, not offended. I never commented on the Man-up position. And I didn’t insult, I merely pointed out that you defend the insults that you, Catherine, and Father Karl hurl at people (not always at me – at people you disagree with in general) by claiming that those insults are what the Church teaches. No, I’m sorry, but the Church doesn’t teach either the insults you hurl, or the use of insults to defend Church teaching. Being astonished, and pointing out facts is not the same as being offended, whether easily or not. And pointing out facts is not an insult. Pointing out that the Church DOESN’T teach certain things, like the use of insults, is to defend the Church, not defending me. So instead of diagnosing my “unhealthy pursuit of victimization” prove where I’m wrong on the facts.
Another activist writes, “I’ve learned my Mark from Pa lesson.”
Thank you! I appreciate your honesty. That’s a very good sign then! Homosexual activism has a difficult time gaining a scintilla of ground on CCD.
Not homosexual activism, silly-Catholicism; the Fullness of the Faith
Actually, it is a part of Church Teaching. Because most people accept the Church’s Teaching until it comes down to a sin that they like. Treat others as you would have them treat you. But people here make excuses for the bad way that they treat others and even call it being charitable or defending Church teaching.
I would agree with you and with satisfaction that homosexual activism has a difficult time gaining any ground on CCD.
Emasculate language as you will, YFC, but please don’t try to pass off doing as much with being Catholic. Colorful metaphor is a powerful tool. Much like covering one’s ears in a feigned attempt to shield one’s lily ears may play off as comical in theater, but not here.
As I tried to tell you earlier AM, I did not object to the term man up. I did not emasculate the language. I am willing to listen to every insult and false accusation you want to hurl at me and offer it to Christ on your behalf. It would, however, be lovely if you attempted to live up to the Church teachings on such things.
Listen to the insults that you throw at others, YFC, namely Fr. Karl in this instance. And look to the intentional twisting of words you use to infer the most damning intentions meant only to blow smoke. No cloak of imagined charity will lend kindness to what you post. Even snakes appears to smile and they keep mostly to the ground, a very humble posture, and yet the same humble creature can be most deadly to those walking among them.
So when you hiss at the heel, expect something to be hurled at your head. That’s not unChristian. That’s common sense, something the Faith absolutely does not require one to dismiss.
Anom, in a culture that is emasculated, I am not surprised that the phrase man up offends
This is precisely the kind of individual I wouldn’t want on the SEAL team, Canisius. Man up doesn’t even begin to describe it.
All Is corrupted except for that which was conceived Immaculate. There have been prediction for years that only those who consecrate themselves to the Immaculate Heart would survive. Now we see that there are some faithful Catholics but few because most are self-centered and comport themselves to individualized versions of the Catholic faith with no restrictions on their own sins and vices. There is nothing that man can do because it is as it will be. There is only one pure place in the world. All else is corrupt. There is no political party, no agency, no school, no church that is wholly pure and no admonishment will change it. Armed action is what the evil one wants. Death and destruction. This is what God has warned us about. We did not repent of our sins. The time is come. Consecrate yourself to Mary and stop worrying about silly things like this. All is corrupt.
Indeed, I agree, Anonymous. Consecration to the Immaculate Heart is the way to go! Thanks for posting.
Anonymous why is the expression “man up” offensive? Just curious? There is nothing wrong with men or women to have conviction, as long as its for the better good of mankind and their relationship with Abba, God almighty. I think that it depends on how that expression is being used, in this conversation it was not mean to offend but to convey something good, to encourage etc. Sometimes that word can used to empower people, to encourage towards a good goal etc. Persuasion etc Remember it depends on how its being used. For the common good. Its good to practice what one preaches too. Manning up, has been used to encourage. Its all good.
abeca, If you say Man Up, as in gathering a crew to help do something, it is not offensive.
Aside from being sexist. It is a put down. And saying it to a gay man is extremely offensive.
If you say it to another person, like the expression “Put on you big girl panties” it is an insult. You can say it to yourself if you recognize that you are not living up to your duties or trying to avoid something unpleasant, but not to another person.
It should not have been used in the context that it was. It was used as a snide reference to a gay person who does not accept Church teaching on gay marriage (totally off the subject) by another person who does not accept Church teaching. Not appropriate at all.
Sorry if this gets posted twice. I got the slowdown message.
Anonymous I don’t think Ann was speaking of “gay” people. She was just trying to make the men rise up to their duty. I actually think its charitable because I have heard of men saying that they want woman to encourage them of their man duties. I truly believe you have altogether twisted Ann’s intentions and out of charity, I feel that you need to know. You bringing the topic of “gay” and woman’s panties is just irrelevant and not even close, to what is being conveyed here. Manning up is actually a good thing which comparing to the panties expression you made is not the same at all. Can you just see that please. Lets not turn this conversation into a circus. Lets be civil please.
Perhaps said ‘gay’ man should practice charity when attempting to condescend to an honest, well intended priest. That said, my words about manning up were posted to Fr. Karl. If YFC took offense, that is his issue as he seems intent on viewing life through a very narrow scope. That’s his obsession, Anonymous, and perhaps yours, not mine or anyone else’s.
So man up with regard to what you stir or start. That has nothing to do with being homosexual, but rather taking your own actions, choices, and snide comments into account. You do not get a pass just because of your preferences, no more than anyone else.
If you find that offensive, that’s life.
Ann Malley, i guess that says everything about your character.
I hope it does speak to my character, Anonymous, much like your attempts to portray yourself and others as blameless speaks volumes regarding yours. Man up was and is a very apt term all around as you seem to desire doing anything but.
Ann Malley, I realize that despite your over-evolved capacity for criticizing others,you cannot stand yourself to be corrected.. You cannot stand to be given advice, or to be given even a helpful hint. You feel the need to degrade, demean and trivialize others in order to right the grievous wrong that has been done to your ego.
The Catholic Church has always said that pride while not itself a sin, leads people to sin. Sorry for the injury to your pride. Everybody gets their pride hurt but the trick is to learn to like it and desire a fatal blow. Pray for humility.
Pray for the ability to give yourself a name and take ownership at least on CCD for what you say, Anonymous. Perhaps then I may listen to your advice on humility. (One must prove oneself a worthy teacher after all.) But for now, you seem not to be teaching the ‘trick of liking it’ very well at all. Otherwise, you wouldn’t feel such a need to strike out from myriad shadows while dodging questions.
Or have I missed the post from you, Anonymous, chastening those who would be so prideful as to berate Fr. Karl. An ordained priest! Is it not the height of pride to publicly berate one who is above you in the spiritual order or not, at the very least, come to his aid by lending him the benefit of the doubt? Goodness knows, you have taken me to task for making general assessments of Church hierarchy with regard to the visible crisis within the Church and yet not a word from you in this regard.
What is one to learn from a teacher like that?!
Pray for consistency…. and the courage to name yourself.
I think Catherine has a bunch of quotes about that.
Ann Malley, It looks as if the ‘word police’ have infiltrated this site! At any rate, I can’t help but notice that this ‘word police person’ sure seems to be lacking a bit of cheer in his/her life.
Man Up — to fulfill your responsibilites as a man, despite your insecurities and constant ability to place yourself in embarrassing and un-manly scenarios.
Un-manly – Dishonorable; degrading. Lacking courage; cowardly.
They’re out in spades, Tracy, as when you cannot be logical the redefinition of words is the next best defense. It would be so refreshing to hear one of these so called victimized individuals start taking responsibility for a change. At least that would be honest.
why do you feel the need to make snide remarks?
do you feel that you are rebalancing a scale?
Ann Malley, yes I agree with you. First an Anonymous poster claims victimization. You call the “victimized individual” out for the fraud that he is. Then said individual with the anonymous phony “victim” complex calls you out for making snide remarks!
Snide or Disparaging — To speak of as unimportant or inferior, belittle.
Anonymous, I think that was Ann’s point. Your remarks ARE unimportant and clearly inferior. Now that I said that, may I suggest that someone from “Victims Assistance” would be happy to offer you some counseling and support. Furthermore, I highly doubt that they will insist on you facing truth, so you should feel very “safe” with them.
Why folks equate blindness with safety is beyond me, Tracy. But then I was one of those kids who used to like watching the needle go in my arm at the doctor’s office.
Tracy, sorry for the misunderstanding. It was not Ann Malley that I asked the questions of-it was you.
I was not calling you out. It was an honest question.
Perhaps the word “snide” was what led to the victimization comment.
That was not at all what I intended. I wanted to understand why you chose to write these things.
My reason for asking is not personal to you-but simply to understand why someone wrote what they did.
I suggested a “balance” issue.
I really would like to understand why you wrote what you did.
Ann – we have previously mentioned the perils of feeding ‘Anonymous’ Trolls…
Particularly the whole bunch of them who All sign in as Anonymous.
It is difficult to even figure out which of the Anonymous you are addressing, as several different Anonymous use the same title…
– as opposed to say your average Faux ‘catholic’ Troll, who tend to hide in just as craven and cowardly a manner, albeit behind just one Anonymous label.
Tracy you are just as disgusting by disparaging true victims needing Victims Assistance as AM is in her claiming that everyone opposed to her claims victimization. And that you go on to belittle others literally, even adopting the term belittling. Equally disgusting. Where is the Christianity in this?
Tracy, I think if you continue to read the urban dictionary definitions-not just the first one from ElMadman, you will see why it is offensive. I cannot post them here because of the bad language. It is the kind of term-depending on how it is used- that can cost you the respect of anyone who hears you use it. There are some people who believe the only proper response to it is a raised middle finger. If a woman uses it to a man, it is worse. A polite woman should never use that term. Of course, not everyone is polite and some people get all full of themselves and like to put others down.. It is just how they roll.
I am just teaching the TRUTH, as it was handed down to me. I am NOT a heretic, and I have the words of canonized saints, as well as the tradition of the Catholic Church to back me up. Catholicism is not a cafeteria, as Pope Benedict XVI said, where you pick and choose what you want to believe and follow. After some people left after Our Lord was teaching something they did not like, He said, ‘Will you leave Me also?’
Yes, Fr. Karl, and that’s why those Catholics who would promote democracy and Americanism over Catholicism are so offended. But hey, most have been lied to for years and now believe that Catholicism is democracy and Americanism. Catholic truth is now identified as the enemy.
So can we really blame them? Light is often very painful to the eyes of those who have been purposely kept in the dark.
God Bless you always, Father Karl!
Could you please clarify what TRUTH you were trying to teach?
The slur “femi-nazi” probably got us off on the wrong foot.
I would really like to know then what rights are suitable to each gender.
We all know that feminists are wrong on “reproductive rights.”
We know only men can be priests.
I, myself, live traditionally, only wear dresses and I am one of those weak sissies that other women here seem to despise. I don’t march; I struggle to limp and waddle some days.
I am pretty sure that the Church permits women to own property and to vote.
I really never heard that a woman should not work construction or any other job that was not immoral. I do not like women in combat. I don’t like anybody in combat but especially not women with children. (The US military currently does not put women in combat roles yet, but some of them have gotten hurt and killed anyway.)
I am sure that the Church does not approve of rape and sexual battery. I am sure that the Church does not mind if girls learn to read and do math. (And I am also sure that it does not approve of little girls being shot in the head for trying to learn.) I am also pretty sure that it does not support domestic violence against women. Hopefully it supports women getting paid fairly for work that they do.
It’s been a long time since I read John Paul II’s document on woman and the thing I remember most is that he said that woman’s vocation was to love.
I am really serious. What is the Church’s teaching that you are trying to share with us, please?
Sorry Father Karl, if you think that the Catholic Church teaches that women are nazis, and the rest of your garbage, you musn’t be talking the Roman Catholic Church.
Father Karl you are right, some woman have lost their femininity. The woman you mention in your first post, well I agree, they do seem bitter and angry. But Father I have to tell you this, when I spoke to a holy priest in the Tridentine Mass, I asked him to guide my daughter in her dressing, she likes big heals and such. He said to me “I don’t want to get into styles, because with each generation they change, as long as they are modest, I have no reason to get involved with what is in style” He was right. Styles change and I can also share with you, a young girl, friend of my kids, she always wore flattering dresses and skirts,(even Jeans with feminine blouses) that she encouraged me to wear more dresses and skirts.
Father the examples you gave do not speak for us all, there are still many lovely women who dress appropriate and embrace their femininity. Frankly Father, I do not agree with how the Muslims woman dress either. It is not feminine to wear a tent, to be honest. With Muslims killing Christians in other parts of the world, I want no part in their ways. Especially since they degrade woman in many ways. I doubt that our Lord meant it that way either.
The nuns at my mom’s highschool advised her to not wear high heels because in the long run it would damage her feet. She did it anyway.
You daughter would not want to see a picture of my mom’s feet. They are much worse than this:
A good slideshow on shoes and foot problems:
Father Karl, St. Joan of Ark wore battle clothes. I don’t think there is anything wrong with women advancing themselves in ways that honor God. Key word, honor and love God. I may not agree with them going to war and such but the way woman where treated and still some are, especially when they are victimized by a husband, etc. They need to protect themselves.
I watched a documentary of a woman, who grew up abused, she grew up to look very tom boyish, not attractive at all, but she is the most caring person in the way she goes out in the night,risking her life, in the streets to find sex trafficked children and woman. She and some others work to rescue sex trafficked woman. She may not look feminine but I couldn’t stop crying because she moved my heart by her witness. Her passion to find those poor children and woman used for sex. It was her manly ways that probably gave her strength to go in those bad part of areas to rescue women and children.
“One life is all we have and we live it as we believe in living it. But to sacrifice what you are and to live without belief, that is a fate more terrible than dying.”
Joan of Arc
Father Karl is right. We should model after our blessed Virgin Mary, our mum. There is a good book out on sale, I don’t recall the name now, but it illustrated those ideals so eloquently. I also recommend reading the book “Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour In Company and Conversation”
It was rules that George Washington lived by. Most of the rules have been traced to a French etiquette manual written by Jesuits in 1595. As an exercise Washington hand copied Francis Hawkins’ translation which was published in England in about 1640.
Here is a short guide:
Do not ridicule anyone or be witty at another’s expense.
Avoid criticizing and fault finding. This is a defect which grows, and it can develop to such an extent as to make one unbearable in conversation
Abstain from all low and vulgar words of expression
To mimic peculiarities of others is disrespectful and offensive.
Always speak of God, of the saints, of holy things, with the greatest reverence.
Abeca Christians, Anonymous and Others, the prophets of the Old and New Testaments used some very strong language on occasion, and you can be sure George Washington did also. Even the Lord Jesus Christ used some insulting words when he felt it was necessary. The words “whore” and “whoredom” were thrown around frequently in the Old Testament and even by St. John in the New Testament. He called one city the Whore of Babylon. I was not offended by the word “femi-nazi” in the least. I understood that Fr. Karl did not mean all women. I also understand that I can be a “femi-nazi” on occasion when I am in a bad mood, and sometimes we just need to laugh at ourselves. If some people actually read the Bible, they would faint in horror at some of the words in there. Very few of these passages are read at Mass, probably because small children are present.I also understood that when Fr. Karl inferred that women should wear jewelry, he was saying that most women, those who want to have or do have a husband, should make themselves attractive for the opposite sex within reason and with modesty in public, and that no woman should not go overboard to look unattractive or ill groomed. Even nuns and sisters should cover shaven heads or short mannish hair with veils.
I meant “no woman should go overboard to look unattractive or ill groomed.” I misworded it in my post.
Well said, Anne T, and God bless you for referencing the Bible and the reality that not everything written therein would pass through the ‘nice’ meter. Far from it.
Often the greatest kindness to be done is calling out evil for what it is and in the terms necessary to garner the proper attention to the problem.
Anne T of all the years we have known each other through these posts you felt the need to preach at me including the anony posters here…”the prophets of the Old and New Testaments used some very strong language on occasion, and you can be sure George Washington did also.’
You don’t think I know this? Come on Anne T! Where have you been. Even I know that you know that!! What are you assuming that you felt the need to tell me that? Can you see that this website has become a circus of people who are anti V2 and gay agenda driven individuals, I am trying to get people to be civil. The slander that went on with Catherine and Ann against my person on the past posts, assuming and insinuating ill of even new comers, was insane and you didn’t preach at them. So stop with this hypocrisy. I know you can reason better, especially when we have some anonymous posters trying to cause more division amongst us who are suppose to be in unity. It pathetic to say the least, disappointing.
Abeca Christian, I meant no offense to you. I was merely defending Fr. Karl’s right to use strong language at times to get across his point. I was brought back into the Church around the 1970’s because an older priest had the audacity to call someone who left the Church “trash” in a sermon I heard. It stung at first, but I realized that I did need to come back into the Church. Later on that same priest gave me the advice that saved my life and kept me from dying of cancer. Therefore, I realize that using strong words can often be very effective and save lives and souls at times. .
Abeca, in all charity, nobody was ever attacking your person. I’m glad you want to bring civility to CCD, but you misconstrue when you believe that anyone is attacking you directly. Much like I do not really believe that anyone is attacking ‘me’ personally. They attack what I have to say because they don’t like it or feel the need to have what I say suppressed. Much like the false suppression of many traditions in the Catholic Church.
That’s all it is. I’m thinking Anne T just put your name on the list because you inquired about the term man up. Thank you, btw, for reading the words and not ascribing to the intentional distraction of pretending horror and victimization like others do. Not out of any real hurt, mind, but to push a progressive agenda that would see even more priests like Fr. Karl come to heel and only speak when using the approved word/idea list.
That said, just for observation, take a look at Anonymous’s apology to Catherine wherein Anonymous couches her apology around Catherine’s so-called pride. That is no apology. Not at all. In truth Anonymous’s so called apology is nothing more than another bitter slam intended to provoke, but from seemingly holier ground. I doubt Anonymous would ever admit as much on the forum or in person.
But these are the reasons why I write things such as “I’m sorry you are so touchy,” in reply to such nonsense. It is not intended as an apology, but rather as the calling out that it is intended to be. It is an offer to get real and be honest, with oneself and with others. But sadly, those offers are never really taken up. It’s a shame.
Ann Malley, I am the person who tried to inform you that the phrase “man up” is offensive simply because I thought you did not know that. Having empathy for you in that situation really caused a stir. I did not feel victimized by it or horror at it. I felt a kind of embarrassment for you. I hope you don’t find that offensive but I afraid you will. It shows how poorly people guess the motivations of others. I am not touchy. But thank you for admitting that you have an agenda and that part of that is to “expose” (invent) the weakness of another person. But you got it wrong. I’m not progressive, liberal, gay, home-sympathetic or whatever is in your head. I was just someone who gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Anonymous, thank you for your kindness in finally addressing your untoward word obsession.
That said, please do not attempt to invent motives for your controversial man up distraction as distraction is all it was. If you were attempting to educate, you could have asked a question and been forthright in your attempts to help ‘me’ out in your first post. You weren’t. As usual. And as usual, your distraction techniques were aimed at innocuous word choices instead of bolstering up the very valid points of an ordained priest. Again, as usual.
So whether you’re ‘progressive, liberal, gay, home-sympathetic or whatever is in your head’ doesn’t make a whit of difference as your posts and distractions speak for themselves. And your aversion to the truth is similarly transparent as it took you this long to admit what you were trying to do – even if your admission comes off as nothing more than a weak, self-aggrandizing invention.
So the next time you want to appear to be giving someone the benefit of the doubt, DO IT. That’d be new at least. And hey, you may not believe my approach works when getting to the root of things, but it did elicit at long last an answer from you. BRAVO!
Ann Malley, I saw that you said things in it about the person who posted that were not true. Now you did it again. What can I say? You don’t want to hear that you made a mistake. And you become very aggressive when someone points out a mistake that you made. I did not wait to post. I posted as soon as I had read it.
So you were trying to get a reaction from me by posting to abeca? You are happy that it worked? Why so you could tell more lies?
You should seek help.
I was not the one who coined the tern FEMI-NAZI. It was Rush Limbough. To me, anyone who is mean, nasty, in your face, uncharitable, and constantly tries to tear down traditions in society as well as in the Catholic Church, is a terrorist, or a Nazi. The Nazis were NOT nice, warm and fuzzy people. They were similar to the Communists in Stalin’s Soviet Union, and in Mao’s Red China. After all, Saul A wrote the book for radicals and dedicated it to Lucifer. People who condone abortion, and other unnatural evils, sins and vices, and constantly protest those of us who are against these sins, ARE radicals, and I believe that Rush’s term for this group of individuals fits. Certainly, NONE of these women knew Hitler, and probably none of them are from Germany, or were even alive when the Nazis were in power. But since there is NOTHING NEW UNDER THE SUN, I still stand by my choice of words, because radicals are what they are..
But you are a PRIEST!
I listened to Rush Limbaugh once and knew that his sins of the tongue were so offensive to God, that I never listened to him again. I pray for him with his drug addicitons and multiple marriages but I certainly don’t emulate him.
You are supposed to be like Jesus, not Rush Limbaugh.
In common lingo, nazi means someone who feels that everything has to be done their way and tries to impose their will on others. It does not have anything to do with sin or evil or radicalism. It can. Catholics have been dealing with the contraception nazis in the last few years.
I do give Rush Limbaugh credit for standing up against abortion.
Saul A was not a communist. The “radicals” that he was writing for were poor people or powerless people who were trying to stand up to the powerful. (Like trying to get trash pickup, or a community park, or a hearing on why a policeman killed one of their kids.)
Saul Alinsky was a hard core leftist who dedicated his book to Satan enough said……
The fact that Saul Alinsky’s name is a conservative buzzword is hilarious.
Was he a leftist? Well, back in the 60s, equal rights for blacks, non-discriminatory hiring, helping the poor stand up to the “Establishment” to get decent housing and working conditions weren’t really leftist; they were not what the “have’s” wanted to do. So they might have been a little controversial. Helping low income people know how to stand up for themselves, it rocked some boats, of course but it really wasn’t THAT radical.
He had no hand in promoting sin. He was about showing the underdog how to stand up to the powerful.
Notice how you could not respond to who he dedicated his book to…..
Canisius, I am not a fan of Saul Alinsky. It is OK not to like him.
I read Rules for Radicals decades ago and thought the guy was a jerk. He dedicated his book to Lucifer with a LONG EXPLANATION as to why and a indication that he does not necessarily believe that he exists. The problem is that, like I said, his name and its derivative Alinskyite is used often by people who have no idea what they are talking about and it shows.
I am sure you are not a person that sits around and lets people run all over them. Neither was he. And he didn’t like to see it happen to others.
That’s actually false. He dedicated the book to his wife, and acknowledged a few people who helped with the publication of the book:
The Lucifer (not Satan) quote appears later as an attributed quote and is something that would only be taken at face value if you’re from another planet or species with no concept of a sense of humor.
“Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
… and it’s a reference to the Lucifer of Isiah, not the later Christian conflation with the Devil.
” In common lingo, nazi means someone who feels that everything has to be done their way and tries to impose their will on others.” = H-E-L-L-O Rip Van Winkle! Wake up and smell the coffee!
Catherine, this is totally incorrect. A quick study of history tells you that the word Nazi refers to members of the German Nationalist Party, which was a right-wing organization that called for the promotion of the Aryan race and was very much opposed to allowing Jews to exist. To use the word Nazi to describe anyone is a true insult. Keep in mind that the Nazi party was against Communism and Capitalism as well. As for Saul Alinsky, he was very much a leftist in the 60’s, fighting to overcome segregation, control by the few rich people in the country, etc. What was described as leftist in the 60s is pretty main stream today. Yes, he could have made a much better choice in whom he dedicated the book. But, keep in mind that in the 60s many people needed help from community organizers to show them how to get what was guaranteed them in the Constitution: right to vote, right to a job, right to go to a public college, right to own property, right to good health care, right to be in the army and then get benefits given to white rich people, the right to a good education. That was what was considered radical in the 60s. I suggest that we be more accurate in our use of definitions.
Bob One your lack of knowledge of the US Constitution would be comical if it were not so tragic. The Constitution does not guarantee right to a job, right to go to a public college, right to own property, right to good health care, right to be in the army. You claim to be 75 years old and full knowledge you are woefully ignorant of the facts. Unlike you Bob One the rest of your leftist ilk the more government gives you the more it controls you. What needs to happen is complete reversal of 100 years of progressive government. Entire government departments need to go.. forever, the good news is that this will happen, why because the current system is not going to sustain itself with over $100 Trillion in unfunded liabilities it will collapse. Unlike your generation I believe in near complete self reliance, something Leftist detests, why? because it leaves no place for them and their corrupt bureaucrats. The smaller the government the Freer its People.
Bob One you like to spout things likes this “. What was described as leftist in the 60s is pretty main stream today. ” really is it considered mainstream to overthrow the US Government as was the aim of the Leftist Weather Underground… Is is considered mainstream to spit on US servicemen as return from overseas which many Leftists did. The 60’s generation quite possibly the worst generation ever produce, and no wonder why I detest it and challenge it.
Speaking of loving accuracy…Why are you NEVER concerned about all of the inaccuracy or heterodoxy being taught to the children in the U.S.? Why did you not respond to my question where I asked you why children in the U.S. should have to flee to Mexico for the sacraments while you go on and on about social justice for children from other countries. The reason that you cannot comprehend that word Nazi being used as an aptly descriptive term or picture is perhaps due to the fact that you have always gone along with the cultural flow no matter whose lives are ruined and damaged by other inaccuracies. Many good men who enter seminaries are still faced with a gauntlet of feminist bullies. Many good people have lost their livelihoods and they have had their lives practically annihilated and ruined by feminist terrorists who are also in the public workplace. That’s true Bob! And this is especially true within the Church with solid Catholic school teachers too. This is also why there is a book called UnGodly Rage. So If someone uses that word Nazi then someone is conveying the picture of a brutally cruel and heartless force and people will understand it. I suggest that you should care about the accuracy of what our children are being taught in Catholic schools so they don’t have to flee to Mexico for the sacraments.
Catherine are you talking about them going down to the Jesuit center in Baja California?
Well Rush sure nailed it because some women sure gave us a bad name, that is for sure. You are fine Father Karl, we appreciate your input and am grateful, that you also take into account our input as well, especially when all we want to do is please Jesus. Our Beloved Jesus.
Well no matter what, as Catholics we need to model after our Holy Mother Mary. That is what it amounts too and whatever our Lord wills, after all look at St, Joan of Arc….St. Joan may not be what we consider taking after Virgin Mary but she did, in her own way, she obeyed God and at what she had to endure during those times.
Anonymous, thank you for posting the link. Been there, done that to make it short and sweet.
Isn’t it a permanent thing?
Yes, the consecration is permanent and on going. I was talking about the 33 days in my last post.
Joan of Arc was an exception. A pure (chaste) holy woman who listened to God who asked her to LEAD an army — she herself killed no one as far as I have read. God sent her because the Daphne did not even have the fortitude nor the courage to save his own country and throne. After the army and she won his kingdom for him, the dauphine was thankless and did nothing to save her life. She also made sure her army tried to stay free from sin by frequent confession and righteous living — no camp followers if you know what I mean.There have also been other women in Biblical history who saved their country, but not in the trenches of a battle field, though through some violence, — Jael, Esther and Judith — and who were types of the Virgin Mary. Nevertheless, these were especially holy women. Can that really be said of all the women in the military today? Some perhaps, but others are willing to push abortion and other serious sins. In other words, for what are they really fighting? I said perhaps because only God know the conscience of anyone. And yes, I would be willing to fight in a battle with a gun if necessary to save my family, as Anne Malley said she would, but it is not the norm, nor should be. And if we want to be Joan of Arc, we d-a-r-n well better live like her. I separated one word because it looks like another harsher word if I do not.
Joan of Arc was an innocent teenage girl who was wrongly executed because of corruption in the Catholic Church. Good example.
Yes, St. Joan of Arc is an excellent example of holding onto the Truth despite those in positions of authority who would falsely condemn solid Catholics under the guise of heresy… and similar threats intended to bring those calling out their hypocrisy to heel, not promote the Faith.
Thanks for the insight, Anonymous!
Anonymous the church acknowledges her as a Saint. She is a martyr. What do you have against the Catholic Church? Which anonymous are you? We have several most in which are for gay agendas. Just saying.
Actually, I do think my phrase because of corruption in the Catholic Church was wrong.
The Catholic Church (Catholic Bishop of England) condemned her and handed her over to civil authorities to be burned at the stake, Later she was exonerated at a retrial ordered by the Pope. She was declared innocent. The English bishop was considered to be politically motivated. He was posthumously declared a heretic for condemning an innocent for secular reasons. She became a saint in the 20th century.
I don’t have anything against the Catholic Church. It is an article on feminism and part of why she was convicted of heresy was for wearing men’s clothing. Glad the inquisition is over.
There was no Church of England during the life of St. Joan of Arc, Anonymous. But what you write about the Bishops being politically motivated in their killing of Joan is true. Much like many Bishops today are in the Catholic Church, but politically motivated. You make an excellent point. And you also point to the reality that their heresy can and will be called out in future times for their condemnation of Faithful Catholics. As history is often said to repeat itself (especially when it goes untaught so as to warn future generations), I am delighted by your illuminating this example of Bishops with a secular/political agenda. Times change, but people and that includes Bishops, don’t.
Thank you again for posting.
Ann Malley, I hope this will help you realize that just because a bishop does something wrong, it does not mean that the Church is wrong. Even though people generalize by calling the decision of a bishop the Catholic Church, like I did, it is not the Catholic Church but one individual.
I don’t understand your comment on the Church of England or how that is relevant.
I strongly disagree that the Bishops of today are politically motivated.
I don’t know where you get the idea that I believe the Church is wrong. I have never said that, Anonymous. I suppose our ongoing encounters are fueled by your belief that Bishops of today are not politically motivated while I believe much the opposite. Not that there aren’t good Bishops. There are indeed. But there are most definitely those who, at least by their actions and inaction, seem to care more for politics than transmitting the Faith whole and entire.
What do you mean by Church?
Ann Malley, don’t you think the Church was wrong to change the Latin Mass to the Novus Ordo?
Don’t you think the Church was wrong to change from seeing Protestants as heretics to separated brethren?
Don’t you think the Church was wrong to change it’s teaching on capital punishment?
What about ordaining so many gay men?
Or in allowing them to molest children?
Don;t you think the Church was wrong to change its exorcism rite?
And the baptismal rite?
Don;t you think the Church was wrong to canonize someone who kissed a Koran?
I firmly hold that much of what seems to have been ‘changed’ is not changed at all, cyndi. Rather it is a cloak of appeared change that many would have us believe is as far as ‘The Church’ goes. Like a sunburn doesn’t make one’s skin permanently red – although it sure can look like it until the burn heals.
As for declaring someone a Saint, the action may well be imprudent, much like the rush to do something without adequate assessment of the bad example and fallout it can give, the action may even go so far as to be malicious evil incarnate, and yet Faith tells us that even a simple Act of Contrition if rendered with pure love of God can render the soul pure.
No one can judge the actual state of the soul of another, even a very public figure who gives rampant scandal despite the objectively bad example they give. For while the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, they are not necessarily the ticket to Hell. Who are we to say whether or not anyone was perfectly contrite before death? Or that the promises of the Rosary and similar devotions are not true?
Future Popes, in my view, will judge this era as will history by clearly showing the fruits of it. IOW: A rose by any other name will smell as sweet even if roses are now to be called rotten eggs. So one can attempt to change heretics into brothers without conversion – won’t work.
to cyndi cont:
One can kiss the Koran in an attempt to woo followers of Islam into dialogue. Won’t work. Perhaps that is why these ‘good intentions’ have received at least the permissive will of God if only to teach us that human means and the heady world view of I’m-okay-you’re-okay is not going to work. At least not if one’s goal is to save souls and not just work together for safe neighborhoods and… world peace. Nice goals, but not salvation.
What I am called to do, however, is to protect myself and my family from interpreting this new approach (and in my view woefully ill advised) to mean that the Church Herself has changed. No. That’s likely why Our Lord advised us to observe the fruits and why St. Paul admonished us to be wary of ANYONE preaching a different gospel. Because folks would try – and not just folks who are formal heretics. Especially since this attempt to revamp what being a heretic means.
Much like the call to forget the past with regard to Christian/Muslim relations. We can try to forget all we’d like. We can attempt to cast the Crusades as some horror campaign for which we should apologize. But the reality of what Christians of that era were fighting is coming to bite us really hard. Catholics cannot tell other people what they ‘really’ believe so as to automatically remove legitimate obstacles. That is delusion at best and will be dispelled in the harshest manner.
Thank you for clarifying, AnneT. Too often folks like to use the exception as the rule. And the garb of a man was often used to ward off unwanted male attention and so to preserve chastity. That’s not necessarily the case today as pants worn loose are frowned upon. And I cannot think that there are many women in the military who were called by God. Not that He cannot draw straight out of crooked lines.
You are correct, Anne Malley, and my point was that often St. Joan of Arc is used by people as a kind of “patron saint” for radical feminism. Nothing could be further from the truth. She did what the Good Lord asked of her and nothing more. She did not insist in bringing along a bunch of women warriors with her and pushing for “equal” rights. She was not interested in power. She had no intention of overthrowing the rightful king of France.
Anne T in case the devil is telling you that I brought her up for an ill assumption, re-read my comments, just in case. In their entirety. Don’t just scan and assume. I know very well my history and since I am faithful to Rome, I can connect the dots.
Abeca Christian, I have never ever questioned your faithfulness to Rome. I just did not want to into the argument among you, Anne and Catherine. In fact I had forgotten all about it until you brought it up. I do not read everything under every article. I just do not have the time.
Correction: did not want to GET into the argument.
Also, what I said to Anne Malley in my post Aug. 6 at 10;21 a.m. was not aimed at you. When I said that some people used her as a “patron saint” for radical feminism, I did not mean that you had done so. I really do not think Anne Malley’s previous post was aimed at you either. At least I did not take it that way.
Discussing Firefighting & Gender usually avoids certain basic facts; where like the Military – Political Correctness Dominates & Often Discriminates, usually against Men.
Virtually Anyone can fight fire – including children with squirt guns, provided the fire is small & they can aim.
However, the average Firefighter (I too was a Fireman, once upon a time) dons nearly 50 Lb in Safety Gear (including breathing apparatus), Before ever picking up a tool.
For a Firefighter 6’ & 200 Lb, that = ¼ of their bodyweight. For another 5’ and 100 Lb, that changes to ½ their bodyweight, and also a serious mechanical disadvantage raising ladders.
If one goes down, the other must rescue either 1 to 3X their weight
Except for Affirmative Actresses like the Morbidly Obese 25th Chief of the San Francisco Fire Department – Joanne Hayes-White; promoted in 2004 by Mayor Gravid Nuisance.
Her unprecedented meteoric rise over more experienced firefighters is a story of Affirmative Acting gone wild:
Graduating University of Santa Clara (business degree) & hired as firefighter in 1990, promoted to Lieutenant in 1993 and Captain in January 1996.
In May 1996 she was made acting Battalion Chief…Promoted to Assistant Deputy Chief in 1998
Total = 8 Years to A.D.C, 14 to Chief
Good comments Michael McDermott , very well conveyed.
Apparently you have no idea how strong a mother can be! Size isn’t everything, you know, even in the world of strength.
Here is a different perspective on the subject, by an independent source:
Women Firefighters: The Gender Boondoggle
City Hall’s dream of recruiting more females is a multimillion-dollar disaster
Catherine , I have no idea what you are talking about. Why would someone feel they have to go south of the border to get the sacraments. In my parishes in northern California they have baptism, confession/reconciliation, first communion, confirmation, holy orders and anointing of the sick as well as holy orders. What else is there? I don’t know of a parish that doesn’t have the sacraments. In my area, you can receive the grace of each sacrament in as many as 30 languages. What more do you want?
Parents have lost trust in the Catholic schools and many of the CCD programs have things taught that would curl even your toes. In order to receive the sacrament of Confirmation the children are required to attend these classes or they will not be allowed to receive the sacrament. These classes have often become political indoctrination classes as well as sexualized education. So this is why people are still seeking outside help in order to protect their children. The teachers are often ill-equipped and do not know actual Church teaching. At one of our local Catholic schools which is thought to be one of the better schools there are still pro-choice feminists who are anti-men, anti-Catholic, and anti-tradition. They are still teaching whatever they want when no one is paying attention. Similar to Father Karl’s experiences, one priest told us that these women were brutally mean and disrespectful to him and at the time just like you he did not understand why they were treating him this way. That is until time passed and then he knew. They did NOT like the teachings of the Catholic Church and they often transmitted those feelings to students. These teachers are STILL teaching students and yet parents are mystified when their children end up leaving the faith. Parents do not often know the faith but their intentions for their are good and they were trusting that their children would be taught the truth. Father John Hardon SJ instructed parents not to send their children to these Catholic schools or CCD programs.
continued from August 7, 2014 at 10:29 am
Bob One, So this is why families have fled to Mexico to receive the sacraments. Cardinal Mahony became incensed when he learned how many hundreds of families were fleeing the terrible catechesis programs in order to receive the sacrament of Confirmation in Mexico and he tried to get the names of the people who went. He literally wanted to know each and every name of anyone who went to Mexico. He also wanted to know which parish these people came from because he realized that many of the families were being sent by good priests in those parishes. When a family went to receive the sacrament of Confirmation for one of their children if they had a new baby then that baby would be baptized and confirmed at the same time. If only Cardinal Mahony would have gone after molesters and used that same investigative energy instead of protecting, hiding and shuffling perverts who were also harming children. Bob One, Do you care or do you really think that good and faithful Catholic parents really want to have to go though all of this turmoil in order to have their children protected or do you think that they would prefer to be able to trust that heterodoxy and political agendas will not be indoctrinated into the minds of their impressionable children? Who is guarding the ship when parents have to go to this length to protect their children from their own diocesan programs? This is one of the reasons that so many people are so grateful and hopeful when they see that the FSSP has been invited into Los Angeles. The Diocese of Orange County California also NEEDS help.
Catherine, you obviously have a dilemma. Your comments prompted me to google for information on confirmation teaching materials. A lot of the information was ads for teaching material, but even these pointed to positive materials aimed at teenagers and how they learn today. Most of the books and teaching aids were directed at teaching the faith, the ins and outs of the sacraments, the Mass: its parts, purpose, how to participate, etc.. I would think, based on this quick material survey, that you or any other teacher of religion would be able to find appropriate material for confirmation classes, all of it approved for use in Catholic schools and classes. In the parishes I have belonged to in the last 40 years, the material was always approved for use in Catholic teaching, interesting to teenagers and to teachers. At least in the Bay Area, you don’t have to send your kids to Mexico to receive a Catholic education.
Thank you for caring and also for taking the time to look up material. That was very kind of you.
Bob if a teacher in the class is steering away from the material that should be taught and Church teaching then what does it matter how appealing a book might seem from afar if no one is really paying extremely close attention to what is really being taught? First of all regarding Mexico, let me clarify that it was the parents who did the teaching of the Catholic faith to their children. The parents were also testing their children to make sure that they knew their faith and the reason that they were receiving the sacrament of Confirmation. I also want to clarify that these families who traveled to Mexico did this strictly for the purpose of having a bishop administer the sacrament. The children were not educated or schooled in their faith in Mexico. The education by parents took place here. These are all families who belong to local parishes under the umbrella of a diocese. They just did not want their children to be indoctrinated with heterodoxy. Yes, it is absolutely jaw dropping when you consider how our bishops are tending to the immigration needs of children from other countries while their very own sheep that they were charged to safeguard have had to flee elsewhere because of this terrible spiritual neglect.
continued from August 8, 2014 at 2:49 pm
Bob One, While it is good to care about one’s neighbor, I will liken this terrible injustice to the scenario of a father who forgets the primary duty and responsibility of first caring for and protecting his own family. This father constantly tends to the needs of politics or to the immigration needs of the children who live next door. Meanwhile this negligent father’s very own children go hungry and because no one has been safe guarding them then the wolves have slipped in and this father’s children are then forced to seek spiritual sustenance from strangers in other places.
The Servant of God Father Hardon SJ was responsible speaking with the bishop in Mexico and for helping families seeking refuge from terrible catechetical programs. Our bishops have the opportunity to bring in many excellent teaching sisters who should be teaching children the faith instead of a lay person who is harboring their own political agenda. Bob I sponsored a Confirmation student at my local parish. This teacher made fun of the Pope and the Papacy and she talked about dating priests to the high school students. This same person still travels throughout the diocese giving talks with the permission of the diocese. Do you think Our Lord will be pleased with his shepherds for taking their eyes off of their primary duty while all of this is taking place?
Catherine it’s a rather jaw dropping situation you describe. Is there a place to read more about the scene in LA? I don’t think the news makes it up here to northern california.
Catherine, can you support any of these things that you say?
It is a little shocking but it is also kind of unbelievable.
Your last post helped a lot. My main question was why the parents didn’t teach them themselves. Thanks.
Where have you been all of these years? I’m sorry but for you to say that this is shocking makes me think that you have been held up prisoner in some capacity. Do you have children? It IS almost unbelievable isn’t it? But it is true. My own relative a Catholic priest even attended one of the many Confirmations. He also heard the confessions of the students at a retreat before they went to Mexico. People were calling from all around the United States to find out how they too could escape terrible catechesis programs. Cardinal Mahony put a stop to these Confirmations in Mexico when he found out how many hundreds of people were going. He contacted the bishops down in Mexico and he chastised them for helping these families. He never once cared about getting to the bottom of why Catholics were doing this. He was too busy shuffling and hiding molesters. It was all about the power to control. It was never about controlling the evil that permeated the Archdiocese. Cardinal Mahony also sent a letter to one of the people who was helping arrange these Confirmations. He wanted to know the individual names of each person who had been confirmed and what parish they belonged to. My relative the priest told me to tell this person that if Cardinal Mahony could give out the names of each and individual who has entered heaven then he could have the names of the people who fled to Mexico in order to avoid the heterodoxy that is often taught.
To this very day people are still calling to find out where they can go to have their children Confirmed because many of the Catholic schools are just as lacking in teaching the faith.
Anonymous, are you shocked that people take their children down to Mexico to be confirmed? I know of several couples who did just that.
Thank you Tracy for your August 8, 2014 at 6:24 pm post! God bless you!
Tracy, here are my questions:
Why did they do it?
Where in Mexico did they go?
Were they from Mexico? Did they have relatives down there?
Where is the confirmation registered? Did it cause a problem when they wanted to get married or ordained?
Anonymous, I do not know the answer to all of your questions, but I believe they all had dual citizenships. My understanding was that they wanted their children to receive confirmation at a younger age than was allowed here in California.
Tracy, thank you.
Are you asking out of a mere curiosity or do you have any authority to actually do something about this? Please answer honestly since there are lay people who have had priests trying to disguise themselves and their real motives in order to try and prevent this generosity of the Mexican bishops. The many families that I am referring to did not have dual citizenships and they did not have relatives down there. They are Americans who do not want their children exposed to scandal or heterodoxy being taught in local parishes and that is the main reason. They would never have gone if their local Catholic school or local CCD program was solid. Father Hardon SJ said that for the parents who were aware of the scandal and heterodoxy being taught then it would be a mortal sin for those parents to subject their children to such terrible programs. Tracy’s comment about the families wanting their children to receive the sacrament at a younger age IS also accurate. There also may be other families who did have dual citizenship that I am not aware of but that is not the case in the numerous caravans of Catholics that I am referring to. In Mexico the children are baptized and confirmed at the same time. These families from the United States were all able to successfully register their children’s sacrament back at their local parish so there will not be a problem for these families in the future.
continued from August 13, 2014 at 10:56 am
Anonymous, This might be a problem now because of Cardinal Mahony’s trying to put a stop to it but perhaps Archbishop Gomez allowing the FSSP in Los Angeles will help. If parents are willing to drive all of the way to Mexico then they would be willing to register at a parish where there children would not hear false teachings… Or be assigned in confirmation class time to play a crossword puzzle game that is centered around the word masturbation ( that one took place in the Diocese of Orange) …Or hear the female teachers tell the high school students how men are wimpy and weak…Or hear teachers methodically distort or tear down the teaching authority of the Papacy as well as other teachings of the Catholic Church. Those are just a few samples of the various reasons why parents seek Confirmation in Mexico.
Oops! We also anoint the sick.
There was something important to discuss here but it got sidetracked by the usual culprits.
Father Karl said that he was teaching what the Church taught.
There were questions about what the Church taught.
They were important and should have been answered.
What does the Church teach about feminism, about women’s and men’s roles and rights and duties?
In Mosaic law, men had many more rights than women.
I do not believe that the Church says for us to obey the laws in Old Testament.
Is there a Church teaching on this?
Please answer with documentation.
Anonymous, read some of St. John Paul II’s encyclicals on women in the Church. Also read the approved catechism put out during his reign. Go to the Vatican website and look up such issues, or go to the Question and Answer forum of the EWTN (Eternal Word Television) website.. There are no pat answer, just general rules to follow. And, by the way, the women of Israel in the Old Testament were treated very good compared to those in the surrounding pagan religions. When the Old Testament says that women are unclean after child birth, it just means that they are off limits to their husbands and others, so they can bond with their child and heal from the shock of delivery. It does not mean unclean in the sense that we use the word now days. Many people do not understand that and take offense at those laws., when actually those laws were for the protection of women according to the culture and conditions of those times.
Thank you Anne T. I will read those.
Two materials I recommend are “Mulieris Dignitatem (On the Dignity and Vocation of Women) by Pope John Paul II (now St. John Paul II) and “The Privilege of Being a Woman” by Dr. Alice Von Hildebrand.
You are welcome, Anonymous, and there are reviews of Dr. Von Hildebrand’s book on line if you are interested.
Anne Malley, there were some things that St. John Paul II did that I do not think were prudent either, such as kissing the Koran. Some Muslim leaders gave him some gifts, and as he usually did, he took each gift and kissed it. Perhaps he was caught unawares and did it automatically. Perhaps he suffered a time in purgatory for imprudence. We do not know and really cannot judge accurately. Nevertheless, I think the man’s holiness far out weight any imprudence on his part. At my age I no longer care for guitar Masses, although my husband and I attended some reverent ones when we were younger, and the hymn “Silent Night” was first written for the guitar when the organ in the preist’s church broke down. Also, I thought it was wonderfully beautiful when Tony Melinda played his guitar with his feet for Pope John Paul. Truly the Pope loved the unborn and the handicapped more than we know, and indeed that is so very Christ like. Forgiving the man who shot him, a Muslim, was so very Christ like also.