You have sparked quite the fun conversation! First, I will be writing an expansion on my sister's analogy for next week's article. Second, I think the labeling of ideas is required because it is how we use words to talk about things while the labeling of people always needs to be done VERY cautiously because it can include or stray into the judgment of the heart which only God knows. Third, my sister is using "radical traditionalist" to draw a box around the idea of excluding what the Church allows. If an individual does that, then they are including themselves in that group. However, if you share other things like preference for the TLM or veiling or reception on the tongue that many self-professed or objectively fit the definition above also appreciate but don't participate in the excluding what the Church allows, then the individual is not being described by that term. So, my sister and I try to keep ourselves outside the label, as she used it in this article, while remaining very sympathetic to many of the other good things those who would fall under that label hold fast to.
I hope this makes sense, and I left a comment on your article as well.
Thanks for the comment S.D. Wright and for the link to your work.
First, I did not label anyone a Rad Trad, rather I referred to a movement. I have heard this term used most often by influencers that are self-identifying in this way. I did not disparage this movement. I actually tend to agree with much they advocate for. What I did point out in this article though is the line we ought not to cross, forbidding that which the Church has deemed acceptable.
You speak of dangerous language and I agree this is a problem. Some individuals that identity with the movement mentioned above have caused great harm in discussions regarding Natural Family Planning. Let's dive into their logic for a moment. When someone says that NFP is as sinful as contraception, they do not understand the Church's teaching on this matter and God's will for our sexuality. They try to use the following logic pattern: it was God's will that we have this child because this child exists therefore if we would have abstained we would have been sinning. We agree that every child that exists does so because it was God's will. However, this logic is flawed and here's why, let's apply it to this scenario: a woman is raped and conceives a child, therefore it was God's will for this women to be raped. That's absolutely absurd. God did will for that child to exist but not the evil circumstances by which it occurred. When a couple chooses to abstain they are not sinning by denying God an opportunity. There are not children that do not exist because a couple abstained. God's will and how it interacts with our free will is a mystery. When we try to be holier than the Church, we are not faithful Catholics.
You mentioned in your work that the use of the term Rad Trad is insulting yet in your conclusion you say, "Those who use this term to further their online "apostolates" and stir up controversy are bad people." I would argue, that statement isn't very charitable or just.
I am sure some have used the term as an insult. To be an insult, one must be insulted. Jesus tells us in John 15:18 "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first." I look forward to our continued dialogue. These are important conversations.
Appreciate your articles, but you might want to think about what this term "rad trad" is implying and about whom—and whether it is itself charitable or even just.
S.D.,
You have sparked quite the fun conversation! First, I will be writing an expansion on my sister's analogy for next week's article. Second, I think the labeling of ideas is required because it is how we use words to talk about things while the labeling of people always needs to be done VERY cautiously because it can include or stray into the judgment of the heart which only God knows. Third, my sister is using "radical traditionalist" to draw a box around the idea of excluding what the Church allows. If an individual does that, then they are including themselves in that group. However, if you share other things like preference for the TLM or veiling or reception on the tongue that many self-professed or objectively fit the definition above also appreciate but don't participate in the excluding what the Church allows, then the individual is not being described by that term. So, my sister and I try to keep ourselves outside the label, as she used it in this article, while remaining very sympathetic to many of the other good things those who would fall under that label hold fast to.
I hope this makes sense, and I left a comment on your article as well.
God Bless!
Thanks for the comment S.D. Wright and for the link to your work.
First, I did not label anyone a Rad Trad, rather I referred to a movement. I have heard this term used most often by influencers that are self-identifying in this way. I did not disparage this movement. I actually tend to agree with much they advocate for. What I did point out in this article though is the line we ought not to cross, forbidding that which the Church has deemed acceptable.
You speak of dangerous language and I agree this is a problem. Some individuals that identity with the movement mentioned above have caused great harm in discussions regarding Natural Family Planning. Let's dive into their logic for a moment. When someone says that NFP is as sinful as contraception, they do not understand the Church's teaching on this matter and God's will for our sexuality. They try to use the following logic pattern: it was God's will that we have this child because this child exists therefore if we would have abstained we would have been sinning. We agree that every child that exists does so because it was God's will. However, this logic is flawed and here's why, let's apply it to this scenario: a woman is raped and conceives a child, therefore it was God's will for this women to be raped. That's absolutely absurd. God did will for that child to exist but not the evil circumstances by which it occurred. When a couple chooses to abstain they are not sinning by denying God an opportunity. There are not children that do not exist because a couple abstained. God's will and how it interacts with our free will is a mystery. When we try to be holier than the Church, we are not faithful Catholics.
You mentioned in your work that the use of the term Rad Trad is insulting yet in your conclusion you say, "Those who use this term to further their online "apostolates" and stir up controversy are bad people." I would argue, that statement isn't very charitable or just.
I am sure some have used the term as an insult. To be an insult, one must be insulted. Jesus tells us in John 15:18 "If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first." I look forward to our continued dialogue. These are important conversations.
May you have a blessed day!
Hi Megan,
Appreciate your articles, but you might want to think about what this term "rad trad" is implying and about whom—and whether it is itself charitable or even just.
See below:
https://www.wmreview.org/p/radical-traditionalists