I can just imagine Fr. Ripperger telling my late mother who was a nurse with terminally ill in a hospice run by a Catholic order about staying home. I am sure the other nurses and religious sisters would make sure he was suitably treated for trauma and shock afterwards. Mind you, if he tried to do that with that hospice the priests and religious sisters themselves would be likely be bemused. He strikes me as very much a fringe figure.
As an exorcist what is he basing his opinions on exactly, anyone know?
With regards to Harry Potter nonsense quite frankly I would say to be frank having listened to him speak on that .
I consider him a fringe figure. He is not the Magisterium.
I listen to the priest I make confession to and not to an Internet celebrity.
This is what I like about the Catholic Church. The Church is not reduced to a cult of celebrity that we see too often with Protestant churches and their celebrity preacher.
I’m not saying their roles are identical. But if the mother working outside the home deprives the children of a mother, than surely it should follow a father working outside the home deprives the children of a father?
And that is exactly the way it should be.
A father can neglect his children, yes, by being away too much, sure but as the father is head of the home he is responsible for providing for the family. As said before there are exceptions but this is the Biblical model.
My father was a soldier and away on deployment as a result when I was a kid quite a bit. He was thus providing for us but not always physically there. Later, he worked very long hours in many jobs that were physically demanding. I have immense respect for him (even if his stubbornness drives me up the wall at times) however I have never heard him or any man of his generation harp on about being ‘head of the home’ or this sort of stuff. The women and men of that generation just got on with raising their families not engaging in these convoluted, around the mulberry bushes style of debates which tend to by their nature not reflect well the actual range of variations in the family possible in reality.
There is MUCH Catholic teaching that supports his assertion! Check your catechism and you will find that mortal sin requires
- full knowledge
- full consent
There is NO “Exhaustive List of What Is and Isn’t a Mortal Sin”. The same action committed by three people may be a venial sin, no sin or a mortal sin, depending on individualistic circumstances. And those circumstances are infinite when speaking of all people, so EACH instance of EACH action is separately judged as mortal/not mortal. The Church gives us guidelines on how to judge if a sin is mortal or not. Now, you may disagree with Father’s interpretation that something is a mortal sin but that doesn’t mean it isn’t a mortal sin. It also doesn’t mean that it is or isn’t a mortal sin IN THAT PARTICULAR instance. As Father is both well educated and has received a particular grace in the matter of sin, it is wise to consider his counsel. Again, if he had said “sin” or “can be mortal sin” it may be clearer to you and others who take offense, but I have already addressed this issue previously.
It’s completely relevant to the topic. You may not have a completing understanding of how mortal sin is determined.
It is not a list put out and updated by the Church. It is an individual determination, based on circumstances that must be taken into consideration with EACH act and EACH person committing said act.
Indeed. Then I would ask that those who post that Father is so very concretely wrong stop to consider their bias. I, also, will need to consider my own bias(es).
Looking at this thread and reading the posts, it’s kind of funny. Here at CAF Father is too strict, he is on the fringe, he is a celebrity, while in another Catholic forum, far, far away, he is not strict enough. He doesn’t say it like it is enough. He doesn’t go out on the fringe enough.
I guess that is just the difficulties a priest faces.
Maybe what he is saying should encourage us to look at how we are living and what do we need to change to grow in holiness, obtain salvation and lead the next generation in the Catholic faith.
I would say Father knows Catholic teaching better than what I am reading from posters here at CAF.
I think you may not have a complete understanding of what a mortal sin is and isn’t. As to the reasons why your wife must work, do they not fall under the phrase “sufficient reason”, which was STATED IN HIS QUOTE? (not shouting…just emphasizing ;))
I don’t think anyone said children should be at home only for all their life. The debate, it seems, is more over how much time a child needs to spend with their mother and how much time they benefit from being in the presence of others. Regardless, you will never convince me that a 6 month old, unable to provide their own food/care/nurture is left unaffected by being out of the care of the person who is most concerned about their welfare for 8-10 hours straight. I also think it’s a tall order for many children, even of school age. I completely understand the need for it, given our current economic situation in this country and there are plenty of times when reality trumps best practice, but to treat it lightly or engage in it without SUFFICIENT REASON (as stated by Father R) is not a good thing. Which, I guess now that I re-read it, means I just said the same thing as Father R……
Actually, you’re not. Honor and respect to those who are elder or in authority (which a priest IS) is an obligation. What is NOT an obligation is to follow advice given, even by an elder or one in authority, that actually violates His teachings.
I would add that, if you take exception to something, be sure you have educated yourself on what that thing is and what it isn’t. This means you have to go beyond your 8th grade CCD or scanning the CCC quickly, looking for confirmation of your bias. And yes, I do it too; that is how I know about it!
Maybe that explains why there are cannabinoid receptors in the human brain!
Well, I am so glad we got that cleared up!
I’ve not taken offense. I don’t believe anyone on this thread has. Those disagreeing with him have shown that he is arguing something that is not supported by the Church. There is no teaching on women working outside the home. He has claimed this is a mortal sin without a sufficient reason. That is not reflected in any Church teaching.
In fairness, the Church does specifically state that the mother’s role in the home is important to the good of the family and the state recognising this is good for social cohesion. I’m paraphrasing but that’s my understanding.
That said, the Church also gives married couples a lot of leeway in deciding what working arrangement works for them.
Any priest who states bluntly that a mother working outside the home is committing a mortal sin, is just wrong, and also is abusing his power as a priest to place an undue burden on families that are struggling financially.
A mortal sin is a sin that has three components:
- Must involve grave matter
- Must be done with full knowledge
- It must be done intentionally
As far as I know, the 1st condition, “grave matter” is not met by wife/mother having a job. Nor is daycare. If it was, it would be spelled out quite clearly because they are so common in modern society. Find me the citation in the CCC that identifies a mother working and using daycare services or a nanny as “grave matter.” Most things that are considered grave matter by the Church are clearly identified as such.
I am free to ignore what he says. As I said before, I listen to the priest I make a confession to.
I am neither a wife nor a mother so this issue of wives/mothers working outside the home dies not apply to me.
However what he said about believing in a heliocentric solar system being a mortal sin is so out there that it calls into question the rest of what he just said.
So educate us.
What is particularly sinful about a heliocentric solar system?
Can you first show me in complete context where Father Ripperger said a helicentric solar system is a mortal sin?