Would it be wrong to let my kids stay over at their grandparents house if they are Protestants and also invalidly married according to the Church?
Quote from: TandJ on April 29, 2020, 07:00:12 PM
Would it be wrong to let my kids stay over at their grandparents house if they are Protestants and also invalidly married according to the Church?
The Church recognizes the validity of the marriage of two Baptized non-Catholics. If they are living in sin (for reasons that you not need to disclose), then it is not OK.
Setting aside the validity issue, since you need not disclose it (unless you mistakenly believe that Protestants cannot be validly married), my concern is in the issue of doctrinal issues in bad catechesis.
For example, my parents are Protestants. My kids, at least as of this writing, will NEVER spend the night/have a trip to my parents' house. Why? Because I CANNOT TRUST my mother to not say dumb crap when alone with them, given she says enough dumb crap when I'm around to correct it so the kids don't get confused.
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
Never let the kids stay over at granny's by themselves IF your parents are hostile to the Church. If not, then it should be okay providing you set your folks straight about watching what they say in front of your kids.
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
My parents are not allowed to watch my children. Mainly due to the issues that I discussed in the below thread about my homosexual brother getting "engaged" (now "married").
https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=19563.0 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=19563.0)
We still see them (they were over for a bit yesterday) but they know we won't let them be alone with them for any period of time.
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
Everything is about prudence, prudence, prudence, Graham.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 17, 2020, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated? I have seen trads take ridiculous and clearly harmful measures in the name of "protecting their children from error." That won't get them to heaven either.
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 17, 2020, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated? I have seen trads take ridiculous and clearly harmful measures in the name of "protecting their children from error." That won't get them to heaven either.
Parents have to weigh the factor of the danger to their children's souls. If there are trads that go to ridiculous lengths to protect their children; there are also trad parents who seem oblivious to the fact that their children are born with Original Sin and the wounds it produces in human nature. Two of our posters have given good reasons why they wouldn't allow their children to spend the night with their Grandparents, or even leave them alone. I know of another case of a young boy that was molested by his perverted grandfather; you would agree that the parents knowing this fact would be crazy to allow their son to spend time alone with such a grandfather. Well the danger of moral corruption is not as great as the danger and damage that can be done by doctrinal corruption; yet you seem oblivious to this.
With all this being said, the greatest danger my kids faced with my parents was beer and candy. True.
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 17, 2020, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated? I have seen trads take ridiculous and clearly harmful measures in the name of "protecting their children from error." That won't get them to heaven either.
If my parents wish to be bitter (I am not aware that they are), they are its cause.
My mother, for whatever reason, has shown herself willing to lead my oldest into error on the issue of salvation and other issues which Protestants and Catholics differ.
I simply will not abide that, at all. If my mother wishes to cling to error, it's her prerogative. But I will not allow my children to be exposed alone to one who has a missionary spirit of heresy in the name of human respect or familial "peace".
Especially not at formative ages and prior to them being mentally ready to oppose an "authority" figure on the basis of truth.
Quote from: Gardener on May 17, 2020, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 17, 2020, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated? I have seen trads take ridiculous and clearly harmful measures in the name of "protecting their children from error." That won't get them to heaven either.
If my parents wish to be bitter (I am not aware that they are), they are its cause.
My mother, for whatever reason, has shown herself willing to lead my oldest into error on the issue of salvation and other issues which Protestants and Catholics differ.
I simply will not abide that, at all. If my mother wishes to cling to error, it's her prerogative. But I will not allow my children to be exposed alone to one who has a missionary spirit of heresy in the name of human respect or familial "peace".
Especially not at formative ages and prior to them being mentally ready to oppose an "authority" figure on the basis of truth.
Did I say anything about your situation Gardener?
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: Gardener on May 17, 2020, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 17, 2020, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated? I have seen trads take ridiculous and clearly harmful measures in the name of "protecting their children from error." That won't get them to heaven either.
If my parents wish to be bitter (I am not aware that they are), they are its cause.
My mother, for whatever reason, has shown herself willing to lead my oldest into error on the issue of salvation and other issues which Protestants and Catholics differ.
I simply will not abide that, at all. If my mother wishes to cling to error, it's her prerogative. But I will not allow my children to be exposed alone to one who has a missionary spirit of heresy in the name of human respect or familial "peace".
Especially not at formative ages and prior to them being mentally ready to oppose an "authority" figure on the basis of truth.
Did I say anything about your situation Gardener?
I almost always take *you* as in "What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated?" to whoever is reading the thread. Michael Wilson, unfortunately, doesn't have any children. He would have done a fine job in raising them (like Gardener).
People have made some difficult parenting decisions, which I have not criticized - in fact the only one I've directly commented on is Stu's, where I told him I admired his handling of the situation.
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: Gardener on May 17, 2020, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 17, 2020, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated? I have seen trads take ridiculous and clearly harmful measures in the name of "protecting their children from error." That won't get them to heaven either.
If my parents wish to be bitter (I am not aware that they are), they are its cause.
My mother, for whatever reason, has shown herself willing to lead my oldest into error on the issue of salvation and other issues which Protestants and Catholics differ.
I simply will not abide that, at all. If my mother wishes to cling to error, it's her prerogative. But I will not allow my children to be exposed alone to one who has a missionary spirit of heresy in the name of human respect or familial "peace".
Especially not at formative ages and prior to them being mentally ready to oppose an "authority" figure on the basis of truth.
Did I say anything about your situation Gardener?
No, not specifically, but as one in this situation I can certainly say that as concerns my parents "feelings", I don't care. The salvation of my children is paramount, so the principle, when applied, is crap.
I wholesale and outright, with no compunction, reject the idea that the feelings of a person should become an obstacle to salvation. Especially when said person(s) have demonstrated an intention to be subversive in my one primary goal for those kids: salvation.
My mom can burn in hell for all I care, if such is her choice, but I'll be damned if I let her corrupt my childrens' Faith.
Trads are too ready, in my experience, to throw away bonds of family and friendship and withdraw into their nuclear family cocoon, as if this were the default solution to life's problems. Is this charity? Unfortunately, the formation of morals and character isnt just a matter of sound catechesis with a few role models thrown in for good measure. To a large and very underappreciated extent it is a matter of the development of genuine sympathy for others, which comes through extended familial and social bonding and cannot be replicated in the nuclear family home. Instead of helping, cocooning then actively works against moral formation. This is why the situation needs to be extreme before this kind of withdrawal can be justified.
Quote from: Gardener on May 18, 2020, 09:03:07 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 06:37:24 PM
Quote from: Gardener on May 17, 2020, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Graham on May 17, 2020, 02:27:38 PM
Quote from: Michael Wilson on May 17, 2020, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Graham on May 16, 2020, 08:50:28 AM
You need to let your kids grow close with their grandparents, and vice versa. Depriving them of that is cruel and inhumane, harmful to their development and manifestly unfair to a grandparent's natural lifecycle. Not everything is about doctrine, doctrine, doctrine. The issues would need to be extreme before I personally could countenance those kinds of limitations.
The ultimate purpose of a father and mother is to make sure that their children get to Heaven. The exposure to hostile comments on the faith and inculcation of false views can be harmful to children; so it isn't cruel or inhumane to protect one's children from such exposure, but on the contrary it is a parent's duty.
What if you cause bitterness by keeping them separated? I have seen trads take ridiculous and clearly harmful measures in the name of "protecting their children from error." That won't get them to heaven either.
If my parents wish to be bitter (I am not aware that they are), they are its cause.
My mother, for whatever reason, has shown herself willing to lead my oldest into error on the issue of salvation and other issues which Protestants and Catholics differ.
I simply will not abide that, at all. If my mother wishes to cling to error, it's her prerogative. But I will not allow my children to be exposed alone to one who has a missionary spirit of heresy in the name of human respect or familial "peace".
Especially not at formative ages and prior to them being mentally ready to oppose an "authority" figure on the basis of truth.
Did I say anything about your situation Gardener?
No, not specifically, but as one in this situation I can certainly say that as concerns my parents "feelings", I don't care. The salvation of my children is paramount, so the principle, when applied, is crap.
I wholesale and outright, with no compunction, reject the idea that the feelings of a person should become an obstacle to salvation. Especially when said person(s) have demonstrated an intention to be subversive in my one primary goal for those kids: salvation.
My mom can burn in hell for all I care, if such is her choice, but I'll be damned if I let her corrupt my childrens' Faith.
This is going on the shortlist for traddiest rant of the year.
Let me put it this way: My mother would likely have preferred I came out as a faggot rather than converted to the Catholic Church.
Most of my friends are not Catholics. I have no problem with them being around my children. I have no problem with my non-Catholic Father in Law being around my children, since when he married my Mother in Law, he agreed to raise his kids Catholic, and did. He doesn't actively tell them (my children, his grandkids) things he knows are against the Catholic Faith.
My problem is when someone says, on purpose, confusing things that call into question the issues of assurance of salvation, the Real Presence, prayer to the Saints, the necessity of Holy Mass and Sunday obligations, etc.
Maybe I'm extreme (Maximillian and Vetus Ordo would probably disagree :D), but until my mother demonstrates better will towards the Faith, she will simply never be alone with my children. And it's sad, since my dad is great with them, but he's milquetoast and won't put her in her place, so she runs roughshod over him and everyone else. I'm the only one in my mother's life who has been willing to oppose her, aside from one time when my wife went off on her and it was awesome.
St Therese's parents didn't allow their children to be around some of their cousins because the cousins (or their family) would be a bad influence on their children.
Chris Tulsa, we see you lurking and upvoting Graham's tracts against Gardener. Come out and say what you are thinking. Do you have children? What's your take on this?
Quote from: Lynne on May 18, 2020, 11:30:13 AM
St Therese's parents didn't allow their children to be around some of their cousins because the cousins (or their family) would be a bad influence on their children.
Your kids dont live in a 19th century French village, surrounded by extended family, in daily contact with neighbours of all ages and fellow parishioners. Your kids are most likely socially starved and isolated in comparison to young St. Therese, because that is the near universal situation now. That I have to point differences like this out is proof enough that I'm saying things people need to hear.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 18, 2020, 01:00:10 PM
Chris Tulsa, we see you lurking and upvoting Graham's tracts against Gardener. Come out and say what you are thinking. Do you have children? What's your take on this?
Some of you guys are very intent on making things as personal as possible.
Quote from: Graham on May 18, 2020, 01:46:22 PM
Quote from: Lynne on May 18, 2020, 11:30:13 AM
St Therese's parents didn't allow their children to be around some of their cousins because the cousins (or their family) would be a bad influence on their children.
Your kids dont live in a 19th century French village, surrounded by extended family, in daily contact with neighbours of all ages and fellow parishioners. Your kids are most likely socially starved and isolated in comparison to young St. Therese, because that is the near universal situation now. That I have to point differences like this out is proof enough that I'm saying things people need to hear.
Well, actually, my daughter is almost 29 and we live on a wonderful street that had over 20 kids her age when she was growing up.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 18, 2020, 01:00:10 PM
Chris Tulsa, we see you lurking and upvoting Graham's tracts against Gardener. Come out and say what you are thinking. Do you have children? What's your take on this?
I already told you my plan Heinrich to take a break from posting (not lurking or hitting thanks to show agreement in a debate), but I'll answer your questions.
We have not been blessed with children, yet.
My take is, to offer fraternal correction, Gardener's attitude toward avoiding his parents is a trend I've observed for 20 years since coming to Tradition among
some. I really can see no excuse to use language like he did about his mother (reread what he wrote), or take such opposition to his parents. Though not allowing his kids to be alone with a vehemently anti-Catholic grandmother would be reasonable, that is if he had already tried to civilly lay down boundaries. I think he ought to correct what he wrote above and try and work for peace with his mother, for his kids sake.
God knows I'm a great sinner, but that's what I think G needs to hear.
Responding to the OP, we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able. If trad kids are raised like bunker trads, later in life they'll likely lose their faith.
Since you asked what I was thinking... ;). Fair enough?
(back to lurking until Christmas or who knows when)
Danke schön
Quote from: TandJ on April 29, 2020, 07:00:12 PM
Would it be wrong to let my kids stay over at their grandparents house if they are Protestants and also invalidly married according to the Church?
I don't think either of these two issue
in and of themselves would require a parent to keep their children away from grandparents. As others have stated, you need to look at the whole picture. If the grandparents are going to say things to the children that undermine the faith, or otherwise put the children in jeopardy (body or soul), then it is a problem.
If, however, the grandparents just want to play board games with the children, and have pizza and ice cream with them, and the parents have no concerns about the grandparents saying or doing anything damaging, then I wouldn't see a problem.
Quote from: dolores on May 19, 2020, 08:55:30 AM
Quote from: TandJ on April 29, 2020, 07:00:12 PM
Would it be wrong to let my kids stay over at their grandparents house if they are Protestants and also invalidly married according to the Church?
I don't think either of these two issue in and of themselves would require a parent to keep their children away from grandparents. As others have stated, you need to look at the whole picture. If the grandparents are going to say things to the children that undermine the faith, or otherwise put the children in jeopardy (body or soul), then it is a problem.
If, however, the grandparents just want to play board games with the children, and have pizza and ice cream with them, and the parents have no concerns about the grandparents saying or doing anything damaging, then I wouldn't see a problem.
Unless there is a conspicuous clear and present danger a la Gardener's concerns, then maybe give
los abuelos the bennie of the doubt. If they blaspheme, then open up a can of Mrs. G on them and tell them their hubris ruined the relationship.
Quote from: christulsa on May 18, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 18, 2020, 01:00:10 PM
Chris Tulsa, we see you lurking and upvoting Graham's tracts against Gardener. Come out and say what you are thinking. Do you have children? What's your take on this?
I already told you my plan Heinrich to take a break from posting (not lurking or hitting thanks to show agreement in a debate), but I'll answer your questions.
We have not been blessed with children, yet.
My take is, to offer fraternal correction, Gardener's attitude toward avoiding his parents is a trend I've observed for 20 years since coming to Tradition among some. I really can see no excuse to use language like he did about his mother (reread what he wrote), or take such opposition to his parents. Though not allowing his kids to be alone with a vehemently anti-Catholic grandmother would be reasonable, that is if he had already tried to civilly lay down boundaries. I think he ought to correct what he wrote above and try and work for peace with his mother, for his kids sake.
God knows I'm a great sinner, but that's what I think G needs to hear.
Responding to the OP, we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able. If trad kids are raised like bunker trads, later in life they'll likely lose their faith.
Since you asked what I was thinking... ;). Fair enough?
(back to lurking until Christmas or who knows when)
My parents aren't kept from being around the kids. They're around them several times a year as their schedule allows, and talk with them on the phone at least 1-2 times a week. For Mother's Day my mother received a 25 page photo book of them. Today she received several just-taken pictures. She no more misses out on them than any other grandparent who lives out of state. The only difference is she will NEVER receive them into her house without us there.
What I said, if you'd kindly stop reinterpreting, is that my children will never be alone with them or otherwise visit them at their home (out of state).
The reasons are myriad, the issue of pernicious contradiction of basic catechetical subjects which my mother seems to find glee in espousing being primary.. They'd definitely take them to a Protestant service. If it were a "communion" service, she would almost certainly encourage them to partake. Etc.
But this isn't just my view. It's also my wife's. It's also my pastor's view.
I have two goals in life: get to heaven and get my kids on the path to get to heaven. My mother, however, is not in my wheelhouse. She's a Protestant in her 60's with a real problem with the Catholic Church. Primarily the reality that she and my father are most likely not married in the eyes of the true Church. Not my problem. She is not a country bumpkin. Honestly, she's one of the smartest people I know. Her problem is she's smart enough to know the answer and yet reject it.
My wife and I have already told her and my dad that they will never see the inside of a nursing home if we have anything to say about it. That may mean I wipe my dad's ass and my wife wipes my mom's. It may mean nothing, if they die before such is necessary. But that love, that charity, that repulsion at the throwaway culture my parents' generation foisted upon THEIR parents still does not let me stomach the idea that my mother will be allowed to undo the 5+ years of experiential catechetical instruction we have done with our oldest.
Not gonna happen. If I'm a bastard for that, so be it. But I'd rather stand before Christ a curmudgeon than a willing participant in the murder of the souls of my children.
As I said, despite your effete umbrage to it, if my mother wants to burn in hell, that's her choice. But she ain't gonna be the seed of doubt that takes my kids with her.
If the kids want to stay at a grandparents' house, they can stay at Heinrich's. He may not be blood but he sure is kin in Christ. I can't say the same for my parents.
Quote from: christulsa on May 18, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able.
You are very confused about what the 4th commandment actually means.
Also, since you have no kids, you have zero valid opinions on grandparent relationships or bunker trads. Being a Catholic as a childless adult is a completely and utterly different thing than being a Catholic with children. There is no comparison. You are responsible for your soul, that is it, no more. Parents are responsible for the immortal souls of all their children, and it shapes everything we do, every decision we make; it has to. Almost every outward sign of "trad life" has to do with children. If you aren't fighting that fight then get comfy on the sidelines until you have something well-informed to add to the conversation.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 20, 2020, 11:19:42 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 18, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able.
You are very confused about what the 4th commandment actually means.
Also, since you have no kids, you have zero valid opinions on grandparent relationships or bunker trads. Being a Catholic as a childless adult is a completely and utterly different thing than being a Catholic with children. There is no comparison. You are responsible for your soul, that is it, no more. Parents are responsible for the immortal souls of all their children, and it shapes everything we do, every decision we make; it has to. Almost every outward sign of "trad life" has to do with children. If you aren't fighting that fight then get comfy on the sidelines until you have something well-informed to add to the conversation.
And that's the problem with Trad life. I've said so before that Trad life is almost entirely concerned with the domestic and has no vision to offer other than that, which is why Tradition cannot succeed. The toddlers have taken over because the parents have insisted that only toddlers matter, when what the parents really mean is that no-one matters but them.
Your reply to Christulsa is horrible. Presumably he had grandparents and has at least a valid opinion. Still, he hasn't fallen into the trap of imagining that the entire Trad world should revolve around him and his family's needs. Your reply is also wonderfully 'child-centred' in the worst modern sense. I can't imagine a member of the early Church agreeing with your position. or even a Catholic before Vatican II.
Some parents are selfish narcissists and when they insist on putting their own needs over everyone else's in every situation, they claim it is for their children when in reality they are selfish and self-centered and want everything for themselves
I know all the tricks of the narcissist, unfortunately. So as someone without children, but who had a narcissistic mother, don't always believe the parent who claims to do everything for their children. It could be a cover for their own narcissism. You might be horrified to witness what goes on in private.
Meanwhile, you don't know what's it's like to give
ALL your love to God.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 21, 2020, 02:46:20 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 20, 2020, 11:19:42 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 18, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able.
You are very confused about what the 4th commandment actually means.
Also, since you have no kids, you have zero valid opinions on grandparent relationships or bunker trads. Being a Catholic as a childless adult is a completely and utterly different thing than being a Catholic with children. There is no comparison. You are responsible for your soul, that is it, no more. Parents are responsible for the immortal souls of all their children, and it shapes everything we do, every decision we make; it has to. Almost every outward sign of "trad life" has to do with children. If you aren't fighting that fight then get comfy on the sidelines until you have something well-informed to add to the conversation.
And that's the problem with Trad life. I've said so before that Trad life is almost entirely concerned with the domestic and has no vision to offer other than that, which is why Tradition cannot succeed. The toddlers have taken over because the parents have insisted that only toddlers matter, when what the parents really mean is that no-one matters but them.
Your reply to Christulsa is horrible. Presumably he had grandparents and has at least a valid opinion. Still, he hasn't fallen into the trap of imagining that the entire Trad world should revolve around him and his family's needs. Your reply is also wonderfully 'child-centred' in the worst modern sense. I can't imagine a member of the early Church agreeing with your position. or even a Catholic before Vatican II.
Some parents are selfish narcissists and when they insist on putting their own needs over everyone else's in every situation, they claim it is for their children when in reality they are selfish and self-centered and want everything for themselves
I know all the tricks of the narcissist, unfortunately. So as someone without children, but who had a narcissistic mother, don't always believe the parent who claims to do everything for their children. It could be a cover for their own narcissism. You might be horrified to witness what goes on in private.
Meanwhile, you don't know what's it's like to give ALL your love to God.
That is not "the" problem with trad life. Despite how much you hate the reality, there would be no trad life if married people didn't have kids, raise them in tradition, and send them to seminary. You can pattycake around all you like but that is the cold hard truth. There would be no teaching sisters, no priests, no alter boys. Get over yourself. You don't have a family and you hate the fact that the lifeblood of tradition is families, the future of tradition is families; not my problem.
No one said trad world should revolve around families. It may be enabled, propagated, and supported by families, but nobody said it should revolve around them. This is a conversation about the intimate relationships between individual family members, it has nothing to do with trad life in general or the overall focus of tradition. What nonsense.
My reply is child-centered only in so far as children are the point of the discussion. We are talking about the influence of a grand-parent on children.
You can't see anyone in the early church agreeing with me? Really, read a book...how many martyrs were turned in by their own families? How many virgin martyrs came to the faith and died for the faith through direct disobedience to their parents? How many saints defied family and went off to follow God alone? If you have so much time to give
"all your love" to God I would assume you spent some of it reading.
Do you know how many trad parents are heartbroken at relationships they have had to sever? How they agonize over every possible visit, how much they give up? Every trad parent I know who has had to cut-ties or lay down strict rules with family, would get to have a pretty normal relationship with them if it wasn't for the children. Instead, they give that up to protect their children. For you to say that parents do everything for selfish reasons and pretend it is for their children is insane...try homeschooling for a day and tell me the mother's do that for themselves. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance. "They want it all for themselves." What exactly do they want? If they are giving up thirty different things what is it they "want" for themselves. You are making no sense.
Giving your whole life to God and loving your children for His sake and according to His Will,
is giving all your love to God. You have obviously created a cute little pedestal for yourself, but don't expect me to indulge your silly notions.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 21, 2020, 03:54:59 AM
That is not "the" problem with trad life. Despite how much you hate the reality, there would be no trad life if married people didn't have kids, raise them in tradition, and send them to seminary. You can pattycake around all you like but that is the cold hard truth. There would be no teaching sisters, no priests, no alter boys. Get over yourself. You don't have a family and you hate the fact that the lifeblood of tradition is families, the future of tradition is families; not my problem.
What a foul comment.
The future of Tradition is saints and I'm waiting with bated breath.
Quote
No one said trad world should revolve around families. It may be enabled, propagated, and supported by families, but nobody said it should revolve around them. This is a conversation about the intimate relationships between individual family members, it has nothing to do with trad life in general or the overall focus of tradition. What nonsense.
My reply is child-centered only in so far as children are the point of the discussion. We are talking about the influence of a grand-parent on children.
You can't see anyone in the early church agreeing with me? Really, read a book...how many martyrs were turned in by their own families? How many virgin martyrs came to the faith and died for the faith through direct disobedience to their parents? How many saints defied family and went off to follow God alone? If you have so much time to give "all your love" to God I would assume you spent some of it reading.
What I object to is you claiming ownership of Tradition and telling anyone who objects to get lost.
The Early Church did NOT rely on those who could only give half their love to God because of their state of life choice.
Did the saints you refer to above go on to create families of their own? Or not?
Quote
Do you know how many trad parents are heartbroken at relationships they have had to sever? How they agonize over every possible visit, how much they give up? Every trad parent I know who has had to cut-ties or lay down strict rules with family, would get to have a pretty normal relationship with them if it wasn't for the children. Instead, they give that up to protect their children. For you to say that parents do everything for selfish reasons and pretend it is for their children is insane...try homeschooling for a day and tell me the mother's do that for themselves. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance. "They want it all for themselves." What exactly do they want? If they are giving up thirty different things what is it they "want" for themselves. You are making no sense.
Giving your whole life to God and loving your children for His sake and according to His Will, is giving all your love to God. You have obviously created a cute little pedestal for yourself, but don't expect me to indulge your silly notions
Do you think only Trad parents have to agonise over severing connections?
And I wasn't accusing all parents of covering selfish motives while pretending it's for the children as well you know. I was referring specifically to narcissistic parents and made that clear.
And don't you dare insult me with accusations of ignorance. You know NOTHING about my life.
I have "obviously created a little pedestal for myself" you dare to accuse me of. You nasty little £$%^
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 21, 2020, 05:15:40 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 21, 2020, 03:54:59 AM
That is not "the" problem with trad life. Despite how much you hate the reality, there would be no trad life if married people didn't have kids, raise them in tradition, and send them to seminary. You can pattycake around all you like but that is the cold hard truth. There would be no teaching sisters, no priests, no alter boys. Get over yourself. You don't have a family and you hate the fact that the lifeblood of tradition is families, the future of tradition is families; not my problem.
What a foul comment.
The future of Tradition is saints and I'm waiting with bated breath.
Quote
No one said trad world should revolve around families. It may be enabled, propagated, and supported by families, but nobody said it should revolve around them. This is a conversation about the intimate relationships between individual family members, it has nothing to do with trad life in general or the overall focus of tradition. What nonsense.
My reply is child-centered only in so far as children are the point of the discussion. We are talking about the influence of a grand-parent on children.
You can't see anyone in the early church agreeing with me? Really, read a book...how many martyrs were turned in by their own families? How many virgin martyrs came to the faith and died for the faith through direct disobedience to their parents? How many saints defied family and went off to follow God alone? If you have so much time to give "all your love" to God I would assume you spent some of it reading.
What I object to is you claiming ownership of Tradition and telling anyone who objects to get lost.
The Early Church did NOT rely on those who could only give half their love to God because of their state of life choice.
Did the saints you refer to above go on to create families of their own? Or not?
Quote
Do you know how many trad parents are heartbroken at relationships they have had to sever? How they agonize over every possible visit, how much they give up? Every trad parent I know who has had to cut-ties or lay down strict rules with family, would get to have a pretty normal relationship with them if it wasn't for the children. Instead, they give that up to protect their children. For you to say that parents do everything for selfish reasons and pretend it is for their children is insane...try homeschooling for a day and tell me the mother's do that for themselves. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance. "They want it all for themselves." What exactly do they want? If they are giving up thirty different things what is it they "want" for themselves. You are making no sense.
Giving your whole life to God and loving your children for His sake and according to His Will, is giving all your love to God. You have obviously created a cute little pedestal for yourself, but don't expect me to indulge your silly notions
Do you think only Trad parents have to agonise over severing connections?
And I wasn't accusing all parents of covering selfish motives while pretending it's for the children as well you know. I was referring specifically to narcissistic parents and made that clear.
And don't you dare insult me with accusations of ignorance. You know NOTHING about my life.
I have "obviously created a little pedestal for myself" you dare to accuse me of. You nasty little £$%^
Where is a hissing cat emoji when you need one...
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 21, 2020, 05:15:40 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 21, 2020, 03:54:59 AM
That is not "the" problem with trad life. Despite how much you hate the reality, there would be no trad life if married people didn't have kids, raise them in tradition, and send them to seminary. You can pattycake around all you like but that is the cold hard truth. There would be no teaching sisters, no priests, no alter boys. Get over yourself. You don't have a family and you hate the fact that the lifeblood of tradition is families, the future of tradition is families; not my problem.
What a foul comment.
It is not a foul comment, it is a fact. You have proven over and over again how much you hate the fact that trad families are the reason we have priests, nuns, alter boys, etc You pretend that the church can exist for thousands of years with only converts but you know it isn't true. Martyrs inspire faithful families. Faithful families build Catholic culture. These cultures is what keep the faith going for thousands of years.
The future of Tradition is saints and I'm waiting with bated breath.
You don't need to wait. Butler's Lives will give you plenty of wonderful examples of families raising Saints.
Quote
No one said trad world should revolve around families. It may be enabled, propagated, and supported by families, but nobody said it should revolve around them. This is a conversation about the intimate relationships between individual family members, it has nothing to do with trad life in general or the overall focus of tradition. What nonsense.
My reply is child-centered only in so far as children are the point of the discussion. We are talking about the influence of a grand-parent on children.
You can't see anyone in the early church agreeing with me? Really, read a book...how many martyrs were turned in by their own families? How many virgin martyrs came to the faith and died for the faith through direct disobedience to their parents? How many saints defied family and went off to follow God alone? If you have so much time to give "all your love" to God I would assume you spent some of it reading.
What I object to is you claiming ownership of Tradition and telling anyone who objects to get lost.
No one is claiming tradition for families. Families build tradition. That does not mean that the spiritual focus of tradition should be families, and it isn't. There are no spocial masses for families, there are no special confession times. The main issue most single people I have met have, is that the social life is not oriented more toward single people. That is their own fault though. They sit around watching mothers organize all the social events in the church and wonder why single folks aren't the centre of attention. If they stopped winging for ten seconds and organized their own social events, or bothered to help with the parish ones, it might be more fulfilling for them.
The Early Church did NOT rely on those who could only give half their love to God because of their state of life choice.
Any research into early church martyrdom at all will enlighten you to the fact that many many families were tortured and killed in defense of the faith. Just because virgin martyrs have large cultus, does not mean they were the only ones there. The early church surviving past martydom most certainly did rely on families.
Quote
Do you know how many trad parents are heartbroken at relationships they have had to sever? How they agonize over every possible visit, how much they give up? Every trad parent I know who has had to cut-ties or lay down strict rules with family, would get to have a pretty normal relationship with them if it wasn't for the children. Instead, they give that up to protect their children. For you to say that parents do everything for selfish reasons and pretend it is for their children is insane...try homeschooling for a day and tell me the mother's do that for themselves. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance. "They want it all for themselves." What exactly do they want? If they are giving up thirty different things what is it they "want" for themselves. You are making no sense.
Giving your whole life to God and loving your children for His sake and according to His Will, is giving all your love to God. You have obviously created a cute little pedestal for yourself, but don't expect me to indulge your silly notions
Do you think only Trad parents have to agonise over severing connections?
No, but you specifically replied to this thread and to this topic with a condemnation of parents.
And don't you dare insult me with accusations of ignorance. You know NOTHING about my life.
I am allowed to say you are ignorant about motherhood. You are. It is not an insult, it is a fact. Don't be so emotional.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 21, 2020, 06:34:29 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 21, 2020, 05:15:40 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 21, 2020, 03:54:59 AM
That is not "the" problem with trad life. Despite how much you hate the reality, there would be no trad life if married people didn't have kids, raise them in tradition, and send them to seminary. You can pattycake around all you like but that is the cold hard truth. There would be no teaching sisters, no priests, no alter boys. Get over yourself. You don't have a family and you hate the fact that the lifeblood of tradition is families, the future of tradition is families; not my problem.
What a foul comment.
It is not a foul comment, it is a fact. You have proven over and over again how much you hate the fact that trad families are the reason we have priests, nuns, alter boys, etc You pretend that the church can exist for thousands of years with only converts but you know it isn't true. Martyrs inspire faithful families. Faithful families build Catholic culture. These cultures is what keep the faith going for thousands of years.
The future of Tradition is saints and I'm waiting with bated breath.
You don't need to wait. Butler's Lives will give you plenty of wonderful examples of families raising Saints.
Quote
No one said trad world should revolve around families. It may be enabled, propagated, and supported by families, but nobody said it should revolve around them. This is a conversation about the intimate relationships between individual family members, it has nothing to do with trad life in general or the overall focus of tradition. What nonsense.
My reply is child-centered only in so far as children are the point of the discussion. We are talking about the influence of a grand-parent on children.
You can't see anyone in the early church agreeing with me? Really, read a book...how many martyrs were turned in by their own families? How many virgin martyrs came to the faith and died for the faith through direct disobedience to their parents? How many saints defied family and went off to follow God alone? If you have so much time to give "all your love" to God I would assume you spent some of it reading.
What I object to is you claiming ownership of Tradition and telling anyone who objects to get lost.
No one is claiming tradition for families. Families build tradition. That does not mean that the spiritual focus of tradition should be families, and it isn't. There are no spocial masses for families, there are no special confession times. The main issue most single people I have met have, is that the social life is not oriented more toward single people. That is their own fault though. They sit around watching mothers organize all the social events in the church and wonder why single folks aren't the centre of attention. If they stopped winging for ten seconds and organized their own social events, or bothered to help with the parish ones, it might be more fulfilling for them.
The Early Church did NOT rely on those who could only give half their love to God because of their state of life choice.
Any research into early church martyrdom at all will enlighten you to the fact that many many families were tortured and killed in defense of the faith. Just because virgin martyrs have large cultus, does not mean they were the only ones there. The early church surviving past martydom most certainly did rely on families.
Quote
Do you know how many trad parents are heartbroken at relationships they have had to sever? How they agonize over every possible visit, how much they give up? Every trad parent I know who has had to cut-ties or lay down strict rules with family, would get to have a pretty normal relationship with them if it wasn't for the children. Instead, they give that up to protect their children. For you to say that parents do everything for selfish reasons and pretend it is for their children is insane...try homeschooling for a day and tell me the mother's do that for themselves. You are speaking from a place of complete ignorance. "They want it all for themselves." What exactly do they want? If they are giving up thirty different things what is it they "want" for themselves. You are making no sense.
Giving your whole life to God and loving your children for His sake and according to His Will, is giving all your love to God. You have obviously created a cute little pedestal for yourself, but don't expect me to indulge your silly notions
Do you think only Trad parents have to agonise over severing connections?
No, but you specifically replied to this thread and to this topic with a condemnation of parents.
And don't you dare insult me with accusations of ignorance. You know NOTHING about my life.
I am allowed to say you are ignorant about motherhood. You are. It is not an insult, it is a fact. Don't be so emotional.
I don't know where to begin with this diatribe.
You misrepresent what I am saying, repeatedly.
And you make comments like this - "You have proven over and over again how much you hate the fact that trad families are the reason we have priests, nuns, alter boys, etc".
What?
You started this thread diversion with that horrible post to Christulsa, and continued in the same vein when I objected. I've encountered your attitude amongst Trads more times than I can remember and my solution is to avoid as much as possible.
You wonder why the single people in your Trad parish don't get involved in social events, and gave this as the reason -
"That is their own fault though. They sit around watching mothers organize all the social events in the church and wonder why single folks aren't the centre of attention. If they stopped winging for ten seconds and organized their own social events, or bothered to help with the parish ones, it might be more fulfilling for them."
I'm not at all surprised they don't get involved, if your attitude towards them is common amongst your fellow parishioners. But since your attitude
is common in Trad land, then there's no point in discussing this further.
Back to the thread.
Ladies, Ladies....
Anyway, the 4th commandment does not include willfully exposing one's children to impious grandparents in a manner which is not immediately correctable, i.e., being alone with them.
From St. Thomas Aquinas' exposition on the Decalogue, specifically the 4th commandment, we read in part:
QuoteWhat children owe parents
Now, because we owe our birth to our parents, we ought to honor them more than any other superiors, because from such we receive only temporal things: "He who fears the Lord honors his parents, and will serve them as his masters that brought him into the world. Honor your father in work and word and all patience, that a blessing may come upon you from him" [Sir 3:10]. And in doing this you shall also honor thyself, because "the glory of a man is from honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of his son" [Sir 3:13].
Again, since we receive nourishment from our parents in our childhood, we must support them in their old age: "Son, support the old age of your father, and grieve him not in his life. And if his understanding fail, have patience with him; and do not despise him when you are in your strength... Of what an evil fame is he who forsakes his father! And he is cursed of God who angers his mother" [Sir 3:14,15]. For the humiliation of those who act contrary to this, Cassiodorus relates how young storks, when the parents have lost their feathers by approaching old age and are unable to find suitable food, make the parent storks comfortable with their own feathers, and bring back food for their worn-out bodies. Thus, by this affectionate exchange the young ones repay the parents for what they received when they were young" [Epist. II].
We must obey our parents, for they have instructed us. "Children, obey your parents in all things" [Col 3:20]. This excepts, of course, those things which are contrary to God. St. Jerome says that the only loyalty in such cases is to be cruel [Ad Heliod]: "If any man hate not his father and mother... he cannot be My disciple" [Lk 14:26][/u]. This is to say that God is in the truest sense our Father: "Is not He your Father who possessed you, made you and created you?" [Deut 32:6].
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/exodus/st-thomas-aquinas-on-the-10-commandments
Now, as concerns me and mine, we will certainly support them in their old age as necessary and able. So, positive duty - check. However, we will not accept any efforts to impart to our children things which are contrary to God, the Faith, etc.
Hence, we have no problem with them being alone with my wife's parents. Her mother is Catholic and her father has shown himself to be of good will in raising his own children Catholic despite not being so himself. Even my dad isn't really the problem. He's actually great with them. My mother, however, is hardheaded and can't stand that the Catholic Church will not be soft in doctrine like her Methodist upbringing. She especially hates its doctrine on marriage, because she is my dad's 2nd wife and knows that there's a good chance they are not validly married and probably cannot be unless his first wife dies. She loves to make little conversational barbs about even things which are clear from First Communion classes, which our oldest will soon be starting.
Simply put, we cannot risk a complete undoing or otherwise planting of seeds of doubt against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
To do otherwise would be a violation of the 4th commandment, not adherence to it.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 21, 2020, 07:03:12 AM
You started this thread diversion with that horrible post to Christulsa, and continued in the same vein when I objected. I've encountered your attitude amongst Trads more times than I can remember and my solution is to avoid as much as possible.
Stating a fact is not horrible. I am sorry if I won't allow myself to get wrapped up in emotion during conversation, but I won't. It is not an insult to say someone has no children. It not an insult to state that they have no experience with parenthood and therefor have no well-informed opinions on parental duty.
You wonder why the single people in your Trad parish don't get involved in social events, and gave this as the reason -
"That is their own fault though. They sit around watching mothers organize all the social events in the church and wonder why single folks aren't the centre of attention. If they stopped winging for ten seconds and organized their own social events, or bothered to help with the parish ones, it might be more fulfilling for them."
I'm not at all surprised they don't get involved, if your attitude towards them is common amongst your fellow parishioners. But since your attitude is common in Trad land, then there's no point in discussing this further.
What attitude? There is no attitude. I have no problem with single people. My husband and I have a lot of single trad friends. All I am saying is that trad families build tradition and that single people don't have any experience raising children or fighting the "raising trad kids" battle. I don't know why this is such a huge issue for you. Most single people I know will be the first to admit they know nothing about children. Most single people I know love big trad families, and many aspire to start their own. You are obviously not one of these people, but don't assume everyone takes such offense to basic facts as you do.
Back to the thread.
Quote from: Gardener on May 21, 2020, 07:55:47 AM
Ladies, Ladies....
Anyway, the 4th commandment does not include willfully exposing one's children to impious grandparents in a manner which is not immediately correctable, i.e., being alone with them.
From St. Thomas Aquinas' exposition on the Decalogue, specifically the 4th commandment, we read in part:
QuoteWhat children owe parents
Now, because we owe our birth to our parents, we ought to honor them more than any other superiors, because from such we receive only temporal things: "He who fears the Lord honors his parents, and will serve them as his masters that brought him into the world. Honor your father in work and word and all patience, that a blessing may come upon you from him" [Sir 3:10]. And in doing this you shall also honor thyself, because "the glory of a man is from honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of his son" [Sir 3:13].
Again, since we receive nourishment from our parents in our childhood, we must support them in their old age: "Son, support the old age of your father, and grieve him not in his life. And if his understanding fail, have patience with him; and do not despise him when you are in your strength... Of what an evil fame is he who forsakes his father! And he is cursed of God who angers his mother" [Sir 3:14,15]. For the humiliation of those who act contrary to this, Cassiodorus relates how young storks, when the parents have lost their feathers by approaching old age and are unable to find suitable food, make the parent storks comfortable with their own feathers, and bring back food for their worn-out bodies. Thus, by this affectionate exchange the young ones repay the parents for what they received when they were young" [Epist. II].
We must obey our parents, for they have instructed us. "Children, obey your parents in all things" [Col 3:20]. This excepts, of course, those things which are contrary to God. St. Jerome says that the only loyalty in such cases is to be cruel [Ad Heliod]: "If any man hate not his father and mother... he cannot be My disciple" [Lk 14:26][/u]. This is to say that God is in the truest sense our Father: "Is not He your Father who possessed you, made you and created you?" [Deut 32:6].
https://sites.google.com/site/aquinasstudybible/home/exodus/st-thomas-aquinas-on-the-10-commandments
Now, as concerns me and mine, we will certainly support them in their old age as necessary and able. So, positive duty - check. However, we will not accept any efforts to impart to our children things which are contrary to God, the Faith, etc.
Hence, we have no problem with them being alone with my wife's parents. Her mother is Catholic and her father has shown himself to be of good will in raising his own children Catholic despite not being so himself. Even my dad isn't really the problem. He's actually great with them. My mother, however, is hardheaded and can't stand that the Catholic Church will not be soft in doctrine like her Methodist upbringing. She especially hates its doctrine on marriage, because she is my dad's 2nd wife and knows that there's a good chance they are not validly married and probably cannot be unless his first wife dies. She loves to make little conversational barbs about even things which are clear from First Communion classes, which our oldest will soon be starting.
Simply put, we cannot risk a complete undoing or otherwise planting of seeds of doubt against the teachings of the Catholic Church.
To do otherwise would be a violation of the 4th commandment, not adherence to it.
I can get a dual German English traditional catechism for him if you want.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 20, 2020, 11:19:42 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 18, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able.
You are very confused about what the 4th commandment actually means.
Also, since you have no kids, you have zero valid opinions on grandparent relationships or bunker trads. Being a Catholic as a childless adult is a completely and utterly different thing than being a Catholic with children. There is no comparison. You are responsible for your soul, that is it, no more. Parents are responsible for the immortal souls of all their children, and it shapes everything we do, every decision we make; it has to. Almost every outward sign of "trad life" has to do with children. If you aren't fighting that fight then get comfy on the sidelines until you have something well-informed to add to the conversation.
I nursed my father when he had Parkinson's, since his death have cared for my elderly mother, have actively been involved in my nephew's and niece's life since the day they were born in the way traditional Catholic uncles do, have been stably married for nearly ten years, married late because I only dated practicing Catholic girls preferably trad, have not been blessed with children, provide intense therapy for about a dozen elderly patients a day, plus we're about to start adopting through foster care. If that means I'm not qualified to offer my opinion in one post answering H, then I suppose I'm not a "trad" in the sense you may be using the word, nor have I ever identified with traditionalism in any other sense than practicing the Faith in accord with Tradition. Period.
Quote from: christulsa on May 21, 2020, 07:52:15 PM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 20, 2020, 11:19:42 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 18, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able.
You are very confused about what the 4th commandment actually means.
Also, since you have no kids, you have zero valid opinions on grandparent relationships or bunker trads. Being a Catholic as a childless adult is a completely and utterly different thing than being a Catholic with children. There is no comparison. You are responsible for your soul, that is it, no more. Parents are responsible for the immortal souls of all their children, and it shapes everything we do, every decision we make; it has to. Almost every outward sign of "trad life" has to do with children. If you aren't fighting that fight then get comfy on the sidelines until you have something well-informed to add to the conversation.
I nursed my father when he had Parkinson's, since his death have cared for my elderly mother, have actively been involved in my nephew's and niece's life since the day they were born in the way traditional Catholic uncles do, have been stably married for nearly ten years, married late because I only dated practicing Catholic girls preferably trad, have not been blessed with children, provide intense therapy for about a dozen elderly patients a day, plus we're about to start adopting through foster care. If that means I'm not qualified to offer my opinion in one post answering H, then I suppose I'm not a "trad" in the sense you may be using the word, nor have I ever identified with traditionalism in any other sense than practicing the Faith in accord with Tradition. Period.
Dude calm down. No one said you weren't a trad. I'm sure you are a perfectly fine trad. You just aren't a parent. You may have helped with children, cared for the elderly, etc. That does not mean you have been or are currently responsible for the soul/salvation of another human being. It does change things. This is not an insult, I am not trying to be mean at all. I am simply saying it creates a completely different dynamic. You are not making difficult choices about religious influence upon children, for which you will be held accountable for all of eternity. Sorry.
I have actually never cared for an older person in illness. I would never tell you what to do to insure their comfort, safety, mental well-being, optimal quality of life, etc. You would be the one with an actual opinion on the matter. Anything I had to say would be conjecture based on zero personal experience. I am not offended by my ignorance and lack of experience in that regard, it is what it is; nor would I be offended if you pointed it out to me. My only role in such a conversation at this point would be to listen and learn what I could for the day when it may be my duty to care for an aged relative.
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects.
We are not talking about Catholic teaching though. That is the problem. We are talking about subjective, individual relationships which have to be navigated on a case by case basis. Choosing the right level of interaction is a very tricky thing to do, and is hugely influenced by the fact that you are responsible for the souls of the children in question. This is not about knowing doctrine, loving children, or having an idea of what might be right. You were criticizing parents for their decisions, when you could never understand where they are coming from, or the burden they are dealing with.
Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
It is similar, and that's nice. If this was a discussion of healthy meals, entertaining children, bed-wetting, teaching them Bible stories, etc, you would be more than qualified. You are not qualified in this case because without an actual moral/spiritual responsibility for the soul of the child, you cannot not understand the motivation/spiritual impetus behind the decisions.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
Nothing I have said is toxic. No one is being mean or bullying you. I am simply pointing out that you are not qualified to pass judgement on parents for something so entirely subjective and hugely influenced by their own responsibility for their children's spiritual welfare.
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 20, 2020, 11:19:42 PMBeing a Catholic as a childless adult is a completely and utterly different thing than being a Catholic with children. There is no comparison. You are responsible for your soul, that is it, no more. Parents are responsible for the immortal souls of all their children, and it shapes everything we do, every decision we make; it has to. Almost every outward sign of "trad life" has to do with children. If you aren't fighting that fight then get comfy on the sidelines until you have something well-informed to add to the conversation.
Parents aren't
absolutely responsible for the immortal souls of their children. The children are responsible for their own souls. The responsibility of the parents is to help the children mature well enough to look after their souls, and the parents will co-operate with the wider community in the process. And don't forget Jesus' role. Spiritually speaking He's the parent and director. The best thing a mother or father could surely is to entrust their children to His care. There's nobody in the world who's qualified to be fully responsible for the soul of another, not even the wisest & holiest of spiritual directors would dare claim that; we're all just co-workers / subordinates of Jesus.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects.
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Or like celibate priests talking about sex, or marriage, or parenting. :P
Quote from: John Lamb on May 22, 2020, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects.
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Or like celibate priests talking about sex, or marriage, or parenting. :P
I know you are kidding, but this is such an important point. It is not like this at all. If this was a matter of educating parents about doctrine, pointing out rules and church guidelines, that would be one thing; but this isn't about that. This is subjective and based on your own knowledge of your child, the particular influence of the grandparent, etc.
About your previous point: You are right, we are not ultimately responsible, insofar as they have to keep the faith on their own steam. However, that comes into effect much more are they age. When they are 5, 8, 9, etc; you are much more responsible. The parent is also responsible for all the influences we have allowed for our children. Anything outside our knowledge or control is one thing, but putting our children directly in the path and under the influence (especially overnight) of certain people is something we will absolutely answer for.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Ridiculous statement considering you have described yourself even recently as struggling with being overweight, yet frequently counsel to lift weights and get in shape. The irony of the above statement. Your advise to others about fitness is OK in my book, still being overweight, even though you object to the childless giving their opinion about bunker trad parents. Which you asked for, for goodness sakes. As if they are akin to fat people giving out nutrition/exercise advise. Listen to yourself. Heck by your internal logic, the laity shouldn't even be raising criticism about priests, bishops, or the pope unless you know they are a priest, bishop, or the pope. Tiresome.
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Ridiculous statement considering you have described yourself even recently as struggling with being overweight, yet frequently counsel to lift weights and get in shape. The irony of the above statement. Your advise to others about fitness is OK in my book, still being overweight, even though you object to the childless giving their opinion about bunker trad parents. Which you asked for, for goodness sakes. As if they are akin to fat people giving out nutrition/exercise advise. Listen to yourself. Heck by your internal logic, the laity shouldn't even be raising criticism about priests, bishops, or the pope unless you know they are a priest, bishop, or the pope. Tiresome.
*sigh*
This is my entire point Chris. Weight, doctrine, Church tradition, etc...these things are very objective. There are canon laws and codes and writings all telling us exactly what to believe and practice. Telling someone to lift weights and diet is basic information which you can find in any healthy manual anywhere. Repeating objective truths takes no experience whatsoever.
When it comes to completely subjective things, like the degree of intimacy with a grandparent, directly based on their practice of the faith or goodwill towards to faith, you need more. In this particular case, you need to actual be responsible for another soul to understand the duty and responsibility which drives a person to make such decisions.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 23, 2020, 02:39:28 AM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Ridiculous statement considering you have described yourself even recently as struggling with being overweight, yet frequently counsel to lift weights and get in shape. The irony of the above statement. Your advise to others about fitness is OK in my book, still being overweight, even though you object to the childless giving their opinion about bunker trad parents. Which you asked for, for goodness sakes. As if they are akin to fat people giving out nutrition/exercise advise. Listen to yourself. Heck by your internal logic, the laity shouldn't even be raising criticism about priests, bishops, or the pope unless you know they are a priest, bishop, or the pope. Tiresome.
*sigh*
This is my entire point Chris. Weight, doctrine, Church tradition, etc...these things are very objective. There are canon laws and codes and writings all telling us exactly what to believe and practice. Telling someone to lift weights and diet is basic information which you can find in any healthy manual anywhere. Repeating objective truths takes no experience whatsoever.
When it comes to completely subjective things, like the degree of intimacy with a grandparent, directly based on their practice of the faith or goodwill towards to faith, you need more. In this particular case, you need to actual be responsible for another soul to understand the duty and responsibility which drives a person to make such decisions.
Yes, and who would argue with what you've said here?
But having re-read it twice, Christulsa's original post stayed within these bounds and yet you were unbelievably rude going on vicious to him, IMO.
And that's the problem - you and the appalling attitude you've displayed here. You can post as many comments as you like in an attempt to prove how reasonable you are. But you seem to have no conception at all of how you come across.
And as for the foul comments you've made to me, I trust you wouldn't be so foolish as to speak to me like that in person.
Nasty you are.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 23, 2020, 04:43:55 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 23, 2020, 02:39:28 AM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Ridiculous statement considering you have described yourself even recently as struggling with being overweight, yet frequently counsel to lift weights and get in shape. The irony of the above statement. Your advise to others about fitness is OK in my book, still being overweight, even though you object to the childless giving their opinion about bunker trad parents. Which you asked for, for goodness sakes. As if they are akin to fat people giving out nutrition/exercise advise. Listen to yourself. Heck by your internal logic, the laity shouldn't even be raising criticism about priests, bishops, or the pope unless you know they are a priest, bishop, or the pope. Tiresome.
*sigh*
This is my entire point Chris. Weight, doctrine, Church tradition, etc...these things are very objective. There are canon laws and codes and writings all telling us exactly what to believe and practice. Telling someone to lift weights and diet is basic information which you can find in any healthy manual anywhere. Repeating objective truths takes no experience whatsoever.
When it comes to completely subjective things, like the degree of intimacy with a grandparent, directly based on their practice of the faith or goodwill towards to faith, you need more. In this particular case, you need to actual be responsible for another soul to understand the duty and responsibility which drives a person to make such decisions.
Yes, and who would argue with what you've said here?
But having re-read it twice, Christulsa's original post stayed within these bounds and yet you were unbelievably rude going on vicious to him, IMO.
And that's the problem - you and the appalling attitude you've displayed here. You can post as many comments as you like in an attempt to prove how reasonable you are. But you seem to have no conception at all of how you come across.
And as for the foul comments you've made to me, I trust you wouldn't be so foolish as to speak to me like that in person.
Nasty you are.
I said you don't have children. That is a fact and I would certainly say it in person.
I said you don't understand what it is like to be a mother, again, would say this in person.
I said you have made a pedestal for yourself as a person who has given "all their love to God," in comparison to parents, who in your opinion have not. I would certainly say this in person.
As to any other comments made by me on your opinions or previous statements, a brief perusal of your forum history will prove the accuracy of my statements. If called upon to prove this in person, I certainly would. You are very wrong if you think I get all emotional and wimpy in person and refuse to speak the truth. That is not the case.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 23, 2020, 05:05:34 AM
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 23, 2020, 04:43:55 AM
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 23, 2020, 02:39:28 AM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Ridiculous statement considering you have described yourself even recently as struggling with being overweight, yet frequently counsel to lift weights and get in shape. The irony of the above statement. Your advise to others about fitness is OK in my book, still being overweight, even though you object to the childless giving their opinion about bunker trad parents. Which you asked for, for goodness sakes. As if they are akin to fat people giving out nutrition/exercise advise. Listen to yourself. Heck by your internal logic, the laity shouldn't even be raising criticism about priests, bishops, or the pope unless you know they are a priest, bishop, or the pope. Tiresome.
*sigh*
This is my entire point Chris. Weight, doctrine, Church tradition, etc...these things are very objective. There are canon laws and codes and writings all telling us exactly what to believe and practice. Telling someone to lift weights and diet is basic information which you can find in any healthy manual anywhere. Repeating objective truths takes no experience whatsoever.
When it comes to completely subjective things, like the degree of intimacy with a grandparent, directly based on their practice of the faith or goodwill towards to faith, you need more. In this particular case, you need to actual be responsible for another soul to understand the duty and responsibility which drives a person to make such decisions.
Yes, and who would argue with what you've said here?
But having re-read it twice, Christulsa's original post stayed within these bounds and yet you were unbelievably rude going on vicious to him, IMO.
And that's the problem - you and the appalling attitude you've displayed here. You can post as many comments as you like in an attempt to prove how reasonable you are. But you seem to have no conception at all of how you come across.
And as for the foul comments you've made to me, I trust you wouldn't be so foolish as to speak to me like that in person.
Nasty you are.
I said you don't have children. That is a fact and I would certainly say it in person.
I said you don't understand what it is like to be a mother, again, would say this in person.
I said you have made a pedestal for yourself as a person who has given "all their love to God," in comparison to parents, who in your opinion have not. I would certainly say this in person.
As to any other comments made by me on your opinions or previous statements, a brief perusal of your forum history will prove the accuracy of my statements. If called upon to prove this in person, I certainly would. You are very wrong if you think I get all emotional and wimpy in person and refuse to speak the truth. That is not the case.
Perhaps you don't realise how nasty you are. Is that it? Is it a genuine oversight?
Or do you wilfully refuse to accept the objections of others to your comments? Your repeated attempts at self-justification suggest the latter.
But whether you are unaware or unrepentant, if you spoke to me in person the way you have spoken to me here, you would regret it.
You insisted earlier that you have no bad attitude and that you are just being honest and speaking facts. Self-reflection doesn't seem to be your strong point.
Perhaps you need to spend more time alone with Christ.
It looks to me that c&g has put a lot of pressure on herself as a parent; the general thrust of her argument is that parents are responsible for the eternal salvation of their children, so the parents cannot allow anything that would threaten that; and she fears her own judgment should she fail in this respect.
In my opinion, this attitude can easily exaggerate the parents' responsibility, and lead to an over-protective attitude. It's this over-protective attitude among some Trads that Graham and others have identified as a problem. I think the blame for this resets largely on traditional priests for scaring the parents into thinking, more or less, that if their children were to lapse it would be their fault; and not only would their children go to hell, but they would too for failing in their parental responsibility. This is too much pressure and too much fear being handed down to the parents, which in turn will be handed down to the children, which inadvertently might cause problems detrimental to faith, since faith should be supported by love not fear.
In cases like Gardener's where his mother is clearly unstable and has a personal vendetta against the faith, it's quite reasonable if not obvious that he should be on guard. It seems his mother feels personally insulted by some of the Catholic Church's teachings, so she needs patience and compassion, but she shouldn't use Gardener's children as a means to carry out some form of petty vengeance against the Church.
But I agree with Graham and others that merely being Protestant is not of itself sufficient to remove your children from the company of your grandparents. It's an opportunity for your children to learn about personal boundaries, religious divisions and differences of culture and opinion, and loving people of other faiths / traditions. It's all important to growing up in today's world, and shielding your children from it too much out of fear of corruption might have the opposite result of making your child's faith weaker by couching it in fear and avoidance. I think one of the biggest flaws of Traditionalism is that it's so focused on polemics against the modern world and modern corruption, that it can induce that fearful bunker mentality which is very opposed to a healthy Christian one. The first disciples did not fear the world's corruption or hide from it; but yes of course they didn't allow themselves or their children to become infected by it. It's a matter of balance that can only be achieved by sincere faith and trust in God.
Just started listening to Proverbs on audio during the day (at the advice of a Protestant, no less) because it's one of the best resources for parents as it is a father and mother speaking to a son.
It's striking just how many times the word "FEAR" is used. The single most important driving message is to teach your children to fear both the Lord and the terrible consequences of their sins both in this life and the next.
The foolish man who gets caught by the harlot, did so because he walked near her house. Stay away from bad situations. My dad told us this when we were little. He said everyone knows the first verse to "The Spider and The Fly" and thinks the fly is clever and gets away, but actually the poem ends with the fly going back to the spider and getting caught. The real moral is that once you speak with evil you have already lost.
Will you walk into my parlour?" said the Spider to the Fly,
"'Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy;
The way into my parlour is up a winding stair,
And I've a many curious things to shew when you are there."
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "to ask me is in vain,
For who goes up your winding stair can ne'er come down again."
"I'm sure you must be weary, dear, with soaring up so high;
Will you rest upon my little bed?" said the Spider to the Fly.
"There are pretty curtains drawn around; the sheets are fine and thin,
And if you like to rest awhile, I'll snugly tuck you in!"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "for I've often heard it said,
They never, never wake again, who sleep upon your bed!"
Said the cunning Spider to the Fly, "Dear friend what can I do,
To prove the warm affection I've always felt for you?
I have within my pantry, good store of all that's nice;
I'm sure you're very welcome–will you please to take a slice?"
"Oh no, no," said the little Fly, "kind sir, that cannot be,
I've heard what's in your pantry, and I do not wish to see!"
"Sweet creature!" said the Spider, "you're witty and you're wise,
How handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!
I've a little looking-glass upon my parlour shelf,
If you'll step in one moment, dear, you shall behold yourself."
"I thank you, gentle sir," she said, "for what you're pleased to say,
And bidding you good morning now, I'll call another day."
The Spider turned him round about, and went into his den,
For well he knew the silly Fly would soon come back again:
So he wove a subtle web, in a little corner sly,
And set his table ready, to dine upon the Fly.
Then he came out to his door again, and merrily did sing,
"Come hither, hither, pretty Fly, with the pearl and silver wing;
Your robes are green and purple–there's a crest upon your head;
Your eyes are like the diamond bright, but mine are dull as lead!"
Alas, alas! how very soon this silly little Fly,
Hearing his wily, flattering words, came slowly flitting by;
With buzzing wings she hung aloft, then near and nearer drew,
Thinking only of her brilliant eyes, and green and purple hue–
Thinking only of her crested head–poor foolish thing! At last,
Up jumped the cunning Spider, and fiercely held her fast.
He dragged her up his winding stair, into his dismal den,
Within his little parlour–but she ne'er came out again!
And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Ridiculous statement considering you have described yourself even recently as struggling with being overweight, yet frequently counsel to lift weights and get in shape. The irony of the above statement. Your advise to others about fitness is OK in my book, still being overweight, even though you object to the childless giving their opinion about bunker trad parents. Which you asked for, for goodness sakes. As if they are akin to fat people giving out nutrition/exercise advise. Listen to yourself. Heck by your internal logic, the laity shouldn't even be raising criticism about priests, bishops, or the pope unless you know they are a priest, bishop, or the pope. Tiresome.
I do not routinely tell people to lift weights and get in shape. I have developed an online shtick for sure in regards to pumping iron, no argument there. My self deprecation in Live's lament was with a dash of the hyperbolic. "Bunker trad?" Insulting to pious parents. You sound like Mark Shea.
Quote from: queen.saints on May 23, 2020, 06:31:42 AM
[...]
And now dear little children, who may this story read,
To idle, silly flattering words, I pray you ne'er give heed:
Unto an evil counsellor, close heart and ear and eye,
And take a lesson from this tale, of the Spider and the Fly.
It reminds me of the White Witch in
The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. That is a great book for spiritual lessons for children. (It actually played a role in my conversion. I fell in love with Aslan years before I understood that he represented Jesus.)
A point about formatting: Replying by interspersing comments in an alternate font throughout a post can be very confusing for readers. This is especially so after being quoted.
There are instructions for another method here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23949.msg502508 (https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=23949.msg502508)
Quote from: Heinrich on May 23, 2020, 06:41:33 AM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 22, 2020, 02:41:50 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 22, 2020, 06:24:43 AM
I'm perfectly calm lady, climb down off your high horse. Your premise is just patently absurd and not Catholic. One does not need to be a parent to know Catholic teaching on duties to parents or on parenting, or to advise on those subjects. Childless traditional Catholic couples aren't sitting "comfy on the sidelines until we have something well informed to add to the conversation." Quite the contrary. My wife was also once a physical therapist caring for disabled children, and my past career was teaching and coaching children. And that work most definitely includes the spiritual dimension of "caring for souls" especially in giving moral guidance and spiritual support. No it's not parenting per se, but definitely very similar. Take it or leave it.
You can have the last word, I don't have time for long toxic "arguments."
I disagree with this. It is akin to fat people giving diet and exercise advice.
Ridiculous statement considering you have described yourself even recently as struggling with being overweight, yet frequently counsel to lift weights and get in shape. The irony of the above statement. Your advise to others about fitness is OK in my book, still being overweight, even though you object to the childless giving their opinion about bunker trad parents. Which you asked for, for goodness sakes. As if they are akin to fat people giving out nutrition/exercise advise. Listen to yourself. Heck by your internal logic, the laity shouldn't even be raising criticism about priests, bishops, or the pope unless you know they are a priest, bishop, or the pope. Tiresome.
I do not routinely tell people to lift weights and get in shape. I have developed an online shtick for sure in regards to pumping iron, no argument there. My self deprecation in Live's lament was with a dash of the hyperbolic. "Bunker trad?" Insulting to pious parents. You sound like Mark Shea.
Sure you do. You routinely challenge guys here to lift to improve themselves, including physically. Nothing wrong with that, even if your current BMI would clinically classify you as overweight or obese. But your analogy is stupid. Married but childless trads offering advise or opinion on parenting and relations with extended family (which you asked me for earlier on this thread) IS NOT "akin to fat people advising about diet and nutrition." Your Beavis and Butthead shtick isn't helping anyone, only amusing yourself.
And you entirely miss the point. The term "bunker trad" is frequently used in the trad movement by trads themselves to refer to the extremists in its ranks who act like isolationist nutters. A "trad" is a Catholic practicing the Faith in accord with Tradition, especially in accord with Traditional Doctrine and Liturgy. Period. Whereas a "bunker trad" is one who in practice treats the Faith as a private gnostic philosophy for a tiny elitist elect separated in isolation from non-trads. Plenty of people in either category. And it's not hard to spot the bunker trad nutters. They're usually arrogant and bitter.
I appreciate Gardener's replies. I am essentially in the same boat. My parents and my mother in law live within 3 miles of me. I am not sure too many people nowadays will be able to enjoy that. In case of my wife and my death, our will stipulates that our children would go to my mother-in-law. In case she is unable, then our children will go to the godparent's of our first child. They are solidly orthodox Novus Ordo (though occasionally go to the TLM) but they also take similar steps but in relation to his sister and family. He won't leave his children alone with them. We are the same with my brother-in-law's daughter (my children's cousin). I think a lot of this (Gardener, my case, and our friend's case) deals with the age of our children. My children are 7, 5, 3, 1 while i know Gardener's are younger and our friend's are in the same age category. They are quite impressionable at this point and can remember some of the darnedest things. That is why we are hesitate on exposing them when we aren't around. I want my children to have a relationship my parents but it will be on my terms. They have proven themselves incapable of respecting our wishes in things both religious and secular so we can't trust them. You can peruse that thread I had linked in my earlier reply to show how I had to approach the situation with them. Considering I am the only son in the area and my older brother decided he only wanted two children and my younger brother is "married" to a man, my parents are fortunate that they have grandchildren in the area they can actually see in person on a regular basis.
Quote from: John Lamb on May 23, 2020, 06:05:21 AM
This is too much pressure and too much fear being handed down to the parents, which in turn will be handed down to the children, which inadvertently might cause problems detrimental to faith, since faith should be supported by love not fear.
To be fair, in my Baltimore Catechism Four book by TAN it says:
Quote285. Q. Which are the effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony?
A. The effects of the Sacrament of Matrimony are: first, to sanctify the love of husband and wife; second, to give them
grace to bear with each other's weaknesses; third, to enable them to bring up their children in the fear and love of
God.
..."Bring up their children." This is their most important duty, and parents receive grace to perform it, and woe be to them if they abuse that grace."
As you said, it is about striking a balance and that is why we have so much pressure and we need the graces. It's also not just a Trad notion as I mentioned my friends and also I have a book called
Legacy: A Father's Handbook for Raising Godly Children by Stephen Wood who is a NO (I believe) layman. He says on page 18:
QuoteDad, you must grasp the truth that creating a legacy of faith through the training and discipline of your children is a real man's job. It is your job. In fact, it is your most important responsibility on earth, because whatever you do (or fail to do as a father will have effects for generations - and for eternity.
Finally, I have a book from 1954 (but newly set in 2004) from Mary Reed Newland called
How to Raise Good Catholic Children. On Page 6 she says:
QuoteIt's amusing to observe the contradictions apparent int he comparison of materialism versus spirituality, but it's not amusing for long - because there's more involved than a game. Each man caught in the embrace of materialism is a soul in danger of hellfire, and each soul is infinitely precious to God. For those of us who are parents, the challenge is terrible indeed. We have placed in our case for a few short years precious immortal souls who belong to God, whose destiny is an eternity in and with God, and who depend entirely upon us for the formation of a way of life that will lead them surely to God. And woe to us if we fail in this charge."
She goes on to list some practical examples about blaming kids playing in traffic or fires a gun whose parents have failed to instruct them. She then says:
QuoteThen who shall blame a child whose sail turns eagerly to the noise and distraction of wordiness, if his parents failed to show him that love and peace and beauty are found only in God?
I think we can be forgiven if we realize we have a few short years to try to train our young children in being able to handle the world. It's a different matter for older kids as they have been trained and will need to be able to defend themselves on their own and I agree that a bunker mentality is not the proper approach.
*edited for some grammar
Chris,
Are you saying that those parents who set boundaries for their children, in the case of Stu Cool and myself simply that a set of grandparents are not allowed to be alone with the grandkids for legitimate concerns about the catechetical fallout, despite those grandparents having every opportunity to be around said grandkids and otherwise participate in the grandkids' lives, are "bunker trads"?
If so, that's a very novel use of the term when the use of the term is typically about those who seem to completely shrink from being "in" the world, view everything as evil.
To protect a child from scandal is an act of charity. To keep someone from having an opportunity to scandalize a child is also an act of charity, particularly when said person has demonstrated a propensity for it.
Quote[6] But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea
Matthew 18
Quote from: Gardener on May 23, 2020, 09:36:36 AM
Chris,
Are you saying that those parents who set boundaries for their children, in the case of Stu Cool and myself simply that a set of grandparents are not allowed to be alone with the grandkids for legitimate concerns about the catechetical fallout, despite those grandparents having every opportunity to be around said grandkids and otherwise participate in the grandkids' lives, are "bunker trads"?
If so, that's a very novel use of the term when the use of the term is typically about those who seem to completely shrink from being "in" the world, view everything as evil.
To protect a child from scandal is an act of charity. To keep someone from having an opportunity to scandalize a child is also an act of charity, particularly when said person has demonstrated a propensity for it.
Quote[6] But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea
Matthew 18
I don't think he meant that. He pointed out that they are those that self-isolated like the Benedictine Option.
I like your explanation that it is an act of charity to prevent someone from committing it.
Considering the content and context of this thread, I don't believe for a second that he isn't calling us "bunker trads". He can correct that view if I'm incorrect.
Define "us."
Don't play games. Myself, Stu Cool, and anyone else who has deemed fit to take measures in safeguarding their children as explained in this thread.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 10:00:44 AM
Define "us."
From online dictionary:
Quoteus
/?s/
pronoun
pronoun: us
1.
used by a speaker to refer to himself or herself and one or more other people as the object of a verb or preposition.
"let us know"
used after the verb "to be" and after "than" or "as".
"it's us or them"
informal•North American
to or for ourselves.
"we got us some good hunting"
2.
informal
me.
"give us a kiss"
He is referring to himself and one or more other persons, in this case "Stu Cool" (still the coolest user name).
There are two kinds of first person plural. One is called "inclusive we" which refers to the speaker, the listener and others. The other is called "exclusive we" which refers to the speaker and listener(s) only. While these usages are differentiated in some languages, in English the first person plural is ambiguous. It could be either of these and the usage is determined by context.
When used as a subject (nominative) the form is "we". When used as an object (accusative) it is "us".
So by "us" Stu Cool and a few others here, gotcha. Some people get lost on the variable use of language like "define."
To answer your accusation/question, NO I'm not calling anyone here a bunker trad including you Gardener. I'm arguing against the phenomenon among trads being ignored by some in this thread in favor of protecting children to an extreme from non-believers. Not a few trad parents are severely isolating their children physically and socially from non believing family and society, and usually are arrogant and bitter. And if you think that's just my opinion, that actual opinion actually comes from sitting through sermons and conferences by trad priests about this. If you won't listen to a fellow trad friend, listen to them.
Quote from: Gardener on May 23, 2020, 09:36:36 AM
Chris,
Are you saying that those parents who set boundaries for their children, in the case of Stu Cool and myself simply that a set of grandparents are not allowed to be alone with the grandkids for legitimate concerns about the catechetical fallout, despite those grandparents having every opportunity to be around said grandkids and otherwise participate in the grandkids' lives, are "bunker trads"?
If so, that's a very novel use of the term when the use of the term is typically about those who seem to completely shrink from being "in" the world, view everything as evil.
To protect a child from scandal is an act of charity. To keep someone from having an opportunity to scandalize a child is also an act of charity, particularly when said person has demonstrated a propensity for it.
Quote[6] But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea
Matthew 18
No. Never even remotely said that. Quite the contrary. Maybe you can reread my already stated opinion in the first place pages back answering H wanting my opinion after I was thanking Graham. The same post from H asking if I have kids.
Afterwards you've continued several long posts defending your parenting style, including several such posts before I even posted in this thread. Why so defensive? So many long posts about yourself? Later all I've done is defend in a couple posts the right of non parent trads to give their opinion and understanding on the subject, when CC and H suggested otherwise.
The Hearts of Jesus and Mary about a 100 years ago gave a sure means by which children would never fall away from the Faith, nor even into any mortal sin whatever, especially if completed by children in their youth: "12. Those who make this Novena in the innocence of their Baptism (particularly the the children) will not offend My Heart by a grave fault until the time of their death." https://sites.google.com/site/doublegreatnovena/the-33-promises I wish it were more widely known, and all Catholics practiced it. It is unfailingly efficacious. Just like the 9 Fridays to the Sacred Heart, this Promise requires 9 Fridays and Saturdays to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts together. To those who ensure their children, particularly young children, complete it shortly after First Holy Communion, God here promises that they will never commit mortal sin, nor grave sins against Faith.
So yes, as was said earlier, we are to honor our parents in all other things other than when they attempt to make us go against the commandments of God or the precepts of His Church. They gave us natural life and brought us up, we must love them and take care of them through their life and especially in old age. But they don't have the right to try to take us away from God. God above all is our spiritual Father, and Mary our spiritual Mother. God's Promise applies also to honoring Jesus and Mary, "Eph 6:2 Honour thy father and thy mother, which is the first commandment with a promise: 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest be long lived upon earth." just as to our natural parents.
And as for celibacy and marriage, we know both states of life are good and holy according to the Church. I remember an old saying, "Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul the Apostle didn't have children. King David and King Solomon did. Whom would you take marriage advice from?" I don't think it is the case that holy men or Priests, for e.g. cannot speak about marriage unless themselves married, as some have also argued who wanted to change the discipline of Clerical Celibacy. But the Spirit of God spoke in Our Lord Jesus and St. Paul, and the same Spirit Who knows all things, speaks now through Priests and through other People who can still give helpful advice on matters pertaining to marriage and families. Also, many Biblical couples, including Abraham and Sarah, Elcana and Anna, and finally St. Joachim and St. Anne, had to wait a long time, for their special child to come, and in each time the child of promise was a great blessing and consolation; Isaac, Samuel and Mother Mary. God has His ways and purposes in everything, it's not for us to look down on others.
Whatever our different views, we should imho try to be as helpful to each other as we can. Then all will be well. Priests are spiritual Fathers, and jointly with Parents are responsible to help ensure children never leave the Faith. That's a Paternal responsibility which Priests share. Likewise, Nuns are spiritual Mothers and can help in children's spiritual upbringing.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 10:46:51 AM
So by "us" Stu Cool and a few others here, gotcha. Some people get lost on the variable use of language like "define."
To answer your accusation/question, NO I'm not calling anyone here a bunker trad including you Gardener. I'm arguing against the phenomenon among trads being ignored by some in this thread in favor of protecting children to an extreme from non-believers. Not a few trad parents are severely isolating their children physically and socially from non believing family and society, and usually are arrogant and bitter. And if you think that's just my opinion, that actual opinion actually comes from sitting through sermons and conferences by trad priests about this. If you won't listen to a fellow trad friend, listen to them.
In my experience within the past year, you are correct. I understand this bunker trad phenomenon and it's sad. I had termed it to myself as being overly insular and flat out unnice.
Quote from: awkwardcustomer on May 23, 2020, 05:32:24 AM
Perhaps you don't realise how nasty you are. Is that it? Is it a genuine oversight?
Or do you wilfully refuse to accept the objections of others to your comments? Your repeated attempts at self-justification suggest the latter.
But whether you are unaware or unrepentant, if you spoke to me in person the way you have spoken to me here, you would regret it.
You insisted earlier that you have no bad attitude and that you are just being honest and speaking facts. Self-reflection doesn't seem to be your strong point.
Perhaps you need to spend more time alone with Christ.
Maybe you are right. Maybe I am super mean. Anyone else care to chime in on this? The only thing that is puzzling me is why you think what I have said is mean. I mean, the thing you seem to take the most offense to (routinely) is me pointing out that you have no children...? What gives? This is not an insult. Having no children does not make you less of a woman, it does not make you less of a trad, it does not make you less of a Catholic. Why are you treating it like an insult? If you said I was not a plumber and knew nothing about toilets so I should be quiet when the men are discussing copper vs PVC, I would respect that. I am not a plumber, it is a simple fact. I am not a great many things, that is the nature of life; one can only do so much. I do not consider being married and/or having children "the" mark of godly womanhood. when I point out that you are not married or have no children I am not saying that you are "lesser." I am simply observing morally neutral facts and stating them. This can hardly be called mean, nasty, or anything else.
If you were to critique PF on the post V2 papacy, and he responded you shouldnt because you aren't the pope, or a member of the clergy, you'd take that as snobbery or otherwise offensive to Catholics who would. The same would apply to many other situations. Questioning your kid's teacher on their teaching, the plumber who's slacking off on your dime, or parents in public who obnoxiously let their kids scream in public places like it's normal. You wouldn't feel morally required to hold your tongue if you don't have kids, aren't a plumber, or a teacher when it affects you. And certainly you'd take issue with someone telling you you should be quiet. I could give countless other examples.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 11:28:19 AM
Afterwards you've continued several long posts defending your parenting style, including several such posts before I even posted in this thread. Why so defensive?
This is just the sort of question you would not need to ask if you had children. You would have personal experience that would allow you to already understand.
While there are all sorts of principles and abstract ideas that anyone can talk about, some things are only understood through experience. Single people don't know what being married feels like. Childless people don't know what being a parent feels like. Lay people don't know what being a priest feels like. Etc.
The crushing responsibility of being a parent is only understood by those who have experienced it.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 02:39:41 PM
If you were to critique PF on the post V2 papacy, and he responded you shouldnt because you aren't the pope, or a member of the clergy, you'd take that as snobbery or otherwise offensive to Catholics who would. The same would apply to many other situations. Questioning your kid's teacher on their teaching, the plumber who's slacking off on your dime, or parents in public who obnoxiously let their kids scream in public places like it's normal. You wouldn't feel morally required to hold your tongue if you don't have kids, aren't a plumber, or a teacher when it affects you. And certainly you'd take issue with someone telling you you should be quiet. I could give countless other examples.
These examples are all objective situations in which one can learn and quote objective facts/solutions.
For example:
Popes should follow church teaching and doctrine, we have all these objective teachings and doctrines written down. I don't need any experience to figure out what these are or tell someone else about them.
If my child isn't learning or is coming home with incorrect information. I can address these objective facts. Again, no intimate experience necessary.
If I had a plumber slacking off, I would utilize my objective knowledge of honesty and work ethic to discuss his behavior. Again, no inside info needed.
The behavior one is different. I can look at a screaming child and assume they are brats and their parents are selfish slackers, but I wouldn't. I would need to know the family much better before making any judgement calls and even then I probably wouldn't say anything. The behavior of children can be influenced by so many things. Hunger, lack of sleep, lack of nutritious food, emotional distress, lack of routine, illness, medical condition, mental condition, etc. Even if the child was perfectly fine the parent may be letting them run wild because they themselves are exhausted, under fed, mourning, suffering from depression, distracted, etc. Without intimate knowledge of the family, and a large body of experience to draw from, I would never try to advise.
All this is simply to say that you keep coming up with scenarios in which a person is free to repeat objective truths to someone who lives a different life or has a different vocation. No one here is talking about an objective situation though, so these examples are adding nothing to your argument.
There is no objective church teaching on how much exposure parents should allow their children to have with grandparents. The situation is very nuanced and the decision morally driven. The result will be on the shoulders of the parents, no one else can make this choice and no one else will answer for it. It is the parent with the burden of the child's soul to whom this task is given.
Quote from: John Lamb on May 23, 2020, 06:05:21 AM
It looks to me that c&g has put a lot of pressure on herself as a parent; the general thrust of her argument is that parents are responsible for the eternal salvation of their children, so the parents cannot allow anything that would threaten that; and she fears her own judgment should she fail in this respect.
Considering the whole "scandalizing little ones" and "millstone" thing, I think many trad parents aren't considering their responsibilities enough, not the other way around.
I was attempting to help you understand—AS YOU REQUESTED A COUPLE POSTS AGO—why your repeated words to Awkwardcustomer are objectively insulting and mean, by using example, which btw are just as subjective in everyday experience as they are objective. Not trying to win an argument You ASKED. Remember? Were you sincerely asking for help to better understand your behavior or not?
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 03:05:07 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 11:28:19 AM
Afterwards you've continued several long posts defending your parenting style, including several such posts before I even posted in this thread. Why so defensive?
This is just the sort of question you would not need to ask if you had children. You would have personal experience that would allow you to already understand.
Well, I wouldn't be so defensive about my future parenting style to the extent of cluttering/distracting a long thread talking about myself with several long diatribes about one particular parenting choice I make in a family situation, because one person makes one singular post critiquing the way that situation is handled as described when asked their opinion. I would never online say "I could care less if my mother goes to hell if that's her choice," criticize my father as "milquetoast," or praise my wife "going off on my mother" as "awesome," all as part of my argument that my children shouldn't spend time alone with an anti-Catholic grandparent (which I agreed with btw). How one can find this defensible from a Catholic viewpoint is beyond me.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 04:12:04 PM
Well, I wouldn't be so defensive about my future parenting style to the extent of cluttering/distracting a long thread talking about myself with several long diatribes about one particular parenting choice I make in a family situation, because one person makes one singular post critiquing the way that situation is handled as described when asked their opinion.
You don't know what you would do if you were a parent. You can't imagine it. It is completely outside your experience, no matter how many kinds of interactions you have had with children.
You do not understand how raw it makes your emotions or anything else about how it feels. The more you say, the more you prove that there is a huge gap between those with the experience and those without.
I have found Gardener's posts in this thread interesting and thought-provoking. As I recall, I thanked a few of them. As a parent, I could relate to what he was talking about. Your posts criticizing him are the ones that seem strange.
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 03:05:07 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 11:28:19 AM
Afterwards you've continued several long posts defending your parenting style, including several such posts before I even posted in this thread. Why so defensive?
This is just the sort of question you would not need to ask if you had children. You would have personal experience that would allow you to already understand.
While there are all sorts of principles and abstract ideas that anyone can talk about, some things are only understood through experience. Single people don't know what being married feels like. Childless people don't know what being a parent feels like. Lay people don't know what being a priest feels like. Etc.
The crushing responsibility of being a parent is only understood by those who have experienced it.
Being a parent doesn't make you morally superior. The whole "you don't know what it's like being x, because you're not x, so shut up about x" shtick sounds like a whiny victim mentality:
it's not fair to criticise me because you haven't walked in my shoes. That's emotional defensiveness and refusal to justify one's actions, lashing out angrily at the other person for making you reflect on yourself and scrutinise your decisions. If it wasn't "you don't know what it's like to have children so shut up," it would probably be another layer of defensiveness, "you don't know what it's like to have
my children so shut up." Such defensiveness reveals that one is inwardly conflicted about one's actions, and also a refusal to reexamine them because it might reveal that one is wrong, mistaken, or even guilty to some extent.
If you're truly taking your parental responsibility seriously then surely you'd be willing to hear some criticism or opposing views and examine them to see if it might help you be a better parent. But in fact nearly every parent does fail their children to some extent; and the great tragedy is not so much the failure itself, but the parent's refusal to acknowledge it because of the guilt they wish to hide from.
That's why parents can often act high and mighty and morally superior when children are brought up:
they're hiding from their guilt.
Yeah being a parent is an enormous responsibility. That's why it's so important to be humble and not be too hard on yourself. A lukewarm priest who throws up layers of anger and emotion at the least suggestion he's failing in his pastoral duties, "you don't know what it's like to be in charge of people's salvation", is in a way taking himself far too seriously and exaggerating the burden of his responsibility way out of proportion as an excuse not to tackle the real and manageable burden that God has actually given him. Yes saving souls is an enormous responsibility, that's why God gave it to Christ and why you're only Christ's steward, so be humble, accept your imperfections, and do better. The same goes for parents. Yeah your responsibility is great; but you're only stewards of God the Father, so don't crush yourself with pressure and use that as a way to avoid seeing your actual shortcomings. God is forgiving, and nobody can be a good parent without His help. That's why there's no need to be angry or defensive; we're all bound to fail until God rescues us.
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 04:32:53 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 04:12:04 PM
Well, I wouldn't be so defensive about my future parenting style to the extent of cluttering/distracting a long thread talking about myself with several long diatribes about one particular parenting choice I make in a family situation, because one person makes one singular post critiquing the way that situation is handled as described when asked their opinion.
You don't know what you would do if you were a parent. You can't imagine it. It is completely outside your experience, no matter how many kinds of interactions you have had with children.
You do not understand how raw it makes your emotions or anything else about how it feels. The more you say, the more you prove that there is a huge gap between those with the experience and those without.
I have found Gardener's posts in this thread interesting and thought-provoking. As I recall, I thanked a few of them. As a parent, I could relate to what he was talking about. Your posts criticizing him are the ones that seem strange.
1. You might want to get your facts straight. H asked my opinion before I ever posted in this thread. I gave it in ONE post pages back in the thread. G later thought I was calling him a bunker trad, I clarified that I wasn't.
2. Don't you find it strange that a traditional Catholic as yourself would take issue with me criticizing what is obviously disrespect towards one's parents? What you're being is territorial about what you perceive to be the forum consensus, as if what I said is in opposition to trads posting here in general. I guarantee you'd correcting me if I spoke that way about my parents here.
Which is why I'm taking a break from the forum, after this thread. The little cliques using snark and insult to win daily arguments, thread after thread, is as unedifying as it is a ridiculous waste of time.
Quote from: John Lamb on May 23, 2020, 04:51:32 PM
Being a parent doesn't make you morally superior.
I am reasonably sure that nobody claimed that it did, (I know that I didn't) so I do not see why you are posting this.
A thread like this, where it pretty much turns into people taking sides based on whether or not they have children, is, in itself, evidence that the experience of parenthood makes a difference. The parents here understand what the other parents are talking about. The non-parents do not.
I'm sure that nobody is trying to be hurtful or insulting, but parents are not likely to value the opinions of non-parents on this subject. Don't take it personally.
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 04:32:53 PMYou do not understand how raw it makes your emotions or anything else about how it feels. The more you say, the more you prove that there is a huge gap between those with the experience and those without.
Angry victim mentality.
To see how this is the case, imagine asking a bishop why clerical sex abuse is being covered up, reminding him of his pastoral duties before Christ, and being told, "you don't know what it's like to be a bishop or priest. The more you say, the more you prove there's a huge gap between the experience of a cleric and a layman."
"I've suffered through seminary and the priesthood in order to become a bishop, so why should I have to answer the questions of a mere layman?"
"I've suffered through giving birth and raising a child, so why should I have to answer to someone who doesn't even have children?"
My own mother has this mentality. I can't mention to her any way that she might have failed or neglected me because her immediate response is to turn herself into the victim by saying, "oh, so I'm the worst mother in the world." But of course I do not believe and could not suggest any such thing, and she makes out as though I'm accusing her and being unfair to her, in order to avoid looking at herself. This is the way mothers hide from their guilt.
I have a lot of sympathy because I know mothers do put a lot of pressure on themselves and their failings as parents are a consequence of their own flawed upbringing, but it's this fierce defensiveness and victim mentality that mothers develop which very often prevents them from coming to terms with themselves, reconciling with their children, and providing them with what they hadn't provided before. A very visible example would be a single mother who keeps on getting in bad relationships, because if she got in a good one it would bring up all the guilt and shame she feels for not providing her children with a real father figure in the first place. She'd rather keep the family in a dysfunctional state than go through the pain of facing her guilt. And no wonder, it would make many mothers suicidal. But we have God to forgive us for our faults so we should not hide from them.
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 05:16:15 PM
I'm sure that nobody is trying to be hurtful or insulting, but parents are not likely to value the opinions of non-parents on this subject.
Parents who are ridden with guilt and have developed a victim mentality to hide themselves from it. People who are not emotionally hung up about something just weigh the advice or argument on its own merits; they don't attack the messenger.
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 05:16:15 PM
Quote from: John Lamb on May 23, 2020, 04:51:32 PM
Being a parent doesn't make you morally superior.
I'm sure that nobody is trying to be hurtful or insulting, but parents are not likely to value the opinions of non-parents on this subject. Don't take it personally.
Set aside intentions. Was Gardener being insulting to his parents in this thread as I pointed out? Yes or no.
How is JL "taking it personally"? You're implying he's a non-parent. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe you know him better than I do, or you are presuming who is or isn't a parent.
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 23, 2020, 02:02:20 PM
Maybe you are right. Maybe I am super mean. Anyone else care to chime in on this? The only thing that is puzzling me is why you think what I have said is mean. I mean, the thing you seem to take the most offense to (routinely) is me pointing out that you have no children...? What gives? This is not an insult. Having no children does not make you less of a woman, it does not make you less of a trad, it does not make you less of a Catholic. Why are you treating it like an insult? If you said I was not a plumber and knew nothing about toilets so I should be quiet when the men are discussing copper vs PVC, I would respect that. I am not a plumber, it is a simple fact. I am not a great many things, that is the nature of life; one can only do so much. I do not consider being married and/or having children "the" mark of godly womanhood. when I point out that you are not married or have no children I am not saying that you are "lesser." I am simply observing morally neutral facts and stating them. This can hardly be called mean, nasty, or anything else.
Wow, I have to hand it to you for having the gall to attempt this.
Trying to needle me with repeated references to my lack of family and then 'wondering' why I would be upset at you continually pointing this out when you're only 'stating facts.'
Unbelievable.
Here's what you said, &%(*&.
"You don't have a family and you hate the fact that the lifeblood of tradition is families, the future of tradition is families; not my problem."
"Giving your whole life to God and loving your children for His sake and according to His Will, is giving all your love to God. You have obviously created a cute little pedestal for yourself, but don't expect me to indulge your silly notions."
"You have proven over and over again how much you hate the fact that trad families are the reason we have priests, nuns, alter boys, etc."
"Most single people I know love big trad families, and many aspire to start their own. You are obviously not one of these people, but don't assume everyone takes such offense to basic facts as you do."
"you hate", "you hate", you say.
A fact, you say.
Go at get lost, *&^%$, and take your gaslightling dishonesty elsewhere.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:04:29 PM
Which is why I'm taking a break from the forum, after this thread (this is my last post). The little cliques using snark and insult to win daily arguments, thread after thread, is as unedifying as it is a ridiculous waste of time.
While I often find Gardener's posts articulate and insightful, it is absurd to claim that we form a clique. Certain people here tend to agree with certain others depending on the subject.
I am likely to agree with awkwardcustomer on the subject of health and nutrition. I am likely to agree with coffeeandcigarettes on the subject of historical costuming. I am likely to agree with Xavier about the Rosary. I think that everyone who has posted on this thread is someone whose posts I have thanked at some point.
If I had to name a clique on this forum, until recently I would have said that it was you, Heinrich and Gardener, since you keep making references to how you have met in person. And I suppose we could consider Greg and his brothers a clique, but I don't know if that is really fair to say about family. But I don't think that there is really much clique dynamic on this forum at all.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:23:38 PM
Set aside intentions. Was Gardener being insulting to his parents in this thread as I pointed out? Yes or no.
How is JL "taking it personally"? You're implying he's a non-parent. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. Maybe you know him better than I do, or you are presuming who is or isn't a parent.
There are guidelines about doing fraternal correction properly. One of them is doing it in private. If I thought that Gardener had written something wrong and it was my place to correct him, I would send him a PM, not post about it.
JL has revealed in a post that he single and childless and I remembered that.
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:04:29 PM
Which is why I'm taking a break from the forum, after this thread (this is my last post). The little cliques using snark and insult to win daily arguments, thread after thread, is as unedifying as it is a ridiculous waste of time.
While I often find Gardener's posts articulate and insightful, it is absurd to claim that we form a clique. Certain people here tend to agree with certain others depending on the subject.
I am likely to agree with awkwardcustomer on the subject of health and nutrition. I am likely to agree with coffeeandcigarettes on the subject of historical costuming. I am likely to agree with Xavier about the Rosary. I think that everyone who has posted on this thread is someone whose posts I have thanked at some point.
If I had to name a clique on this forum, until recently I would have said that it was you, Heinrich and Gardener, since you keep making references to how you have met in person. And I suppose we could consider Greg and his brothers a clique, but I don't know if that is really fair to say about family. But I don't think that there is really much clique dynamic on this forum at all.
You're being manipulative here as usual. 1. You dodged my questions because you know it's hypocritical of you to criticize me for criticizing another trad for bashing their parents online 2. You honed in on the word "clique" to distort my objections to the typical forum BS.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:04:29 PM
Which is why I'm taking a break from the forum, after this thread (this is my last post). The little cliques using snark and insult to win daily arguments, thread after thread, is as unedifying as it is a ridiculous waste of time.
While I often find Gardener's posts articulate and insightful, it is absurd to claim that we form a clique. Certain people here tend to agree with certain others depending on the subject.
I am likely to agree with awkwardcustomer on the subject of health and nutrition. I am likely to agree with coffeeandcigarettes on the subject of historical costuming. I am likely to agree with Xavier about the Rosary. I think that everyone who has posted on this thread is someone whose posts I have thanked at some point.
If I had to name a clique on this forum, until recently I would have said that it was you, Heinrich and Gardener, since you keep making references to how you have met in person. And I suppose we could consider Greg and his brothers a clique, but I don't know if that is really fair to say about family. But I don't think that there is really much clique dynamic on this forum at all.
You're being manipulative here as usual. 1. You dodged my questions because you know it's hypocritical of you to criticize me for criticizing another trad for bashing their parents online 2. You honed in on the word "clique" to distort my objections to the typical forum BS, and 3. You inserted "(this is my last post") back into the quote. I know this because I deleted it seconds after, and you've already made several other posts since I edited that out. When a poster re-edits their post, you don't have the right to change it back for others to read.
I did not insert anything into your quote. I started replying to your post before you edited it and posted it while unaware that you had done so. You are mistaken about the sequence of events.
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 05:57:09 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:50:28 PM
Quote from: Jayne on May 23, 2020, 05:35:14 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:04:29 PM
Which is why I'm taking a break from the forum, after this thread (this is my last post). The little cliques using snark and insult to win daily arguments, thread after thread, is as unedifying as it is a ridiculous waste of time.
While I often find Gardener's posts articulate and insightful, it is absurd to claim that we form a clique. Certain people here tend to agree with certain others depending on the subject.
I am likely to agree with awkwardcustomer on the subject of health and nutrition. I am likely to agree with coffeeandcigarettes on the subject of historical costuming. I am likely to agree with Xavier about the Rosary. I think that everyone who has posted on this thread is someone whose posts I have thanked at some point.
If I had to name a clique on this forum, until recently I would have said that it was you, Heinrich and Gardener, since you keep making references to how you have met in person. And I suppose we could consider Greg and his brothers a clique, but I don't know if that is really fair to say about family. But I don't think that there is really much clique dynamic on this forum at all.
You're being manipulative here as usual. 1. You dodged my questions because you know it's hypocritical of you to criticize me for criticizing another trad for bashing their parents online 2. You honed in on the word "clique" to distort my objections to the typical forum BS, and 3. You inserted "(this is my last post") back into the quote. I know this because I deleted it seconds after, and you've already made several other posts since I edited that out. When a poster re-edits their post, you don't have the right to change it back for others to read.
I did not insert anything into your quote. I started replying to your post before you edited it and posted it while unaware that you had done so. You are mistaken about the sequence of events.
Ok, I went ahead and changed that since I edited the original later than I at first said, so I can't prove you re-inserted it, even though it would be typical of you to do that. Still playing the part of forum Mother Hen, aren't we Jayne? The reason John is calling you out on acting superior, is because that is how you act. Not because you have any superior gifts of knowledge or logical argumentation or wisdom, but because you think having children makes you superior to trads who don't. Most trad parents in my experience don't have this narcissistic sense of superiority to others, but your comments only prove that some in fact do.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:04:29 PM
Which is why I'm taking a break from the forum, after this thread. The little cliques using snark and insult to win daily arguments, thread after thread, is as unedifying as it is a ridiculous waste of time.
You love to announce your departure, but you never actually leave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Quote from: John Lamb on May 23, 2020, 05:17:35 PM
My own mother has this mentality. I can't mention to her any way that she might have failed or neglected me because her immediate response is to turn herself into the victim by saying, "oh, so I'm the worst mother in the world." But of course I do not believe and could not suggest any such thing, and she makes out as though I'm accusing her and being unfair to her, in order to avoid looking at herself. This is the way mothers hide from their guilt.
Your mother sounds like my mother was.
You have my sympathies.
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 06:13:07 PM
Ok, I went ahead and changed that since I edited the original later than I at first said, so I can't prove you re-inserted it, even though it would be typical of you to do that.
No it would not be typical. I never do things like that. False quotes are seriously dishonest. I also would not lie about what I had posted.
Your comments are clearly driven by dislike of me rather than any sort of realistic assessment of my character.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 23, 2020, 06:42:17 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 05:04:29 PM
Which is why I'm taking a break from the forum, after this thread. The little cliques using snark and insult to win daily arguments, thread after thread, is as unedifying as it is a ridiculous waste of time.
You love to announce your departure, but you never actually leave.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you may have misread KK. I didn't announce I was departing the forum, but going to take a break from posting until probably Christmas to do other things. It was Heinrich who coaxed me to keep posting on this thread, likely knowing my weakness that it'd be hard to resist. But your point is taken. Not much more I can say in this thread.
By the way, when are you going to start moderating the forum? Weeks ago you said you had plans as you said back in December and several times before that. :shrug:
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 07:26:08 PM
By the way, when are you going to start moderating the forum? Weeks ago you said you had plans as you said back in December and several times before that. :shrug:
Walked into that one lol
Quote from: Graham on May 23, 2020, 08:11:31 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 07:26:08 PM
By the way, when are you going to start moderating the forum? Weeks ago you said you had plans as you said back in December and several times before that. :shrug:
Walked into that one lol
:lol:
That adults need moderating on a traditional catholic board says more about them than my laziness.
But yeah, I need to get on that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Just think how much internal peace and order you could restore to certain souls if you went to settings and clicked "delete forum." :P Might get Jayne out of the house! Gardener would stop goofing off at work responding to posts about predestination! Heinrich wouldn't have anyone to bully. James03 could put more time into marketing his book so he gets more reviews than mine. Christulsa would be less butt hurt by bunker trad nuttiness! Greg could make more $$$! From personal experience it can definitely be an addiction.
Gotta check to see how many "thank yous" one got since going to bed, if so-and-so is still arguing with so-and-so, if people agree with my analysis of the coronavirus, if my little clique is scoring points, yada yada. If there was a way to cut out all the inane argumentativeness, and keep it on the level of disseminating information in a spirit of fellowship, I wouldn't be stopping in for my annual stint like I do then going back into lurke mode.
But I don't expect there will ever be a trad forum that doesn't devolve into a digital religious Wild West (edit: except maybe Fish Eaters as of late which has become more hard line traditionalist but less "toxic trad" [Vox borrowed that term from me to make the list of toxic trad traits circa the good ol days of Impygate, if I remember I even clashed with a few here over that].
Chris, you are a major source of "trad nastiness" on this forum. If I were counting the number of nasty things you have said about me in this thread alone, I would have lost count by now. If there were a prize for making nasty comments about Jayne, you would be a top contender. (Note: I am not suggesting that we institute such a prize.) And I am far from being your only target.
If you are as concerned about nastiness as you claim to be, you should stop worrying about the nastiness of alleged "bunker trads" and work on the nastiness of christulsa.
And leave. Or don't leave. But stop telling us that we are all so horrible that you are going to leave. In the immortal words of Major-General Stanley (from Pirates of Penzanze), "But you don't go."
(I do not claim that the above is fraternal correction. It is me reaching the limit of personal attacks that I can ignore. I ran out of patience. Perhaps I can restock at Pentecost, since patience is one of the fruits of the Holy Ghost.)
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 10:19:41 PM
Just think how much internal peace and order you could restore to certain souls if you went to settings and clicked "delete forum." :P Might get Jayne out of the house! Gardener would stop goofing off at work responding to posts about predestination! Heinrich wouldn't have anyone to bully. James03 could put more time into marketing his book so he gets more reviews than mine. Christulsa would be less butt hurt by bunker trad nuttiness! Greg could make more $$$! From personal experience it can definitely be an addiction.
Gotta check to see how many "thank yous" one got since going to bed, if so-and-so is still arguing with so-and-so, if people agree with my analysis of the coronavirus, if my little clique is scoring points, yada yada. If there was a way to cut out all the inane argumentativeness, and keep it on the level of disseminating information in a spirit of fellowship, I wouldn't be stopping in for my annual stint like I do then going back into lurke mode.
But I don't expect there will ever be a trad forum that doesn't devolve into a digital religious Wild West (edit: except maybe Fish Eaters as of late which has become more hard line traditionalist but less "toxic trad" [Vox borrowed that term from me to make the list of toxic trad traits circa the good ol days of Impygate, if I remember I even clashed with a few here over that].
Do you have any friends in the real world?
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 10:19:41 PM
Just think how much internal peace and order you could restore to certain souls if you went to settings and clicked "delete forum."
You're the only major complainer of the existence of this forum. You come back and forth like a yo-yo. And you're one of the more abrasive posters on this Forum.
Don't blame me for your personal or spiritual life and don't blame me for your lack of internal peace and order.
Quote from: Heinrich on May 24, 2020, 10:50:56 AM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 10:19:41 PM
Just think how much internal peace and order you could restore to certain souls if you went to settings and clicked "delete forum." :P Might get Jayne out of the house! Gardener would stop goofing off at work responding to posts about predestination! Heinrich wouldn't have anyone to bully. James03 could put more time into marketing his book so he gets more reviews than mine. Christulsa would be less butt hurt by bunker trad nuttiness! Greg could make more $$$! From personal experience it can definitely be an addiction.
Gotta check to see how many "thank yous" one got since going to bed, if so-and-so is still arguing with so-and-so, if people agree with my analysis of the coronavirus, if my little clique is scoring points, yada yada. If there was a way to cut out all the inane argumentativeness, and keep it on the level of disseminating information in a spirit of fellowship, I wouldn't be stopping in for my annual stint like I do then going back into lurke mode.
But I don't expect there will ever be a trad forum that doesn't devolve into a digital religious Wild West (edit: except maybe Fish Eaters as of late which has become more hard line traditionalist but less "toxic trad" [Vox borrowed that term from me to make the list of toxic trad traits circa the good ol days of Impygate, if I remember I even clashed with a few here over that].
Do you have any friends in the real world?
Yep. And they're not trad assholes like yourself who thrive on bullying strangers online, Hun.
Quote from: Kaesekopf on May 24, 2020, 12:31:13 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 10:19:41 PM
Just think how much internal peace and order you could restore to certain souls if you went to settings and clicked "delete forum."
You're the only major complainer of the existence of this forum. You come back and forth like a yo-yo. And you're one of the more abrasive posters on this Forum.
Don't blame me for your personal or spiritual life and don't blame me for your lack of internal peace and order.
Nice try. I'm actually not the only one. There are plenty who complain then leave and then cone back. Jayne and Greg are prime examples.
The only ones who think I have habit here of being abrasive are the little minority of assholes I've stood up to. Like yourself. Or those who might take their side when they start a shit fight over some issue.
I'll say it again. Forums tend to get dominated by a small minority of regulars who are weakened individuals in real life, like we all are, who develop online personas as being type A assholes to compensate for their real live selfs. They hide behind usernames dishing out snark and meanness as if they think that is Catholicism. It's a special case of religious narcissism.
Whereas the rest—the majority—are supposed to remain silent otherwise we get singled out like I was earlier in this thread. It's as mentally sick as it is adolescent. You're obviously ok with that, fine, it's your website.
Quote from: christulsa on May 24, 2020, 01:50:07 PM
Nice try. I'm actually not the only one. There are plenty who complain then leave and then cone back. Jayne and Greg are prime examples.
Greg does not complain and whine and make a production out of leaving like you do. He has taken breaks and come back. So have I.
Neither of us has ever accompanied leaving for a break with a "you're all so horrible and I'm a victim" series of posts. You are the only one.
Who insults the forum owner, on his own forum? That's beyond abrasive.
Quote from: christulsa on May 24, 2020, 01:42:02 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on May 24, 2020, 10:50:56 AM
Quote from: christulsa on May 23, 2020, 10:19:41 PM
Just think how much internal peace and order you could restore to certain souls if you went to settings and clicked "delete forum." :P Might get Jayne out of the house! Gardener would stop goofing off at work responding to posts about predestination! Heinrich wouldn't have anyone to bully. James03 could put more time into marketing his book so he gets more reviews than mine. Christulsa would be less butt hurt by bunker trad nuttiness! Greg could make more $$$! From personal experience it can definitely be an addiction.
Gotta check to see how many "thank yous" one got since going to bed, if so-and-so is still arguing with so-and-so, if people agree with my analysis of the coronavirus, if my little clique is scoring points, yada yada. If there was a way to cut out all the inane argumentativeness, and keep it on the level of disseminating information in a spirit of fellowship, I wouldn't be stopping in for my annual stint like I do then going back into lurke mode.
But I don't expect there will ever be a trad forum that doesn't devolve into a digital religious Wild West (edit: except maybe Fish Eaters as of late which has become more hard line traditionalist but less "toxic trad" [Vox borrowed that term from me to make the list of toxic trad traits circa the good ol days of Impygate, if I remember I even clashed with a few here over that].
Do you have any friends in the real world?
Yep. And they're not trad assholes like yourself who thrive on bullying strangers online, Hun.
(https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fo.aolcdn.com%2Fhss%2Fstorage%2Fmidas%2Fe2167ef0d5d584afd14795a0aff8638d%2F200065187%2Fu0Zbv1q.png&f=1&nofb=1)
Quote from: coffeeandcigarette on May 20, 2020, 11:19:42 PM
Quote from: christulsa on May 18, 2020, 06:47:42 PM
we are required by the divine and natural law to always show filial love and respect to our mother and father, and ensure the rights of both the grandparents and children to a family community life between them as part of their moral and spiritual education. The danger of going to the extreme that Graham is counseling about (btw he was responding to the OP not Gardener) is that it would ironically communicate to the children actual doctrinal/moral errors about: the moral obligation towards grandparents, respect for authority (4th commandment), preservation not just of the Christian life of the domestic family but that of the extended family, including the strict obligation to maintain emotional if not material support for our parents in their old age, as much as we are able.
You are very confused about what the 4th commandment actually means.
Also, since you have no kids, you have zero valid opinions on grandparent relationships or bunker trads. Being a Catholic as a childless adult is a completely and utterly different thing than being a Catholic with children. There is no comparison. You are responsible for your soul, that is it, no more. Parents are responsible for the immortal souls of all their children, and it shapes everything we do, every decision we make; it has to. Almost every outward sign of "trad life" has to do with children. If you aren't fighting that fight then get comfy on the sidelines until you have something well-informed to add to the conversation.
Living out the 4th commandment is what Jesus said, obey your parents in all things except sin.
When it comes down to loyalty, one day we will have to choose between livevif God and love of a family member. The gospels say that Jesus said His coming will divide families against each other. That's what has happened here. The choice is pretty clear. Who gives a d@#% about what it looks like to the outside world, to choose Christ over family? Loving them means praying and fasting for their conversion to the faith. Until that happens, there's no merit in spending idle time with them, stroking their egos, deferring to their heretical beliefs.
and just like that a bit of fresh logical air blows through the window...
Instead of a new question, are we permitted to enter the homes of those family who are not married and have children?
Quote from: Heinrich on June 05, 2020, 07:41:47 AM
Instead of a new question, are we permitted to enter the homes of those family who are not married and have children?
We are not supposed to enter their homes and also not invite them over as a couple to our homes; mostly because it would be giving a public scandal, because by our actions we show that we are approving of their public sin.
I would say that because of the almost universal breakdown in public morality as regards the sanctity of Holy Matrimony, it is probably not giving scandal anymore, as the great majority of people see this behavior as totally normal and acceptable.
To illustrate how much the situation has deteriorated, one of my great aunts was only married for a short time when she and her husband separated; even though this woman came from a wealthy socialite family, and had numerous friends and was very popular; she was never invited to any of her friends or family's houses during social events which involved married couples. It was just understood that this was forbidden.
Quote from: Michael Wilson on June 05, 2020, 09:10:43 AM
I would say that because of the almost universal breakdown in public morality as regards the sanctity of Holy Matrimony, it is probably not giving scandal anymore, as the great majority of people see this behavior as totally normal and acceptable.
It may not scandalize someone who is jaded, and sees the ugliness and sin in the world all around them; it will scandalize your children though. They are innocent, their home is supposed to be an oasis of tradition and obedience to God. You are supposed to protect them until they have to confront society for what it is. This is the material point.