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:

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

[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

+ a million
Finally, someone sane.

-a million

The nuns who started the college is speaking at disagree with him.

Anybody who agrees with him is extremely ignorant of Catholic 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:

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.

And yet you have not yet mentioned one instance of heresy in his speech.

Yes, the nuns did not like the speech. The also did not read the speech carefully: "One of our concerns was the assertion that being a homemaker is the highest calling for a woman. We sisters have dedicated our lives to God and God’s people, including the many women whom we have taught and influenced during the past 160 years." Butker did not make this assertion.

The nuns may also have been put out that he mentioned a wife and mother as a vocation for women but did not mention nunhood. Not sure why he gave the religious life short shrift as a vocation. Given the shortage of religious, it would have been nice if he had at least given a nod to the religious vocation.

In any case, the nuns have a different take on Catholicism than Butker and that is fine as long as they agree on core beliefs.

For NFP I don't know why he said there is nothing natural about it. There are a number of things you have to do to practice it correctly so maybe that's what he is referring to. NFP is not core catholic belief so if he wants to trash it, that's fine.

He is very harsh on clergy in general, but that's okay too. It is not a core Catholic belief that priests and bishops can't be criticized; there is a long tradition of Catholics doing so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To the ones who remain uncritical and accepting of this AHole's speech..

This guy said a lot of things and maybe you agree with most of it and don't believe it was offensive. However, what he DID SAY EXACTLY was that:

Women have their place in the world and that is as a homemaker. Someone who should NOT have a career/NOT make a career an option and only aspire to be a mother and wife.

For this alone, it's offensive. There were women in this school who intend to use their degrees they just received to build a career. How do you actually defend his speech in the context of this? That it's a conservative Christian school is irrelevant because his speech was not just about Christianity but specifically demeaning all female students in the audience - he's suggesting they not only wasted their time but are garbage for even considering having a career.

I mean, it's not about his entire speech that matters. No matter how you slice it and dice it about whether what he said was on pointe about Christianity, his words about women are an indisputable insult to the female audience and that in itself is outrageous. That those who defend him don't even see this or care about this is what is wrong with our society.

This is absolute BS. If you're going to claim something was "EXACTLY what he said," then quote his EXACT words. Here, let me help you:

"For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are 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."

He in no way was saying that women's place is as a homemaker and only a homemaker. He acknowledged that many will probably be leading successful careers in the future. He's simply saying that the greatest achievement is having a family. That doesn't preclude working. I would find it mighty strange if ANY parent claimed their greatest achievement was their career, and not their family. YMMV, but at least quote him correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just asked my DH who is a sports fan and follows football and he has never heard of Butker. I can't believe someone like this was even asked to be a commencement speaker and that he is getting so much attention. I'm guessing he loves every minute of the attention...

My DH is also a sports fan and said of course he knew who Butker was before this speech. He's one of the best kickers in the NFL.

[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: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

Humanae vitae was not part of Vatican II, which ended in 1965. HV occurred under a different pope in 1968.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the ones who remain uncritical and accepting of this AHole's speech..

This guy said a lot of things and maybe you agree with most of it and don't believe it was offensive. However, what he DID SAY EXACTLY was that:

Women have their place in the world and that is as a homemaker. Someone who should NOT have a career/NOT make a career an option and only aspire to be a mother and wife.

For this alone, it's offensive. There were women in this school who intend to use their degrees they just received to build a career. How do you actually defend his speech in the context of this? That it's a conservative Christian school is irrelevant because his speech was not just about Christianity but specifically demeaning all female students in the audience - he's suggesting they not only wasted their time but are garbage for even considering having a career.

I mean, it's not about his entire speech that matters. No matter how you slice it and dice it about whether what he said was on pointe about Christianity, his words about women are an indisputable insult to the female audience and that in itself is outrageous. That those who defend him don't even see this or care about this is what is wrong with our society.

Lol! You say this is what he said EXACTLY. Then you proceed to give no quotations from the speech but rather your takeaways. He did not say what you say he did.

+1
So many blatant lies here. I didn't agree with everything he said, but certainly some of it. Read the entire speech for yourselves instead of believing some partisan with a huge chip on their shoulder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the ones who remain uncritical and accepting of this AHole's speech..

This guy said a lot of things and maybe you agree with most of it and don't believe it was offensive. However, what he DID SAY EXACTLY was that:

Women have their place in the world and that is as a homemaker. Someone who should NOT have a career/NOT make a career an option and only aspire to be a mother and wife.

For this alone, it's offensive. There were women in this school who intend to use their degrees they just received to build a career. How do you actually defend his speech in the context of this? That it's a conservative Christian school is irrelevant because his speech was not just about Christianity but specifically demeaning all female students in the audience - he's suggesting they not only wasted their time but are garbage for even considering having a career.

I mean, it's not about his entire speech that matters. No matter how you slice it and dice it about whether what he said was on pointe about Christianity, his words about women are an indisputable insult to the female audience and that in itself is outrageous. That those who defend him don't even see this or care about this is what is wrong with our society.

Lol! You say this is what he said EXACTLY. Then you proceed to give no quotations from the speech but rather your takeaways. He did not say what you say he did.

+1
So many blatant lies here. I didn't agree with everything he said, but certainly some of it. Read the entire speech for yourselves instead of believing some partisan with a huge chip on their shoulder.

He complained about not being able to say Jews Killed Jesus. And also says women should be continuosly pregnant (no NFP).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the ones who remain uncritical and accepting of this AHole's speech..

This guy said a lot of things and maybe you agree with most of it and don't believe it was offensive. However, what he DID SAY EXACTLY was that:

Women have their place in the world and that is as a homemaker. Someone who should NOT have a career/NOT make a career an option and only aspire to be a mother and wife.

For this alone, it's offensive. There were women in this school who intend to use their degrees they just received to build a career. How do you actually defend his speech in the context of this? That it's a conservative Christian school is irrelevant because his speech was not just about Christianity but specifically demeaning all female students in the audience - he's suggesting they not only wasted their time but are garbage for even considering having a career.

I mean, it's not about his entire speech that matters. No matter how you slice it and dice it about whether what he said was on pointe about Christianity, his words about women are an indisputable insult to the female audience and that in itself is outrageous. That those who defend him don't even see this or care about this is what is wrong with our society.

That is NOT exactly what he said.

Here is what he said, emphasis added:

“ How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, [/b]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[b] that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother.”

As a woman who was once 21 and as the mother of a 21 y.o. female college student, I can guarantee you that the last thing the vast majority of college-educated women that age are thinking about is marriage and children. Who is he to speak for the "majority" of women?

DP. I was once a 22-year-old college graduate with an idea of what I wanted my life to look like. It included a job, a husband, and children. And the part of that I was MOST excited about was - you guessed it - my future family. I would say you were in the distinct minority if those weren't things that were top of mind for you and your future.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the ones who remain uncritical and accepting of this AHole's speech..

This guy said a lot of things and maybe you agree with most of it and don't believe it was offensive. However, what he DID SAY EXACTLY was that:

Women have their place in the world and that is as a homemaker. Someone who should NOT have a career/NOT make a career an option and only aspire to be a mother and wife.

For this alone, it's offensive. There were women in this school who intend to use their degrees they just received to build a career. How do you actually defend his speech in the context of this? That it's a conservative Christian school is irrelevant because his speech was not just about Christianity but specifically demeaning all female students in the audience - he's suggesting they not only wasted their time but are garbage for even considering having a career.

I mean, it's not about his entire speech that matters. No matter how you slice it and dice it about whether what he said was on pointe about Christianity, his words about women are an indisputable insult to the female audience and that in itself is outrageous. That those who defend him don't even see this or care about this is what is wrong with our society.

Lol! You say this is what he said EXACTLY. Then you proceed to give no quotations from the speech but rather your takeaways. He did not say what you say he did.

+1
So many blatant lies here. I didn't agree with everything he said, but certainly some of it. Read the entire speech for yourselves instead of believing some partisan with a huge chip on their shoulder.

+2 There are so many misrepresentations on this thread about what he said. And lol some people are calling for him to be censured, by Church authorities I guess, for things he did not say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To the ones who remain uncritical and accepting of this AHole's speech..

This guy said a lot of things and maybe you agree with most of it and don't believe it was offensive. However, what he DID SAY EXACTLY was that:

Women have their place in the world and that is as a homemaker. Someone who should NOT have a career/NOT make a career an option and only aspire to be a mother and wife.

For this alone, it's offensive. There were women in this school who intend to use their degrees they just received to build a career. How do you actually defend his speech in the context of this? That it's a conservative Christian school is irrelevant because his speech was not just about Christianity but specifically demeaning all female students in the audience - he's suggesting they not only wasted their time but are garbage for even considering having a career.

I mean, it's not about his entire speech that matters. No matter how you slice it and dice it about whether what he said was on pointe about Christianity, his words about women are an indisputable insult to the female audience and that in itself is outrageous. That those who defend him don't even see this or care about this is what is wrong with our society.

That is NOT exactly what he said.

Here is what he said, emphasis added:

“ How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career? Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world, [/b]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.”

As a woman who was once 21 and as the mother of a 21 y.o. female college student, I can guarantee you that the last thing the vast majority of college-educated women that age are thinking about is marriage and children. Who is he to speak for the "majority" of women?

DP. I was once a 22-year-old college graduate with an idea of what I wanted my life to look like. It included a job, a husband, and children. And the part of that I was MOST excited about was - you guessed it - my future family. I would say you were in the distinct minority if those weren't things that were [b]top of mind for you and your future.

Uh no. Definitely not "top of mind" for most recent grads. DP.