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
STUNNED!
sip sip
WOW!
sip
(07-07-2009, 02:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 10:02 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 09:44 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
CollegeCatholic Wrote:Apparently one can be both a mother and a professional tennis player at the same time.

I do think you've completely missed the point.

Commandments Left on the Cutting Room Floor:
Commandment Number 11:
Thou shalt not criticize Bishop Williamson of the SSPX - he is perpetually right.  When he is right, he's really right.  When he's wrong, well, he's never wrong, you're just reading him wrong.

CollegeCatholic,

What does this comment have to do with what Bishop Williamson wrote?

The bishop is neither perpetually right, nor does disagreement mean you're "reading him wrong".

What you imply here is that one cannot be a mother and a professional tennis player at the same time. You suggest that because a woman took a break from tennis, had one baby and is now back at it, this proves the point that the bishop is wrong.

If that's the case, you indeed, completely miss the point of the argument. You're miles off.

If not, you might care to explain your thinking here, because it seems like you missed the point, or you're building a straw man.

It's also a bit condecending to suggest, when someone points out that you may have misunderstood the point, to retort with such sarcasm. Bishop Williamson has no infallibility, but for all his faults, he's a elder to most of us, much more experienced, and has a grace of state most of us do not. That's doesn't guarantee he's right. He's been awful wrong before, and he's not to best tactician, as the last six months have demonstrated.

So then it's reasonable to ask: Who is the one that "must be" perpetually right? Is your reading necessarily the correct one? Are you sure that you've figured out what the bishop really was saying? I wish I had that certainty.

The bishop may be wrong here, he may be partially right, or it may be a mixed bag.

Was the bishops point that one cannot be a mother and professional tennis player? I don't see that assertion in the writing.

I think it's pretty clear that a woman who took a break from professional sports to have a baby, had to quit tennis at least for a while. You cannot play professional sports and be pregnant. Heck, I know fit women who are just a month pregnant (or find out they were) and have had serious trouble with some reasonably easy hiking. If pregnancy can keep a some fit women from hiking, pregnancy most definitely stops or at least puts a athletic career on hold. Thus she was not a tennis player when she was pregnant. If she is married now and still plans to "return" to tennis, then it's pretty clear that she's not planning on having another child soon (otherwise she might not be able to return). Thus it's almost a given she's contracepting (primarily because if she's to compete in tennis she can't be pregnant at the same time). And hence, we have one more instance of the voluntary sterilization of a woman for the sake of professional sports.

No one, even the bishop, suggested that if a woman has a baby, she cannot also continue some athletics and still be a good mother. One thing is certain, if she's a professional, she's not going to be becoming a mother for another child very soon unless she's taking a break from that career.

First - you cut off the quote wrong.  UNDERDOG said that - not me. 

So, because I'm not the one who said that... I'll be ignoring the bulk of your post.

Is it condescending?  Well, I guess that's too bad.  I don't care how it sounds.  Some people just seem to whore around the words of Bp. Williamson as if he can do no wrong, and he *always* makes good points, and if his words were gold buillion, we could pay off the national debt with ONE bullion, because it was so pure and almighty.  It's a mockery of those groupies of the bishop.  Is he right sometimes?  Yes, absolutely.  Is he wrong sometimes?  Yes.  Is he very imprudent?  ABSOLUTELY.
(07-07-2009, 08:31 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 02:56 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 10:02 AM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 09:44 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]
CollegeCatholic Wrote:Apparently one can be both a mother and a professional tennis player at the same time.

I do think you've completely missed the point.

Commandments Left on the Cutting Room Floor:
Commandment Number 11:
Thou shalt not criticize Bishop Williamson of the SSPX - he is perpetually right.  When he is right, he's really right.  When he's wrong, well, he's never wrong, you're just reading him wrong.

CollegeCatholic,

What does this comment have to do with what Bishop Williamson wrote?

The bishop is neither perpetually right, nor does disagreement mean you're "reading him wrong".

What you imply here is that one cannot be a mother and a professional tennis player at the same time. You suggest that because a woman took a break from tennis, had one baby and is now back at it, this proves the point that the bishop is wrong.

If that's the case, you indeed, completely miss the point of the argument. You're miles off.

If not, you might care to explain your thinking here, because it seems like you missed the point, or you're building a straw man.

It's also a bit condecending to suggest, when someone points out that you may have misunderstood the point, to retort with such sarcasm. Bishop Williamson has no infallibility, but for all his faults, he's a elder to most of us, much more experienced, and has a grace of state most of us do not. That's doesn't guarantee he's right. He's been awful wrong before, and he's not to best tactician, as the last six months have demonstrated.

So then it's reasonable to ask: Who is the one that "must be" perpetually right? Is your reading necessarily the correct one? Are you sure that you've figured out what the bishop really was saying? I wish I had that certainty.

The bishop may be wrong here, he may be partially right, or it may be a mixed bag.

Was the bishops point that one cannot be a mother and professional tennis player? I don't see that assertion in the writing.

I think it's pretty clear that a woman who took a break from professional sports to have a baby, had to quit tennis at least for a while. You cannot play professional sports and be pregnant. Heck, I know fit women who are just a month pregnant (or find out they were) and have had serious trouble with some reasonably easy hiking. If pregnancy can keep a some fit women from hiking, pregnancy most definitely stops or at least puts a athletic career on hold. Thus she was not a tennis player when she was pregnant. If she is married now and still plans to "return" to tennis, then it's pretty clear that she's not planning on having another child soon (otherwise she might not be able to return). Thus it's almost a given she's contracepting (primarily because if she's to compete in tennis she can't be pregnant at the same time). And hence, we have one more instance of the voluntary sterilization of a woman for the sake of professional sports.

No one, even the bishop, suggested that if a woman has a baby, she cannot also continue some athletics and still be a good mother. One thing is certain, if she's a professional, she's not going to be becoming a mother for another child very soon unless she's taking a break from that career.

First - you cut off the quote wrong.  UNDERDOG said that - not me. 

So, because I'm not the one who said that... I'll be ignoring the bulk of your post.

Is it condescending?  Well, I guess that's too bad.  I don't care how it sounds.  Some people just seem to whore around the words of Bp. Williamson as if he can do no wrong, and he *always* makes good points, and if his words were gold buillion, we could pay off the national debt with ONE bullion, because it was so pure and almighty.  It's a mockery of those groupies of the bishop.  Is he right sometimes?  Yes, absolutely.  Is he wrong sometimes?  Yes.  Is he very imprudent?  ABSOLUTELY.

So you don't like Bp. Williamson?
(07-07-2009, 09:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]So you don't like Bp. Williamson?

I'm not his biggest fan.

I will give him credit when credit is due to him, but I will not blindly defend him as many others on this board do.
(07-07-2009, 09:19 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 09:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]So you don't like Bp. Williamson?

I'm not his biggest fan.

I will give him credit when credit is due to him, but I will not blindly defend him as many others on this board do.

I don't think he needs to be defended at all. What he actually said is what should be discussed.
(07-07-2009, 03:10 PM)Tulkas Wrote: [ -> ]If a women is pregnant, it can most definitely enhance their weightlifting.  Especially when pregnant with a boy because of the testosterone.  I have seen this myself.  So no need to stop weightlifting when pregnant.

This is not true. There is an increase in serum testosterone in the first trimester, but there is no proof, no study whatsoever (in fact several studies show the opposite) that there is a difference in serum androgens whether a woman carries a male or female child.
(07-07-2009, 06:07 PM)Underdog Wrote: [ -> ]It may be true that a professional tennis player has to take a break from competition, and certain women may have to stop playing altogether, but many women still workout actively while pregnant.  My aerobics instructor taught through her pregnancy, and I was in a step class with a very pregnant woman who was just amazing.

No where did I suggest that a woman must take a break from any athletic activity during pregnancy, indeed, in many cases it would be very helpful to a woman to continue some moderate exercise or similar activities so long as it's not harmful or too difficult.

Pregnancy does end the possibility (at least temporarily) for proper training and competition in most, if not all women's sports. This is why you're not going to see a pregnant woman sprinting in a race, nor would you find a pregnant woman competing in swimming or any strenuous sport.

(07-07-2009, 06:07 PM)Underdog Wrote: [ -> ]Does a teacher cease to be a teacher during summer break?  No.  Neither does a professional tennis player who takes a break (to have a child) cease to be a tennis player.

And what exactly is your point?

(07-07-2009, 06:07 PM)Underdog Wrote: [ -> ]She may not intend to have more children right away.  She may have decided to get back into competitive tennis until she becomes pregnant again.  Or she may not be able to have more children (emergency hysterectomy during c-section could be one reason).  It is pure speculation as to why she is reentering the profession, whether she plans to have more children, or if she is using contraceptives, at least with the information we have.

As lamentabiili mentioned, this thread has focused on generalities for a reason. I don't know, nor do I presume to know the sexual habits of anyone else.

The problem is that there it stands against reason for a woman to train to compete or compete professionally in any sport and yet have normal sexual relations with her husband where she is open to pregnancy at all times. For a woman to be in a situation where she could become pregnant, then have to train and may never make it to competition before she is again pregnant and then must retrain again defies reason. This is why professional women athletes, generally, contracept. This does not mean that each and every woman athlete is contracepting, only that such is the norm and nearly required for a woman to compete professionally.

So while it is speculation as to the sexual habits of this woman in question -- something I really don't care to know anyway -- it is not speculation to say that, logically, the culture of women sports demands that women be unable to become pregnant (lest they be unable to compete), and thus for the nearly universal group contraception or abstinence is the only option. If single, and they abstain and with the help of their spiritual director or confessor they know that staying single and competing in sports is at least their temporary vocation, then great. If married, then they are out of options as professional sports is not a justifiable reason for NFP.

(07-07-2009, 08:31 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Is it condescending?  Well, I guess that's too bad.  I don't care how it sounds.  Some people just seem to whore around the words of Bp. Williamson as if he can do no wrong, and he *always* makes good points, and if his words were gold buillion, we could pay off the national debt with ONE bullion, because it was so pure and almighty.  It's a mockery of those groupies of the bishop.  Is he right sometimes?  Yes, absolutely.  Is he wrong sometimes?  Yes.  Is he very imprudent?  ABSOLUTELY.

First, I sincerely apologies for the misquote. In this new editing setup it is very hard to cut out the right quotes and still keep track of things.

I would think you should care how what you write sounds. We ought to make sure our words are charitable.

I totally agree that some people quote the bishop as if he is all-knowing, but from my experience that is not a large number, and probably most of those you think are his "groupies" (presumably you think that of me too, which is inaccurate) are not trying to defend everything he says, but parse through and try to find the good points in the writing. As here, there are a number of people who are trying to suggest that there may be some valid points to draw from the writing, even if it's not the most eloquently written or accurate piece.

The problem with the words I quoted, apologies again for the mistake, is that it attacks what those who are trying to defend some of the ideas that came from the bishops comments by writing them off as, what you say here "groupies" -- zealots who don't care to actually think and analyze, but assume the the bishop is always right. It assume that defending or suggesting that some ideas from the bishop or derivatives of those ideas is equivalent to agreeing with everything.  They also assume that the poster's interpretation of the bishops words were the only correct read. The poster did exactly what he accused other of doing, refusing to be self-critical and refusing to make distinctions.
(07-07-2009, 09:19 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-07-2009, 09:03 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: [ -> ]So you don't like Bp. Williamson?

I'm not his biggest fan.

I will give him credit when credit is due to him, but I will not blindly defend him as many others on this board do.

Perhaps you can provide some examples of people on this board (or in this thread) who you have seen blindly defend the bishop.
Williamson actually has good a point here. Birth rates in Europe and the West in general are miserably low, because women pick careers over motherhood. That's the real problem, not just sports. He's looking at a small part of a bigger problem here. I don't think he's so far off base. Maybe it came off that way in my last post, that I thougt Williamson's wrong, but I didn't mean it that way.

I'm really am thankful to be a mom, and I'd put that before any career any day.
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