Are women really weaker than men?

[Baelor]

LOL! And I suppose the Vatican is practicing provincialism through projection also.

The Church did not say what you did, so, no, I do not suppose that at all.

Have you ever read about the lives of the saints who thought they were in a perfectly illuminated room only to discover it was a trick of the devil (appearing as an angel of light).

Sometimes a room is just a room.

 

[Portrait]

I don’t see how the call to be workers at home and submissive to husbands means that a wife is prohibited from also working outside the home. The Proverbs 31 woman makes and sells goods (which would seem to qualify as outside work) as well as taking care of her family. Of course, family must be a much higher priority than a job. However, in the current economy, many wives MUST earn income in order for their family to survive.

Dear mini_me640,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The portrait of the virtuous woman of that elegant passage (Prov. 31) describes a woman who works diligently from within the home, that is the centre of all her operations. Her husband confides to her the management of the household and is confident that all will be well in his absence (v. 11), which seems to imply that she is engaged full-time as a worker at home. True, she does provide from all quarters maintenance for her household, but observe that she carefully watches over the conduct of her family and domestics (v. 27), which she could not do with such efficiency were she to be out of the home for too long a period. What we have here, dear friend, is a beautiful description of an ideal wife and homemaker and so this chapter actually compliments the Pauline passage in Titus 2: 4,5. At any rate, we cannot appeal to the Proverbs passage to justify married women working outside of the home in the modern sense with which we are all now familiar.

St. Paul did not say that women could be both “workers at home” and workers outside of the home, dear friend, he only enjoined women to be “workers at home”. He understood only too well that a being a wife and mother was a jolly demanding job in itself and could only be done properly with a woman being at home full-time. With the aggressive disparagement nowadays of the work undertaken by women within in the home, we need to declare loudly that home building is an indispensable work of supreme importance - the hand that rocks the cradle still rules the world and let us never forget that truism.

That many wives must work for economic reasons is, dear friend, a very hackneyed argument which is continually trotted out in these sorts of discussions. The plain truth is that in the Western world we have come to expect a certain standard of living and if we are devoid of this standard then we consider ourselves impoverished and living on the margins of society. There is a huge difference between our wants and our needs and as Catholics we should learn to be contented more with such things as we have, rather than being greedy for gain all the time. Of course, some families are struggling to pay the essential utility bills and keep body and soul together. However, what would some people do if they had to exist, through no fault of their own, on state benefit payments, which are wholly insufficient to meet even the most basic of needs, as many would be prepared to testify?

Indeed, the more secular feminism persuades women of the superior status and rewards of work outside of the home, the more married women will seek it and this must necessarily have a jolly big impact upon men’s opportunities. How sad today that in some households you have both spouses going out to work, whilst in others the husband cannot even find a job to support his family. Moreover, who can honestly deny that both spouses going out to work, has not contributed to inflation and a want of affordable housing. House prices inevitably reflect nowadays the joint income of both spouses, which makes it exceedingly difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, for the poor or one wage families to purchase affordable housing. Therefore in the name of equality many people have suffered considerably, which need not have been the case had their been more traditional families where the women devoted herself exclusively to being a housewife and mother. Methinks that it is about time that we had a radical rethink as to where we are as a society today and where we are going. There is clearly a price to be paid for the repudiation of God’s providential order with respect to the role of women.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Mickey]

The Church did not say what you did, so, no, I do not suppose that at all.

A statement given by the Vatican explained its strong crackdown on the LCWR. The Vatican believes that the LCWR challenges the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality and promotes "radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."

Sometimes a room is just a room.

And sometimes it’s not.

 

[Mickey]

Indeed, the more secular feminism persuades women of the superior status and rewards of work outside of the home, the more married women will seek it and this must necessarily have a jolly big impact upon men’s opportunities. How sad today that in some households you have both spouses going out to work, whilst in others the husband cannot even find a job to support his family. Moreover, who can honestly deny that both spouses going out to work, has not contributed to inflation and a want of affordable housing. House prices inevitably reflect nowadays the joint income of both spouses, which makes it exceedingly difficult, if not well-nigh impossible, for the poor or one wage families to purchase affordable housing. Therefore in the name of equality many people have suffered considerably, which need not have been the case had their been more traditional families where the women devoted herself exclusively to being a housewife and mother. Methinks that it is about time that we had a radical rethink as to where we are as a society today and where we are going. There is clearly a price to be paid for the repudiation of God’s providential order with respect to the role of women.

 

[Mickey]

Sometimes caring for your family as a wife and mom can mean financial contribution as well.

I think Portait has laid out for us the ideal way for the family unit to exist in this world, in a godly way, as set forth in the Sacred Scriptures and the patristic tradition. We have veered from the ideal path. Divorce is up over fifty percent….and what is the main reason? Money. And the evil one’s main goal is to attack, divide, and destroy the family….whether it be through greed, abortion, homosexuality, radical feminism, etc. I think Portrait is outlining a way back to a more simplistic and Christ centered way of living. The father is the patriarch. He provides for the family’s financial needs and acts as a guide for their spiritual life. Mom is responsible for the day to day functioning of the family unit on a physical and spiritual level. She is in charge of the Christian formation and education of the children. It is a great and holy responsibility. I do not want to speak for Portrait….because I think he is doing an admirable job on his own…and if I have misinterpreted anything I am sure he will correct me.

 

[thewanderer]

A statement given by the Vatican explained its strong crackdown on the LCWR. The Vatican believes that the LCWR challenges the Catholic Church’s teaching on homosexuality and promotes "radical feminist themes incompatible with the Catholic faith."
And sometimes it’s not.

Baelor, I hope you don’t mind me jumping in.

Micky, Baelor is not saying, as you seem to suppose, that radical feminism does not exist. She is merely saying it is not as widespread as you believe. This is why she brought up the fact that she has never encountered it personally. This is also why she suggested that you are projecting your experience with whichever Churches it is you’ve been to onto the whole Church. Just because you happened to have been exposed almost solely to bad churches does not mean that it is rampant everywhere. I will add my testimony to Baelors as well and say that in my experience, which spans several countries, I have only run into a radical feminist mindset maybe once. I have been in churches that one soul hardly call traditional, but radical feminism? I really haven’t seen much of it. I know that it is a problem that exists, I have heard too many things to be unaware of that, but I am also aware that there are many good parishes etc. not infected by it.

Again, I really don’t know why you are still arguing about this. You both agree that it exists and is a problem.

 

[thewanderer]

I think Portait has laid out for us the ideal way for the family unit to exist in this world, in a godly way, as set forth in the Sacred Scriptures and the patristic tradition. We have veered from the ideal path. Divorce is up over fifty percent….and what is the main reason? Money. And the evil one’s main goal is to attack, divide, and destroy the family….whether it be through greed, abortion, homosexuality, radical feminism, etc. I think Portrait is outlining a way back to a more simplistic and Christ centered way of living. The father is the patriarch. He provides for the family’s financial needs and acts as a guide for their spiritual life. Mom is responsible for the day to day functioning of the family unit on a physical and spiritual level. She is in charge of the Christian formation and education of the children. It is a great and holy responsibility. I do not want to speak for Portrait….because I think he is doing an admirable job on his own…and if I have misinterpreted anything I am sure he will correct me.

I’m just curious, if a woman earning 60k a year marries a man who can’t get a job that pays more than 20k a year, and they both want a large family, are you saying that the woman should give up her job so that they can try to raise a family of say, seven or eight children on an income of 20k a year?

 

[Mickey]

Micky, Baelor is not saying, as you seem to suppose, that radical feminism does not exist. She is merely saying it is not as widespread as you believe.

I disagree. I have seen it everywhere in the Northeastern United States…and obviosly the Vatican has seen it as a widespread problem throughout this country.

This is also why she suggested that you are projecting your experience with whichever Churches it is you’ve been to onto the whole Church.

And I responded by saying that the Vatican seems to support my experience. The Vatican does not come out with scathing reports on reform if they don’t see it as a widespread problem.

 

[Mickey]

I’m just curious, if a woman earning 60k a year marries a man who can’t get a job that pays more than 20k a year, and they both want a large family, are you saying that the woman should give up her job so that they can try to raise a family of say, seven or eight children on an income of 20k a year?

Do they have a piece of property to which they could grow some of their own food and do some canning? What are the husband’s skills? Can he pursue a higher paying job? What are their bills? Can they cut some corners if the husband lands a better paying job and the wife stays home to raise the kids? Do they have more than one vehicle? Do they already have children? Would they save money if they did not have to pay for daycare?

 

[thewanderer]

I disagree. I have seen it everywhere in the Northeastern United States…and obviosly the Vatican has seen it as a widespread problem throughout this country.
And I responded by saying that the Vatican seems to support my experience. The Vatican does not come out with scathing reports on reform if they don’t see it as a widespread problem.

Can you please back up this last claim? That the Vatican does not send out reports against a group unless it’s a widespread problem? The Vatican did not send out a letter to the whole church with a warning against radical feminism, but a warning to a specific group because of it’s obvious and loud issues. The LCWR are a serious problem, but not one that exists everywhere as you seem to imagine.

 

[thewanderer]

Also, seeing as this thread is already irredeemably derailed, I have a question for Portrait and Micky, and anyone else who holds the idea of married women not working in such a strict way. Are married women allowed, according to you, to participate in activities, as opposed to a job, outside of the home? If women are not supposed to earn money outside ofthe home period because doing so would lead to excessive amounts of time away from the family, surely it must follow that thy cannot take part in other extra-home activities such as cleaning the Church, helping people in homeless shelters, soup kitchens etc. So by putting a ban on married women working you are also putting a ban on them helping out at the parish or soup kitchens.

 

[Mickey]

Can you please back up this last claim? That the Vatican does not send out reports against a group unless it’s a widespread problem? The Vatican did not send out a letter to the whole church with a warning against radical feminism, but a warning to a specific group because of it’s obvious and loud issues. The LCWR are a serious problem, but not one that exists everywhere as you seem to imagine.

It is a widespread problem in the U.S. The investigation has been ongoing for years. You will see as it unfolds.

 

[Mickey]

If women are not supposed to earn money outside ofthe home period because doing so would lead to excessive amounts of time away from the family, surely it must follow that thy cannot take part in other extra-home activities such as cleaning the Church, helping people in homeless shelters, soup kitchens etc. So by putting a ban on married women working you are also putting a ban on them helping out at the parish or soup kitchens.

Apples and Oranges.

My stay-at-home wife/mom always takes the little one with her to do works of charity. It is a wonderful Christian example.

 

[Portrait]

That is not a claim that I need to make. It has not been established on this thread, or anywhere, for that matter, given that the claim in question is false, that the Church espouses a literal view of scripture in all circumstances and as an explicit practice takes individual statements from the Bible and turns them into prescriptive statements applicable to all peoples in all aeons.

I do not need to “adduce evidence” on this issue because your statement is based on a false premise.

It remains that the Church does not morally prohibit women from working outside the home though they be current mothers.

That is totally false. The CCC is a testament to how absurd your claim is.

Furthermore, the Church does not simply leave issues of morality like this up to individual Catholics; q.v. the entirety of the CCC.

Let us consider the CCC’s actual teachings. We see in no. 110 that

Certainly relevant here.

Although the literal sense is mentioned here, it is not clear – as you claim with no evidence – that the words listed in St. Paul’s letters ought to be taken as morally binding forever and ever. The Church does not explicitly espouse this position. Your counterargument is that the Church need not expound on something so obvious. This fails on two grounds: 1) This issue is of great importance because it determines the makeup and functioning of society for all eternity, and 2) It is clear that there is disagreement among the faithful on the morality involved. Thus, the fact that the Church has not spoken on is certainly justified as evidence that there is no moral issue here.

No, it does not. The Church does not invariably take isolated statements from Scripture, as you suggest, and make them into moral imperative.

Not true; cf. no. 110 of the CCC. Furthermore, your definition of “keepers at home” is an interpretation of St. Paul’s words, not reality. In addition, the passage uses “women” synonymously with “wives,” something that the Catholic Church does not recognize as a valid equivocation.

That is a false equivalent. The fact that other aspects of his orders remain in force does not mean that all need to. See above for additional problems.

Show us.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

Can I ask, my dear friend, where I have said in any of my posts that our Church adheres to the literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture on all occasions?

The Church has not officially modified or changed its teaching respecting the role of married women being “workers at home”, thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that St. Paul’s teaching has perpetual validity. Moreover, the Church has not even spoken, as far as I am aware, of married women working outside of the home. If you believe that it has, can you kindly adduce some evidence in support of this, dear brother.

The Church has officially only interpreted a small number of passages infallibly and it does leave it to the faithful to interpret it for themselves, with the provsio that they do not interpret it in such a manner as to be contrary to the teachings of Holy Mother Church. Indeed, this is quite clear from the Catechism itself, where in the section treating of the subject of the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, it speaks of “the reader”; “To interpret Scripture correctly, the reader must be attentive to what the authors truly wanted to affirm…” (para. 109, emphasis mine, see also para.110). Who is "the reader " of Sacred Scripture herein refered to, dear friend, if not the ordinary lay Catholic? Observe that it is assumed from para. 109 that he will elucidate the sacred text for himself, albeit by the correct criteria and giving due attention the senses of Scripture. The Catholic layman is at liberty to interpret the bible, so long as he does not use it to argue against the magisterial teaching of the Church. Would the Church be needed, for example, to infallibly interpret Proverbs 31, which I was discussing in an earlier post today?

Titus 2: 4,5 may well be an “isolated” passage, notwithstanding, my dear friend, it forms a part of one of the “Books of Scripture” (CCC para. 107) and so cannot be dismissed as of no importance. Moreover, if the clause occurs amidst general practical instructions for a women, then in what other sense can it be interpreted, other than the literal sense? Look, my dear chap, we do not interpret loving husbands, being kind or being chaste in other sense than the literal, so why would we need to interpret “workers at home” in any other sense?

What you call “my interpetation” of the Titus passage is actually the way that it has always been understood by Catholic and Protestant exegetes. If you think this is incorrect, then what do think the pharse, “workers at home” means?

The “young women” of the passage are married, which is why they are exhorted to love their husbands. They are both women and wives - sorry, old chap, but I do not understand your point here at all.

Why should one accept all the other requirements of Titus 2: 4,5 and yet reject the requirement for married women to be “workers at home”. Forgive me dear friend, but this sounds very much like cherry picking for polemical motives. Thus far you have provided no valid or cogent reason as to why we should reject this clause, yet accept all of the others as having continuing validity and relevance.

Were we having this discussion only 60 years ago, I think that Holy Mother Church would have supported my position and certainly my understanding of Titus 2: 4,5. Both the moral sense of the faithful and the Church would have been decidedly against married women pursuing a career outside of the home, as that would have been considered improper and a denial of her role as wife and mother.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[thewanderer]

Apples and Oranges.

My stay-at-home wife/mom always takes the little one with her to do works of charity. It is a wonderful Christian example.

Let me rephrase my question how much time is it ok for them to spend apart from their family a) per day b) per week

 

[Mickey]

Let me rephrase my question how much time is it ok for them to spend apart from their family a) per day b) per week

That is an odd question.

 

[thewanderer]

That is an odd question.

But the answer is very important. If the reason wives should not work is because it takes them away from their families too much than surely the problem is not with work as such but with being away from their families too much. Hence the question of how much is too much? I assume you don’t believe there is anything wrong with a wife being paid to spend an hour once a week to go clean someones house. So how much time is too much?

 

[Baelor]

Baelor, I hope you don’t mind me jumping in.

Not at all, especially because you did so with exemplary competence.

A small correction: I am male.

I disagree. I have seen it everywhere in the Northeastern United States…and obviosly the Vatican has seen it as a widespread problem throughout this country.

Hence the provincial nature of your outlook. The Vatican sees radical feminism as a problem, yes. It has not stated that it is ubiquitous and omnipermeating.

Apples and Oranges.

My stay-at-home wife/mom always takes the little one with her to do works of charity. It is a wonderful Christian example.

So a wife may hold a job if she takes her children with her – good to know!

 

[Baelor]

Can I ask, my dear friend, where I have said in any of my posts that our Church adheres to the literal interpretation of Sacred Scripture on all occasions?

Why should I answer? I do not remember claiming you did.

The Church has not officially modified or changed its teaching respecting the role of married women being “workers at home”,

Which teaching would that be? Show us.

thus it is perfectly reasonable to assume that St. Paul’s teaching has perpetual validity.

Non sequitur.

Moreover, the Church has not even spoken, as far as I am aware, of married women working outside of the home. If you believe that it has, can you kindly adduce some evidence in support of this, dear brother.

I cannot find any, suggesting that the issue is morally neutral as far as the Church is concerned. The Church speaks about all sorts of issues that are of theological and moral importance – gay marriage, premarital sex, abortion, cloning, etc. The idea that the Church would simply ignore something that is, according to you, so immoral for such a prolonged period of time is simply unjustifiable and the position stemming therefrom untenable.

The Church has officially only interpreted a small number of passages infallibly and it does leave it to the faithful to interpret it for themselves, with the provsio that they do not interpret it in such a manner as to be contrary to the teachings of Holy Mother Church.

Yet one must also consider what the Church does not teach against. Mark 11:12-4 has Jesus telling us not ever to eat figs, corroborated in Jeremiah 29. The fact that the Church has not condemned consumption of the succulent fruit is reason enough to adhere to an interpretation that does not view the pronouncement as perennially binding.

The Catholic layman is at liberty to interpret the bible, so long as he does not use it to argue against the magisterial teaching of the Church.

Indeed, but this also extends to attributing a moral value to things that have none.

Titus 2: 4,5 may well be an “isolated” passage, notwithstanding, my dear friend, it forms a part of one of the “Books of Scripture” (CCC para. 107) and so cannot be dismissed as of no importance.

It is not of no importance. No one claimed that. The question is whether women being workers at home is a moral imperative and, if so, what this means.

Moreover, if the clause occurs amidst general practical instructions for a women, then in what other sense can it be interpreted, other than the literal sense?

It can be interpreted in the context of no. 110 of the CCC, as something relevant to the time period and no more. It can be interpreted literally without the character of temporal universality.

Look, my dear chap, we do not interpret loving husbands, being kind or being chaste in other sense than the literal, so why would we need to interpret “workers at home” in any other sense?

Because they are not the same thing. If St. Paul had added that all women should wear green all the time, are you claiming that women should follow that advice? “But he did not say that,” you may rightly point out. Nevertheless, the same reasoning that makes that situation ridiculous is the same reasoning that may justifiably be applied to the section in question. There is no compulsion to take that part of the passage literally and universally applicable simply because it is there; an understanding of the CCC supports my position.

Furthermore, you will note that Catholic teaching explicitly commands all of the other aspects, e.g. charity, mutual submission, but does not command wives to remain in the home.

Why is that? Because the Church does not believe it to be a moral imperative.

What you call “my interpetation” of the Titus passage is actually the way that it has always been understood by Catholic and Protestant exegetes.

Show me the current authoritative Catholic teaching indicating this.

The “young women” of the passage are married, which is why they are exhorted to love their husbands. They are both women and wives - sorry, old chap, but I do not understand your point here at all.

The two are used synonymously, contrary to Catholic understanding of vocation.

Why should one accept all the other requirements of Titus 2: 4,5 and yet reject the requirement for married women to be “workers at home”.

Good question. An even better question is why each item in a list must be taken with the same character. I see no reason.

Forgive me dear friend, but this sounds very much like cherry picking for polemical motives. Thus far you have provided no valid or cogent reason as to why we should reject this clause, yet accept all of the others as having continuing validity and relevance.

See above, but I will recap for your convenience. All of the other virtues in the passage are independently taught and affirmed by the Church; the “workers at home” section is not. There is still no reason, theological or otherwise, that all members of the list must be taken with the same truth character and value. “Workers at home” is already broad. Natural law and reason can be used to support the other parts of the passage; the same cannot be said for the “workers at home.” No. 110 of the CCC applies to the passage.

 

[Mickey]

The Vatican sees radical feminism as a problem, yes. It has not stated that it is ubiquitous and omnipermeating.

1. The LCWR represents most female religious in the US.
2. CDF said Pope Benedict XVI approved CDF’s taking action January 14, 2011, two days after a regular session of the CDF decided that “the current doctrinal and pastoral situation of LCWR is grave and a matter of serious concern, also given the influence the LCWR exercises on religious Congregations in other parts of the world.”

So a wife may hold a job if she takes her children with her – good to know!

Now you are reaching. It’s not a job…it’s an act of charity for Christ’s Church and people. I’m glad I could clear that up for you.