NFL Kicker Harrison Butker’s unhinged commencement speech

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I'm a catholic, catholic educated, married catholic, children baptized catholic catholic. He said catholic things. Nothing he said was outside of mainstream catholic teachings.

Thanks for chiming in, handmaid.

You never see these same high emotions raised when rich homosexuals buy a baby from a brood human.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I am the Catholic you are calling a non-Catholic. If you are Catholic, I question your Catholic education as you don't seem to understand the wide latitude the Church gives for personal views on matters that are not core doctrine. I did think the guy almost verged into Calvinism at one point, which I thought was questionable.

DP. I don’t know the canon definition of heresy but he certainly said a lot of stuff that seems like it could warrant some kind of censure. Attacking priests. Attacking Humanae Vitae. Suggesting women’s vocation is to their husband and not god. Going against multiple Church pronouncements that the Jews are not guilty of the crucifixion.

Good that you prefaced this by saying you do not know the definition of heresy. Here's a good plain English article: https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/Worship/Our-Faith/Understanding/Heresy.pdf

Some examples cited of what is not heresy--the annulment point is a particularly apt comparison for what the guy said about NFP: "To insist, as some do, that the Eucharist must always be received by everyone under the forms of both bread and wine, that baptism must be done by full immersion, or that the Church should not grant annulments is not heretical. For sure, such propositions contradict established Church positions, but they do not rise to the level of heresy because they do not touch the core of Catholic faith."

What about our highest calling is to serve husbands instead of God?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully next season, a seething male feminist linebacker will rush the kick and late-hit Butker, laying him out. Then stand over him pointing down "THAT'S for saying women being wives & mothers is better than entering the work force!”

I mean in his speech, he said that men should lean into being masculine. So he at the very least should be able to take a tackle, Not a dirty one just a tackle. He’s never taken a tackle before Because kickers are built like women they’re not strong and muscular they shouldn’t be tackled.

But he’s all in and I’m happy to see him take a tackle

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I'm a catholic, catholic educated, married catholic, children baptized catholic catholic. He said catholic things. Nothing he said was outside of mainstream catholic teachings.

Thanks for chiming in, handmaid.

You never see these same high emotions raised when rich homosexuals buy a baby from a brood human.

That’s because that never happens. Just like Jews didn’t kill Jesus The Romans did

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I am the Catholic you are calling a non-Catholic. If you are Catholic, I question your Catholic education as you don't seem to understand the wide latitude the Church gives for personal views on matters that are not core doctrine. I did think the guy almost verged into Calvinism at one point, which I thought was questionable.

DP. I don’t know the canon definition of heresy but he certainly said a lot of stuff that seems like it could warrant some kind of censure. Attacking priests. Attacking Humanae Vitae. Suggesting women’s vocation is to their husband and not god. Going against multiple Church pronouncements that the Jews are not guilty of the crucifixion.

Good that you prefaced this by saying you do not know the definition of heresy. Here's a good plain English article: https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/Worship/Our-Faith/Understanding/Heresy.pdf

Some examples cited of what is not heresy--the annulment point is a particularly apt comparison for what the guy said about NFP: "To insist, as some do, that the Eucharist must always be received by everyone under the forms of both bread and wine, that baptism must be done by full immersion, or that the Church should not grant annulments is not heretical. For sure, such propositions contradict established Church positions, but they do not rise to the level of heresy because they do not touch the core of Catholic faith."

What about our highest calling is to serve husbands instead of God?

I think this is the section of his speech you are referring to and he does not say that, nor, based on the speech as a whole, would I think he would say a women's highest calling is not to serve God but instead her husband. That would certainly be a contradiction of core Catholic beliefs:

"....how many of you are sitting here now about to cross the stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you’re going to get in your career. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."

I will say I had a very negative reaction to him dragging his wife into this, but from a Catholic point of view it is okay if distasteful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I am the Catholic you are calling a non-Catholic. If you are Catholic, I question your Catholic education as you don't seem to understand the wide latitude the Church gives for personal views on matters that are not core doctrine. I did think the guy almost verged into Calvinism at one point, which I thought was questionable.

DP. I don’t know the canon definition of heresy but he certainly said a lot of stuff that seems like it could warrant some kind of censure. Attacking priests. Attacking Humanae Vitae. Suggesting women’s vocation is to their husband and not god. Going against multiple Church pronouncements that the Jews are not guilty of the crucifixion.

Good that you prefaced this by saying you do not know the definition of heresy. Here's a good plain English article: https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/Worship/Our-Faith/Understanding/Heresy.pdf

Some examples cited of what is not heresy--the annulment point is a particularly apt comparison for what the guy said about NFP: "To insist, as some do, that the Eucharist must always be received by everyone under the forms of both bread and wine, that baptism must be done by full immersion, or that the Church should not grant annulments is not heretical. For sure, such propositions contradict established Church positions, but they do not rise to the level of heresy because they do not touch the core of Catholic faith."

He’s deliberately teaching against Vatical II. The Pope says that “that to be Catholic one must adhere to the reforms brought about by the landmark event.”

https://www.ncronline.org/news/francis-no-concession-those-who-deny-vatican-ii-teachings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I am the Catholic you are calling a non-Catholic. If you are Catholic, I question your Catholic education as you don't seem to understand the wide latitude the Church gives for personal views on matters that are not core doctrine. I did think the guy almost verged into Calvinism at one point, which I thought was questionable.

DP. I don’t know the canon definition of heresy but he certainly said a lot of stuff that seems like it could warrant some kind of censure. Attacking priests. Attacking Humanae Vitae. Suggesting women’s vocation is to their husband and not god. Going against multiple Church pronouncements that the Jews are not guilty of the crucifixion.

Good that you prefaced this by saying you do not know the definition of heresy. Here's a good plain English article: https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/Worship/Our-Faith/Understanding/Heresy.pdf

Some examples cited of what is not heresy--the annulment point is a particularly apt comparison for what the guy said about NFP: "To insist, as some do, that the Eucharist must always be received by everyone under the forms of both bread and wine, that baptism must be done by full immersion, or that the Church should not grant annulments is not heretical. For sure, such propositions contradict established Church positions, but they do not rise to the level of heresy because they do not touch the core of Catholic faith."

What about our highest calling is to serve husbands instead of God?

I think this is the section of his speech you are referring to and he does not say that, nor, based on the speech as a whole, would I think he would say a women's highest calling is not to serve God but instead her husband. That would certainly be a contradiction of core Catholic beliefs:

"....how many of you are sitting here now about to cross the stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you’re going to get in your career. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."

I will say I had a very negative reaction to him dragging his wife into this, but from a Catholic point of view it is okay if distasteful.

You can twist it any way you want but the Benedictine nuns disagree,

How about NFP is not natural?
Or priest/bishops can’t be friends with parishioners?


I can do this all day/nigt with the amount of heresy in this speech.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hopefully next season, a seething male feminist linebacker will rush the kick and late-hit Butker, laying him out. Then stand over him pointing down "THAT'S for saying women being wives & mothers is better than entering the work force!”

So dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I am the Catholic you are calling a non-Catholic. If you are Catholic, I question your Catholic education as you don't seem to understand the wide latitude the Church gives for personal views on matters that are not core doctrine. I did think the guy almost verged into Calvinism at one point, which I thought was questionable.

DP. I don’t know the canon definition of heresy but he certainly said a lot of stuff that seems like it could warrant some kind of censure. Attacking priests. Attacking Humanae Vitae. Suggesting women’s vocation is to their husband and not god. Going against multiple Church pronouncements that the Jews are not guilty of the crucifixion.

Good that you prefaced this by saying you do not know the definition of heresy. Here's a good plain English article: https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/Worship/Our-Faith/Understanding/Heresy.pdf

Some examples cited of what is not heresy--the annulment point is a particularly apt comparison for what the guy said about NFP: "To insist, as some do, that the Eucharist must always be received by everyone under the forms of both bread and wine, that baptism must be done by full immersion, or that the Church should not grant annulments is not heretical. For sure, such propositions contradict established Church positions, but they do not rise to the level of heresy because they do not touch the core of Catholic faith."

He’s deliberately teaching against Vatical II. The Pope says that “that to be Catholic one must adhere to the reforms brought about by the landmark event.”

https://www.ncronline.org/news/francis-no-concession-those-who-deny-vatican-ii-teachings

What did he say that was contrary to Vatican II? Francis himself has permitted traditional Latin masses, so I am guessing that is not it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Why do you folks always put Bill Maher out there as if he's someone to listen to? Really, I'd like to know why anyone cares about what Bill Maher says. What authority does he have for me to care about his opinion?

I'm sure you tout John Oliver as "someone to listen to," amirite? How about Rachel Maddow? Yep, thought so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So this whole thread is a bunch of whacky lefty extremists whining about people they perceive as extremists on the other side. Total clown show.

It’s wacky and extremist to reject the blanket argument that women’s primary goal in life is to marry, have kids, and be a homemaker?? Wow.

It is wacky and extremist to tell any members of a religious congregation what they should or should not believe amongst themselves.

He used the word “vocation” which has a very specific, doctrinal meaning within the Catholic Church. Nobody blinked in that audience because they know exactly what he means by that word. My guess is that you are offended because you are hearing that word in secular coding.

I read your post and just feel sorry you’re so confined by regressive ideology. I am wishing you well that you might one day become a more open minded and well rounded person.

I thank you for your well wishes. I’ll pray that someday you may learn tolerance for religious minorities.

Is Catholicism a religious minority?

Only 1/5 of the United States is Catholic. But it’s probably the largest religious group unless you count Christianity as a whole. Catholicism is a type of Christianity.

But the person you’re responding to does not understand Catholicism nor do they understand vocation. Also Jesus teaches that the greatest is not getting married. Get married weak because of lust. That is what the church teaches.

Like Eve biting the apple the previous poster up his blasphemous speech because it’s validating her life choices.

I’m sure most people are capable of understanding what you are referring to by “vocation”, even if they aren’t Christian. These aren’t some super ideas in a club. Just because I’m not Catholic doesn’t mean I can’t get the general gist.

Women get a role to play. Men get a role. Somehow the roles always seem to benefit the men in terms of authority, and in the modern age this could be interpreted as basically oppression, or internalized misogyny if you’re part of it all as a women, but hey who’s counting.

We all “understand” just fine. You’re not part of some super higher calling that is impossible to behold from the outside.

You said that you understood what the word “vocation” means in the Catholic Church. That is exactly exactly what you said…
In no way shape or form is the word vocation ever used in the Catholic Church to refer to being a wife and/or mother.

There is nothing general about the rules of Catholicism. There is no gist. It’s very specific. It’s quite illogical and that’s why you can’t apply logic to it either.

It’s hilarious that you are hearing that word and interpreting it’s as a secular word and then saying someone else is.

It’s also OK that you’re only a wife and or mother and that you could not dedicate your life to serving God, Though Jesus does think that is second fiddle to serving God, even for men.

You’re not Catholic, you don’t understand Catholicism, No you don’t understand that speech was blasphemous, I’m not sure why you’re on this thread.

As a catholic, who went to catholic school, etc, what you are describing sounds nothing like catholicism. It's not legalistic (in fact catholic schools use the Socratic method, the process of discernment is very important, and they have canonized several philosophers as saints).

Vocation is used to describe devoting your life to a purpose and a role. That role can be specific (priest, mother, fisher) or general (care of the poor, as catholic icon Mother Theresa did). Being a homemaker can absolutely be a vocation.

You might have some experience with catholic teaching but it appears to be very limited. If it functioned as you said, it would look like Islam, with lots of clerics to interpret rules. Catholics use a western philosophy approach (Google catholic discernment).

No it’s not. Vocation is not used in the Catholic Church to mean mom and wife.

No thanks with respect to googling my religion. I have the catechism and 50 years of Catholic education. You can take your pseudo Christianity and teach whatever BS you want to your “flock” but this speech was blasphemous in the context of Catholic teachings,

DP. Please get over yourself and your smug, self-appointed role here as the explainer of all things Catholic. No one cares. He wasn't using the word "vocation" as you are insisting. This is how he was using the word, and he applied it to both mothers AND fathers:

"a summons or strong inclination to a particular state or course of action"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/vocation

Sure but the proper “vocation” of women is to be mothers and stay home.

I can't even listen to this person. He's not even remotely amusing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I am the Catholic you are calling a non-Catholic. If you are Catholic, I question your Catholic education as you don't seem to understand the wide latitude the Church gives for personal views on matters that are not core doctrine. I did think the guy almost verged into Calvinism at one point, which I thought was questionable.

DP. I don’t know the canon definition of heresy but he certainly said a lot of stuff that seems like it could warrant some kind of censure. Attacking priests. Attacking Humanae Vitae. Suggesting women’s vocation is to their husband and not god. Going against multiple Church pronouncements that the Jews are not guilty of the crucifixion.

Good that you prefaced this by saying you do not know the definition of heresy. Here's a good plain English article: https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/Worship/Our-Faith/Understanding/Heresy.pdf

Some examples cited of what is not heresy--the annulment point is a particularly apt comparison for what the guy said about NFP: "To insist, as some do, that the Eucharist must always be received by everyone under the forms of both bread and wine, that baptism must be done by full immersion, or that the Church should not grant annulments is not heretical. For sure, such propositions contradict established Church positions, but they do not rise to the level of heresy because they do not touch the core of Catholic faith."

He’s deliberately teaching against Vatical II. The Pope says that “that to be Catholic one must adhere to the reforms brought about by the landmark event.”

https://www.ncronline.org/news/francis-no-concession-those-who-deny-vatican-ii-teachings

What did he say that was contrary to Vatican II? Francis himself has permitted traditional Latin masses, so I am guessing that is not it.

Humanae vitae

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you were offered fed by his speech that’s fine it wasn’t intended for you.

The reaction he got from his intended audience was overwhelmingly positive.

He’s a Christian, who gave a speech full of Christian values to a Christian college with Christian students. Both women and men were in the crowd and he got a standing ovation. If you’re offended it’s because you’re were the intended audience or you’re. It ready to come to terms with what he was saying is truth. He wasn’t saying that a women’s only purpose was to be in the kitchen as you might have seen in the 60 second edited clip of his full 20-30 min speech. He addressed men as well and said how important their role was as well. He spoke truth to the fact that most people will find more value in their family life than anything else because the people you love and care about are more important than any degree.

The only ones mad or pressed about this is the man-hating women who seem to be in abundance here and on social media, and the sycophantic men who are trying to preach feminism in order to try to get dates. Most everyone else who works, strives to be better and have a family see what he said as a basic truth and something they agree with in terms of values.

Those who disagree can have their viewpoint but it doesn’t matter, he wasn’t speaking to you or about you so you can go on knowing that. It doesn’t matter how many “I will chose the bear over the man” memes you post in your social media, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re not the one he or any of the people who likes his speech would be looking at for a relationship anyways

+ a million
Finally, someone sane.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If you were offered fed by his speech that’s fine it wasn’t intended for you.

The reaction he got from his intended audience was overwhelmingly positive.

He’s a Christian, who gave a speech full of Christian values to a Christian college with Christian students. Both women and men were in the crowd and he got a standing ovation. If you’re offended it’s because you’re were the intended audience or you’re. It ready to come to terms with what he was saying is truth. He wasn’t saying that a women’s only purpose was to be in the kitchen as you might have seen in the 60 second edited clip of his full 20-30 min speech. He addressed men as well and said how important their role was as well. He spoke truth to the fact that most people will find more value in their family life than anything else because the people you love and care about are more important than any degree.

The only ones mad or pressed about this is the man-hating women who seem to be in abundance here and on social media, and the sycophantic men who are trying to preach feminism in order to try to get dates. Most everyone else who works, strives to be better and have a family see what he said as a basic truth and something they agree with in terms of values.

Those who disagree can have their viewpoint but it doesn’t matter, he wasn’t speaking to you or about you so you can go on knowing that. It doesn’t matter how many “I will chose the bear over the man” memes you post in your social media, it doesn’t change the fact that you’re not the one he or any of the people who likes his speech would be looking at for a relationship anyways

No. He gave the speech to a mainstream CATHOLIC college with a diverse student body, hectoring them with an extremely fringe orthodox view of Catholicism. That is why the actual Benedictine nuns connected to the college issued their statement against the speech. And many students were offended: https://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_news/education/benedictine-graduates-share-thoughts-on-butker-speech/article_f5d958c2-1492-11ef-9ceb-a777f7771cdf.html

I’m curious about whether the content of his speech was a surprise or if there are Opus Dei moles in the administration. In any event, whoever decided to turn graduation into a divisive political spectacle bound to offend a large proportion of the class should be ashamed.

DP. Your assertion that "many students were offended" is quite funny, considering one offended person was quoted in the article. Do better.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school?

oh my

except the Catholic nuns disagree with him. I guess they aren't real Catholics.

Eh. They are all real Catholics. There are some basic principles and doctrine Catholics are supposed to agree with (or at least not publicly dissent from), but open debate on the rest is fine.

So the quip about a "Catholic dude saying catholic thing, at catholic school" can be debated since not all real Catholics agree with him.

Sure. Debating what he said is fair game. But it goes too far to say someone is not a real Catholic because he does not have the same views as you on matters that are not core required beliefs.

I would have changed what was said above to "Catholic dude saying his Catholic thing, at Catholic school"

You missed the part where he speaks against basic Catholic teachings. So yeah, the dude is a Catholic, but he’s similar to a Catholic that had an abortion For convenience , or got divorced, and hold them up as good Catholic teachings.

Which basic principles or doctrines did he speak against? Did he say anything contrary to the Nicene Creed? Did he publicly doubt the concept of original sin or sin itself? Did he question the sacraments or the authority of the Pope? Did he speak out against transubstantiation?

NFP and what roles women should play or not in the world simply are not basic doctrine. Having very non-mainstream views on those things are not a sin, but an abortion of convenience is. And he did not present his kooky takes as Catholic teaching, but his views.

Yes, he did say something against Catholic preaching. Jesus Christ for f**k sake. If you don’t see it, you’re not a Catholic.

There is no way you are Catholic and you didn’t see that.

I wish non-Catholics would stop commenting on this thread because they are so incredibly ignorant. It’s almost impossible to speak to them about the subject.

I am the Catholic you are calling a non-Catholic. If you are Catholic, I question your Catholic education as you don't seem to understand the wide latitude the Church gives for personal views on matters that are not core doctrine. I did think the guy almost verged into Calvinism at one point, which I thought was questionable.

DP. I don’t know the canon definition of heresy but he certainly said a lot of stuff that seems like it could warrant some kind of censure. Attacking priests. Attacking Humanae Vitae. Suggesting women’s vocation is to their husband and not god. Going against multiple Church pronouncements that the Jews are not guilty of the crucifixion.

Good that you prefaced this by saying you do not know the definition of heresy. Here's a good plain English article: https://www.catholicnh.org/assets/Documents/Worship/Our-Faith/Understanding/Heresy.pdf

Some examples cited of what is not heresy--the annulment point is a particularly apt comparison for what the guy said about NFP: "To insist, as some do, that the Eucharist must always be received by everyone under the forms of both bread and wine, that baptism must be done by full immersion, or that the Church should not grant annulments is not heretical. For sure, such propositions contradict established Church positions, but they do not rise to the level of heresy because they do not touch the core of Catholic faith."

He’s deliberately teaching against Vatical II. The Pope says that “that to be Catholic one must adhere to the reforms brought about by the landmark event.”

https://www.ncronline.org/news/francis-no-concession-those-who-deny-vatican-ii-teachings

What did he say that was contrary to Vatican II? Francis himself has permitted traditional Latin masses, so I am guessing that is not it.

Jews Killed Jesus. https://www.adl.org/resources/backgrounder/nostra-aetate