Ugh, don’t feed the SSPX guy. It just gives free publicity to the fringe. Just ignore him and his building in Upper Marlboro.

I'm saying if she is a member of a church where men have all the control and make having lots of kids and not using birth control a main tenent of belief -- no, she is not making that choice freely.

What church(es) would that be?

"Power" is a product of far more than an institutional office alone. I'm not aware of any institutional church (at least in the US) where men have any power to compel anyone to believe or disbelieve anything, or to act or not in any particular way regarding the number of children any given woman might have. It is a very low opinion of women to view them as some kind of puppets hypnotized by an externally imposed religious program against which they are powerless to resist.

An intelligent, well-educated woman is capable of reading into the matter and making a decision that is not in accord with the prevailing Malthusian ethic that demands sterility from women in exchange for economic rewards, instead of working for social and working conditions that do not force women into the Hobson's choice of a career or as large a family as they might like if they were making a free choice.

The practical, social and ethical arguments against artificial birth control have developed over centuries. One proceeds from a position of ignorance and contempt before investigation when one simply dismissed them without considered study of the relevant propositions.

Anonymous wrote:Francis makes them all the time. Canonizations are infallible, and use the language of infallibility. If you think Francis is a Pope you MUST believe Paul VI and JPII are saints in heaven. This idea that the popes make a few infallible statements down the centuries is SSPX and conservative Novus Ordo lies. When teaching the whole church, a pope can never lead the faithful astray, otherwise the gates of hell would have prevailed. The SSPX think that popes lead the faithful astray all the time, so much so that they have to flee from them and ignore them, yet still say they are united to them. Its the definition of schism and heresy!

This is well said.

Vatican II was initiated by the Holy Spirit working through the Pope and the Cardinals. The results of Vatican II were through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit will not lead the Church down the wrong path. That “fresh air” needed by the Catholic Church was provided by the Holy Spirit: to work to turn back against the changes of Vatican II is to work against the Holy Spirit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If by growing you mean a push for female members to have lots of births, sure.

What's wrong with women choosing to have "lots of births?"

And what's wrong with suggesting or accepting and supporting that as a worthy vocation for women, who are the only ones with the capacity to bear children?

Do you seriously believe that in this day and age any woman in the USA can be "pushed" into involuntary reproduction? Multiple times?

because the vast majority of women don't have more than a max of 3 kids unless they are convinced by a patriarchal cult that their primary value is to reproduce, and that a weird and nonsensical rule put into place by childless men means they can't use effective birth control. I have no issue with women who genuinely want a large family, but not if they are pressured to do it by their church or family. Having more babies than a woman wants or can take care of well is really, really horrible. I think people these days just don't realize what it was like when Catholic women had to have 6-7-8-9 babies. Any religion that pressures women and families in any way to have or not have kids is immoral. families are all unique and should decide on the number of kids they feel they can take care of well and want -- and no other factor.

So, then, you agree that a woman who finds a fulfilling and satisfying vocation as a mother of what some might consider a large family is perfectly free to pursue that end? Or should she be badgered by third parties regarding her association with what they perceive to be "patriarchal" and/or a cult? Or judged for her well-informed decision not to use "effective" birth control, which presumably means some sort of chemical intervention with all sorts of potential side effects, not to mention moral issues?

I'm saying if she is a member of a church where men have all the control and make having lots of kids and not using birth control a main tenent of belief -- no, she is not making that choice freely.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If by growing you mean a push for female members to have lots of births, sure.

What's wrong with women choosing to have "lots of births?"

And what's wrong with suggesting or accepting and supporting that as a worthy vocation for women, who are the only ones with the capacity to bear children?

Do you seriously believe that in this day and age any woman in the USA can be "pushed" into involuntary reproduction? Multiple times?

because the vast majority of women don't have more than a max of 3 kids unless they are convinced by a patriarchal cult that their primary value is to reproduce, and that a weird and nonsensical rule put into place by childless men means they can't use effective birth control. I have no issue with women who genuinely want a large family, but not if they are pressured to do it by their church or family. Having more babies than a woman wants or can take care of well is really, really horrible. I think people these days just don't realize what it was like when Catholic women had to have 6-7-8-9 babies. Any religion that pressures women and families in any way to have or not have kids is immoral. families are all unique and should decide on the number of kids they feel they can take care of well and want -- and no other factor.

So, then, you agree that a woman who finds a fulfilling and satisfying vocation as a mother of what some might consider a large family is perfectly free to pursue that end? Or should she be badgered by third parties regarding her association with what they perceive to be "patriarchal" and/or a cult? Or judged for her well-informed decision not to use "effective" birth control, which presumably means some sort of chemical intervention with all sorts of potential side effects, not to mention moral issues?

Anonymous wrote:

If by growing you mean a push for female members to have lots of births, sure.

What's wrong with women choosing to have "lots of births?"

And what's wrong with suggesting or accepting and supporting that as a worthy vocation for women, who are the only ones with the capacity to bear children?

Do you seriously believe that in this day and age any woman in the USA can be "pushed" into involuntary reproduction? Multiple times?

because the vast majority of women don't have more than a max of 3 kids unless they are convinced by a patriarchal cult that their primary value is to reproduce, and that a weird and nonsensical rule put into place by childless men means they can't use effective birth control. I have no issue with women who genuinely want a large family, but not if they are pressured to do it by their church or family. Having more babies than a woman wants or can take care of well is really, really horrible. I think people these days just don't realize what it was like when Catholic women had to have 6-7-8-9 babies. Any religion that pressures women and families in any way to have or not have kids is immoral. families are all unique and should decide on the number of kids they feel they can take care of well and want -- and no other factor.

Sounds like a Holocaust-denying, child predator-protecting cult.

Anonymous wrote:The headquarters of the "Archdiocese of Washington" are in Maryland. Who cares if the SSPX wants to call their Upper Marlboro location the DC branch?

SSPX is not heretical and has never been accused of heresy. Nor are they schismatic.

There is no such thing as a "moderate" Catholic. One either believes, holds and professes as true all that the Holy Catholic Church teaches in faith, or one does not.

There are several churches with the old Mass in the DC/Baltimore area, but it appears that only a couple of them are full service with daily Mass and all the sacraments available in the old rite. God willing, the SSPX will expand its operations to include that, or perhaps pressure from SSPX will encourage the leadership to expand availability on their own.

no, that's not true about "moderate" catholics. you don't get to be thought police, and as much as you want, you don't get to decide who is catholic and who isn't.

Francis makes them all the time. Canonizations are infallible, and use the language of infallibility. If you think Francis is a Pope you MUST believe Paul VI and JPII are saints in heaven. This idea that the popes make a few infallible statements down the centuries is SSPX and conservative Novus Ordo lies. When teaching the whole church, a pope can never lead the faithful astray, otherwise the gates of hell would have prevailed. The SSPX think that popes lead the faithful astray all the time, so much so that they have to flee from them and ignore them, yet still say they are united to them. Its the definition of schism and heresy!

If by growing you mean a push for female members to have lots of births, sure.

What's wrong with women choosing to have "lots of births?"

And what's wrong with suggesting or accepting and supporting that as a worthy vocation for women, who are the only ones with the capacity to bear children?

Do you seriously believe that in this day and age any woman in the USA can be "pushed" into involuntary reproduction? Multiple times?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep deluding yourself. This is fringe and not seen by practicing US moderate Catholics as an alternative. The one thing I do like about you, OP is that you label your ravings so no one mistakenly thinks it’s a mainstream Catholic position.

The SSPX has over 650 priests in many countries around the world. Most “moderate” Catholics are heretics. The SSPX is growing. James Martin style “Catholicism” is dying.
In Christ
SSPX poster

If by growing you mean a push for female members to have lots of births, sure.

I mean full seminaries and religious houses while Modernist seminaries shrink and close

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Keep deluding yourself. This is fringe and not seen by practicing US moderate Catholics as an alternative. The one thing I do like about you, OP is that you label your ravings so no one mistakenly thinks it’s a mainstream Catholic position.

The SSPX has over 650 priests in many countries around the world. Most “moderate” Catholics are heretics. The SSPX is growing. James Martin style “Catholicism” is dying.
In Christ
SSPX poster

If by growing you mean a push for female members to have lots of births, sure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:it does not have canonical status within the Catholic Church

According to Modernist Rome. Of course, now that Rome recognizes everything the SSPX does as valid, that really doesn’t mean anything anymore. Francis would not allow a Bishop to retire to the SSPX if it weren’t Catholic.
In Christ
SSPX poster

No.

Anonymous wrote:it does not have canonical status within the Catholic Church

According to Modernist Rome. Of course, now that Rome recognizes everything the SSPX does as valid, that really doesn’t mean anything anymore. Francis would not allow a Bishop to retire to the SSPX if it weren’t Catholic.
In Christ
SSPX poster

it does not have canonical status within the Catholic Church