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
(07-05-2009, 05:31 PM)ErinIsNice Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-04-2009, 09:54 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I have a feeling God will have some harsh words for the men who devoted their whole lives to sports (instead of Him) also.

Something Erin and I can agree upon!

I sure hope He puts them through the ringer.
(07-05-2009, 04:44 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Can we all just agree that, had Cardinal Mahony said something like this, he'd be ridiculed for saying it, but when the great, almighty, powerful, and wise Bp. Williamson says it, it's nearly private revelation, written from the Hand of God?

No. Not at all.  First, the odds of Cardinal Mahony actually getting something this right is beyond the scope of human imagination.  Second, people would stand there aghast waiting for Mahony to drop the other shoe since it would be so out of character.  

Third, Bishop Williamson has people supporting his stance because they have actually done the hard considering of his points and seen what he has pointed out as the truth.   Not because he's Bp. Williamson but because he's stating a truth.  


Quote:I think it is silly that we have a culture that pays anyone millions of dollars a year to play games for our entertainment. I find it even sillier that we actually dedicate significant parts of our lives and thought to these silly games, as if they actually matter.
It does seem silly, but these people are actually worth that much money as they bring in much, much more.



Quote:For a woman this is decidedly different. It is not because a woman with "buff arms" is less feminine, nor that she's messing up her period by training. Instead, it is because a woman who is seriously training and competing must not become pregnant because it ends a woman's career in most cases, or means that for at least four months, if not longer, a woman cannot train or compete. It is common knowledge in high school and college sports that coaches instruct women to use the pill or other contraception, not to end their period, but to prevent pregnancy, since that would end their season, and very likely their success in sports.
These are certainly good points but they are simply the abuse of professional sports in an already decadent culture. Williamson very explicitly places the blame of womens' sports themselves.


Quote:Nearly all serious female athletes must contracept. If a woman must abstain in order to train and compete for her sport, then she could not be married. Thus we have two problems. Professional women's sports cause women to contracept in order to be an athlete, or Professional sports force a woman to delay marriage in order to compete.
But her reasons to contracept do not come from playing sports but from the culture itself. The same argument can be said for women in almost all professions but there is nothing wrong with women working so long as they are not doing it at her childrens' expense.



Quote:The discussion about the "de-naturing" of sports is then, less about a "woman's place" or about "leaving the kitchen" and more about how our modern world encourages young women to put off marriage and to contracept in the name of athleticism.

The difference between Tennis in the days of the Globe Theatre and professional Tennis today is that it was a recreation for ladies who could compete when their duties as mothers and women did not interfere and today it is for women to interfere with their duties as women and mothers.
This may be part of Williamson's argument but again he tries to make it seem as if women playing sports professionally is wrong in of itself. Look at all his defenders here. They are defending him with the reasons you claim to be irrelevant. Apparently St.Raphael and Columbo do have problems with women having "buff arms" and playing sports which they consider to be a man's thing.
(07-05-2009, 05:46 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-05-2009, 05:25 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]Many, however, are not getting married and procreating as God desires, instead most are contracepting away most or all of their children. Women's sports are not a primary cause of this, but again, a convenient platform because the problem here is so obvious. ...Thus we have two problems. Professional women's sports cause women to contracept in order to be an athlete, or Professional sports force a woman to delay marriage in order to compete.

Excellent points.  It's the Obama mentality of "the burden of children" coupled with desire for "something else."  The devil often inspires people to do things that are wrong and against nature because he engenders a lust for some other thing, person, achievement, quality of life and the natural course of life and the state of life becomes an obstacle instead of the object of focus in one's life.

I don't think we can say that some reasonable amount of athleticism and competition among women is inherently contra naturam. There is certainly, however, a reasonably grave danger that a woman who does become more of an athlete and competitor in sports is going to act against her nature and put this ahead of having children (which is a primary duty of the female kind).

In the world of modern sports, however, I think there is a real danger of diabolical influence creating a lust for other things because of the manifest sins encouraged by the lifestyle of the athletes.
(07-05-2009, 05:55 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ][This may be part of Williamson's argument but again he tries to make it seem as if women playing sports professionally is wrong in of itself. Look at all his defenders here. They are defending him with the reasons you claim to be irrelevant. Apparently St.Raphael and Columbo do have problems with women having "buff arms" and playing sports which they consider to be a man's thing.



[Image: female+body+builder+,woman+body+builder,...model+.jpg]
(07-05-2009, 05:53 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-05-2009, 04:44 PM)CollegeCatholic Wrote: [ -> ]Can we all just agree that, had Cardinal Mahony said something like this, he'd be ridiculed for saying it, but when the great, almighty, powerful, and wise Bp. Williamson says it, it's nearly private revelation, written from the Hand of God?

No. Not at all.  First, the odds of Cardinal Mahony actually getting something this right is beyond the scope of human imagination.  Second, people would stand there aghast waiting for Mahony to drop the other shoe since it would be so out of character.  

Third, Bishop Williamson has people supporting his stance because they have actually done the hard considering of his points and seen what he has pointed out as the truth.   Not because he's Bp. Williamson but because he's stating a truth.  

I'm pretty sure that you just proved my point.
(07-05-2009, 05:31 PM)ErinIsNice Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-04-2009, 09:54 PM)Gerard Wrote: [ -> ]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.

I have a feeling God will have some harsh words for the men who devoted their whole lives to sports (instead of Him) also.

:clap: :chleader: :nonsum: :amen:
(07-05-2009, 05:55 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:I think it is silly that we have a culture that pays anyone millions of dollars a year to play games for our entertainment. I find it even sillier that we actually dedicate significant parts of our lives and thought to these silly games, as if they actually matter.
It does seem silly, but these people are actually worth that much money as they bring in much, much more.

In our messed-up culture, though, I agree, they are worth millions because they bring in far more money in the end. I think that says more about our culture than anything I could write here.


(07-05-2009, 05:55 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:For a woman this is decidedly different. It is not because a woman with "buff arms" is less feminine, nor that she's messing up her period by training. Instead, it is because a woman who is seriously training and competing must not become pregnant because it ends a woman's career in most cases, or means that for at least four months, if not longer, a woman cannot train or compete. It is common knowledge in high school and college sports that coaches instruct women to use the pill or other contraception, not to end their period, but to prevent pregnancy, since that would end their season, and very likely their success in sports.
These are certainly good points but they are simply the abuse of professional sports in an already decadent culture. Williamson very explicitly places the blame of womens' sports themselves.

Indeed. He does target women's sports explicitly.

I don't agree, however, that these points are the abuse of professional sports due to our decadent culture. They are an inherent problem. For a woman to compete or train in a sport with any consistency, she must not become pregnant.

As a man, I don't have that problem, but I can simulate it. If I were to want to be a professional or serious athlete, and then have to take four months off where I could not train at all or much, then I would never make it. Such a high level of athleticism requires year-round training.

If then, a woman is to compete professionally, she must remain single, or marry and contracept, fornication aside. Two choice, and not dependent on our culture at all. Inherent problems.

I think you misread what Williamson wrote if you think he is blaming women's sports as the cause, instead of pointing out the problem using women's sports as a prime example of the greater problem.

(07-05-2009, 05:55 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:Nearly all serious female athletes must contracept. If a woman must abstain in order to train and compete for her sport, then she could not be married. Thus we have two problems. Professional women's sports cause women to contracept in order to be an athlete, or Professional sports force a woman to delay marriage in order to compete.
But her reasons to contracept do not come from playing sports but from the culture itself. The same argument can be said for women in almost all professions but there is nothing wrong with women working so long as they are not doing it at her childrens' expense.

Many women would otherwise contracept if they were not playing sports, you are right. That does come from our culture.

But as above, if a woman wants to remain competetive in sports, she must not become pregnant. Thus, sports are a primary motivation for contraception in these women, even if they would contracept without sports. Women's sports are a practical cause of at least some contraception in sexually-active athletes.

(07-05-2009, 05:55 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]
Quote:The discussion about the "de-naturing" of sports is then, less about a "woman's place" or about "leaving the kitchen" and more about how our modern world encourages young women to put off marriage and to contracept in the name of athleticism.

The difference between Tennis in the days of the Globe Theatre and professional Tennis today is that it was a recreation for ladies who could compete when their duties as mothers and women did not interfere and today it is for women to interfere with their duties as women and mothers.
This may be part of Williamson's argument but again he tries to make it seem as if women playing sports professionally is wrong in of itself. Look at all his defenders here. They are defending him with the reasons you claim to be irrelevant. Apparently St.Raphael and Columbo do have problems with women having "buff arms" and playing sports which they consider to be a man's thing.

I would agree that many of these "irrelevant" reasons are really irrelevant. What is the definition of a "feminine arm", for instance. I know some pretty nonathletic and large women whose arms are not very delicate. Are they not feminine?

None of that is going to convince you, or most people, that there is a problem with sports being something which women should not do because of problems with femininity.

I would tend to agree with their fundamental point, that women's professional sports are, generally, not feminine and that problem is inherent. I would say the that most modern men's professional sports are immoral. Nether of those are important for this discussion. It's an entirely different argument which need not even be approached and which I'm not about to have right now. It's an opinion, I am not here to defend or expound on it. I am limiting the discussion to a point of importance, namely inherent and obvious moral problems with women's sports

What is very clear, however, is that there is an inherent problem regarding contraception (or irresponsible delay of marriage -- sounds like some penalty) for women athletes which does not exist for men. I point this out because, whether the bishop intended to say this or not, it's a far stronger argument as to why women's sports are inherently problematic for most. I admit that with this argument that it is possible that some women who are celibate and unmarried and are not delaying marriage for a poor reason might be able to compete in such sports.

I would, however, suggest that since we can see that there is already a very different problem with women's sports versus men's sports (namely one seems to inherently interfere with procreation while the other does not) this might suggest that there is more to the problems with professional women's sports that we have not yet explored.
(07-05-2009, 02:52 PM)didishroom Wrote: [ -> ]I do not trash everything he has to say....He says many good things but they are nothing exemplary, so I don't bother to comment on them.

Wrong.  You absolutely despise his most exemplary points.  

Quote: I do in fact have many criticisms of his opinions and I am certainly entitled to expressing those opinions on this board. Deal with it.

I am dealing with it.  I'm accurately characterizing your tactics and critiqueing those comments you make.  Deal with it.

Quote:I did not create a strawman argument with that comment because it wasn't an argument, it was a comment.  

Your comment was an argument.  And it was a mischaracterization of the Bishop's position.  

Quote:What valid points? You brought up one of the dumbest arguments I've ever seen and then replied to the criticisms of it with a smiley icon and a joke. The burden of proof is on you.

You presume it was dumb argument.  It was actually rock solid. Motherhood IS more precious and favored by God than professional tennis. If you think the contrary, you're nuts.   Communicating my thoughts on the faith and passing along information from the Church and great Churchmen is not contrary to my nature.  

Quote:He's not simply reporting an abuse of sports such as the immodest attire of women compared to the modest attire of men.

No. He's doing that and more.  You've ignored the larger point and you agree with a tangential point.  That the female players are there to show off their bodies as part of the packaging and pornification of the culture.  

Quote:That's understandable and I did not challenge that point. I was challenging his theory that women in professional sports is intrinsically wrong and responsible for the low birth rates in Europe.

No. Challenging his theory would involve making a challenging argument.  You instead created a strawman and somehow think ridicule is a coherent debating tool.  



Quote:My comment though sarcastic, does reflect my perception of Williamson's views on women.

That's the problem.  There is a solid distinction between your perception of Williamson's views and Williamson's views.  

Quote: I've never seen him commend women on anything outside of having children.

It's not, but even if that were true.  All female accomplishments pale in comparison to Motherhood.  The greatest event ever accomplished by a human is the carrying of God Himself in the womb.  
As Chesterton said, "How can it be a large career to tell other people's children about the Rule of Three, and a small career to tell one's own children about the universe? How can it be broad to be the same thing to everyone, and narrow to be everything to someone? No; a woman's function is laborious, but because it is gigantic, not because it is minute I will pity Mrs. Jones for the hugeness of her task; I will never pity her for its smallness." --the Emancipation of Domesticity.

Quote:He chides women receiving an education with the same logic you used.

No. Again, you want to avoid making the proper distinction between "getting an education" and "going to University" which Bishop Williamson says is not a true University but rather a cesspool situation in which no boy nor girl should go to.  

If you want to criticize Bishop Williamson's position, you have to get it right.  Not superimpose your own spin on what he actually states.   Argue with his argument, not with what you want his argument to be.  

Quote:"Can you imagine our Lady going to College?"  He insists women only wear skirts because it physically hinders them from doing "unwomanly" activities.

So, you want women to dress like men so they can do manly things?  

Quote:I am no feminist, despite your own "assassination" of my character.

You certainly are infected by feminism.  

Quote:I do believe the best place of a mother(not necessarily a woman) is the home.

Why?  

Quote:In principle I am against working mothers. I do not support them being police officers, firefighters, or soldiers. I think it would be better if they didn't vote.  

What is the principal by which you are against these things?  

Quote:However, I do not buy this ridiculous view that their only worth comes from breeding, no matter how nicely you describe it.

Again with the strawman argument.  What is ridiculous is your mischaracterization.  Fight that position all you want, but find someone who actually holds it and don't wrongly ascribe it to Bishop Wiliamson or people like me who understand what he, G.K. Chesterton, Cardinal Siri and a whole host of others understand.  

(07-05-2009, 04:57 PM)flannerywannabe Wrote: [ -> ]I question whether proposition (b), women should not play professional sports, follows logically from true premise (a), we should privilege and uphold virginity and fecundity in both sexes but especially in women. Neither pro nor con commenters have been able to conclusively prove or disprove (b) to my satisfaction, and I remain on the fence. The thing seems to admit of legitimate disagreement among persons of good will.

I agree that defining a precise morally acceptable limit of female athletic activity would be difficult but that does not mean there are no such limits. If one cannot conclusively identify such a limit using human logic and reason, then that is the occasion for reliance upon one's Sensus Catholicus. IMO, hard-core athleticism is either primarily or exclusively an activity for men.
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