Oh, they’re way worse. It’s all “experimentation” and naked pillow fights as far as the eye can see. I’ve seen movies about it.
“Dreamy state”? WTF?
So the dreaminess of love should happen only after the marriage vows? 
Are these nitwits suggesting we should go back to something like arranged marriages where women are supposed to fall in love with their husbands after the wedding eventually, if they happen to be lucky?
Maybe the couple should be introduced to each other at the wedding ceremony.
Christ, and I grew up a Jehovah’s Witness, and I heard a lot of claptrap in my time there. But they never suggested that a couple shouldn’t fall in love before marriage.
Frickin’ prude-arama
We are OB-GYN nurses so I have to believe she knows better, but folks with deep seated bias seem to be able to turn any facts to their favor with their whole heart, so I just don’t know.
Sex isnt the problem, nor is lack of foreplay. She just never seems to achieve a sufficiently dreamy state to overlook my faults.
I certain hope so, because it sure was back when I was a student!
Isn’t that the point?
Dominicans are OK in a pinch, but there’s just nothing quite like a real Cubano!
Ha ha, my husband would agree with that, too…he’s Cuban! 
Likely not. I’ll ask my husband if they still had Torture Techniques for Heretics 101 back in the 80s when he was in HS.
This is my very first post.
I’d just like to say that I am so glad I finally found a forum with plenty of intellectual substance.
I, too was educated by catholic nuns and priests. I did appreciate the strict discipline at the time, but only in terms of education for I wasn’t fulfilled in the moral arena as I expected I would be.
Heck, or the Opus Dei, who insist in the idea (that their founder would have thought absolutely horrifying) that people should live like 19th century bourgoisie, but who are up to their eyebrows in educational institutions…
A friend of mine was forced by his parents to live in an OD-owned all-boys’ dorm for his first year of college. There were many things he disliked about the place, but what turned his stomach was the treatment the girls working there as cleaners and waitressed got; for example, they were not allowed to speak with the boys at all, not to answer a question or to ask whether one of them wanted seconds.
But you know what, those girls were getting room, board, those horribly-dowdy clothes they had to wear, tuition, materials (books etc.), and a salary. Putting up with that crap put them through college!
I think the shit quoted in the OP is the first time I’ve heard the Opus Dei accused of being a den of iniquity.
…except maybe the occaissional altar boy.
Yeah, this guy’s insane. OD is extremely conservative.
Saintly Loser, looking at the “About” sections and the founders’ bios on the “Fix the Family” site it looks like they may not be full-blast SSPXers (they mention they teach total adherence to the Vatican and Pope Francis) but still are hanging out petty close to it.
Looks more, though, like a subfaction with a particular hangup on M/F/family roles way beyond anything contained in the actual magisterium. In the context of the article linked by the OP, it’s telling that they are homeschoolers – even for primary and secondary education it is suspect to let the kids to mix around even with mainstream Catholics under the eye of official Religious staff, it seems, since one of their blog posts states: “But even Catholic schools when you go to their events there are teaching and training the girls to excel and dominate, to strive and succeed—with relatively little encouragement to the boys”. And the site has several sermons on “resurrecting Manhood” and almost every page of their blog brings up something about “feminists” more than once.
The Church alas can’t kick them out on the basis of mere “wingnuttery” or “batshittude” until they break some actual rule… Why do I get the impression that members of the orders of Ladies of the Sacred Heart or Sisters of Notre Dame would not mind a few moments with these guys and a yardstick ruler…
So were the 19th-Century bourgeoisie.
:d
Yes, where they were, which they weren’t everywhere or for everybody (may I recommend “Three Guineas”? Virginia Woolf was born at the tail-end of the 19th century, but what she says about what’s expected of “girls of good breeding” is “handle with safety gloves” material). But what I mean is that OD’s founder spoke to early-20th Century Barcelonese bourgeoisie who in many ways were still stuck in 19th-century attitudes (and remember those were a lot more sexist than those of previous centuries), giving specific examples (parables, if you wish) referring to the way his parishioners actually lived and worked and saw life, telling them to basically “do what you have to do in joy; make your duties be Works of Love, Works of Joy, God’s Works” - and the people in OD treat lines such as “when a wife prepares a meal for her husband, let her do it joyfully” to mean “women must cook, men must not”, rather than a reflection of the people whom Escrivà de Balaguer was adressing.
Sort of like grabbing the parable of the Good Shepherd and saying “ok, guys, no industrial jobs for us!” Th-th-th-that’s not what it means, folks! :smack:
No, it means good Christians should fuck sheep like a Good Shepherd.
I would not call all their views outside the teachings of the Catholic Church, they do teach a woman is supposed to be obedient and submissive, the man being in charge.
Quote:
They don’t like women working either.
CASTI CONNUBII
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pi...nnubii_en.html
I really encourage you to read this rather tedious wordy document, if any Catholic holds a romantic view of marriage, this will be a shock.
You’re referring to Casti Connubii. That’s from around 1930, right? You could find plenty of non-Catholics, even atheists, who thought pretty much the same thing.
The Church has gotten a bit better since then. And in any event, Casti Connubii was an encyclical. A teaching letter. Not binding teaching of the Church.
I did notice that they put their supposed fidelity to the Holy See and Pope Francis right up front. So they’re not actual schismatics, like the SSPX were (I guess they aren’t schismatic anymore since Benedict’s unfortunate decision to let them back in).
But their views on the education of women are quite similar to those of the SSPX. I distinctly remember a publication of the SSPX that took pretty much the same position (that women should not have higher eduction), although, the SSPX being who they are, the language was a lot stronger in their version.
If I get some time later, I’ll see if I can find it online somewhere, although that’s become harder as the SSPX tries to clean up its image in the interest of reconciliation with the Church (it’s next to impossible to find some of their anti-Semitic rants lately, let alone the Holocaust-denial stuff).
Oh gosh! I was going to attach the following to the OP today. But you have it all set up for me, and I don’t mean your use of my name in vain!
<Musical cue>
Poppas, don’t let your daughters grow up to be “sow-girls” …