Posted on 09/22/2014 6:55:29 AM PDT by marshmallow
I was on the bus today and on the seat in front of me was a Muslim women in a headscarf with three young boys and a baby, she was gently telling one of the boys to stop sulking, whilst feeding the baby and chatting and laughing with the others. On the sideways row of seats was another mother dressed in western clothes chatting on her phone and rather noisily telling off her daughter for making a mess with the chocolate she was eating. In fact she was more interested in fixing up a date for this evening with a friend. I know I shouldn't have been listening but it was impossible not to. Her shopping seemed to be mainly bottles. The first mother was relaxed with her children and seemed to enjoy them, the other seemed to find her daughter a bit of trial.
I've been thinking about that phrase in the marriage ceremony about 'welcoming children'. It is interesting that so many of the early Fathers speak of hospitality as an important virtue for Bishops, it seems to be one of the virtues our Holy Father wants in bishops and priests, being welcoming.
I went to Bishop Schneider's Mass at Ramsgate some months ago, I was made very welcome by the Parish Priest, as usual and by the other clergy attending and I had several invitations to lunch, which, as I had some parishioners with me and lunch was in restaurants. I refused because I knew some couldn't afford it. My last invitation was from Dominic, the director of music. He invited me back to his parents house but I explained I had five parishioners with me, so I couldn't. His reply, "Oh bring them along, I'm taking the choir anyhow, my mother is used to catering for large numbers!" I think there are thirteen in the family, they are one of those large Catholic families that not only welcome the children God gave them but also their children's friends, and anyone else God sends them. They have certainly had a priest or two staying with them for extended periods. What I love about families like that is the sense of abandonment to God's will, which I am convinced is really behind the Church's teaching, not just on marriage and celibacy but on the spiritual life.
Another of my parishioners met a very nice French girl, who was just different, she took him home to meet her family, her parents and ten younger brothers and sisters, immediately he wanted what they had. He been thinking about becoming a Catholic but it was the encounter with her family that seems to have been main reason for his conversion. They had their wedding a few weeks ago in Paray le Monial, celebrated in the Old Rite by an Archbishop a family friend. In fact both these families are attached to the Old Rite. A real Catholic family is a great evangelical sign when it is truly the 'domestic Church'.
The interesting thing is, of course, that most Catholics have the national average number of children and practically all of the responses to the pre-Synod questionnaire demonstrate that Catholics are really unaffected by Catholic teaching on marriage and sexuality etc, in fact many, including sadly bishops and priests identify, themselves by their opposition to this very teaching.
Having more than the average, 1.7 or 1.8 children, is often the preserve of the wealthy today, the cost for many is prohibitive, or at least frightening. The choice for children is counter-cultural, a choice against many of the values of what has become mainstream western culture. It needs a stable marriage for a start, it also has serious financial implications, it involves the mother choosing not to work, accepting different roles in the family.
For most Muslims, unlike Catholics, it is not a difficult choice, and yet 'welcoming children' has serious political and economic implications. Not welcoming children has meant the necessity of immigration, simply because we are not replacing our population or producing the number of people we need for industry. In fact we tend to treat poorer nations as a source of trained, educated workers in the same way as we might treat the as a source of other raw materials. Not welcoming children has been the cause of gender confusion, the commodification of sexuality, a trivialisation and narrowing of our understanding of the family, and a cruder and rougher society.
I get the impression children are part of our society on sufferance, that they are seen not as the natural result of the love of two people but 'chosen' and 'planned'. Now we can speak of children 'being wanted', as if there is a possibility in God's plan of a child being anything other than a gift or a result of God's good providence. If in our society children were a natural result of the committed love of a man and women, children themselves might grow up with the understanding that they will naturally themselves become parents sooner rather than later. In reality parenthood itself is not now normative, rather than being something which happens in the late teens or early twenties and being the reason for home and family and labour, it is often now the last significant thing that happens before retirement.
Human loving has changed, it is not seen in terms of protecting and nurturing but in terms of personal satisfaction or even personal happiness. Protecting and nurturing is the mark of unselfish adult love. 'Love' in the Gospel is about moving from self to the other, to God and one's neighbour. The family, is or should be the school of loving and a place of human maturing and flourishing.
My hope for the Synod is that it is really about is welcoming children, as important as other issues are, fundamental to everything is children. The fact they they have not figured greatly so far in pre-Synod discussions indicates how the Church has itself become as contracepting as the average Catholic family or the rest of society.
This should be item numero uno at the synod. Humanae Vitae is still the elephant in the room.
Kasper and his fake gospel of "mercy" have completely hijacked the synod.
**I’ve been thinking about that phrase in the marriage ceremony about ‘welcoming children’. It is interesting that so many of the early Fathers speak of hospitality as an important virtue for Bishops, it seems to be one of the virtues our Holy Father wants in bishops and priests, being welcoming. **
Welcoming children into the marriage is one of the main responsibilities of the married Couple. God bless those who do.
I saw a woman run over a cat with her car the other day.
By this fellows reasoning all women who drive cars want to run over cats.
I certainly do not agree with Cardinal Kasper’s *take* on much of anything, but I do NOT believe that he has hijacked the Synod. Where is our TRUST in God? Are we praying regularly for this Synod? Are we calling upon the Holy Spirit to be there in power? Are we requesting the intercession of the Communion of Saints? Are we praying with faith and thanksgiving in advance?
To our God be the glory!
While I agree with Fr. Blake’s endorsement of “Welcoming Children” ( I am the oldest of six and enjoyed every minute of my large family childhood!), I CRINGE whenever well-meaning Christians use muslims as a “good example” to make their point.
Whether it is “modesty” or “fervor” or “childbearing” or “missionary zeal”, it doesn’t matter.
It would be the same as Fr. using Fundamentalist LDS cult as an example of a big, happy, family, or admiring JWs for going door-to-door.
I am not picking of Catholics here. I have been equally annoyed with Evangelicals who use muslims as a fine example of modesty for women.
Whether the intent is to contrast and compare, or invite a sense of shame, it doesn’t work for me. I would rather read about a Christian being the “Good Example”.
Just my humble opinion. It is something that irks me to no end and hurts the positive message that is attempting to be made.
Ive noticed that american women spend a lot time complaining to complete strangers about their kids. Even the women who have husbands who make enough for the to stay home and brag tabout how much money they have do it. Maybe theyre more discreet but Ive never heard a foreign mother do this in public.
TRUST in God and distrust of the hierarchy are not mutually exclusive.
"God made man from the beginning and left him in the hand of his own counsel." Sirach 15:14
Modernists follow their own counsel without reference to the Divine Will.
If I am praying for the Synod, then I WILL trust in God precisely because nothing is impossible for him. I CHOOSE to trust Him no matter what happens and we have a lot of pretty rough events ahead of us...within the Church and within the world in general.
“Understand that reflexive cynicism and reflexive credulity are not opposites, but flip sides of the same coin of ignorance. Reflexive credulity discerns nothing but takes everything at face value. It takes no responsibility, but leaves every decision to others. It is an excuse to not apply your mind to your faith, but simply entrust it to others. But the Lord says you shall love your God with all you mind, heart and soul. There is no escape from the responsibility each of us bear. Even so, among the reflexively credulous are some perfectly innocent souls who may be saved by that innocence – though it is a dangerous path for anyone who can do more and does not. Reflexive cynicism, however, has no saving grace whatsoever. It avoids having to think by simply seeing the bad in everything. It is a lazy man’s way of playing at sophistication. It is an acid that eats away at the soul, for it does not just deny the good, but the very possibility of good. If there is a blindness to reflexive credulity, reflexive cynicism sees the world through satan’s eyes, ever accusing mankind.” ...Charles Johnson
As do I, but without blinders, "reflexive credulity" or "reflexive cynicism".
"But as wise: redeeming the time, because the days are evil."
"And in the morning: To day there will be a storm, for the sky is red and lowering. You know then how to discern the face of the sky: and can you not know the signs of the times?"
I find it offensive when others insinuate that others aren’t “trusting in God”.
That may be. But that is a cultural difference, not a religious difference.
Talking about “Old World Courtesy” is not offensive to me at all.
But when a leader in the Christian community holds up adherents to a satanic false religion as paragons of Christian behavior, I bristle. I can’t help it.
“If there is a blindness to reflexive credulity, reflexive cynicism sees the world through satan’s eyes, ever accusing mankind.”
....ever finding almost everything offensive.
Pot meet kettle.
You might be interested as to shat Cardinal Burke (who is solidly on the Rock) has to say: Cardinal Burke: Media hijacking Synod on the Family
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-media-hijacking-synod-on-the-family-79760
Typo: Should have been ... You might be interested as to WHAT...
Piusv....meet TRUTH. ;-)
This is the Charles Johnson who claims to have “received prophetic visitation all his life” and in his article and the comments below shows a disdainful attitude toward traditional Catholics.
Since those who receive actual supernatural visitations are generally disinclined to loudly publicize their experiences, and since maligning traditional Catholics using such a sweeping broad brush (part of which you quoted) is the antithesis of charitable behavior, it would be prudent to take his pontifications with an enormous shovel full of salt. Common sense rather than “reflexive cynicism” leads one to this conclusion.
Charles Johnson: “Hi AJ. Sometimes angels visit me without identifying themselves. The one who instructed me from childhood did not reveal he was Gabriel until I was in my early 40s. Even then, he did not tell me until I began to suspect he was Michael. So I may have visited with Raphael but if so, he has never identified himself to me.”
http://charliej373.wordpress.com/about/
“To the degree that all of it is solidly grounded in the Church’s teaching and her discipline, I believe it will be very positive,” he said.
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-burke-media-hijacking-synod-on-the-family-79760
His words imply uncertainty. If he truly believes that the Pope will clearly and absolutely oppose any erosion of orthodoxy, why would he make such an equivocal statement?
The gentleman is under the authority of the Church, has a team of priestly spiritual directors and is totally faithful to the Teaching Magisterium of the Church.
As for his public sharing, that did not occur until MANY years after his visitations began. He has also explained his purpose in doing so at the top of his website. As with anything in the mystical realm, everything MUST be tested and always weighed against the Teaching of the Church. At the same time, we are not to automatically disparage what may be a genuine gift of the Spirit. I have found him to be very balanced and VERY in line with the Church in his perspective. He seems fully open to people who disagree with him and evidences a spirit of humility that is most refreshing.
He did not malign Traditional Catholics with any broad sweep of the brush. He accurately described the incorrect attitude of several of the uber-traditional types who speak as if they themselves should have been chosen to be pope, most of whom constantly criticize and, thus, divide.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.