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

[Portrait]

Its pretty clear that you are judging the document in a very biased way (assuming that because something is not praised in a specific manner, it must be bad) in order to rationalize your support of misogynistic positions like these catholicplanet.com/women/roles.html that would reduce women to the status of chattel if implemented.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

We are just not going to agree on the understanding of ‘A Letter to Women’, dear friend, but the whole point is that different groups of women are praised in a specific manner.

All of your argumentation, alas, betrays the the influence of aberrant fanatical femenism and this is why, dear friend, I think that you are failing to appreciate and value the true purpose and aim of womanhood. Femenism is a vain and foolish imitation of masculinity at the expense of a tragic loss in femenity. Femenism is not the exaltation of woman but actually her obliteration, for it results in the reduction of the femenine character to that of the masculine. It is nothing more than a self-imposed slavery at the loss of identity, this is the sad stutus to which it reduces women. It is a travesty of nature inasmuch as it arrogantly refuses the true nature of women as part of the divine providential plan. Moreover, it is also a perversion in the natural sphere. Radical femenism has completely failed to understand the freedom, human nature and essential distinctions involved in a proper evaluation of the whole notion of equality - hence its abundant errors and distortions.

The natural order, to return to the topic under review, differentiates the two sexes by subordinating the one to the other. In the order of creation the woman comes after the man. She is subject to man though not his final end. The final end of both genders is absolutely equal.

St. Paul makes it perfectly clear that “There is…neither male nor female…” (Gal. 3: 28). Specific differences between the sexes do incontrovertably exist, but all those regenerated by baptism are endowed with the same dignity before God. Moreover, as Sacred Scripture observes, the proper subjection of the female to the male does not have its principle in the male but in the Lord (“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord” Eph. 5: 22). Although it true that St. Paul enjoins spouses to “Be subject to one another our of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5: 21), he also insists that “the husband is the head of the wife” and that she is to be subject to her husband (Eph. 5: 22-24). Now this subordination of a wife to her husband may well be rejected as ‘mysoginistic’ by radical fanatical femenists (which, as Dan Daly pointed out, includes many men) and even ignored or explained away by some modern Catholics, nonetheless the fact remains that it is a teaching of divine revelation whether we care to accept it or not. God’s most holy word is correct no matter who dares question its authority and the Church in its Tradition has always taught this principle of subordination.

Radical aberrant femenism, dear friend, flatly refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path, the end of which is the suicide of thought and the demise of true femeninity and womanhood.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

Why do you consistently misspell Feminism and Femininity?
At first I thought it was just an honest error on your part, but for whatever reason you keep doing it again and again:shrug:

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

Quite right, dear friend, I apologise for the repeated misspelling of those words, I will take care more care in subsequent posts. Perhaps its my deep aversion to aberrant radical feminism thats to blame!

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

It would only elicit that sort of response, dear friend, if you completely misunderstand the role and place of women in authentic Catholic theology. Christianity is ‘pro-women’, and always has been, since the religion of Christ is pro-women in that it emphasizes the dignity of womanhood. Moreover, it is an indisputable fact that the example and teaching of Christ has lifted women in one country and society after another to a postion that they did not occupy previously. In religions such as Judaism and Islam, women have a much more inferior place than men, so the Christian religion is in fact very pro-women because it recognises the dignity of womanhood. However, this is poles apart from virtually obliterating the distinctions between the sexes that is associated with secular radical femenism and its warped ideology. That sort of ‘equality’ is anti-Christian and is actually a shameful denial of true femeninity and womanhood, as given to us by the divine providence.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Not if the position that you and Catholic Planet endorses is correct.

Which can be summarized with one line from the webpage (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm):

God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

-As I have pointed out before, depriving women of all real power in the family, the religion, and society would essentially reduce them to the status of chattel again.

 

[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?

 

[Portrait]

Not if the position that you and Catholic Planet endorses is correct.

Which can be summarized with one line from the webpage (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm):

God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

-As I have pointed out before, depriving women of all real power in the family, the religion, and society would essentially reduce them to the status of chattel again.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

You will recall, dear friend, that I responded to the *Catholic Planet *article earlier this month in a previous thread (‘Three Principles For Honouring Your Husband’ see # 285). Your reply to this in # 289 was that you thought I supported reducing women to the stutus of chattel.
This, I believe, is a gross misrepresentation of my position, which would not and does not result in women being reduced to such a status, although from your standpoint I can see why you might come to that erroneous conclusion, dear friend.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Please understand, dear friend, that I am not against basic legal rights and protections for women and neither am I opposed to women being able to vote in general elections etc.

As regards women being educated, dear friend, you have asked me this question before earlier this month in the ‘Three Principals for Honouring Husbands’ thread and I answered it in #324 by saying there is nothing at all wrong with a woman being educated and having a degree. Indeed, a good education will be of an advantage to a woman if, for whatever reason, she never enters into holy wedlock and wants to pursue a professional career, rather than do unskilled work. However, if she does eventually marry, which is usually the case, then she should, according to Catholic Tradition, relinquish her career and devote herself to being a full-time wife and mother. However, that is not radical doctrine and the vast majority of Catholics would not think this reduced women to being “chattel”, but would see it as submitting humbly and gratefully to the divine role of motherhood.

The fact is, my dear friend, that women are generally (though not always) called to be wives and mothers and ought never to be ashamed of this or feel the need to apologise for it, as it is an a important work affecting the good of the wider society - “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, is a truism.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

We are just not going to agree on the understanding of ‘A Letter to Women’, dear friend, but the whole point is that different groups of women are praised in a specific manner.

All of your argumentation, alas, betrays the the influence of aberrant fanatical femenism and this is why, dear friend, I think that you are failing to appreciate and value the true purpose and aim of womanhood. Femenism is a vain and foolish imitation of masculinity at the expense of a tragic loss in femenity. ** Femenism** is not the exaltation of woman but actually her obliteration, for it results in the reduction of the **femenine **character to that of the masculine. It is nothing more than a self-imposed slavery at the loss of identity, this is the sad stutus to which it reduces women. It is a travesty of nature inasmuch as it arrogantly refuses the true nature of women as part of the divine providential plan. Moreover, it is also a perversion in the natural sphere. Radical **femenism **has completely failed to understand the freedom, human nature and essential distinctions involved in a proper evaluation of the whole notion of equality - hence its abundant errors and distortions.

The natural order, to return to the topic under review, differentiates the two sexes by subordinating the one to the other. In the order of creation the woman comes after the man. She is subject to man though not his final end. The final end of both genders is absolutely equal.

St. Paul makes it perfectly clear that “There is…neither male nor female…” (Gal. 3: 28). Specific differences between the sexes do incontrovertably exist, but all those regenerated by baptism are endowed with the same dignity before God. Moreover, as Sacred Scripture observes, the proper subjection of the female to the male does not have its principle in the male but in the Lord (“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord” Eph. 5: 22). Although it true that St. Paul enjoins spouses to “Be subject to one another our of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5: 21), he also insists that “the husband is the head of the wife” and that she is to be subject to her husband (Eph. 5: 22-24). Now this subordination of a wife to her husband may well be rejected as ‘mysoginistic’ by radical fanatical femenists (which, as Dan Daly pointed out, includes many men) and even ignored or explained away by some modern Catholics, nonetheless the fact remains that it is a teaching of divine revelation whether we care to accept it or not. God’s most holy word is correct no matter who dares question its authority and the Church in its Tradition has always taught this principle of subordination.

Radical aberrant femenism, dear friend, flatly refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path, the end of which is the suicide of thought and the demise of true** femeninity **and womanhood.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and thankyou for your response.

We are just not going to agree on the understanding of ‘A Letter to Women’, dear friend, but the whole point is that different groups of women are praised in a specific manner.

All of your argumentation, alas, betrays the the influence of aberrant fanatical femenism and this is why, dear friend, I think that you are failing to appreciate and value the true purpose and aim of womanhood. Femenism is a vain and foolish imitation of masculinity at the expense of a tragic loss in femenity. Femenism is not the exaltation of woman but actually her obliteration, for it results in the reduction of the femenine character to that of the masculine. It is nothing more than a self-imposed slavery at the loss of identity, this is the sad stutus to which it reduces women. It is a travesty of nature inasmuch as it arrogantly refuses the true nature of women as part of the divine providential plan. Moreover, it is also a perversion in the natural sphere. Radical femenism has completely failed to understand the freedom, human nature and essential distinctions involved in a proper evaluation of the whole notion of equality - hence its abundant errors and distortions.

The natural order, to return to the topic under review, differentiates the two sexes by subordinating the one to the other. In the order of creation the woman comes after the man. She is subject to man though not his final end. The final end of both genders is absolutely equal.

St. Paul makes it perfectly clear that “There is…neither male nor female…” (Gal. 3: 28). Specific differences between the sexes do incontrovertably exist, but all those regenerated by baptism are endowed with the same dignity before God. Moreover, as Sacred Scripture observes, the proper subjection of the female to the male does not have its principle in the male but in the Lord (“Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord” Eph. 5: 22). Although it true that St. Paul enjoins spouses to “Be subject to one another our of reverence for Christ” (Eph. 5: 21), he also insists that “the husband is the head of the wife” and that she is to be subject to her husband (Eph. 5: 22-24). Now this subordination of a wife to her husband may well be rejected as ‘mysoginistic’ by radical fanatical femenists (which, as Dan Daly pointed out, includes many men) and even ignored or explained away by some modern Catholics, nonetheless the fact remains that it is a teaching of divine revelation whether we care to accept it or not. God’s most holy word is correct no matter who dares question its authority and the Church in its Tradition has always taught this principle of subordination.

Radical aberrant femenism, dear friend, flatly refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path, the end of which is the suicide of thought and the demise of true femeninity and womanhood.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

If you are correct about the true nature of women, then no one can reasonably against the Chinese and Indians aborting an entire generation of women on the grounds that girls are just as valuable as boys (for according to your worldview they are not).

I however, *do not believe *that women and girls are such pitiful and servile creatures

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Why do you consistently misspell Feminism and Femininity?
At first I thought it was just an honest error on your part, but for whatever reason you keep doing it again and again

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

Quite right, dear friend, I apologise for the repeated misspelling of those words, I will take care more care in subsequent posts. Perhaps its my deep aversion to aberrant radical feminism thats to blame!

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Or perhaps you are unconsciously averse to using the correct word when misrepresenting the term under question to such an extent

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Not if the position that you and Catholic Planet endorses is correct.

Which can be summarized with one line from the webpage (link to source: catholicplanet.com/women/roles.htm):

God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

-As I have pointed out before, depriving women of all real power in the family, the religion, and society would essentially reduce them to the status of chattel again.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for your response.

You will recall, dear friend, that I responded to the *Catholic Planet *article earlier this month in a previous thread (‘Three Principles For Honouring Your Husband’ see # 285). Your reply to this in # 289 was that you thought I supported reducing women to the stutus of chattel.
This, I believe, is a gross misrepresentation of my position, which would not and does not result in women being reduced to such a status, although from your standpoint I can see why you might come to that erroneous conclusion, dear friend.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

I think this post of yours is a good comparison of our different debating styles.

I support my arguments with evidence, reason, and sources, whereas you simply deny your opponents claims without bothering to use evidence, reason, or sources (at least based on what I have seen).

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

 

[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?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Please understand, dear friend, that I am not against basic legal rights and protections for women and neither am I opposed to women being able to vote in general elections etc.

As regards women being educated, dear friend, you have asked me this question before earlier this month in the ‘Three Principals for Honouring Husbands’ thread and I answered it in #324 by saying there is nothing at all wrong with a woman being educated and having a degree. Indeed, a good education will be of an advantage to a woman if, for whatever reason, she never enters into holy wedlock and wants to pursue a professional career, rather than do unskilled work. However, if she does eventually marry, which is usually the case, then she should, according to Catholic Tradition, relinquish her career and devote herself to being a full-time wife and mother. However, that is not radical doctrine and the vast majority of Catholics would not think this reduced women to being “chattel”, but would see it as submitting humbly and gratefully to the divine role of motherhood.

The fact is, my dear friend, that women are generally (though not always) called to be wives and mothers and ought never to be ashamed of this or feel the need to apologise for it, as it is an a important work affecting the good of the wider society - “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, is a truism.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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?

 

[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

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Please understand, dear friend, that I am not against basic legal rights and protections for women and neither am I opposed to women being able to vote in general elections etc.

As regards women being educated, dear friend, you have asked me this question before earlier this month in the ‘Three Principals for Honouring Husbands’ thread and I answered it in #324 by saying there is nothing at all wrong with a woman being educated and having a degree. Indeed, a good education will be of an advantage to a woman if, for whatever reason, she never enters into holy wedlock and wants to pursue a professional career, rather than do unskilled work. However, if she does eventually marry, which is usually the case, then she should, according to Catholic Tradition, relinquish her career and devote herself to being a full-time wife and mother. However, that is not radical doctrine and the vast majority of Catholics would not think this reduced women to being “chattel”, but would see it as submitting humbly and gratefully to the divine role of motherhood.

The fact is, my dear friend, that women are generally (though not always) called to be wives and mothers and ought never to be ashamed of this or feel the need to apologise for it, as it is an a important work affecting the good of the wider society - “the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”, is a truism.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Then as now, you over simplify and refuse to answer the question directly.

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.

 

[Portrait]

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?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Neither myself nor authentic Catholicism would regard women as the personal attendants of men, existing only to undertake domestic duties within the marital home. However, dear friend, both men and women have their own spheres and roles, given by the divine providence. Thus baby-rearing, shopping, cooking and cleaning are exclusively and naturally the preserve of women and they are more fitted to undertaking these tasks than are men, or to use the biblical phraseology, they are naturally “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5). This does not equate to their husbands being non-contributing beneficiaries of their labour, as fanatical radical feminism argues, since this is their God-given sphere and, in any case, men have the responsibility to earn the money to support the family. Of course, a husband will occasionally hoover the floor or wash the dishes from time to time, especially if his dear wife is indisposed, but there is a divsion of labour that is well-suited to the divine providential roles for men and women.

Invariably, when this traditional paridigm is posited by Catholics it is met with the silly German adage ‘Kinder, Kuche and Kirche’ (children, kitchen and church). This, my dear friend, is a gross distortion of the true Christian view and is only ever cited by feminists so that they can discredit the Christian model as blatant male chauvinism. Most orthodox Catholics can see this through this and quite rightly treat with the contempt that it deserves.

Men and women, dear friend, are complementary and that is why there can be no question of of the identity of one with the other; there are, notwithstanding radical feminism, male-female relationships and roles and these cannot be blurred or erradicated. Since men and women have been created by God with equal dignity, men and women must respect, love, serve and not despise one another. However, because they have been created complementary to each other, men and women must acknowledge their differences and not attempt to eliminate them or usurp one anothers distinctive roles. As Peter Lombard puts it with quaint profundity, ‘Eve was not taken from the feet of Adam to be his slave, not from his head to be his lord, but from his side to be his partner’. Masculinity and femininity complement each other and what God has joined together man should not try to put assunder.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

If you are correct about the true nature of women, then no one can reasonably against the Chinese and Indians aborting an entire generation of women on the grounds that girls are just as valuable as boys (for according to your worldview they are not).

I however, *do not believe *that women and girls are such pitiful and servile creatures

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

In the sight of God male and female are of equal worth and dignity and so the aborting of either is eqaully evil. The fact that women have differing roles and spheres of work from men does not mean that they are of less value. That is the Christian world-view, dear friend.

No Catholic would, therefore, subscribe to such a repugnant view “that women and girls are such pitiful and servile creatures”. Again, dear friend, this is another gross distortion of fanatical radical feminism.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Portrait]

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

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

**Neither myself nor authentic Catholicism would regard women as the personal attendants of men, existing only to undertake domestic duties within the marital home. ** However, dear friend, both men and women have their own spheres and roles, given by the divine providence. Thus baby-rearing, shopping, cooking and cleaning are exclusively and naturally the preserve of women and they are more fitted to undertaking these tasks than are men, or to use the biblical phraseology, they are naturally “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5). This does not equate to their husbands being non-contributing beneficiaries of their labour, as fanatical radical feminism argues, since this is their God-given sphere and, in any case, men have the responsibility to earn the money to support the family. Of course, a husband will occasionally hoover the floor or wash the dishes from time to time, especially if his dear wife is indisposed, but there is a divsion of labour that is well-suited to the divine providential roles for men and women.

Invariably, when this traditional paridigm is posited by Catholics it is met with the silly German adage ‘Kinder, Kuche and Kirche’ (children, kitchen and church). This, my dear friend, is a gross distortion of the true Christian view and is only ever cited by feminists so that they can discredit the Christian model as blatant male chauvinism. Most orthodox Catholics can see this through this and quite rightly treat with the contempt that it deserves.

Men and women, dear friend, are complementary and that is why there can be no question of of the identity of one with the other; there are, notwithstanding radical feminism, male-female relationships and roles and these cannot be blurred or erradicated. Since men and women have been created by God with equal dignity, men and women must respect, love, serve and not despise one another. However, because they have been created complementary to each other, men and women must acknowledge their differences and not attempt to eliminate them or usurp one anothers distinctive roles. As Peter Lombard puts it with quaint profundity, ‘Eve was not taken from the feet of Adam to be his slave, not from his head to be his lord, but from his side to be his partner’. Masculinity and femininity complement each other and what God has joined together man should not try to put assunder.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Neither myself nor authentic Catholicism would regard women as the personal attendants of men, existing only to undertake domestic duties within the marital home. However, dear friend, both men and women have their own spheres and roles, given by the divine providence. Thus baby-rearing, shopping, cooking and cleaning are exclusively and naturally the preserve of women and they are more fitted to undertaking these tasks than are men, or to use the biblical phraseology, they are naturally “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5). This does not equate to their husbands being non-contributing beneficiaries of their labour, as fanatical radical feminism argues, since this is their God-given sphere and, in any case, men have the responsibility to earn the money to support the family. Of course, a husband will occasionally hoover the floor or wash the dishes from time to time, especially if his dear wife is indisposed, but there is a divsion of labour that is well-suited to the divine providential roles for men and women.

**Invariably, when this traditional paridigm is posited by Catholics it is met with the silly German adage ‘Kinder, Kuche and Kirche’ (children, kitchen and church). ** This, my dear friend, is a gross distortion of the true Christian view and is only ever cited by feminists so that they can discredit the Christian model as blatant male chauvinism. Most orthodox Catholics can see this through this and quite rightly treat with the contempt that it deserves.

Men and women, dear friend, are complementary and that is why there can be no question of of the identity of one with the other; there are, notwithstanding radical feminism, male-female relationships and roles and these cannot be blurred or erradicated. Since men and women have been created by God with equal dignity, men and women must respect, love, serve and not despise one another. However, because they have been created complementary to each other, men and women must acknowledge their differences and not attempt to eliminate them or usurp one anothers distinctive roles. As Peter Lombard puts it with quaint profundity, ‘Eve was not taken from the feet of Adam to be his slave, not from his head to be his lord, but from his side to be his partner’. Masculinity and femininity complement each other and what God has joined together man should not try to put assunder.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.

Neither myself nor authentic Catholicism would regard women as the personal attendants of men, existing only to undertake domestic duties within the marital home. However, dear friend, both men and women have their own spheres and roles, given by the divine providence. Thus baby-rearing, shopping, cooking and cleaning are exclusively and naturally the preserve of women and they are more fitted to undertaking these tasks than are men, or to use the biblical phraseology, they are naturally “workers at home” (Titus 2: 4,5). This does not equate to their husbands being non-contributing beneficiaries of their labour, as fanatical radical feminism argues, since this is their God-given sphere and, in any case, men have the responsibility to earn the money to support the family. Of course, a husband will occasionally hoover the floor or wash the dishes from time to time, especially if his dear wife is indisposed, but there is a divsion of labour that is well-suited to the divine providential roles for men and women.

Invariably, when this traditional paridigm is posited by Catholics it is met with the silly German adage ‘Kinder, Kuche and Kirche’ (children, kitchen and church). This, my dear friend, is a gross distortion of the true Christian view and is only ever cited by feminists so that they can discredit the Christian model as blatant male chauvinism. Most orthodox Catholics can see this through this and quite rightly treat with the contempt that it deserves.

Men and women, dear friend, are complementary and that is why there can be no question of of the identity of one with the other; there are, notwithstanding radical feminism, male-female relationships and roles and these cannot be blurred or erradicated. Since men and women have been created by God with equal dignity, men and women must respect, love, serve and not despise one another. However, because they have been created complementary to each other, men and women must acknowledge their differences and not attempt to eliminate them or usurp one anothers distinctive roles. As Peter Lombard puts it with quaint profundity, ‘Eve was not taken from the feet of Adam to be his slave, not from his head to be his lord, but from his side to be his partner’. Masculinity and femininity complement each other and what God has joined together man should not try to put assunder.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
If you are correct about the true nature of women, then no one can reasonably against the Chinese and Indians aborting an entire generation of women on the grounds that girls are just as valuable as boys (for according to your worldview they are not).

I however, do not believe that women and girls are such pitiful and servile creatures

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

In the sight of God male and female are of equal worth and dignity and so the aborting of either is eqaully evil. The fact that women have differing roles and spheres of work from men does not mean that they are of less value. That is the Christian world-view, dear friend.

No Catholic would, therefore, subscribe to such a repugnant view “that women and girls are such pitiful and servile creatures”. Again, dear friend, this is another gross distortion of fanatical radical feminism.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Actually its an accurate description of the viewpoint that you specifically endorse.

Unless you now disagree with the statement:
God did not give women a place, in the Church, the family, or society, to teach men or to have authority over men.

A statement which firmly puts women beneath men in virtually every way (assuming that you accept it).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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?

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

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.