Would it be wrong to be around them?

Started by TandJ, April 29, 2020, 07:00:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Stu Cool

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.

Gardener

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.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

christulsa

#62
Define "us."

Gardener

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.
"If anyone does not wish to have Mary Immaculate for his Mother, he will not have Christ for his Brother." - St. Maximilian Kolbe

Michael Wilson

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).
"The World Must Conform to Our Lord and not He to it." Rev. Dennis Fahey CSSP

"My brothers, all of you, if you are condemned to see the triumph of evil, never applaud it. Never say to evil: you are good; to decadence: you are progess; to death: you are life. Sanctify yourselves in the times wherein God has placed you; bewail the evils and the disorders which God tolerates; oppose them with the energy of your works and your efforts, your life uncontaminated by error, free from being led astray, in such a way that having lived here below, united with the Spirit of the Lord, you will be admitted to be made but one with Him forever and ever: But he who is joined to the Lord is one in spirit." Cardinal Pie of Potiers

Jayne

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".
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

christulsa

#66
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.

christulsa

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.   

Xavier

#68
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.
Bible verses on walking blamelessly with God, after being forgiven from our former sins. Some verses here: https://dailyverses.net/blameless

"[2] He that walketh without blemish, and worketh justice:[3] He that speaketh truth in his heart, who hath not used deceit in his tongue: Nor hath done evil to his neighbour: nor taken up a reproach against his neighbours.(Psalm 14)

"[2] For in many things we all offend. If any man offend not in word, the same is a perfect man."(James 3)

"[14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world." (Phil 2:14-15)

Heinrich

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. 
Schaff Recht mir Gott und führe meine Sache gegen ein unheiliges Volk . . .   .                          
Lex Orandi, lex credendi, lex vivendi.
"Die Welt sucht nach Ehre, Ansehen, Reichtum, Vergnügen; die Heiligen aber suchen Demütigung, Verachtung, Armut, Abtötung und Buße." --Ausschnitt von der Geschichte des Lebens St. Bennos.

coffeeandcigarette

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.

christulsa

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.

Jayne

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.
Jesus, meek and humble of heart, make my heart like unto Thine.

coffeeandcigarette

#73
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.

coffeeandcigarette

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.