Are women still considered in a "state of subjection?"

[LucyLight]

Christopher West in A Crash Course in Theology of the Body states that a word study of submission gives us insight on this passage: the prefix “sub” means “under” while “mission” means one who is sent with authority to perform a particular service. The wife, then, is under the mission of her husband. And what is that mission? To love his wife!

In MULIERIS DIGNITATEM Pope JPII speaks of this order: “The Bridegroom is the one who loves. The Bride is loved: it is she who receives love, in order to love in return.”

This does not make the husband the boss or the final decision maker in all things. It makes him the leader in the order of love. I said this earlier but Its like when a man asks a woman to marry him. The man traditionally asks the woman and not the other way around. This would be a good image of that order

 

[Armyvet007]

Christopher West in A Crash Course in Theology of the Body states that a word study of submission gives us insight on this passage: the prefix “sub” means “under” while “mission” means one who is sent with authority to perform a particular service. The wife, then, is under the mission of her husband. And what is that mission? To love his wife!

In MULIERIS DIGNITATEM Pope JPII speaks of this order: “The Bridegroom is the one who loves. The Bride is loved: it is she who receives love, in order to love in return.”

This does not make the husband the boss or the final decision maker in all things. It makes him the leader in the order of love. I said this earlier but Its like when a man asks a woman to marry him. The man traditionally asks the woman and not the other way around. This would be a good image of that order

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Actually thanks to modern medicine, women can be both virgins and mothers.

So what?

The fact remains that virgin motherhood is no longer an impossible ideal, the way it was when most of the Marian doctrines were developed.

Moreover, virginity is not particularly impressive in of itself.
My kitten is a virgin, and no one cares

Are you kidding me? If a human being, a very attractive one especially, is, say 25 years old, and is still a virgin, I think that’s incredibly impressive. Do you have any idea how much of a challenge that is to accomplish? How much discipline, self control, and sacrifice that takes?

Or are you so desensitized by gratuitous amounts of sex in our culture that you see absolutely no meaning to it? Even if that was the case, it really sounds like you’re just trying to rationalize away the importance of virginity in a manner that screams "reassurance."

Do not project your own concerns onto me.
I am not rationalizing it.

I am actively denying that its that big a deal.

Being a virgin doesn’t make you a better person.
I think how someone treats others is a better indication of whether or not that individual is a good person than if they have ever had sex:shrug:

Ask yourself who would you rather live with:
Violent virgins
or
Peaceful hedonists

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Not if he’s in charge

Honestly, it seems somewhat disingenuous to me, the way that so many people in this thread insist that the men must have the authority, but then try to deny what having power actually means in practice.

You mean, you think it’s disingenuous that people with power should be responsible? Does power to you mean complete and total totalitarian control? Let’s hope you don’t get elected into any position of leadership.

People with power will inevitably abuse it:shrug:

 

[Dan_Daly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Actually thanks to modern medicine, women can be both virgins and mothers.

So what?

The fact remains that virgin motherhood is no longer an impossible ideal, the way it was when most of the Marian doctrines were developed.

Moreover, virginity is not particularly impressive in of itself.
My kitten is a virgin, and no one cares

Do not project your own concerns onto me.
I am not rationalizing it.

I am actively denying that its that big a deal.

Being a virgin doesn’t make you a better person.
I think how someone treats others is a better indication of whether or not that individual is a good person than if they have ever had sex:shrug:

Ask yourself who would you rather live with:
Violent virgins
or
Peaceful hedonists

Peaceful hedonism is a contradiction in terms. Hedonism is violence against the self and against God. This spiritual rebellion readily transfers over to phyiscal violence as can be seen historically (Ancient Rome, the French Revolution, various Native American cultures, modern secular society, etc).

In a Biblical sense there is more to being a virgin than not having sex. It also means the woman is physically intact, which is why a full understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity means that Our Lord was not born normally.

In anycase, to argue IVF didn’t involve sex is…odd. Human beings reproduce sexually. No sex…no reproduction, barring the singular case of the Annuciation. If the union takes place in a lab and not in the body as God designed, it’s simply perveted and immoral sex, but it is still sex.

If you see no merit in virginity than you have a very different view than the Catholic Church. A virgin gives themselves totally to God in a unique way.

Pax Christi

 

[Dan_Daly]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Not if he’s in charge

Honestly, it seems somewhat disingenuous to me, the way that so many people in this thread insist that the men must have the authority, but then try to deny what having power actually means in practice.

People with power will inevitably abuse it:shrug:

Undoubtedly.

But neither abolishing power or abolishing people is a solution. Rather, we must grow in virtue and holiness.

pax

 

[Portrait]

The OP would have to define “subjection” better.

1. If he means “a duty to obedience” then yes, wives are just as subject to their husbands in 2012 as they were in 200 or the days of St. Thomas Aquinas. I’d recommend reading Pope Pius XI’s encyclical Casti Connubbii for a very insightful commentary on what this means.
2. If he means “oppression” then the main thing oppressing modern women in the western world in 2012, is marxist feminism and the culture of death. The two greatests missions a woman can have in this life are to be a virgin and to be a mother. Our Lady Mary is, by the grace of God, the only woman to have been both. Through the evil of contraception which is at the heart of “women’s liberation” mankind seeks to intentionally make women neither virgins nor mothers.

Pax Christi

Dear Dan Daly,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said.

Radical femenism is the biggest enemy of women and family life today and should be denounced in the strongest terms by all those who profess religion. It is a godless repudiation of true femeninity and the role assigned to women by the divine providence.

Excellent contributions, dear chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

I agree, that was a rather disrespectful thing for Saint Paul to say.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

That you think what St. Paul said was disrespectful is merely a matter of subjective opinion and does not necessarily mean that it is an unassailable fact. The orthodox Catholic would strongly disagree with you on that one, dear friend, for he believes that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”. Moreover, “The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit we must acknowledge that **the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth **which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 105 & 107, added emphasis mine). This would include the words of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians which you allege are “disrespectful” to women. As a non-Christian one would expect you to say sommething of that sort, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

We have an appropriate term for this in the secular (i.e. non-religious) world.

Equal in Name Only.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

In redemption women do have perfect equality with men, since faith is the bond of union with Christ. Thus the distinction between men and women has not ceased to exist, but, as far as faith in Christ is concerned, it has ceased to matter and so a man’s privilege is no greater than the woman’s.

In the pagan society of St. Paul’s day the inferiority of women and their lawful subjugation by men was something that was taken for granted. The Christian religion, dear friend, emphasized the dignity of womenhood and it is an indisputable fact that the example and and teaching of Christ have elevated women in one country and society after another to a position that they did not occupy previously. Whereas in many of the world’s religions, not least in Judaism and Islam, women have a more inferior place than men, Christianity does emphasize that that they have a perfect spiritual equality with men (Gal. 3: 28). To cynically respond by saying that this affirmation of religious equality is nothing more than a nominal equality, is to ignore the fact that men must be renewed before the unjust structures of society can be changed. St. Paul knew that a programme for social reform would have been powerless to leaven the lump (as well as inviting unecessary hostility against the nascent Church), but that religious revival would, at length, result in social progress, which, as I observed above, was the case with the dissemination of the Gospel and teaching of Christ.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Being a virgin doesn’t make you a better person.
I think how someone treats others is a better indication of whether or not that individual is a good person than if they have ever had sex:shrug:

Ask yourself who would you rather live with:
Violent virgins
or
Peaceful hedonists

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

It must be freely admitted that a man or woman who has not had carnal relations could, indeed, be most disagreeable and even violent. Nevertheless, Christ Himself did not marry and He said clearly that it was good to renounce marriage for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, adding “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (see St. Matt. 19: 12). What is surely important, however, is that the person who makes the choice not to enter into wedlock does not do so for selfish or materialistic motives. Clearly, dear friend, if the choice is based wholly upon the idea of self-sacrifice and a complete consecration of self to the love of God and the service of one’s fellow-man, then, in that case, virginity can be a more superior state to that of marriage.

St. Paul also taught that one who remains single for the sake of complete consecration to God and His service makes a better choice than one who decides to enter into holy wedlock. He said, “I wish that all were as I myself am” (i.e. unmarried), and he gives this reason for his counsel: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or virgin is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” ( see I Corinthians 7: 7,8, 32-34).

Thus, provided it is for worthy religious motives, virginity can certainly make you a better and more devout person, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[FaithBuild18]

Do not project your own concerns onto me.
I am not rationalizing it.

I am actively denying that its that big a deal.

Being a virgin doesn’t make you a better person.
I think how someone treats others is a better indication of whether or not that individual is a good person than if they have ever had sex:shrug:

Ask yourself who would you rather live with:
Violent virgins
or
Peaceful hedonists

I think how someone treats others is a poor indication of whether or not they’re a good person. Some people are the victims of abuse and subsequently may be fearful or aggressive towards others. Some people are really good BSers and can be the most hateful bigots in the world, yet treat people nicely. It is remarkably easy, way too easy, to put on a facade and false persona, and to treat people nicely when you are a rotten person at core. It is much, much, much more difficult, as I said requiring much more disciple and self-control, to remain a virgin, than it is to treat people nicely.

What makes a person good or bad is what is in that person’s heart. What is in that person’s heart may be revealed in the sum of their actions. This is not limited to how one treats people, but includes all of the thoughts that person has, and ALL of the decisions one makes. Refusing sex is one of those decisions, and is one of the more challenging offers to turn down, requiring steadfast commitment, self control, discipline, clarity of thought, and above all the ability to rebel against one’s biochemical instincts. The latter is exceedingly challenging. Even if you want to rationalize away virginity as being an indicator of goodness and purity, you must at least concede that it is indeed revealing of one’s character. Much as a person who abstains from any desire or inclination demonstrates a true sense of discipline.

To your question, I’d rather live with violent virgins. I would find them easier to help and treat than peaceful hedonists (peaceful hedonists, as others have pointed out, is an oxymoron). There are many ways to help those who struggle with anger and aggression, and help for those people has been available and successful for decades. I haven’t a clue how to cure hedonism. Moreover, I find the crimes of violent virgins to be much less severe than those of peaceful hedonists, though you will inevitably do your little eye rolling, shrugging emo face in response to this statement.

 

[FaithBuild18]

People with power will inevitably abuse it:shrug:

I disagree completely. I would agree that SOME people abuse such power, but to assume that it is always abused is quite ignorant. There are many people in positions of power who DON’T abuse their power. My dentist has authority and power over his staff and he treats them beyond all measures of generosity and fairness. I’ve had several dozen teachers and professors who have had power over the classroom and I can’t recall a single instance in which they abused it. Even my parents, with God-like powers over me growing up, never abused their power in anyway that I can recall.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Peaceful hedonism is a contradiction in terms. Hedonism is violence against the self and against God. This spiritual rebellion readily transfers over to phyiscal violence as can be seen historically (Ancient Rome, the French Revolution, various Native American cultures, modern secular society, etc).

In a Biblical sense there is more to being a virgin than not having sex. It also means the woman is physically intact, which is why a full understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity means that Our Lord was not born normally.

In anycase, to argue IVF didn’t involve sex is…odd. Human beings reproduce sexually. No sex…no reproduction, barring the singular case of the Annuciation. If the union takes place in a lab and not in the body as God designed, it’s simply perveted and immoral sex, but it is still sex.

If you see no merit in virginity than you have a very different view than the Catholic Church. A virgin gives themselves totally to God in a unique way.

Pax Christi

No, you’re trying to win the debate by redefining the terms in question.
Here’s an actual (accepted) definition of a peaceful for some context:

1: peaceable 1

2: untroubled by conflict, agitation, or commotion : quiet, tranquil

3: of or relating to a state or time of peace

4: devoid of violence or force

Link to Source:
merriam-webster.com/dictionary/peaceful

P.S. Notice how the absence of sex is nowhere linked to peaceful in the definition

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Peaceful hedonism is a contradiction in terms. Hedonism is violence against the self and against God. This spiritual rebellion readily transfers over to phyiscal violence as can be seen historically (Ancient Rome, the French Revolution, various Native American cultures, modern secular society, etc).

In a Biblical sense there is more to being a virgin than not having sex. It also means the woman is physically intact, which is why a full understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity means that Our Lord was not born normally.
In anycase, to argue IVF didn’t involve sex is…odd. Human beings reproduce sexually. No sex…no reproduction, barring the singular case of the Annuciation. If the union takes place in a lab and not in the body as God designed, it’s simply perveted and immoral sex, but it is still sex.

If you see no merit in virginity than you have a very different view than the Catholic Church. A virgin gives themselves totally to God in a unique way.

Pax Christi

Then the Biblical definition is simply wrong and unreasonable.
If a woman or girl loses her hymen through horse racing, bike riding, etc. is she really no longer a virgin even if she has never ever had sexual contact with another person?

Frankly being that concerned with the Virgin Mary’s (or worse real live girls’) hymen sexualizes the female in question in a very negative way.

As you yourself seem to be trying to say, its unreasonable to expect women to be both virgins AND mothers, so why hold that up as the ideal?
Why assume that just because a woman or girl retains a part of her body (the hymen) that’s about as useful as the appendix that that somehow makes her morally superior?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Peaceful hedonism is a contradiction in terms. Hedonism is violence against the self and against God. This spiritual rebellion readily transfers over to phyiscal violence as can be seen historically (Ancient Rome, the French Revolution, various Native American cultures, modern secular society, etc).

In a Biblical sense there is more to being a virgin than not having sex. It also means the woman is physically intact, which is why a full understanding of Mary’s perpetual virginity means that Our Lord was not born normally.

In anycase, to argue IVF didn’t involve sex is…odd. Human beings reproduce sexually. No sex…no reproduction, barring the singular case of the Annuciation. If the union takes place in a lab and not in the body as God designed, it’s simply perveted and immoral sex, but it is still sex.
If you see no merit in virginity than you have a very different view than the Catholic Church. A virgin gives themselves totally to God in a unique way.

Pax Christi

I didn’t say that.
Of course the male must essentially have sex with himself first to produce the sperm that allows artificial insemination to occur. But that doesn’t mean that the woman in question (the virgin mother) ever has to have sexual contact with anyone:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Dan Daly,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Jolly well said.

Radical femenism is the biggest enemy of women and family life today and should be denounced in the strongest terms by all those who profess religion. It is a godless repudiation of true femeninity and the role assigned to women by the divine providence.

Excellent contributions, dear chap.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Based on what exactly?

It appears that the patriarchal attitudes in places like China and India are a bigger threat to women today. Since if they have their way there will be few women at all in those parts of the world in the next generation (link to source: economist.com/node/15606229).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I agree, that was a rather disrespectful thing for Saint Paul to say.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

That you think what St. Paul said was disrespectful is merely a matter of subjective opinion and does not necessarily mean that it is an unassailable fact. The orthodox Catholic would strongly disagree with you on that one, dear friend, for he believes that “God is the author of Sacred Scripture. The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit”. Moreover, “The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit we must acknowledge that **the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth **which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paras. 105 & 107, added emphasis mine). This would include the words of St. Paul in the Epistle to the Ephesians which you allege are “disrespectful” to women. As a non-Christian one would expect you to say sommething of that sort, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Of course.
I have no reason to interpret his words in the best possible light and can simply take them at face value.
As I recall Portrait, you have also advocated interpreting the Biblical text as literally as possible here at CAF (when debating me no less).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
We have an appropriate term for this in the secular (i.e. non-religious) world.

Equal in Name Only.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

In redemption women do have perfect equality with men, since faith is the bond of union with Christ. Thus the distinction between men and women has not ceased to exist, but, as far as faith in Christ is concerned, it has ceased to matter and so a man’s privilege is no greater than the woman’s.

In the pagan society of St. Paul’s day the inferiority of women and their lawful subjugation by men was something that was taken for granted. The Christian religion, dear friend, emphasized the dignity of womenhood and it is an indisputable fact that the example and and teaching of Christ have elevated women in one country and society after another to a position that they did not occupy previously. Whereas in many of the world’s religions, not least in Judaism and Islam, women have a more inferior place than men, Christianity does emphasize that that they have a perfect spiritual equality with men (Gal. 3: 28). To cynically respond by saying that this affirmation of religious equality is nothing more than a nominal equality, is to ignore the fact that men must be renewed before the unjust structures of society can be changed. St. Paul knew that a programme for social reform would have been powerless to leaven the lump (as well as inviting unecessary hostility against the nascent Church), but that religious revival would, at length, result in social progress, which, as I observed above, was the case with the dissemination of the Gospel and teaching of Christ.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

A sentiment that is contradicted by your own endorsement of Catholic Planet ideas about women (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.html) in another recent thread (link to thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=670412&highlight=AngryAtheist8&page=19).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

It must be freely admitted that a man or woman who has not had carnal relations could, indeed, be most disagreeable and even violent. Nevertheless, Christ Himself did not marry and He said clearly that it was good to renounce marriage for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, adding “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it” (see St. Matt. 19: 12). What is surely important, however, is that the person who makes the choice not to enter into wedlock does not do so for selfish or materialistic motives. Clearly, dear friend, if the choice is based wholly upon the idea of self-sacrifice and a complete consecration of self to the love of God and the service of one’s fellow-man, then, in that case, virginity can be a more superior state to that of marriage.

St. Paul also taught that one who remains single for the sake of complete consecration to God and His service makes a better choice than one who decides to enter into holy wedlock. He said, “I wish that all were as I myself am” (i.e. unmarried), and he gives this reason for his counsel: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or virgin is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband” ( see I Corinthians 7: 7,8, 32-34).

Thus, provided it is for worthy religious motives, virginity can certainly make you a better and more devout person, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

More devout perhaps, but not necessarily a better person.
As all the recent Church scandals prove.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I’m not sure what you mean here. I didn’t think I was responding to something you said. The poster I had in mind in this thread was Nillabean(i think that’s her name)

actually u were supporting severus, who was supporting angryatheist thoughts on my post.