The muddle-headed R&R Bishop Richard Williamson (1940-2025) was one of the four priests Archbishop Lefebvre consecrated as a bishop on June 30, 1988. I met Williamson when he was a priest in 1985. I found him to be a pompous boor whose high opinion of himself was eclipsed only by his strange and sophomoric views. Each Saturday for years after his expulsion from the SSPX, the baffled bishop would send out his "Eleison Comments" to his followers via e-mail, ostensibly to convince everyone that only his organization has the post-Vatican II situation properly figured out, and to warn people to stay away from sedevacantism. He began almost every issue of his "Comments" with some kindergarten-like rhyme. Here is a small sample:
- The sacrificial Mass once thrown away, How could poor Catholics not go astray?
- Truth which is true excludes all contradiction. "Truth" which admits of error, is truth-fiction.
- While Menzingen is by Rome’s sirens charmed, To keep the Faith, let forewarned be forearmed
He was something of an Ecclesiastical Eminem minus the large record sales. The evil rapper with an eighth grade education could be excused for illogical rants, but not Williamson, who was educated and a cleric. To give one example, Bp. Williamson gave rise to what the late Fr. Cekada called "mentevacantism"--"the mind is vacant."
Williamson came up with a novel idea to escape the iron clad logic of the sedevacantist position: the Conciliar "popes" are not guilty of heresy because of "mind rot" which prevents them from realizing they're heretics. As illogical and goofy as his ideas were, his worst opinions were about women.
According to Fr. John Rizzo, a student of Williamson back in 1983, when the SSPX seminary was in Ridgefield, Connecticut, then-Fr. Williamson made the following remark:
"He was always insisting that women should not wear pants, because that would be an occasion of sin, that women when married should be subjected to their husbands to such a degree — I'll never forget this — that if the wife misbehaves the husband should be willing to beat her," he said.
(See npr.org/2009/02/25/101139679/former-student-bishop-often-attacked-judaism#:~:text=%22He%20was%20always%20insisting%20that,tendencies%2C'%20%22%20he%20said; Emphasis mine).
I absolutely believe Fr. Rizzo to be telling the truth. Williamson made denigrating remarks about women all the time. A few examples:
- He strongly opposed women pursuing higher education, such as attending college or university
- He thought women were benighted and once stated that a female can "do a good imitation of handling ideas, but then she will not be thinking properly as a woman"
- He stated that women can't be professionals because they're vain and that's what they are ostensibly good at doing---"Did this lawyeress check her hairdo before coming into court? If she did, she is a distracted lawyer. If she did not, she is one distorted woman."
(See theguardian.com/world/2009/feb/25/catholic-bishop-richard-williamson#:~:text=Last%20year%20he%20described%20as,she%20is%20one%20distorted%20woman.%22)
Why am I bringing up the ideas of a R&R bishop who went to Judgment last year? In the last few years, and getting more vocal all the time, there are some Traditionalist men (and women) who think Williamson's warped view on women is the teaching of the Church. It is not. The purpose of this post is to demonstrate the role of women in society. No Traditionalist can deny that women are excluded by Divine Positive Law from the clergy. There can never be a valid female deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal, or pope. This post will focus exclusively on a woman's role in the home and in society today.
The solitary dispositive question to be answered has two parts: (a) Can a woman work outside the home? If yes, (b) Are any jobs off limits to a woman, especially those jobs where she exercises authority over men? Below, I attempt to answer the question. In a time without a pope, I submit my opinion to the Judgement of Holy Mother Church, should a true pope reign once more, and will abide by the Magisterial decision as a true Catholic.
Women and the Natural Law
Here is a simple and straightforward definition from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:
According to St. Thomas, the natural law is "nothing else than the rational creature's participation in the eternal law" (I-II.91.2). The eternal law is God's wisdom, inasmuch as it is the directive norm of all movement and action. When God willed to give existence to creatures, He willed to ordain and direct them to an end. In the case of inanimate things, this Divine direction is provided for in the nature which God has given to each; in them determinism reigns. Like all the rest of creation, man [herein "man" means "human beings of either sex"] is destined by God to an end, and receives from Him a direction towards this end. This ordination is of a character in harmony with his free intelligent nature. In virtue of his intelligence and free will, man is master of his conduct. Unlike the things of the mere material world he can vary his action, act, or abstain from action, as he pleases. Yet he is not a lawless being in an ordered universe. In the very constitution of his nature, he too has a law laid down for him, reflecting that ordination and direction of all things, which is the eternal law. The rule, then, which God has prescribed for our conduct, is found in our nature itself. Those actions which conform with its tendencies, lead to our destined end, and are thereby constituted right and morally good; those at variance with our nature are wrong and immoral.
There are Traditionalists who argue women working outside the home and/or in positions of authority are contrary to the Natural Law. They claim that women can only work outside the home when absolutely necessary to survive, and they must never have an occupation wherein they would have male subordinates. Some not only say it's wrong for women to be in elected office, but that they should not be allowed to vote. As the "clincher" they cite papal utterances where the pontiff expressed disapproval of women voting.
The best means of determining if women working outside the home (outside of the need for survival) and being in positions of power is against the Natural Law would be to see what was taught by the last true pope, His Holiness Pope Pius XII (r. 1939-1958).
The Use of Allocutions by Pope Pius XII
Pope Pius XII, the last true pope of the Catholic Church before the Great Apostasy, used allocutions the most, as different mediums of communication were coming out. During his reign, he made (excluding canonizations) two ex cathedra pronouncements, one of which was Munificentissimus Deus, defining the dogma of the Assumption of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into Heaven. Most theologians consider Sacramentum Ordinis of 1947 to have been infallible, as it settled what constituted the exact matter and form for all three grades of Holy Orders, and had the definitive language of binding Catholics forever on the subject.
What is the doctrinal value of non-infallible decrees, when the Ordinary Magisterium makes a pronouncement? Here is an important citation from the encyclical Humani Generis (1950):
Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me;" and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. (para. #20; Emphasis mine).
In his treatise "Authentic Teaching of the Magisterium," theologian Cotter teaches:
The Pope [Pius XII] has no doubt that those Catholic theologians whom he has in mind throughout the encyclical [Humani Generis] are willing to abide by the definitive decisions of the Magisterium, those handed down, solemni iudicio. They are neither heretics nor schismatics. But he complains that they ignore papal pronouncements that come to them with less authority, such as encyclicals. If reputable theologians have disagreed in the past, that assumes that nothing less than a solemn definition can settle the matter; and as long as none such is forthcoming, everyone is presumed free to construe papal documents according to his own interpretation of Tradition.
In reply, the Pope reminds them that encyclicals, besides often containing matters of dogma, may intend to settle points hitherto disputed, and that such decisions demand of themselves a positive assent on the part of the faithful, theologians included. In issuing them the popes exercise what is technically known as the Ordinary or Authentic Magisterium, of which it is true to say: "He that heareth you, heareth Me."
(As cited in Contemporary Moral Theology, [1962], 1:24-26).
Theologian Cotter notes, though the papal statement refers primarily to encyclicals, it is not restricted to these. Rather, it covers the whole range of what is called the "Ordinary Magisterium" of the Holy Father. Everything that has been said, therefore, could apply to the papal radio messages and allocutions; yet, since these have played such a prominent part in papal teaching (especially under Pope Pius XII), they merit special attention. Pope Pius XII himself, made it strikingly clear that his discourses, even when given to small groups, can contain authoritative teaching for the whole Church.
In his radio message on the education of the Christian conscience, Pope Pius XII said:
Mindful, however, of the right and duty of the Apostolic See to intervene authoritatively, when the need arises, in moral questions, in the address of 29th October last we set out to enlighten men's consciences on the problems of married life. With the self-same authority we declare today to educators and to young people also that the divine commandment of purity of soul and body still holds without any lesser obligation for the youth of today.
According to theologian Hurth (consultor to the Supreme Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office and a staunch anti-Modernist) papal radio addresses and allocutions have the same doctrinal value as encyclicals: they are an integral part of the ordinary teaching of the pope; and, as such, though not infallible, they require both internal and external acceptance. (Ibid, pg. 26).
The Teaching of Pope Pius XII
Two allocutions show forth the teaching of the Church on the role of women in society: An Address of His Holiness Pope Pius XII to the World Union of Catholic Women's Organizations, April 24, 1952, and An Address To Members of Various Catholic Women's Associations, October 21, 1945.
Here are the pertinent points of Pope Pius XII's teachings:
In his 1945 Address, the pontiff made it clear that his intent was to teach about the duties of women in social and political life. (All emphasis in the text of the Addresses is mine---Introibo)
Your presence in such great numbers before Us, beloved daughters, derives a particular significance from the conditions existing today. For besides the joy which it always gives Us to welcome you, to bless you, and to give you Our fatherly counsel, there is also today the need which We feel, in answer to your own urgent requests, to address you on a subject which is of the very first relevance and importance to our times: We mean the duties of women in social and political life. We had Ourself been looking forward to such an opportunity as this, because the feverish unrest of a troubled present and still more the anxieties about an uncertain future have given woman's position a central interest for the friends, no less than for the enemies, of Christ and His Church.
Men and women are of equal dignity and have different yet complimentary qualities.
As children of God, man and woman have a dignity in which they are absolutely equal; and they are equal, too, in regard to the supreme end of human life, which is everlasting union with God in the happiness of Heaven...But man and woman cannot maintain or perfect this equal dignity of theirs unless they respect and make use of the distinctive qualities which nature has bestowed on each sex: physical and spiritual qualities which are indestructible, and so co-ordinated that their mutual relation cannot be upset without nature itself intervening to re-establish it.
The pope praises woman in the religious life and also women who remain in the single state:
And yet, for nearly twenty centuries, we have seen thousands upon thousands of men and women, and among the best of them, freely renouncing a family of their own and foregoing the holy duties and sacred rights of married life in order to follow the counsel of Christ. And is the common welfare of nations and the good of the Church jeopardized in consequence? On the contrary-----These generous souls recognize the association of the sexes in wedlock as a great good. If they step aside from the ordinary path, if they leave the beaten track, it is not to desert the service of humanity but rather to devote themselves to it with complete detachment and self-denial, and an activity which is incomparably more extended, indeed, all-embracing and universal...
But there is also the Catholic girl who remains unmarried in spite of herself; and she too, if she believes firmly in the Providence of her Heavenly Father, recognizes the voice of the Master in the life that has fallen to her lot. 'The Master is here and calleth for thee.' [John 11: 28] And she answers the call; she abandons the fair dream of her adolescence and young womanhood, surrenders her hope of having a faithful companion to share her life, of making a home and family of her own. In the impossibility of marriage she discerns her own vocation and, sad at heart though resigned, she too devotes herself entirely to the highest and most varied forms of beneficence.
A woman's natural function is to be a mother either physically or spiritually/morally.
Be she married or single, woman's function is seen clearly defined in the lineaments of her sex, in its propensities and special powers. She works side by side with man, but she works in her own way and according to her natural bent. Now a woman's function, a woman's way, a woman's natural bent, is motherhood. Every woman is called to be a mother, mother in the physical sense, or mother m a sense more spiritual and more exalted, yet real none the less.
The pope deplores conditions unfavorable to the family and the dignity of woman. Both Communism and capitalism have had detrimental effects on the woman such that she cannot raise her children properly,
That public life has now for some time been developing in a manner unfavorable to the true welfare of the family and the true welfare of woman, is beyond dispute...Restore woman as soon as possible to her place of honor in the home as housewife and mother! This is the universal cry today. It is as though the world had suddenly awakened in alarm and horror to see the results of a material and technical progress of which it had hitherto been so proud.
The pope condemns the results of a life of a woman who has left her duties as wife and mother for employment. The woman's daughter will be ill suited for the life of a wife and mother.
And this is not all. Her [the daughter of the working woman] mother with the passing of the years has become old before her time; she is worn out and broken by sorrows, anxieties, and work that has overtaxed her strength. When she sees her daughter return home very late at night, far from finding in her a prop and a support, she must herself arise and discharge all the duties of a domestic servant for one who is unaccustomed and unequal to the work of a woman and housewife. The father will be no better off when advancing years, illness, infirmity, unemployment have forced him to depend for his meager support on the good or ill will of his children. How is the august and sacred authority of father and mother dethroned from the seat of its majesty!
Yet, given the current circumstances [1945], women must work to survive in many cases. This is the modern situation. Should women eschew working to improve society? No! They have a positive duty to engage with modern society and make it better with the distinctive characteristics of the female sex.
Are we therefore to conclude, Catholic women and Catholic girls, that you must resist the current which, whether you like it or not, is drawing you into the stream of social and political life? Certainly not...The fact is that woman is kept away from the home, not only by her declared emancipation, but often also by vital necessity, by the need to earn her daily bread. It is therefore useless to preach her return to the home so long as conditions continue which in many cases force her to remain absent from it. And here is the first aspect of the mission in social and political life which now presents itself to you. Into this public life you have entered all of a sudden, forced into it by the social changes we have witnessed. No matter-----you are called upon to take part in it. Would you leave to other women, to those who are actively engineering the ruin of the home or at least conniving at it, the monopoly of organizing the social structure, in which the family forms the principal element of its economic, juridical, spiritual, and moral unity? The fortunes of the family, the fortunes of human society, are at stake; and they are in your hands: 'Tua res agitur!'
Therefore every woman without exception is under an obligation-----a strict obligation of conscience, mind you!-----not to remain aloof; every woman must go into action, each in her own way, and join in stemming the tides which threaten to engulf the home, in fighting the doctrines which undermine its foundations, in preparing, organizing, and completing its restoration.
Women are called upon to work alongside men for the betterment of society.
This is one motive, calling the Catholic woman to enter on the new path now opening to her activity. But there is another: her dignity as a woman. It is for her to work with man for the welfare of the civitas in which she enjoys a dignity equal with his, and here each sex has its part to play according to its nature, its distinctive qualities, its physical. intellectual. and moral capabilities. Both sexes have the right and the duty to work together for the good of society, for the good of the nation. But it is clear that while man is by temperament more suited to deal with external affairs and public business, generally speaking the woman has a deeper insight for understanding the delicate problems of domestic and family life, and a surer touch in solving them-----which, of course, is not to deny that some women can show great ability in every sphere of public life.
It is not so much that each sex is called to a different task; the difference is rather in their manner of judging and arriving at concrete and practical applications. Take the case of civil rights, for example; at the present time they are equal for both sexes. But just think how much more intelligently and effectively these rights will be used if men and women pool their resources in using them. The sensibility and delicacy which are characteristic of the woman may perhaps bias her judgment in the direction of her impressions, and so tend to the prejudice of wide and clear vision, cool decision, or far-sighted prudence; but on the other hand they are most valuable aids in discerning the needs, aspirations, and dangers proper to the sphere of domestic life, public assistance, and religion.
A wide field of action is open to women in the public. Here the pope alludes to single women. It can also apply to women who must work, or who have grown children.
It has been seen that a woman's work is concerned primarily with those tasks and occupations of domestic life which contribute so powerfully, and more powerfully than is generally appreciated, to the true interests of the social community. But the furtherance of those interests calls for a great number of women who will have more leisure at their disposal, and so be able to devote themselves to the task more directly and more completely.
And where should we find these women if not especially [We do not, of course, say exclusively] among those to whom We have been alluding: those upon whom the force of circumstances has imposed a mysterious vocation; those whom events have destined to a life of solitude which was not in their thoughts or aspirations, and which threatened to be nothing more than a selfishly useless and purposeless existence? And now, behold, their mission at the present day is revealed: a mission many-sided, militant, and calling for all their energies; a mission such as they can more readily undertake than many of their sisters, occupied as they are with family cares and the education of their children, or else subject to the yoke of a religious rule.
Of these women some have hitherto devoted themselves with a zeal often quite admirable, to parochial activities; others, gifted with wider vision still, have been engaged in more extended work of moral and social improvement. The war, with its calamitous results, has led to a great increase in the number of such women. Many brave men have lost their lives in this terrible conflict, others have come back disabled or sick; many a young woman will therefore await in vain the return of a husband. will vainly hope for the coming of new young lives to cheer a solitary home. And just at this moment new needs, created by the entry of women into civil and political life, have arisen to claim their assistance. Is this nothing more than a strange coincidence? Or are we to see in it a disposition of Divine Providence?
Thus a wide field is opened to woman's activity, an activity primarily intellectual or primarily practical. according to the capabilities and qualities of each individual. To study and explain the place and function of woman in society, her rights and obligations; to be the guide and teacher of her sisters; to correct ideas, dispel prejudices, clear up confusions; to expound and spread the teaching of the Church, as the surest means of defeating error, illusion, and falsehood, and as the most effective method of countering the tactics employed by the enemies of Catholic faith and morals-----here is an immense and urgently important task, without which the active apostolate, however zealous, will give only precarious results.
But direct action is also necessary, otherwise sound doctrine and solid convictions will remain barren, or at best yield little fruit. This direct action, this effective co-operation in social and political life, in no way alters the distinctive character of woman's activity. Associated with the work of man in the sphere of civil institutions, she will apply herself especially to matters calling for tact, delicacy, the maternal instinct, rather than administrative rigidity. In such questions as those of woman's dignity, a girl's honor and integrity, the protection and education of the child, who better than a woman can understand what is needed? ... In your actual participation in social and political life much depends upon State legislation and municipal administration. Consequently the vote is for the Catholic woman an important means of fulfilling her strict obligations of conscience, especially at the present time.
The other Address of 1952, Pope Pius XII reiterates that women are in society, not just the home, and can bring peace to the world.
There is also an external activity because if in other ages the influence of women was restricted to their home and the surrounding s of the home, in our days it extends (whether we like it or not) to even wider fields: to public and social life, to parliaments, to tribunals, to journalism, to the professions and to the trades. May women carry their work of peace into each of these spheres. If indeed all women were to pass from that innate feeling which makes them abhor war, to concrete action to impede war, it would be impossible that the total of such imposing efforts, which bring into play those forces best calculated to move the will, that is piety and love, it would be impossible, We say, that it should fail to attain its end.
Basic Principles Taught by Pope Pius XII:
- Men and women are of equal dignity and worth
- Men and women have complimentary talents
- These talents must be used for the betterment of society
- Women have a maternal calling, physical or spiritual
- Given current circumstances women must work
- Women have a positive duty to work alongside men in making the world Catholic
- Women have a wide field of opportunities for work
- The ideal of wife and mother must be upheld and never denigrated
- Women can and should vote
To those who object that the Addresses are not infallible, and need not be believed OR WORSE, that Pope Pius XII taught something that is immoral, evil, and contrary to Natural Law, you have insurmountable problems.
Christ said to the Apostles: “He that heareth you, heareth Me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth Me; and he that despiseth Me, despiseth Him that sent Me.” (St. Luke 10:16). This means that every Catholic can, and must, listen to the Church teaching as the teaching of Christ Himself. What if a pope is not teaching infallibly? Such teachings are nevertheless protected by the Holy Ghost from teaching any pernicious doctrine. This means the Church cannot teach anything which is contrary to Catholic doctrine or morals, and which would be a sin to embrace. The Church also cannot impose evil disciplines, and thereby prescribe something evil to the faithful, making it sinful to observe; nor can the Church give anything which would constitute an incentive to impiety.
This completely rules out any possibility of the pope teaching heresy, for the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes it. Theologian Fenton teaches:
To the Holy Father’s responsibility of caring for the sheep of Christ’s fold, there corresponds, on the part of the Church’s membership, the basic obligation of following his directions, in doctrinal as well as disciplinary matters. In this field, God has given the Holy Father a kind of infallibility distinct from the charism of doctrinal infallibility in the strict sense. He has so constructed and ordered the Church that those who follow the directives given to the entire kingdom of God on earth will never be brought into the position of ruining themselves spiritually through this obedience. Our Lord dwells within His Church in such a way that those who obey disciplinary and doctrinal directives of this society can never find themselves displeasing God through their adherence to the teachings and the commands given to the universal Church militant. Hence there can be no valid reason to discountenance even the non-infallible teaching authority of Christ’s vicar on earth.
(See "The American Ecclesiastical Review;" [August 1949], “The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Part I”, pgs. 144-145).
Hence, the protection of the Holy Ghost precludes the pope from teaching heresy to the Church. Only in his capacity as a private theologian could he teach heresy. If the false claim is made that these Addresses are not truly the pope teaching but just him speaking as a private person, and he taught something contrary to Natural Law or the Faith, be prepared to become a vacancy-pusher.
Eugene Pacelli would not be the pope. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate.”(See Oeuvres Completes. 9:232; Emphasis mine).
Conclusion: While women should ideally be mothers at home or nuns, nothing precludes them from working outside the home when necessary, or when it would not constitute a detriment to her family. Moreover, single women have a wide range of fields open to them when working. All Catholic women are called to be engaged in society with men to make the world better and more Catholic. Women can and should vote.
Can women hold positions of authority over men? That will be discussed in the next section of this post.
Women in Authority
Note that in his Addresses Pope Pius XII did not state that women could not hold positions of authority over men. However, the absence of a condemnation is not the same as giving approval. From the history of the Church, we see women have held authoritative positions over men as is witnessed by Catholic queens, and the example of St. Joan of Arc, among others.
Catholic Queens
1. Queen Blanche of France RULED the Kingdom as Queen Regent in the name of her saintly son (King St. Louis IX) from 1226-1235, and is considered one of the most cunning and intelligent rulers by historians. Her shrewd diplomacy gave her son a stronger kingdom than ever when he took the throne at age 21. While she was doing “the job of a man” she raised her son to be a canonized saint (King St. Louis IX specifically credits his mother as the reason he was so devout in his practice of the Faith) and her daughter became Blessed Isabella of France. She had a total of 12 children.
2. Queen Margaret of France RULED the Kingdom when King St. Louis was fighting in the Crusades. She is also seen as an excellent ruler in addition to being the mother of 11 children. Her saintly husband’s motto was “All for God, all for France, all for Margaret”—putting his wife above all but God and country.
3. St. Helena was Roman Empress who utilized her influence to spread Christianity and build churches. She was also the mother of Constantine the Great
I could multiply these examples, but it suffices to show that women having authority is permitted by the Church and cannot therefore be against the Natural Law or sinful.
Catholic Women Who Led Men in Battle
1. Saint Joan of Arc (1412–1431): Known as the "Maid of Orleans," she claimed divine guidance from Heaven and heard voices telling her to lead the French troops against the English. She was a military commander. She did more than merely advise. Here are three historians who have written on St. Joan's role as an actual military commander, and who led men into battle:
(a) Dr. Kelly Robert DeVries (b. 1956) received his doctorate from the University of Toronto and is an expert in warfare of the Middle Ages. See his 1999 book entitled Joan of Arc: A Military Leader.
(b) Dr. Regine Pernoud (1909-1998) received her doctorate from the Sorbonne in 1935. Read her book Joan of Arc: Her Story published in 1986.
(c) Jonathan Sumption (b. 1948) Was a Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, from 1971 to 1975, teaching and writing, before becoming a barrister. Historian Credentials: Despite lacking a PhD in history (doctorate in law) he is a renowned, award-winning historian (Wolfson History Prize winner) known for his five-volume history of the Hundred Years' War. He covers her extensively in The Hundred Years War, Volume 5: Triumph and Illusion published in (2023).
God chose a woman to lead the army. He could have chosen a man, but didn't. Women leading men is therefore not contrary to Natural Law or sinful. If it were, God would not have allowed it, indeed, could not have allowed it even once.
2. Matilda of Tuscany, Imperial Vicar and Vice-Queen of Italy, (1046-1115). A powerful medieval noblewoman and key supporter of the papacy, Matilda frequently commanded her armies in person to defend Church interests, earning a reputation as a warrior countess.
3. Joanna of Flanders (1295–1374): Countess of Montfort, she led forces during the War of the Breton Succession. She is famously depicted wearing armor and riding at the head of 300 men to attack an enemy camp, acting as a direct combat leader.
4. Queen Isabella of Castile was Queen of Castile and Leon from 1474 until her death in 1504. Known as "Isabella the Catholic," she was heavily involved in commanding military operations during the Reconquista in Spain, often directing troop strategy and visiting the battlefront to inspire her men.
Conclusion
Therefore, women can be in positions of authority over men. If a woman can be a Head of State or lead an army, she can certainly lead in less important roles.
Why it is Good for Women to be Educated and Career-Ready
Holy Mother Church, ever solicitous for the well-being of Her children, will allow them to adopt to the world in a non-sinful manner when the circumstances dictate such. As Pope Pius XII taught in his 1952 Address:
There is also an external activity because if in other ages the influence of women was restricted to their home and the surrounding s of the home, in our days it extends (whether we like it or not) to even wider fields: to public and social life, to parliaments, to tribunals, to journalism, to the professions and to the trades.
Since the fall of Catholic countries after Vatican II, it has become exceedingly difficult for a man to raise a family on a single income. Moreover, the divorce rate is through the roof. Divorce and separation are not unknown, even among Traditionalists.
Here are the possibilities:
The Religious Life. There are not many Traditionalist orders. However, it is possible to join one and have a vocation as a nun. What a wonderful life! Fr. DePauw's eldest sister was a medical missionary nun in what was then called The Belgian Congo. She dedicated 50 years of her life making converts in Africa. She was put through school and was a medical doctor. She was able to help people soul and body! Imagine a Traditionalist college where educated nuns could form the development of young women.
Married Life. It is very difficult to find a suitable spouse. Traditionalists are a small group. Most Traditionalist who marry will have to have a spouse of the Vatican II sect, Protestant sect, etc. who is willing to sign the promises under Canon Law and have a mixed marriage. This is tolerated by the Church, and more necessary now than ever imagined pre-Vatican II when Catholics were plentiful.
Also making marriage more difficult is the number of divorced people, as well as Vatican II sect members with phony "annulments." According to several sources the divorce rate in the U.S. for first time marriages is 40-42%. That statistic is something Pope Pius XII could not even have imagined the year he died (1958). (See, e.g., pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/16/8-facts-about-divorce-in-the-united-states).
College educated people are less likely to get divorced--especially where both spouses are educated. There are still good colleges with good people, like St. Mary's College in Kansas run by the SSPX. Both my wife and I are highly educated and we were not corrupted by the institutions we attended. Having a strong faith is the key. Women can also meet a good man in her career, and then stay home after marriage and children. When the children are grown, she can return to her career and help the world as stated by Pope Pius XII.
Moreover, what if the woman is abandoned by her spouse? She marries right out of college at 22, has four children by 29, and he leaves her. He could also be a deadbeat dad. Now what? How can this women support her family? Not everyone has wealthy parents. If she has a degree she can get a decent job so as not to wind up in section 8 housing and living on public assistance (a true nightmare, esp. for the children).
The Single Life. There are some women who do not have a religious vocation and never find a decent man to marry. These women especially can use their unique talents to make the world better and more Catholic, having the most time to give.
This is not "feminism," this is reality. If a man makes a large salary and can afford a stay-at-home wife/mother with several children, God bless them abundantly. This is not the case for most.
Finally, let me say that there are women who are a disgrace to their gender. The money chasing career women who scorn God, hate children, like abortion, and are convinced misandrists, unfortunately exist. I know many of them; I work and live surrounded by them. Yet, there are those like my wife, Ivy League educated, professional, Christian above all else, and making a difference in the world.
Objections Considered and Answered
Objection: Do you want women in battle? Who will be the future mothers?
Answer: No, I'm not advocating for female soldiers. Women should not fight unless necessary, but it is not beyond them to be such. The point is women can lead in battle, not that it is prudent that they should or must do so. God did not have to call St. Joan of Arc to do battle, but He did. He could have selected a man. So even leadership positions of the most difficult kind can be handled by women.
Objection: Biology dictates that women cannot do the same things that men can do.
Answer: I agree. Jobs like construction work, being an oil rig worker, etc. require bodily strength that women will never have like men. These jobs should be handled by men unless an absolute necessity requires a woman to do so. In sports, women have no place competing with men in football, boxing, etc. They would be seriously injured or killed. (However, a woman could compete, in my opinion, in sports like bowling, billiards, and other non-contact sports).
Objection: According to theologians McHugh and Callan “Women should not be compelled to take up an occupation unsuited to their sex.”
Answer: Yes, women should not be compelled to do anything. Occupations requiring physical strength should be left to men.
Objection: Queens ruling over men is an historical exception.
Answer: An exception that proves the rule that women can lead. If it were contrary to Natural Law or Divine Positive Law, popes would have condemned such. Instead, Catholic Queens were esteemed by the Church.
Objection: Pope St. Pius X said in 1906, to an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, The Development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement, pgs. 11-30). Also, In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909).
How can Pope St. Pius X and Pope Pius XII both be right?
Answer: Context is the key. In 1909, Pope St. Pius X was trying to preserve traditional gender roles and many Catholic countries existed. In 1945, Pope Pius XII was facing the reality of a world that had become more secularized, and in which women were drawn into the workforce after World War I and especially after World War II. Both popes believed in gender differentiation, but Pius XII extended that difference to mean women were necessary in public life to protect the social fabric--and they were, both then, and even more so now. Pope Pius XII could be called prescient in retrospect. Just 17 years after his 1947 Address, the Vatican II sect would be born and undo all things Catholic.
Objection: The man is the head of the family, and St. Paul tells us women cannot even speak in Church. How can a woman rule over men? What if she were the boss of her husband at a company where they both worked? It is disordered.
Answer: I distinguish, that the man is the head of the family, conceded; that he cannot be subject to his wife outside the home in a directive applicable to the job only, denied. I don't think husband and wife working together is ideal--one can work away from the other. Men and women have complementary roles. A woman gives birth and nurtures humans in the physical order. Men give spiritual life and comfort souls as priests in the Church. Men have dominion in Church and, if married, in the home. It doesn't extend in an absolute manner outside the home and in the secular state.
Conclusion
Men and women have complementary differences. They must use their talents and work side by side to make the world more Catholic. While the woman is subject to the husband, it does not mean he can bully his wife and give her a "Williamson-approved beating." What Williamson said is both illegal in the United States and grossly immoral everywhere. Women can never be clergy, but they are not precluded from many other occupations.
Let us pray as Saint Therese of Lisieux, “Jesus, help me to simplify my life by learning what You want me to be – and becoming that person.”

Dear Introibo,
ReplyDeleteThank you very much for this article. This article reminds me of my own original heroine, Dona Catalina Santos, who is a Cebuano principalia (nobility) who with her husband Alejandro, also a nobleman in 1670s Cebu (Spanish era) fight against Moro pirates. Turns out her inspiration was Joan of Arc herself. I created her to respond to Disney Princesses being promoted in the Philippines. Catalina is no match to the Disney princesses!
Read more about her here: https://tradmasscebu.blogspot.com/2025/12/catalina-santos-counter-princess.html
Ryan,
DeleteExcellent link! Thank you!
God Bless,
---Introibo
St. Thomas Aquinas also says "If therefore they [viz., women] ask and dispute in public, it would be a sign of shamelessness, and this is shameful to them. Hence it also follows that in law the office of advocate is forbidden to women." (St. Thomas Aquinas, Lectures on 1 Corinthians, 14, lect. 7, n. 881.)
ReplyDeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) also says,
"I. Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: "Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators."
@anon6:10
DeleteThe Canonists mentioned in the Catholic Encyclopedia were prior to the 1917 Code. That was no longer taught.
Aquinas taught: "As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence; such as that of a south wind, which is moist, as the Philosopher observes (De Gener. Animal. iv, 2)."
Summa Theologiae (Ia, q. 92, a. 1; Reply to Obj. 1)
Do you believe women are "defective and misbegotten"? He wrote based on outdated biology. That's why he denied many things to women. Never has the Church condemned females as judges or lawyers. If so, Pope Pius XII could not have taught as he did.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The Code didn't teach differently.
DeleteYou say "Never has the Church condemned females as judges or lawyers."
The Catholic Encyclopedia, written by theologians and approved by a saintly pope sure didn't believe in females judges or lawyers.
Pope Pius XII said women could vote, not that they could be voted in. Big difference.
Introibo. You're saying Aquinas didn't know what he was talking about when he said it is shameful for a woman to be judges or advocate?
Delete@anon12:59
DeleteHe was teaching some things based on (a) his culture in the 13th century and (b) biology we know now to be wrong.
Women are not "defective men" and ensoulment doesn't happen at different times for females (about 80 days) and males (about 40 days). ALL THEOLOGIANS from at least the end of the Vatican Council of 1870 reject both these teachings.
Yes, there were things he understandably got wrong. I'm not making the Dimondite reason-challenged argument that because he was wrong on the Immaculate Conception, everything else he taught is false or called into question. On matters pertaining to women he was mistaken based on biology that is known to be wrong.
He got that wrong. Pope Pius XII said women can hold public office. Therefore, why not a judge or lawyer?
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon12:48
DeleteThere is nothing in the 1917 Code that bars women from being lawyers or judges. Cite a canonist that says otherwise post-1917
One of the first Traditionalists who joined Fr. DePauw was one of the first women admitted to the Bar in Michigan (1930). She was not condemned by the hierarchy under Popes Pius XI and XII.
Pope Pius XII did teach women could hold office.
Pope Pius XII "Papal Directives For Women Today" (1947)
"There remains to be considered the domain of political life. In many circumstances, We have already touched upon it. This domain has several distinct aspects: the safeguard and care of the sacred interests of woman, by means of legislation and administration that respects her rights, dignity, and social function — the participation of some women in political life for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all...Those among you who have more leisure and are suitably prepared, will take up the burden of public life and be, as it were, your delegated representatives. Give them your confidence, understand their difficulties, the hard work and sacrifices their devotion entails; give them your help and support."
---Introibo
There is nothing in the Code which says women should be in public office either especially when 4 years earlier it said they couldn't. Therefore I don't need to cite where Canon Law in 1917 said women are barred from public office because it doesn't address it.
DeleteWhich women under the inspiration of Pope Pius XII ran for office and got voted in?
@anon5:37
DeleteGlad you asked: "Which women under the inspiration of Pope Pius XII ran for office and got voted in?"
Answer: Margarite Legot (1913-1977) was a Belgian LAWYER in 1936 and was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. This happened while Belgium was a Catholic country! I guess none of the hierarchy knew women being lawyers was against Natural Law--or being elected to public office was immoral!! Imagine that!
Your ignorance of Canon Law is too much to address in a short comment.
---Introibo
So it's my understanding that you are saying everything after the 1913 C.E. changed and what once was considered wrong or frowned upon is now acceptable and necessary.
Delete@anon6:40
DeleteFor one so "traditional" you use the secularist CE instead of AD--interesting! Your understanding (or rather lack thereof) is appalling. The 1917 Code changed some past practices. Obviously, what is of Divine Positive Law or Natural Law cannot change.
Yet here is a short list of some things that did change:
1. The Code officially removed the obligation to abstain from meat on Saturdays, which had previously been required in many places.
2. It standardized the requirements for validity and, specifically, made the "Ne Temere" decree (1908) universally applied, meaning marriages not celebrated before a priest and two witnesses were invalid, prior to 1908 they had been valid.
Therefore, the role of women was one of custom, not Natural Law or Divine Positive Law.
---Introibo
Just where in the 1917 Code did it change the teaching of the C.E. Can you cite the change in the 1917 where women can hold public office? Those other things you mentioned are not relevant.
Delete@anon7:11
DeleteAs the Catholic Encyclopedia states, some canonists held women should not do certain occupations. It was REMOVED in 1917. Cite one canonist post-1917. There aren't any. Fr. DePauw, an approved canonist, said there were no prohibitions in Canon Law regarding female lawyers, etc.
---Introibo
It makes no sense to say that women cannot be in charge of positions in the Church or in the family but they can in society when the Church and family is the model for society to go by.
ReplyDelete@anon6:13
DeleteSociety has changed and in the current condition, women can (and have a duty) to be different in the world than in the family and Church. Different functions can exist for the same person in different settings.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I'm not against women working to support themselves, but I am against them being in certain types of leadership positions. Many traditional Catholics already agree with me on this. They understand the obvious problem with it.
Delete@anon12:50
DeleteYou can be against it, but it's not objectively wrong.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I'm surprised you are in so much favor of it. Many simple traditional Catholic moms think its appalling for women to take on certain roles in the workplace not because they can't do it but that they shouldn't do it.
Delete@anon7:41
DeleteThat's fine. Being a stay-at-home wife and mom is noble and a wonderful vocation. If they want to do it (and have a wealthy family or husband that can support them) that's a blessing. I state in my post above why it is good for women to be educated and career ready in today's society.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Women having a career isn't necessarily wrong if the woman seeking the career isn't intending to be married or a be a religious. That's not what us moms are against. Us moms are against the idea that any woman be head of a man in prominent places. If that is the case, then men and women competing in sports shouldn't be an issue since they fight in the military alongside each other. You have to understand that it's a very modernist idea to us Catholic moms.
Delete@anon9:07
DeleteAs I wrote in my post, there's a difference between what women CAN and SHOULD do. I don't believe women should be in combat, nor in competitive sports with men. I made that clear.
The idea that a woman working is "Modernist" is because of the claptrap of Williamson and his ilk. I agree with you that if a woman can be a stay at home wife and mom, she SHOULD do that. Not all women can be so lucky.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Respectfully,no offense but,if you grew up within my age bracket,you'd have a much different opinion. I grew up with the understanding most women my age were homosexual or bi,hated motherhood,lived with each other,went to female Strip joints together,having sex for money with men,running up credit cards,trying to dress act and work like men,being insufferable man hating dyke fags at work or in public,etc
ReplyDeleteI loathe hate detest & despise anything that's not über traditional,including gender roles. The White Race is literally going on track to be extinct in 75-100 yrs. Novus Ordo Baptisms are at 18% Marriages at 16%,those Sacraments are beginning to go unwanted.
I hear what you're saying but it's gone too far, we're literally beginning to die out because of Communist feminism.
-Andrew
Where do you live in?
DeleteAndrew,
DeleteI'm merely espousing what Pope Pius XII taught. There are young women who work and are godly. I know them.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@Poni,
DeleteLouisville KY area.
-Andrew
This post starts off in typical fashion from the liberal writer who also has this boomer mentality which has done so much to destroy The Church and western civilization. He start by using disparaging language to introduce and describe Bp. Richard Williamson. We can all agree that Bishop Williamson was wrong on things, like Vatican II, false apparitions, and other matters. Clear minded people who live in reality and who have experienced the rise of militant leftism and all of its diabolical results, understand that Bp. Williamson was not wrong when it came to his views on women in trousers, women in the workplace, and the proper role for women in society. He also spoke correctly about the JQ. The writer of this post goes by hearsay as well, attributing things to Bp. Williamson that cannot be confirmed. Just more rumor spreading and unverified claims from this liberal who calls himself Catholic.
ReplyDeleteThe claims about Catholic Queens were brilliantly taken apart by a commenter in a previous post for all to see, but the writer of this blog has enough pride to fill an ocean, so that’s why he might find it difficult to swallow his pride when he is proven wrong.
Citing infallible sources from 1962 and then citing other modernists to say these sources are valid, proves that you don’t understand Catholic teaching or Papal infallibility.
Women do not belong in the workplace unless it is out of necessity. The feminist cancer that has devoured so much of traditional society must be spoken out against at every turn. This includes women voting and being in the workplace. Women taking on these sorts of political and social roles has been a bane to society. It has destroyed the traditional family and also opened up the door for women to seek other perverted forms of communist “liberation”, like contraception, abortions on demand, no fault divorce, and behaving in promiscuous and disreputable ways. If you don’t know why women shouldn’t be wearing pants, you have issues perhaps bordering on insurmountable.
@anon8:21
DeleteYou write: "This post starts off in typical fashion from the liberal writer who also has this boomer mentality which has done so much to destroy The Church and western civilization."
Reply: Nah, I’m Gen X!
You write, "He start by using disparaging language to introduce and describe Bp. Richard Williamson. We can all agree that Bishop Williamson was wrong on things, like Vatican II, false apparitions, and other matters."
Reply: Yes, “trivial and unimportant matters” (!)
You write, "The writer of this post goes by hearsay as well, attributing things to Bp. Williamson that cannot be confirmed. Just more rumor spreading and unverified claims from this liberal who calls himself Catholic."
Reply: The public testimony of a SSPX priest who was his student is hardly “rumor.” Williamson was alive in 2009, and could have sued the SSPX and Fr. Rizzo for defamation. Moreover, it comports with his public statements, such as a woman’s “inability to think” and they are all “vain” unless nuns.
You write, "The claims about Catholic Queens were brilliantly taken apart by a commenter in a previous post for all to see,..."
Reply: Um, no they weren’t!
You write "Citing infallible sources from 1962 and then citing other modernists to say these sources are valid, proves that you don’t understand Catholic teaching or Papal infallibility."
Reply: You meant to say "non-infallible sources"! Typical Dimondite response “It’S NoT InFaLLiBiE” You don’t understand squat about the Magisterium.
You write, "If you don’t know why women shouldn’t be wearing pants, you have issues perhaps bordering on insurmountable."
Reply: That’s not what I was writing about, nice bait and switch. I don’t know what YOUR problem is, but I’m sure it’s hard to pronounce.
---Introibo
Women wearing pants is a grotesque distortion of her nature. I recently heard Bishop Sanborn talk about how women should not be wearing pants. It certainly is an occasion of sin and a rebellion against the leadership role of men in functioning and well ordered societies.
ReplyDelete@anon8:34
DeleteNeither Pope Pius XII or I mentioned wearing pants by women. I know several female lawyers who wear modest dresses.
---Introibo
You cited Fr. Rizzo who found it troubling that Bp. Williamson was talking about how women shouldn’t wear pants. Before you cited this, you said his worst opinions were about women, and then you provided the quote about women wearing pants. You have no proof he made the other comment about “wife beating”. He did talk about women not wearing pants or being in the workplace and he was correct in those very straightforward statements. He also had a sense of humor and was a very intelligent man, although I think he was too theatric sometimes, and wrong on things.
Delete@anon12:25
DeleteI cited him for the part I emphasized---wife beating.
I would say a priest who publicly declared to have heard him say so (and could subject the SSPX to a lawsuit if he lied) is proof coupled with Williamson's ddgrading remarks about the "stupidity" of women.
---Introibo
There is no proof at all that he said that. If he said it, show concrete proof. Hearsay is not proof. As a lawyer you should know that. Lawsuit? Doubt it. That’s more speculation and conjecture on your part. He would just be known as a slanderer like many false “trads” who make stuff up to either grift or start conflicts and gain attention. Not everything ends up in court. You spread unconfirmed statements about someone with no proof. This is sinful.
Delete@anon2:15
DeleteHearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted. We have the testimony of a priest/former student who publicly stated that was what Williamson taught. It comports with his other extreme and goofy views. I believe Fr. Rizzo, and said such in my post. Moreover, Williamson was alive in 2009 and to the best of my knowledge and belief, never defended himself by saying Fr. Rizzo was a liar or his words were taken out of context. You can believe it or not, I'm merely reporting what a priest/student of Williamson said and gave reason why I think it true. That's not calumny or hearsay.
Claiming women were stupid and vain was something Williamson said to reporters and make public himself. Isn't that pretty awful? His statement would apply to your own mother. Was she stupid and vain? If too stupid, maybe dad had to slap some sense into her? That was Williamson's (lack of) mentality. I know two other priests (Traditionalists of course) who knew Williamson, and thought him to be a nasty character.
---Introibo
Saint Thomas Aquinas:
ReplyDelete“Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove”.
Woman is naturally subject to man, in man the discretion of reason predominates. Order in the family would be lacking if men don’t lead. This also applies to society as a whole. Women are not natural leaders, they should not be spending their time in the workplace seeking material things and recognition. It’s an occasion of sin for the men and it is a rebellious quality of women to be outside the home working unless it is her only means of feeding and sheltering herself. Women should not be in the university/college system either. First off, college is a total scam, unless men are going to learn a trade or hard science that can be applied to the real world. College is extremely overpriced, and at the end most students gain a useless degree. A degree in sodomite poetry comes from the administrative office of Satan. The women lose their innocence in these cesspools of immorality and both men and women are exposed to the most licentious and debauched behavior on a regular basis while being taught biological men can be women and vice versa. They are taught 2+3 =6. Don’t send your daughters to school as a Catholic parent. It’s controlled by demonic forces.
@anon9:14
Delete1. Glad you understand Aquinas and the application of Scholastic principles better than Pope Pius XII.
2. "Women should not be in the university/college system either"---are you a relative of Bp. Williamson?
3. "First off, college is a total scam, unless men are going to learn a trade or hard science that can be applied to the real world."---It wasn't for myself or my wife. We are both successful in the real world. Yes, there are stupid majors. Don't take them.
4. There are plenty of good colleges, such as St. Mary's.
---Introibo
4.
3.
You might be Genx but you sound like a boomer who makes excuses for feminism, makes antiwhite comments, and cites liberal garbage from 1962 and passes it off as traditional Church teaching. Wrong again. You are wrong quite often and is why you have five cult followers in your echo chamber. You said “Nah”, try speaking proper English before you compare Bp. Williamson with Eminem, when you clearly write like a degenerate rapper from Compton. Who says “Nah”? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Bp. Williamson was a heretic, but he was right on world Jewry and gender roles. Even your hero Fr. DePauw wasn’t a Sedevacantist, when many had already taken that correct position. No small issue. Your arguments on Catholic Queens was taken apart, I urge others to go back and read it. Your FALLIBLE sources mean nothing. Learn about Papal Infallibility. Your mental condition and world view is easy to say, it s called being a LIBERAl. That you are indeed. Stay out of the NYC coffeehouses it will serve you well.
ReplyDelete@anon9:36
DeleteYou write, "You might be Genx but you sound like a boomer who makes excuses for feminism, makes antiwhite comments, and cites liberal garbage from 1962 and passes it off as traditional Church teaching."
Reply: You mean Pope Pius XII was making excuses for feminism? Theologian Cotter was approved by the Magisterium back in the 1950s. If Pope Pius XII was teaching heresy or giving evil to the Church, he couldn’t have been pope. Is that your view?
You write: “You said “Nah”, try speaking proper English before you compare Bp. Williamson with Eminem, when you clearly write like a degenerate rapper from Compton. Who says “Nah”?”
Reply: Well, I didn’t say it, I wrote it. I do that in response to pseudo-educated dolts to “speak their language.”
You write, “ Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Bp. Williamson was a heretic, but he was right on world Jewry and gender roles. Even your hero Fr. DePauw wasn’t a Sedevacantist, when many had already taken that correct position. No small issue.”
Reply: Fr. DePauw did come to the correct conclusion. Big difference.
You write, “Your FALLIBLE sources mean nothing. Learn about Papal Infallibility.”
Here is Pope Pius XI:
Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.
(See Casti Connubii, para. #104)
I’m no liberal, and you’re no Catholic!
---Introibo
Don't feed this guy. His clearly a troll and a snobbish pseudo-intelectual who is harming his own position with unwarranted harshness and poorly written arguments.
Delete“Women can never be men's equal; and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights.” -Pope Pius X
Delete@anon2:59
DeletePope St. Pius X was trying to maintain traditional gender roles. That war was lost. It must be understood as the Church understands it. Certainly he did not mean women are sub-human or their souls are not equally loved by God. They have specific roles in society. I explained that above. The false "equality" of feminism (materialistic) is here condemned, whereby women can lead a household, be a cleric, etc.
Pope Pius XII praised the advancement of women into "almost all professions" and political institutions, though he still cautioned against "materialist" versions of equality that might undermine family life. Perfectly alignment with what Pope St. Pius X said.
---Introibo
So just to be clear. Do you think women should wear pants? Do you think it’s an occasion of sin? I don’t think women should wear pants for a number of reasons. Those reasons are backed up by tradition and Catholic moral theology.
Delete@anon3:54
DeleteI think it is unbecoming for women to wear pants. They should wear modest dresses.
---Introibo
I don't think it's wrong for women to wear pants so long as they are modest, but I don't think women should be wearing the pants in the family, in the Church, or in society!!! It's sick and exactly what's wrong in our world.
DeleteIntroibo I know you said you think it is unbecoming for women to wear pants. Has the church spoken on the matter? You said Pope Pius XII was silent. Is this a matter of well-guided conscience? A matter of can versus should? As in pants should not be form fitting or distracting if worn but could be depending? Cdl Siri said the help change the nature of the relationship between man and women among other things, and he considered it a factor in the long run of tearing apart human order. Deuteronomy says women should not wear men's attire, so does that apply here? Would Our Lady ever wear pants probably not but does that prove anything? Pope Pius XI wrote about the topic and provided some details about skirt length, neckline and sleeve length but nothing on pants. Some priests and others provide good points and cite private revelation from Mary but this is not the same as detailed church teaching, no? Thank you this is a frequent topic of disagreement amongst Catholics. Thank you for your posts.
Delete@anon10:22
DeleteYes, the Church has decreed against immodesty in dress. Given what was said, I believe women should not wear pants except in special circumstances (e.g. going rock climbing) --and they must never be tight-fitting.
See my post:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-disregarded-virtue.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
The Catholic Encyclopedia says “While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly. Consequently, it is ONLY in exceptional cases that in Christian kingdoms the direct sovereignty is placed in the hands of woman, as is shown by the women who have ascended thrones.”
ReplyDeleteUsing queens to say it's okay to run for public office or hold other titles of authority over men doesn't prove that women can be in authority. A queen is under a different form of government which is subject to the king. When a king dies the kingdom is the queen's possession. It's just like a married couple owning a property. If the man dies the house and the land falls to the woman and she in this sense has a right to command men to get off her property.
The way they exercise authority now is bragged about by society. The first woman to do this, the first woman to do that. WHY? Because it wasn't ever considered normal before modern times. We all have our lanes. To go beyond it contributes to the problem. Unfortunately, there is no going back until it is universally recognized.
@10:18
DeleteThe exception proves the rule:
*Women can rule over men
*It is not contrary to the Faith
* Pope Pius XII urged women to get involved in politics
The wise Pontiff was getting women to be involved and make the world Catholic in an age less Catholic each day.
God Bless,
---Introibo
No, the exception does not prove the rule or else the Catholic Encyclopedia wouldn't have stated that women are not allowed to hold public office as in an above comment I made. Understanding nuance is the key.
DeleteOur Holy Mother is the queen and everybody is subject to her but this does not mean she is pleased with seeing men being subject to women in the workplace, government, or under other different forms in society.
Voting and holding office are two different things. It can be understood why women voting for making society better is a good thing despite the consequences of it, hence the opinion between two popes. However putting women in office or voting for women to be in office is not a good thing and you don't hear Pius XII approving of that. WHY? Because it opens up a host of problems. It's saying they are man's equal in making authoritative decisions. It's opening up the idea that women can be in charge where men are suppose to be in charge. It's saying to the world if they can be in charge why not be in charge at home or in the Church? Sadly we see this problem in the Novus Ordo and in modern families. The implications are huge and the ruin of society. It will never get better so long as they keep getting in positions of authority over men. This goes for the military, police force, CEO's etc. It is a modern and evil idea to believe it's acceptable.
@anon12:40
DeleteNope. From Pope Pius XII "Papal Directives For Women Today" (1947)
"There remains to be considered the domain of political life. In many circumstances, We have already touched upon it. This domain has several distinct aspects: the safeguard and care of the sacred interests of woman, by means of legislation and administration that respects her rights, dignity, and social function — the participation of some women in political life for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all...Those among you who have more leisure and are suitably prepared, will take up the burden of public life and be, as it were, your delegated representatives. Give them your confidence, understand their difficulties, the hard work and sacrifices their devotion entails; give them your help and support."
Checkmate.
---Introibo
Pope Pius XII was surrounded by modernists. He made erroneous statements that were non binding in his fallible capacity. He put staunch modernists in positions of power which paved the way for Vatican II. He was a true Pope and never uttered heresy from The Chair of Saint Peter. Nevertheless, he certainly wasn’t the most noteworthy Pope in history. You just keep citing fallible sources. You can’t say checkmate, because you are playing checkers.
DeleteNowhere in this statement is Pius XII suggesting that women should run for congress/president/senate etc. He is highly encouraging women to participate in voting and speaking out for their rights because in his day Communism/totalitarianism were threatening home life and raising a family.
Delete@anon12:59
DeleteI don't care if he was surrounded by demons. The Holy Ghost prevents him from teaching heresy and immorality to the Church. His Addresses are him teaching the Church. Therefore, you must submit to those teachings, and they cannot be heretical or evil.
If he WAS saying it as a publicly as a private theologian, and it is heretical or evil, he would immediately fall from office and could not be pope. Which is it?
(Popes are not protected by God in making appointments)
---Introibo
@anon2:55
DeleteRead again:
"Those among you [women] who have more leisure and are suitably prepared, will take up the burden of public life and be, as it were, YOUR DELEGATED REPRESENTATIVES."
A congresswomen/senator, etc. is a delegated representative in public life.
---Introibo
I never said Pope Pius XII taught heresy. If he taught heresy in his fallible capacity he would cease to be Pope, Ipso facto. And, obviously he could not teach heresy ex cathedra and in his infallible capacity. A Pope could make doctrinal statements in their fallible capacity that contradict dogmatic pronouncements where the idea is not condemned by name but by Catholic teaching contained in the magisterial documents. Pope Pius XII made such statements without directly going against a magisterial statement that condemned a statement by name, but when one looks further into those fallible statements they can see that the dogmatic pronouncements are not in line with what Pope Pius XII said on certain issues. There is a difference between something that is notoriously heretical which has been condemned by name, and doctrinal errors in a Pope’s fallible capacity that aren’t in line with Catholic teaching found in magisterial statements that are dogmatic. A true Pope can be weak in some areas like imprudent reforms, weak propositions, and not being clear enough in certain fallible statements. Pope Pius XII was strong in Marian theology and EENS.
Delete@anon3:37
DeleteNo, he cannot. A dogma may be denied by a contradictory or contrary statement. For example, it is a dogma that "The Roman Catholic Church is the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." The contradictory statement negates it--"The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the One True Church, outside of which there is no salvation." A contrary statement is not a direct negation, but it goes against the dogma. Hence, Vatican II was heretical when it stated in Unitatis Redintegratio, para.#3 that Christ uses non-Catholic sects as a "means of salvation." It is heretical because if you can obtain salvation by being a Lutheran, then there is salvation outside the Roman Catholic Church.
So if what Pope Pius went against was dogma, he is a heretic. If it was not dogma, he must be followed as the Supreme Pastor of souls.
Pope Leo XIII:
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [1870] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.
(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #24).
You write, "A Pope could make doctrinal statements in their fallible capacity that contradict dogmatic pronouncements where the idea is not condemned by name but by Catholic teaching contained in the magisterial documents."
Please cite the approved theologians, canon law, or papal decrees that teach this mumbo-jumbo. I won't be holding my breath.
---Introibo
When talking about a bad Pope and not a manifest heretic, Saint Robert Bellarmine says:
DeleteSt. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chap. 29: “Just as it is licit to resist the Pontiff who attacks the body, so also is it licit to resist him who attacks souls or destroys the civil order or above all, tries to destroy the Church. I say that it is licit to resist him by not doing what he orders and by impeding the execution of his will. It is not licit, however, to judge him, to punish him, or to depose him.”
But he says he is automatically deposed when he becomes a manifest heretic. He is distinguishing between a manifest heretic and a Pope who isn’t a manifest heretic.
St. Robert Bellarmine, De Romano Pontifice, chapter 30: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church. Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.”
Two proper distinctions there. I certainly don’t think Pope Pius XII was trying to destroy The Church, but he was surrounded by demonic modernists and some were able to get what they wanted by manipulating him and this is what paved the way for Vatican II. Pope Pius XII was a true Pope and did not fall into heresy.
“Approved theologians” can be wrong.
DeletePope Benedict XIV, Apostolica (# 6), June 26, 1749: “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.” Errors of the Jansenists, #30: “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.”- Condemned by Pope Alexander VIII Pope Pius XII, Humani generis (# 21), Aug. 12, 1950: “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’”
Also, Popes in their fallible capacity took opposing views on the issue of Geocentrism. There are more examples like the deuterocanonical books, baptisms done by heretics, etc….
@anon4:05
DeleteA bad pope according to St. Robert means:
(1) a morally evil pope who gives
morally evil commands — not one who, like the post-Vatican II popes, teaches doctrinal error or imposes evil laws. Pope Pius XII would be imposing doctrinal error
(2) The context of the statement is a debate over the errors of Gallicanism, not the case of a heretical pope.
(3) Bellarmine is justifying “resistance” by kings and prelates, not by individual Catholics.
(I give full credit to the early work of Fr. Cekada who masterfully brought this out)
I agree with you that he did not fall into error, and he was NOT a "bad pope" at all; certainly not according to the definition of a "bad pope."
God Bless,
---Introibo
@Dimondite4:13
DeleteYou lifted that right from the playbook of Fred and Bobby Dimwit. Yes, an individual theologian can be wrong, but not when there is unanimous consent. Furthermore, the majority teaching of the theologians should be followed.
Fred and Bobby's citations mean that when the Church pronounces on an issue that was in dispute, the Judgement of the pope is final and supersedes any theologian. Hence, “The Church’s judgment is preferable to that of a Doctor renowned for his holiness and teaching.” and “When anyone finds a doctrine clearly established in Augustine, he can absolutely hold it and teach it, disregarding any bull of the pope.” and finally, “This deposit of faith our Divine Redeemer has given for authentic interpretation not to each of the faithful, not even to theologians, but only to the Teaching Authority of the Church.’” Only the pope has the final word in deciding all issues in dispute. Those issue decided upon by the unanimous consent of the theologians has already been decided by the Universal and Ordinary Magisterium which is equally infallible as ex cathedra pronouncement of the Extraordinary Magisterium.
---Introibo
---Introibo
For the Church decides
You put words in Pius XII's mouth. In Europe in the 1940's/50's there was lots of ways of being a delegated representative without holding public office. Google it and you find dozens of popular ways.
DeleteThe part you conveniently left out of Pius XII's 1947 letter was the paragraph right before the one you quoted where he mentions delegated representatives where he tells women "It does not mean that you are all to have political careers as members of public assemblies."
You argue like a lawyer, and it's not a checkmate by any means.
@anon6:23
DeleteI never stated ALL women have to have political careers, that would be ridiculous. Let's look at a female lawyer and politician approved by the Church in a Catholic country:
Margarite Legot (1913-1977) was a Belgian LAWYER in 1936 and was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. This happened while Belgium was a Catholic country! I guess none of the hierarchy knew women being lawyers was against Natural Law--or being elected to public office was immoral!! Imagine that!
You are proving the hierarchy failed miserably by not stomping out modernism. Not all in the hierarchy unanimously agrees with everything concerning policy. It's possible that some in the hierarchy verbally spoke out against this. Also since this happened in the 40's only proves that the Apostasy was near. Even in the 40's-50's some (a minority) of Catholic churches started looking grotesque. These were approved to be built but that doesn't mean it was right. This is one of the many reasons why Vatican II as you say robbed the Church because many of these same clergy were around in the 60's.
DeletePius XII also put Roncalli in charge even though he was suspected of modernism. I respectfully love Pius XII but think he was too soft in rooting out the problem happening from within and from without.
@anon6:58
DeleteNo, I'm proving your ignorance. Mrs. Legot was a friend of the King of Belgium and was known by Pope Pius XI. There were several staunch anti-Modernists in Belgium who liked her very much. None of them got it right, even two popes. Maybe you should join Ibranyi and push the vacancy to 1130AD
---Introibo
According to you, I would have to go back to Pope Pius X because he's the last one that got it right. All you can do is cite popes after Pius X who are the very ones who allowed the modernists to teach in the schools and usher in Vatican II.
Delete@anon7:16
DeleteNo, according to YOU if you think true popes "can't get it right."
---Introibo
Women should not wear pants, and men should not wear shorts. Look at pictures of your grandfathers and great grandfathers. You will find it very hard, if not close to impossible to see those men wearing shorts. Why? They were tougher, didn’t always seek comfort in all things, and had masculine traits. Unless you are a three year old boy, men should not be wearing shorts. It’s effeminate and childish. It’s almost as bad as grown men walking around in football jerseys with the names of men written across their backs, as they lumber through the stores with their baseball hats turned backwards. Pitiful.
ReplyDeleteI just went to a local grocery store by where I work. The amount of immodest fat ugly chaotic tattooed female blobs walking around without shame is very disturbing. I try to always fix my eyes away from this repulsive mess that passes for the modern day female. This all started with voting rights, pants, women in the workplace, and now has turned into something one could only picture exists in Hell. Don’t make excuses for feminism or why women should be involved in the modern day political and social realm in a way she just can’t avoid. She can avoid it. With the grace of God and staying true to her nature and doing God’s will women can become those beautiful, noble, innocent, nurturing, feminine members that we truly love and want to see again.
ReplyDelete@anon11:29
DeleteIf evil started with voting rights, you must believe Pius XII was advancing evil. I'm not making excuses, just submitting to the pope.
---Introibo
What annoys me about such discussions is the attitude of Steven Spray. As much as I respect this guy, I fail to understand why he would imply that you are a disbeliever in Novus Ordo Watch and yet not come here and tell you to the face why he thinks you are wrong.
ReplyDeleteAt el poni. why don't you go on speray's website or novus ordo watch and tell him he's wrong? He'll demolish you and you know it.
DeleteI don't even believe women should be judges and lawyers. But I don't go around calling my friends non Catholic when I am perfectly capable of speaking to their face.
DeleteSteve Speray is correct on the woman issue. He plainly stated he left jobs because of female bosses and started his own company. This is commendable. If someone supports perversions of the natural law and supports women in the workplace when there is no necessity or sufficient reason for them to be there, they are going against Catholic moral teaching. It’s doesn’t matter if you have a few fallible quotes from Pope Pius XII. Tradition, scripture,a number of Popes, Saint Thomas Aquinas all agree that women have defined roles, and it is certainly not what we see in the modern world and what we see in the modern day career woman. If you support these things you are not Catholic.
Delete@anon5:04
DeleteI believe Steve is wrong. He is my friend and I respect him.
You believe Pope Pius XII taught against the Natural Law. Therefore, you must believe he is not the pope. If he's the pope you must submit.
Some day you'll go far. Hopefully, you stay there.
---Introibo
The Patriarchy is good and natural. Feminism is an egalitarian revolt against The Natural Order and it’s used by Satan and his vectors here on earth to sow division and chaos. Satan went through Eve to get to Adam. Eve was being manipulative by giving him the apple. The fall in the Garden of Eden created these disorders in men (effeminacy), forgoing the arduous in exchange for comfort and in women (resentment of legitimate authority as a result of their disobedience).
ReplyDeleteWomen were not designed for working in the corporate world, and being exploited for corporate gains and the wicked feminist agenda. The darkest traits of fallen women come right to the surface when they enter the corporate world chasing money and recognition. We have all experienced what an extremely horrible experience it is to work for or be around women in the workplace.
Day care culture is another topic that ties in to this discussion. How many women dump their toddlers, grade schoolers, and even infants, to day care centers so unqualified strangers can raise them while these self absorbed mothers spend their days looking over spread sheets and attend Zoom meetings all day to discuss corporate profits. Many don’t have children so they can pursue careers being credit analysts and marketing managers for the most corrupt and immoral companies known to man. It’s very twisted and sick.
Saint Isaiah: “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter”.
@anon3:14
Delete1. I’m not in favor of feminism. You miss the point completely.
2. You write “Women were not designed for working in the corporate world, and being exploited for corporate gains and the wicked feminist agenda. The darkest traits of fallen women come right to the surface when they enter the corporate world chasing money and recognition.”
Reply: There are women who are the evil corporate types and those who do good as encouraged by Pope Pius XII. In this post, I too condemn the ones who chase money.
3. You write, “We have all experienced what an extremely horrible experience it is to work for or be around women in the workplace.”
Reply: We? Unless you’re a pope or king writing in the royal “We,” you certainly don’t speak for me or all men. Some of my best bosses in law and education were godly women.
4. You write “Day care culture is another topic that ties in to this discussion. How many women dump their toddlers, grade schoolers, and even infants, to day care centers so unqualified strangers can raise them while these self absorbed mothers spend their days looking over spread sheets and attend Zoom meetings all day to discuss corporate profits. Many don’t have children so they can pursue careers being credit analysts and marketing managers for the most corrupt and immoral companies known to man. It’s very twisted and sick.”
Reply: Yes, it is twisted and sick. However, did you read the multiple examples I gave above where it is not so? Perfectly legitimate.
5. I too condemn those who call evil good; but first understand the good and the evil. Think with the Church and the teachings of Pope Pius XII
God Bless,
---Introibo
“Subjection is twofold. One is servile, by virtue of which a superior makes use of a subject for his own benefit; and this kind of subjection began after sin. There is another kind of subjection which is called economic or civil, whereby the superior makes use of his subjects for their own benefit and good; and this kind of subjection existed even before sin. For good order would have been wanting in the human family if some were not governed by others wiser than themselves. So by such a kind of subjection woman is naturally subject to man, because in man the discretion of reason predominates. Nor is inequality among men excluded by the state of innocence, as we shall prove” -Saint Thomas Aquinas
ReplyDeleteHe clearly states women are subject to men, this means men don’t answer to women in the workplace since that would contradict this statement and that men are wiser and that the discretion of reason predominates in men. I agree that this can be said in a crude way sometimes by people, accusing women of being “stupid”. They aren’t stupid. They are beautiful and honorable when they live the state of life they were designed for by God.
@anon3:50
DeleteI agree with much of what you wrote. However, there has been much nuance and development since the 13th century. Also, I have known men as dumb as bricks, and women who are brilliant. My wife is by far superior in intellect. Ivy League graduate in top 10% of her class and can read write and speak in four languages.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Development? Evolution? This is a word used by modernists. You can gain a deeper understanding of an already revealed truth, and in this case a theological concept of the greatest scholastic philosopher and theologian ever, Saint Thomas, but there is no development or evolution when discussing eternal truths and reality . Tradition remains unchanged and is eternal it doesn’t change with the times. Women can be highly intelligent, however, they are also designed to be more emotional and nurturing. It doesn’t matter if a woman can do calculus and speak Icelandic. What point does that prove? Men, are designed for leadership and reason and protection. Women are designed to be men’s helpmates, nurturers, emotional support, and domestic caretakers. Period. When you point to exceptions and then say that’s the rule, you have already lost most people who know it’s not the rule. This is what the left does. They point to the woman who can deadlift hundreds of pounds or fight a fire. And then they say, “see! look! woman can do it too”. Except they can’t. Guidelines and job requirements are watered down to make it look like woman can do these things that they really can’t do at the same level as men. Can you find women who can be doctors and mathematicians. Yes. But the point is, they shouldn’t be these things. It’s worldly, pointless and has nothing to do with what she was designed to do.
Delete@anon4:27
DeleteI'm fully aware of the Modernist false "development of doctrine" and the true Catholic concept. You claim females shouldn't be doctors because it's worldly and has nothing to do with what she's designed to do. Really? Fr. DePauw's sister was a nun and physician. Being a doctor and saving lives is not "worldly" and if a woman can be doing it well she SHOULD. Read what Pope Pius XII said about the engagement of women in the world.
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDeleteSometimes women have to stand up for themselves. I am a woman.
I am a victim of extreme abuse(some of it sexual), including ATTEMPTED MURDER.
I think that it is okay for me to have some basic IDEAS(sorry, Bishop Williamson, I believe that women can have ideas too!), such as a restraining order if my abusers ever attempt to contact me again.
@anon3:56
DeleteI'm so sorry for what you had to endure. Be assured of my prayers. Good for you in standing up for yourself! You are a brave woman.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo:
ReplyDelete1. What Fr. DePauw think of the Thuc line?
2. What did Fr. DePauw think of Feeneyism?
3. What was Fr. DePauw's sister's name?
4. Do the SSPV/CSPV have a safeguarding policy?
@anon4:57
Delete1. He eschewed anything from Palmar de Troya and didn't comment on other lineages, but he seemed favorable to those through Guerard des Lauriers
2. He said in written correspondence to me, "Any so-called "theologian" who denies Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood had better stop calling himself Catholic." He called them heretics and had zero tolerance for them.
3. His sister (the nun) was born Paula and had her religious name as Marie.
4. Regarding children? I don't know if they have an officail policy, but they are never alone with children.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I am Anon4:57. About #4, I mean a safeguarding policy about anybody.
Delete@anon6:14
DeleteI'm not aware of such a policy but they may have one. They are great clergymen.
---Introibo
“The Feminist (which means, I think, one who dislikes the chief feminine characteristics) has heard my loose monologue, bursting all the time with one pent-up protest. At this point he will break out and say, "But what are we to do? There is modern commerce and its clerks; there is the modern family with its unmarried daughters; specialism is expected everywhere; female thrift and conscientiousness are demanded and supplied. What does it matter whether we should in the abstract prefer the old human and housekeeping woman; we might prefer the Garden of Eden. But since women have trades they ought to have trades unions. Since women work in factories, they ought to vote on factory-acts. If they are unmarried they must be commercial; if they are commercial they must be political. We must have new rules for a new world-- even if it be not a better one." I said to a Feminist once: "The question is not whether women are good enough for votes: it is whether votes are good enough for women." He only answered: "Ah, you go and say that to the women chain-makers on Cradley Heath."
ReplyDelete- G.K. Chesterton
@anon4:57
DeleteChesterton was speaking of his time, and would be the first to submit to papal teaching!
---Introibo
So many people miss the point entirely. I've held my tongue thus far but man some of these comments are ridiculous, it's almost as if they didn't even read your article at all. Lol.
ReplyDeleteIt boils down to Natural Law, and as history and the Church has proven, women CAN be in positions of authority in the public sphere. If it was intrinsically evil the Church would have said as much. The Church would not keep silent on say a Catholic queen; "hey good job running the country in absence of your husband,by the way you were committing mortal sin the entire time doing so but we decided not to say anything.....
Imagine the guide of souls and Christ's Church allowing people to commit mortal sin for almost 2000 years with no condemnation? Laughable to say the least.
It may not be ideal, and there are nuances and different circumstances that arrive and we have to approach each situation differently and with prudence. But it cannot be said to be intrinsically evil and against the Natural Law or the Church would have said something.
Hope your doing well Introibo.
David,
DeleteYou've always been the voice of reason, my friend! Well stated. I'm doing well, and I hope your family and you are also well. You're always in my prayers.
God Bless,
---Introibo
We are not talking about Catholic Queens, that absurd point was refuted a few posts ago by the commenters in that comment section. The post was entitled “The Lie that is Dismantling Marriages”. The Catholic Queens argument does not work, it is a total straw man and has nothing to do with what we are taking about. It is you who are missing the point. Women do not belong in the workplace or working as judges, police officers, military officers, etc….it goes against the natural law and the teaching of The Church as stated by moral theologians, scripture, and tradition.
Delete@anon5:39
DeleteIf a woman can lead as a queen and military commander it is not against Natural Law or sinful. How about:
Margarite Legot (1913-1977) was a Belgian LAWYER in 1936 and was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. This happened while Belgium was a Catholic country! I guess none of the hierarchy knew women being lawyers was against Natural Law--or being elected to public office was immoral!! Imagine that!
---Introibo
Then provide the authoratative condemnation from the Church. I understand your point, I get it, women today are trashy slobs who are feminist and have no morals, and are basically subhuman in your view it seems.
DeleteThe Catholic queen comparison works because as was pointed out, if it was against the Natural Law as you claim, the Church would have said so. The very fact that there are exceptions proves it is not intrinsically evil. That is the point you miss.
You're lumping all women today into this disgusting feminist box which is uncharitable.
May I ask are you married? If yes, I assume you make your wife completely cover everything except her face? Obviously with no face make-up? That's the standard I always see "masculine traditionalist" pushing, "women should dress like the Blessed Virgin". Does your wife? Do your daughters?
There doesn’t need to be a condemnation of Catholic Queens by The Church. There wouldn’t be. Catholic Queenship and motherhood are an ordered type of authority.Catholic Queen ship is a necessity that these woman are called to do by supporting their husband the King and The Catholic moral order of the Catholic kingdom. They don’t go out into the world and apply to be domineering Queens, like they do to be corporate bosses. It’s not the same as being a female truck driver or a HR manager. Get it yet? Saint Catherine of Siena showed a motherly and supportive quality towards the Pope and led with a good natured heart. We don’t need a Pope to condemn female firefighters, judges, corporate bosses etc…it’s common sense and part of the natural law. Holy Scripture, Tradition, and Popes teach that woman have a place in society and it’s not in male roles.
Delete@anon6:48
DeleteAnd God picked St. Joan of Arc to lead an army...why?
How about, I repeat myself:
Margarite Legot (1913-1977) was a Belgian LAWYER in 1936 and was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. This happened while Belgium was a Catholic country! I guess none of the hierarchy knew women being lawyers was against Natural Law--or being elected to public office was immoral!! Imagine that!
---Introibo
Did Saint Joan of Arc fight in hand to hand combat? No! She was sent on a mission from God to save France. It’s hardly the same as female fighters being shipped off to the Middle East to die in wars for the Zionist state of Israel.
DeletePope St. Pius X told an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, ‘The development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement’, pp. 11-30
In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909)
Pope Pius X was a great Pope for many reasons. This is just one example of his greatness and defending the natural law.
@anon7:13
DeleteI answer those very quotes in my post above. Pity you don't (can't?) read.
---Introibo
Yeah, I did read them and you say that Popes Pius X and XII were in perfect alignment but this is not true. St. Pius X did not see things the same way as Pius XII did, especially on the subject of women.
DeleteSt. Pius X is against them voting and against them taking/holding office whereas Pius XII is not. One of them is right. They can't both be right. It's an honest observation.
Introibo, you could be a little less condescending in your reply's.
Also to David, I don't know if you're married but would you be okay with you wife or mother (if you are not married) becoming the president/congress-woman/senator? Would you be okay with her being a drill sergeant, police chief, or a manager of construction workers? If she can do it then according to Introibo she has every right to. How would she be subject to you at home when she is out in the world commanding men around? Can you answer these questions with straight face?
@anon6:43
DeleteFrom my post:
"Answer: Context is the key. In 1909, Pope St. Pius X was trying to preserve traditional gender roles and many Catholic countries existed. In 1945, Pope Pius XII was facing the reality of a world that had become more secularized, and in which women were drawn into the workforce after World War I and especially after World War II. Both popes believed in gender differentiation, but Pius XII extended that difference to mean women were necessary in public life to protect the social fabric--and they were, both then, and even more so now. Pope Pius XII could be called prescient in retrospect. Just 17 years after his 1947 Address, the Vatican II sect would be born and undo all things Catholic."
Pope St. Pius X was trying to keep traditional roles as they existed, but when that failed, Pope Pius XII--rather than have women retreat--told them to go out and work with men to make the world Catholic.
I'll let David speak for himself. My wife commands men at work, and is most respectful and sweet to me at home. Those under her, both male and female, have great respect for her and and have written to those higher up to compliment her leadership. I couldn't be more proud.
---Introibo
I am married and luckily I make enough right now so my wife does not need to work.
DeleteYou are asking something that doesn't pertain to the question at hand.
Comfortability and immorality are 2 different things.
Would I be comfortable with my wife doing certain certain occupations? No I wouldn't.
Would it be mortally sinful for her and against the Natural Law ? No it wouldn't be, as proven already above.
You may not like it, you may have horrible experiences in life with female coworkers/bosses, doesn't mean its intrinsically evil and that is the point we are making.
One of my current bosses is female. She is very computer/office smart but I don't like her as a boss. But I dont have the ability to just abandon my job or quit, I make a sacrifice for God and my family to work and provide the best I can as is my responsibility as a husband and father.
You are talking what should be done, an ideal vs what is actually immoral and mortally sinful.
David,
DeleteI appreciate the response. I understand everything you said. You say, "Would I be comfortable with my wife doing certain certain occupations? No I wouldn't."
WHY? WHY? WHY?
You say "Would it be mortally sinful for her and against the Natural Law? No, it wouldn't be, as proven already above."
So are you saying that if your wife wanted to be President or Leader of some other manly line of work that it wouldn't be immoral and a mortal sin?
Having horrible experiences have nothing to do with the morality of it.
What if St. Peter said I just can't abandon my job as a fisherman to follow Jesus but rather I will make a sacrifice and put up with my line of work because I don't have a choice. He had a wife and other responsibilities too!!!
St. Thomas Moore was once the chancellor of England. What if he said I can't just stand up to the king if I am under him.
What you and Introibo are really concerned about is working under them. There are different forms of material cooperation that are not sinful and those that are. I don't know to what extent what can or cannot be allowed. You probably view this as ridiculous as do so many others. I feel for you. I think you really don't believe women should be in charge but because you are in a pickle you have to justify it.
Because there are certain occupations more suited for a man, military for example. But my concerns are not based upon if its sinful behavior.
DeleteOur Lord is not calling me to be a bishop in His Church, nor am I currently being called to any religious state. You were saying the Catholic queen comparison is moot but then compare the modern working man to being called personally by Our Lord like St. Peter?
Its not a matter of sin, her being one of my bosses, so I'm not obligated to leave. And even if I wanted to, why would I presume on God's mercy to find me another suitable job to accomplish my duties as father and husband when He has already provided me with one?
You are free to quit every job with a female in charge, but I feel like thats presuming on the Mercy of God. I just bare the cross Our Lord has sent, if something sinful arrives at my job and I were forced to choose then I will quit, but working under a female is not mortally sinful.
David, I completely understand your point, however, when you say "Because there are certain occupations more suited for a man, military for example" you are admitting there is something wrong with females being in leadership positions which is in agreement with me. Introibo says it's okay for women to be in high ranking military positions because of St. Joan of Arc and he bases his info on modernist historians who said she took the lead.
DeleteI didn't say to quit your job due to your circumstances. I don't know if it's sinful depending on a person's situation. That's a whole other issue. Although I know that's what people jump to the conclusion to because of the implications.
Queens are an exception to the rule and the Catholic Encyclopedia explains why. I'm not against queens being in power because there is a nuance there which has been explained.
@anon6:36
DeleteI'm not speaking for David, but I thank David for being one of the few here who actually read what I wrote.
You wrote, " "Because there are certain occupations more suited for a man, military for example" you are admitting there is something wrong with females being in leadership positions"
Reply: No, I said the same thing. Men are better suited for a job does not equate to a "woman can't do it" or "is sinful to do it." I said women should not fight in the army unless absolutely necessary, but they COULD and therefore NOT contrary to Natural Law.
You write that I "bases his info on modernist historians who said she took the lead." Modernist" historians? History is a discipline. the best research shows she did take the lead.
You write: "Queens are an exception to the rule"
Reply: Then the rule proves the exception. Queens are not a "special category" of female---sounds like trans-insanity. If they can rule it is not contrary to Natural Law.
Finally, I'll repeat myself yet again:
Margarite Legot (1913-1977) was a Belgian LAWYER in 1936 and was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. This happened while Belgium was a Catholic country! I guess none of the hierarchy knew women being lawyers was against Natural Law--or being elected to public office was immoral!! Imagine that!
If what Pope Pius XII said was against Natural Law he couldn't have been pope.
---Introibo
You can’t resist in jumping into every conversation and putting in your condescending opinions. It’s on the level of autistic attachment to your ideas which most are not falling for here in this comments section. Just accept your position has been thoroughly refuted over and over again by Popes, Scripture, reason, which you lack, the sociological data, lived experiences across most of western liberal societies dealing with the widespread perversion of feminism and women in the workplace. Instead of feverishly writing the same drivel over and over again, try some self reflection in dealing with your Pride. We all have it. It’s the predominant fault of many including myself, but you don’t seem to understand that this is a serious fault you have. Even some of the more gentle and meek commenters on this blog have pointed this out to you. Women do not belong in the workplace, unless for a very sufficient reason. It goes against the natural order and it doesn’t matter if society changes, that is why traditional Catholics don’t change and remain traditional Catholics. It’s hard but that’s why it’s about fighting the good fight and persevering to the end.
Delete@anon5:29
DeleteYou: You can’t resist in jumping into every conversation and putting in your condescending opinions.
Me: I can respond to anything I wish on my blog. You don’t like it but that’s too bad for you. Restating facts is not condescending.
You: It’s on the level of autistic attachment to your ideas
Me: The only autism here is demonstrated by those who have yet to confront the clear teaching of Pope Pius XII
You: your position has been thoroughly refuted over and over again by Popes, Scripture, reason, which you lack, the sociological data, lived experiences across most of western liberal societies dealing with the widespread perversion of feminism and women in the workplace.
Me: It’s NOT MY position It is that of Pope Pius XII, and it is not “feminism”—what you describe was not taught by the Pontiff. He did not (could not approve) of misandry, abortion, and the evils of true feminism. You call ME “condescending” but didn’t you just insult me by saying I “lack reason” Is THAT condescending?? (Asking for a friend)
You: It goes against the natural order and it doesn’t matter if society changes, that is why traditional Catholics don’t change and remain traditional Catholics. It’s hard but that’s why it’s about fighting the good fight and persevering to the end.
Me: Then Pope Pius XII taught error and cannot be pope. You have yet to address any of this. The real drivel is from you.
---Introibo
The Pope Pius XII argument has already been thoroughly refuted and it’s not the teaching of The Church. It’s in the comments section for all to see. You can keep posting it and using the quotes, but Tradition, Doctors of The Church, and earlier Popes who were not totally surrounded by modernists, made very clear statements about women’s roles and the natural law. They don’t belong in the workplace unless it is involving a serious necessity. No true Pope would ever condone what is going on in society today with women in positions of power and attending university and barking orders at emasculated men who are also to blame for feminism. Pope Pius XII made some mistakes in his fallible capacity and also some imprudent arguments. It’s that easy. Read the comments section refuting these points and we don’t even know if people added more refutations to this section since you have been known to violate your comment policy and not post comments that utterly destroy your arguments but there are a bunch here already that do. Start reading them and taking notes.
DeletePope Pius XII:
Delete*First pope to permit Catholics to pray with non-Catholics with strict limitations. Dec 20 1949
*First pope to permit the faithful to believe the human body may have evolved from pre-existent living matter.
*Third pope to permit modernists teaching positions in the world such as Roncalli
*Some will say he destroyed the liturgy although I wouldn't go that far.
*Now we can say pope who is not against women in public office when that was not how it used to be.
* Lastly ugly church architecture under his Pontificate which shouldn't have been approved
I'm not saying he's not the pope for allowing these things to happen, but it sure doesn't look good. I humbly obey him but at the same time don't agree that these things are pleasing to God.
This is coming from a guy who obeys his liturgical laws, believes in a young earth, can't stand the idea of praying with Protestants even if it's permitted, and who hates Modernism with every ounce of my being despite the fact that it was in the very veins of the Church from the 20's-50's
Introibo, I respect you when you talk to people with sympathy but not when you treat everybody as if they were a Dimondite. Pope Pius XII may have been the pope but I find serious problems that cause me serious doubt as to what he did while in office. Please understand some of us are disturbed by this.
@anon9:09
DeleteMy friend, I understand what you are saying. Here's why most feel uncomfortable with Pope Pius XII:
They accept certain positions as "dogma" and then look askance when anything challenges that. For example, you believe in a Young Earth. A totally permissible position. However, Old Earth is not precluded. Pope St. Pius X allowed Catholics to believe that the "days" of Genesis may be long periods of time. The Big Bang Theory was the brainchild of a devout Belgian priest-scientist and works to disprove atheism. The permission for the development of the body was likewise permitted as it does not contradict Church teaching.
Pope Pius XII did not PERMIT Modernists to teach--he was told Roncalli had amended his ways.
The praying with non-Catholics was within permissible boundaries and was done so that the Protestants would be open to the truth and convert. The Pain reforms of the liturgy were an improvement in many ways.
When you see the whole picture, you'll see Pope Pius XII as a wise Pope!
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon8:35
Deletethe logic is inescapable.
1. We must obey the pope in non-infallible statements, not just infallible ones. The idea of only being bound by infallible statements was CONDEMNED by the Syllabus of Errors and several popes.
2. The pope CANNOT teach contrary to Natural Law. He is protected by the Holy Ghost from doing so. Therefore, if he was teaching in his Addresses (which he was) you MUST submit that women in the workplace being acceptable and NOT against Natural Law.
3. If the pope was NOT teaching during his Addresses, and Natural Law forbids women in the workplace, he taught heresy as a private theologian and was NOT a true pope.
Those are the choices!
---Introibo
When you say Pius XII did not permit Modernists to teach but that he was told that someone like Roncalli amended his ways, by whom do you think he was told that by? What if a Modernist him told him that? Why would he later say "I hear all around me innovators who wish to dismantle the Sacred Chapel, destroy the universal flame of the Church, reject her ornaments and make her feel remorse for her historical past" if he didn't know Modernists weren't already in the Church?
DeleteHe obviously knew something was going on. He knew Benedict XV relaxed the witch hunt on the Modernist that Pius X was so vehemently was against. I don't completely buy into what you are saying.
St. Pius X adhered to a traditional, literal interpretation of Genesis. Not this idea that the human body may have evolved from pre-existent living matter. If that is true than where did the woman come from?
I understand the disciplinary change of praying with non-Catholics under certain circumstances but that was unheard at the time especially when Mortalium Animos came out almost 20 years earlier.
Also look at these modern looking Catholic Churches built in the 40's and 50's
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre-Dame_du_Haut
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Columba_Church_(Saint_Paul,_Minnesota)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cathedral_of_the_Holy_Spirit_(Bismarck,_North_Dakota)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chapel_of_the_Holy_Cross_(Sedona,_Arizona)
You would think the above pictures of churches were built after Vatican II. Nope It was under Pius XII. WHY? Are you going tell me he didn't know Modernists and innovators weren't in the Church? Come On.
@anon12:15
DeleteIt was most likely Bea, a real snake. Pope Pius understood Modernism and that's why he had the fewest cardinals in a long time. He didn't trust many. Pope St. Pius X did NOT adhere to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Please see my post:
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2024/01/human-origin.html
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon12:15
DeleteYes, there were Modernists creeping in and he couldn't control it all, but that's certainly not the case with an Address he wrote and personally delivered!
---Introibo
How do you know it’s certainly not the case? A modernist could have easily influenced it. Pope Pius XII treaded very close to danger with a few of his decisions, not to the level of heresy, but certainly mistakes in his fallible capacity.
DeleteDo you personally believe that Adam had animal parents or that he literally came from the dirt of the ground?
Delete@anon4:31
DeleteNeither. I believe Adam's body was made by pre-existing matter, but I am not convinced on precisely how at this point in time.
God Bless,
---Introibo
@anon1:15
DeleteI know it is not the case because the pope is personally protected against error by the Holy Ghost, Who can neither deceive or be deceived. That's how I am certain.
---Introibo
His time applied to this time more than ever. Have you ever heard someone say that an old quote fits the times we are living in almost precisely, as if the person that made the quote years ago was speaking about this very epoch? You like this idea that moral values and social norms can change with the times. Social norms that go against the natural law don’t change with the times.
ReplyDelete@anon5:28
DeleteYou also believe Pope Pius XII was a heretic and not pope.
Good to know!
---Introibo
Never said he was a heretic. This is one of your major problems. You continually assert things about people that they never said and you misrepresent their views to try and buttress your weak and nonsensical arguments. You are very wrong on this issue along with many other theological topics. You should listen to Steve Speray on this matter. He hit the nail on the head. Instead of calling people pompous, and muddle heads, you should cast out the beam in your own eye.
ReplyDelete@anon6:17
DeleteThat's the clear implication (necessary conclusion) if Pope Pius XII taught against the Natural Law.
I listen to the pope.
---Introibo
This post is on track to be your most popular ever!
ReplyDelete@anon7:13
DeleteLol! Yes--maybe "most infamous"--thanks for the laugh!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Your constant citation of Pope Pius XII fails miserably regarding this topic. Popes can make mistakes in their fallible capacity, and this has happened throughout Church history. This is what also paved the way for V2, since some Pre Vatican II Popes were not precise in their fallible writings and not giving more attentive care to dogmatic definitions, which led to modernists assigning liberal interpretations to statements or topics that could have been more concretely defined, even though some of these dogmas had been defined at earlier Councils.
ReplyDeletePope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Session 4, Chap. 4:
“…the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra [from the Chair of Peter], that is, when carrying out the duty of the pastor and teacher of all Christians in accord with his supreme apostolic authority he explains a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the universal Church... operates with that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer wished that His Church be instructed in defining doctrine on faith and morals; and so such definitions of the Roman Pontiff from himself, but not from the consensus of the Church, are unalterable.”
Pope John IV wrongly tried to defend the heretical words of Pope Honorius which was condemned at an earlier Councils, Popes disagreed with the theological status of Geocentrism vs. Heliocentrism, and there are more examples.
The Church teaches infallibly from the Chair of Saint Peter, ex cathedra, with solemn language that binds the universal Church. It doesn’t teach infallibly in letters to a group of people, in radio addresses, or in speeches to a small group of people. People can look to the statements to see if they are fully in line with earlier dogmatic pronouncements, but these fallible statements are not dogmatic pronouncements for the whole Church to adhere to since it doesn’t carry the weight of infallibility.
You can cite “approved theologians” from 1959 and 1960. It doesn’t teach infallibly on matters. They are men. They are not protected with the highest authority that makes pronouncements infallible. Modernists have set up a flimsy man made magisterium where they think modernist theologians that made their way into The Vatican from the late 1800s up to V2, somehow are the authority on what the Church teaches.
Women have a role in society. What Pope Pius XII said has nothing to do to do with modern day career women in the workplace. If he was around today, I think he would condemn the modern day feminist in the workplace. Also his statements aren’t infallible and other Popes, Doctors of The Church, and Scripture teach women should not be in roles assigned to men and that go against their nature. That means no women in the workplace unless it is out of necessity. I’ll stick with those teachings that will stand the test of time and most traditionalists know women do not belong in the workplace or in universities.
@anon5:47
DeleteWhat fails miserably is your lack of understanding of both Catholic theology and Church history.
Popes are protected by the Holy Ghost and cannot teach heresy or evil when teaching the Church in their non-infallible capacity, as in Addresses, Encyclicals, etc. A Catholic must give his assent or cease to be Catholic.
Proof:
Pope Leo XIII:
In defining the limits of the obedience owed to the pastors of souls, but most of all to the authority of the Roman Pontiff, it must not be supposed that it is only to be yielded in relation to dogmas of which the obstinate denial cannot be disjoined from the crime of heresy. Nay, further, it is not enough sincerely and firmly to assent to doctrines which, though not defined by any solemn pronouncement of the Church, are by her proposed to belief, as divinely revealed, in her common and universal teaching, and which the [1870] Vatican Council declared are to be believed “with Catholic and divine faith.” But this likewise must be reckoned amongst the duties of Christians, that they allow themselves to be ruled and directed by the authority and leadership of bishops, and, above all, of the Apostolic See.
(See Sapientiae Christianae, para. #24).
Pope Pius IX:
Nor can we pass over in silence the audacity of those who, not enduring sound doctrine, contend that “without sin and without any sacrifice of the Catholic profession assent and obedience may be refused to those judgments and decrees of the Apostolic See, whose object is declared to concern the Church’s general good and her rights and discipline, so only it does not touch the dogmata of faith and morals.” But no one can be found not clearly and distinctly to see and understand how grievously this is opposed to the Catholic dogma of the full power given from God by Christ our Lord Himself to the Roman Pontiff of feeding, ruling and guiding the Universal Church.
(See Quanta Cura, para. #5).
Pope Pius XI:
Wherefore, let the faithful also be on their guard against the overrated independence of private judgment and that false autonomy of human reason. For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definition as though her other decisions might be presumed to be false or putting forward insufficient motive for truth and honesty. Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord.
(See Casti Connubii, para. #104).
CONTINUED BELOW
You show culpable ignorance as to the facts of Pope Honorius. Your argument was used by PROTESTANTS and GALLICAN heretics AGAINST the very passage on papal infalliblity you cite from the Vatican Council of 1870. For a masterful takedown, see the late Fr. Cekada: fathercekada.com/2019/04/24/does-the-pope-honorius-affair-refute-sedevacantism/
DeleteYou are a Dimondite—or hold their same errors regarding the Magisterium. The idea that you “look over the non-infallible teachings of popes” has no basis in theology whatsoever. As a matter of fact the Church condemned that very idea solemnly:
SYLLABUS OF ERRORS: CONDEMNED PROPOSITION #22
“22. The obligation by which Catholic teachers and authors are strictly bound is confined to those things only which are proposed to universal belief as dogmas of faith by the infallible judgment of the Church”
If Pope Pius XII spoke against dogma or Natural Law, he cannot be a pope.
---Introibo
The so called proof you provided from three Popes above that you just copy and paste from a file on your PC don’t prove your point. They never said your pseudo magisterium was infallible, and Vatican I defines when a Pope is infallible. It’s when he speaks solemnly from The Chair of Saint Peter using ex cathedra language and when parts of Councils in Faith and morals are promulgated for the belief of the universal Church. Letters, radio addresses, and a speech given to a small audience is not infallible and could contain mistakes that are not notoriously condemned by The Church. If at first you don’t succeed, try try again. Keep trying. Praying for your conversion from modernism to Catholicism.
Delete@anon8:15
DeleteTranslation: I can't refute what you wrote so I'll repeat my same garbage again.
The Church CONDEMNED in the Syllabus of Errors that you only follow infallible teachings. That was also taught by all three popes I cited--your obligation to believe is NOT restricted to the extraordinary Magisterium.
You wouldn't know Catholicism if it bit you on your buttocks.
---Introibo
I read this because I thought you were going to show that Williamson was wrong about woman dressing up like men. Unless I missed something, the Pope didn’t say anything about that. That makes me suspect your judgment about publishing the accusation that Williamson said husbands can physically abuse their wives. I tend to agree with you that Williamson was muddle-headed. (For example, he thought Kant’s idea of the thing in itself was hugely important but he didn’t really seem to understand it himself.) Muddle-headed maybe, but he didn’t strike me as a mysoginist. (Besides, the thing about mind rot just cracks me up, I’m sorry I can’t help but laugh at such folly.) I’ve visited St Mary’s Kansas and the way they have combat feminism is what I respect the most. I could tell plenty of stories about both priests and laity enforcing traditional norms about dress and decorum. On that issue they are great. But here you are calling yourself a traditionalist and promoting woman wearing pants? Please sir, wake up. You are so right about so much else. But thanks for the post, I was glad to read the allocations.
ReplyDelete@anon6:11
DeleteI made it clear I'm not in favor of pants for women.
God Bless,
---Introibo
I’ve read some the comments and your responses and I might be able to add something to the debate about women being judges because I am familiar with what they call in the blogosphere Human Bio-Diversity. It has a lot to do with IQ. The consensus is that women have a slightly higher average IQ but men are hugely over represented at the extremes. The dumbest of the dumb and the smartest of the smart are pretty much all men. If that is the way God designed it, I think you could argue that He wants all the judges to be men, because they have to be the brightest in the entire population.
ReplyDelete@anon6:39
DeleteYou are correct about the IQ. Yet, can't someone be an excellent judge, lawyer, doctor, engineer, etc. without being the "highest IQ"? It also has to do with having an aptitude and passion for what you do. I was not valedictorian of my law school. I'm friends with him, however. We actually went against each other in moot court as 2Ls. My partner and I won the whole competition, and it was the only time the valedictorian didn't come in first. The reason? He's brilliant on paper but can't articulate himself well. There's more than IQ that makes a great (fill in the blank).
Women having Emotional IQ way above men. They bring compassion to many fields that most (not all) men lack.
Thank you for a most intelligent comment.
God Bless,
---Introibo
After reading much of the back and forth it sounds like modernism crept in the Catholic Church under the watch of Pope Benedict XV. This article linked below is rather sad https://www.traditioninaction.org/religious/m008rpRatzingerBenedicts_May25.html but explains why women and enemies from within eventually gave us Vatican II.
ReplyDeleteIntroibo, what do you think of Pope Benedict XV's first act after he became Pontiff to send the valorous anti-modernist Cardinal Merry del Val packing, and to choose as Secretary of State the modernist Pietro Gasparri, another Rampolla protégé and his closest assistant?
@anon7:01
DeletePope Benedict XV made unwise decisions. Unfortunately, the protection of the Holy Ghost does not extend to appointments of bishops, cardinals, etc. The decisions you cite were poor indeed. Had Merry del Val been elected, all of human history would be different.
"Women gave us V2"? All the heretics who participated, and gave us the Robber Council were exclusively men.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Women certainly gave birth and raised those men who gave us Vatican II but I wouldn't necessarily blame them for what their sons became.
DeleteAll I'm saying is that the discussion in this combox has prompted a question I have. Why would the hierarchy all of a sudden change their position on women voting/taking public office/etc. after Pius X? This is coming from a person who respects the hierarchy and fears criticizing it but cannot help but wonder.
@anon8:21
DeleteAnd women in command, like Queen Blanche of France, gave us a Saint--it cuts both ways!
As to your query:
From my post:
"Answer: Context is the key. In 1909, Pope St. Pius X was trying to preserve traditional gender roles and many Catholic countries existed. In 1945, Pope Pius XII was facing the reality of a world that had become more secularized, and in which women were drawn into the workforce after World War I and especially after World War II. Both popes believed in gender differentiation, but Pius XII extended that difference to mean women were necessary in public life to protect the social fabric--and they were, both then, and even more so now. Pope Pius XII could be called prescient in retrospect. Just 17 years after his 1947 Address, the Vatican II sect would be born and undo all things Catholic."
Pope St. Pius X was trying to keep traditional roles as they existed, but when that failed, Pope Pius XII--rather than have women retreat--told them to go out and work with men to make the world Catholic.
The change in the world called for a change in practice.
God Bless,
---Introibo
The change in practice has major consequences which I assume Pius X and Pius XII were aware of but why was one very strict in prohibiting it and the other not so much so? Because of the times? That sounds like a bad excuse and a failure from preventing modernism. Just my opinion nothing more.
DeleteAny man who has not been totally emasculated knows how dreadful it is to work for a female boss. First off, it is totally unnatural to have a female boss, many of them butch dykes, immature college girls, middle aged single women who think their dogs are their children, and hardened divorcees running roughshod over men in the workplace. When they get into these positions of power they fully unleash their desire for control and micromanagement. They also exhibit a strong tendency to be gossipers, spiteful, emotionally unstable, petty, and incompetent. This is very widespread and many will attest to this overall assessment of women at work, and as female bosses. It was designed that way by enemies of traditionalism so that families could be broken up and women would be pitted against men as a way to spread division and animosity between men and women instead of allowing them to compliment each other in the traditional family institution which society is built on and it’s why marriage is a sacrament given to us by God.
ReplyDelete@anon8:01
DeleteI allow comments like yours so my readers can see just how ridiculous my opponents are; they make my case for me. "many will attest"--like your equally mentally arrested friends?
"Everybody knows how horrible it is to work for Italians. They are a bunch of low class, drunken slobs, with ties to the Mafia, and have the IQ of a glass of water. The Italian men all cheat on their wives who are ugly whores anyway."
Do you think what I wrote is a fair description of Italian people? What is I said "many people will attest to it"? That's how totally bereft of intelligence your sweeping generalization is about women in charge. I'm sure their are some who are terrible. I've known excellent bosses.
When I was a science teacher, the department chairman unfairly wrote me up and was screaming at me (literally). Not having tenure, I had to take it. Along comes my principal, a woman, and she told him to lower his voice immediately and go to her office. He later came back to my room, apologized, and ripped up the letter intended to go in my file.
Later, my principal sought me out and told me, "I gave him a taste of his own medicine. The nerve of what he did and the unprofessional yelling. Bullies like him don't belong in education." Way to go!
Pope Pius XII was certainly inspired by the Holy Ghost to say what he did.
---Introibo
Thank you Introibo for this article which clarifies these issues anew which have become mixed up in the minds of many. Doubtless much will be said in the comments, which I have not got to yet. I don't think I'll add anything at this time though.
ReplyDeletecairsahr_stjoseph,
DeleteThank you for commenting, my friend! Many don't want to even consider what the pope taught on this issue.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Does Bishop Sanborn reject Pope Pius XII as a Pope? Do thousands and thousands of true traditionalists reject him as a Pope because they are opposed to working for female bosses and women in the workplace?
ReplyDeleteI am not Introibo, so I do not speak for him.
DeleteBishop Sanborn accepts Pope Pius XII as pope. Most traditionalists accept Pius XII as pope, no me matter what they think about female bosses.
Do the SSPX reject Prevost as pope? They should. Does Sanborn? No, but if he's rejecting the teaching of Pope Pius XII and saying "it's contrary to Natural Law"--that is the logical conclusion.
DeleteYou can be opposed to women in the workplace as not ideal. That's fine. To say they can't or it's contrary to Natural Law, is saying Pius XII taught heresy. Big difference. Sanborn has lost much credibility with me as he keeps pushing sedeprivationism as some "dogma."
---Introibo
Introibo, When you were dating what was any big red flags ? Would you have dated a woman on a student or work visa ? -reasons? Did you date any woman from any other country? Thanks, a young Traditional Catholic man
ReplyDeleteYoung Traditional Catholic Man,
DeleteFirst, I never (and I recommend no one ever) date someone with a visa. Their motivation for dating you might be only citizenship.
There are many big red flags. Here are the most obvious:
1. Not being religious or being against Traditionalist Catholicism.
2. Interested in your money.
3. Doesn’t like or want children
4. Talks badly about former boyfriends; everything was their fault, she was “perfect.”
5. Lies about things.
Did I date women from other countries? Yes. Two from Europe and one from South America.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
I just read one of Steve’s NO watch comments:
ReplyDelete“Judges in the Old Testament are entirely different from judges today. There's nothing like them today. As I stated, we have queens due to the order of a monarchy and common good. The judges of the Old Testament were closer to queenship as the form of government under the OT judges was divinely instituted. Deborah was called by God. She also was also a prophetess. That form no longer exists. To compare OT judges to our judges is absurd.
The OT also has children leading. God raised Joas as king, ascending to the throne of Judah at seven years old. We see Josias begin ruling at age 8. Does that mean we should have children ruling as Presidents, Congressmen, Judges, etc??? Why not?
As for the Natural Law, we don't marry our siblings, but that was accepted in the OT especially as we see with Abraham and Sarah. Things change.
As Aquinas also says: "it is a corruption of public life when the government comes into the hands of a woman." He was addressing the priesthood and power of the keys and uses the argument of Aristotle to prove his point.
Yes, it's intrinsically evil for a woman to rule in our society today as President, Congresswoman, Judge, etc. It's contrary to the Natural Law as it is written on our hearts. You don't need the Bible or the Catholic Church to know this fact! It's expected by all men of all religions.
Pope Pius IX taught in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: "There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace."
To argue and hold that women can have the type of authority mentioned makes one a non-Catholic and enemy to God and His Creation. Bottom line, it is part of the Great Revolt today!“
- Steve Speray
Great comment Steve, we have liberals over at NO watch making excuses for disorder in the natural order too.
I respectfully disagree with Steve:
DeleteArgument 1:Judges in the Old Testament are entirely different from judges today. There's nothing like them today. As I stated, we have queens due to the order of a monarchy and common good. The judges of the Old Testament were closer to queenship as the form of government under the OT judges was divinely instituted. Deborah was called by God. She also was also a prophetess. That form no longer exists. To compare OT judges to our judges is absurd.
I answer: Why would God choose women at all? He could have chosen men. It means women can do the job.
Argument 2: The OT also has children leading. God raised Joas as king, ascending to the throne of Judah at seven years old. We see Josias begin ruling at age 8. Does that mean we should have children ruling as Presidents, Congressmen, Judges, etc??? Why not?
I answer: Actually, Joas ruled to stop the murderous reign of his grandmother, Athaliah, and because he was the sole surviving rightful heir, enabling him to rule UNDER THE GUIDANCE of High Priest Jehoiada, an adult.. That form of government was radically different from a Republican form of government.
Argument 3: As for the Natural Law, we don't marry our siblings, but that was accepted in the OT especially as we see with Abraham and Sarah. Things change.
I answer: Things change, but apparently not for women! Marrying a sibling was not considered a violation of Natural Law in the early Old Testament primarily because it was necessary for population growth and the genetic risks were initially negligible. The prohibition against marrying a sibling is not inherently a part of Natural Law for that time when nature itself was different. As the population grew and so did genetic issues THEN God restricted it by Divine Positive Law in Leviticus 18 to protect the family unit and maintain a healthy, distinct community.
Argument 4: As Aquinas also says: "it is a corruption of public life when the government comes into the hands of a woman." He was addressing the priesthood and power of the keys and uses the argument of Aristotle to prove his point.
I answer: Aquinas was using the outdated biology of his day. No approved theologian after the Vatican Council of 1870 maintained his faulty biology and the results that flow from it.
Argument 5: Yes, it's intrinsically evil for a woman to rule in our society today as President, Congresswoman, Judge, etc. It's contrary to the Natural Law as it is written on our hearts.
I answer: Then Pope Pius XII taught against the Natural Law and is not a True Pope. Also, the Church allowed elected female representatives in Catholic countries pre-V2: Margarite Legot (1913-1977) was a Belgian LAWYER in 1936 and was elected to the Belgian Chamber of People's Representatives. This happened while Belgium was a Catholic country! I guess NONE of the hierarchy knew women being lawyers was against Natural Law--or being elected to public office was immoral!
---Introibo
Alright. At least you answered the arguments, but you are wrong about the natural law and women in the workplace. The comments here, most of Speray’s thoughts, and more importantly tradition, scripture, and Popes before Pope Pius XII prove you wrong. Pope Pius XII was clearly influenced by modernists and did some imprudent things that don’t rise to the level of heresy, but make him The last True Pope before V2, where errors were in full swing in books and fallible statements. So many books with imprimatur’s that had errors that they couldn’t all be checked. Pope Pius XII clearly made a mistake in his non binding remarks, and I don’t think he would approve of the modern day workplace and the modern day male/female dynamic that is clearly not in line with the natural law where we have masculinized females and emasculated men ruining society in a pervasive way.
Delete@anon9:55
DeleteHowever, the logic is inescapable.
1. We must obey the pope in non-infallible statements, not just infallible ones. The idea of only being bound by infallible statements was CONDEMNED by the Syllabus of Errors and several popes.
2. The pope CANNOT teach contrary to Natural Law. He is protected by the Holy Ghost from doing so. Therefore, if he was teaching in his Addresses (which he was) you MUST submit that women in the workplace being acceptable and NOT against Natural Law.
3. If the pope was NOT teaching during his Addresses, and Natural Law forbids women in the workplace, he taught heresy as a private theologian and was NOT a true pope.
Those are the choices!
---Introibo
Every female boss I worked for was almost the same, which is expectable. Power trips, manipulative, emotional, catty, vindictive. I have had about seven or eight of them in my working career, most all got put in their place. They didn’t like it. I either eventually got pushed out or I left most of these places since they were so insufferable. Now I try to avoid them like the plague but it is hard in the feminized corporate workplace, but run as soon as you can. Find other options.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all the comments, I think we should have a imperfect council to solve all our problems. Yeah right.
ReplyDeleteThe imperfect council is total nonsense. No true traditional Catholic takes this nonsense seriously. Bishop Sanborn won’t be there, nor the SSPV/CSPV. This whole idea stinks of the stench of the Palmarians, and crazy Antipope Michael. Fr. Gabriel Lavery and others are delusional on this issue and don’t get that we are in The End Times. No one would accept the antipope they chose. No true Catholic would anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe Thesis is even more nonsensical. It doesn't solve any problem. Instead it creates more problems. The Thesis is designed to keep traditional Catholics in their little bubble where they can pretend that they are the only possessors of truth. That's why they are not willing to work with anybody because it doesn't recognize them as the top dog which is what they want.
DeleteI don’t support The Thesis. I’ve been very critical against it and understand it’s a fallacious theory which is in between R and R and Sedevacantism. I hold that heretical Popes lost their office Ipso facto and are deposed by God, and the papal office still exists in perpetuity with interregnums and vacancies at certain times. I do reject the absurd imperfect council though. I’m not a supporter of RCI or SSPV. I attend a CMRI mass center for sacraments only.
DeleteIntroibo,
ReplyDeleteCould you please comment on the Argentinian pornographer's initiative re the SSPX?
HJ
When I read your explanation and then read Speray's, I think he has the logical answers. He already refuted your arguments before you made them. He didn't argue that it's contrary to natural law for women to rule because he acknowledged necessity and gives examples. It's when there's no need that it violates the law. There's no need for women to be presidents. Deborah was called to prove women can rule and have abilities. Aquinas admits that and your argument against Aquinas fails because he used the Bible I tim 2:13.
ReplyDelete@anon1:40
Delete1. If it "violates the law" when not necessary, why did God choose St. Joan of Arc to lead men? It was "necessary" for God to pick a woman?
2. There's no need for women to be legislators but Margarite Legot was an elected representative in Belgium, a Catholic Country, and was not prevented from running for office. If something was against Natural Law, it would not be permitted in Belgium under it's Catholic Constitutional Monarchy. For example, no sodomite could ever run for elected office. If women holding office was contrary to Natural Law when not necessary, Legot would not be permitted on the ballot.
3. St. Thomas was basing his opinions on false biology of the 13th century--so the citations are inapposite.
Steve is a great man, but he's wrong on this issue.
---Introibo
I recall a sermon where the preacher said that the reason God chose St. Joan was because all the French men at that time were effeminate pansies.
DeleteGod chose a woman to show them up, to hold a mirror to them.
@anon3:58
DeleteThe Church doesn't teach that and what of Matilda of Tuscany and the others I cited which lead men and were lauded by the Church? I'm sure someone will say the "Modernism began creeping in during the 12th century."
God Bless,
---Introibo
What false biology was St Thomas relying on? The false biologies of today are far greater and most are blinded...
ReplyDelete@anon3:42
DeleteThe false biology of Aristotle. Relying on this, In Summa Theologica, Aquinas argues that "as regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten" because the male seed aims for a perfect male, but environmental factors (like a "moist" wind) can lead to a female.
---Introibo
Joan of Arc didn't lead men as commander. The 20th century modernist historians say she did.
ReplyDeleteYour Belgium argument doesn't prove your point. It's just more Modernism not seen until after Pius x. Rome relaxed their assault and the modernist and your example proves it.
Aquinas already admitted that women can lead men but he said they can't publicly dispute because Adam was formed first as St Paul taught. Your argument is flat wrong.
@anon4:14
Delete1, Professional historians say St. Joan led men using multiple lines of evidence. Read their works.
2. Belgium was a Catholic Country where Catholicism was the State Religion and it was enforced. None of the prelates, including those who fought the Modernists during Vatican II, understood the Church taught that women can't hold elected office. Popes Pius was quite aware of Mrs. Legot. Was he a "Modernist" too? Yeah. Right. Sure.
3. Aquinas is not the final arbiter of Church teaching. You believe in the Immaculate Conception, right?
---Introibo
EVERYONE,
ReplyDeleteSteve Speray has written a serious critique against Fatima over on his blog. Like his work on Guadalupe, this is quite a detailed critique against Fatima. I am sure that topic will generate a lot of feedback just like this topic on Introibo’s blog is generating a lot of discussion.
I was hoping to add several very lengthy and thought provoking comments to this discussion; however, I am dealing with serious time constraints and several serious obligations that are keeping me preoccupied and tied up for quite some time.
I have always enjoyed reading both Introibo and Steve’s articles. They are two of the best. I have not yet read this article (including all of the comments that follow) nor the Fatima article at Steve’s blog. I have no doubt that Mario Derksen will soon weigh in on this discussion about women in the workplace. I am sure that there will be more to come on all of this.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
That critique isn’t serious. Speray might be right on women not being in the workplace and feminism, not hard to come to that conclusion, but he’s very wrong on so much else, like when he says Fatima might be demonically influenced and tries to take it apart. Not good, not Catholic.
Delete@anon5:09
DeleteTo be clear, I believe in Fatima. However, you don't have a leg to stand on against Steve. There is no infallible decision in favor of Fatima. No one needs to believe in private revelations. Therefore, the approval (according to the "theology" of many commenting here) could be wrong. Steve cites problems with Fatima.
If you need not believe Pope Pius XII in his non-infallible statements on working women, you can dismiss this just as easily--even more easily, because teachings on private revelations never need to be believed.
---Introibo
I understand how private revelations work. I know that they are not divinely revealed truths of God and that one is not obligated to believe in them. Nevertheless, apparitions can have historical inaccuracies, sometimes the seers don’t remember everything exactly, especially children, and sometimes their imagination and interpretation of the visions can get mixed in with parts of the messages, but that doesn’t mean they can’t be held up as great Catholic miracles that strengthen our Faith. I think the these apparitions exist so that people can meditate on the visions of mystics like Blessed Anne Catherine Emerich, Saint Bridget of Sweden, and so on. As far as Fatima goes, it’s approved by The Catholic Church, with no errors on morals or The Faith. It’s not part of the deposit of The Faith, but trying to dissect it and say that there could be demonic influence involved is a bad way to spend one’s time who calls themselves “Catholic”. Speray talked about how he was researching the topic still and wasn’t sure on quite a bit. So we are supposed to critique and dissect and call Fatima something that could have been inspired by the devil? I don’t think so. Fatima was a miraculous apparition with tens of thousands of witnesses who were healed and converted during the miracle of the Sun. He brings up The Spanish flu, which was prophesied when Our Lady said that Francisco would go to Heaven soon. He did just that, died and went to Heaven. It’s just more nonsense and pessimism coming from Speray. Instead of using the apparitions to meditate in The Faith and follow Our Lady’s message, he tries to trash it. That is not Catholic. What’s next on Speray’s list. The Sacred Heart of Jesus, Saint Gertrude, Saint Margaret Mary Alacoque, Saint Bridget, Our Lady of Lourdes. Give me a break. We don’t need layman trying to take down holy apparitions approved by The Church.
Delete@anon5:52
DeleteTrue. Yet many people commenting here falsely believe you can disregard the non-infallible Magisterium of the pope on women working!
---Introibo
At anon 5:52, in Speray's defense, he proved his point and you fall in the trap he mentioned. He wrote approvingly of Lourdes. Since you're so ready to condemn Mr Speray, answer his points and tell him. The false prophecies are pretty damning. I don't have an answer. Don't be so quick to judge and read his article without your emotions getting in the way. It's all opened my mind. Don't close yours. I like Speray and Introibo. Who else is is willing to deal with the tough issues?
DeleteI haven’t read everything he has ever written, but he was critical two widely believed miraculous apparitions, namely Our Lady of Guadalupe and now Fatima. The logical conclusion is that he will try to question and dissect the validity of others. Don’t try to play “gotcha” when you missed the overarching point, that even the writer of this article agreed with by saying “True”. There is no emotion involved. Read my response again above, and it’s very clear and objective on where I stand on the issue.
DeleteI don't think Bp. Sanborn believes in Fatima but I am not sure. Fr. Gabriel doubts in a lot of approved apparitions and goes even further by saying that certain things are condemned when they are not. Is it okay for clergy to critique approved revelations?
DeleteAnon 8:39. You criticize Speray without reading his posts? You're missing out! The Guadalupe articles are hands down one of greatest pieces of Catholic writing I've read. He actually shows you the Catholic history of the apparition, which tells us it was a human painting. It's just the facts. I believed it, too. Speray still praises the painting and gives an example of a greater painting in Mexico of Our Lady even more miraculous. I never heard of it before. Goodness, give the guy at least the decency of reading his stuff before criticizing him.
Delete@anon1:38
DeleteIf you're talking about Fr. Gabriel Lavery, he certainly believes in Fatima and made a public statement against Steve's article on Fatima. No one should critique an apparition (private revelation) approved by the Church in a time when we have no pope. There is no one in authority to give answer, and it only serves to sow doubt about the Church.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Why do people insisist on wanting to believe something that may be false? Mr. Speray clearly showed how the Guadeloupe apparition did not occur and he has also clearly shown many serious problems with Fatima. I think people are so used to being spoon fed lies...whether it be from the novus ordo church, the media, the medical industry and many other outfits...no one can think logically. I prefer the Truth no matter where it leads! I applaud Mr. Speray for doing what no one else is doing. Catholics are not required to believe apparitions. How many times must this be mentioned?
Delete@anon3:50
DeleteSteve (and you) are correct that no private revelation needs to be believed. However, when the Church declares something worthy of belief, we should believe it. What appears to be good evidence may not be. Steve's sources are not authenticated. Also, there is no Magisterial authority to refute or answer his criticisms.
Do you really think the Church, which has approved so few apparitions, just goes out and approves something.
All that article/post does is weaken the faith of Traditionalists in the Church.
---Introibo
Anon @ 2:00pm
DeleteI said I haven’t read EVERYTHING he has EVER written. That doesn’t mean I haven’t read some of his articles. Read what I said before you jump to conclusions.
Why does it weaken faith? Only traditionalists matter? What about the billion novus ordo catholics? What about the other billions who just look at the Church as a pedophile factory?? Doesn’t God want all saved?? If people have weakened faith by this, that no Catholic has to believe anyway, perhaps their faith is already quite weak. I do not even know one self identifying Catholic who knows the NO is false so...keep bashing Mr Speray if you like. He is a man I'd like to meet some day...in heaven hopefully!
DeleteIntroibo, I am anon 1:38. Thanks for admitting that Fr. Gabriel shouldn't be slandering approved private revelations like the Mystical City of God.
Delete@anon6:49
DeleteI had an exchange with Fr. Lavery and he said he is writing an article based on research he conducted from the Vatican archives. He said that he has proof it is NOT approved by the Church. Therefore, he is not going against an approved private revelation. I will not debate the pros and cons of the Mystical City of God in these comments...I will wait until Father publishes his article before forming an opinion on the matter.
---Introibo
Hello Introibo
ReplyDeleteIn response to your reply to a ' young Traditional Catholic man"
Have you known anyone whom was dating a woman on a student / work visa and married them only to find out later they had been used to stay in the country? Down in Australia , a number of women from India have been involved in scam ' marriages' who are already married back home. They are trying to get citizenship then bring their family over within time and clean out the funds of the one whom they ' married' This is so bad and evil.
I am sure you would tell any sane man to do their homework first on any possible relationship.
How sad it would be for a man say 60 years old to be cleaned out of his bank accounts, assets, home, etc . Have you seen this happen to anyone as a lawyer?
God bless
@anon6:55
DeleteYes, I have friends (lawyers) who have had clients wiped out by those seeking citizenship.
I agree that all men MUST do their homework, as you say, to prevent this tragedy.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Hard to see that you can't even agree on supposedly basic issues. It shouldn't be hard to submit to what the Popes have said, but no, you need to find a new controversy every single week. Hugely dissaponted in *all* of you.
ReplyDeleteDon't lose heart, Poni. The ridiculous comments are most probably made by a few stubborn and frustrated people. Most of us who read and comment on a more or less weekly basis are good-willed and intelligent Traditionalists who want to know the Truth and act accordingly.
DeleteThat being said, I believe we're in for even more divisions. I hope I'm mistaken but the End Times are supposed to be THE most trying times of all.
God Bless You,
Joanna
Thanks for commenting Joanna. Would you be kind enough to share your ideas about women in authority to us less intelligent and stubborn traditionalists? Would you be willing to be president of your country or a high ranking military officer or some other occupation where you boss men around? If not, why?
DeleteEl poni, when you say you are disappointed in "all" of you does that include Introibo as well or just everybody else? Also if you lived in the time of Pope Benedict IX would you submit and obey him in all things even though he was 20 years old when elected, who sold the papacy to his grandfather John Gratian and offered toasts to the devil at meal time? St. Peter Damian and Bishop Benno of Piacenza said he was guilty of adultery, rape, homosexuality, and bestiality in the Lateran Palace.
For myself, I would certainly obey such a pope despite his vile and very scandalous life, but that does mean I have to agree with his nonsense, especially if he started imposing such policies. Even though morally Pope Pius XII is nothing near as awful as him, our point is that we don't agree with approving women being in public office even though 40 years earlier that was a condemned idea according to the C.E. I also don't have to be happy by the fact that ugly modern churches were already being built in the 1930's and 40's which is not much different than criticizing Novus Ordo parishes because of Vatican II yet where would be the consistency of us in saying so? Also I don't have to be okay with the fact that Modernists were introduced back in the Church for the sake of unity under Pope Benedict XV when they are the enemy which explains why women started getting into public office and then later in the new religion. But no no no no no, I am the one who is ridiculous. Some of the other anons I admit are missing the point. It's not about the workplace. It's not about the pants. It's about women being placed in a position of authority.
As far as Steve Speray's Fatima article, I disagree with how it is presented because it insinuates that if Catholics believe in it, that they are just foolish for doing so as if Steve has the ultimate authority in determining that despite his evidence which I admit does not make Fatima look good. The problem is the Church has permitted its wide spread devotion by building a basilica on the spot (in the 30's-40's) is in favor of promoting its messages of praying the rosary and making the first 5 Saturdays to our Lady. What harm is that? Do you have to believe it? Nope but I don't have to disbelieve it either just because a lay person has a good article against it.
Anon @ 2:45
DeleteI agree with most of what you said. Women do not belong in positions of power. This is certainly the main point that I think all anons are making on this side of the argument, and it’s the correct side. Be careful not to overlook or to marginalize the unnatural behavior of women wearing pants and their presence in the workplace. This very much ties into the argument of women subverting the natural order and weak men making concessions are certain harmful behavior and focusing just on other forms of harmful behavior. It all has to be addressed clearly and uncompromisingly so that we never tolerate this wicked stuff again.
@anon2:45
DeleteWhy would you want to hear the opinions of two women? They should be nuns or married and at home taking orders or getting hit, like Williamson advises, right? :-)
Therefore, **I** will respond! (Cheers from the crowd)
You write, " [if]you lived in the time of Pope Benedict IX would you submit and obey him in all things even though he was 20 years old when elected, who sold the papacy to his grandfather John Gratian and offered toasts to the devil at meal time? St. Peter Damian and Bishop Benno of Piacenza said he was guilty of adultery, rape, homosexuality, and bestiality in the Lateran Palace.
For myself, I would certainly obey such a pope despite his vile and very scandalous life, but that does mean I have to agree with his nonsense, especially if he started imposing such policies."
Reply: Here's where you get it wrong. Can a pope be immoral? Yes, very immoral, unfortunately. Yet he remains pope. However, if he started imposing policies that said, e.g., "Adultery is not sinful," and the like, you should not obey him because it is proof he is no longer pope! The Church has always taught that the pope, as a private theologian, can profess heresy and fall from office immediately by Divine Law.
Proof:
Doctor of the Church St Alphonsus Liguori: "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate."Oeuvres Completes 9:232.
Theologian Iragui: "...theologians commonly concede that the Roman Pontiff, if he should fall into manifest heresy, would no longer be a member of the Church, and therefore could neither be called its visible head."
(See Manuale Theologiae Dogmaticae. Madrid: Ediciones Studium [1959], pg. 371).
Canonist Badii: "A publicly heretical pope would no longer be a member of the Church; for this reason, he could no longer be its head."( See Institutiones Iuris Canonici. Florence: Fiorentina [1921], pgs. 160, 165).
Theologian Prummer: "Through notorious and openly divulged heresy, the Roman Pontiff, should he fall into heresy, by that very fact [ipso facto] is deemed to be deprived of the power of jurisdiction even before any declaratory judgement by the Church....A pope who falls into public heresy would cease ipso facto to be a member of the Church; therefore, he would also cease to be head of the Church."(See Ius Canonicum. Rome: Gregorian [1943], 2:453).
1917 Code of Canon Law: Canon 188, section 4: "There are certain causes which effect the tacit (silent) resignation of an office, which resignation is accepted in advance by operation of the law, and hence is effective without any declaration. These causes are… (4) publicly defects from the Catholic faith.”
The great canonist Ayrinhac taught in his General Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law,:
Loss of Ecclesiastical Offices. Canons 185-191 “...applies to all offices, the lowest and the highest, not excepting the Supreme Pontificate.” (p. 346).
You have the same false idea of the papacy and papal authority as the R&R and Feeneyites/Dimondites.
The pope teaches non-infallibly then YOU decide if you should obey or disobey. That's not Catholicism.
As to the Catholic Encyclopedia, it was giving norms for a different world as I explained in my post and in these comments. Pope Pius XII wanted women not to retreat from the world but engage with it. Something unnecessary in 1913.
I gave numerous examples of Catholic women in power with the blessing of the Church.
I will let Joanna and Poni speak for themselves should they choose to respond.
---Introibo
---Introibo
Thanks for insulting me as if I believe in the same way Bp. Williamson does which couldn't be further from the truth. I don't care if women work, wear pants, and assert their opinions. That is not what I'm arguing nor has it ever been. I agree with everything you else you said Introibo except what you say about the Catholic Encyclopedia on women. You basically are saying you don't agree with Pope St. Pius X's time when that was written because it is out of date. And I think you misrepresent Pope Pius XII by making up points that would seem to agree with how you understand what he thought of regarding women. Nevertheless, I would love to hear from Joanna and El Poni.
DeleteIt includes *everyone*, because *everyone* made me angry. And yes, it includes *you*.
DeleteRegarding Benedict IX:
When did I say I wouldn't submit to such a Pope? I think it's quite clear I was talking about *doctrinal* matters, not whatever sin the Pope would personally like to commit. Introibo replied to your posts and he is right.
As for the C.E:
As far as I'm aware of, Catholic Encyclopedia is not infallible. Time to find another source.
As for Ugly Churches:
Ugly churches are wrong no matter who builds them. I don't see where did I say that you should be happy with them. I mean, does the pope has to approve of every single church that is built in the world?
About Benedict XV:
Were they reintroduced in the church for the sake of unity, though? The church would definitely allow Catholic women into public office if they thought it was necessary - that's what you say when confronted with Catholic queens.
About Anons missing the point:
That's true. It's not about whether a woman can or can't have a job. It's about whether they can be judges / CEO's / lawyers. In this I agree with you so why are you questioning me? I am just unsure if this is part of the Natural Law.
About that Fatima Article:
That article was fairly poor. Most of the arguments against it are actually arguments against Lucia herself, who hasn't even been canonized by the NO. Who says she didn't become corrupted after the event?
The newspapers could have been falsified / corrupted just as so many things in history. This is also true about the "Mary was wearing a skirt to the knee and stockings".
If that Lawyer Coehlo didn't believe in the "Miracle of the Sun", that's not a true problem, and it's also not a problem if the Medjugorjeites develop mass hysteria and see something like it.
This is why I am so angry with Speray: He said that *Fatima could be demonic*. And yet he will accuse those who disregard the 1955 Holy Week Liturgy of "not being Catholics in good standing". How is an apparition with a feast day not connected to Liturgy? How is "Fatima is demonic" a sign of an infallible church? I have a right to be angry with someone who displays cowardly behavior and contradicts himself while claiming to be a "Catholic Apologist". In my opinion he needs to be humiliated for that post.
Introibo and readers
ReplyDeleteDid you watch this weeks What Catholics Believe program with Father Jenkins. We find it hard to believe anything Father says on anything . Almost the whole program was bashing Bishop Thuc and his line of Bishops . The same things told over and over going back years. His position has already been taken apart by Mario Derkson and Father Cekada. Did Father Jenkins watch the interviews done with Father Krier and Father Zepeda with Doctor Hellier. We find it hard to believe Father keeps this garbage going. We are somewhat angry and sad to see such dishonesty. We will not watch that program again. Father ends by saying even if tomorrow I said the Thuc consecrations were valid, we still can't have anything to do with them because they are not Catholic. Father also said during the program that any thinking person would have nothing to do with the Thuc Bishops.
I don’t agree with Fr. Jenkins on the Thuc line, but he made some great points about the Imperfect Council being proposed recently by people associated with The CMRI and others. The Imperfect Council would certainly be futile and make things worse. It has all the makings of schismatic craziness and Palmerian style cultishness. Fr. Jenkins is also correct on Archbishop Thuc doing very strange and horrible things with his sacramental powers. It doesn’t invalidate The Thuc line, but he was no traditionalist. The Thesis comes up quite a bit. That theory is also nonsense, and sedeprivationism is a close cousin to R&R. Claimants to the Papacy who become heretics are Ipso facto deposed by God, and if they were heretics before, then they can’t become Popes. It’s impossible. It’s like trying to square the circle. So the thesis is wrong.
ReplyDeleteHi Introibo
ReplyDeleteYour friends who are lawyers who have helped men who have been misled by women marrying them only to stay in the country. Did these men lose most of assets , money ,etc. Is this a big problem in the USA?
What are your thoughts on a pre- nup agreement?
God's blessings on you
@anon7:32
DeleteSome lost almost everything, some lost a large sum, which set them back, but they were not (thankfully) bankrupt.
I'm strongly in favor of a pre-nup. You can't be too careful these days. Yet even a pre-nup doesn't shield you from gifts and payments already made to your manipulative and duplicitous spouse.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo,
DeleteI understand why you are in favor of a pre-nup, but I see this quite differently. If I did not trust the woman 100%, I could not marry her. It’s too risky! If I feel that I need a pre-nup, then it’s better to not go through with it at all.
God bless,
-TradWarrior
TradWarrior
DeleteThat's a noble sentiment! I see your point. However, the lawyer in me would advise my client for a pre-nup!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Nutty Speray the John 3:5 mocker doesn’t get much right, but he knew that women don’t belong in the workplace. Pope Pius XII quotes on the matter are irrelevant. Those statements do not carry the weight of infallibility and smack of the modern ideas that were swarming around him. The natural law forbids women in the workplace and in colleges.
ReplyDeleteWhat about a woman like me, who is an abuse victim(two of the abusers being my parents), and who doesn't want to get married? I am, however, heterosexual.
Delete@Dimondite11:19
DeleteAhh...a Dimwit brothers cult follower! Taking your (puerile and incorrect) verbiage from the playbook of the Most Heretical Fraudulent Monastery! Tell your cult masters, Fred and Bobby to come out of hiding and debate me on a neutral online forum!
Bobby is still licking his wounds from when I tore him to pieces when he came on my blog. Beating the Dimwits in a debate is like beating a quadriplegic in a physical fight----you know you can do it whenever you like but there's no sport to it.
The Dimwits think you only need to believe infallible statements when the Church Herself condemned that idea in the Syllabus of Errors and in the teachings of several popes. They eschew the UOM.
It is the same with the R&R, the pope teaches and then YOU decide by private interpretation what you will and won't obey. That's not Catholicism--it's willful ignorance on steroids.
Dimondites take it one step further and replace the judgement of Fred and Bobby for their own judgement when privately interpreting both ex cathedra and non-infallible decrees.
Then comes the "refutations" which means the empty assertion that an opponent has been refuted when they have not done so and have nothing more than MHFM for their source.
Finally, the ad hominems--"jOhN 3:5 mOcKeR" "LiAr" etc.
Do yourself a favor, get
(a) a real life
(b) lost and write comments for the Dimwits
(c) a bumper sticker (or pin if you don't drive) that says:
"Join MHFM. It's easier than thinking."
---Introibo
@anon1:00
DeleteHow horrible you went through that. You are in my prayers. You should live the dedicated life of a single woman and get a job to make the most use of your talents, to serve others and God above all else. Do what you feel called to do. You're a VERY strong person.
God Bless,
---Introibo
Introibo
DeleteDo you take Father Jenkins views seriously .I can't listen to him anymore. His views on the Thuc line were taken to pieces years ago by Mario Derkson. Odd that it is always him on that weekly program and no other SSPV priest. I am sure most don't support his ideas.