FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Bp W column, 7.4.09
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
(07-07-2009, 11:35 AM)Underdog Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:10 AM)Binx Wrote: [ -> ]
CollegeCatholic Wrote:Do I have an obligation to understand and know moral theology?

Yes, insofar as it comes to bear practically on your own life and on your discernment regarding the cultural mores of the time and place in which you live.

No, you do not have an obligation to understand and know moral theology unless your vocation is for religious life or a profession (law, medicine, etc.).

I was thinking more of the "deep" moral theology.  I'm not going to read the Summa unless I want to.  The "higher" up stuff is for the pro's.
(07-07-2009, 11:34 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 10:59 AM)Binx Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 09:43 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 09:23 AM)Underdog Wrote: [ -> ]Bishop Williamson decided to treat a subject he has absolutely no knowledge about.

http://www.womenstennisblog.com/2009/03/...-wta-tour/
Quote:It’s official: Kim Clijsters will again play on the Sony Ericsson WTA Tour. Her return from retirement is planned for the US hardcourt season.

The former world No.1 has asked for Cincinnati, Toronto and US Open wildcards. According to the plans, the tennis player who retired in May 2007 will make her comeback on August 10, at the Cincinnati Open.

"When I started preparing for the Wimbledon game with Steffi Graf I felt this drive. I wanted a new challenge. This is just for fun for now to see if I can do it," said the 25-year-old Clijsters, the winner of 34 singles titles.

"I don't need to be number one again. I have done that and I don't need to do it again. I am just going to see how things evolve."

After retiring from tennis, Clijsters married basketball player Brian Lynch and gave birth to daughter Jada. (source: Reuters, photo: Stephane Martinache)

http://thetennistimes.com/lindsay-davenp...baby-girl/
Quote:It has been reported that three time Grand Slam champion Lindsay Davenport has given birth to her second child. Davenport gave birth to a healthy baby girl and she and husband Jon Leach cant be happier. They have named the new baby Lauren Andrus Davenport Leach. The married couple already have a two-year old son named Jagger.

Tony Godsick, the tennis star’s agent, said on Sunday that both the mom and daughter are doing great. He added that the other members of the family were ecstatic.

(bolded by me for emphasis)

Apparently one can be both a mother and a professional tennis player at the same time.

Steffi Graf:
After retiring, she married Andre Agassi on October 22, 2001, with only their mothers as witnesses.[20] Four days later Steffi gave birth, six weeks prematurely, to their son Jaden Gil (named after Andre's longtime trainer Gil Reyes). Their daughter, Jaz Elle, was born October 3, 2003.


Frankly, it seems tennis pros don't have a long career. 

Maybe we should ridicule the spinsters for not having babies.  They're obviously doing something wrong and contributing to the birth rate decline.

Underdog and CollegeCatholic:

You're getting too hung up on tennis. The Bishop's argument goes like this: We live in a culture that both promotes and exploits the masculinization of females. Professional women's tennis is but one particular example of the larger cultural milieu. One side effect of this general denaturing of women is a declining birthrate.

But, how many women participate seriously in these activities?  They are but a mere slice of the population.  Attacking women's sports, and saying that they are a cause of societal decline is laughable. 

Maybe the bishop ought to worry more about the women in the workplace, and such.  Not those on the tennis courts.

Perhaps you agree with the Bishop more than you realize. The denaturing of women is not confined to professional women's tennis, nor did the Bishop suggest that it is. Don't mistake the illustrative example for the larger point.
(07-07-2009, 11:21 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:03 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]LS and others like to quote things that no one has an issue with and then pretend that these statements somehow support their positions.   That's just not the case.


Having a large set of books in front of you for the issue at hand is laughable in the extreme.   There is a lot of that on this board, a bunch of pontificating religious zealots operating from bitter zeal.

It is not required to have some sort of "anit-american anti-modern world" persona to attend SSPX, SSPV or even CMRI chapels.   Those of you who cultivate this uncatholic attitude do the rest of society no favors since you are not likely to get many converts and you hamper others in their conversion activities because they have to explain that puritans exist in the trad movement and have all sorts of goofy notions because they have been put in a corner by the Church and been under fire for so long that they have sort of removed themselves from the world entirely.

It makes things very difficult.

I don't have "a position".  It appears that you and your ilk like to pretend that what is quoted does not apply to you somehow or is outdated. Then you make fun of seeking knowledge in these areas (by reading approved sources that explain what the Church teaches).

OK so you don't have a position and then like to jump in the middle of a slap fest and quote from sources that are ambiguous since no one has any issue with what's been said (from the eternal magisterium), and then you say that one side of the slap fest is ignoring the quotes as applying to them...sounds like a position to me...

I think most of those here are laughing at you for suggesting that I, of all people, view something from the past as outdated.

And as far as I know, none of them do it either.


Ilk :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Don't trad out on us.
(07-07-2009, 11:53 AM)Binx Wrote: [ -> ]Don't mistake the illustrative example for the larger point.

This has already been addressed, you are rehashing covered ground
(07-07-2009, 11:35 AM)Underdog Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:10 AM)Binx Wrote: [ -> ]
CollegeCatholic Wrote:Do I have an obligation to understand and know moral theology?

Yes, insofar as it comes to bear practically on your own life and on your discernment regarding the cultural mores of the time and place in which you live.

No, you do not have an obligation to understand and know moral theology unless your vocation is for religious life or a profession (law, medicine, etc.).

How do you form your conscience then? Especially on the complex moral issues that are encountered more in the lay state than the religious state.
(07-07-2009, 11:56 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:21 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:03 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]LS and others like to quote things that no one has an issue with and then pretend that these statements somehow support their positions.   That's just not the case.


Having a large set of books in front of you for the issue at hand is laughable in the extreme.   There is a lot of that on this board, a bunch of pontificating religious zealots operating from bitter zeal.

It is not required to have some sort of "anit-american anti-modern world" persona to attend SSPX, SSPV or even CMRI chapels.   Those of you who cultivate this uncatholic attitude do the rest of society no favors since you are not likely to get many converts and you hamper others in their conversion activities because they have to explain that puritans exist in the trad movement and have all sorts of goofy notions because they have been put in a corner by the Church and been under fire for so long that they have sort of removed themselves from the world entirely.

It makes things very difficult.

I don't have "a position".  It appears that you and your ilk like to pretend that what is quoted does not apply to you somehow or is outdated. Then you make fun of seeking knowledge in these areas (by reading approved sources that explain what the Church teaches).

OK so you don't have a position and then like to jump in the middle of a slap fest and quote from sources that are ambiguous since no one has any issue with what's been said (from the eternal magisterium), and then you say that one side of the slap fest is ignoring the quotes as applying to them...sounds like a position to me...

I think most of those here are laughing at you for suggesting that I, of all people, view something from the past as outdated.

And as far as I know, none of them do it either.


Ilk :laughing: :laughing: :laughing:

Don't trad out on us.

Yes, the sources are ambiguous...and no one disagrees with them. Nice, Scipio.
(07-07-2009, 11:57 AM)Scipio_a Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:53 AM)Binx Wrote: [ -> ]Don't mistake the illustrative example for the larger point.

This has already been addressed, you are rehashing covered ground

Patience.
(07-07-2009, 11:58 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:35 AM)Underdog Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 11:10 AM)Binx Wrote: [ -> ]
CollegeCatholic Wrote:Do I have an obligation to understand and know moral theology?

Yes, insofar as it comes to bear practically on your own life and on your discernment regarding the cultural mores of the time and place in which you live.

No, you do not have an obligation to understand and know moral theology unless your vocation is for religious life or a profession (law, medicine, etc.).

How do you form your conscience then? Especially on the complex moral issues that are encountered more in the lay state than the religious state.

Catechism.

Theology is a subject for those who have a firm foundation in catechism, scripture, and philosophy (only "lettered" men, so to speak)
(07-07-2009, 01:22 AM)The_Harlequin_King Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 12:22 AM)columba Wrote: [ -> ]Do you agree that in present times, the introduction of a culture promoting professional women's sports has accompanied a simultaneous reduction in birthrates? Do you admit to a possible connection?

I can see that female professional athletes can't have children while maintaining their careers.

I can't say just how influential women's sports is with our culture in general. It seems established in the thread that women's sports, while present in most countries, is a niche market compared to men's sports. Most girls don't aspire to become professional athletes, even if they played sports in school. Therefore, I don't see how women's sports has any effect on the general birthrate. Feel free to re-iterate something if I'm missing it.

Speaking on personal experience from high school and college alone, though........ I'd say that women who were interested in sports in school are far more likely to have children than non-sporty women.

Hmmm. Well I attended public high school and, yes, in my experience sporty girls were more likely to have kids than "druggy" girls but most still only wanted small, contracepted families at relatively late in life. It would appear that the sporting ideal encourages girls to become go-getter, contracepting, careerists even when pursuing non-athletic professions.

It is mainly traditional girls (who may have played some sports, but are generally not considered "jocks") that have large families at a relatively young age, probably because they will not contracept. In my experience, the top female "jocks" acquired some male attributes that made them subtly less attractive. IMO, there are exceptions but generally the most feminine and attractive girls are not the most athletic.

Employment of one's personal opinion is not necessarily treating the issue of masculinization with less seriousness than it deserves. Just because a topic is inherently difficult to quantify with objectivity is no excuse to avoid making a judgment. Others may disagree with my judgment but then should be willing to examine personal experience and conscience to make their own.
(07-04-2009, 09:54 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-04-2009, 09:44 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]Ah yes, it's been a while since His Excellency took the time to chide women for leaving their kitchens.....

When a woman stands before the judgement seat of God, He probably won't be congratulating her about her serve.  He will probably be asking her to justify her service.  Serving meals for a family is absolutely a greater act than serving tennis balls on a court.

Thank you. Seriously. I can do that! I can put dinner on the table.... Thank goodness I won't be expected to win at Wimbletin? Wimbelton? Wimbledon?; I'd end up in hell. Surely.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26