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

[Machine_Washable]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

He punched the doctor at the office because he was making passes at his wife. He had known about that from some earlier point in the movie. That was justified IMO because the doctor knew she was married.

As for the drama and manipulation, I call that even. She was clearly contemplating affections from other men. She was also cold as hell to him throughout the whole second half of the movie. No romantic affection at all, just nagging about his career choices and lack of professional ambition.

And give the guy some credit. This girl gets knocked up by a football player having sex in a public place, and when she decides not to have the abortion, Gosling steps in, marries her and agrees to raise a child that he knows probably isn't even his. He took her when she was at her lowest point, but then years later she feels like she is too good for him and dumps him.

Janet Jackson wrote a song about this:

 

He showed up at the doctor’s office drunk and was causing a scene before he knew the doctor was there. Ghayrah is good. He does not have that though. He doesn’t provide for his wife. Maybe he thought the doctor was coveting his wife. What did he do about it? Certainly not get a job so she wouldn’t have to work there! He was fine with her going there and working for the man until she left him in the hotel room and he wanted to show up and cause a scene. The movie pointed out that she had a father who was cruel and didn’t value his daughter. Then she had relations with the wrestler who was like her father. Finally she settled with her husband who was also bad but in a different way. There’s no intended hostility in these responses. It’s just interesting to see how different people can have such different impressions. 

Edited March 3, 2021 by Machine_Washable

[Lilllabettt]

16 minutes ago, Nihil Obstat said:

I do actually think Fr. Ripperger is a saintly man. Perfect, no. Infallible, no. I respectfully disagree with him on a handful of topics. But I believe there is serious holiness in his work and his preaching.

That may very well be true, but call me after he dies for his child. For my part I will admit being prejudiced against "celebrity " priests.  

[Nihil Obstat]

19 minutes ago, Lilllabettt said:

That may very well be true, but call me after he dies for his child. For my part I will admit being prejudiced against "celebrity " priests.  

Well God willing he will never have any to die for. 

That is one of the things I appreciate about him - he seems to avoid the spotlight. He does give conferences, but from what I have seen they are small and word-of-mouth. In the last few years they are quite rare as his time has primarily been occupied with establishing the Doloran Fathers, who are semi-contemplative and dedicated to spiritual warfare.

[Peace]

5 hours ago, Machine_Washable said:

He showed up at the doctor’s office drunk and was causing a scene before he knew the doctor was there. Ghayrah is good. He does not have that though. He doesn’t provide for his wife. Maybe he thought the doctor was coveting his wife. What did he do about it? Certainly not get a job so she wouldn’t have to work there! He was fine with her going there and working for the man until she left him in the hotel room and he wanted to show up and cause a scene. The movie pointed out that she had a father who was cruel and didn’t value his daughter. Then she had relations with the wrestler who was like her father. Finally she settled with her husband who was also bad but in a different way. There’s no intended hostility in these responses. It’s just interesting to see how different people can have such different impressions. 

It's her father's fault that she got knocked up by a wrestler in the teacher's lounge? I think you are giving her a free pass for her poor decision because you have been conditioned to believe women are sugar, spice, and everything nice. Everything must ultimately be the fault of a man. The wrestler is a jerk who had sex with her in the lounge because he was horny and had a lack of restraint. She on the other hand, is a saint come down from heaven, who was manipulated into sex by the evil man because "daddy was men to her."

Come on now.

Now the husband was not perfect. That's for sure. He had a legit booze problem that needed to be addressed. But not a "I get drunk and beat my wife and kids when I get home" sort of a booze problem. More of a "lazy drunk" I'm a chill on the couch and watch TV booze problem.

She had mentally checked out of the relationship way before the office scene near the end of the movie anyway. It was already over before that scene, which was brought in to give the movie a sort of "crescendo" if you will.

As you wrote, "He doesn't provide for his wife" and "Certainly not get a job" - are his main crimes in this movie. But that proves the basic point I wanted to make in my first post - that she left him because of his lack of career prospects and ambition. The point of my first post was that was that most women are not wired to be in a relationship where they are the primary provider, and that they will eventually come to resent the husband if he is not providing for the family financially. You basically agree with my point don't you?

5 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

That may very well be true, but call me after he dies for his child. For my part I will admit being prejudiced against "celebrity " priests.  

I want to find this mythical priest whom you don't have an issue with! How are you doing?

Edited March 3, 2021 by Peace

[Ash Wednesday]

7 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well God willing he will never have any to die for. 

That is one of the things I appreciate about him - he seems to avoid the spotlight. He does give conferences, but from what I have seen they are small and word-of-mouth. In the last few years they are quite rare as his time has primarily been occupied with establishing the Doloran Fathers, who are semi-contemplative and dedicated to spiritual warfare.

One bit of advice of his that I have taken to heart is the need for Catholics to be careful about the things they discuss, especially online, and especially if they aren't sufficiently knowledgeable on the subject, such as when it comes to the nitty gritty involving the Catholic faith -- like theology, moral theology, etc. I know the fundamentals and am always learning about specifics or Church history, but generally it's why I try not to get roped into debates, unless I have a lot of time on my hands to use google and to refer someone to the correct information, find the right document, et cetera. I cringe hard when I think of the times in college I was the product of poor catechesis but thought myself to be knowledgeable.

What I like in particular about Father Ripperger is that he gives very specific reasons and theological explanations for the points he makes. 

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. 

[fides' Jack]

16 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

In my family, I am happy to do quite a lot of the cooking. I am a decent cook, I enjoy doing it, and at the end of the day I am happy if my wife can spend more of her day engaged in quality time with our daughter, rather than chores. Plus if I do more cooking she asks me to clean less often.

She does all the baking though, and tracks the monthly expenditures, both of which I do not enjoy doing.

Our situation is very similar to this.

10 hours ago, Lilllabettt said:

For my part I will admit being prejudiced against "celebrity " priests.  

In general, I strongly agree with this statement.  I don't like most other celebrity priests.  I guess Fr. Altman is sort of a celebrity now, and I do kinda like him.  And of course Fr. Ripperger.

You may already be aware of this, but Fr. Ripperger himself is of the same opinion.  He knows it applies to him now, but he didn't ask for it and it's not something he enjoys.  Maybe inwardly - only God truly knows his heart.  In general, he's also prejudiced against celebrity priests.

14 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.  

This is the single best argument I've heard of the other side of this argument.

But it's easy to say that there will always be specific instances in which God is calling different people to go against the grain - even the grain of established tradition.  So if you think God is calling you specifically to do something different, then you should follow your conscience, and I would even add that to act contrary to your conscience would also be sinful.

[fides' Jack]

20 hours ago, Peace said:

Specifically where did he say it though? In that video? At what timestamp? I didn't hear him say that.

What specifically is the sin? It ain't like you can open up the Baltimore Catechism and see a paragraph that says "It is a sin for a wife to work". Sorry but I'm gonna have to say you are blowing smoke here unless you have some documented proof from a valid magisterial source on that one.

I'll try to find one where he does say it.  And he gives his theological reasoning, which is entirely in line with Church teaching.  I thought it was this video, but like I said, there are several.

My guess is that there are old encyclicals that say the same thing, but I'll find some sources if I can.

Honestly, I was shocked when I first heard him say it, but he explained and it made a lot of sense.  He's changed my mind on several issues, that I can honestly now say that I'm more in line with Church teaching than I was, unknowingly, before.

[chrysostom]

Giving your own children your love and care is a grave obligation. Most especially in the earliest years, paying someone else to do your parenting for you by default, and treating them like problems you can throw money at is problematic to say the least.

A lot of people really do have this attitude and don't even try to figure out a better way.

That said, I am wary by default of throwing around "this is a mortal sin". You gotta be precise, and you gotta be careful of laying burdens on people.

[fides' Jack]

@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.

[fides' Jack]

16 minutes ago, chrysostom said:

That said, I am wary by default of throwing around "this is a mortal sin". You gotta be precise, and you gotta be careful of laying burdens on people.

I completely agree.  I wouldn't do it if I weren't entirely confident in saying so.

It's just that the truth is so incredibly counter-cultural right now that even traditional, conservative Catholics don't know the moral theology.

11 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Well God willing he will never have any to die for. 

That is one of the things I appreciate about him - he seems to avoid the spotlight. He does give conferences, but from what I have seen they are small and word-of-mouth. In the last few years they are quite rare as his time has primarily been occupied with establishing the Doloran Fathers, who are semi-contemplative and dedicated to spiritual warfare.

I know, and it's frustrating!!  I live within 3 hours of him, and I would LOVE to go to one of his conferences, but have never heard of anything.  There was once that I heard he was giving a conference to women at a Church close to here.  But that was a women's conference, so... yeah.

My pastor and my spiritual director both know him, and they both consider him to be extremely solid, and have both reached out to him to understand specific matters better, themselves.

[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 )