Bp W column, 7.4.09
(07-06-2009, 11:37 AM)columba Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 11:20 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote: What does the Church teach. That is the question that should be asked...if you call yourself a Catholic.

This thread is being spammed with posts attempting to bury the issue and extolling paganism.

Columba admits to derailing the thread and being pagan....just sayn
Reply
(07-06-2009, 11:51 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 11:23 AM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 11:11 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri" Wrote:68. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

Do you have a problem with this? This is 1929, btw. It's not all that long ago and it is the Pope teaching.

Are you really a "strict Catholic girl"? :)

Nobody here has a problem with Church teaching ya big dope....and it does not say anything in support of the puritans on this board...oh, you thought it did?  I'm sorry.

Correct, Catholic teaching is not puritanical (some trads lean towards the puritanical, I admit). But the source of the error of the puritanical leaning trads is the same as the liberal leaning trads...effectively disregarding the clear teaching of the Church as they do their own moral theology. Nobody SAYS they have a problem with Church teaching...they just disregard it or say it somehow doesn't apply today.

I'm all for modesty. I'm all for marriage and children, woman's highest calling (I'm a mother and grandmother myself). And for the record I hate athletics. And I'm not really a pom-pom-pro-warrior pagan. I just like to ruffle a few feathers from time to time.

And I am certainly a strict Catholic girl. I know the difference between dogma and discipline - between Tradition with a big "T" and tradition with a small "t". There are attitudes and norms in society, culture, liturgy, that are subject to change. And then there is Church dogma which never changes. And I don't confuse the two. So yes I'm strict in the strictest sense of the word.
Reply
(07-06-2009, 11:27 AM)Anastasia Wrote:
(07-05-2009, 08:57 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-04-2009, 05:51 PM)Anastasia Wrote: Yes, I think it's a fair comparison: it's the same game with the same basic rules, the same number of players, and the same equipment: the speed of the ball doesn't alter that. At what mile per hour does tennis stop being appropriate for women?

When it goes from a recreational activity to what you see today in the professional ranks. How's that for an answer. :) Are you saying because we cannot pinpoint exactly where in between these two ends the activity becomes inappropriate that we can't see the inappropriateness at all? This is a philosophical error, I believe.
Yes, if you cannot define what exactly makes the sport right in some cases and wrong in others. In order to make an argument as to apporopriaiteness, you must be able to pinpoint it; anything else is taken merely on your word.
Interestingly enough, Spartan women were encouraged to excercise because it helped them to bear stronger children. This is also why pregnant women are recommended games like tennis for the first few months, and swimming after that, it keeps your body physically prepared for childbirth.
In an aside, did anyone else notice that Scipio, Erin, Belloc, Didishroom, and I are on the same side? It has to be the beginning of the End Times!

Quote:Yes, if you cannot define what exactly makes the sport right in some cases and wrong in others. In order to make an argument as to apporopriaiteness, you must be able to pinpoint it; anything else is taken merely on your word.

This is the philosophical error I speak of. The EXACT point is not necessary and is impossible to pinpoint as you suggest.

It is a “moral judgment” and it admits to degrees. It is a moral matter to be assessed according to the usual rules governing moral questions. One cannot even begin to discuss it with those who appear to lack any sense of judgment. It’s not a mathematical question, as I'm sure you can understand.

Reply
well this is how it is.
woman should not play tennis. because tennis is stupid and beneath women.
sport shooting and even shooting in combat are fine though, i have a thing for women with guns. on the range only dresses should be worn if it has pokadots. other then that pants
bmx, sport skydivin, rock climbing, are all fine for women to  do. because these sports are cool and not low stupid games like curling or golf or watching paint dry
womens boxing is a no go, because they come out all smashed up and pretty women are a treasure to be admired even more so if they have big guns or even neat small guns. guns and women are great. though i must admit ugly women i guess could go into boxing. no harm no foul.
dancing it depends. ballet is out because its stupid and makes no sense. mosh pits are good because they are cool and remind me of my youth. surfing is in but i guess the willyphiles will insist only in dresses.
sip sip
Reply
So it's decided!


"So let it be written.  So let it be done."
Reply
so say we sip sip. it is done.
Reply
(07-06-2009, 12:08 PM)StrictCatholicGirl Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 11:51 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 11:23 AM)Scipio_a Wrote:
(07-06-2009, 11:11 AM)lamentabili sane Wrote:
"Pope Pius XI, Divini Illius Magistri" Wrote:68. False also and harmful to Christian education is the so-called method of "coeducation." This too, by many of its supporters, is founded upon naturalism and the denial of original sin; but by all, upon a deplorable confusion of ideas that mistakes a leveling promiscuity and equality, for the legitimate association of the sexes. The Creator has ordained and disposed perfect union of the sexes only in matrimony, and, with varying degrees of contact, in the family and in society. Besides there is not in nature itself, which fashions the two quite different in organism, in temperament, in abilities, anything to suggest that there can be or ought to be promiscuity, and much less equality, in the training of the two sexes. These, in keeping with the wonderful designs of the Creator, are destined to complement each other in the family and in society, precisely because of their differences, which therefore ought to be maintained and encouraged during their years of formation, with the necessary distinction and corresponding separation, according to age and circumstances. These principles, with due regard to time and place, must, in accordance with Christian prudence, be applied to all schools, particularly in the most delicate and decisive period of formation, that, namely, of adolescence; and in gymnastic exercises and deportment, special care must be had of Christian modesty in young women and girls, which is so gravely impaired by any kind of exhibition in public.

Do you have a problem with this? This is 1929, btw. It's not all that long ago and it is the Pope teaching.

Are you really a "strict Catholic girl"? :)

Nobody here has a problem with Church teaching ya big dope....and it does not say anything in support of the puritans on this board...oh, you thought it did?  I'm sorry.

Correct, Catholic teaching is not puritanical (some trads lean towards the puritanical, I admit). But the source of the error of the puritanical leaning trads is the same as the liberal leaning trads...effectively disregarding the clear teaching of the Church as they do their own moral theology. Nobody SAYS they have a problem with Church teaching...they just disregard it or say it somehow doesn't apply today.

I'm all for modesty. I'm all for marriage and children, woman's highest calling (I'm a mother and grandmother myself). And for the record I hate athletics. And I'm not really a pom-pom-pro-warrior pagan. I just like to ruffle a few feathers from time to time.

And I am certainly a strict Catholic girl. I know the difference between dogma and discipline - between Tradition with a big "T" and tradition with a small "t". There are attitudes and norms in society, culture, liturgy, that are subject to change. And then there is Church dogma which never changes. And I don't confuse the two. So yes I'm strict in the strictest sense of the word.

So you think that what I quoted from Divini Illius Magistri is a matter of discipline and subject to change or abrogation?
Reply
It is not an error merely because you claim it is. In what way is it illogical to demand that when you argue that the impropriety in womens' athletics is a matter of degree, you must define the nature of the impropriety and at what point is exists?
The document you quoted, I note, does not state women are not to be involved in sports, only that care must be taken to protect their modesty when they are.
Reply
Ah, "Puritan", that famous FE weasel word; best used in conjunction with "Jansenist" and "prude".
Reply
(07-06-2009, 12:49 PM)lamentabili sane Wrote: So you think that what I quoted from Divini Illius Magistri is a matter of discipline and subject to change or abrogation?

You tell me. Most Catholic grade schools practiced coeducation even when my grandmother went to school. The genders were mixed when my mom went to Catholic school in the 30s and 40s, same with me when I went in the 60s. But we continue to have separate gym classes and most Catholic high schools do not mix boys and girls. Of course precautions should be taken regarding modesty and adolescents. The Pope's encyclical stems from the Church's teaching on the differences of the sexes and public modesty. But whether those values can be achieved with or without coeducation is subject to change. Yes.

- Lisa 
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)