Fr. Ripperger on the roles of men and women within marriage

[hakutaku]

On 3/1/2021 at 6:13 PM, fides' Jack said:

Generally speaking, it is not OK for men to take traditionally female roles, or for women to take traditionally male roles. 

I think you should definitely lead with that when you tell non-believers about your religion, it will save everyone a lot of time.

[Peace]

1 hour ago, fides' Jack said:

@9:20

And here Fr. Ripperger himself quotes a theological source, The Handbook of Moral Theology.

I highly recommend listening to the first 10 minutes.  After that it gets into theology into demons and binding prayers and psychology, which is interesting in itself, but not directly tied to this current discussion.

That's the source? The opinion of 1 author in a moral theology handbook written in 1921?

That's some weak sauce man. No offense. But that position is simply one priest's opinion on the matter. I can go to the library and find a moral theology handbook written by priest Y who says the opposite.

What we need is official Church teaching. In the video above, Fr. Fr. Ripperger basically admits that there is none. But then he says that PF has "indirectly" agreed with his assertion by stating that a child has a right to be raised by his parents?

WEAK!

I mean, I understand the general point that it is good for a parent to be home with one's child full time. But to say that it is mortal sin not to do so in every case where it is possible, nah. That's a stretch. That is opinion, not the teaching of the Church. Sorry pal.

[fides' Jack]

13 minutes ago, Peace said:

I mean, I understand the general point that it is good for a parent to be home with one's child full time. But to say that it is mortal sin not to do so in every case where it is possible, nah. That's a stretch. That is opinion, not the teaching of the Church. Sorry pal.

That's your take.  I'm sure that's not his only source on the matter.  If I come across more sources, I'll point them your way.  

One question, though: you seemed to take issue with the fact that the handbook was written in 1921 - why?  Is that too old or too new for you?

I have to be honest, Peace - I think you and I probably agree on very little, politically.  With some of your other comments on here, however, I know that you're a man of integrity, and to me that says a hell of a lot.  I have a lot of respect for you.  Just sayin.  In this specific matter, I think you made a pretty decent point.

Like I said, I'll give you more sources if I come across any.

[truthfinder]

18 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

St Gianna Molla didn't have to work. She believed working as a physician was part of God's calling on her life. When her husband suggested she quit, she laughed. Now, saints aren't perfect, but her idea that her career was a means to sanctity was a pretty huge part of her charism and she died in this belief.  Idk nothing about Fr... but he's no Gianna Molla.  

I think another case of this is Louis and Zelie Martin (Therese of the Child Jesus' parents).  Louis was a watch maker and Zelie a lace-maker.  Louis stopped working so that he could help manage Zelie's business.  As far as I know, there was no special calling there, just the fact that Zelie made more money.  Also, they had nannies and servants who took a lot of care of their children - although it is evident Louis and Zelie put a lot of effort into making sure the children had a moral and pious upbringing. 

Certainly Zelie's job was not outside the home, but that does not mean that she, nor the many, many women who worked at home always had the closest eye over their children as proscribed in the 'guardian of the home' middle-class fantasy that's been pushed down from the 19th century and re-imagined in the 1950s.

[Peace]

9 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

That's your take.  I'm sure that's not his only source on the matter.  If I come across more sources, I'll point them your way.  

One question, though: you seemed to take issue with the fact that the handbook was written in 1921 - why?  Is that too old or too new for you?

I have to be honest, Peace - I think you and I probably agree on very little, politically.  With some of your other comments on here, however, I know that you're a man of integrity, and to me that says a hell of a lot.  I have a lot of respect for you.  Just sayin.  In this specific matter, I think you made a pretty decent point.

Like I said, I'll give you more sources if I come across any.

I mean, if you said "Catholics should strive to have the mother stay home with children" I would take no issue with it at all. In fact, if I get married I generally would hope that my wife can stay home with the kids. I think it is a great thing to aspire to.

But I think if you are gonna tell people that they are in mortal sin for something like that (it's not like working is intrinsically evil you know) I think you gotta come with something stronger than a handbook written 100 years ago by someone most of us have never even heard of.

The issue with the book being old is this. If this theory was the adopted teaching of the Church, you should be able to find it somewhere in a recent Catechism, papal document, etc. The teachings of the ECF are much older, but they are repeated in recent Catechisms, etc. They are validated by the magisterium operating in their official capacity.

Now I will give credit to some old stuff though, but it depends on who is writing. If it is a recognized father of the Church, I am gonna give it a lot more weight, even if it was written 1500 years ago. If it is St. Thomas and the Summa, I am gonna give it significant weight no matter how old it is. But if it is a moral theology handbook written by one person I have never even heard of before 100 years ago, not so much. Cause like I said, there are 1000 different moral theology handbooks out there, and I'm sure I can find one that reaches the opposite conclusion on that issue.

As for us not agreeing politically. I am guessing you are wrong on that point. I tend not to be at extremes, but generally I have a conservative leaning. The issue I think is that we only end up talking about the "extreme" positions that you take. But if were were talking about more mainstream conservative points, we could probably find a lot to agree on, I think.

I mean come on bro. The book ain't even in print. You can't get it online. Amazon has one used copy that sells for $893.75. Just checked the price.

[fides' Jack]

I get that.  To me, I will automatically give more weight to something written before VII, just because it's clear that after that point, bad theology exploded.  Not that there wasn't anything bad before, or that there wasn't anything good afterward, but just based on generalizations, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And in the age of censorship (a big thank you to Ash Wednesday who refused to censor posts here), if you can't get it in print anymore, that could very well speak to its authenticity, too.  That's just my personal take.

[Peace]

2 minutes ago, fides' Jack said:

I get that.  To me, I will automatically give more weight to something written before VII, just because it's clear that after that point, bad theology exploded.  Not that there wasn't anything bad before, or that there wasn't anything good afterward, but just based on generalizations, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And in the age of censorship (a big thank you to Ash Wednesday who refused to censor posts here), if you can't get it in print anymore, that could very well speak to its authenticity, too.  That's just my personal take.

Yeah my issue with many of these "moral theologians" is that 1) they just go totally liberal and say "nothing is a sin" or 2) they go totally scrupulous and find sin in almost literally everything that a person does, so that there is no more freedom in Christ, only 1 exact way of doing everything. As a general principle I don't give stuff a lot of weight unless it is coming from the magisterium, an ECF, or a doctor of the Church, or the bishop or priest that I am currently under.

[Nihil Obstat]

I think the problem with a manual of moral theology from 1921 is neither that it is too old not too recent, but simply that it is too isolated. For a fairly weighty topic I believe we would be reasonable to expect some fairly consistent commentary over at least centuries if we are going to establish unequivocally that "this constitutes grave matter." For a topic like contraception we have that. For skipping Mass on Sundays we have that. Do we have it for women working outside of the home? It seems murkier, at least.

[fides' Jack]

Well, if you want to buy me a copy of that manual, I promise to do the work to research the sources that were used 100 years ago and report back...   

3 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I think the problem with a manual of moral theology from 1921 is neither that it is too old not too recent, but simply that it is too isolated. For a fairly weighty topic I believe we would be reasonable to expect some fairly consistent commentary over at least centuries if we are going to establish unequivocally that "this constitutes grave matter." For a topic like contraception we have that. For skipping Mass on Sundays we have that. Do we have it for women working outside of the home? It seems murkier, at least.

Granted, it's not as clear-cut, and it certainly isn't "intrinsically" evil, as is contraception, or homosexuality, or abortion, or lying.

[chrysostom]

Just now, fides' Jack said:

Well, if you want to buy me a copy of that manual, I promise to do the work to research the sources that were used 100 years ago and report back...   

And there we have it. It's a money grab. He's going to turn around and sell it!

(just joking )

[chrysostom]

[removed since I thought better of my comment]

Edited March 4, 2021 by chrysostom

[PhuturePriest]

13 hours ago, Ash Wednesday said:

Speaking of -- I ordered his deliverance prayer book for the laity but prior to this ordered the deliverance and exorcisms prayer book for priests on accident. If anyone knows any priests that could use the book, I will send it to them, free of charge. When I skimmed the book and came across the prayers for exorcisms and blessing meats, I realized I had the wrong book. 

There's a guy in my diocese who will be ordained this May and would love this as an ordination gift, if the offer still stands!

[Ash Wednesday]

11 minutes ago, PhuturePriest said:

There's a guy in my diocese who will be ordained this May and would love this as an ordination gift, if the offer still stands!

You bet! Send me a DM and we'll arrange it. It's a perfectly fine book, as I am not authorized to bless meats, it's safe to say it's never been used I would love to see it be of use to a member of clergy!

[Aloysius]

make sure he gets a note that says he's only receiving this gift because some ppl disagreed about gender roles on the internet. 

[fides' Jack]

All,

I've had a bit more time to mull this whole discussion over in my head, and I realize now that my part in this specific discussion is, at the very least, imprudent.  

While I still believe the main premise, that, generally speaking, mothers should stay home and be with their children, I realize now a couple points:

• The timing of bringing all of this up could have the negative result of people getting the idea that Fr. Ripperger has views other than those he himself brings up in the videos I posted.
• At least in one post, my words were imprecise, which not only could lead people away from the truth, but could turn them off to the truth in the future, as well.

I admit that I very much like Fr. Ripperger, and one big reason for that is because listening to his talks has helped me find virtue in more than one area of my own life and has greatly deepened my prayer life.  Perhaps in my zeal for others to discover the same source of holy inspiration that I have found, I overstepped what I could personally claim.  I cannot speak to what Fr. Ripperger's personal views are on different subjects, and I hope you all dismiss my comments regarding what his personal views are. 

I also strongly affirm that Fr. Ripperger has not influenced my thinking on certain current, controversial subjects, like face masks and vaccines, and that the coincidental timing of all of these subjects being brought up is merely that: coincidence.  

I do encourage everyone to listen to his talks and make up your own minds.

With that, I now permanently withdraw from this thread.

-Jack