Liberating Motherhood

[benedictaoo]

I hope you don't take this attitude out on your husband.

If I do, he must like it, we been married for 23 years now.

 

[higherFaith]

If I do, he must like it, we been married for 23 years now.

 

[Meepy]

Contraction- you said its out of love and charity and becuase you love God.

not out of a sense of duty. I said its a job... but you said no.

You are one big ball of contradiction.

contradiction? You just justified a mother killing her own children because of things like "hormonal cycles" and "her husband not getting it".

There is something very wrong regarding the tone of your posts regarding mothers who kill their children. As if the mothers themselves aren't even murderers.

I think thats very alarming , to say the least.

It seems your trying to go for a strawman here. Love, charity, and responsibilities(duties) are obviously involved in the circle of matrimony. Obviously divine law involves the duties of a christian, whether man or woman.

No one should be forced to however, or do anything against their free will. If someone wants to live more of a modern secular view of marriage go ahead. But marriage will never achieve what it can truly be with those types of secular ideals pervading it. Nor can it function properly with attitudes such as yours in the context of Christendom. This aggresive western attitude or sarcastic jokes is not what christian marriage is about. Nor is this enourmous sense of paranoia regarding things like spouses doing nice things for each other.

I talk about love and self sacrifice. You say its __kissing and taking advantage. I bring up the actions of wives being nurturing to their children, feeding them, and loving their husband. And you say its slavery. I bring up self- sacrifice and charity. And you bring up materialism and worldly pleasure, and justify those nutjob mothers who kill their children.


There is just something very wrong regarding what your intent is and this overt suspicion.It is just unhealthy. Maybe you have been around a ton of abuse. I don't know. But you look for the bad in everything it seems. Which is kinda sad.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1631: "This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:

• Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;
• Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;
• Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is
necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it."
​

Among the rights and duties that bind those in the order of spouses are the duty and the right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1151).

While Matrimony does not confer sacramental "character" (as do Baptism, Confirmation and Order: CCC 1121), it does consecrate a person to and for a special way of life, and so becomes a source of continuing graces. The Catechism (no. 1535), putting Matrimony alongside Order as involving a "particular consecration", quotes Vatican II: "Christian spouses have a special sacrament by which they are fortified and receive a kind of consecration in the duties and dignity of their state. By virtue of this sacrament, as spouses fulfill their conjugal and family obligations, they are penetrated with the Spirit of Christ, who fills their whole lives with faith, hope and charity. Thus they increasingly advance towards their own perfection, as well as towards their mutual sanctification" (GS 48).

Like each sacrament, Matrimony offers distinctive graces, which correspond to the peculiar aspirations, challenges, duties and difficulties of married life. These graces certainly include the following:
- First of all, the grace that reinforces the couple's love so that it does not give way under the inevitable difficulties of a lifelong commitment, but is strengthened and grows with the passage of the years. "This grace proper to the sacrament of Matrimony is intended to perfect the couple's love and to strengthen their indissoluble unity. By this grace they help one another to attain holiness in their married life" (CCC 1641; cf. 1661).
- Love means loving the other as he or she is; i.e. as a real person with defects. The hardest tests of married life come when romance wanes and couples begin to discover the extent of each other's defects. The sacrament must offer special and particularly strong graces for living through such moments, learning to forgive, to ask for forgiveness, to develop the aptitude for dwelling on one's partner's positive characteristics and avoiding obsessions with those that appear negative: in a word, to keep loving one another in a truly self-sacrificial, Christ-like way.
- Matrimonial grace is no doubt further specified in the way it strengthens each spouse in sexual identity and donation: helping the man develop his distinctive spousal self-gift in a masculine mode and dedication, and the woman in feminine mode and dedication. The unity of marriage is not just indissoluble, nor simply interpersonal; it is intersexual. It calls for a growth in sexual identity, so threatened today by the tendency to belittle God's gift of sexual differences, character and function.
- A particular task of married love - for which the sacrament provides grace - is to purify the sexual relationship between husband and wife of the elements of selfishness and of possible exploitation which, in the present state of human nature, can affect it (cf. CCC 1606-1607).

Marriage as a Sacrament (in Encyclopedia of Catholic Doctrine, Our Sunday Visitor, 1997. Ed: Russell Shaw) | www.cormacburke.or.ke

 

[benedictaoo]

You just justified a mother killing her own children because of things like "hormonal cycles" and "her husband not getting it".

Am I speaking past you?

Not a "hormone cycle"... we are not tlaking about PMS but Endocrinology. You know that there are serious Endocrinology diseases out there that can effect a lot of stuff.

I don't know, did your vows have "In sickness and in health" in it? Mine did.

Endocrinology

Endocrinology (from Greek ἔνδον, endo, "within"; κρῑνω, krīnō, "to separate"; and -λογία, -logia) is a branch of biology and medicine dealing with the endocrine system, its diseases, and its specific secretions called hormones, the integration of developmental events such as proliferation, growth, and differentiation (including histogenesis and organogenesis) and the coordination of metabolism, respiration, excretion, movement, reproduction, and sensory perception depend on chemical cues, substances synthesized and secreted by specialized cells.

Endocrinology is concerned with the study of the biosynthesis, storage, chemistry, and physiological function of hormones and with the cells of the endocrine glands and tissues that secrete them.

The endocrine system consists of several glands, in different parts of the body, that secrete hormones directly into the blood rather than into a duct system. Hormones have many different functions and modes of action; one hormone may have several effects on different target organs, and, conversely, one target organ may be affected by more than one hormone.

In the original 1902 definition by Bayliss and Starling (see below), they specified that, to be classified as a hormone, a chemical must be produced by an organ, be released (in small amounts) into the blood, and be transported by the blood to a distant organ to exert its specific function. This definition holds for most "classical" hormones, but there are also paracrine mechanisms (chemical communication between cells within a tissue or organ), autocrine signals (a chemical that acts on the same cell), and intracrine signals (a chemical that acts within the same cell). A neuroendocrine signal is a "classical" hormone that is released into the blood by a neurosecretory neuron (see article on Neuroendocrinology).

Hormones act by binding to specific receptors in the target organ. As Baulieu notes, a receptor has at least two basic constituents:

a recognition site, to which the hormone binds
an effector site, which precipitates the modification of cellular function.
Between these is a "transduction mechanism" in which hormone binding induces allosteric modification that, in turn, produces the appropriate response.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Families need both mothers AND fathers. Children benefit immensely from having both parents in the home. Single parenthood does come at an emotional and mental cost for the children.

And I disagree that there is something ontological about women that makes them only "fitted" for working in the home. Just like I disagree that a woman is an imperfect man, and can only be saved in relation to her husband, where she learns how to act as an authentic human being (Aquinas). If I could have kids, yeah, I'd stay home with them - but my husband had better pitch in as well, because he would live in the house, too, and the "But I work all day" excuse doesn't count because.... Mothers work all day, too! 24/7!

But since I can't have kids, then I'm quite happy to be able to go out in the world and make a difference through whichever career I choose. Doesn't make me un-feminine or anti-woman. Women who have careers are NOT inherently materialistic. After all, is every man who focuses on a career materialistic? No? Then why does having a penis mean that he can work and only parent on weekends?

Also, it would be great if we could stop quoting popes on the subject of women from the 19th and early 20th centuries. They came from a time when women were property (Pp. Leo) and when women had only had the right to vote for 10 years and it was still debated (Pp. Pius). Viewing women as equally capable human beings as men doesn't strip women of their femininity and make them like men - it is just an acknowledgement of the fact that both sexes exhibit mental capacities for the same sorts of careers. Women are equally capable of being as critical and as discerning as men when it comes to politics, religion, and the world around us. In our universities today, it is the women who are excelling academically - not the men. In Canada, we have a magazine called MacLean's that publishes yearly issues on the state of universities in the country, and they have written numerous articles pondering why men aren't enrolling and excelling as much as the women are.

Having an education and workable skills doesn't make a woman anti-man, or even anti-woman for that manner. It just means that she's capable as a man is in most jobs (physical strength excepted due to biological reasons).

Anyway, I guess you guys have proved my point that you here want a woman who has no workable skills, no independence, and is completely dependent upon a man for her living and well-being. I'm glad that most of us don't live in the 19th century anymore. I'll be enjoying my potential nursing degree or my theological professorship, if that is indeed the career path that I choose.

 

[Meepy]

Families need both mothers AND fathers. Children benefit immensely from having both parents in the home. Single parenthood does come at an emotional and mental cost for the children.

And I disagree that there is something ontological about women that makes them only "fitted" for working in the home. Just like I disagree that a woman is an imperfect man, and can only be saved in relation to her husband, where she learns how to act as an authentic human being (Aquinas). If I could have kids, yeah, I'd stay home with them - but my husband had better pitch in as well, because he would live in the house, too, and the "But I work all day" excuse doesn't count because.... Mothers work all day, too! 24/7!

But since I can't have kids, then I'm quite happy to be able to go out in the world and make a difference through whichever career I choose. Doesn't make me un-feminine or anti-woman. Women who have careers are NOT inherently materialistic. After all, is every man who focuses on a career materialistic? No? Then why does having a penis mean that he can work and only parent on weekends?

Also, it would be great if we could stop quoting popes on the subject of women from the 19th and early 20th centuries. They came from a time when women were property (Pp. Leo) and when women had only had the right to vote for 10 years and it was still debated (Pp. Pius). Viewing women as equally capable human beings as men doesn't strip women of their femininity and make them like men - it is just an acknowledgement of the fact that both sexes exhibit mental capacities for the same sorts of careers. Women are equally capable of being as critical and as discerning as men when it comes to politics, religion, and the world around us. In our universities today, it is the women who are excelling academically - not the men. In Canada, we have a magazine called MacLean's that publishes yearly issues on the state of universities in the country, and they have written numerous articles pondering why men aren't enrolling and excelling as much as the women are.

Having an education and workable skills doesn't make a woman anti-man, or even anti-woman for that manner. It just means that she's capable as a man is in most jobs (physical strength excepted due to biological reasons).

Anyway, I guess you guys have proved my point that you here want a woman who has no workable skills, no independence, and is completely dependent upon a man for her living and well-being. I'm glad that most of us don't live in the 19th century anymore. I'll be enjoying my potential nursing degree or my theological professorship, if that is indeed the career path that I choose.

Women weren't property in those days. At least not in the way they want people to think. That is such an old stupid argument sowed to try to hurt the unity of marriage. In the context of christian marriage both spouses are property of each other, since they are one flesh.

meh, I'll take Pope Leo XIII, Pius XI's, Aquinas, Chrysostom, and the ancient fathers over the more modern interpretation. I have a much greater feeling they know much better than what these wacko modernists think they do today. I don't think the modern view has any foundation backing it up considering divorce rates shot up drastically when these new ideas were being admitted into society.

It has been a disaster. Both financially, family wise and emotionally. Billions of dollars have been wasted on the cost of divorce and civil family lawyers. Illgitimacy has skyrocketed. Abortion has increased by 200%. Too many women have flooded the job market, lowering the wages, causing less jobs and demand. And now because of that many women, who wanted to stay home and be mothers, are forced into low paying jobs who have children. You have to ask yourself, who's the one really hurting women in the long run?

Are we really in the position to talk about these ideals? The Pope at least came from a solid moral foundation and took his writings from the deposit of the faith. These modern marriage defenders barely have even that. Less alone a guidance from divine revelation or the deposit of the faith. Thats an awful lot of trust and faith you put into people, many of which who aren't even christians and many of which support abortion. but even over the Pope's, simply because they were from an older era? Shall we disregard all of the early fathers because they came from older eras too? What a distorted way to look at Church history.

The Church says that if something doesn't align up with the consensus(sententia fidei proxima) of the ancient fathers and councils you should disregard it. And more importantly if something clashes against this consensus of the ancient fathers, it should be repudiated. The modern view of marriage in the west clashes with the ancient fathers in a very obvious way. And under that authority and model I disregard it as just another modernist error that sprouted from the heresy of Americanism and materialism.

If anything Pope Pius XI's words are very prophetic just like Humanie Vitie was. It predicted this false so called 'equality' with the husband , and this unnatural aggressive unfeminine materialistic ambition that would cause the destruction of the woman and families, or as Pope Pius XI says, the emancipation of women, just as it predicted birth control would come about and increase adultery, immorality, and abortion.

And then we have the nerve to say the Pope's words are just old mumbo jumbo that has no bearing on life. "Yea the Popes words have no bearing on us more sophisticated folk. Were above that.". So I guess Humanie Vitie has no bearing too then using your same model? Please. It seems some people just want to pick and choose..

 

[benedictaoo]

Too many women have flooded the job market, lowering the wages, causing less jobs and demand. And now because of that many women, who wanted to stay home and be mothers, are forced into low paying jobs who have children. You have to ask yourself, who's the one really hurting women in the long run?

You really don't think a women has any business working, do you?

 

[benedictaoo]

Also, it would be great if we could stop quoting popes on the subject of women from the 19th and early 20th centuries.

I would like to know if some folks here think its a mortal sin for a mother or a woman in general, to work?

 

[SolomonVII]

Europe's birth rate is declining, but it is informative that the rate of decline is not the same for all countries.
Traditional Catholic countries of the south, where men balk against women's work, have
birth rates in such steep decline that they have likely passed the point of no return.
In the north ,where men have fewer qualms about domestic chores, motherhood is more possible.
This is what the numbers show.
Traditionalists may be dead right in their insistence.
Dead right, dead wrong.
Still dead.

 

[Gwendolyn]

Meepy, there are many things that existed in the history of the Church that are no longer held. For example, we do not hold Aquinas' belief that a woman is an imperfect man. We do not hold his belief that female children receive a soul later than men do. We do hot hold his beliefs concerning the significance of sperm in the reproduction of children.

I am not talking about something far-fetched. An understanding of biology and psychology have revealed to us that women are equally as capable as men. Issues concerning societal roles are not matters of faith - as in, we won't go to hell if we think that a woman working to support her family, to keep them healthy and happy, is a good thing. However, if I believe that abortion is permissible, my soul will be in danger; likewise if I believe that pre-marital sex and contraception are permissible. But my soul is not in danger if I believe that it is okay for a woman to go to work.

You know as well as I do that we cannot read things in a vacuum. A woman was considered property of her husband in the 19th century - when she married him, she became his, as did any property or possessions that she owned. Not hers as well; his. This is a reality. Presently, we acknowledge a woman as an independent individual who has equal status in a married relationship - married couples co-sign mortgages, lease agreements, and loans. The things they own are considered shared, not inherent property of the husband alone. This is not a bad thing - if anything, it enhances the beauty of the "two become one" mentality that we Catholics have concerning marriage. One is not absorbed into the other, with the other being dominant; the two come together in a beautiful symphony.

I can quote lots of popes on things that the Church now has a different opinion on. Pope Pius X's encyclical on modernism, for example, condemns a great many things - it condemned biblical scholarship; it condemned anthropology; it condemned psychology; it condemned many other 'modern' studies of the human person and our history. Now, we understand that those studies are NOT inherently evil - but we also have the critical thinking skills to see what is and is not an authentic expression of the human person in the understanding of the Catholic Church.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that women can run around and sleep with whoever they want. I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that men need to be emasculated. I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that women don't need men for anything in life. All I have seen is women trying to explain to men what a difficult job mother is, and women trying to explain to men that a woman having her own hobbies, career, etc. is a good thing, and may make her a happier, well-adjusted woman in the long run.

I wish you well in finding the sort of subservient woman you hope for. Just understand that there is nothing sinful about women wanting to work and make the world a better place through that.

 

[Davidnic]

The Church does teach some things, like veiling are not dogma or necessary and directly states they are matters of discipline and custom. Veiling is directly stated as such:

"it must be noted that these ordinances [of Scripture], probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value."
Source

 

[Davidnic]

On issues apart from veiling a reading of the total sum of Catholic teaching shows that it is not sinful for women to work outside the home. Motherhood and staying at home as the primary caregiver is encouraged where possible. It is preferable because of the vocation of motherhood and how it operates.

There are multiple dynamics in how the joint and complimentary vocation of parenthood is expressed. In the sum total of Catholic teaching we need to look at what is dogma on the topic, what is discipline and what can and has been adapted due to custom and time period and what is unchangeable as dogma.

In that, it can be said that it is not sinful for a woman to work outside the home and seek a career. What is wrong, for either parent, is to make family second to a form of careerism. And that is one of the many errors of second wave feminism. as well as the idea of male corporate achievement.

It is also impossible to group feminism into one block since the movement is divided within itself. There are first wave, second wave, third wave and non-classed divisions. Most people see feminism's face as the second wave boomer driven feminism that is really off base and destructive. And many, many women today have rejected that because of the damage it does on a core level to women. It has led to more workplace advancement but has, in trade, removed the inherent dignity from actually being a woman in favor of being a parody of a woman as defined by a small group.

But that is not the women's rights of the first wave that was pro-life and called abortion the greatest crime against women. Nor is it the emerging view in many women today that the second wave was destructive to something fundamental about being a woman.

Work and raising children in this society, where two parents often need to work and you also have stay at home dads when it is needed, is not as cut and dried as some here believe. And the Church sees that in the Apostolic letter on the family and other documents on work and family.

A woman is free to work in a manner that does not remove or attack the central natural dignity of what it is to be a woman. And work itself does not remove that dignity. On the same note a man must work in harmony with his natural dignity and vocation in matters of family as well.

The Church has a very balanced teaching on this when it is all taken into account.

 

[benedictaoo]

My only point was that a mother and a wife is also a human being who has feelings and if you treat her like she's a document written by the Church then you are asking for trouble.

Just being in tune to how she feels about it and be supportive, is all. Don't be like, this is your role, shut up and like it.

 

[Meepy]

Meepy, there are many things that existed in the history of the Church that are no longer held. For example, we do not hold Aquinas' belief that a woman is an imperfect man. We do not hold his belief that female children receive a soul later than men do. We do hot hold his beliefs concerning the significance of sperm in the reproduction of children.

I am not talking about something far-fetched. An understanding of biology and psychology have revealed to us that women are equally as capable as men. Issues concerning societal roles are not matters of faith - as in, we won't go to hell if we think that a woman working to support her family, to keep them healthy and happy, is a good thing. However, if I believe that abortion is permissible, my soul will be in danger; likewise if I believe that pre-marital sex and contraception are permissible. But my soul is not in danger if I believe that it is okay for a woman to go to work.

You know as well as I do that we cannot read things in a vacuum. A woman was considered property of her husband in the 19th century - when she married him, she became his, as did any property or possessions that she owned. Not hers as well; his. This is a reality. Presently, we acknowledge a woman as an independent individual who has equal status in a married relationship - married couples co-sign mortgages, lease agreements, and loans. The things they own are considered shared, not inherent property of the husband alone. This is not a bad thing - if anything, it enhances the beauty of the "two become one" mentality that we Catholics have concerning marriage. One is not absorbed into the other, with the other being dominant; the two come together in a beautiful symphony.

I can quote lots of popes on things that the Church now has a different opinion on. Pope Pius X's encyclical on modernism, for example, condemns a great many things - it condemned biblical scholarship; it condemned anthropology; it condemned psychology; it condemned many other 'modern' studies of the human person and our history. Now, we understand that those studies are NOT inherently evil - but we also have the critical thinking skills to see what is and is not an authentic expression of the human person in the understanding of the Catholic Church.

I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that women can run around and sleep with whoever they want. I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that men need to be emasculated. I haven't seen anyone in this thread arguing that women don't need men for anything in life. All I have seen is women trying to explain to men what a difficult job mother is, and women trying to explain to men that a woman having her own hobbies, career, etc. is a good thing, and may make her a happier, well-adjusted woman in the long run.

I wish you well in finding the sort of subservient woman you hope for. Just understand that there is nothing sinful about women wanting to work and make the world a better place through that.

You have not read his encyclical on modernism then. You need to probably re-read it. He never condemned science. I've read the whole thing, and many others in the Enchiridionregarding modernism. He condemned something called by the term "biblical", not the actual studying of scriptures. And states that the scriptures must be read within the light of the apostolic deposit, the ancient fathers, and the analogy of the faith. His words have just as much weight back then as they do now. Just like Humanie Vitie does.

The issue of Psychology is brought up because it taught people they should work out their problems without God. He condemned the secular form of it.

A woman was not considered property. A marriage was understood as a union. Both spouses are property of each others. They become one flesh and one unit. Like St. Paul says. The Church always understood that marriage is a union, not where 2 independent people live together. It also condemned the ownership of slaves and taught that no one is property and everyone is made in the dignity of God's image. Hence women were not property in families following the Catholic faith. The teaching that a wife should be submissive to her husband, does not make her property, but is found in the context of love, trust, and self giving which guides spouses on the code of conduct in marriage.

The problem starts with something the Church calls 'female careerism'. In which the career is put in priority over motherhood and marriage. Or that mothers can do whatever they're own bent wants in marriage to the ruin of the marriage for the sake of 'independence'. Pope Pius XI's words on the emancipation of women are a wonderful prophetic prediction of what is happening today. Just as is the social teaching that mothers should not have to be forced to work and that men should be given a living family wage that can be used to support his wife and children. And when you flood the job market with too many women who don't really need the work but do it because of female careerism and displaced ambition, you lower the wages of fathers with families and hurt the mothers who stay at home. As Pope Pius XI states, that such a false view of independence only degrades a woman to the point of pagan debauchery. There is real independence, which is with God, and there is false independence, which is materialism and prideful ambition.

I think you figure since the documents don't agree with your personal bent, you will just start to attack them and tell others to "not bring them up". Or maybe the truth is simply a hard thing to swallow sometimes and we only want to cherry pick certain things. Considering with your view you can do the exact same thing with the Pope's condemnation of contraception too.

We study and read the scriptures and the traditions within the light of the councils, ancient fathers, and the analogy of the faith. This includes everything. The Popes writings bear the stamp of Peter, and thus they all have bearing in Christian life. Peter by the Holy Spirit speaks through them.

I still have to laugh at benedicto's hormonal cycle view though. Can you image a woman in a court telling the judge she killed her children because of her hormones? lol.

 

[Meepy]

The Church does teach some things, like veiling are not dogma or necessary and directly states they are matters of discipline and custom. Veiling is directly stated as such:

"it must be noted that these ordinances [of Scripture], probably inspired by the customs of the period, concern scarcely more than disciplinary practices of minor importance, such as the obligation imposed upon women to wear a veil on the head (1 Cor 11:2-6); such requirements no longer have a normative value."
Source

Veiling is not dogma, but it definitely is Theologica Certa and more probably Sententia fidei Proxima. Since it is revealed in divine revelation and the ancient fathers. It isn't just a discipline, but a part of oral tradition.

Based on how explicit St. Paul writes about it, and how prevalent it is in Christian and Jewish tradition, I would say it is more on the level of Sententia fidei proxima.

Some people think it is more in the level of sententia communis. But with how explicit it is in divine revelation and the early fathers I think the theological certainty is higher than that. Sententia communis would more be related to private revelation probably.

This new view of marriage, in the secular sense. Is at most, Opinio tolerata. Because it understands that in some cases women have to work to support themselves because the husband does not earn enough. But that is why Church supports the issue of the family wage. The Church considers it a crime for a mother if she is forced to work. That is why it is a bad idea to flood the job market with too many women on the idea that it will make them free and independent. When in reality it will just make them slaves to low wages, child neglect, and labor hardships. It is bad in the long run for women.


As far as the encyclicals that gwendolyn is having trouble with, Pope Pius XII writes a good exposition on it

It is not to be thought that what is set down in Encyclical letters does not demand assent in itself, because in this the popes do not exercise the supreme power of their magisterium. For these matters are taught by the ordinary magisterium, regarding which the following is pertinent: “He who heareth you, heareth Me.” (Luke 10:16); and usually what is set forth and inculcated in Encyclical Letters, already pertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their acts, after due consideration, express an opinion on a hitherto controversial matter, it is clear to all that this matter, according to the mind and will of the same Pontiffs, cannot any longer be considered a question of free discussion among theologians.
—Humani Generis

 

[_Shannon_]

IS this dumb thread still going??

 

[Davidnic]

Veiling is not dogma, but it definitely is Theologica Certa and more probably Sententia fidei Proxima.

Nope, not even close and the Vatican disagrees with you. Veiling a custom mentioned in Scripture, a Pius discipline. It has no dogmatic grade and is not even in the realm of dogmatic theology. It is a custom and a practice. The Church is clear that it is not something than needs to be adhered to.

 

[Davidnic]

IS this dumb thread still going??

Yep, and it always comes back. Stupid will always persist since it knows no better. And that defines this thread. Another one of those place of women and children things that crops up over and over. Of course there are threads that are worse.

 

[Antigone]

IS this dumb thread still going??

Oh yes.

I bowed out ages ago.

I've got some chocolate mousse. Want some?

 

[_Shannon_]

I would love some mousse!