Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird as a spiritual, but not religious, person having to watch the organized religions who the hold the most political and social power try to imbue their values on the rest of us who don’t hold them.

Like clearly this speech is pushing traditional values where women raise kids and stay home.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

I believe in a merciful God, but I don’t hold any of these odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”.

It’s fked up yall hold so much sway over the rest of us just trying to exist in America.

This is NOT Catholicism. He's an idiot.

To you it’s not. To some it is.

This is the problem with religious “interpretation” in general and the most compelling reason society should rely on the Golden rule, but also insist on a neutral playing field whereby the observable world perceivable to all people is employed in policy making, and why we should not allow organized religion to guide policy.

There’s like 7000 religions in the world. I don’t give a fk if one adherent to one of them says “my religion is this!” And another says “no! It’s this!”

Because frankly these organized religions are all nuts. And they are all used for control.

We need a neutral system reliant on treating others as you’d like to be treated.

Wrong. As other posters have stated, with cites, much of what he said is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. That is not an "interpretation." It's a different belief altogether. Also, the response was to PP saying: "odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”. " Catholicism does no such thing, which should be obvious even to the least religiously informed person who simply knows Catholic women in the workplace. Even freaking ACB has always worked.

DP. You are missing the meta-level point. All of the rules and interpretations of Catholicism don't matter if you aren't Catholic. The Golden Rule works for everyone. As an atheist, it has always been my north star.

He breaks the golden rule many times in his speech though.

Yeah, because he is a fascist tool who is obviously repressed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird as a spiritual, but not religious, person having to watch the organized religions who the hold the most political and social power try to imbue their values on the rest of us who don’t hold them.

Like clearly this speech is pushing traditional values where women raise kids and stay home.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

I believe in a merciful God, but I don’t hold any of these odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”.

It’s fked up yall hold so much sway over the rest of us just trying to exist in America.

This is NOT Catholicism. He's an idiot.

To you it’s not. To some it is.

This is the problem with religious “interpretation” in general and the most compelling reason society should rely on the Golden rule, but also insist on a neutral playing field whereby the observable world perceivable to all people is employed in policy making, and why we should not allow organized religion to guide policy.

There’s like 7000 religions in the world. I don’t give a fk if one adherent to one of them says “my religion is this!” And another says “no! It’s this!”

Because frankly these organized religions are all nuts. And they are all used for control.

We need a neutral system reliant on treating others as you’d like to be treated.

Wrong. As other posters have stated, with cites, much of what he said is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. That is not an "interpretation." It's a different belief altogether. Also, the response was to PP saying: "odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”. " Catholicism does no such thing, which should be obvious even to the least religiously informed person who simply knows Catholic women in the workplace. Even freaking ACB has always worked.

DP. You are missing the meta-level point. All of the rules and interpretations of Catholicism don't matter if you aren't Catholic. The Golden Rule works for everyone. As an atheist, it has always been my north star.

He breaks the golden rule many times in his speech though.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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[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?

When he said the "majority of you" he was specifically reference the female graduates of a conservative Catholic college, not all female college graduates across the U.S. In this case, the "guess" he is venturing could well be correct.

The majority of young women graduating from even a Catholic college are not eagerly awaiting the day they can have back-to-back babies for the remainder of their fertile years. It’s hard to understate just how fringe a view it is that even NFP is “disordered.” You realize that being subservient to your husband + no masturbation + no NFP = having 10+ pregnancies, if not more?

Exceedingly few 21 year old women want to be pregnant every 12-24 months until menopause.

Those exceedingly few women congregate at schools like Benedictine, University of Dallas and Franciscan University in Steubenville.

I’ve attended mass at one of those schools when I was passing through town and the pews were full of 6+ children families and women with lace head coverings. The parking lots are packed with those 15 seater vans. This is a fact that anybody who has even marginally looked into it would understand. Those schools are at the forefront of conservative Catholic education. Their graduates are engaged and/or married at a much higher rate at graduation as they send a measurable number of students to seminary and monastery every year.

There is a reason why he got a standing ovation.

They have 6 kids and not 12. They use NFP.

His views on NFP are kooky but not blasphemous or heretical, so I defend his right to espouse them. And everyone else's right to ignore them.

Okay then I can say abortion is not murder in a speech to catholic women and it's not heretical?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird as a spiritual, but not religious, person having to watch the organized religions who the hold the most political and social power try to imbue their values on the rest of us who don’t hold them.

Like clearly this speech is pushing traditional values where women raise kids and stay home.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

I believe in a merciful God, but I don’t hold any of these odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”.

It’s fked up yall hold so much sway over the rest of us just trying to exist in America.

This is NOT Catholicism. He's an idiot.

To you it’s not. To some it is.

This is the problem with religious “interpretation” in general and the most compelling reason society should rely on the Golden rule, but also insist on a neutral playing field whereby the observable world perceivable to all people is employed in policy making, and why we should not allow organized religion to guide policy.

There’s like 7000 religions in the world. I don’t give a fk if one adherent to one of them says “my religion is this!” And another says “no! It’s this!”

Because frankly these organized religions are all nuts. And they are all used for control.

We need a neutral system reliant on treating others as you’d like to be treated.

Wrong. As other posters have stated, with cites, much of what he said is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. That is not an "interpretation." It's a different belief altogether. Also, the response was to PP saying: "odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”. " Catholicism does no such thing, which should be obvious even to the least religiously informed person who simply knows Catholic women in the workplace. Even freaking ACB has always worked.

DP. You are missing the meta-level point. All of the rules and interpretations of Catholicism don't matter if you aren't Catholic. The Golden Rule works for everyone. As an atheist, it has always been my north star.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird as a spiritual, but not religious, person having to watch the organized religions who the hold the most political and social power try to imbue their values on the rest of us who don’t hold them.

Like clearly this speech is pushing traditional values where women raise kids and stay home.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

I believe in a merciful God, but I don’t hold any of these odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”.

It’s fked up yall hold so much sway over the rest of us just trying to exist in America.

This is NOT Catholicism. He's an idiot.

To you it’s not. To some it is.

This is the problem with religious “interpretation” in general and the most compelling reason society should rely on the Golden rule, but also insist on a neutral playing field whereby the observable world perceivable to all people is employed in policy making, and why we should not allow organized religion to guide policy.

There’s like 7000 religions in the world. I don’t give a fk if one adherent to one of them says “my religion is this!” And another says “no! It’s this!”

Because frankly these organized religions are all nuts. And they are all used for control.

We need a neutral system reliant on treating others as you’d like to be treated.

Wrong. As other posters have stated, with cites, much of what he said is actually contrary to Catholic teaching. That is not an "interpretation." It's a different belief altogether. Also, the response was to PP saying: "odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”. " Catholicism does no such thing, which should be obvious even to the least religiously informed person who simply knows Catholic women in the workplace. Even freaking ACB has always worked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He was speaking to a certain audience. Why do others, not part of that audience, care? There can be many different viewpoints.

Because a viewpoint that, among other things, resurfaces the century old lie that Jews are responsible for the murder of Jesus is despicable and dangerous. BTW even the catholic church has officially rejected it. This guy goes on and on about his righteousness and following the word of God and then has no shame to take out a lie that has been at the core of centuries of persecutions and massacres. So much time spent trying on Jesus and clearly has not understood anything of Jesus’ message.

This guy is part of the fringe who are proudly stuck to the church before the II Vatican Council of the 60s: references to the founder of Opus Dei, the mass in Latin, Jews as Jesus’ murderers, women place is at home (at a commencement!!!) men are the one setting the cultural tone, even abstinence between a husband and wife who decided the 5 kids they already have may be enough is sinful and so on.

+1 The fringe is so far out of line that most Catholics do not recognize them as Catholic. They might as well break away from the church already.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird as a spiritual, but not religious, person having to watch the organized religions who the hold the most political and social power try to imbue their values on the rest of us who don’t hold them.

Like clearly this speech is pushing traditional values where women raise kids and stay home.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

I believe in a merciful God, but I don’t hold any of these odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”.

It’s fked up yall hold so much sway over the rest of us just trying to exist in America.

This is NOT Catholicism. He's an idiot.

To you it’s not. To some it is.

This is the problem with religious “interpretation” in general and the most compelling reason society should rely on the Golden rule, but also insist on a neutral playing field whereby the observable world perceivable to all people is employed in policy making, and why we should not allow organized religion to guide policy.

There’s like 7000 religions in the world. I don’t give a fk if one adherent to one of them says “my religion is this!” And another says “no! It’s this!”

Because frankly these organized religions are all nuts. And they are all used for control.

We need a neutral system reliant on treating others as you’d like to be treated.

My thoughts exactly.

Plus:

https://psmag.com/social-justice/is-religion-hazardous-to-your-childs-moral-health

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird as a spiritual, but not religious, person having to watch the organized religions who the hold the most political and social power try to imbue their values on the rest of us who don’t hold them.

Like clearly this speech is pushing traditional values where women raise kids and stay home.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

I believe in a merciful God, but I don’t hold any of these odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”.

It’s fked up yall hold so much sway over the rest of us just trying to exist in America.

This is NOT Catholicism. He's an idiot.

To you it’s not. To some it is.

This is the problem with religious “interpretation” in general and the most compelling reason society should rely on the Golden rule, but also insist on a neutral playing field whereby the observable world perceivable to all people is employed in policy making, and why we should not allow organized religion to guide policy.

There’s like 7000 religions in the world. I don’t give a fk if one adherent to one of them says “my religion is this!” And another says “no! It’s this!”

Because frankly these organized religions are all nuts. And they are all used for control.

We need a neutral system reliant on treating others as you’d like to be treated.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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[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?

When he said the "majority of you" he was specifically reference the female graduates of a conservative Catholic college, not all female college graduates across the U.S. In this case, the "guess" he is venturing could well be correct.

The majority of young women graduating from even a Catholic college are not eagerly awaiting the day they can have back-to-back babies for the remainder of their fertile years. It’s hard to understate just how fringe a view it is that even NFP is “disordered.” You realize that being subservient to your husband + no masturbation + no NFP = having 10+ pregnancies, if not more?

Exceedingly few 21 year old women want to be pregnant every 12-24 months until menopause.

Those exceedingly few women congregate at schools like Benedictine, University of Dallas and Franciscan University in Steubenville.

I’ve attended mass at one of those schools when I was passing through town and the pews were full of 6+ children families and women with lace head coverings. The parking lots are packed with those 15 seater vans. This is a fact that anybody who has even marginally looked into it would understand. Those schools are at the forefront of conservative Catholic education. Their graduates are engaged and/or married at a much higher rate at graduation as they send a measurable number of students to seminary and monastery every year.

There is a reason why he got a standing ovation.

And yet one of the orders of nuns that founded the college denounced his comments:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2024/05/18/benedictine-college-nuns-blast-harrison-butkers-controversial-commencement-speech/?sh=6d0bfbb6798d

+1 And you know how standing ovations happen at a graduation? A group of sycophants stand up, and everyone else, most of whom weren't paying attention to the speech all that much, realize it's over and join in the ovation having no real opinion about a speech they barely heard. It is like a benign form of mob mentality. So I'm not sure I believe even half the people in the actual audience were aware of all the offensive things he said until they read about it later.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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[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?

When he said the "majority of you" he was specifically reference the female graduates of a conservative Catholic college, not all female college graduates across the U.S. In this case, the "guess" he is venturing could well be correct.

The majority of young women graduating from even a Catholic college are not eagerly awaiting the day they can have back-to-back babies for the remainder of their fertile years. It’s hard to understate just how fringe a view it is that even NFP is “disordered.” You realize that being subservient to your husband + no masturbation + no NFP = having 10+ pregnancies, if not more?

Exceedingly few 21 year old women want to be pregnant every 12-24 months until menopause.

Those exceedingly few women congregate at schools like Benedictine, University of Dallas and Franciscan University in Steubenville.

I’ve attended mass at one of those schools when I was passing through town and the pews were full of 6+ children families and women with lace head coverings. The parking lots are packed with those 15 seater vans. This is a fact that anybody who has even marginally looked into it would understand. Those schools are at the forefront of conservative Catholic education. Their graduates are engaged and/or married at a much higher rate at graduation as they send a measurable number of students to seminary and monastery every year.

There is a reason why he got a standing ovation.

They have 6 kids and not 12. They use NFP.

His views on NFP are kooky but not blasphemous or heretical, so I defend his right to espouse them. And everyone else's right to ignore them.

Anonymous wrote:It’s so weird as a spiritual, but not religious, person having to watch the organized religions who the hold the most political and social power try to imbue their values on the rest of us who don’t hold them.

Like clearly this speech is pushing traditional values where women raise kids and stay home.

To suggest otherwise is to insult our intelligence.

I believe in a merciful God, but I don’t hold any of these odd rigid social beliefs found in things like Catholicism essentially mandating women stick to a “vocation”.

It’s fked up yall hold so much sway over the rest of us just trying to exist in America.

This is NOT Catholicism. He's an idiot.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I am a Catholic and he was speaking to Catholic women and he spoke against the Catholic Church and Catholic teachings so yes, it is my place and my lane to point out where he is wrong and blasphemous.

These crazy nut jobs are always trying to Bogart the Catholic Church because it has so much money and power. Good Catholic women and men will not allow that.

Please give exact quotes for his blasphemy.

Unlike most on this thread, I read the entire speech, found here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesfarrell/2024/05/15/heres-harrison-butkers-controversial-commencement-speech-in-full/?sh=371843c17937

His views are not mainstream U.S. Catholic views, and they are not mine. But they are neither heretical or blasphemous, and he is entitled to them.

I posted above what I thought was the most questionable thing he said: "...when you embrace tradition, success, worldly and spiritual will follow."

I posted above and the line I found most questionable was this:

Well for one, he supports the “blood libel” defamation of the Jews, which the Church has clearly distanced itself from.

PP here: I went back to the speech and agree with you that also was questionable. I was always taught that this rests with Pilate and the Sanhedrin, not "the Jews." Quote from him:"Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the Biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail."

I find myself in the awkward position of defending him as not espousing views contrary to Catholic teaching (ex-the two questionable citations above). I don't agree with him, but he is not speaking as a representative of the Church but rather as a member of the Church, who is free to speak on how he understands and lives his faith in the Church.

Yeah I’m sure he meant the Sanhedrin. And not the blood libel against Jews. Remember that Butker and his ilk are absolutely opposed to everything they perceive as liberal in the Church and that very much includes recent efforts to reconcile with the Jews. This dude wants to go around saying Jews killed Jesus.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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[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?

When he said the "majority of you" he was specifically reference the female graduates of a conservative Catholic college, not all female college graduates across the U.S. In this case, the "guess" he is venturing could well be correct.

The majority of young women graduating from even a Catholic college are not eagerly awaiting the day they can have back-to-back babies for the remainder of their fertile years. It’s hard to understate just how fringe a view it is that even NFP is “disordered.” You realize that being subservient to your husband + no masturbation + no NFP = having 10+ pregnancies, if not more?

Exceedingly few 21 year old women want to be pregnant every 12-24 months until menopause.

Those exceedingly few women congregate at schools like Benedictine, University of Dallas and Franciscan University in Steubenville.

I’ve attended mass at one of those schools when I was passing through town and the pews were full of 6+ children families and women with lace head coverings. The parking lots are packed with those 15 seater vans. This is a fact that anybody who has even marginally looked into it would understand. Those schools are at the forefront of conservative Catholic education. Their graduates are engaged and/or married at a much higher rate at graduation as they send a measurable number of students to seminary and monastery every year.

There is a reason why he got a standing ovation.

They have 6 kids and not 12. They use NFP.

exactly this ^^^^

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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[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?

When he said the "majority of you" he was specifically reference the female graduates of a conservative Catholic college, not all female college graduates across the U.S. In this case, the "guess" he is venturing could well be correct.

The majority of young women graduating from even a Catholic college are not eagerly awaiting the day they can have back-to-back babies for the remainder of their fertile years. It’s hard to understate just how fringe a view it is that even NFP is “disordered.” You realize that being subservient to your husband + no masturbation + no NFP = having 10+ pregnancies, if not more?

Exceedingly few 21 year old women want to be pregnant every 12-24 months until menopause.

Those exceedingly few women congregate at schools like Benedictine, University of Dallas and Franciscan University in Steubenville.

I’ve attended mass at one of those schools when I was passing through town and the pews were full of 6+ children families and women with lace head coverings. The parking lots are packed with those 15 seater vans. This is a fact that anybody who has even marginally looked into it would understand. Those schools are at the forefront of conservative Catholic education. Their graduates are engaged and/or married at a much higher rate at graduation as they send a measurable number of students to seminary and monastery every year.

There is a reason why he got a standing ovation.

They have 6 kids and not 12. They use NFP.

Anonymous wrote:

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[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?

When he said the "majority of you" he was specifically reference the female graduates of a conservative Catholic college, not all female college graduates across the U.S. In this case, the "guess" he is venturing could well be correct.

The majority of young women graduating from even a Catholic college are not eagerly awaiting the day they can have back-to-back babies for the remainder of their fertile years. It’s hard to understate just how fringe a view it is that even NFP is “disordered.” You realize that being subservient to your husband + no masturbation + no NFP = having 10+ pregnancies, if not more?

Exceedingly few 21 year old women want to be pregnant every 12-24 months until menopause.

This is where his rhetoric is dangerous. To tell women that NFP is "not natural" is against Catholic teachings and leaves naive women thinking they must "submit" to their H whenever he wanted. What he should have done is quote Catholic actual teaching instead of the heresy....

which states...

Men rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife.

...

there are well-grounded reasons for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances,

...

For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character. (Translation: you are not an animal, you don't have to have sex to be intimate with your spouse, they do not have to have sex to be your wife)

And if this self-discipline does demand that they persevere in their purpose and efforts, it has at the same time the salutary effect of enabling husband and wife to develop to their personalities and to be enriched with spiritual blessings. For it brings to family life abundant fruits of tranquility and peace.

It helps in solving difficulties of other kinds. It fosters in husband and wife thoughtfulness and loving consideration for one another. It helps them to repel inordinate self-love, which is the opposite of charity. (kicker boy really needs to study this)

also ... their thoughts on female doctors and nurses ... Likewise we hold in the highest esteem those doctors and members of the nursing profession who, in the exercise of their calling, endeavor to fulfill the demands of their Christian "vocation" before any merely human interest. (hmm any human interest, even being a mom)