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

[AngryAtheist8]

I asked you this question before and I will ask you it again:

Assuming all women married and became homemakers (which seems to be your ideal) would there be any point in educating them?

After all, if women were kept ignorant and illiterate, they would be easier to control and relegate to the domestic sphere. Something that groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan recognize and enforce.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

In his encyclical, Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI supports the position that the ideal and natural family set up is one where the wife/mother remains at home, devoting herself to the rearing of children and other domestic affairs. In other words, dear friend, he supports the biblical notion of women being “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5):

74 "The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honourable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of children. It must be social, economic, physiological:- physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (we have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving attention cheifly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75 “This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty that belongs to the nobel office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman decends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, then certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.”

76 “This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life”.

77 “As, however, the social and economic conditions of the married women must in some way be altered on account of the changes in social intercourse, it is part of the office of public authority to adapt the civil rights of the wife to modern needs and requirements, keeping in view what the natural disposition and temperament of the female sex, good morality, and the welfare of the family demand, and provided always that the essential order of the domestic society remain intact, founded as it is on something higher that human authority and wisdom, namely on the authority and wisdom of God, and so not changeable by public laws or at the pleasure of private individuals”.

There is not much I can add, my dear friend, save to say that it is sound speech that anticipated he the emergence of the godless radical feminist movement and its debased ideology. Methinks that Pope Pius XI would be accused today of “reducing women to chattel” and being a woman hater. Be that as it may, dear friend, I hope you can see that the position that I hold and maintain is consonant with Catholic Tradition and not some novelty of my own invention.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Apparently this Pope was against property rights for women (at least married ones).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

In his encyclical, Casti Connubii, Pope Pius XI supports the position that the ideal and natural family set up is one where the wife/mother remains at home, devoting herself to the rearing of children and other domestic affairs. In other words, dear friend, he supports the biblical notion of women being “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5):

74 "The same false teachers who try to dim the luster of conjugal faith and purity do not scruple to do away with the honourable and trusting obedience which the woman owes to the man. Many of them even go further and assert that such a subjection of one party to the other is unworthy of human dignity, that the rights of husband and wife are equal; wherefore, they boldly proclaim the emancipation of women has been or ought to be effected. This emancipation in their ideas must be threefold, in the ruling of the domestic society, in the administration of family affairs and in the rearing of children. It must be social, economic, physiological:- physiological, that is to say, the woman is to be freed at her own good pleasure from the burdensome duties properly belonging to a wife as companion and mother (we have already said that this is not an emancipation but a crime); social, inasmuch as the wife being freed from the cares of children and family, should, to the neglect of these, be able to follow her own bent and devote herself to business and even public affairs; finally economic, whereby the woman even without the knowledge and against the wish of her husband may be at liberty to conduct and administer her own affairs, giving attention cheifly to these rather than to children, husband and family.

75 “This, however, is not the true emancipation of woman, nor that rational and exalted liberty that belongs to the nobel office of a Christian woman and wife; it is rather the debasing of womanly character and the dignity of motherhood, and indeed of the whole family, as a result of which the husband suffers the loss of his wife, the children of their mother, and the home and the whole family of an ever watchful guardian. More than this, this false liberty and unnatural equality with the husband is to the detriment of the woman herself, for if the woman decends from her truly regal throne to which she has been raised within the walls of the home by means of the Gospel, she will soon be reduced to the old state of slavery (if not in appearance, then certainly in reality) and become as amongst the pagans the mere instrument of man.”

76 “This equality of rights which is so much exaggerated and distorted, must indeed be recognized in those rights which belong to the dignity of the human soul and which are proper to the marriage contract and inseparably bound up with wedlock. In such things undoubtedly both parties enjoy the same rights and are bound by the same obligations; in other things there must be a certain inequality and due accommodation, which is demanded by the good of the family and the right ordering and unity and stability of home life”.

77 “As, however, the social and economic conditions of the married women must in some way be altered on account of the changes in social intercourse, it is part of the office of public authority to adapt the civil rights of the wife to modern needs and requirements, keeping in view what the natural disposition and temperament of the female sex, good morality, and the welfare of the family demand, and provided always that the essential order of the domestic society remain intact, founded as it is on something higher that human authority and wisdom, namely on the authority and wisdom of God, and so not changeable by public laws or at the pleasure of private individuals”.

There is not much I can add, my dear friend, save to say that it is sound speech that anticipated he the emergence of the godless radical feminist movement and its debased ideology. Methinks that Pope Pius XI would be accused today of “reducing women to chattel” and being a woman hater. Be that as it may, dear friend, I hope you can see that the position that I hold and maintain is consonant with Catholic Tradition and not some novelty of my own invention.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Perhaps Pope Pius hated women.
I don’t know.
It wouldn’t surprise me if he did.

I thinks its more likely that (like most societies throughout history) he simply didn’t respect them very much and considered them less valuable than men:shrug:

 

[fpt]

My oldest son recently informed me he strongly believed The Church still actively promoted the idea that women are the “weaker sex” and he pointed to a couple of writings by Thomas Aquinas as proof.

The first quote is “women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.”

The second quote reads “women are in a state of subjection.”

Does the Church still hold these Aquinas writings as complelely valid?

I listed this in the Social Justice catagory because my son believes this to be an outrage to all catholic women. He further believes not allowing women as priests is a discriminatory practice. I can easily defend the aspect of women not being able to receive the sacrament of holy orders due to their sex, but could use some help on the Church’s perspective concerning the nearly 800 year old writings of Aquinas.

Much Thanks

According to the true teaching of catholic church the humanity (male and female) is sexed. By sexed, we have to understand the man (the male) – the virility – and the woman (the female) – the feminity --. This human nature that is sexed is at the image of God (creature of God with body and soul): There are the male’s body, the male’s soul, the female’s body and the female’s soul. It means that there are the alterity and complementarity within the human nature. We are equal in dignity and we are our own equity.

In catholicism, there are different ideologies and heresies that have to be avoided and to be fought on this topic: encratism, machism, musculinism, gender theory, radical feminism, sexism, puritanism, neo puritanism, victorianism, neo-victorianism, clanism, fideism, jansenism, moralism, the absolute dogmatism.

Males and females have, in the same time, the same rights, the same duties, the same obligations but also have the diffirent rights, the differents duties, the different obligations. For understanding, we have to read the catholic teaching in using of our intelligence at the light of the real reason, from the natural philosophy, from the natural theology and with the help of the catholic theology.

male is not superior, female is not inferior; female is not superior, male is not inferior. We are in a complementary situation. Males have to need females and females have to need males in general. And in the marriage, one man with one woman or one woman with one man.

Man is a sinner; woman is a sinner; both of them are touched by original sin. Jesus Christ is come for the sexed humanity. Charity is true love. Thus we are in the moral obligation to struggle against the bad philosophies of our time. To discern is important. When a theologian writes, even if he is a great catholic thinker or is a saint his writings are not automatically the real and true verity.

 

[Portrait]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What legal rights and protections would women have in your ideal society?

What political rights would women have in your ideal society?

Would women and girls have the right to an education in your ideal society?

And yet the Catholic Planet article you endorsed is against these things.
Here’s some quotes from it to put everything in perspective:

-Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
-God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

As these passages make clear, women are not supposed to have any authority in society (at least where it could effect men). This would mean stripping women of voting rights, because collectively female voters have a great deal of power over male politicians.

Now Portrait, do you believe in this position, or do you think that women *should have *some power over men in society?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Personally speaking, dear friend, I must concur with Catholic Planet and say that I do not think that women should be involved in the world of politics, not necessarily because this would entail having some authority over men, but rather because this would be to occupy a postion for which they were not intended by the divine providential order. The same would apply to the Judiciary. As I remarked in my previous response to you on that other thread, there does need to be a radical rethink about a great many things that we now consider quite normal and acceptable. That will clearly not be a painless exercise or one that is free from controversy, given the changes that have taken place in society in the last fifty years or so. However, I think it incumbent upon us as a society to ask some very awkward and probing questions about modern society and where we are going, and, yes, my dear friend, questions respecting gender distinctions, the roles of men and women and the sort of work with which they should or should not be involved with. That so many Western women have opted to shun marriage in order to pursue a career is a monumental tragedy of the first rank and rather than hankering after political office they should humbly and gratefully receive the divinely ordained role of motherhood, unless they have a calling to religious. Old fashioned, certainly, but also beneficial to the wider society and according to the natural order of things to boot.

The Catholic Church has always excluded women from holy orders, this is not her own regulation but was established by her Divine Founder. As St. Chrysostom says in his classic work on the priesthood c. 387 A.D., “Divine law has excluded women from the ministry” (On the priesthood, III, 9). Thus, dear friend, it is has nothing whatsoever with women being of lesser dignity or worth than men, but everything to do with obedience to Christ, the Founder of the Church.

In the family, women, according to Sacred Scripture, are to be in subjection to their own husbands and the husband does have a patriarchal and protective role as regards the “weaker sex”. This may not sit comfortably with modern and warped feminist propaganda, but that does not render this infallible teaching invalid and untrue.

In society, dear friend, single woman must work, perhaps for their entire lives, if they do not enter into holy wedlock, for whatever reason. Obviously, dear friend, they must needs support themselves, even if they remain within the family home with their mother and father, which is far better than living alone. However, if they do marry they must relinquish their jobs and devote themselves full-time to looking after their husbands and children, so as these are not neglected (see the citation of Pope Pius XI in my previous post).

AngryAtheist, I just do not think that women having the franchise ipso facto means that they have “power over male politicians”. They cast their vote equally along with men and therefore have an (name removed by moderator)ut as regards the ballot box result, just like everyone else. Indeed, they could collectively swing the vote one way or another, but that would apply to both a male or female politician. That is how a democracy works and I do not see it as a ‘power’ issue.

Forgive me, dear friend, but you seem to have anidee fixe with this ‘power’ that men are supposed to have over women. In the Christian religion we do not think in such terms respecting the relations between men and women and I rather think that you have become too imbued with the radical feminist world-view and this is colouring all of your thinking. A woman teacher, for example, does not have ‘power’ over the male students in the lecture hall, she is simply there imparting knowledge about a subject in which she has acquired a high level of competence. The students hopefully benefit from this and pass their exams.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Stratocatholic]

My oldest son recently informed me he strongly believed The Church still actively promoted the idea that women are the “weaker sex” and he pointed to a couple of writings by Thomas Aquinas as proof.

The first quote is “women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.”

The second quote reads “women are in a state of subjection.”

Does the Church still hold these Aquinas writings as complelely valid?

I listed this in the Social Justice catagory because my son believes this to be an outrage to all catholic women. He further believes not allowing women as priests is a discriminatory practice. I can easily defend the aspect of women not being able to receive the sacrament of holy orders due to their sex, but could use some help on the Church’s perspective concerning the nearly 800 year old writings of Aquinas.

Much Thanks

I believe that women are the fairer sex, in many ways. God bless it. But that does not mean that women are the weaker sex. I certainly do not think that women are in a state of subjection. Men and women are different. Women are not simply men with different body parts as feminists would have people believe. It is liberalism and progressivism that would have all believe that power over sex, birth control and abortion rights and the diminishment of fatherhood would create equality. No, the Church is not going to start ordaining women. Women are still wives and mothers. Yes, abortion is an evil that should be rejected by both men and women as by all members of society. Generally no one speaks up in Church any more, so I’m not sure that’s really a great concern these days. I would have your son look up soon to be Saint Hildegard Von Bingen if he thinks that strong women have not existed in the Church and do not exist in the Church. Hildegard was educated in the sciences, music and a host of other subjects more than 900 years ago, before Aquinas even. We need only look back as far as Mother Theresa to see just how strong women can be in the Church and in the world.

 

[Portrait]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
The true nature of women according to people like you, is to be the servants of men.
You can try to rephrase it to sound nicer (as indeed you have) but that’s ultimately what it amounts to.

But at least you admit that you believe in the equality of men and women only in the most cosmic and irrelevant sense.

Moreover, WHY do you keep on misspelling these words that you’re arguing about over and over gain?

According to you:

1. Women should obey their husbands.
2. Women should devote themselves primarily to serving/caring for their husbands and children.

How is that not a servant?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

What is at fault here, my dear friend, is your definition of servanthood. Servanthood does not have to be servile and men and women can serve one another out of love, as well as out duty. By love we serve one another and our fellow-man.

It is a jolly good and nobel thing for a woman to care for her husband and children and I am quite sure that no pious Catholic woman would deem such work servitude.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

It would only be silly if it had not actually been part of the official Fascist agenda.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello agian and thankyou for that response.

Well, dear friend, the fact that it had been part of the Fascist agenda evinces most plainly just how misguided and foolish was both the statement and the agenda. Moreover, how very sad that it is taken up by the radical feminists and used as part of their venom against the divine providential and natural order, as regards the role of women.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What legal rights and protections would women have in your ideal society?

What political rights would women have in your ideal society?

Would women and girls have the right to an education in your ideal society?

And yet the Catholic Planet article you endorsed is against these things.
Here’s some quotes from it to put everything in perspective:

-Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
-God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

As these passages make clear, women are not supposed to have any authority in society (at least where it could effect men). This would mean stripping women of voting rights, because collectively female voters have a great deal of power over male politicians.

Now Portrait, do you believe in this position, or do you think that women should have some power over men in society?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Personally speaking, dear friend, I must concur with Catholic Planet and say that I do not think that women should be involved in the world of politics, not necessarily because this would entail having some authority over men, but rather because this would be to occupy a postion for which they were not intended by the divine providential order. The same would apply to the Judiciary. As I remarked in my previous response to you on that other thread, there does need to be a radical rethink about a great many things that we now consider quite normal and acceptable. That will clearly not be a painless exercise or one that is free from controversy, given the changes that have taken place in society in the last fifty years or so. However, I think it incumbent upon us as a society to ask some very awkward and probing questions about modern society and where we are going, and, yes, my dear friend, questions respecting gender distinctions, the roles of men and women and the sort of work with which they should or should not be involved with. That so many Western women have opted to shun marriage in order to pursue a career is a monumental tragedy of the first rank and rather than hankering after political office they should humbly and gratefully receive the divinely ordained role of motherhood, unless they have a calling to religious. Old fashioned, certainly, but also beneficial to the wider society and according to the natural order of things to boot.

The Catholic Church has always excluded women from holy orders, this is not her own regulation but was established by her Divine Founder. As St. Chrysostom says in his classic work on the priesthood c. 387 A.D., “Divine law has excluded women from the ministry” (On the priesthood, III, 9). Thus, dear friend, it is has nothing whatsoever with women being of lesser dignity or worth than men, but everything to do with obedience to Christ, the Founder of the Church.

In the family, women, according to Sacred Scripture, are to be in subjection to their own husbands and the husband does have a patriarchal and protective role as regards the “weaker sex”. This may not sit comfortably with modern and warped feminist propaganda, but that does not render this infallible teaching invalid and untrue.

In society, dear friend, single woman must work, perhaps for their entire lives, if they do not enter into holy wedlock, for whatever reason. Obviously, dear friend, they must needs support themselves, even if they remain within the family home with their mother and father, which is far better than living alone. However, if they do marry they must relinquish their jobs and devote themselves full-time to looking after their husbands and children, so as these are not neglected (see the citation of Pope Pius XI in my previous post).

AngryAtheist, I just do not think that women having the franchise ipso facto means that they have “power over male politicians”. They cast their vote equally along with men and therefore have an (name removed by moderator)ut as regards the ballot box result, just like everyone else. Indeed, they could collectively swing the vote one way or another, but that would apply to both a male or female politician. That is how a democracy works and I do not see it as a ‘power’ issue.

Forgive me, dear friend, but you seem to have anidee fixe with this ‘power’ that men are supposed to have over women. In the Christian religion we do not think in such terms respecting the relations between men and women and I rather think that you have become too imbued with the radical feminist world-view and this is colouring all of your thinking. A woman teacher, for example, does not have ‘power’ over the male students in the lecture hall, she is simply there imparting knowledge about a subject in which she has acquired a high level of competence. The students hopefully benefit from this and pass their exams.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The right to bring charges against someone or act as a witness is also a form of judicial power (or at least influence), do you believe that women should be stripped of these things as well?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
What legal rights and protections would women have in your ideal society?

What political rights would women have in your ideal society?

Would women and girls have the right to an education in your ideal society?

And yet the Catholic Planet article you endorsed is against these things.
Here’s some quotes from it to put everything in perspective:

-Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
-God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

As these passages make clear, women are not supposed to have any authority in society (at least where it could effect men). This would mean stripping women of voting rights, because collectively female voters have a great deal of power over male politicians.

Now Portrait, do you believe in this position, or do you think that women should have some power over men in society?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Personally speaking, dear friend, I must concur with Catholic Planet and say that I do not think that women should be involved in the world of politics, not necessarily because this would entail having some authority over men, but rather because this would be to occupy a postion for which they were not intended by the divine providential order. The same would apply to the Judiciary. As I remarked in my previous response to you on that other thread, there does need to be a radical rethink about a great many things that we now consider quite normal and acceptable. That will clearly not be a painless exercise or one that is free from controversy, given the changes that have taken place in society in the last fifty years or so. However, I think it incumbent upon us as a society to ask some very awkward and probing questions about modern society and where we are going, and, yes, my dear friend, questions respecting gender distinctions, the roles of men and women and the sort of work with which they should or should not be involved with. That so many Western women have opted to shun marriage in order to pursue a career is a monumental tragedy of the first rank and rather than hankering after political office they should humbly and gratefully receive the divinely ordained role of motherhood, unless they have a calling to religious. Old fashioned, certainly, but also beneficial to the wider society and according to the natural order of things to boot.

The Catholic Church has always excluded women from holy orders, this is not her own regulation but was established by her Divine Founder. As St. Chrysostom says in his classic work on the priesthood c. 387 A.D., “Divine law has excluded women from the ministry” (On the priesthood, III, 9). Thus, dear friend, it is has nothing whatsoever with women being of lesser dignity or worth than men, but everything to do with obedience to Christ, the Founder of the Church.

In the family, women, according to Sacred Scripture, are to be in subjection to their own husbands and the husband does have a patriarchal and protective role as regards the “weaker sex”. This may not sit comfortably with modern and warped feminist propaganda, but that does not render this infallible teaching invalid and untrue.

In society, dear friend, single woman must work, perhaps for their entire lives, if they do not enter into holy wedlock, for whatever reason. Obviously, dear friend, they must needs support themselves, even if they remain within the family home with their mother and father, which is far better than living alone. However, if they do marry they must relinquish their jobs and devote themselves full-time to looking after their husbands and children, so as these are not neglected (see the citation of Pope Pius XI in my previous post).

AngryAtheist, I just do not think that women having the franchise ipso facto means that they have “power over male politicians”. They cast their vote equally along with men and therefore have an (name removed by moderator)ut as regards the ballot box result, just like everyone else. Indeed, they could collectively swing the vote one way or another, but that would apply to both a male or female politician. That is how a democracy works and I do not see it as a ‘power’ issue.

Forgive me, dear friend, but you seem to have anidee fixe with this ‘power’ that men are supposed to have over women. In the Christian religion we do not think in such terms respecting the relations between men and women and I rather think that you have become too imbued with the radical feminist world-view and this is colouring all of your thinking. A woman teacher, for example, does not have ‘power’ over the male students in the lecture hall, she is simply there imparting knowledge about a subject in which she has acquired a high level of competence. The students hopefully benefit from this and pass their exams.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Then you do not understand democracy.
How can the ability to select or reject a leader not be considered a form of power or influence?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

Personally speaking, dear friend, I must concur with Catholic Planet and say that I do not think that women should be involved in the world of politics, not necessarily because this would entail having some authority over men, but rather because this would be to occupy a postion for which they were not intended by the divine providential order. The same would apply to the Judiciary. As I remarked in my previous response to you on that other thread, there does need to be a radical rethink about a great many things that we now consider quite normal and acceptable. That will clearly not be a painless exercise or one that is free from controversy, given the changes that have taken place in society in the last fifty years or so. However, I think it incumbent upon us as a society to ask some very awkward and probing questions about modern society and where we are going, and, yes, my dear friend, questions respecting gender distinctions, the roles of men and women and the sort of work with which they should or should not be involved with. That so many Western women have opted to shun marriage in order to pursue a career is a monumental tragedy of the first rank and rather than hankering after political office they should humbly and gratefully receive the divinely ordained role of motherhood, unless they have a calling to religious. Old fashioned, certainly, but also beneficial to the wider society and according to the natural order of things to boot.

The Catholic Church has always excluded women from holy orders, this is not her own regulation but was established by her Divine Founder. As St. Chrysostom says in his classic work on the priesthood c. 387 A.D., “Divine law has excluded women from the ministry” (On the priesthood, III, 9). Thus, dear friend, it is has nothing whatsoever with women being of lesser dignity or worth than men, but everything to do with obedience to Christ, the Founder of the Church.

In the family, women, according to Sacred Scripture, are to be in subjection to their own husbands and the husband does have a patriarchal and protective role as regards the “weaker sex”. This may not sit comfortably with modern and warped feminist propaganda, but that does not render this infallible teaching invalid and untrue.

In society, dear friend, single woman must work, perhaps for their entire lives, if they do not enter into holy wedlock, for whatever reason. Obviously, dear friend, they must needs support themselves, even if they remain within the family home with their mother and father, which is far better than living alone. However, if they do marry they must relinquish their jobs and devote themselves full-time to looking after their husbands and children, so as these are not neglected (see the citation of Pope Pius XI in my previous post).

AngryAtheist, I just do not think that women having the franchise ipso facto means that they have “power over male politicians”. They cast their vote equally along with men and therefore have an (name removed by moderator)ut as regards the ballot box result, just like everyone else. Indeed, they could collectively swing the vote one way or another, but that would apply to both a male or female politician. That is how a democracy works and I do not see it as a ‘power’ issue.

Forgive me, dear friend, but you seem to have anidee fixe with this ‘power’ that men are supposed to have over women. In the Christian religion we do not think in such terms respecting the relations between men and women and I rather think that you have become too imbued with the radical feminist world-view and this is colouring all of your thinking. A woman teacher, for example, does not have ‘power’ over the male students in the lecture hall, she is simply there imparting knowledge about a subject in which she has acquired a high level of competence. The students hopefully benefit from this and pass their exams.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The idea does not *sit comfortably *with the concept of men and women being equal in any meaningful way either:shrug:

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Nothumbleenough
My oldest son recently informed me he strongly believed The Church still actively promoted the idea that women are the “weaker sex” and he pointed to a couple of writings by Thomas Aquinas as proof.

The first quote is “women should keep silent in the churches, for they are not allowed to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. But if they want to learn anything, they should ask their husbands at home. For it is improper for a woman to speak in the church.”

The second quote reads “women are in a state of subjection.”

Does the Church still hold these Aquinas writings as complelely valid?

I listed this in the Social Justice catagory because my son believes this to be an outrage to all catholic women. He further believes not allowing women as priests is a discriminatory practice. I can easily defend the aspect of women not being able to receive the sacrament of holy orders due to their sex, but could use some help on the Church’s perspective concerning the nearly 800 year old writings of Aquinas.

Much Thanks

I believe that women are the fairer sex, in many ways. God bless it. But that does not mean that women are the weaker sex. I certainly do not think that women are in a state of subjection. Men and women are different. Women are not simply men with different body parts as feminists would have people believe. It is liberalism and progressivism that would have all believe that power over sex, birth control and abortion rights and the diminishment of fatherhood would create equality. No, the Church is not going to start ordaining women. Women are still wives and mothers. Yes, abortion is an evil that should be rejected by both men and women as by all members of society. Generally no one speaks up in Church any more, so I’m not sure that’s really a great concern these days. I would have your son look up soon to be Saint Hildegard Von Bingen if he thinks that strong women have not existed in the Church and do not exist in the Church. Hildegard was educated in the sciences, music and a host of other subjects more than 900 years ago, before Aquinas even. We need only look back as far as Mother Theresa to see just how strong women can be in the Church and in the world.

The thing is…

If people like Portrait are right, such women are *not only *very much the exception.
They are meant to only be a statistically insignificant exception (because the norm should be for women to marry then devote their *full energies *to serving their husbands and children).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

What is at fault here, my dear friend, is your definition of servanthood. Servanthood does not have to be servile and men and women can serve one another out of love, as well as out duty. By love we serve one another and our fellow-man.

It is a jolly good and nobel thing for a woman to care for her husband and children and I am quite sure that no pious Catholic woman would deem such work servitude.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Seriously, what’s with the chronic misspelling of simple words?

 

[Portrait]

As I have pointed out before, the Catholic Planet viewpoint that you support explicitly rejects the idea of men and women being partners.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

The CP would, I think, fully accept the Catholic notion of men and women being partners, as given by Peter Lombard, but not your understanding of partnership, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Stratocatholic]

The thing is…

If people like Portrait are right, such women are *not only *very much the exception.
They are meant to only be a statistically insignificant exception (because the norm should be for women to marry then devote their *full energies *to serving their husbands and children).

And what would be wrong with that, if they chose that life?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
It would only be silly if it had not actually been part of the official Fascist agenda.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello agian and thankyou for that response.

Well, dear friend, the fact that it had been part of the Fascist agenda evinces most plainly just how misguided and foolish was both the statement and the agenda. Moreover, how very sad that it is taken up by the radical feminists and used as part of their venom against the divine providential and natural order, as regards the role of women.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

LOL

This post is wrong on so many fundamental levels its hard to know where to begin.

First of all, Kinder, Kuche, Kirche, stands for Children, Kitchen, Church, and represents the idea that women should be relegated to the home and concern themselves only with the domestic sphere and leave the affairs of the outside world to the more capable menfolk

This is an idea that Feminists obviously reject, and that Germany itself has rejected as it has moved away from its Nazi past (link to relevant news article: guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/19/germany-children-birthrate-lowest) though traces of the attitude remain in some of their government policies (although its worth noting that the Nazis didn’t use the phrase Kinder, Kuche, Kirche itself that much because of its links to the pre-Nazi past).

The idea that Feminists embrace Kinder, Kuche, Kirche is simply laughable.
You (and for that matter the Nazis) are the ones who embrace it, not advocates of women’s rights.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

The CP would, I think, fully accept the Catholic notion of men and women being partners, as given by Peter Lombard, but not your understanding of partnership, dear friend.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Exactly.
I use the the real definition of partnership.
Which is incompatible with the master/slave or employer/employee relationship.

But here is what Catholic Planet actually says about husbands and wives as partners:
Women sometimes say that marriage is a “50-50 partnership,” but such is not the teaching of Christ.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

The thing is…

If people like Portrait are right, such women are not only very much the exception.
They are meant to only be a statistically insignificant exception (because the norm should be for women to marry then devote their full energies to serving their husbands and children).

And what would be wrong with that, if they chose that life?

Its not about choice.
According to people like Portrait, women are *meant to *be weak and servile (in relation to men, specifically their husbands).
Not strong like the women mentioned in your earlier post.

 

[Portrait]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8

Do you have ANYTHING to support any of your claims other than your own interpretation of Scripture and (Catholic) Church teachings?

So you found a misogynistic Pope who made statements that support your position of meaningless equality (with men) for women.

So what?

Do his words overrule more recent official Church documents such as Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women?

If not, your argument is built on less than sand.

Moreover I think you misunderstand who or what you’re debating.
If you can definitely prove that the Church is anti-women’s rights that will not change my mind about women or Feminism. It will merely make me think less of the Catholic Church.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

That you dismiss Pope Pius XI as “misogynistic Pope”, only reveals your very obvious bias, dear friend, and does not mean that it is an unassailable fact.

His encylical forms part of the Ordinary Magisterium and is infallible teaching that is to be received by the faithful.

The teaching of this encyclical is not at variance with the ‘A Letter to Women’ by H.H.JPII, if that latter is understood correctly. The Church has not and cannot rescind the encyclical of Pope Pius XI as it is a part of the Sacred Tradition. Many modern day Catholics may choose to ignore it as irrelevant, or insist that that it is ‘timebound’, but that is merely their opinion, probably based upon the fact that it does not square with their avant garde theories. Sadly, you can often hear contemporary Catholics say such things as “Well, I prefer to listen to Pope John Paul as he is my favourite Pope of all time and he had such wisdom”. That is not how a Catholic should think and reveals a sort of *a *la carte approach to the Faith, where one conveniently ignores the encylicals, Apostolic Letters etc, that one happens to profoundly disagrees with.

God bless and goodbye for now, dear friend, and do enjoy the rest your day. I will respond to your other posts tommorow.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax:tiphat:

 

[JackHandy]

To be properly understood, one must be aware that the sacrament of marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and the Church. Here is St Paul in his own words about the relationship of husband and wife toward one another and of the relationship of Christ with the Church.

From Ephesians 5:

21 Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ.

22 Wives should be subordinate to their husbands as to the Lord.

23 For the husband is head of his wife just as Christ is head of the church, he himself the savior of the body.

24 As the church is subordinate to Christ, so wives should be subordinate to their husbands in everything.

25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ loved the church and handed himself over for her

26 to sanctify her, cleansing her by the bath of water with the word,

27 that he might present to himself the church in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
**
28 So (also) husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.

29 For no one hates his own flesh but rather nourishes and cherishes it, even as Christ does the church,**

30 because we are members of his body.

31 “For this reason a man shall leave (his) father and (his) mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.”

32 This is a great mystery, but I speak in reference to Christ and the church.

33 In any case, each one of you should love his wife as himself, and the wife should respect her husband.

 People tend to focus on the bible teaching that women are to be treated like cattle by their husbands.  What I have outlined above shows that husbands are to love their wives as Christ loved the church.  Christ handed himself over as a sacrifice for the church.

 This defines the proper role of the man in a marriage.  He should love his wife to the point of giving his life for her.

 Another point, How is the Church subordinate to Christ?  It is not by a list of Ten Commandments since Christ did not come to give the law but to fulfill it.  The Church is instead to love Christ with all of its being and to accept his grace in order to give it strength.  This is how the Church is subordinate to Christ, who loves the Church with everything in His being.  The married relationship is to be analogous to this.

God Bless,

Jack Handy