"Asked what the Church needs most at the moment, Pope Francis focuses on the importance of healing wounds, warming hearts and sharing the dark nights of pain that people suffer. The first reform we need, he says, is that of attitudes, to learn how to become ministers of mercy."
Pope Francis gives interview to Jesuit magazines
St. Peter's Basilica
(Taken by Deb)
Pope Francis has been in the news quite a bit this week, primarily because he opposes a hyper-focus on homosexuality, abortion, and birth control. Vatican Radio reported that
"the Pope shares personal insights and difficult moments from his past, including a fear of being seen as ‘ultraconservative’ on account of his ‘authoritarian way’ of making quick decisions."
Although the Pope has not compromised his positions regarding these three issues (in our estimation), he has expressed a desire to "find a new balance between pastoral attention to the individual and the transmission of the moral teachings of the Church."
As our readers know, we have been calling attention to those in the Protestant faith who appear to stress theology over Christian love. The Pope seems to be expressing a similar concern about those who belong to the Catholic church by encouraging them to re-focus on the things that are important and walk alongside those who are facing challenges. We are left wondering why he chose to speak out at this juncture.
Yesterday one of our commenters brought to our attention a website aimed at Catholics called Fix the Family. We spent some time perusing it and found some very familiar concepts. Do any of these sound familiar?
Resurrecting Manhood
Feminized Marriage
Feminist Lies
"The husband is the head of his wife, and she must be submissive to his authority as provided by Scripture and Church Tradition." (link)
"The family is strengthened under the headship of the father. He is to be revered and respected by ALL in the home, his wife and children." (link)
Raylan Alleman and William Gil started Fix the Family a few years ago. Both are married and living in South Louisiana. Between them they have 16 children all of whom are/were homeschooled. (link)
Here is a brief history:
Citadel Catholic Media was started by 2 Catholic family men, William Gil and Raylan Alleman, in July 2010. It was the idea of Mr. Gil that they could bring to the world via the internet the tried and true principles of family life grounded in Catholic teaching that had been so effective for both of their families. Citadel was begun with a channel on You Tube with their foundational series The Family Matters where they introduce these principles. Each video series thereafter will build upon this foundation. In 2012, in order to have an identity that better describes our mission, we launched our flagship program Fix the Family and the associated website being operated under the Citadel label.
To read further about this organization, check out What is Fix the Family? Under this heading they explain:
Our marriages and families have been solid, united, and faithful to the Church, but we noticed that many other families around us are not. We recognized that there is a serious problem in that the Catholic moral teaching on marriage and family, as rock-solid and beautiful as it is, has not reached the faithful. When we began looking for material to share with those around us, we found that it was either too academic and complicated or non-existent. In short, there is almost no common man’s material on the true teachings of the Catholic Church on marriage and family.
As the mother of two daughters – a college grad and a college senior – I found a recent blog post over at Fix the Family to be disturbing. It is entitled: 6 Reasons to NOT Send Your Daughter to College. This September 8th post begins as follows:
Probably the most controversial and rejected position we have at Fix the Family is that parents should not send their daughters to college. It is even more vehemently opposed than the submission of wives to their husbands. Both of these positions we have are a threat to the trophies of the feminist agenda…
So what are the reasons NOT to send your daughter to college according to these true believers?
1. She will attract the wrong types of men.
2. She will be in a near occasion of sin.
3. She will not learn to be a wife and mother.
4. The cost of a degree is becoming more difficult to recoup.
5. You don't have to prove anything to the world.
6. It could be a near occasion of sin for the parents.
7. She will regret it.
8. It could interfere with a religious vocation.
So far there are nearly 5,000 comments under this post, with the first comment being:
So, please, what is an 18yo girl to do then? Bag groceries till a prince charming comes along to give a few kids?
The other comments are definitely worth reading.
The purpose of this post is to bring to your attention the Fix the Family website. It is our hope and prayer that Catholics will be discerning about these men and their agenda. We would love to compare notes with them when all of their kids are all grown (as ours are).
Here at TWW we have called attention to 'true believers' of the gender gospel in various corners of Christendom. Now it appears some Catholics are embracing it. Where will it end?
We leave you with a clip that will shed more light on the focus of Fixing the Family.
Lydia's Corner: Nehemiah 9:22-10:39 1 Corinthians 9:19-10:13 Psalm 34:1-10 Proverbs 21:13
Did they read Doug Wilson or something?
But the penalty for the woman as a result of the fall was pain in childbirth (which requires having babies), not to work.
Oh my!! So, in order to “fulfill” Eve’s penalty, all women must have babies! But those men don’t apparently feel a necessity to “fulfill” Adam’s penalty by enduring pain by toiling to produce sweat, growing thorns & thistles, and eating plants only.
Ugh!
Some forms of clap trap seem to invade religious communities everywhere. Patriarchalism – man set up as a mini-god in his community to rule over a woman and her off-spring. Where is the freedom that Christ died to give to all of humanity?
Just more rules and more rule issued and advocated by men who abuse the spirit of the Christ, which is grace and humility.
“But the penalty for the woman as a result of the fall was pain in childbirth (which requires having babies), not to work.”
Victorious – and the worst is that none of them actually want to rescue women from working! Have you ever heard of one that say a woman should not clean up, prepare food, etc. ? None. Never. They only want to “rescue” women from getting a salary. None of them say that only men should do activities that count as work.
This is so crazy that again, I have no rational response. So, I’d just like to mention that elsewhere, someone pointed out that there’s a potential merger in the future:
Focus on Fixing the Family
š
Retha Faurie wrote:
LOL! Excellent, Retha! (maybe on Mother’s Day…one can only hope)
Victorious wrote:
Many Evangelicals teach a variation of this from 1 Tim. (She is saved in doing her gender role which is childbearing)
It is sicko, insidious and mocks the sacrifice of our Savior.
(I almost said “free gift” but then remembered the other thread. :o)
@ Victorious:
Oh dear, does this mean no epidural, either?
Contrary to what the liberal media wants to portray about Pope Francis, his predecessor, Pope Benedict, said very much the same thing:
“We should not allow our faith to be drained by too many discussions of multiple, minor details, but rather, should always keep our eyes in the first place on the greatness of Christianity.
I remember, when I used go to Germany in the 1980s and ’90s, that I was asked to give interviews and I always knew the questions in advance. They concerned the ordination of women, contraception, abortion and other such constantly recurring problems.
If we let ourselves be drawn into these discussions, the Church is then identified with certain commandments or prohibitions; we give the impression that we are moralists with a few somewhat antiquated convictions, and not even a hint of the true greatness of the faith appears. I therefore consider it essential always to highlight the greatness of our faith – a commitment from which we must not allow such situations to divert us.”
–Benedict XVI, Address to Swiss Bishops 2006
(source: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061109_concl-swiss-bishops_en.html )
Anon 1 wrote:
Umm… can’t fulfill the penalty that way.
Josh wrote:
š
Deb
Thank you for posting this. It is interesting to note how the view point on women, supposedly based on Scripture, can lead some to the same conclusions. I have a feeling that the new Pontiff would not be pleased with this group.
I personally appreciated what the Pope had to say, and it was rather refreshing for me.
I’m afraid this man wouldn’t even agree with the Pope’s viewpoint on women, because like many like him – he is too busy ‘fearing’ the world, and everything around it. Its a sad state of affairs.
The Pope seems to be saying things like meet the person where they are, and you don’t need to be wagging your finger at them. Love them as Jesus would, and show them mercy, compassion, and humility. How we must allow people to be transformed and healed by the Love of God, and when you bombard them with the list of ‘rules’ instead? You are in pretty much killing the message God has asked you to spread.
Jesus sees and loves the person that God created. He approaches them with that attitude as well, and this is out of being genuine…and they will feel it. That relationship will transform that person WAY better than all these nuts out there that state adhere to these rules to show US you get it.
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/20/breaking-pope-opposes-abortion/
There is a good portion of what was said – well one section anyway.
This man is getting high off thinking he is close to being ‘divine’, and can’t even consider he isn’t even close.
dee wrote:
Oh my gosh, I just realized that came from our favorite Cranium-free One Horned Masculine Being on the previous post. I have a horrible memory… I’m embarrassed. š®
1. Why am I not surprised that these guys are homeschool dads from the Deep South?
2. Only the point about the cost of a degree has even a shred of validity. But even then it doesn’t add up to girls never going to college, esp. since you could use the same point to prove why boys shouldn’t go to college. The rest of the points are just pure bullhonkey.
3. Around my FB all the Protestants are claiming Pope Francis said atheists could go to heaven. I doubt it’s true – they have a bad habit of taking things out of context and misunderstanding Catholic vocabulary – but had you heard anything about that?
Hey Dee, here’s the link you posted on other thread. As you said, it appears that William Gil wants into the moooovies.
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4903512/resume?ref_=nm_ov_res
Look at all he’s doing for free while there are 9 kids at home. He’s not raising kids. And unless he made a stash as general contractor before the real estate crash, or inherited money, there’s a bunch of poor people at his home.
What in the heck is a “near occasion of sin”?
I have never commented before, nor due to the difficulty typing presents do I expect to do so again.
There are about 1.2 billion of us. Of course, we Catholics have our share of dolts.Our nuns educated countless children of both sexes.In my father’s family four out five girls earned their degrees during the depression and second world war. The keep girls at home seems to me more of a cultural attitude than a religious one.
Hester, I don’t know how to link. Jimmy Akin at the National Catholic Register discusses your question.
Well, guess I will type again.
Tina, the easy explanation is a time or place that brings temptation. Drunks don’t go to a bar for coffee and a danish.
Hester wrote:
I haven’t heard anything about it, but – like you – on the basis of history I am content to ignore it, as it has next to no chance of being true.
I’m not the Pope, but I spot an opportunity to throw a spanner at the cat hitting the fan amongst the pigeons here. How cool would it be if, when all things are wound up, some (ex) atheists are staring at Jesus and saying “Wow – how come so many religious people taught me that you were a monster?”…
Retha Faurie wrote:
Retha – a perfect summation. Can I co-author the book with you? Please?
Patrice wrote:
Father knows best?
April wrote:
I would disagree to some extent with your comment. Wade Burleson has a wonderful talk in which he asks “Does you theology trump you love?”
In far too many cases, the answer is yes. Sometimes we become so enthralled at parsing secondary issues that we forget about the call of love. The new Pope clearly recognizes this tendency in all people and I applaud his statements.
@ Mark: Thank you so much for your great comment and quote by Pope Benedict.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Ditto.
kansaswheat wrote:
Thank you for your comment. Your insight is spot on. The reason we posted this is to show that people who approach the question with cultural biases will draw the same conclusions from the Bible.
The Catholic families that I grew up with were very big on the education of their children. Many of them came from immigrant families (as did my own dad) and recognized that education was a way for them to make it in this country.
Tina wrote:
I thought the same thing.
Hester wrote:
Here is a quote and I will tell you what I think he means. I am open to input from any of our Catholic readers.
“The Holy Father is full of surprises, born of true and faithful humility. On Wednesday he declared that all people, not just Catholics, are redeemed through Jesus, even atheists.
However, he did emphasize there was a catch. Those people must still do good. In fact, it is in doing good that they are led to the One who is the Source of all that is good. In essence he simply restated the hope of the Church that all come to know God, through His Son Jesus Christ. ”
http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=51077
I think that he means a couple of things.
1. As atheists continue to do good works, they might be led to Jesus Christ, sensing Him in the midst of their pursuit. In other words, today’s atheists may become tomorrow’s Christians.
2. Catholics also believe that those who have not heard the word of God will be judged by the light they are given. If they respond to the light in their lives and pursue it, they will also see heaven. That is not unlike many Christians like John Stott who remains an optimistic agnostic in regards to the salvation of those who have never had the opportunity to hear the Good News.
Reason #9a She will be better at maths than you, and capable of pointing out that your header say “6 reasons” while you listed 8. (“We dads can’t have daughters who are smarter than us – they may not always listen to us!”)
OR
Reason #9a If she tries to pass a college entrance exam, it will be noticed that she – being educated by parent who think 6=8 – is not nearly ready for college.
@ dee:Perhaps they mean that we should not put ourselves into a tempting situation?
Retha Faurie wrote:
You are so right and so funny. Thank you for making me laugh.
Funny that they call this “6 Reasons to NOT Send Your Daughter to College.
All these reasons equally apply to boys:
1. He will attract the wrong types of women. – Certainly, the article writer would agree that college students and lecturers are not the kind of women he wants to surround his son with?
2. He will be in a near occasion of sin.
3. He will not learn to be a husband and father.
4. The cost of a degree is becoming more difficult to recoup.
5. You don’t have to prove anything to the world.
6. It could be a near occasion of sin for the parents.
7. He will regret it. – I believe people of both genders could regret their studies, wishing they did something else instead?
8. It could interfere with a religious vocation.
@ dee:
Dee, you’ve explained it better than some Catholics.
Keeping in mind what Pope Francis said in his recent interview, “…the most important thing is the first proclaimtion: Jesus Christ has saved you.”,the Church doesn’t presume to limit God’s loving mercy. We hope for all. Who knows what happens at the moment of death ? Perhaps there will be a recognition of God and acceptance of His love.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Nick, thank you.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I want in too. Your comment was hilariously true. Can I write the blurb for the back?
I am always amazed how those who knows me on the Internet thinks of me as smarter – and often value my opinion more – than those who actually know me…
I love the Internet!
Victorious wrote:
What is their position on using painkillers in difficult labor? I remember it took Queen Victoria publicly requesting them while in labor before painkillers became accepted. Until then, it was “GOD HATH SAID: IN PAIN SHALT THOU BRING FORTH CHILDREN. SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE! SCRIPTURE!” (God’s spokesmen on the subject being MALE, of course. Chuckle chuckle.)
Somebody in the comment thread where these “Fix the Family” guys first surfaced said it best: “These guys are Vision Forum with Rosaries.”
P.S. Notice that the repeating reason why women should not go to college is “Near Occasion of SIN”? She’ll get Sin Cooties if she does! (And breeding stock does not need to be educated — just accept the Man’s seed and push the results down the chute. Quiverfull with Rosaries.)
Hester wrote:
I hadn’t heard this about Pope Francis but I’ve always been confused on this point when it comes to Catholic teaching. My very best friend and her husband are Catholic, and her husband (a Sunday school teacher) once told me that Catholics believe anyone can go to heaven, regardless of their religion. He claimed it to be in to be in the Catechism. He was making the point that Ghandhi must be in heaven due to all the “good” he did while alive. I was curious if this is a typical Catholic teaching or just something my friend believes.
Retha Faurie wrote:
Because Priests and Monks and Nuns are so much more SPIRITUAL and GODLY than all us unwashed laity…. When Clericalism was in full swing, you had a LOT of Priests and Monks and Nuns in Holy Orders and Monasteries and Convents who really weren’t cut out for it. They didn’t have a Vocation, they just did it because it was EXPECTED of them. Result: Corruption and Sex Scandals out the wazoo (and just about every other orifice).
—–
Ever heard of “Three Days of Darkness”? (I’m sure you’ll find it somewhere on Fix the Family’s website.) It’s a fringe Catholic End-of-the-World scare, just as tightly-choreographed as anything out of Hal Lindsay.
The precursors to Armageddon kick off with “Three Days of Darkness”, a supernatural Darkness descending over all the world while all the Demons rise out of Hell to rampage for three days. All who go outside (or even look out their windows to see the Demons eating all the Protestants) will be struck dead on the spot, “all caught travelling will die as Martyrs”, “only blessed wax candles will give light”, “only grapes soaked in Holy Water will give nourishment” (my sister-in-law had a relative who always carried around specially-blessed beeswax candles and a small jar of grapes in holy water just in case), and everyone who survives “will be shown all their Sins in all their Grievousness”.
Like I said, End-of-the-World Weirdness with Rosaries. But the aftermath of the Three Days of Darkness is what reminds me of the Fix the Family shtick. Goes something like this:
“Everyone left will become CATHOLIC! And marry and have fifty kids each! All of whom will become PRIESTS! And MONKS! And NUNS!”
Moxie wrote:
This sounds like a development of the ideas of “Baptism of Desire” and “The Virtuous Pagan”. That God can bring someone to salvation even if they come from a completely pagan culture with NO knowledge of God or Christ. I don’t know the Bible foundation, but it comes from one of the Epistles; something about the goyim having “Torah already written on their hearts.” The best illustration of this idea is fictional: Emeth of Calormen in Chronicles of Narnia: The Last Battle.
Tina wrote:
In this context, “Don’t Do It You’ll Get Sin Cooties!” crossed with Six Degrees of Separation crosses with Spiritual Can You Top This. You’ve seen the same logic in Fundamentalism:
A is a specifically-forbidden sin.
B might possibly lead to A. We have to ban B so it cannot lead to A.
C might possibly lead to B. We have to ban C so it cannot lead to B which could lead to A!
D might possibly lead to C. WE HAVE TO BAN D SO IT CANNOT LEAD TO C SO IT CANNOT LEAD TO B WHICH COULD LEAD TO A WHICH *IS* A SIN!!!!
Lather, Rinse, Repeat ad infinitum. And never ever go outside your Christianese compound for Spiritual safety.
Victorious wrote:
And they are NOT to have any painkillers or medical aid in doing so!
“In PAIN Shalt Thou Bring Forth Children!”
(As I mentioned above, this interpretation — by males, of course — lasted well into Victorian times.)
@ Patrice:
I restate what I said in an earlier thread: Fix the Family = Vision Forum with rosaries. Vision Forum thinks they can make movies too. Meanwhile Hollywood continues on its merry way…making actual films.
@ HUG:
I’m sure many of these same menfolk never had a problem inventing better agricultural equipment and farming techniques even though that could be interpreted as undermining the “in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” part of the curse. š
Anon 1 wrote:
Yes. I know a (Protestant) midwife who teaches that more pain in childbearing results in more bonding with the baby. Googling showed me she may have got this from a prominent Brithish MALE midwife (who presumably never experienced said bonding.) Her husband taught new fathers not to be concerned if they don’t bond with their babies right away (apparently since sweating to grow thorns doesn’t release the proper hormone).
Before I begin, I would like to thank you, Dee and Deb, for your much-needed website. For the past decade, I have struggled with many of the same issues that are addressed on TWW, but had no place where I could discuss my concerns. As a result, I felt as though I was living in a state of limbo between what I knew to be the church and the secular world.
In regards to your post: I am not a Catholic, but I do notice some similarities between Fixing the Family and the covert message of my childhood church. As such, Iām curious to see if any of your readers had an experience similar to mine.
At my church, both men and women attended college. However, I quickly learned that women were restricted to which majors they could choose (e.g. nursing and early childhood education). The women who didnāt fit the mold seem to conveniently disappear, and I soon found out why. Despite never having the issue of women and higher education addressed in the pulpit, there was an underlying current of discouragement. One point, I was flat-out told during a bible study that I was āungodly for following my dreamsā (it never occurred to him that maybe it was God who instilled those dreams and gifts in the first place).
I’ve never regretted my āungodlyā decision. Today, family still attends this church, but on a very infrequent basis (sadly it is one of the more liberal churches in my hometown). The last time I did go with my family, a gentleman asked me where I now live and what I am up to. When I told him that Iām a professor at such-and-such university, he responded, āWell, MY daughters are married with children!ā I smiled, congratulated him on being a grandfather, and went on my way.
Contrary to popular belief, I would like to find a nice guy, get married, and have children. I honestly donāt know if Iāll continue to work if/when these things occur. I do, however, know that God will instill what He want me to do in my heart, just as He did ten years ago. To that, I say, āLet His will, not mine nor anyone elseās, be done.ā
@ Jessica:
Thanks so much for commenting and welcome to TWW! Your testimony immediately brought to mind Sheri Klouda, who was a professor at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where she taught Hebrew. She was persecuted because she was a woman IMHO, and now she teaches at a much smaller Christian college. You should Google name if you're not familiar with her.
We have to continue to speak out about this nonsense. Thank God for the Internet! I hope you will continue to read our posts and chime in.
When I was young the idea of females not getting higher education was fairly popular, but was a secular idea, the way I heard it. “There is no use in sending a daughter to college. They will just waste their education since all they will ever do is get married and have kids anyhow.”
Welcome, Jessica!
Hester wrote:
Too funny.
This is a little off-topic, in that it isn’t about patriarchalism directly. But it’s well within the spirit of the rules because it concerns a victim who stood up for herself.
Just read this on the Beeb news page. You’ll love it! Especially the bit about “no-one will ever make me feel worthless again”.
Nancy wrote:
Nancy, where I come from – South Africa – I certainly read that as a little gril in secular magazines in the ’80’s. (I sort of learned to read in 1979, the year before I went to school, my reading level soon outperformed that of my class mates significantly, and I absorbed a lot of magazines as an 80’s child.) My parents never said girls in particular could not persue higher education, but the never encouraged any of their children to get higher education, nor did they save money for their children to go.
April wrote:
This is a very good observation. Paul doesn’t use the term theology, he uses the term “doctrine”, which has more to do with life-style than laws.
Victorious wrote:
But — what if they have a religious vocation? Gotta love the contradictory “thou-shalts” here.
@ Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist:
I should have used the word 'doctrine' in the post. Sorry if I confused anyone.
@ kansaswheat:
“Who knows what happens at the moment of death ? Perhaps there will be a recognition of God and acceptance of His love.”
++++++++++++++++
Yes, who really knows.
Once upon a time, a friend of mine was talking to their neighbor about Jesus, God, “salvation”, sin, forgiveness, & the like. The neighbor wasn’t really open to these things. My friend respected that, and didn’t pursue things further, but wrapped it up with saying something to the effect of if, when you die, you have the sensation of going down, call out to “Jesus”.
This seemed really sensible to me. Not over-religious.
@ Deb:
Oh, no, not at all! I think “theology” is the better word in your context. All words on paper, not necessarily connected with what ol’ King Jimmy would call “conversation.”
@ Anon 1:
Remember the commissioner of the King James Bible did this to a woman alleviating pain during childbirth:
In 1591, a lady of rank, Eufame Macalyane, sought the assistance of Agnes Sampson for the relief of pain at the time of the birth of her two sons. Agnes Sampson was tried before King James, condemned and burned alive on Castle Hill in Edinburgh.
Because, pain relief would mess up their Biblical view of childbirth.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
This is the perfect plan for permanent spiritual immaturity. Absolutely no opportunity whatsoever to actually face temptation & resist it. In the world but not of it? Hardly! Run away! Run away!
Thank you Deb and Victorious for the warm welcome. I’ve been reading the posts on TWW for a few months now, but I’ll try to comment on a more frequent basis.
Also, I have read what happened to Sheri Klouda, and I agree that her dismissal was directly linked to her being a woman. Like Sheri, I am currently teaching at a small Christian university. So far, I have yet to face any sort of gender discrimination, and given the atmosphere of equality my workplace strives for, I doubt that it will ever be a problem.
Jessica wrote:
Welcome! I’m so happy to hear you’re teaching at a University. I get completely irate when I read all that misogynistic twaddle about what women can & can’t do. Why on earth would God bother to give us an IQ in 3 figures if it only made us miserable in our only real role in the house….I went for an interview to do a Master’s Degree yesterday (my field is Youth Work & Community Learning & Development). I teach men, I manage men, I lead men at work…naughty old me. Usurping women unite! (Not usurping the actual gospel of course, just the Patriarchs and their gospelly-wospelly world’o’submissive women fantasy).
Beakerj wrote:
LOL!!
Val wrote:
And the currently beloved by the Neo Cal Puritans were doing the same often calling it witchcraft.
Makes you wonder what they thought the Cross was about anyway?
I am often grateful to have been born in this time in a free country. Women have had it very rough throughout history. And some want to take us back to it and call it biblical.
@ Jessica:
We are so glad to have highly educated women like yourself in our midst! Praying you'll never encounter any problems regarding your career.
One of the my father’s childhood friends took a similar attitude with his daughter. He told her he would pay for two years of college and no more – if she couldn’t find a husband in that period she was cut off. After all, the son had found a wife after only a year at a Catholic college. The young lady “rebelled” by studying to be a massage therapist. She wants nothing to do with her father’s mandates. My dad rallied up some other friends to help contribute towards her expenses. As stated in previous comments, I think this is a heavy reflection on culture in the South more than anything. I knew many girls in college who were desperate for “a ring by spring”; at ETBU it is very unusual for a woman to graduate without that ring on her finger. I have met a few ladies who managed to stay single through graduation from that university and they were pretty much shunned by their former classmates. This was a major culture shock for me. The island community I grew up in was nothing like this. I thought only the backwards people of South East Texas were this ridiculous. Sadly I am wrong. I have since learned that East Texas has much more in common with the Old South than the rest of the state.
@ Mandy:
I’ve also heard it referred to as an “M&B degree” (marriage and baby).
Mandy wrote:
The Evangelical college that I attended for one year in the Northeast was somewhat the same way. I left the college after one year. A couple of years later I saw one of the girls that I knew. She ran up to me with a big smile pointed to her engagement ring and said “I got mine!” I was glad that I went to another college.
Hester wrote:
Also the MRS Degree.
@ Mandy:
Thanks for sharing that. I wonder how well those young marriages last…
Hester wrote:
Christianese movies. “Just like Movies, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
Consolation/booby prizes for those forbidden to have the real thing, bought and viewed as a Witness/Announcement of Faith before the Heathen.
Beakerj wrote:
As in…
Her: “What is thy will, My Lord Husband? How might I better submit?”
Him: “PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT! PENETRATE! COLONIZE! CONQUER! PLANT!”
Or in the words of the Cult of the Blue Oyster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDH44m_Pe_k
Josh wrote:
You make me sound more like a One-Eyed Trouser Snake.
I find the last statement to be sad, ironic or funny, about college inhibiting religious vocations. A priest needs at least 3 or 4 years post college before ordination; a brother, it depends upon which religious order and what they do there. One monk that I know was a nurse before he entered religious life, teaches retreats, has a very active prison ministry. For women, they also need college, in some orders it might be mandatory (they, unfortunately also need to enter debt free). How can a woman teach college, or administer a hospital, or a parish without college?
In fact, one of my fellow Phd candidates was a sister. probably preparing to teach at a university.
Headless Unicorn Guy wrote:
And I thought my mind was in the gutter… š
Thank you for your prayers and kinds words, Deb. Also, thank you Beakerj for welcoming me aboard. It would be an honor to usurp with you. š Best of luck on your Masters. I’m sure you’ll do great.
On the subject of Pope Francis, I am somewhat encouraged by his early statements, and it may be that he understands the need for love to triumph over doctrine and tradition better than his predecessor. For instance: over-population is often a significant factor in maintaining poverty and disadvantage. Do we love the poor enough to set aside our rules on birth control for their greater good, or do we love them only enough to try and find a gracious and merciful way to stand by our rules?
That is a challenge to Roman and Protestant alike, obviously. Remember Paige Patterson’s slavery to law and rules from several posts ago here (“A tale of two abusers”). What do we ultimately believe God cares more about: his people, or his laws?
It’s often said that we must never compromise Christian law in the name of love, because such compromise is a slippery slope that will lead to war, famine, disease and homosexuality. But compromising love is an even more slippery slope.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
By the same argument, do we condone abortion for the same “greater good”?
John 14:21: “Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”
1 John 5:3 “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.”
I’m remembering back to “The Act of Contrition” that we said as good young CAtholics, and it included “to avoid the near occasions of sin”. I never thought much about what it meant, but maybe avoiding temptation?
P.S. I attended Catholic University when Billy Joel’s song about Catholic girls starting much too late was popular. Not my thing, but ironic.
@ FCLC:
Yes, probably a situation in which you would be tempted to sin. Not bad advice, in general, to avoid those. But to redefine college in general as a “near occasion” is a bit of stretch to say the least. And wouldn’t it cut both ways – i.e., wouldn’t it be a near occasion of sin for boys too? Since there’s all those heathen girls running around emanating their dreamy pheromones all over the place. š
@ Nick:
I imagine “Quiverfull Catholics” go the same route as Protestants when trying to deny this – i.e., “God will provide,” or the slightly more sophisticated appeal to Genesis 8:22 (God promised the earth would never run out of resources so we can have as many kids as we want).
Hester wrote:
I dunno – people who think this way also see the *intellectual* aspects of college as corrosive and morally corrupt. (Regardless of what religious beliefs they profess.) College scares them because their kids are no longer under their control, and in the systems they’re part of, control is all.
Very, very sad – and there are more than a few QF Catholics out here, sadly.
@ HUG
There’s some old joke about Baptists can’t talk about sex because it might lead to *gasp* dancing. š
@ Hester
I agree. This “Fix The Family” group sounds like nothing more than a Roman Catholic version of a Protestant ‘Focus on the Quivering, Reconstructing Nuclear Traditional Family.’
Mandy wrote,
That makes me angry. I always wanted to get married and figured I’d meet a “Mr. Daisy” while in college, or somewhere by my mid-30s, but it never happened.
But I was told to be passive and trust in God to send me a husband, not that I was supposed to go out and look for one.
Unless you have
1. very low mate standards
(and someone in my family does, she will date absolutely messed up, such as, crack addicts, etc)
or
2. have a low view of marriage
(you’ll divorce the guy at the first sign to trouble),
-getting married is not that easy.
That father thinks it’s a breeze: just join a college and within two years you’ll bump into a nice guy and he’ll propose?
That might have been true in 1954, but not since at least the 1990s present.
People really do not have control over when or if they marry. (This is a fact that continues to be vastly unappreciated by the majority of married Christians and in Christian books/blogs about marriage.)
Seeing someone’s story above about their friend who was happily pointing to the engagement ring on her finger reminded me.
I was engaged in my early 30s. I was happy to break up with the guy later. I was relieved to take the engagement ring off my finger.
@ HUG,
Ugh. I will watch Christian entertainment, and I’ve seen a few well done movies/ shows, but the vast majority have the awkwardly, shoe horned in “Gospel scene,” where someone has to explain the Gospel to another character, but it’s really a pitch to the audience.
There was a scene like this in “Fireproof” (a Sherwood Baptist Church produced movie), “In The Blink of an Eye,” and “Left Behind World at War” (I think that was the title), and in several other Christian films I’ve seen.
I am not against Christian working the Gospel message into a film in some way, but most of them are so awkward about it, so cheesy, or so forced.
However, I’m uncertain how a movie maker could work the Gospel in without it being forced or weird.
All I know is the current recipe of one movie character standing up and doing a monologue about sin, Hell, repentance, Heaven, and Jesus is not working.
I did not intend for half my post above to be in bold face. I forgot to close one of the bold tags.
Mark wrote:
However, Jesus acknowledged in his teachings that religious leaders can and do at times add un-biblical teachings and burdens on to people, or even get heavy handed when applying biblical rules and standards, or they sometimes twist or misinterpret biblical rules and teachings.
Jesus speaking:
See this discourse between the Pharisees and Jesus:
Matthew 15
The Pharisees were also upset about the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath and Jesus reminded them that King David ate the priest’s bread in the Temple. In some ways, God is oddly not a stickler regarding his own rules. That is in Luke 6.
Oh Lord, as a graduate of a Jesuit university I want to know what this anti-intellectual jibber-jabber is doing in my faith! There’s a long tradition of Catholic (and Orthodox and Protestant) women intellectuals from Hildegarde to Flannery O’Connor. Unfortunately, there are a growing number of Catholic men like my former pastor who are getting pointers from their fundie protestant brothers online and seeking to sneak it into our Church.
I don’t see college as the be-all, end-all, since many of my favorite writers never attended one, but it’s obvious Fix the Family share the patriocentrists’ goal of social-engineering females into Stepford wives and daughters.
@ Mark:
This is an important question, but it’s also a minefield of quarrels and false antitheses, so can I request a couple of points of clarification?
When you refer to the same “greater good”, you mean the same greater good as that to which I referred, right? I.e. specifically, the greater good of the poor on whom we’re explicitly laying these commandments?
We may agree on this or we may not, but am I correct in supposing that you consider the prohibition of birth control to be God’s, not man’s or man’s interpretation of God’s?
And finally, there are obviously many verses of scripture addressing the relationship between love of one’s fellow man, love of God, and obedience to God; do you feel that the two you quoted are a representative summary of them all in this context?
Daisy wrote:
i.e. The Altar Call Ending. Tell me about it — I’m good for a half-hour rant on Crappy Christianese Storytelling and the difference between Story and Propaganda.
“Christianese Entertainment” resembles nothing so much as cheap porn. Money shot every X minutes/pages (whether that money shot is hawt porn action or Four Spiritual Laws), with all “story” nothing more than buildup for that Money Shot. (Called such because that’s what the customers/marks are paying their money to see.)
Or Jesus Infomercials, where everything is a high-pressure sales plug. But wait, there’s more! With every set of Sinner’s Prayer Fire Insurance, we’ll throw in a FREE Rapture Boarding Pass! Don’t be Left Behind!
Or cheap fanservice fanfics. You do know that Left Behind and Atlas Shrugged are the same basic story? Both “stimulating” the readers and scratching their itchy ears with similar Escape Fantasy followed by Revenge Fantasy?
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
That’s correct, the greater good that you were explaining was the reason birth control should be recognized.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
Absolutely. From the beginning of Christianity until the late 1800s, all Christians, protestant or Catholic bellieved it was sinful. Protestants then shifted to accept it and now they even say it is a Christian’s OBLIGATION to use it.
Nick Bulbeck wrote:
I was quoting scriptures about “love” with regards to God’s law because I believe that is where we start when it comes to loving God. 1 Cor 13 is another great chapter all about love.
@ Daisy:
Daisy, I am trying to figure out your point. Are you saying that birth control is a burden that was added by the Jews that Jesus said to abolish because it wasn’t “the law”?
As for your scripture in Matthew 23, you must start at the beginning. “Then spake Jesus to the multitudes and to his disciples, saying, The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe: but do not ye after their works; for they say, and do not. Yea, they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with their finger.”
Jesus is saying, do what the scribes and Pharisees say, but they do not do what they say themselves. Jesus was condemning not living what you preach!
Daisy wrote:
Let me pull down my bookmarks menu and see how it’s been done with colorful cartoon ponies….
Mostly worked in as echoes, such as these two novel-length fics by a 22-year-old lapsed Lutheran grad student:
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/29434/creeping-darkness
(Understandable with no prior experience or familiarity with the milieu.)
Crossover with the online horror game “Alan Wake”. Includes a “Harrowing of Hell” scene where the heroine descends into the Dark Place (itself a “consuming void” archetype of Hell) to set a captive free. And a climax where a god-figure offers up her godhood, immortality, and even her life to bring resurrection to a beloved mortal.
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/41596/past-sins
(Requires familiarity with My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic.)
A “Reluctant Antichrist” story, written specifically to redeem the Ponies’ first major villain, an Antichrist figure whose coming brings the End of the World. (And redeems that Antichrist by having her “born again” but not in the way Christians would think.) What if a cult calls forth The Antichrist except their Antichrist has had a taste of normal life and doesn’t want to end the world in Eternal Night? Yet is high-pressured to Fulfill the Prophecy?
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/23127/and-the-temptress-came-unto-her
This is actually a decent adaptation of a Bible story into My Little Pony milieu; specifically the temptations of Christ during the 40 days in the wilderness. More like an analogy than an adaptation per se, as a supernatural villain tempts the heroine in a parallel manner.
And how Bad Christian Fic can get pony-fied.
My Little Pony + Left Behind = Lame but Weird:
http://www.fimfiction.net/story/22075/the-gospel-according-to-twilight-sparkle
Yes, that cover illo is an aged Twilight Sparkle levitating a King Jimmy (whose very existence in that worldstream breaks about a dozen laws of reality). While a “unique” take on the subject, I just could not finish it, it was that bad. Read if you dare, and see if you can guess where I stopped because things had just gotten Too Bizarre for this Brony.
Beakerj wrote:
Speak for yourself, BeakerJ! š
Joan wrote:
What a great comment! We'll try to stay on top of this trend in Catholicism.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
Even if a Christian film manages to leave out the “Gospel” scene, Christians manage to make movies (or some scenes) really awkward in other ways, such as this one (and yes, once Non Christians saw this, they joked and joked about it):
“Hey Scott… Jesus, man!” (Christian movie ending)
Joan wrote:
I swam the Tiber because I didn’t have to lobotomize myself in order to be a Christian. And the solid historical trace, institutional memory, and longstanding patronage of the creative arts (all of which are lacking in Fundyland) didn’t hurt.
As was said once in an Internet Monk comment thread:
“We have the Vatican Observatory and Pontifical Academy of Sciences. They have the Kentucky Creation Museum.”
Daisy wrote:
I was afraid to click on that link.
I did anyway.
I shouldn’t have clicked.
It was truly painful.
“I wish I had never heard… I wish I had never seen… Ia, Ia, Cthulhu, Fthagn…”
@ Mark:
Wow. I didn’t realize that birth control was the specific topic under discussion.
But yes, sometimes religious leaders tie up burdens on people, or add man made rules on to the teachings of God.
(I am sola scriptura, in so far as I remain a Christian, btw. I don’t believe it is correct to put Tradition or Ex Cathedra statements on the level of the Bible in spiritual authority.)
I just saw your one post, the one I replied to, and it did not mention anything about birth control.
The Bible doesn’t really get into some topics clearly, including birth control.
I do not believe Gen “be fruitful” is a commandment meant for Christians today.
I don’t believe having kids is the only or sole purpose of marriage.
The culture of the OT was such you had to have kids to carry on family names and such – God was dealing with the Israelites within their culture of the time; He did not always over-ride it altogether.
God allowed polygamy and slavery in ancient Israel, but neither one did not seem to be his plan for humanity.
This is all absolutely hysterical anyhow, because even though I follow the Bible’s teaching on pre-marital sex being a “no no” (I’m a virgin at age 40+), a lot of Protestant and Baptist Christians carry on in a total panic about declining American birth rate and complain about abortion/birth control – they never factor never married, adult virgins in.
They are so bizarrely adamant that all Christian women have babies, what do they expect the unmarried virgins to do, fornicate for the sole purpose of getting pregnant to up the number of ‘Christian soldiers’? And should I just run down to the corner bar and pick up some random guy to fool around with to get the deed done?
Jesus shifted the understanding of the kingdom of God to a spiritual one, not a flesh and blood one, where nuclear family takes on utmost import, and baby making is the way to increase the number of believers.
Getting married, having a kid, are left to personal choice, they are not commands to believers today (Paul even says it is better for a person not to marry and not to have sex).
Mark wrote:
See Luke chapter 16, the other example I gave.
No, Jesus also corrected the Pharisees for mis interpreting God’s word, adding to it, and going by the letter of the Law, rather than its spirit.
God was trying to make things a bit easier on people, the religious muckity mucks, then as well as now, try to make things harder for people.
Religious leaders like to keep making rules, making up new ones that are not in the Bible, or making everyone follow the rules to the letter, even if doing so causes some kind of hardship for someone. Rule keeping becomes more important than people
See also the story where Jesus heals the woman with the injured hand on the Sabbath, Pharisses spaz out over it, and he has to correct them (this is a paraphrase of Jesus’ words):
“Any one of you hypocrites would rescue a donkey that falls into a hole on the Sabbath, why should I not free this daughter of God who Satan has kept sick for all these years.”
They wanted observing the Sabbath (an OT rule) to take precedence over the caring and compassion to a person who needed help.
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
“When an elderly Twilight Sparkle investigates a used copy of the King James Bible, she discovers the shocking truth about Equestria and its ancient origins.”
I might have to read that one. I hope she doesn’t become a King James Onlyist š
@ Headless Unicorn Guy:
I actually saw that movie once late at night years ago. I cringed at that scene and still do.
The “Jesus, Man” clip reminds me of those “Mentos” candy commercials, where someone turns around suddenly, smiles really big, holds up the Mentos candy, and the narrator guy says, “Mentos the fresh maker!” with the cheesy music.
-Except it’s “Scotty – Jesus, man!”
Mentos Candy Commercial
Compare the Mentos video to the “Scotty – Jesus, man!” clip I linked to above. Tell me if it’s not the same thing, but with candy instead of Jesus.
@ Daisy:
I think Nick mentioned it upthread, Mark was probably replying to that.
That Fix the Family guy is scary.
Daisy wrote:
“Jesus — Just like Mentos, Except CHRISTIAN(TM)!”
I know most Christianese stuff is cheezy knockoffs of somebody else’s stuff (just look at some of the Christianese T-shirts out there), but sometimes it just gets to be too much…
formerly anonymous wrote:
Starry-eyed True Believers usually are. Because you/me/everyone is expendable compared to The Goal of The Cause.
formerly anonymous wrote:
he is the type of guy who weirds out the neighbors.
Dr. Fundystan, Proctologist wrote:
Why Dr. Fundystan, are you also a wumman? That would make me laugh a lot as your name is so marvellously snarky & I love fellow snarky birds.
dee wrote:
That’s for sure!
dee wrote:
He’s the kind of person who, when I encounter such videos on Youtube, makes me think “It’s time to step away from the computer and go to bed now. I’ve run aground on that part of the interwebs again.”
Josh wrote:
As I retire for the night, I thank you for a good laugh.
Retha Faurie wrote:
Hehe. College is not without its challenges, but this has definitely not been one of them for me.
Thoughts from a Catholic:
1. I am happy to say that the “Fix the Family” people do *not* represent official Catholic teaching. What the Church teaches is found in the Catechism (as based on Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, in the manner of 2 Thessalonians 2:15). The Catechism can be bought online and in any good bookstore. This “Fix the Family” rule-making is the kind of loveless legalism that the last *several* Popes have explicitly decried.
2. The Catholic concept of the “near occasion of sin” is very “Biblical,” in the language of my Protestant brothers and sisters– but it is being misused, very wrongly, by Fix the Family. In Catholic theology, near occasions of sin are simply situations in which it is unwise to voluntarily place oneself, because of the temptations to sin in those situations. For example, as an unmarried man who wants to honor God and my sisters in Christ (and who strongly desires to be married), I try to be careful to avoid movies with scenes of graphic sexual intimacy. They are near occasions of sin for me (and for many other people). However, for FTF to say that because the college atmosphere on some campuses could be a near occasion of sin, parents should not *ever* send their daughters to college, period, is a *severe* case of over-reaching. That position is much more akin to Protestant separatist fundamentalism than to a genuinely Catholic sensibility.
3. On the Catholic Church’s prohibition of artificial contraception: I completely understand that this teaching, which is in the Catechism, also seems like Pharisaical legalism to most Protestants. I don’t expect them to agree with us here. However, as a former Protestant myself, in my experience, most Protestants today are also unaware that, literally, from the 1520s until 1930, *every single Protestant denomination* taught what the Catholic Church, alone, still teaches on this issue. http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/07/contraception/
Deb wrote:
I’m glad to hear it, because I’ve learned a lot from all of you here. Fix the Family endorses a psychiatrist named G.C. Dilsaver, who pushes the “Priest, Prophet and King” stuff.
http://www.christianmanhood.org/index.html
Where did the current PPP doctrine start, exactly? I’m wondering if Dilsaver is directly influenced by the Vision Forum bros. This article on a Catholic website speaks of all Christians being called to these three roles:
http://www.catholiccourier.com/faith-family/features/life-as-a-prophet-king-priest/
The Dilsaver/Driscoll conception of PPP appears to be rather recent in American Catholicism.
Also, Fix the Family pushes the veiling of women on their Facebook:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Fix-the-Family-Citadel-Catholic-Media/151103734911789?hc_location=timeline
Chapel veils are only optional and quite rare in the post-Vatican II Western rite, so these guys are obviously hardcore Let’s Go Back to 1961 Tradcats.
@ Joan:
Forgive the ignorance of a Protestant, but how would the idea of a husband being the priest of his home interact with the sharp clergy-laity divide in Catholicism? Since priests are traditionally celibate in Catholicism, would this require changing the definition of “priest”?
I’m not being obnoxious, I’m genuinely curious.
(I noticed I wrote PPP above when I meant to write PPK.)
Hester,
I understand your question, but doubt they’ve put much thought into the doctrine beyond “Here are three examples of the way dudes are God’s stand-ins and get to boss women around”, rather than the nuanced reading from the Catholic Courier article. The Manichaeism of the patriocentrists annoys me so. “Complementarianism” is so obviously about consolidating power, not advancing the Kingdom, because they don’t care about individuals’ God-given gifts. To them women have no gifts beyond being “The Mistress of Yes”, as Douglas Wilson put it. And there’s nothing truly complimentary about it – it all boils down to “I’m everything, and you’re nothing”, “I’m the adult, and you’re the child.” There’s nothing subtle about the way they stack the deck.
This all brings to mind of one of John Piper’s tweets from last election day: “Two-thirds of the people in line with me to vote were Somali. I love this neighborhood. This country.” My gut feeling is that these guys are very envious male power in Islam, and that somewhere down the line they would be willing to collaborate with Muslim men to get more power over women in the West.
Mark wrote:
Well, it really isn’t the same thing, to an ordinary person’s ear. Love is in fact the greatness of Christianity, but Benedict did not say so. Francis did.
@ Christopher Lake:
Thank you for your thoughtful and informative comment. I really appreciate it. I also really like your new Pope.
@ Mark:
Thanks for responding, Mark, and sorry for the delay between posts here. @ Christopher: your contribution on the topic is also gratefully noted.
I think the clearest response I can make is to keep it brief (yes, it could happen!). So I’ll present two points for consideration.
1) Let me pass over the debate as to whether the church is always right, either de facto or de jure, and ask you to consider the following. The fact that the church has always taught it doesn’t have to mean that the church must still teach it. Most states whose parliament is constitutionally sovereign think thus, incidentally – in other words, when changing social conditions demand it, the present parliament is authorised to repeal legislation passed by a previous parliament. The use or otherwise of contraception doesn’t figure too prominently in the ancient creeds, for instance, and they were not written in a world with a population exceeding 7 billion and rising. The fact that it is creates a significant human cost that is not merely an issue of convenience. Incidentally, birth control is only one issue on which christians have historically insisted on a particular interpretation of biblical revelation regardless of its human cost; I used it only as an example.
2) During OT history, God told his people (and I summarise): Obey my commands and I will personally see to it that you are blessed in all that you do. The church can rarely, if ever, say this; all too often, this has been the best we had to offer: Obey our commands, and God will bless you after you die. And it’s often been worse than that:Obey our commands, or God will punish you . Not exactly Good News. It is a serious thing to stand in God’s place of rule, if we cannot fulfil God’s responsibilities; and if we are going to lay requirements on large sections of humanity, we had better be prepared to share fully in any and all sufferings that might cause them. Jesus did, and the servants are not greater than the master.
Sigh… due to poor proof-reading, I’ve over-italicised the above. Sorry…
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Nick: I am trying to determine the answer to my question: “do we condone abortion for the same āgreater goodā?”
I don’t see a plain answer in your response so I won’t try to dissect your response to find it.
No, there is no “plain answer” in my response, nor did I have any intention of giving one.
9 times out of 10, when one person challenges another to give a “plain” or “yes/no” answer they are doing so in order to manipulate them into adopting a crude and simplistic strawman which, of course, is then easily knocked down. Rather like the question of whether a first-century Jew should pay taxes to Caesar. The same thing is usually happening when someone asks: “So, are you condoning…?”. “Condone” is a very subjective term. However, I chose to give you the benefit of the doubt, and assumed your question was meant to continue an adult discussion of complex issues.
I am still up for having such a discussion if you are. So here you go: absolutely yes, in the same way that Jesus condoned adultery, we should unquestionably condone abortion. Feel free to treat that as a strawman and knock it down, or carry on the discussion. Equally, feel free to ignore it in favour of more recent threads.
@ Nick Bulbeck:
Once again, I completely don’t understand your response. That’s OK. Moving on.