Not only do I think it but I know it. I know them personally but again, it should be the exception and it is not. Today women are encouraged to have a career first. While growing up young girls today are asked the same as young boys, “what are you going to be when you grow up?” If she says she wants to be a mom or homemaker, she is shamed because she is not going to be college educated.
Fr Ripperger says “it is a mortal sin for women to work outside the home without a sufficient reason”. He also implies women who work outside the home are not being “faithful to their obligations”.
This is not taught by the Church, in fact there is no position the Church takes on mothers who choose to work outside the home. It’s deeply unfair and deceptive of Fr Ripperger to state otherwise, IMO.
and that is what we keep hearing today, that it is okay to go out and work full time and put your home second.
This isn’t limited only to today. Throughout history women have been encouraged or expected to work in some societies. It isn’t a new trend.
If that’s a straw man, please explain what ‘anti-woman’ means!
Fr. Ripperger’s statements and opinions as posted by the OP in the first post are just that, Fr. Ripperger’s statements and opinions. They are not Church teachings.
He is also not the only “celebrity priest” running around to have these opinions. There is another priest who is very popular in this area and often is invited to say Mass at local parishes or retreat houses as he really packs them in. I’ve been to a couple of his Masses and during the last one he preached against evolution in the homily for about 10 minutes.
It’s okay to listen to these guys the same way as it’s okay to listen to Fr. James Martin. You just have to sift through what they are saying and distinguish it from what is actually officially taught by the Church.
Needless to say I do not agree with the statements of Fr. Ripperger posted by the OP; for one thing, this forum would not exist if laymen like us weren’t having “public debates regarding theology and philosophy”, nor would we even have apologists like Scott Hahn and Jimmy Akin.
Fr. Ripperger has said many other things however that I do find useful or thought-provoking.
Yes, you’re using “raise” inappropriately, such that it puts temporary caregivers like daycare workers, teachers, and babysitters on par with parents. There’s a lot of substance there that you’re willfully ignoring.
You can harumph all you want, but you’re using misleading language (not to mention demolishing a spectacular amount of strawman arguments.)
In all honesty, I would have to listen to him myself. I don’t know him and haven’t heard him preach. I find that responding to what someone else interpreted (particularly out of context) from another’s speech is a little like engaging in a game of Whisper Down the Lane (or Telephone or whatever you all it in your area). I’ve made the mistake of jumping on the outrage wagon and then found out that the original saying, heard in context, had a different flavor.
The statements the OP listed are very problematic, at the least, but again I would need to hear the entire context to make a comment.
No one is arguing that there’s anything wrong with women being stay at home moms. Good Lord. We’re just saying it’s a prudential judgement for each couple as to what is best for their individual situation.
Those are your statements. I’ve listened to a lot of Fr. Ripperger. I have heard him discuss some of these topics. I don’t know that he made the statements you said. Present some quotes and give the context and then we can properly discuss.
Certainly much of what he says is controversial. That is because some of it is the Apostolic Faith which is contrary to modernism. Modernism has infected many people. Other things are his opinion. However, he often has excellent reasoning for his opinions.
Rubbish. I teach elementary (K-5) music, and when my wee ones (kinder and 1st grade) all start talking about what they want to be when they grow up, there’s always a number of little girls who say they want to be a mom. Nobody shames them, least of all me. I say how lucky their children will be to have such a wonderful mom.
I’ll admit, however, that we do encourage our students to think about college from a very young age. In our little school district, we have far too many young people who have very little hope in their lives – they often join gangs, drop out of high school, have children with multiple partners…
If it seems like we push college, you’re correct. We’re hoping to create a new paradigm for these children who come from generations of poverty and hopelessness.
But we don’t shame the kids who say they want to be moms or dads when they grow up.
I’m sure he’s found his bible quote/church documents to support his views. I’m pretty convinced at this point that the devil veils his lies in truth. He’s sneaky.
I like some of his videos. He has one video on detachment and the appetites that is perhaps the best on the subject currently on youtube, context there is about 1 hour straight of Thomistic philosophy.
It may be noticed that one of the posters consistently bashing the priest about Harry Potter frequently posts about his sympathy towards Wicca (that neo-paganism is an innocuous/good thing) - he does forget to state his sympathies/antipathies together.
Regarding the mortal sin of mothers working statement, the priest knows well that is a matter of conscience for the listener thus his claim isn’t categorical but certainly meant to invite reflection - whoever doesn’t realize that much should start by asking their confessor what mortal sin actually means.
God bless you for it @Gertabelle
If you come across them latter on, tell them to keep their aspirations pragmatic/realistic. With a good cost/benefit calculation of their education. Because tuition has left some people completely indebted and some of the fancier colleges may simply not be worth it for someone of modest background and condition.
Fr Ripperger says: “In fact the right of the children is so grave, because it has such a profound impact on the moral formation of children and therefore their salvation, that it is a mortal sin for a woman to work outside the home without a sufficient reason”.
How is that not a categorical claim?
The claim contains ‘without sufficient reason’. So it isn’t categorical or unconditional.
In fact the right of the children is so grave, because it has such a profound impact on the moral formation of children and therefore their salvation
That seems very true to me. It is saying mothers have a very important impact on the moral training of their kids. Our moral choices are part of our salvation. So the statment seems reasonable and true to me.
Okay, got you. That’s fair. But his statement that "it is a mortal sin for a woman to work outside the home without a sufficient reason” is not taught by the Church. And he does not make it clear that it’s his own opinion. That is problematic, IMO.
Agreed. He’s entitled to his opinions, and people can consider his reasoning and accept or reject them. But at minimum he should have an explicit caveat that this is his personal opinion, not a categorical teaching of the Church itself.
If he doesn’t say ‘the Church teaches’ then why would one think it anything more than his opinion? In my experience most priests aren’t so careful as to make sure they perfectly identify when what they are saying is dogmatic teaching and when it is their personal opinion. As I recall when hearing Fr. Ripperger talk on such matters he is pretty good at explaining on what basis he makes his claims.
The passing on of DNA in descendants is called heredity, not evolution.