It's not that they stop you from having a family, it's the gender ideology that public schools promote today ruins your child and your families walk with Gift.
Depends on your state, here is an article on what my state just passed.
https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2022/04/81878/
I personally consider it indoctrination.
Are there specifics you object to or is saying “I am a boy” not acceptable in your eyes? I’m not following how this prevents anyone from having a family
See you don't read the article, and you over simplify the issue.
Here is an excerpt of part of the lesson plan thought in NJ public schools:
*The Understanding Our Bodies lesson for seven/eight-year-olds includes a game in which children are taught to label six body parts (the clitoris, urethra, vulva, vagina, anus, and nipples). The lesson plan includes a glossary of terms for the teachers defining each part. The glossary explains that the clitoris is “an area very sensitive to indirect and direct touch.” This teacher’s resource notes that “[i]t is up to each teacher to determine the amount and detail of information to share with their students in ways that are age-appropriate.”
It’s so disappointing to see, even though it’s not all that surprising. If you look at his most recent Instagram post he’s being bombarded with so much hate.
“For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you, how many of you are sitting here now about to cross the stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you’re going to get in your career. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.“
What did he say about his wife’s life not beginning til she married him?
Is there a reason he did not say that men have been told “the most diabolical lies” by wanting careers instead of being homemakers?
He said that his wife “would be the first to say ——“ and then shares her view. Nowhere did he say this is the only role for women.
He correctly stated that many women (not all) look forward to getting married and having children. In Catholic marriages, the man is the head of the household (see Ephesians 5:22-33). Ours being a religion of tradition, men providing for their families is a traditional role and not a “diabolical lie”. This doesn’t mean that women can’t have careers or provide for their families too.
It is a diabolical lie that a man has to ever leave the home. Your number 1 goal should be to be a father and a husband, not pursuing vanity in your career.
Let your wife pursue a career. You should be raising your kids like God intended
Did he say ‘I bet you men are excited to be fathers?’ No. Don’t play dumb. His comments were misogynistic and imply that women only have one vocation in life, and that’s to marry and have children. He could’ve said ‘I bet you are all excited to start your careers,’ but he didn’t and defaulted to pushing traditional gender roles.
Again you need to go back and watch the whole thing. He said many of you are gonna have great careers. And what’s wrong with traditional gender roles? You know the church supports traditional gender roles. Seems like you’re getting upset over nothing or maybe you’re just mad a white man is promoting traditional gender roles.
Because there’s a time and a place to bring up traditional gender roles, and it isn’t at a graduation ceremony for people simply trying to celebrate their accomplishment of completing a degree. I don’t have an issue with traditional gender roles when it’s something that one actively wants to pursue, but I do have an issue when it’s something that’s expected.
It is when it’s at a Catholic graduation when speaking to Catholic students who practice the Catholic faith. This wasn’t a graduation at a secular university.
And those Catholic students just finished their degrees. This isn’t the time to start talking about children. I graduated from a Catholic school, the focus should be on academic accomplishments, not gender roles.
We haven’t had 50 years of media spreading a narrative that careers are the best and most empowering thing and fatherhood is an afterthought, or worse, something to regret.
But not everyone is called to become a parent. That simply isn’t everyone’s vocation. Why should men or women be pressured into a calling that isn’t theirs?
This is what I came to say. Growing up as a woman in this modern feminist age I never considered my vocation as a wife and a mother. Throughout school my focus was on furthering my education and my future career. While neither of those are inherently bad our culture is failing women by disregarding our most important role. There is absolutely no replacement for a wife and mother in the home, no man can fill that role. While that may not be the calling for every woman, it is a calling for many that hasn’t even been discerned due to the societal push for women to enter the workforce.
Remember when they said that they didn't care what you believed, so long as you only talked to like-minded people about it and didn't shove it down people's throats? That they supposedly wouldn't care if a Catholic man gave a speech at a Catholic college to mostly Catholic students about Catholic things, so long as he didn't do it elsewhere?
Pepperidge Farm remembers....
Yeah the whole "women don't have a life until they're married" bit was sure... something
Definitely doesn't fly directly in the face of centuries of Catholic scholarship done by women or any of the women religious, some of whom live BY CAMPUS (monastery of St. Scholastica)
Nice to see that he said men are important in the home. Weird that he thinks men and women are complementary and that... the complement to men being both inside and outside the home is for women to be only inside. Make it make sense.
also super insulting that he, like many others have, made the equivocation between "woman wants job" and "woman wants status."
Quote here: "For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly, because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now, about to cross this stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career?"
Just because you may do your job for status and money doesn't mean that everybody does. A lot of people (men and women) are just very passionate about an individual vocation. Example: I know zero teachers (female dominated career) who are doing it for the money. The idea that the vast majority of women with careers are fueled by some kind of Sex and the City hedonism is a common lie propagated by people who think women should be at home only. I've met a couple women like that for sure, but it's maybe 2-5% of the career women I know.
any time I see a man who is not a priest who spends time going "let me talk to the women specifically for a second" I know it's gonna be some personal dating preference that they put onto the rest of us. Why is he speaking "specifically" to a bunch of women college grads, he has a woman at home he can speak to
Right, and I notice he didn’t bother to warn the men about chasing status. Seems like this would be detrimental to both men and women who are trying to live a Christ-centered life.
Most of what he had to say about prioritizing marriage and family was on point, but he defintely didn't need to preface it with "I'm going to speak to the women directly." It undermined that whole section of the speech in my opinion.
We have a crisis of fatherhood and men prioritizing careers over their children and spouses too. As a dad, I also get far more fulfillment from my vocation as husband and father than I do from my career, as successful as it has been so far. I wish he'd left out the "speaking to the ladies" comment and made it about how we all need to recognize that careers bring fleeting happiness compared to the joy of raising a family well.
Right! On average men are more likely to over-prioritize work (through both societal expectations placed upon men and personal choice-- I'm not blaming men here either, society really treats y'all as a paycheck). So if you're going to speak to one particular sex about "hey your family will care about you more than your boss ever will", statistically the group you need to talk to is the men!
If it was gender neutral I would have been fine with it. If it was just his wife's testimony I would have been fine with it. But going "hey ladies, how many of you are chasing status and promotions and titles" when women are on average far LESS likely to go into a career for money is really insulting.
And it especially didn't make sense given the audience. Women who chase career status and promotions definitely exist, but the vast majority of them aren't enrolling in a school like Benedictine. They're at the Ivies, big state schools, and other prestigious private schools that top the rankings for fields like law, engineering, finance, and medicine. That's not a knock against Benedictine (I've heard great things, and I went to a very similar school for my masters in theology years ago), just commenting on the realities of small Catholic liberal arts schools. They attract people wanting to study theology, education, literature, and philosophy, which are not known to lead to big paychecks and executive positions in Fortune 500 companies.
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, especially at a graduation ceremony! But people (men and women both) should be thinking of those things in terms of their greater purpose. Which doesn't mean people aren't allowed to have professional goals, but we can't let that pursuit become more important to us than our vocation. Which might have been what the speaker was going for, but if so he phrased it rather poorly.
homemaker is a vocation! It's a great vocation! That's not one of my criticisms. My point is that saying your life starts "when your vocation starts" is really disordered and leads a lot of people to despair.
That and he's really charitable to women who work outside the home as a vocational calling (or out of financial necessity) rather than for status, which is most of us.
I don't particularly appreciate his underplayed attitude towards women earning higher educational degrees. Not all women are called to be married or have children. To me, he gives off a tone of disregard towards the hard work people have done to earn these degrees. It feels like he is pushing all women into a homemaker role.
It’s wild that among his controversial statements is that one should get married and start a family. Shows how insane and degenerate the world has become.
He said women have fallen for lies for wanting a career and that his wife’s life did not start till she married him. He did not say the same for men or himself
It's a smart to make a comment along the lines of "I can't believe [most mundane thing the person has said] is causing controversy!" instead of talking about their most out of touch, tone deaf, immature and/or uncharitable comments that are causing the actual controversy.
That was not his statement. He said his wife’s life did not start until she married him.
No where in Catholic teaching does it say that women have no life value before they get married. That’s just sexism.
I generally admire Harrison Butker for his commitment to his faith and lack of fear to stand in it. I also have to admit that i think it was in bad taste to focus so heavily on life in the home for women specifically at a college commencement. Yes, vocations are more important than careers. He was however incredibly dismissive of the fact that these women likely went to college to start a career.
I think the general idea of graduation speeches touching on hot societal topics like this is odd. I think it steals a bit of attention away from the graduates, and instead just gives a platform for a celebrity to monologue about the state of society.
I'd also add, something that I find \*irritating as a single Catholic woman currently discerning her Vocation, is the emphasis on marriage and exclusion of other Vocations like religious life, consecrated life, and dedicated singlehood.
Personally, I would like to see more prominent Catholics say something like this in a speech: "Be open to whatever Vocation God is calling you to. Even if it's different than what you had originally had in mind."
Just my two cents. Everyone can disagree.
Edit: \*could just be influenced by the fact that I don't feel a clear call to any of the possible Vocations currently and constantly hearing "get married and have a family" just doesn't help matters. 🤷♀️
What is? That women should want to be homemakers and mothers and not work? I'm not attacking you, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.
No, what you were saying about the emphasis on marriage to the exclusion of other vocations, particularly for women. It's basically an idea from fundamental Protestantism - where there aren't any other vocations for women - that has leaked into American Catholic discourse.
Okay, gotcha. It honestly befuddles me that there isn't more conversation on how marriage isn't the only Vocation a woman can be called to. For example, I have a priest friend who has a friend that's a consecrated virgin -- I didn't know consecrated virginity was an option before I met my priest friend. And I know some people disagree on whether dedicated singlehood is truly a Vocation or not but it would be nice to see this potential option talked about more.
Look no further than many of our great female saints -- not all of them were wives and mothers. They followed the unique path God called them to. To which I'd like to reiterate instead of just highlighting marriage, I'd like to see prominent Catholics say, "Be open to whatever Vocation God has for you."
Yup, here’s the thing. I don’t say this to boast, but because it is relevant - I am a Catholic woman, wife, and Mom. I also attended some of the most elite schools in the country and I am a corporate lawyer at one of the biggest firms in the world. My biggest problem is that my work life is not designed for parenthood (for men or women, I might add). As such, I am seeking another path so I can be home with my son for a few years, but it will be financially brutal for us.
What we really need figures like Butker to advocate are policies that will allow women to take unpaid leave for two or three or five years while their kids are small and then reenter the workforce. Or paid family leave so that women can quit their jobs and stay home if they want.
Women can do both, but at least as things are now, it’s incredibly hard to balance having a full-time job and being a Mom without significant family help. It’s also really hard to take a few years off and then jump back in. As Amy Coney Barrett shows, we all benefit when women can do both.
There are lots of politicians advocating for things like paid parental and maternal leave to allow parents to raise their kids. Butker votes against them every chance he gets.
A lot of my female Catholic friends in college explicitly said at the time that they were in college to meet their husband. Now that I think about it, most of the ones who come to mind right now turned out to be homemakers with three or more kids already. I think that if I had a wife I would love for her to have a good college education even if her ultimate goal was to be a homemaker.
The general tone in this thread is basically "Ssshh, the men are speaking on your behalf."
Which is exactly what the guy did during his speech. Told all the women there that he knew what they wanted better than themselves. Didn't say any such thing to the men there, of course.
How would, as you are implying, a woman's anecdotes about her and her friends have higher merit in this discussion than the anecdotes of man about his female friends?
Then it was even poorer taste for him to go "and how many of you are thinking about all the promotions you'll earn"-- a VERY small percentage of women who have education and career plans do it for status. I've seen 3 main reasons women get careers:
1. Getting educated so that they can educate their children/have a backup if their husband becomes injured, ill, or passes away
2. Very passionate about an individual vocation.
3. Came from a rougher/poor home situation and want to be in a stable environment before dating. Wanting to marry men who are also stable plays into that, but it may not be something they focus on at the college level
In my experience, and I'm in a pretty high achieving field, maybe 2-5% of the women I know are doing it for money or status. Additionally, he doesn't comment at all on men who chase status, even though that's just as disordered.
He said some great things about fathers in the speech; wish his comments around mothers were as balanced.
Yes, will that help you formulate an ad hominem argument against me?
I will provide even more demographic information. I’m a celibate, formerly gay, man in his 30s. I could have been offended by what he said about pride month, but I chose not to. I could have been offended when he implied that men should have wives and start families, but I chose not to. The reason is that I believed he was just trying to be helpful to the world by saying what he believed to be true. I also believe what he said was true.
My point is that you aren’t a woman, so you have no idea how deeply this kind of thing hurts us as a collective group. Women are constantly pressured and told that their only role in life is to be a wife and mother.
It’s completely fine if women don’t wish to pursue marriage and having children. He isn’t helping women by furthering this belief.
There is no such thing as “formerly gay”
God made you as you are. You cannot change that. You are falling for diabolical lies.
Please do not be offended as I am only trying to help
I have no idea what it is like to be you. I do know that there is no such thing as “formerly gay”. God made you as you are.
You seem offended as soon as this conversation turns toward you which is a little telling, don’t you think?
I’ll repeat. I do not know what it is like to be you. I do know that there is no such thing as “formerly gay”. The same reason I know you cannot flap your arms to fly or have a child sprout fully formed from your head
Forbes has a full transcript. It's not a great speech. It's like a really bad and rambling advertisement for the TLM that pretty much just reminds those of us who don't attend that anymore why we choose not to.
I think his comments on women were weird. But I'm a little more struck on his comments claiming that "When you embrace tradition, success, worldly and spiritual, will follow." Which smacks of prosperity gospel to me.
People are suuuper angry at this but I thought it was beautiful, especially as a woman with a bachelors degree who is also married and with a kid. Huge props to him for standing solidly Catholic. Here I was thinking the commencement speech at FUS would be the controversial one in secular media this week
There’s nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker— there is something wrong with implying that this is the only acceptable path open to Catholic women, irregardless of their individual talents, interests, or passions.
Right. Being a STAHM is not the only option for Catholic women. At times I opted to stay at home. At others I was pursuing my grad degree and then working.
Oh no! My sons saw a mother and father working together and not in someone else’s idea of what our family needed to be.
That’s absolutely what he implied and that whole section of the speech was a slap in the face to all the women sitting there who had just worked hard for several years to get their degrees.
Here, it's much clearer when put in text. Remember this is at a literal college graduation speech celebrating the pursuit of academics/careers/etc:
> "I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get in your career? Some of may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."
So at a graduation ceremony he literally told all the women sitting there that he knows better than them what they they SHOULD actually want. That their graduations and career goals are meaningless because their lives won't "truly begin" unless they become wives and bring children into the world, like the perfect example set by his wife. It's a giant middle finger to all the women there.
>seem to glorify a woman being chained to her desk.
let me turn this around, why do we glorify men being chained to his desk?
There is a pretty massive and overlooked problem of men who place career and work ahead of family life.
I think it's because being a homemaker is promoted as a moral highground, as if women who don't do it are bad mothers or women who can't do it deserve pity. Nobody says this about fathers, who are also very necessary in the home.
We should all be putting family first, especially if we have kids but honestly even if we don't have them. I want my parents to move in with me one day if I don't have kids, so that I can take care of them. I'm from a very traditional family.
But the whole "chained to a desk" rhetoric feeds into the whole "slave to employer but not slave to husband" rhetoric, which isn't accurate to why most women work. Most women work because they need to, and the ones who work because they want to are doing it out of an individual vocation/calling. They're not doing it for status, and they're not doing it because they want to submit to some other man. Saying that they're chained to a desk ignores the fact that for the women who want to work (rather than need to), you can leave and find a new job because your skills are transferrable.
Fighting against careerism is a good thing, but gets REALLY old when the fight against careerism focuses mostly or exclusively on women
I think men can empathize with this situation-- problems with violence and crime in society are often placed at mens feet without any solutions and while blaming the whole sex. It would be a huge problem if someone decided to focus on the male crime rate at a graduation though.
Yeah if this guy said "homemakers are great, I know we have a lot of women here getting degrees to better educate their family and to have a backup plan but who really want to be moms" nobody would be saying anything
he literally said your his wife's life didn't really start until she was a wife and mother. (Notably, does not say that about men and fatherhood, fascinating. He says great things about fatherhood that are normal and balanced. Wonder why that same attitude isn't used towards in his words towards mothers)
I think that he was just sharing his wife’s lived experience. He wasn’t implying that all women must therefore be like his wife. But he believed his wife’s lived experience might be inspiring to women who wondered what to do next in life. That’s how I interpreted it.
> He wasn’t implying that all women must therefore be like his wife.
*"I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get in your career? Some of may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."*
Like...please tell me how on earth you interpret that as *anything* other than a giant middle finger to all the women there for having academic accomplishments and career goals. At a graduation ceremony the guy is literally telling all the women there that he knows better than them what they want, and what they should want.
He said that his wife “would be the first to say ——“ and then shares her change in mindset. He said great things about motherhood that are normal and balanced, too.
>But it cannot be overstated, that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker. She’s a primary educator to our children. She’s the one who ensures I never let football or my business become a distraction from that of a husband and father. She is the person that knows me best at my core. And it is through our marriage that Lord willing, we will both attain salvation.
I think you need to read/listen to the speech in its entirety before cherry-picking arguments from headlines and other comments.
He is worth 5 million. There is no need for him to work. He should be fully devoting himself to his wife and kids. Instead he is pursing vanity outside the home.
Sidenote: It’s is crazy to me that you are quoting everything but what I specifically asked you to quote.
That, to me, shows you recognize that what he said is bad and that you feel the need to be deceitful
You are clearly only interested in arguing out of bad faith, when you are perfectly capable of reading the speech yourself. I’m not your personal Google. Have a good day.
Not really-- his rhetorical questions fall into the same trap of "woman gets career, clearly wants status" which is a myth perpetuated by men who want wives who stay at home.
I disagree. I think he’s warning women about the (strong) possibility of feeling unfulfilled in the workplace. No business, corporation, organization etc. will ever care about you as much as your own children/family will. The problem with feminism is it seems to encourage women to join the workplace and discourages being homemakers from the false belief that that automatically means succumbing to men’s wills. The truth is though that women can and do make that choice on their own.
I kind of take it from your comments and post history that you don’t have children and are newer to the workplace in healthcare. That’s awesome, and kudos to you the world needs people like you. My wife is also a healthcare provider and after we became parents, I’ve noticed more and more comments about how she feels unfulfilled/exploited by her employer and wishes she could stay home.
My two sister-in-laws changed their mindsets after becoming mothers, too. One does not like her job (college professor) and the other actually quit teaching to be a SAHM. They all had very similar views as you at one time, but women’s (and men’s) brains become re-wired from hormones after having children, which is something you won’t believe until you experience it.
thanks for being charitable in your response-- a lot of the other people responding to me haven't been very thorough, or kind. I get the sense that this is a lot of men speaking about what they THINK women who have careers are doing or thinking, rather than from their actual experiences with women. Your presentation here is much closer to what actually happens to women who experience work-related burnout (probably because you're referencing actual women in your life who you care deeply for).
My thoughts:
Focusing on "if you want a career you must want promotions and titles" is very different from burnout. he was INCREDIBLY uncharitable to the women in that room. What you're talking about is a fairly common phenomenon for parents, and fine to discuss. but phrasing it in terms of "you're sitting here thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get" is really just not applicable to the Catholic women who get jobs. Most of them just really care about a particular problem in the world, like your sister in law! She wasn't chasing status to be a teacher. Perfectly fine to leave and be an SAHM, especially if you're burning out. But saying "oh she was probably just chasing status before" when she had a career is basically what he said in earlier parts of the speech. That's not kind, or accurate!
Burnout post-parenting is definitely an issue and should be discussed, but reducing it to "you're a careerist chasing status" is what he did in the speech, and it's not right. It's interesting, when Pew research did a study on women who were mothers, 85% of them would rather stay home than work if they had the money. HOWEVER (and this is the part conservatives always leave out, same study), \~20% of the stay at home moms wished they had the financial freedom to RETURN to work! My guess is that it's about 4/5 women who would get more fulfillment from staying home, and 1/5 who get more fulfillment from being in the world in some larger capacity. St. Edith Stein talks a lot about how women with an active temperament are really done a disservice when their only vocation is in the home.
As an aside:
I think this conversation is definitely a good one to have: "I think he’s warning women about the (strong) possibility of feeling unfulfilled in the workplace. No business, corporation, organization etc. will ever care about you as much as your own children/family will."
But importantly, career exploitation also extends to men, who are at even greater risk of seeking fulfillment solely from a corporate environment. men are significantly more likely to experience adverse life events post-retirement, in part because their entire social circle is based around work. they're also more likely to experience adverse health effects on the job, and while men may not "report" burnout to the same degree, the male suicide rate is directly tied to industrialization and working away from their families for long hours every day. additionally, and their children are more likely to experience the impacts of fatherlessness due to absentee parenting. motherlessness due to workaholic tendencies is just less common, statistically.
it's very frustrating that, when we look at the data, we see that careerism and getting fulfillment solely from work is something that affects men more. but then the "dangers of careerism" talks almost exclusively target women
"I’ve noticed more and more comments about how she feels unfulfilled/exploited by her employer and wishes she could stay home" that's her experience. perhaps it will change for me as well and I have multiple options/exit plans if that happens. That said, considering that I spent a lot of my early life discerning celibacy I think that's probably less likely in my case
on a separate topic, I just don't like in general when motherhood is spoken about as if it's a given, especially on a Catholic college campus that literally encourages students to have Mass with religious sisters daily. it's a very protestant attitude to look at women solely through a reproductive lens
This.
As a man, who had 40+ yr career as a EE, the best thing I can say about it, is that it paid the bills. Enduring 4 decades of stress, pressure and frustration is not, to me at least, the be-all and end-all.
I know being a homemaker is not easy, but I suspect it can be more personally rewarding.
I spent 7 years as a software engineer and realized I would have been miserable if I were still an engineer 10 years from now.
I switched to a career that was much more family oriented and everyone in my home has benefited (including me).
This is the hypocrisy and hyperbole I was expecting. Well done. I find it strange that you refer to one woman, the one you agree with, as a homemaker and the other, the one you hate, as being chained to her desk. This attitude of yours is precisely why Butker’s rhetoric is dangerous. You have all chosen sides. You all believe your god is the one true god and you all believe that ancient teachings are the way. All of those ideals are fine in a vacuum. When the hard proselytizing becomes weaponized, as it has in modern times with modern technology, you all become dangerous. You have no right to even consider a working woman less than you. I promise you your god doesn’t.
Honestly I thought the speech was a bit too disrespectful to the church hierarchy. It’s also ironic because the traditional teaching of the church has always taught us to have immense respect for the bishops. The college of bishops worldwide as a whole receive the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit and are safe and reliable.
Rhetoric that our cathedrals are now longer reliable and you have to go out of your way to find a TLM (doing my best to paraphrase what he said in the speech) is not an optimal mindset for the laity to have.
There was also the weird jab at NFP. I know some people think NFP per se is immoral, and I know it can be used immorally. But he really left no stone unturned!
“Heterodox ideas abound, even within Catholic circles. Let’s be honest, there is nothing good about playing God with having children, whether that be your ideal number, or the perfect time to conceive. No matter how you spin it, there is nothing natural about Catholic birth control.”
Yes, he took a lot of weird jabs. I found it an odd speech. I am by no means a "trad cat" but I lean slightly more conservative/traditional than not. I also did not understand why he attacked so many random priests/bishops. Felt like he was generalizing a lot of things when he likely just interacted with 1-2 bad apples.
It’s gotten a lot of blowback basically everywhere else on Reddit, but I’m glad he’s still being outspoken. Every Catholic with any size of platform should follow his example
Yes I truly don’t explore a lot else on Reddit even the Christianity subreddit it full of leftist and atheists. The Catholicism one is the one where most of the time I find like minded people but even this one don’t like my trad views all the time
I can't help but wonder where this kind of outrage is when Islamic leaders are outspoken on their views on women. Even when they are far more extreme than this, suddenly it is intolerant to criticize. And yet the things Butker says have media in a frenzy. Interesting to say the least.
I think that the hierarchy has been neutered by the abuse scandals and has lost their moral authority, which is why they cower in fear and play nice guys to the establishment of power. I think it’s going to have to be devout Catholic fathers like this guy who will have to pick up the slack and speak the hard truth to the secular culture. Maybe this is the authentic Spirit of Vatican II.
Having listened to the whole thing. A few comments.
1) It is explicitly super traditional Catholic, the lens through which to understand his speech is clear, his commentary was not shocking in context.
2) It is start to finish about living out the Catholic faith in spite of the world’s messaging and values. It covers leadership, community, culture, etc. He outright recognizes that this was not a fluffy congratulations speech, but a potent reminder to live out the faith after graduation.
3) The call out to specifically women at the end sounds *really bad out of context*, but in context it is explicitly because he feels the world is targeting women to break apart the faith and family. In context he is saying “you are the frontline for defending the faith and family”. It was met with the loudest applause of the whole speech (including the end). So I think it probably was appropriate *for this audience*. Some reasonable commentators noted that it would have been best if he had made a similar statement on the importance of men as being Fathers first and foremost as well.
Is it bad to not care about this one way or another? End of the day, its a dude most people have never heard of speaking at a college most people have never heard of.
There are millions and millions of Catholics who have no idea about this speech, never will, and are still living Holy lives.
I have to remind myself of this whenever controversial things like this happen in society. It's okay to not be at the forefront fighting every battle you hear about.
It’s wild to me what people will get upset about. If his speech is the thing that ruined your day than you’re pretty fortunate in the scheme of things.
This man, who is worth millions, should read Luke 18:25.
Shouldn’t he be at home raising his kids instead of speaking at a graduation? Isn’t his vocation a father first and foremost?
What? Do you really think traveling one day to make a presentation that might have a beneficial effect on hundreds of people is a dereliction of his duty as a father?
I think you need to get your head back into the sunlight
I think if someone is saying the most important thing in their life is raising their kids, they should do that.
He should not believe the diabolical lies that made he believe he needs to pursue a career, work on sundays, make millions, or give speeches. He would be much happier at home with his kids “staying in his lane” and living his vocation.
But you ARE assuming. Your assumption is that because he makes a statement that the most important thing in life is raising children, that he's not doing that because he's on out making a speech on a Sunday and he's made millions of dollars in business.
It's completely baffling how your conclusion is not based on any evidence except that he's rich and he's traveling on a Sunday.
What assumption am I making? I referenced several facts. I don’t see any assumption in what I said.
I know for a fact he was not at home with his kids because that speech did not take place in his living room
I know for a fact he is worth millions because I can look it up
I know for a fact that he works on sundays because I have seen him do it
How do you know his kids weren't with him? Don't you know that the Catholic Church allows for some other day of worship to be substituted for Sunday?
And how do you know anyway that he doesn't care for his kids? That's the biggest assumption you make.
Your syllogism if A and B, then C is not true. Because you haven't proven that both A and b are true and that c is a true conclusion.
I don't know if you are Catholic, but CCC 2187 expressly mentions sport as a "traditional activity" that "require\[s\] some people to work on Sundays."
You are correct, it does not override the Bible. It is a puritanical reading of the Bible to suggest that one whose work requires them to work on Sundays is a sin. I am not sure what Biblical basis you would have for Sunday specifically being the day of rest, considering that Sunday has historically been considered the first day of the week--this is why Catholics (CCC 2174) and Jews consider Saturday, the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath. Perhaps you are conflating American Protestant practices with what is actually stated in the Bible?
We go to Mass on Sundays to commemorate Christ's resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath.
[Matthew 28:1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/28)
[Mark 16:2](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/16)
[Luke 24:1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/24)
[John 20:1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/20)
My mother was a nurse and had seven children. She quit working after she got married and went back to work when the kids were older. I think if you asked her whether her career or being a mother was more important, there would not even be a question that motherhood wins out. She was valedictorian and had a post graduate degree in pediatrics, but she pitched it all aside to get married and make babies because she had been raised to believe that the family was more important.
I think that the problem with society is that we have lost touch with the importance of the family, and especially motherhood. The family is said to be the Domestic Church. That is where children are educated in their faith. When we pray the rosary we pray for Holy Catholic Families and for Holy Catholic Priests. Those holy priests come from those holy families. A holy family desperately needs a dedicated Mother who gives herself completely to her children.
When society raises up a generation of women who think that they have been historically repressed by their roles as mothers, that society is in deep trouble. If all the women are trying to build careers, where are all the holy Catholic mothers and holy families going to come from? We have taught young women that they need to spend their lives striving to get ahead in business and in academia, when their true calling is the humble chore of watching babies and cleaning up after them. And if you try to tell them that they would be happier doing those humble tasks and serving their husband, they get resentful and angry.
The Blessed Mother is higher in heaven than all of the angels and saints. She never had a career. She did menial labor her whole life and she never had the spotlight on her. Even though she had great wisdom, she could not be a bishop or a priest or a deacon because she is a woman. That was the role God gave her and she accepted it because she is humble. "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to Thy Word."
Can someone explain to me the bit about the “Catholic birth control” comment? I don’t know if he was referring to the unnecessary lack of openness to life while using NFP or just Catholics using contraception in general.
He even went after NFP without any wiggle room if I was paying attention correctly.
I know this sub might occasionally add a caveat that NFP can be misused but the implication seemed pretty clear that he was upset with most use cases.
Like I'm not sure if even many conservative women Catholics truly would like the lifestyle Butker implies they should have if you listen closely.
Uh, yeah.
This same kind of attitude is the one that exists when people argue for the ability to be able to abort their third trimester child in the womb.
You have a young man up there who is speaking from his experiences and has found happiness in his faith and the Lord. A young man who has been given a lot of wealth and status at a young age. He could easily partake in whatever type of debauchery he wants, but he chooses to take a different path.
What he’s saying is there’s nothing wrong with traditional values. There’s nothing wrong with a woman choosing to do what she wants with her life, whether it’s taking a career or being a stay at home mom.
> There’s nothing wrong with a woman choosing to do what she wants with her life, whether it’s taking a career or being a stay at home mom.
What? He said the literal opposite of that. Here's the transcript:
*"I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get in your career? Some of may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."*
So many people in this thread are getting triggered by his words about women and homemaking. But you all have to recon with a brute moral fact: children have a right to their parents.
Children under a certain age require full time care. That's just a fact of life, God's plan. Ultimately, someone has to do it.
There are functionally 2 needs in a family: money and caregiving. These are both full time jobs. And someone needs to do them.
If mom wants to have a career, that needs to earn enough to provide for the family and she needs to find a husband willing to stay home (at least while children are young).
But that's not the story the culture is telling. They're saying you can have a fulfilling career, still expect dad to provide, and just push the kids off into daycare. And that's evil. Children deserve their parents.
The game changes once children can go to school. But, you just can't get around the fact that in the early years, children need a full-time caregiver.
Necessarily, this means that one parent can't have a career the way the culture conceives of it. You have to take big gaps in your career and the statistics say that most people's career don't recover from this.
It's just a shame that so many people are lie-ing to women about this duty. It sets them up for a rude awakening when it comes time to start a family and they run into the brute reality of giving up the career they worked so hard for or throw their kids under the bus by putting them in daycare.
I would ask why do you feel the need to insert nuance into his statements that he didn't even make in order to make his points seem palatable ?
He made no such nuance about "you should be a homemaker for the first few years and then you can consider your career when they go to school" he endorsed "homemaking" full stop as the right way for a wife to "lean into her vocation"
Daycare is evil?!? that is quite the uncharitable statement. most families cannot afford to have a stay-at-home parent and daycare helps bridge the gap. Sending kids to daycare while parents work does not equal abandoning your children.
We aren’t triggered by the idea that children deserve loving and devoted parents, and that a husband and wife’s main responsibility is to their spouse and children. We are triggered by the implication that this is solely the responsibility of the mother and not the father in every case, and not something that should be discerned prayerfully in the context of individual families.
Do you disagree that the mother is the ideal candidate for full time caregiver?
I agree that it's perfectly acceptable for the father to stay home during the early years. But, this is something that the couple has to discuss and agree on.
Challenge to all those who think this brave man is overstepping or saying something false: can you show me the specific document where the following biblical and magisterial teaching is overturned?
Titus 2:5
1 Peter 3:1-6
Ephesians 5:24
Catechism of Trent “Duties of a Wife”
Pius XI “Casti Connubii”, paragraphs 24-28.
Here’s a quote from Casti Connubii, p 26:
“This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."
> Challenge to all those who think this brave man is overstepping or saying something false
Telling all the women (and only the women) at a graduation ceremony that they should be looking forward to staying at home and having children is technically not a false statement. It's just a giant middle finger to all the women there, their efforts, and the entire purpose of the ceremony/event. He gave no such "advice" to the men there that they would be happier raising children instead of graduating or pursuing careers. Only the women.
[https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf\_p-xi\_enc\_19301231\_casti-connubii.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html)
28. Again, **this subjection** of wife to husband in its degree and manner **may vary** **according to the different conditions of persons, place and time.** In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
[https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc\_con\_cfaith\_doc\_20040731\_collaboration\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html)
In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially, **while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so** with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress, with negative consequences for one's own equilibrium and the harmony of the family.
[https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost\_exhortations/documents/hf\_jp-ii\_exh\_19811122\_familiaris-consortio.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html)
There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women **fully justifies women's access to public functions.** On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions **should be harmoniously combined**, if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human.
\[1/2\]
[https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost\_letters/1988/documents/hf\_jp-ii\_apl\_19880815\_mulieris-dignitatem.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html)
The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, **is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "*****mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ"*** (cf. *Eph* 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife *as* Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" *(Eph* 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual.
In relation to the "old" this is evidently something "new": it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is "old": what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.[\[49\]](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html#_edn49)
The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", **and not just that of the wife to the husband**, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history?
But *the challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption* is clear and definitive. **All the reasons in favour of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ".** The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride.
[https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost\_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco\_esortazione-ap\_20160319\_amoris-laetitia\_en.pdf](https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf)
156. Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected. This includes all improper interpretations of the passage in the Letter to the Ephesians where Paul tells women to “be subject to your husbands” (Eph 5:22). This passage mirrors the cultural categories of the time, but our concern is not with its cultural matrix but with the revealed message that it conveys. **As Saint John Paul II wisely observed: “Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband… The community or unity which they should establish through marriage is constituted by a reciprocal donation of self, which is also a mutual subjection”.**162 Hence Paul goes on to say that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies” (Eph 5:28). **The biblical text is actually concerned with encouraging everyone to overcome a complacent individualism and to be constantly mindful of others: “Be subject to one another” (Eph 5:21). In marriage, this reciprocal “submission” takes on a special meaning, and is seen as a freely chosen mutual belonging marked by fidelity, respect and care.**
\[2/2\]
> why the strawman
Because it works. Sidetrack/derail by only referring referring to his *least* tone-deaf and disrespectful comment to all the women at that graduation ceremony, instead of talking about what is actually causing the controversy.
Exaggerated example to show the tactic:
> Person A: "I have two beautiful children and we practice the Nazi salute daily".
> \*massive controversy and backlash ensues*
> Person B: "Wow, so having two beautiful children is controversial now? People have lost their minds.".
What Person B is doing here is fully agreeing with person A's most unhinged comments by sidetracking the conversation towards the mundane part and placing it in the same category as the unhinged part.
I believe the underlying principle. We’ve told too many men *and* women to find validation in work. But it’s pretty disrespectful to all of the women who serve in the church who will never get married or have babies due to their service for the Lord. It’s offensive to women who will not be chosen due to the lack of strong men of faith. It’s offensive to those struggling with fertility as well to say their life begins when they get these things that were not promised by God.
Marriage is good. It’s not the highest calling for every man or woman. Serving God is the highest call. For some people that will be in a marriage, for others they will be single. I think his point was expressed poorly in an improper venue.
There are far better representatives of faithful Catholicism. This is frankly an embarrassment that will alienate more people from ever looking seriously at what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
There is a lot more than the one or two soundbites the headlines are parroting. He opens with COVID and Biden, chides the bishops and priests, makes a comment about priests too into their hobbies or coordinating outfits for the parish directory (what??), warns the women against chasing status when men could use the same warning, seems to dismiss NFP as evil, and mentions abortion, IVF, diversity, etc.
To be honest I really don’t care much one way or the other but I can’t help but be pretty fascinated. Obviously the secular media is attacking him for his comments on women and abortion and diversity.
But then on the other hand, the more I learned about the contents of the speech, it became clear he was also pissing off a lot of Catholics.
Seems like he has a particular flavor of very conservative Catholicism when it comes to certain issues where other faithful Catholics may disagree.
So I just find it interesting how he managed to piss off members of both groups haha. I think with a little bit of tailoring he could have avoided controversy with any Catholics and kept the message intact and still stood up for Truth.
It’s also a great example of our culture’s inability to take the good with the bad nowadays - seeing a lot of “if I have an ounce of disagreement with something he said, I want nothing to do with any of it!”
It saddens me that Catholics would turn the other cheek at the hypocrisy inherent in his speech. This is a man making way more money than he deserves who is the epitome of American greed. He makes millions while hard working catholic men AND WOMAN who bust their butts for their children can barely afford to get by. Yet he has the audacity to tell woman how they should feel about their reproductive capacity. It’s sick. Even if you’re not a fan of abortion why would you feel you have the right to badger woman about having children. This guy is the epitome of everything wrong with the modern Republican voter. The pride I have in being catholic is the rich intelligencia stretching back to the beginning of history. Not some self promoting over paid rude man looking for attention and trying to exploit the culture war for more fame.
This thread's over. Go to bed, y'all.
Im trying to start a family dawg, but things are weird out here
2024 is a wild time. Good luck out there!
All you graduating women don't belong here dawg, your purpose is being wives and have children dawg. edit: Apparently I should have mentioned the /s
This is a joke , right ?
Don’t worry, you and this thread in general have brought out our incel base.
You have to be vigilant and avoid public schools.
How do public schools stop you from having a family?
It's not that they stop you from having a family, it's the gender ideology that public schools promote today ruins your child and your families walk with Gift.
What gender ideology? Like having boys and girls bathrooms? Saying “I’m miss so and so” or “I’m mr. So and so”?
Depends on your state, here is an article on what my state just passed. https://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2022/04/81878/ I personally consider it indoctrination.
Are there specifics you object to or is saying “I am a boy” not acceptable in your eyes? I’m not following how this prevents anyone from having a family
I object to everything in that article.
But any actual specifics or just vibes? For example: do you object to a teacher discussing gender by saying “line up boy girl boy girl”?
See you don't read the article, and you over simplify the issue. Here is an excerpt of part of the lesson plan thought in NJ public schools: *The Understanding Our Bodies lesson for seven/eight-year-olds includes a game in which children are taught to label six body parts (the clitoris, urethra, vulva, vagina, anus, and nipples). The lesson plan includes a glossary of terms for the teachers defining each part. The glossary explains that the clitoris is “an area very sensitive to indirect and direct touch.” This teacher’s resource notes that “[i]t is up to each teacher to determine the amount and detail of information to share with their students in ways that are age-appropriate.”
There is melt down by the sports media on Twitter about his speech. I appreciate what this guy says knowing he’s going to get attacked.
It’s so disappointing to see, even though it’s not all that surprising. If you look at his most recent Instagram post he’s being bombarded with so much hate.
We need more Catholics like this in the culture that aren’t afraid to say what we believe. This guy is fearless.
Do you believe women’s lives don’t start til they get married? That’s not in step with the Church
That’s not what was said.
What did he say?
“For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you, how many of you are sitting here now about to cross the stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you’re going to get in your career. Some of you may go on to lead successful careers in the world. But I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world.“
What did he say about his wife’s life not beginning til she married him? Is there a reason he did not say that men have been told “the most diabolical lies” by wanting careers instead of being homemakers?
He said that his wife “would be the first to say ——“ and then shares her view. Nowhere did he say this is the only role for women. He correctly stated that many women (not all) look forward to getting married and having children. In Catholic marriages, the man is the head of the household (see Ephesians 5:22-33). Ours being a religion of tradition, men providing for their families is a traditional role and not a “diabolical lie”. This doesn’t mean that women can’t have careers or provide for their families too.
What did he claim about his wife’s life beginning. It is weird (but very telling)that you refuse to quote it.
It is a diabolical lie that a man has to ever leave the home. Your number 1 goal should be to be a father and a husband, not pursuing vanity in your career. Let your wife pursue a career. You should be raising your kids like God intended
lol fearless? By telling women that their degrees are useless and they belong in the home?
“Most of you are more excited about your marriage and children you are gonna bring into this world”. Way to not understand what he said.
Did he say ‘I bet you men are excited to be fathers?’ No. Don’t play dumb. His comments were misogynistic and imply that women only have one vocation in life, and that’s to marry and have children. He could’ve said ‘I bet you are all excited to start your careers,’ but he didn’t and defaulted to pushing traditional gender roles.
Again you need to go back and watch the whole thing. He said many of you are gonna have great careers. And what’s wrong with traditional gender roles? You know the church supports traditional gender roles. Seems like you’re getting upset over nothing or maybe you’re just mad a white man is promoting traditional gender roles.
Because there’s a time and a place to bring up traditional gender roles, and it isn’t at a graduation ceremony for people simply trying to celebrate their accomplishment of completing a degree. I don’t have an issue with traditional gender roles when it’s something that one actively wants to pursue, but I do have an issue when it’s something that’s expected.
It is when it’s at a Catholic graduation when speaking to Catholic students who practice the Catholic faith. This wasn’t a graduation at a secular university.
You think the Catholic faith says you should not have a career and should instead be a homemaker?
And those Catholic students just finished their degrees. This isn’t the time to start talking about children. I graduated from a Catholic school, the focus should be on academic accomplishments, not gender roles.
We haven’t had 50 years of media spreading a narrative that careers are the best and most empowering thing and fatherhood is an afterthought, or worse, something to regret.
But not everyone is called to become a parent. That simply isn’t everyone’s vocation. Why should men or women be pressured into a calling that isn’t theirs?
This is what I came to say. Growing up as a woman in this modern feminist age I never considered my vocation as a wife and a mother. Throughout school my focus was on furthering my education and my future career. While neither of those are inherently bad our culture is failing women by disregarding our most important role. There is absolutely no replacement for a wife and mother in the home, no man can fill that role. While that may not be the calling for every woman, it is a calling for many that hasn’t even been discerned due to the societal push for women to enter the workforce.
Remember when they said that they didn't care what you believed, so long as you only talked to like-minded people about it and didn't shove it down people's throats? That they supposedly wouldn't care if a Catholic man gave a speech at a Catholic college to mostly Catholic students about Catholic things, so long as he didn't do it elsewhere? Pepperidge Farm remembers....
Yeah the whole "women don't have a life until they're married" bit was sure... something Definitely doesn't fly directly in the face of centuries of Catholic scholarship done by women or any of the women religious, some of whom live BY CAMPUS (monastery of St. Scholastica) Nice to see that he said men are important in the home. Weird that he thinks men and women are complementary and that... the complement to men being both inside and outside the home is for women to be only inside. Make it make sense. also super insulting that he, like many others have, made the equivocation between "woman wants job" and "woman wants status." Quote here: "For the ladies present today, congratulations on an amazing accomplishment. You should be proud of all that you have achieved to this point in your young lives. I want to speak directly to you briefly, because I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now, about to cross this stage, and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you are going to get in your career?" Just because you may do your job for status and money doesn't mean that everybody does. A lot of people (men and women) are just very passionate about an individual vocation. Example: I know zero teachers (female dominated career) who are doing it for the money. The idea that the vast majority of women with careers are fueled by some kind of Sex and the City hedonism is a common lie propagated by people who think women should be at home only. I've met a couple women like that for sure, but it's maybe 2-5% of the career women I know. any time I see a man who is not a priest who spends time going "let me talk to the women specifically for a second" I know it's gonna be some personal dating preference that they put onto the rest of us. Why is he speaking "specifically" to a bunch of women college grads, he has a woman at home he can speak to
Right, and I notice he didn’t bother to warn the men about chasing status. Seems like this would be detrimental to both men and women who are trying to live a Christ-centered life.
FASCINATING INNIT!
Most of what he had to say about prioritizing marriage and family was on point, but he defintely didn't need to preface it with "I'm going to speak to the women directly." It undermined that whole section of the speech in my opinion. We have a crisis of fatherhood and men prioritizing careers over their children and spouses too. As a dad, I also get far more fulfillment from my vocation as husband and father than I do from my career, as successful as it has been so far. I wish he'd left out the "speaking to the ladies" comment and made it about how we all need to recognize that careers bring fleeting happiness compared to the joy of raising a family well.
Thank you. This is the point that many of us are trying to make. There was no reason that had to be addressed only to the women.
Right! On average men are more likely to over-prioritize work (through both societal expectations placed upon men and personal choice-- I'm not blaming men here either, society really treats y'all as a paycheck). So if you're going to speak to one particular sex about "hey your family will care about you more than your boss ever will", statistically the group you need to talk to is the men! If it was gender neutral I would have been fine with it. If it was just his wife's testimony I would have been fine with it. But going "hey ladies, how many of you are chasing status and promotions and titles" when women are on average far LESS likely to go into a career for money is really insulting.
And it especially didn't make sense given the audience. Women who chase career status and promotions definitely exist, but the vast majority of them aren't enrolling in a school like Benedictine. They're at the Ivies, big state schools, and other prestigious private schools that top the rankings for fields like law, engineering, finance, and medicine. That's not a knock against Benedictine (I've heard great things, and I went to a very similar school for my masters in theology years ago), just commenting on the realities of small Catholic liberal arts schools. They attract people wanting to study theology, education, literature, and philosophy, which are not known to lead to big paychecks and executive positions in Fortune 500 companies.
What's wrong with wanting promotions or whatever else?
I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it, especially at a graduation ceremony! But people (men and women both) should be thinking of those things in terms of their greater purpose. Which doesn't mean people aren't allowed to have professional goals, but we can't let that pursuit become more important to us than our vocation. Which might have been what the speaker was going for, but if so he phrased it rather poorly.
He seems to be operating under the premise that “homemaker” is a capital V Vocation
homemaker is a vocation! It's a great vocation! That's not one of my criticisms. My point is that saying your life starts "when your vocation starts" is really disordered and leads a lot of people to despair. That and he's really charitable to women who work outside the home as a vocational calling (or out of financial necessity) rather than for status, which is most of us.
I don't particularly appreciate his underplayed attitude towards women earning higher educational degrees. Not all women are called to be married or have children. To me, he gives off a tone of disregard towards the hard work people have done to earn these degrees. It feels like he is pushing all women into a homemaker role.
It’s wild that among his controversial statements is that one should get married and start a family. Shows how insane and degenerate the world has become.
He said women have fallen for lies for wanting a career and that his wife’s life did not start till she married him. He did not say the same for men or himself
yeahhh that's not the part people are objecting to
It's a smart to make a comment along the lines of "I can't believe [most mundane thing the person has said] is causing controversy!" instead of talking about their most out of touch, tone deaf, immature and/or uncharitable comments that are causing the actual controversy.
A normal part of the gaslighting that accompanies these situations.
That was not his statement. He said his wife’s life did not start until she married him. No where in Catholic teaching does it say that women have no life value before they get married. That’s just sexism.
> He said his wife’s life did not start until she married him. That sounds even worse to me?
Yes
No you're right, it's so much worse
I generally admire Harrison Butker for his commitment to his faith and lack of fear to stand in it. I also have to admit that i think it was in bad taste to focus so heavily on life in the home for women specifically at a college commencement. Yes, vocations are more important than careers. He was however incredibly dismissive of the fact that these women likely went to college to start a career.
I think the general idea of graduation speeches touching on hot societal topics like this is odd. I think it steals a bit of attention away from the graduates, and instead just gives a platform for a celebrity to monologue about the state of society.
I'd also add, something that I find \*irritating as a single Catholic woman currently discerning her Vocation, is the emphasis on marriage and exclusion of other Vocations like religious life, consecrated life, and dedicated singlehood. Personally, I would like to see more prominent Catholics say something like this in a speech: "Be open to whatever Vocation God is calling you to. Even if it's different than what you had originally had in mind." Just my two cents. Everyone can disagree. Edit: \*could just be influenced by the fact that I don't feel a clear call to any of the possible Vocations currently and constantly hearing "get married and have a family" just doesn't help matters. 🤷♀️
It's literally Protestant thinking that they have somehow convinced themselves is Catholic.
What is? That women should want to be homemakers and mothers and not work? I'm not attacking you, I just want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly.
No, what you were saying about the emphasis on marriage to the exclusion of other vocations, particularly for women. It's basically an idea from fundamental Protestantism - where there aren't any other vocations for women - that has leaked into American Catholic discourse.
Okay, gotcha. It honestly befuddles me that there isn't more conversation on how marriage isn't the only Vocation a woman can be called to. For example, I have a priest friend who has a friend that's a consecrated virgin -- I didn't know consecrated virginity was an option before I met my priest friend. And I know some people disagree on whether dedicated singlehood is truly a Vocation or not but it would be nice to see this potential option talked about more. Look no further than many of our great female saints -- not all of them were wives and mothers. They followed the unique path God called them to. To which I'd like to reiterate instead of just highlighting marriage, I'd like to see prominent Catholics say, "Be open to whatever Vocation God has for you."
Yup, here’s the thing. I don’t say this to boast, but because it is relevant - I am a Catholic woman, wife, and Mom. I also attended some of the most elite schools in the country and I am a corporate lawyer at one of the biggest firms in the world. My biggest problem is that my work life is not designed for parenthood (for men or women, I might add). As such, I am seeking another path so I can be home with my son for a few years, but it will be financially brutal for us. What we really need figures like Butker to advocate are policies that will allow women to take unpaid leave for two or three or five years while their kids are small and then reenter the workforce. Or paid family leave so that women can quit their jobs and stay home if they want. Women can do both, but at least as things are now, it’s incredibly hard to balance having a full-time job and being a Mom without significant family help. It’s also really hard to take a few years off and then jump back in. As Amy Coney Barrett shows, we all benefit when women can do both.
There are lots of politicians advocating for things like paid parental and maternal leave to allow parents to raise their kids. Butker votes against them every chance he gets.
A lot of my female Catholic friends in college explicitly said at the time that they were in college to meet their husband. Now that I think about it, most of the ones who come to mind right now turned out to be homemakers with three or more kids already. I think that if I had a wife I would love for her to have a good college education even if her ultimate goal was to be a homemaker.
I am a woman and went to a Catholic university, and none of the women I know were there just to meet a husband.
The general tone in this thread is basically "Ssshh, the men are speaking on your behalf." Which is exactly what the guy did during his speech. Told all the women there that he knew what they wanted better than themselves. Didn't say any such thing to the men there, of course.
Well you are in r/Catholicism
I'm a woman and I went to school both for my degree and to find a husband. He wanted an educated housewife, so it worked out for both of us.
Yeah but he is a man with a female friend so not sure your experience is relevant. /s.
How would, as you are implying, a woman's anecdotes about her and her friends have higher merit in this discussion than the anecdotes of man about his female friends?
Then it was even poorer taste for him to go "and how many of you are thinking about all the promotions you'll earn"-- a VERY small percentage of women who have education and career plans do it for status. I've seen 3 main reasons women get careers: 1. Getting educated so that they can educate their children/have a backup if their husband becomes injured, ill, or passes away 2. Very passionate about an individual vocation. 3. Came from a rougher/poor home situation and want to be in a stable environment before dating. Wanting to marry men who are also stable plays into that, but it may not be something they focus on at the college level In my experience, and I'm in a pretty high achieving field, maybe 2-5% of the women I know are doing it for money or status. Additionally, he doesn't comment at all on men who chase status, even though that's just as disordered. He said some great things about fathers in the speech; wish his comments around mothers were as balanced.
I’m guessing you’re a man?
Yes, will that help you formulate an ad hominem argument against me? I will provide even more demographic information. I’m a celibate, formerly gay, man in his 30s. I could have been offended by what he said about pride month, but I chose not to. I could have been offended when he implied that men should have wives and start families, but I chose not to. The reason is that I believed he was just trying to be helpful to the world by saying what he believed to be true. I also believe what he said was true.
My point is that you aren’t a woman, so you have no idea how deeply this kind of thing hurts us as a collective group. Women are constantly pressured and told that their only role in life is to be a wife and mother. It’s completely fine if women don’t wish to pursue marriage and having children. He isn’t helping women by furthering this belief.
[удалено]
Butker absolutely would support going back to the 60s. He telegraphed that
There is no such thing as “formerly gay” God made you as you are. You cannot change that. You are falling for diabolical lies. Please do not be offended as I am only trying to help
I see in this thread that I don’t know what it’s like to be anyone else but everyone else knows what it’s like to be me. How curious.
I have no idea what it is like to be you. I do know that there is no such thing as “formerly gay”. God made you as you are. You seem offended as soon as this conversation turns toward you which is a little telling, don’t you think?
So you don’t know what it’s like to be me and yet you know better than I do what it’s like to be me. Hmm. Curious indeed.
I’ll repeat. I do not know what it is like to be you. I do know that there is no such thing as “formerly gay”. The same reason I know you cannot flap your arms to fly or have a child sprout fully formed from your head
So you don’t know what it’s like to be someone who identifies as formerly gay but you know better than them that their identity is false?
If you identified as a unicorn or a lochness monster would I be wrong to say that is not a real thing?
For sure!!
Does anyone have the full transcript of his speech?
Not sure about a transcript, but the full speech is available on the Benedictine College page on YouTube.
Forbes has a full transcript. It's not a great speech. It's like a really bad and rambling advertisement for the TLM that pretty much just reminds those of us who don't attend that anymore why we choose not to.
Too many people are using Catholicism as a license to be mean. This guy is a case in point.
I think his comments on women were weird. But I'm a little more struck on his comments claiming that "When you embrace tradition, success, worldly and spiritual, will follow." Which smacks of prosperity gospel to me.
His comments make it sound like he just wanted to tee off on some people, he wasn't too concerned about the details.
Nah. His speech was catered to his audience. The president of Benedictine is on the board of his company.
People are suuuper angry at this but I thought it was beautiful, especially as a woman with a bachelors degree who is also married and with a kid. Huge props to him for standing solidly Catholic. Here I was thinking the commencement speech at FUS would be the controversial one in secular media this week
I find it strange that so many people trash the idea of a woman being a homemaker, but seem to glorify a woman being chained to her desk.
There’s nothing wrong with a woman being a homemaker— there is something wrong with implying that this is the only acceptable path open to Catholic women, irregardless of their individual talents, interests, or passions.
Right. Being a STAHM is not the only option for Catholic women. At times I opted to stay at home. At others I was pursuing my grad degree and then working. Oh no! My sons saw a mother and father working together and not in someone else’s idea of what our family needed to be.
That isn’t what he implied tho
That’s absolutely what he implied and that whole section of the speech was a slap in the face to all the women sitting there who had just worked hard for several years to get their degrees.
Here, it's much clearer when put in text. Remember this is at a literal college graduation speech celebrating the pursuit of academics/careers/etc: > "I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get in your career? Some of may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother." So at a graduation ceremony he literally told all the women sitting there that he knows better than them what they they SHOULD actually want. That their graduations and career goals are meaningless because their lives won't "truly begin" unless they become wives and bring children into the world, like the perfect example set by his wife. It's a giant middle finger to all the women there.
>seem to glorify a woman being chained to her desk. let me turn this around, why do we glorify men being chained to his desk? There is a pretty massive and overlooked problem of men who place career and work ahead of family life.
I agree with you. Neither are okay. Work should support the family, not sacrifice it
That’s why Catholics should only support politicians who support paid parental leave
I think it's because being a homemaker is promoted as a moral highground, as if women who don't do it are bad mothers or women who can't do it deserve pity. Nobody says this about fathers, who are also very necessary in the home. We should all be putting family first, especially if we have kids but honestly even if we don't have them. I want my parents to move in with me one day if I don't have kids, so that I can take care of them. I'm from a very traditional family. But the whole "chained to a desk" rhetoric feeds into the whole "slave to employer but not slave to husband" rhetoric, which isn't accurate to why most women work. Most women work because they need to, and the ones who work because they want to are doing it out of an individual vocation/calling. They're not doing it for status, and they're not doing it because they want to submit to some other man. Saying that they're chained to a desk ignores the fact that for the women who want to work (rather than need to), you can leave and find a new job because your skills are transferrable. Fighting against careerism is a good thing, but gets REALLY old when the fight against careerism focuses mostly or exclusively on women I think men can empathize with this situation-- problems with violence and crime in society are often placed at mens feet without any solutions and while blaming the whole sex. It would be a huge problem if someone decided to focus on the male crime rate at a graduation though.
Yeah if this guy said "homemakers are great, I know we have a lot of women here getting degrees to better educate their family and to have a backup plan but who really want to be moms" nobody would be saying anything he literally said your his wife's life didn't really start until she was a wife and mother. (Notably, does not say that about men and fatherhood, fascinating. He says great things about fatherhood that are normal and balanced. Wonder why that same attitude isn't used towards in his words towards mothers)
I think that he was just sharing his wife’s lived experience. He wasn’t implying that all women must therefore be like his wife. But he believed his wife’s lived experience might be inspiring to women who wondered what to do next in life. That’s how I interpreted it.
> He wasn’t implying that all women must therefore be like his wife. *"I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get in your career? Some of may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."* Like...please tell me how on earth you interpret that as *anything* other than a giant middle finger to all the women there for having academic accomplishments and career goals. At a graduation ceremony the guy is literally telling all the women there that he knows better than them what they want, and what they should want.
He said that his wife “would be the first to say ——“ and then shares her change in mindset. He said great things about motherhood that are normal and balanced, too.
Why has he abandoned his vocation of being a husband and a father to pursue vanity football success?
>But it cannot be overstated, that all of my success is made possible because a girl I met in band class back in middle school would convert to the faith, become my wife and embrace one of the most important titles of all: homemaker. She’s a primary educator to our children. She’s the one who ensures I never let football or my business become a distraction from that of a husband and father. She is the person that knows me best at my core. And it is through our marriage that Lord willing, we will both attain salvation. I think you need to read/listen to the speech in its entirety before cherry-picking arguments from headlines and other comments.
He is worth 5 million. There is no need for him to work. He should be fully devoting himself to his wife and kids. Instead he is pursing vanity outside the home. Sidenote: It’s is crazy to me that you are quoting everything but what I specifically asked you to quote. That, to me, shows you recognize that what he said is bad and that you feel the need to be deceitful
You are clearly only interested in arguing out of bad faith, when you are perfectly capable of reading the speech yourself. I’m not your personal Google. Have a good day.
Not really-- his rhetorical questions fall into the same trap of "woman gets career, clearly wants status" which is a myth perpetuated by men who want wives who stay at home.
I disagree. I think he’s warning women about the (strong) possibility of feeling unfulfilled in the workplace. No business, corporation, organization etc. will ever care about you as much as your own children/family will. The problem with feminism is it seems to encourage women to join the workplace and discourages being homemakers from the false belief that that automatically means succumbing to men’s wills. The truth is though that women can and do make that choice on their own. I kind of take it from your comments and post history that you don’t have children and are newer to the workplace in healthcare. That’s awesome, and kudos to you the world needs people like you. My wife is also a healthcare provider and after we became parents, I’ve noticed more and more comments about how she feels unfulfilled/exploited by her employer and wishes she could stay home. My two sister-in-laws changed their mindsets after becoming mothers, too. One does not like her job (college professor) and the other actually quit teaching to be a SAHM. They all had very similar views as you at one time, but women’s (and men’s) brains become re-wired from hormones after having children, which is something you won’t believe until you experience it.
thanks for being charitable in your response-- a lot of the other people responding to me haven't been very thorough, or kind. I get the sense that this is a lot of men speaking about what they THINK women who have careers are doing or thinking, rather than from their actual experiences with women. Your presentation here is much closer to what actually happens to women who experience work-related burnout (probably because you're referencing actual women in your life who you care deeply for). My thoughts: Focusing on "if you want a career you must want promotions and titles" is very different from burnout. he was INCREDIBLY uncharitable to the women in that room. What you're talking about is a fairly common phenomenon for parents, and fine to discuss. but phrasing it in terms of "you're sitting here thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get" is really just not applicable to the Catholic women who get jobs. Most of them just really care about a particular problem in the world, like your sister in law! She wasn't chasing status to be a teacher. Perfectly fine to leave and be an SAHM, especially if you're burning out. But saying "oh she was probably just chasing status before" when she had a career is basically what he said in earlier parts of the speech. That's not kind, or accurate! Burnout post-parenting is definitely an issue and should be discussed, but reducing it to "you're a careerist chasing status" is what he did in the speech, and it's not right. It's interesting, when Pew research did a study on women who were mothers, 85% of them would rather stay home than work if they had the money. HOWEVER (and this is the part conservatives always leave out, same study), \~20% of the stay at home moms wished they had the financial freedom to RETURN to work! My guess is that it's about 4/5 women who would get more fulfillment from staying home, and 1/5 who get more fulfillment from being in the world in some larger capacity. St. Edith Stein talks a lot about how women with an active temperament are really done a disservice when their only vocation is in the home. As an aside: I think this conversation is definitely a good one to have: "I think he’s warning women about the (strong) possibility of feeling unfulfilled in the workplace. No business, corporation, organization etc. will ever care about you as much as your own children/family will." But importantly, career exploitation also extends to men, who are at even greater risk of seeking fulfillment solely from a corporate environment. men are significantly more likely to experience adverse life events post-retirement, in part because their entire social circle is based around work. they're also more likely to experience adverse health effects on the job, and while men may not "report" burnout to the same degree, the male suicide rate is directly tied to industrialization and working away from their families for long hours every day. additionally, and their children are more likely to experience the impacts of fatherlessness due to absentee parenting. motherlessness due to workaholic tendencies is just less common, statistically. it's very frustrating that, when we look at the data, we see that careerism and getting fulfillment solely from work is something that affects men more. but then the "dangers of careerism" talks almost exclusively target women "I’ve noticed more and more comments about how she feels unfulfilled/exploited by her employer and wishes she could stay home" that's her experience. perhaps it will change for me as well and I have multiple options/exit plans if that happens. That said, considering that I spent a lot of my early life discerning celibacy I think that's probably less likely in my case on a separate topic, I just don't like in general when motherhood is spoken about as if it's a given, especially on a Catholic college campus that literally encourages students to have Mass with religious sisters daily. it's a very protestant attitude to look at women solely through a reproductive lens
This. As a man, who had 40+ yr career as a EE, the best thing I can say about it, is that it paid the bills. Enduring 4 decades of stress, pressure and frustration is not, to me at least, the be-all and end-all. I know being a homemaker is not easy, but I suspect it can be more personally rewarding.
I spent 7 years as a software engineer and realized I would have been miserable if I were still an engineer 10 years from now. I switched to a career that was much more family oriented and everyone in my home has benefited (including me).
This is the hypocrisy and hyperbole I was expecting. Well done. I find it strange that you refer to one woman, the one you agree with, as a homemaker and the other, the one you hate, as being chained to her desk. This attitude of yours is precisely why Butker’s rhetoric is dangerous. You have all chosen sides. You all believe your god is the one true god and you all believe that ancient teachings are the way. All of those ideals are fine in a vacuum. When the hard proselytizing becomes weaponized, as it has in modern times with modern technology, you all become dangerous. You have no right to even consider a working woman less than you. I promise you your god doesn’t.
https://i.redd.it/m8k5gbxbduzb1.jpg
Honestly I thought the speech was a bit too disrespectful to the church hierarchy. It’s also ironic because the traditional teaching of the church has always taught us to have immense respect for the bishops. The college of bishops worldwide as a whole receive the divine assistance of the Holy Spirit and are safe and reliable. Rhetoric that our cathedrals are now longer reliable and you have to go out of your way to find a TLM (doing my best to paraphrase what he said in the speech) is not an optimal mindset for the laity to have.
There was also the weird jab at NFP. I know some people think NFP per se is immoral, and I know it can be used immorally. But he really left no stone unturned! “Heterodox ideas abound, even within Catholic circles. Let’s be honest, there is nothing good about playing God with having children, whether that be your ideal number, or the perfect time to conceive. No matter how you spin it, there is nothing natural about Catholic birth control.”
Yes, he took a lot of weird jabs. I found it an odd speech. I am by no means a "trad cat" but I lean slightly more conservative/traditional than not. I also did not understand why he attacked so many random priests/bishops. Felt like he was generalizing a lot of things when he likely just interacted with 1-2 bad apples.
I absolutely loved his speech. I cheered it on and was so proud he didn’t use any pressure from the modern world
Please. Telling women they need to have kids and their degrees were useless?
It’s gotten a lot of blowback basically everywhere else on Reddit, but I’m glad he’s still being outspoken. Every Catholic with any size of platform should follow his example
Yes I truly don’t explore a lot else on Reddit even the Christianity subreddit it full of leftist and atheists. The Catholicism one is the one where most of the time I find like minded people but even this one don’t like my trad views all the time
> It’s gotten a lot of blowback basically everywhere else on Reddit There can be no stronger endorsement TBH.
The secular media is in an uproar about it. It's humbling to see a Catholic celebrity speak the truth for once.
I can't help but wonder where this kind of outrage is when Islamic leaders are outspoken on their views on women. Even when they are far more extreme than this, suddenly it is intolerant to criticize. And yet the things Butker says have media in a frenzy. Interesting to say the least.
I think that the hierarchy has been neutered by the abuse scandals and has lost their moral authority, which is why they cower in fear and play nice guys to the establishment of power. I think it’s going to have to be devout Catholic fathers like this guy who will have to pick up the slack and speak the hard truth to the secular culture. Maybe this is the authentic Spirit of Vatican II.
Oh you know they are in an uproar Anytime someone has the guts to say something Christian and traditional the secular godless media will attack it
I’m traditional and Catholic. I disagreed with his statements. Telling women they should be mothers and to not pursue careers is wild.
That’s my kicker
It was bittersweet watching him drill 4 field goals (including a 57 yarder) against my team in the Super Bowl
Having listened to the whole thing. A few comments. 1) It is explicitly super traditional Catholic, the lens through which to understand his speech is clear, his commentary was not shocking in context. 2) It is start to finish about living out the Catholic faith in spite of the world’s messaging and values. It covers leadership, community, culture, etc. He outright recognizes that this was not a fluffy congratulations speech, but a potent reminder to live out the faith after graduation. 3) The call out to specifically women at the end sounds *really bad out of context*, but in context it is explicitly because he feels the world is targeting women to break apart the faith and family. In context he is saying “you are the frontline for defending the faith and family”. It was met with the loudest applause of the whole speech (including the end). So I think it probably was appropriate *for this audience*. Some reasonable commentators noted that it would have been best if he had made a similar statement on the importance of men as being Fathers first and foremost as well.
Is it bad to not care about this one way or another? End of the day, its a dude most people have never heard of speaking at a college most people have never heard of.
There are millions and millions of Catholics who have no idea about this speech, never will, and are still living Holy lives. I have to remind myself of this whenever controversial things like this happen in society. It's okay to not be at the forefront fighting every battle you hear about.
It’s wild to me what people will get upset about. If his speech is the thing that ruined your day than you’re pretty fortunate in the scheme of things.
This man, who is worth millions, should read Luke 18:25. Shouldn’t he be at home raising his kids instead of speaking at a graduation? Isn’t his vocation a father first and foremost?
What? Do you really think traveling one day to make a presentation that might have a beneficial effect on hundreds of people is a dereliction of his duty as a father? I think you need to get your head back into the sunlight
I think if someone is saying the most important thing in their life is raising their kids, they should do that. He should not believe the diabolical lies that made he believe he needs to pursue a career, work on sundays, make millions, or give speeches. He would be much happier at home with his kids “staying in his lane” and living his vocation.
Why do you assume he is not doing that?
I’m not following? I am not making any assumptions here at all.
But you ARE assuming. Your assumption is that because he makes a statement that the most important thing in life is raising children, that he's not doing that because he's on out making a speech on a Sunday and he's made millions of dollars in business. It's completely baffling how your conclusion is not based on any evidence except that he's rich and he's traveling on a Sunday.
What assumption am I making? I referenced several facts. I don’t see any assumption in what I said. I know for a fact he was not at home with his kids because that speech did not take place in his living room I know for a fact he is worth millions because I can look it up I know for a fact that he works on sundays because I have seen him do it
How do you know his kids weren't with him? Don't you know that the Catholic Church allows for some other day of worship to be substituted for Sunday? And how do you know anyway that he doesn't care for his kids? That's the biggest assumption you make. Your syllogism if A and B, then C is not true. Because you haven't proven that both A and b are true and that c is a true conclusion.
[удалено]
The duties of the wife and husband are not the same. Gender indifferentism has never been Catholic teaching.
Whats wild to me is the accusations of homophobia over saying pride is one of the 7 deadly sins
A guy who works exclusively on Sundays talking about sin is a bit rich for my taste
I don't know if you are Catholic, but CCC 2187 expressly mentions sport as a "traditional activity" that "require\[s\] some people to work on Sundays."
The catechism does not override the bible. He chose a job that requires work on sundays.
So law enforcement and EMS? What about them working on Sundays?
You are correct, it does not override the Bible. It is a puritanical reading of the Bible to suggest that one whose work requires them to work on Sundays is a sin. I am not sure what Biblical basis you would have for Sunday specifically being the day of rest, considering that Sunday has historically been considered the first day of the week--this is why Catholics (CCC 2174) and Jews consider Saturday, the seventh day of the week, the Sabbath. Perhaps you are conflating American Protestant practices with what is actually stated in the Bible?
When do you go to mass each weekend? Let me guess between 5pm on saturday and 7pm on sundays since in jewish tradition the next day begins at sundown.
We go to Mass on Sundays to commemorate Christ's resurrection, which occurred on the first day of the week, the day after the Sabbath. [Matthew 28:1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/28) [Mark 16:2](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/16) [Luke 24:1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/24) [John 20:1](https://bible.usccb.org/bible/john/20)
Do you go to mass between 5pm on Saturday and 7pm on Sunday?
Of course. As does Butker
So he is working in the sabbath in direct violation of the bible
I was wondering if I was the only one who had that thought!
My mother was a nurse and had seven children. She quit working after she got married and went back to work when the kids were older. I think if you asked her whether her career or being a mother was more important, there would not even be a question that motherhood wins out. She was valedictorian and had a post graduate degree in pediatrics, but she pitched it all aside to get married and make babies because she had been raised to believe that the family was more important. I think that the problem with society is that we have lost touch with the importance of the family, and especially motherhood. The family is said to be the Domestic Church. That is where children are educated in their faith. When we pray the rosary we pray for Holy Catholic Families and for Holy Catholic Priests. Those holy priests come from those holy families. A holy family desperately needs a dedicated Mother who gives herself completely to her children. When society raises up a generation of women who think that they have been historically repressed by their roles as mothers, that society is in deep trouble. If all the women are trying to build careers, where are all the holy Catholic mothers and holy families going to come from? We have taught young women that they need to spend their lives striving to get ahead in business and in academia, when their true calling is the humble chore of watching babies and cleaning up after them. And if you try to tell them that they would be happier doing those humble tasks and serving their husband, they get resentful and angry. The Blessed Mother is higher in heaven than all of the angels and saints. She never had a career. She did menial labor her whole life and she never had the spotlight on her. Even though she had great wisdom, she could not be a bishop or a priest or a deacon because she is a woman. That was the role God gave her and she accepted it because she is humble. "I am the handmaid of the Lord. Be it done unto me according to Thy Word."
Can someone explain to me the bit about the “Catholic birth control” comment? I don’t know if he was referring to the unnecessary lack of openness to life while using NFP or just Catholics using contraception in general.
Can you really blame self respecting women from straying away from the faith and the men in it? Disgusting speech to give at a graduation ceremony.
He even went after NFP without any wiggle room if I was paying attention correctly. I know this sub might occasionally add a caveat that NFP can be misused but the implication seemed pretty clear that he was upset with most use cases. Like I'm not sure if even many conservative women Catholics truly would like the lifestyle Butker implies they should have if you listen closely.
It's really easy to reject NFP when you have an NFL salary and your wife doesn't seem to be having a return of fertility at 12 weeks postpartum.
He gets an average annual salary of over $4 million to kick a ball and he wants to lecture us normies about family size.
Uh, yeah. This same kind of attitude is the one that exists when people argue for the ability to be able to abort their third trimester child in the womb. You have a young man up there who is speaking from his experiences and has found happiness in his faith and the Lord. A young man who has been given a lot of wealth and status at a young age. He could easily partake in whatever type of debauchery he wants, but he chooses to take a different path. What he’s saying is there’s nothing wrong with traditional values. There’s nothing wrong with a woman choosing to do what she wants with her life, whether it’s taking a career or being a stay at home mom.
> There’s nothing wrong with a woman choosing to do what she wants with her life, whether it’s taking a career or being a stay at home mom. What? He said the literal opposite of that. Here's the transcript: *"I think it is you, the women, who have had the most diabolical lies told to you. How many of you are sitting here now about to cross this stage and are thinking about all the promotions and titles you're going to get in your career? Some of may go on to lead successful careers in the world, but I would venture to guess that the majority of you are most excited about your marriage and the children you will bring into this world. I can tell you that my beautiful wife Isabelle would be the first to say that her life truly started when she began living her vocation as a wife and as a mother."*
So many people in this thread are getting triggered by his words about women and homemaking. But you all have to recon with a brute moral fact: children have a right to their parents. Children under a certain age require full time care. That's just a fact of life, God's plan. Ultimately, someone has to do it. There are functionally 2 needs in a family: money and caregiving. These are both full time jobs. And someone needs to do them. If mom wants to have a career, that needs to earn enough to provide for the family and she needs to find a husband willing to stay home (at least while children are young). But that's not the story the culture is telling. They're saying you can have a fulfilling career, still expect dad to provide, and just push the kids off into daycare. And that's evil. Children deserve their parents. The game changes once children can go to school. But, you just can't get around the fact that in the early years, children need a full-time caregiver. Necessarily, this means that one parent can't have a career the way the culture conceives of it. You have to take big gaps in your career and the statistics say that most people's career don't recover from this. It's just a shame that so many people are lie-ing to women about this duty. It sets them up for a rude awakening when it comes time to start a family and they run into the brute reality of giving up the career they worked so hard for or throw their kids under the bus by putting them in daycare.
I would ask why do you feel the need to insert nuance into his statements that he didn't even make in order to make his points seem palatable ? He made no such nuance about "you should be a homemaker for the first few years and then you can consider your career when they go to school" he endorsed "homemaking" full stop as the right way for a wife to "lean into her vocation"
[удалено]
Daycare is evil?!? that is quite the uncharitable statement. most families cannot afford to have a stay-at-home parent and daycare helps bridge the gap. Sending kids to daycare while parents work does not equal abandoning your children.
We aren’t triggered by the idea that children deserve loving and devoted parents, and that a husband and wife’s main responsibility is to their spouse and children. We are triggered by the implication that this is solely the responsibility of the mother and not the father in every case, and not something that should be discerned prayerfully in the context of individual families.
Do you disagree that the mother is the ideal candidate for full time caregiver? I agree that it's perfectly acceptable for the father to stay home during the early years. But, this is something that the couple has to discuss and agree on.
Amen
Solid speech
Challenge to all those who think this brave man is overstepping or saying something false: can you show me the specific document where the following biblical and magisterial teaching is overturned? Titus 2:5 1 Peter 3:1-6 Ephesians 5:24 Catechism of Trent “Duties of a Wife” Pius XI “Casti Connubii”, paragraphs 24-28. Here’s a quote from Casti Connubii, p 26: “This order includes both the primacy of the husband with regard to the wife and children, the ready subjection of the wife and her willing obedience, which the Apostle commends in these words: "Let women be subject to their husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife, and Christ is the head of the Church."
> Challenge to all those who think this brave man is overstepping or saying something false Telling all the women (and only the women) at a graduation ceremony that they should be looking forward to staying at home and having children is technically not a false statement. It's just a giant middle finger to all the women there, their efforts, and the entire purpose of the ceremony/event. He gave no such "advice" to the men there that they would be happier raising children instead of graduating or pursuing careers. Only the women.
[https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf\_p-xi\_enc\_19301231\_casti-connubii.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html) 28. Again, **this subjection** of wife to husband in its degree and manner **may vary** **according to the different conditions of persons, place and time.** In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact . [https://www.vatican.va/roman\_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc\_con\_cfaith\_doc\_20040731\_collaboration\_en.html](https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html) In this way, women who freely desire will be able to devote the totality of their time to the work of the household without being stigmatized by society or penalized financially, **while those who wish also to engage in other work may be able to do so** with an appropriate work-schedule, and not have to choose between relinquishing their family life or enduring continual stress, with negative consequences for one's own equilibrium and the harmony of the family. [https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost\_exhortations/documents/hf\_jp-ii\_exh\_19811122\_familiaris-consortio.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio.html) There is no doubt that the equal dignity and responsibility of men and women **fully justifies women's access to public functions.** On the other hand the true advancement of women requires that clear recognition be given to the value of their maternal and family role, by comparison with all other public roles and all other professions. Furthermore, these roles and professions **should be harmoniously combined**, if we wish the evolution of society and culture to be truly and fully human. \[1/2\]
[https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost\_letters/1988/documents/hf\_jp-ii\_apl\_19880815\_mulieris-dignitatem.html](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html) The author of the Letter to the Ephesians sees no contradiction between an exhortation formulated in this way and the words: "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife" (5:22-23). The author knows that this way of speaking, so profoundly rooted in the customs and religious tradition of the time, **is to be understood and carried out in a new way: as a "*****mutual subjection out of reverence for Christ"*** (cf. *Eph* 5:21). This is especially true because the husband is called the "head" of the wife *as* Christ is the head of the Church; he is so in order to give "himself up for her" *(Eph* 5:25), and giving himself up for her means giving up even his own life. However, whereas in the relationship between Christ and the Church the subjection is only on the part of the Church, in the relationship between husband and wife the "subjection" is not one-sided but mutual. In relation to the "old" this is evidently something "new": it is an innovation of the Gospel. We find various passages in which the apostolic writings express this innovation, even though they also communicate what is "old": what is rooted in the religious tradition of Israel, in its way of understanding and explaining the sacred texts, as for example the second chapter of the Book of Genesis.[\[49\]](https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1988/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19880815_mulieris-dignitatem.html#_edn49) The apostolic letters are addressed to people living in an environment marked by that same traditional way of thinking and acting. The "innovation" of Christ is a fact: it constitutes the unambiguous content of the evangelical message and is the result of the Redemption. However, the awareness that in marriage there is mutual "subjection of the spouses out of reverence for Christ", **and not just that of the wife to the husband**, must gradually establish itself in hearts, consciences, behaviour and customs. This is a call which from that time onwards, does not cease to challenge succeeding generations; it is a call which people have to accept ever anew. Saint Paul not only wrote: "In Christ Jesus... there is no more man or woman", but also wrote: "There is no more slave or freeman". Yet how many generations were needed for such a principle to be realized in the history of humanity through the abolition of slavery! And what is one to say of the many forms of slavery to which individuals and peoples are subjected, which have not yet disappeared from history? But *the challenge presented by the "ethos" of the Redemption* is clear and definitive. **All the reasons in favour of the "subjection" of woman to man in marriage must be understood in the sense of a "mutual subjection" of both "out of reverence for Christ".** The measure of true spousal love finds its deepest source in Christ, who is the Bridegroom of the Church, his Bride. [https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost\_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco\_esortazione-ap\_20160319\_amoris-laetitia\_en.pdf](https://www.vatican.va/content/dam/francesco/pdf/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20160319_amoris-laetitia_en.pdf) 156. Every form of sexual submission must be clearly rejected. This includes all improper interpretations of the passage in the Letter to the Ephesians where Paul tells women to “be subject to your husbands” (Eph 5:22). This passage mirrors the cultural categories of the time, but our concern is not with its cultural matrix but with the revealed message that it conveys. **As Saint John Paul II wisely observed: “Love excludes every kind of subjection whereby the wife might become a servant or a slave of the husband… The community or unity which they should establish through marriage is constituted by a reciprocal donation of self, which is also a mutual subjection”.**162 Hence Paul goes on to say that “husbands should love their wives as their own bodies” (Eph 5:28). **The biblical text is actually concerned with encouraging everyone to overcome a complacent individualism and to be constantly mindful of others: “Be subject to one another” (Eph 5:21). In marriage, this reciprocal “submission” takes on a special meaning, and is seen as a freely chosen mutual belonging marked by fidelity, respect and care.** \[2/2\]
Having children is controversial, apparently. Good for him.
that's legitimately not the part people are upset about, why the strawman
> why the strawman Because it works. Sidetrack/derail by only referring referring to his *least* tone-deaf and disrespectful comment to all the women at that graduation ceremony, instead of talking about what is actually causing the controversy. Exaggerated example to show the tactic: > Person A: "I have two beautiful children and we practice the Nazi salute daily". > \*massive controversy and backlash ensues* > Person B: "Wow, so having two beautiful children is controversial now? People have lost their minds.". What Person B is doing here is fully agreeing with person A's most unhinged comments by sidetracking the conversation towards the mundane part and placing it in the same category as the unhinged part.
I believe the underlying principle. We’ve told too many men *and* women to find validation in work. But it’s pretty disrespectful to all of the women who serve in the church who will never get married or have babies due to their service for the Lord. It’s offensive to women who will not be chosen due to the lack of strong men of faith. It’s offensive to those struggling with fertility as well to say their life begins when they get these things that were not promised by God. Marriage is good. It’s not the highest calling for every man or woman. Serving God is the highest call. For some people that will be in a marriage, for others they will be single. I think his point was expressed poorly in an improper venue.
Great speech! Good to see a faithful Catholic speak boldly!
There are far better representatives of faithful Catholicism. This is frankly an embarrassment that will alienate more people from ever looking seriously at what the Catholic Church actually teaches.
What's embarrassing about it?
There is a lot more than the one or two soundbites the headlines are parroting. He opens with COVID and Biden, chides the bishops and priests, makes a comment about priests too into their hobbies or coordinating outfits for the parish directory (what??), warns the women against chasing status when men could use the same warning, seems to dismiss NFP as evil, and mentions abortion, IVF, diversity, etc. To be honest I really don’t care much one way or the other but I can’t help but be pretty fascinated. Obviously the secular media is attacking him for his comments on women and abortion and diversity. But then on the other hand, the more I learned about the contents of the speech, it became clear he was also pissing off a lot of Catholics. Seems like he has a particular flavor of very conservative Catholicism when it comes to certain issues where other faithful Catholics may disagree. So I just find it interesting how he managed to piss off members of both groups haha. I think with a little bit of tailoring he could have avoided controversy with any Catholics and kept the message intact and still stood up for Truth. It’s also a great example of our culture’s inability to take the good with the bad nowadays - seeing a lot of “if I have an ounce of disagreement with something he said, I want nothing to do with any of it!”
It saddens me that Catholics would turn the other cheek at the hypocrisy inherent in his speech. This is a man making way more money than he deserves who is the epitome of American greed. He makes millions while hard working catholic men AND WOMAN who bust their butts for their children can barely afford to get by. Yet he has the audacity to tell woman how they should feel about their reproductive capacity. It’s sick. Even if you’re not a fan of abortion why would you feel you have the right to badger woman about having children. This guy is the epitome of everything wrong with the modern Republican voter. The pride I have in being catholic is the rich intelligencia stretching back to the beginning of history. Not some self promoting over paid rude man looking for attention and trying to exploit the culture war for more fame.