Traditional Catholics and secular culture

[james03]

If the sterile way Anglo saxons do weddings it the ideal way according to God then the Catholics of most nations are all damned.  Try finding a Catholic wedding in Sicily or The Philippines or Africa where they don't dance and drink like fish.

At the Wedding of Canna the Lord provided wine to drunk wedding goers.  The chief stewart comments that normally you get the wedding drunk on good wine, then bring out the lesser quality, while the wedding goers were drunk on the poorer wine when the Lord provided the quality wine.

It appears that the neo-Jansenists provide no alternative.  What activities do they provide so that teenage boys can learn how to deal with young ladies?  All such encounters by definition have a sexual element involved.  The sane way is to teach the young adults how to deal with it.  The insane way is to lock up the kids, then send them out at 18 with no experience.

Here's the deal.  Teenagers naturally want to socialize.  A healthy parish provides social activities for teenagers so they can have FUN.  Then these teenagers go out in the world and see all of the perversion, and they notice that the people are not happy, and they recall their happy youth and close social bonds in the community.  So they reject the perverse society and decide they want to continue being Trad.

Also, did someone criticize ballet?  That's about one of the few hobbies that is good for young girls.  I'm talking about classical ballet.

[Chestertonian]

Why on earth would you want to live underground Ches?

In your wheelchair the ideal place would be Teletubbieland or somewhere with no steps.

I'll have to dig up the picture of my dream house in Tradlandia

[james03]

An idealized Trad community:

1.  Weekly gatherings with cookouts.  Alcohol available.

2.  A parish Teen center that is chaperoned.  Wholesome movies, popcorn, pool table, etc...

3.  Swing dancing with an instrumental band (no lyrics).  Parents and teens go together, so it is a mixed crowd.

4.  Classical ballet taught by a Trad lady. 

5.  Sports for the boys including baseball and football.

6.  Hunting/Fishing clubs for men.

7.  Mothers-Day-Out clubs.

I've seen elements of this.  The result is that the kids stay Trad, get married, and have kids.

[Mono no aware]

Since the passages talking about cutting off your hand or plucking out your eye were never taken literally.

They wouldn't be would they.  The literalists and rigorists are all for scripture, until it involves hacking off a limb.  Then it's conveniently symbolic.

Practically speaking however, self-abuse would be terribly difficult without hands.  And porn addiction much harder to make habitual when you are blinded.  Were you to take it literally it might very well solve the problem.  But instead we worry about the dangers of middle aged women wearing pants.

I would imagine the Church considered the problem that "practically speaking" a lot of other tasks would be compromised by being handless and blind as well.  Perhaps they took your view that "results matter" in some sense, as a religion would die out very quickly if nearly every male involved in it was hacking off his hands and gouging out his eyes.  It would die out faster than the Shakers, who committed their members to celibacy and who only accepted the making of converts as a way of spreading their faith.

But scriptural literalism is not necessarily the same thing as rigorism.  The Early Church Fathers took many passages figuratively; one pretty much has to in a religion whose founder taught in parables.  And yet those Fathers were rigorist.  So your beef is with practice, not doctrine.  And if your criteria is that "results matter," then your work is cut out for you.  One of the most "phucked up" religions in the world, as you see it, is nevertheless the second most populous religion in the world.  If traditional Catholicism is your product, then you're only successfully selling to less than one percent of the world's population (and some of the incoming class are rigorists themselves, persuaded by something other than your own claim that traditional Catholicism is a recipe for making one's life excellent: "dancing, drinking hard, and sinning").  The Early Church Fathers, on the other hand, evangelized a continent.

[Chestertonian]

this is my dream house https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=18636.90

[Jayne]

ecovillage?  Is the house partially underground like my Kansas dream home

are there geodesic dome dwellers and yurts and a barter economy?

Our first design had partially underground houses but we ended up with something else.

None of those things you ask about, but passive solar design, in floor heating, a heat pump, and consensus decision-making.  My daughter lives in a yurt somewhere else though.

[Greg]

For a long time the Church sent Catholic missionaries to very dangerous lands where they were martyred.

Have any Traditionalist rigorists decided to escape the materialism of the western world and immitate their hardline Catholic heros by going and preaching in various Islamic countries, North Korea or North Sentinel Island?

Why not?  Why has this opportunity to live out one of the core messages of the Gospels not been a nettle you are willing to grasp?  These nations need teaching.  Their people are not mindless materialists.  Nor have they rationalised God away.  Surely some of the rigorist Trad singletons with no children to worry about, who like to cherry pick certain behaviors of early Churchmen and tough minded saints would relish the idea of converting the heathens and perhaps getting martyred in the process?

Why no resistance Martyrs trying to save souls in PNG or Pyongyang? Rather than resisting Bishop Fellay why not go and resist Kim Jong Un?

Can Bishop Williamson retired in his million dollar house in Broadstairs be compared to a Jesuit being skinned alive and eaten by cannibals? 

Talk is cheap.  If you really want to be taken seriously go and put your balls on the chopping block.

[Greg]

One of the most "phucked up" religions in the world, as you see it, is nevertheless the second most populous religion in the world.

In name only.

In reality, between what I believe, what the Pope believes and what some nig-nog in Uganda believes, there is such a gulf that we might as well have three different religions.  The only common factor is the word Catholic, but it is rather meaningless.

And Africa and the developing world is where the practicing Catholics are and are growing.  In Europe the Catholic Church is dead.

The majority of western "Catholics" are pro-abortion and pro-homo marriage.  So I don't see how they are associated with my beliefs.

[Jayne]

By the time you get to Regency England, the plot has been hopelessly lost.  I should think it was obviously lost by the time you get to the ostentatiousness of the 18th century, with its powdered wigs and frilly garments and gilded everything—the age of Barry Lyndon.  The case was compellingly made by Savonarola that the plot was already lost by the Renaissance, with its languorous nudes and nods to lush paganism.  I'm going to have to beg your pardon here, Jayne, but you seem to be making the Scipio fallacy: that what is modest is relative to the time.

Scipio was wrong because he carried it to absurd extremes, claiming that bikinis are modest.
It is not fallacious to say that cultural norms are a factor in determining what is modest. 

As for England, I am pretty certain that there were black-clad Noncomformist sects who took the passage about finery and adornments seriously, and who did not acquiesce to the mainstream sentiment that "oh, lighten up, a string of pearls is a simple and modest ornament for a young lady."  The Anglicans, then, would have to answer for why sacred scripture had disdain for women wearing pearls.  If their answer (which appears to be yours, also) is that St. Paul was using an example common to his time, and that what he really meant was "extravagance," then that just raises the painful question of why the Holy Spirit didn't just inspire him to use the word "extravagance" in the first place, and not create all this confusion over whether it was first-century customs being condemned, or all wearing of pearls, or what.  You really have two options here: either pearls are discouraged, or the passage is a clever test as to who can suss out the correct "exegetical principles" (a test the Church Fathers, apparently, failed).

Aren't you the one who is saying that the verse should not be taken as literally about pearls but about ostentatiousness and therefore why women should not wear makeup?  Scripture is a book in need of interpretation. That is unavoidable. That is why we have a magisterium rather than accept sola scriptura.

Human nature hasn't changed that much over the past two thousand years: women still want to style their hair, adorn themselves with jewelry, and wear make-up.  That is a universal common to nearly every human culture on earth.  Everything the Early Church Fathers wrote on these subjects is just as relevant today as it was back then.  They weren't tilting against make-up and jewelry because they didn't like the looks of the make-up and jewelry of their time; they were tilting against these things because they considered them vain, worldly, ephemeral, and pointless.  It's no difference whatsoever to consider them in the same manner today; it's just more difficult for a modern Catholic because you're not just going against the secular world, but you're going against a Church that has been permitting this stuff for many centuries.  It's like the geocentrists: they have to say that the Church got it right the first time, and then they have to concede that the Church has been making a mistake of attrition for three hundred years.  It's like I said in my first response: there's no going back from this.

Other wise and holy men have taught more nuanced views than the one you are setting as the Gold Standard.  And they gave good reasons for the positions they took.

Once the Church permitted make-up, it was all over, and now it's an authentically Catholic attitude to say, "do we really want a Church were women don't wear make-up?  Does anyone want to see that?"  As if the Alexandrian Christian women of St. Clement's day were somehow hideous in their simplicity.  Hence my inability to see Early Christianity as anything other than a dead religion.

I do not think it's an authentically Catholic attitude to say "do we really want a Church where women do not wear make-up?  Does anyone want to see that?" I think it is irrelevant to the question of whether make-up is good or bad.

[bigbadtrad]

Before responding could you answer one more query is the nudity you despise full nudity only or is it just the showing of a substantial portion of the flesh?  If you could perhaps provide an image of what in your view would be acceptable it would be helpful to me.

Only full nudity, and on a woman showing their breasts to the public. I have no issues with pictures of Our Lord hanging from the cross with a loin cloth, or saints stripped down. Honestly brother I'm not crusading because at this stage of my life we aren't going to convince each other for one reason: I've asked for fathers, saints and doctors who agree with you and no amount of subterfuge or anecdotal arguments will win the day. If you think I haven't tried looking I've tried for years. The more I look the more I'm confirmed in my position not yours.

I also can't imagine a good person like you taking Our Lady by the hand in her earthy life to show her an artists rendition of herself nude, let alone walking her to an artists to pose nude for them; nor would any good man do that with their mother either. So beyond that all there really is subterfuge of arguments escaping the obvious and a whole lot of hypocrisy if we allow the faceless stranger to be the Blessed Mother nude. I have a sneaking suspicion too she wouldn't enjoy someone painting her nude either but I could be wrong since she might have an apparition in the Congo fully nude, but again I highly doubt it considering how she wanted to appear other times in apparitions.

[bigbadtrad]

That's why I look at results.  What works, on average, and what does not work.  If the rigorists who tell their children they are only one mortal sin away from Hell are producing solid, mentally stable offspring 30-40 years later then imitate that. 

Actually Greg after living in many places I can assure you the best kids are the ones told 1 mortal sin will send you to Hell, but they are also told how much Our Lord loves them and has compassion on sinners.

But again the main emphasis is love and enjoying each other's company and having a father who is good at guiding the family to family time where everyone loves to spend time with each other. I play Calico critters with my daughters dressing up rabbits and elephants and legos and checkers with my son, not to mention tickling them daily with stories of my youth fishing and getting bit by various animals which always makes them laugh.

I don't think they ponder the mortal sin, but just like my love of my father I knew that offending him was worse than anything in the world because he cared about me. That's how children best see God is through us.

Once you accept that the main ship has sunk and you are in the lifeboat boat rowing your own family towards the horizon then the best thing to do is ignore everyone else's mindless ramblings and row the way you want to row at the speed you want to row.  Ignore the priests and pundits and Cassandras.  They haven't got a  clue.  Behind closed doors their lives are probably more (screwed) up than yours.

I agree with this.

So just keep rowing, be friendly to the people and priests calmly rowing in your direction and keep your chin up.  Best case you make it to safety.  Financially support the handful of priests you see eye to eye with.  My goal is simply to help my children make good marriage choices and then let them row in whatever direction their see fit.

I agree with this also but I think, and maybe you won't agree but I have suspicion you do otherwise you wouldn't post here so frequently, is that we would still want to be a lighthouse for their marriage and give our sons and daughters in law good advise we would give our children and truly treat them as sons and daughters so they know they can rely on us while not directly interfering in their marriage, but only give advice we think could be helpful about the pitfalls of dealing with the public (mainly lying and being deceived wink wink).

The thing that will MOST influence your children and their moral choices is whether they like you.  My Dad has the advantage that I actually like and admire him.  So 90% of what he does I copy.  If I thought my Father was a miserable Jansenistic tosser, with no sense of humor or fun, I'd just ignore the old fart.

I agree with this too.

[Mono no aware]

One of the most "phucked up" religions in the world, as you see it, is nevertheless the second most populous religion in the world.

In name only.

In reality, between what I believe, what the Pope believes and what some nig-nog in Uganda believes, there is such a gulf that we might as well have three different religions.  The only common factor is the word Catholic, but it is rather meaningless.

And Africa and the developing world is where the practicing Catholics are and are growing.  In Europe the Catholic Church is dead.

The majority of western "Catholics" are pro-abortion and pro-homo marriage.  So I don't see how they are associated with my beliefs.

My apologies, Greg; I was referring to Islam.  I wasn't sufficiently clear on that.  But the Novus Ordo Church, which is as much your religion as Islam is, serves just as well.  My point was only that if "results matter," then in terms of the numbers, there are two extremely perverse religions battling for the title of who has the most adherents.  It seems to be the case that crazy "phucked up" religions can entrance a whole lot of people.  I was only thinking that from your capitalist and salesmanship point of view, traditional Catholicism is less than impressive.  If your version of it is a recipe for well-rounded manhood, financial success, and domestic happiness, I would think that traditional Catholicism would've won over eighty percent of the "bearded hipster manosphere" by now.  Those guys spend a lot of time in front of the mirror, but I guess that wouldn't be a problem if you reject the Early Church Fathers on vanity.

I did, however, enjoy the challenge you issued to the rigorist singletons, to have them go try and convert ISIS or North Koreans or the natives of North Sentinel Island.  A singleton traditional Catholic attempting to evangelize the Sentinelese—that's funny.  It reminds me of that classic Borges story, Brodie's Report.  I hope someone takes up the gauntlet in earnest.

[nmoerbeek]

Before responding could you answer one more query is the nudity you despise full nudity only or is it just the showing of a substantial portion of the flesh?  If you could perhaps provide an image of what in your view would be acceptable it would be helpful to me.

Only full nudity, and on a woman showing their breasts to the public. I have no issues with pictures of Our Lord hanging from the cross with a loin cloth, or saints stripped down. Honestly brother I'm not crusading because at this stage of my life we aren't going to convince each other for one reason: I've asked for fathers, saints and doctors who agree with you and no amount of subterfuge or anecdotal arguments will win the day. If you think I haven't tried looking I've tried for years. The more I look the more I'm confirmed in my position not yours.

I also can't imagine a good person like you taking Our Lady by the hand in her earthy life to show her an artists rendition of herself nude, let alone walking her to an artists to pose nude for them; nor would any good man do that with their mother either. So beyond that all there really is subterfuge of arguments escaping the obvious and a whole lot of hypocrisy if we allow the faceless stranger to be the Blessed Mother nude. I have a sneaking suspicion too she wouldn't enjoy someone painting her nude either but I could be wrong since she might have an apparition in the Congo fully nude, but again I highly doubt it considering how she wanted to appear other times in apparitions.

I am not trying to engage in subterfuge and we have gone off on a specific issue rather than my overall point which was the need to not dismiss things like historical context.

Your response is helpful and at the same time confusing.  When we were having this discussion a nude to me means an image that is showing most of the flesh.  To my knowledge Fathers, Doctors and Saints really did not do much on this topic at all, I only know of St. Charles Borremo, and I have seen that people say St. Alphonsus was against it, but I have never seen the actual source from him. And having read some of St. Alphonsus moral theology I know that he examines arguments and normal lists the people who oppose his arguments.   I agree that there is a wrong way to do nudity even in sacred art work, and The moralists I read like Slater, Kelly, and I only recll that Jone discusses it at length and he is decidedly in the pro nude art category.  St. Alphonsus himself belileved in Æquiprobabilism and would have not taken just one Saint or one opinion when every other opinion was different and held it out to be the truth. I am open to reconsidering my nuanced view of don't look at things that move you to lust in art, to never look at a piece of nude art like your soul depends on it if I can see some material for myself that speaks to that.

In addition I am not in favor of nude modeling which where the first part of your question about Our Lady and My Mother.  Perhaps you do not see a distinction between the two, that is representing something in paint and in drawing, versus relying on a model to do it.

I have never actually seen an image of Our Lady nude even in Rome, I am sorry if I have given that impression.  However, I still feel reluctant to believe based only on what other people have said and not read for my self that Christians forfeit their salvation if they look at an image of St. Agatha's martyrdom, or at nude bodies falling into hell and being tortured.     I am open to changing my mind on this topic and conforming to your opinion, if you could give me your sources that deal with this topic I would be grateful.

[Mono no aware]

Scipio was wrong because he carried it to absurd extremes, claiming that bikinis are modest.
It is not fallacious to say that cultural norms are a factor in determining what is modest.

Scipio took your position to its logical conclusion.  If wearing pearls was modest in Regency England, then wearing a bikini would be modest in a society that didn't consider bikinis immodest.  You seem to be saying that the world sets the standards; the Early Christians were saying that the worldly standards would never be their own.  There's a difference there.

Aren't you the one who is saying that the verse should not be taken as literally about pearls but about ostentatiousness and therefore why women should not wear makeup?  Scripture is a book in need of interpretation. That is unavoidable. That is why we have a magisterium rather than accept sola scriptura.

But if Scipio became the pope, you would "recognize and resist" him when he wrote his encyclical on modesty, Bikinia est.  The magisterium, in the traditional Catholic view, is bound by tradition.  If the Early Church Fathers don't count for anything, then tradition is mutable, and everything is relative.  What I am saying is that the Early Church Fathers took that passage and followed its spirit: not only did they recognize that it pertained to pearls, and pleated hair, and garish costumes, but that beyond the specifics it called across the board for an honest simplicity.  How hard is it to not style your hair?  How hard is to not wear make-up or jewelry?  Pretty hard, I guess, because eventually these disciplines were ignored.  The tradition became forgotten.  But the passage itself is not difficult.  The Mennonites figured it out just fine.

[Greg]

The results of Islam are absolutely shit.

Lots of homosexuality.  Oppressed women.  Rape.  Profound ignorance and plenty of inbreeding and retardation in societies ruled by fear and threats.  They invent nothing and produce nothing, other than oil, pure luck they happen to be sitting on it, which western engineers have to extract and refine.

Islam would shrink dramatically if the penalty for apostasy was not to be murdered.

Muslims can't even agree what they agree on with each other.  That's why they keep blowing each other up.  They have murdered far more of each other than western militaries have killed them over the past 20 years.