C
Chortle
Guest
Paul taught in I Timothy 2:9-16 that we shouldn’t allow a woman to teach or be given a position of authority over men. Does this teaching still have relevance for today’s world?
- Status
M
mosher
Guest
Yes. While it is not a popular thing to say these days but there is a problem with the idea that we can obscure gender roles and have a healthy society. The establishment of the gender roles is a direct response for the fall. God establishes this hierarchy for a purpose and that purpose was not to punnish but rather to help persons to live again as if the fall had not occured.
A
Aaron_I
Guest
I agree with Mosher.
K
Karin
Guest
I guess the schools better start getting more male teachers than…because a majority of teachers in the schools are WOMAN
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
I agree also --and I’m a woman–but one must be very careful in how the Scripture is interpreted (and that is why I am grateful for the Magesterium). Obviously, women can teach. . .school, for example, even about religion (nuns were my best religion teachers). . .but a women could not “teach” a man that women should be priests (and here is where, though I praise most nuns, that nuns like Sister Joan Chittiser have crossed the line).
Obviously, women can be placed in certain positions of authority over men. In the Bible, a mother’s AUTHORITY is confirmed over her SONs, for example. Again, women can be teachers of men in a community college. A woman can be a physician and have a male physician’s assistant. . .these are all okay, especially in times and situations where for some reason there is a dearth of men and a surplus of women (think of Rosie the Riveter type women in world war 2 at the factories while the men were fighting).
BUT. . .a woman could not be placed in the type of AUTHORITY that is a spiritual priesthood, over a man.
In a perfect world, men would be wise leaders, spiritual leaders, tender fathers and husbands, respecting women, hardworking and responsible stewards of earth’s bounty, dispensing peace and justice. And women would be wise co-leaders–in the old good sense of co meaning ready to help and assist, and if necessary, due to temporary inability of the leader–to do the work until the leader could resume. They would be faithful helpmeets, loving mothers and wives, respecting men, hardworking and responsible stewards of earth’s bounty, dispensing peace and justice. And both would work in harmony with their FIRST goal to serve God, their SECOND goal to serve their spouse and family, and their THIRD, coming out of the above, to serve their neighbors–all mankind. Because every person has a different gift, some women might be called to be physicians, and their husbands might be stay-at-home dads for a while. . .provided that all the above was in place, however, and the focus was on how wife, husband and family, both in “work” and “at home”, did so to serve God and their neighbor, all would be well.
That is why it is important to put the focus on God, not on what “this woman wants”, or “society needs”. . .because then everything turns into a giant entitlement issue. If we listen to God and try to follow Him, things will work out. If we don’t, things will STILL work out ultimately, because God can take evil and bring good out of it. . .but individuals who go against God are risking their immortal souls.
Obviously, women can be placed in certain positions of authority over men. In the Bible, a mother’s AUTHORITY is confirmed over her SONs, for example. Again, women can be teachers of men in a community college. A woman can be a physician and have a male physician’s assistant. . .these are all okay, especially in times and situations where for some reason there is a dearth of men and a surplus of women (think of Rosie the Riveter type women in world war 2 at the factories while the men were fighting).
BUT. . .a woman could not be placed in the type of AUTHORITY that is a spiritual priesthood, over a man.
In a perfect world, men would be wise leaders, spiritual leaders, tender fathers and husbands, respecting women, hardworking and responsible stewards of earth’s bounty, dispensing peace and justice. And women would be wise co-leaders–in the old good sense of co meaning ready to help and assist, and if necessary, due to temporary inability of the leader–to do the work until the leader could resume. They would be faithful helpmeets, loving mothers and wives, respecting men, hardworking and responsible stewards of earth’s bounty, dispensing peace and justice. And both would work in harmony with their FIRST goal to serve God, their SECOND goal to serve their spouse and family, and their THIRD, coming out of the above, to serve their neighbors–all mankind. Because every person has a different gift, some women might be called to be physicians, and their husbands might be stay-at-home dads for a while. . .provided that all the above was in place, however, and the focus was on how wife, husband and family, both in “work” and “at home”, did so to serve God and their neighbor, all would be well.
That is why it is important to put the focus on God, not on what “this woman wants”, or “society needs”. . .because then everything turns into a giant entitlement issue. If we listen to God and try to follow Him, things will work out. If we don’t, things will STILL work out ultimately, because God can take evil and bring good out of it. . .but individuals who go against God are risking their immortal souls.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
It all still applies. Unfortunately, many people just read over it and get offended without actually considering what it means, just like many people just read over things like “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law” without actually considering what it means. When a person studies Paul’s statements on women and realized what he is saying, it is very difficult to take offense.
K
Kendy
Guest
Well, tell us what he’s saying.
Kendy
L
Lady_Cygnus
Guest
It’s obvious the Church hasn’t interpreted this as no teaching period, because there are Nun’s as school teachers in every Catholic School.
Perhaps it means that women cannot teach at a seminary, or cannot decide on Church laws (teach the faith as a whole). Would teaching at a Catholic University be ok though?
Perhaps it means that women cannot teach at a seminary, or cannot decide on Church laws (teach the faith as a whole). Would teaching at a Catholic University be ok though?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
This passage concerns a situation that was occuring at the time of St. Paul in which women were having a sexual revolution of sorts. Many women were speaking out of turn in church (at times when a man ought not to speak either), or were usurping teaching authorities which belonged to specific men. For instance, say that there was a man whom was given the position of teaching amongst a particular groupd of Christians. At the time, many women would try to teach in place of this man, often just for the sake of having a woman teach. Paul wrote this passage to Timothy in an effort to curtail the problem. His solution was more or less, ‘fine, if you can’t keep order then don’t talk at all.’
R
rwoehmke
Guest
From what I have read so far in this thread it sounds as though our Muslim friends in the Taliban have gotten it right. Maybe we should forget our English Common Law roots and opt for the Sharia. 
D
deb1
Guest
This is how it was explained to me. Respectable Greek women, those from good homes not the temple prostitutes, had much less freedom then their Roman counterparts.
Christianity was actually enpowering for these women and gave them rights that they wouldn’t have had otherwise. In some cases the women did not know how to act in organized gatherings and were speaking out of turn. So Paul corrected them. That is what he meant by being silent in church.
D
deb1
Guest
I was always taught that this was a spiritual headship or authority.
S
steveandersen
Guest
The majority of college students are woman too (in numbers exceeding their proportion of the population)I guess the schools better start getting more male teachers than…because a majority of teachers in the schools are WOMAN
Especially (if I’m correctly informed) in law, medicine, and …divinity programs.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
teaching in this context means preaching, specifically teaching in the Sunday assembly (Mass). This is still prohibited to women. It is the office of the bishop to preach, teach and sanctify, he ordains priests to carry out this mission in particular churches (parishes) and only those commissioned to do so may teach in a catechetical context. Preaching in the Sunday assembly is still reserved for the ordained–priests and deacons.
Anyone qualified may teach in a Catholic school or college with regards to secular subjects, only those men and women commissioned by the bishop may teach catechetics, theology etc. That is why even today every diocese has a procedure to form and commission catechists and those who direct them. That is also why those engaged in catechesis and teaching theology may not teach their own opinion or use that forum to push personal agendas. They teach only under the authority of the bishop.
Anyone qualified may teach in a Catholic school or college with regards to secular subjects, only those men and women commissioned by the bishop may teach catechetics, theology etc. That is why even today every diocese has a procedure to form and commission catechists and those who direct them. That is also why those engaged in catechesis and teaching theology may not teach their own opinion or use that forum to push personal agendas. They teach only under the authority of the bishop.
C
Catholic2003
Guest
For communion services, properly qualified men or women can give a reflection on the readings (if the bishop permits this).
M
mosher
Guest
John Paul II addressed this topic well in his encyclical “On the Dignity of Women,”
M
mikew262
Guest
If your interpretation is correct, then Paul’s message was to the people at the time, not presently.
T
the-3rd-parent
Guest
Tantum ergo:
A man’s leadership must be a loving one, not one ruled by man’s sin. It is only through an extent of his vice that he dominates over the woman and looks to her as a spiritual child. Her role is very distinct from that of a child’s. Simply because she holds a similarity with the children in respect that she is called to obedience does not make her the equivelent of a child.
As a teenager, I had been brainwashed very much by the feminist movement and felt that husband and wife should be looked upon as being spouses and parents…but not as distinct husband and wife and mother and father. I wanted to rule out the distinctions because I bought the chevenist’s male mantality that a role of submission was a role of a child and could never be equal to a man. But really our striving toward that equality is not really striving toward equality with man, which is something we already have, but a striving for all of humanity to have an equality of God.
In learning to embrace this perception of women, I have found that my own spirituality has flourished. It is a challenge and I mustn’t be insulted that God made men and women different to the point that their spiritualities reach their peek through not only through two distinct roads they take, but through a path that is only completed when those two paths are side by side…united as one single path while still holding its distinctions. Our complimentarity is such a key point.
Very well said! I think the temptation for women to take lead is very strong, but I honestly think that it actually hurts men. They stay at little children under the supervision of the mother and it actually hinders their spiritual growth whereas women seem seem to flurish spiritually under the authority of a good spiritual leader and as well as having the oppertunity to teach all of humanity that womanly obedience that both men and women need when they look to their relationship with God.
A man’s leadership must be a loving one, not one ruled by man’s sin. It is only through an extent of his vice that he dominates over the woman and looks to her as a spiritual child. Her role is very distinct from that of a child’s. Simply because she holds a similarity with the children in respect that she is called to obedience does not make her the equivelent of a child.
As a teenager, I had been brainwashed very much by the feminist movement and felt that husband and wife should be looked upon as being spouses and parents…but not as distinct husband and wife and mother and father. I wanted to rule out the distinctions because I bought the chevenist’s male mantality that a role of submission was a role of a child and could never be equal to a man. But really our striving toward that equality is not really striving toward equality with man, which is something we already have, but a striving for all of humanity to have an equality of God.
In learning to embrace this perception of women, I have found that my own spirituality has flourished. It is a challenge and I mustn’t be insulted that God made men and women different to the point that their spiritualities reach their peek through not only through two distinct roads they take, but through a path that is only completed when those two paths are side by side…united as one single path while still holding its distinctions. Our complimentarity is such a key point.
K
Kendy
Guest
Perhaps, I am a little dense, but I am having trouble understanding how childlike obedience benefits women but is harmful to men. I am having trouble seeing how men are somehow better suited for this role of leadership. I am having even more trouble with why gender differences (which I absolutely believe in) necessarily calls women to perpetual submission in the church and marriage without implying inferiority.
And yes, I have read John Paul II’s letter to women and his “on the Dignity of Women.”
Maybe, I am just blinded by sin, but I am still offended
.Kendy
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Men are called to submission to their wives in marriage. Men are called in marriage to love and serve their wives, even unto the point of death. What you are blinded by is the secular world’s misunderstanding of what the Church actually teaches.Perhaps, I am a little dense, but I am having trouble understanding how childlike obedience benefits women but is harmful to men. I am having trouble seeing how men are somehow better suited for this role of leadership. I am having even more trouble with why gender differences (which I absolutely believe in) necessarily calls women to perpetual submission in the church and marriage without implying inferiority.
And yes, I have read John Paul II’s letter to women and his “on the Dignity of Women.”
Maybe, I am just blinded by sin, but I am still offended
Kendy
- Status