Catholic teaching on...these...people?

[Kmon23]

I’m honestly surprised that such a question will lead to so many responses.
Any hobby is just a hobby. Watching any TV show, making crafts, etc.
This is just one (although peculiar) that is of many other hobbies.
Is it sinful in and of itself? I don’t think so. If it is, then I wonder how many other hobbies are sinful even though we’ve never thought that they were.
Can it be sinful? Of course, like anything in excess. Does it take away from more important things such as family and loving others? Does it become an idol?

Honestly, it’s just an interest/hobby. It’s like any other adult watching a children’s animated film and enjoying it, but also persisting in it’s enjoyment through a larger community and output of community content. That is what this is. It’s just a good show that people enjoy for entertainment that may also lead to a larger sense of community from the fandom itself. Honestly, I’d say watching MLP is better than say most of the other shows on television that promote sin. Also, there have been many charities done through this fandom which is pretty remarkable.
And I would know, since I also watch the show and enjoy it.

 

[signit]

Am I the only one who is a bit surprised to find the responders on this Catholic forum so universally find it of no importance that this isn’t simply a child’s show that men are obsessing over, but a girl’s show? I’d find it strange and worrisome if my young sons were into watching My Little Pony, I certainly wouldn’t find it less odd if they did so as adults.

I’m not saying the “Bronies” are being sinful (I made that clear in my post above), but I must admit to being dismayed at how many of my fellow Catholics have “drank the Kool-Aid” of “gender theory” which ultimately is terminating in “gay marriage.” One commenter even asked why obsessing over a girl’s show is any different than obsessing over baseball stats!

I agree with these replies:

What we consider here in the US to be masculine or feminine behavior is not necessarily true in other parts of the world. So perhaps we are getting more universal in our acceptance of people being what they are instead of needing to pretend to be what they are not.

And how are those adjectives to be defined? By some stereotype of gender roles in a given society? Which one?

Agreed. True “masculine” or “feminine” behavior is not defined by stereotypes.

“My Little Pony” is a “girls’” show only because somebody says it is. Poring over baseball stats is a “boys’” activity only for the same reason. Not because of God’s laws, and not because of someone’s feminine or masculine nature.

Reminds me of the recent post in another thread about figure skating. I was told, when I was about twelve years old, as if it were fact, that boys should play ice hockey and that figure skating was for girls or “sissies.” And I don’t agree with that kind of thinking. I was called names more than once because I didn’t play certain sports or because I did this or that, and I’d like to think people are past that.

 

[PietroPaolo]

Is the Catholic Encyclopedia infallible? What we consider here in the US to be masculine or feminine behavior is not necessarily true in other parts of the world. So perhaps we are getting more universal in our acceptance of people being what they are instead of needing to pretend to be what they are not.

And how are those adjectives to be defined? By some stereotype of gender roles in a given society? Which one?

ICXC NIKA.

Agreed. True “masculine” or “feminine” behavior is not defined by stereotypes.

“My Little Pony” is a “girls’” show only because somebody says it is. Poring over baseball stats is a “boys’” activity only for the same reason. Not because of God’s laws, and not because of someone’s feminine or masculine nature.

I am simply shocked at how the culture’s attitude of masculinity and femininity has taken over the thinking of my fellow Catholics. The idea that “gender roles” are “social constructs” and that a show like My Little Ponies is only “for girls” because society says so and a show like GI Joe is only “for boys” because society says so, is not Catholic (nor is it scientific - the most recent brain science shows that boys and girls naturally think differently and enjoy different things).

Again, I’m just shocked. I couldn’t image a different response on an LGBT forum than the one I’v received here.

If you want something more authoritative than the Catholic Encyclopedia then here is Pius XII on the same subject. Can any of you agree with him?

"But man and woman cannot maintain or perfect this equal dignity of theirs unless they respect and make use of the distinctive qualities which nature has bestowed on each sex: physical and spiritual qualities which are indestructible, and so co-ordinated that their mutual relation cannot be upset without nature itself intervening to re-establish it. These peculiar characteristics which distinguish the sexes are so obvious to everybody that nothing short of willful blindness, or a doctrinaire attitude as disastrous as it is utopian, can ignore or fail to see their importance in the structure of society.

Indeed, this co-ordination of the sexes through the characteristics peculiar to each is such as to extend its influence to every single manifestation of the social life of man."

(“every single manifestation” would, of course, include hobbies.)

IOW, boys aren’t girls with a “pp” and girls aren’t boys without one. Our souls and minds are as different as our bodies. Such a difference naturally expresses itself in different hobbies, including different toys and TV shows for children.

Even my four yr old understands that.

To reiterate my original point, the “Bronies” are not doing anything sinful, but their behavior is odd in the extreme and something I’d try to help them through if they were my family or friends.

 

[signit]

If you want something more authoritative than the Catholic Encyclopedia then here is Pius XII on the same subject. Can any of you agree with him?

"But man and woman cannot maintain or perfect this equal dignity of theirs unless they respect and make use of the distinctive qualities which nature has bestowed on each sex: physical and spiritual qualities which are indestructible, and so co-ordinated that their mutual relation cannot be upset without nature itself intervening to re-establish it. These peculiar characteristics which distinguish the sexes are so obvious to everybody that nothing short of willful blindness, or a doctrinaire attitude as disastrous as it is utopian, can ignore or fail to see their importance in the structure of society.

Indeed, this co-ordination of the sexes through the characteristics peculiar to each is such as to extend its influence to every single manifestation of the social life of man."

(“every single manifestation” would, of course, include hobbies.).

I still don’t see anything about “My Little Pony” in there.

And I don’t see anything about an interest in “My Little Pony” coming from “nature.”

Looking at this post from a while back, which I strongly agree with:

Boys who figure skate do get made fun of by peers and by GROWN MEN. I think it’s obvious that children learn to make fun of male figure skaters from these grown men, many of which are fathers who should know better. This seems to be mainly an issue in the United States, as many other countries, including Canada, honor their boys and men who figure skate. Perhaps one reason why men make fun of male figure skating is that some people apparently harbor the incorrect idea that figure skating is a “woman’s sport.”

So, figure skating is a “girls’” sport or a “sissy” sport because 12-year-old boys from my home town decided it was? Or is it a really “masculine” sport because it’s respected as such in other countries? There’s nothing in a woman’s “nature” or a man’s “nature” related to figure skating. It’s just the labels people put on it.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I still don’t see anything about “My Little Pony” in there.

And I don’t see anything about an interest in “My Little Pony” coming from “nature.”

The contention has been that “hobbies” are assigned to “genders” by “society” and that such assignment could have been opposite. The Pope’s remarks (as well as the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia) show that this isn’t a Catholic understanding of male and female. Did the Pope specifically address a television program that hadn’t been created yet? Of course not. But he does provide us with the basic principals necessary for refuting the fallacious ideas our culture has been pushing - namely that “gender roles” are social creations based on stereotypes.

We could go into a million examples. Figure skating is one you brought up. Wearing dresses could be another one. A Catholic understanding of the sexes would suggest that different sports ought to appeal to different sexes and that some might be only appropriate for one sex or the other, just as some clothing is appropriate to one sex and not the other.

Finally, whether or not a specific activity or interest is in a certain culture “assigned” as masculine or feminine (assuming here that said activity isn’t intrinsically masculine or feminine, which I am only granting for the sake of argument), it still remains to be demonstrated why members from the opposite sex ought to partake in it.

For example, for the sake of argument, let’s assume wearing a prom dress to a dance is only feminine b/c “society” says so. Does it then follow that boys ought to wear prom dresses? Of course not. Even if a particular activity is “only” feminine b/c of “society”, one still ought to follow social conventions of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil) just as one ought to follow the laws of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil). It does you no good to find another culture where men wear prom dresses, for such isn’t the culture this boy lives in.

IOW, a man desiring to do feminine things (even if those things were only feminine b/c of “society”) is disordered in and of itself.

Again, I dispute as un-Catholic and as the product of the Sexual Rev., the whole idea that “gender roles” are mere social constructs, but even if such is the case, as you contend, we still don’t get to your conclusion - that men watching a girl’s show isn’t abnormal.

Honestly, how does your answer here differ any from that which I would get from a homosexual? Don’t they argue that men and women are interchangeable, that the differences between them are mere “social constructs?” Isn’t this one of their essential premises for the legalization of “gay marriage” and the celebration of homosexual sex? This idea, combined with the notion that “doing x isn’t hurting anyone therefore it is fine” (which has also been expressed on this thread) leads directly to the conclusion that homosexuals ought to marry, does it not? Isn’t that their whole case?

Or maybe it would be better to ask, what (other than purely physiological functions) do you see as intrinsically “feminine” things or behavior and intrinsically “masculine” things or behavior?

 

[Bonnie]

We could go into a million examples. Figure skating is one you brought up. Wearing dresses could be another one. A Catholic understanding of the sexes would suggest that different sports ought to appeal to different sexes and that some might be only appropriate for one sex or the other, just as some clothing is appropriate to one sex and not the other.

So kilts are out? I’d mention other skirt/dress-like clothing from other cultures, but I don’t know all the correct names. We used to have a parishioner from a Polynesian country who would wear a skirt-like wrap on special occasions. He looked very manly in it!

Christian missionaries in the past - both Catholic & Protestant - did a terrible disservice to people in other cultures, forcing them to dress as Europeans and not speak their own languages, all in the name of God.

 

[PietroPaolo]

So kilts are out? I’d mention other skirt/dress-like clothing from other cultures, but I don’t know all the correct names. We used to have a parishioner from a Polynesian country who would wear a skirt-like wrap on special occasions. He looked very manly in it!

You didn’t read my entire post, clearly. Allow me to quote myself,

“Even if a particular activity is “only” feminine b/c of “society”, one still ought to follow social conventions of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil) just as one ought to follow the laws of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil).** It does you no good to find another culture where men wear prom dresses, for such isn’t the culture this boy lives in**.”

Christian missionaries in the past - both Catholic & Protestant - did a terrible disservice to people in other cultures, forcing them to dress as Europeans and not speak their own languages, all in the name of God.

So it is a great disservice for Christian missionaries to encourage people in other cultures to dress according to a foreign cultures norms, yet it is right and just for a man to wear a dress in a European culture b/c he is dressing according to a foreign cultures norms?

 

[Bonnie]

So it is a great disservice for Christian missionaries to encourage people in other cultures to dress according to a foreign cultures norms, yet it is right and just for a man to wear a dress in a European culture b/c he is dressing according to a foreign cultures norms?

No, it’s a disservice when a particular form of dress (or language, housing, dance, activities, etc) is considered to be the Christian norm. I really don’t think God cares about those things, tho it is obvious that many people do!

 

[signit]

There is a lot here, and I’ll try to reply to at least some of it.

The contention has been that “hobbies” are assigned to “genders” by “society” and that such assignment could have been opposite. The Pope’s remarks (as well as the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia) show that this isn’t a Catholic understanding of male and female. Did the Pope specifically address a television program that hadn’t been created yet? Of course not. But he does provide us with the basic principals necessary for refuting the fallacious ideas our culture has been pushing - namely that “gender roles” are social creations based on stereotypes.

We could go into a million examples. Figure skating is one you brought up. Wearing dresses could be another one. A Catholic understanding of the sexes would suggest that different sports ought to appeal to different sexes and that some might be only appropriate for one sex or the other, just as some clothing is appropriate to one sex and not the other.

Is figure skating an example of a sport that appeals more to one sex than the other, because of the nature of men and women rather than social constructs? It seems to appeal to either or both, depending on the culture.

Obviously, because men and women develop differently, women don’t compete in, for example, pro football, against men. That doesn’t mean they’re not suited to the sport at all; it means they don’t compete on the highest level, just as some middle-aged men don’t play pro basketball but they play with their friends on a less formal level.

For example, for the sake of argument, let’s assume wearing a prom dress to a dance is only feminine b/c “society” says so. Does it then follow that boys ought to wear prom dresses? Of course not. Even if a particular activity is “only” feminine b/c of “society”, one still ought to follow social conventions of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil) just as one ought to follow the laws of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil). It does you no good to find another culture where men wear prom dresses, for such isn’t the culture this boy lives in.

IOW, a man desiring to do feminine things (even if those things were only feminine b/c of “society”) is disordered in and of itself.

A man wearing women’s dresses, though, would be to create an impression on others. It would be just as easy to throw on a shirt and a pair of pants. It wouldn’t be the same as watching a certain TV show or playing a certain sports because you like it.

I will agree that a man shouldn’t do feminine things because they’re feminine, i.e., because they want to identify with the other gender.

Again, I dispute as un-Catholic and as the product of the Sexual Rev., the whole idea that “gender roles” are mere social constructs, but even if such is the case, as you contend, we still don’t get to your conclusion - that men watching a girl’s show isn’t abnormal.

It’s “abnormal” in the sense that if you run the numbers, most men don’t do it.

It might or might not be “abnormal” that I’d rather go to a musical than a sports event. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

I still don’t get the connection between that and the nature of a man as compared to that of a woman.

Honestly, how does your answer here differ any from that which I would get from a homosexual? Don’t they argue that men and women are interchangeable, that the differences between them are mere “social constructs?” Isn’t this one of their essential premises for the legalization of “gay marriage” and the celebration of homosexual sex? This idea, combined with the notion that “doing x isn’t hurting anyone therefore it is fine” (which has also been expressed on this thread) leads directly to the conclusion that homosexuals ought to marry, does it not? Isn’t that their whole case?

The homosexual would say that he is still a man, attracted to other men; probably not that gender doesn’t matter.

I do not agree that men and women are “interchangeable.” I believe that a child ideally should have a father and a mother. So if someone made that argument I wouldn’t follow it to its conclusion.

And about “doing x isn’t hurting anyone therefore it is fine” : well, some things really aren’t hurting anyone. A young man who figure skates should not get teased on the way home by peers taunting him that he’s not “man enough” to play ice hockey.

Or maybe it would be better to ask, what (other than purely physiological functions) do you see as intrinsically “feminine” things or behavior and intrinsically “masculine” things or behavior?

That might be a better question for me to ask you in return, as I can think of none.

 

[PietroPaolo]

I believe that a child ideally should have a father and a mother.

I can think of none.

in reply to

Or maybe it would be better to ask, what (other than purely physiological functions) do you see as intrinsically “feminine” things or behavior and intrinsically “masculine” things or behavior?

How do these two quotes of yours fit together? IOW, why should a child “ideally… have a father and a mother.” If there are no behaviors or things that are intrinsically feminine or masculine? If everything (except bodily functions) is neuter, why is the child with a mother and a father in any better of a situation than the child with “two dads”?

 

[PietroPaolo]

No, it’s a disservice when a particular form of dress (or language, housing, dance, activities, etc) is considered to be the Christian norm. I really don’t think God cares about those things, tho it is obvious that many people do!

If it is only a disservice to give pride of place to a particular form of dress within the context of a “Christian norm” how would it then follow that men ought to engage in feminine behaviors even if those behaviors are mere social constructs?

Allow me to ask you the same question I asked another poster above,

“what (other than purely physiological functions) do you see as intrinsically “feminine” things or behavior and intrinsically “masculine” things or behavior?”

 

[Bonnie]

If everything (except bodily functions) is neuter, why is the child with a mother and a father in any better of a situation than the child with “two dads”?

Um, bodily functions. A man cannot bear or nurse a child. A woman cannot impregnate another woman. A woman who is pregnant or caring for small children can’t be expected to go out to hunt (tho they have long been expected to take care of domestic animals as well as gather/plant/tend vegetable foods). Nor would she be able to defend both herself and the children.

Those reasons don’t carry a lot of weight in the modern world, but they still make sense to me.

 

[signit]

in reply to

How do these two quotes of yours fit together? IOW, why should a child “ideally… have a father and a mother.” If there are no behaviors or things that are intrinsically feminine or masculine? If everything (except bodily functions) is neuter, why is the child with a mother and a father in any better of a situation than the child with “two dads”?

For one example, as you mentioned earlier, our culture has certain expectations for men and women, such as men’s and women’s clothing. A boy is going to wear boys’ clothing, and later, men’s clothing, so a man might be better able to give advice in this regard (e.g., how to tie a necktie, how to “dress for success,” what kind of business suit to wear, making sure your socks match, etc.).

Also, most boys have opposite-sex attraction, and sooner or later are going to start wondering about girls, dating, marriage, etc., so a man, being closer to that situation, would be better able to give advice here as well.

And, assuming again the child is a boy, the mother-father couple is able to model how a man acts in a male-female relationship, which the “two dads” can’t do.

Now, for things that I contended earlier are masculine or feminine because of social constraints, such as certain sports, admittedly not every man is going to be able to help his son. Not every man is going to be able to help his son, or would even want to, in a lot of other respects, either. I never went camping as a child because Dad didn’t believe in it, so I never had that particular life experience, but I don’t think that made him any less of a father.

 

[Bonnie]

I never went camping as a child because Dad didn’t believe in it, so I never had that particular life experience, but I don’t think that made him any less of a father.

OK, I know this is OT, but how does one “not believe” in something like camping? I was fortunate that my parents enjoyed it. Unfortunately, my husband never has. Camping trips always involved a lot of negotiation. When we stopped taking vacations for fun (except for visiting relatives) that solved a lot of problems. Now when I want to sleep or cook outside, I just do it.

 

[signit]

OK, I know this is OT, but how does one “not believe” in something like camping? I was fortunate that my parents enjoyed it. Unfortunately, my husband never has. Camping trips always involved a lot of negotiation. When we stopped taking vacations for fun (except for visiting relatives) that solved a lot of problems. Now when I want to sleep or cook outside, I just do it.

Dad served in the Army and had to sleep outdoors on the ground because he had to.

So, when he got out, that would be the last thing he’d want to do for fun.

 

[Bonnie]

“what (other than purely physiological functions) do you see as intrinsically “feminine” things or behavior and intrinsically “masculine” things or behavior?”

Offhand, I can’t think of any. I’ve never been a “girly” girl and the jobs I’ve had over the last 40+ years could have been done by either sex, same for hobbies & social activities. I had “girly” girlfiends in high school who played powderpuff football. I’ve never been interested in sports.

So, no real difference between men & women beyond the physical (which includes the brain - we are possibly wired differently). The late anthropologist Edward T. Hall pointed that out in one of his books (can’t remember which one).

 

[Sarcelle]

I watch cartoons with my young daughter, so I can always be sure what she’s watching. (My wife does too).

She likes to watch “My Little Pony - Friendship is Magic”. And while some of the plots are a little too advanced for her; I have to admit that they actually do a good job of storytelling to keep a parent entertained. There are other cartoons like this too: “Sophia the First”, “Doc McStuffins,” etc.

Then there are others which are simply garbage or pointless.

I think Bronies are no different that people who attend and dress up for Star Wars, Star Trek, or Comic book conventions.

God bless

Or those who dress up in the jerseys of their favorite hockey or NFL team.

 

[Bonnie]

Dad served in the Army and had to sleep outdoors on the ground because he had to.

So, when he got out, that would be the last thing he’d want to do for fun.

That makes sense. My dad felt the same way about boats - for the same reason!

 

[MPat]

The contention has been that “hobbies” are assigned to “genders” by “society” and that such assignment could have been opposite. The Pope’s remarks (as well as the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia) show that this isn’t a Catholic understanding of male and female. Did the Pope specifically address a television program that hadn’t been created yet? Of course not. But he does provide us with the basic principals necessary for refuting the fallacious ideas our culture has been pushing - namely that “gender roles” are social creations based on stereotypes.

We could go into a million examples. Figure skating is one you brought up. Wearing dresses could be another one. A Catholic understanding of the sexes would suggest that different sports ought to appeal to different sexes and that some might be only appropriate for one sex or the other, just as some clothing is appropriate to one sex and not the other.

OK, so, some things are masculine, some are feminine, some are neither. True enough. Yet how do you know which category does liking MLP:FiM belong to?

You have asserted that it is feminine, but it looks like you still have to give an actual argument. And no, appeals to emotion (“I’m shocked.” etc.) do not count. This is the Philosophy subforum, after all.

Even if a particular activity is “only” feminine b/c of “society”, one still ought to follow social conventions of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil) just as one ought to follow the laws of the society one lives in (as long as they are not evil).

That looks like a rather strong assertion. Can you give an argument in favour of it?

And anyway, how would you demonstrate that such relevant social conventions do exist in the given case?

And, if you put things so strongly, how will you avoid condemning St. Joan of Arc? I’m afraid that is not an option that is available to a Catholic…

Honestly, how does your answer here differ any from that which I would get from a homosexual? Don’t they argue that men and women are interchangeable, that the differences between them are mere “social constructs?” Isn’t this one of their essential premises for the legalization of “gay marriage” and the celebration of homosexual sex? This idea, combined with the notion that “doing x isn’t hurting anyone therefore it is fine” (which has also been expressed on this thread) leads directly to the conclusion that homosexuals ought to marry, does it not? Isn’t that their whole case?

No, their whole case is “Marriage is just for (romantic) love!!!” (leaving out everything about children).

Or maybe it would be better to ask, what (other than purely physiological functions) do you see as intrinsically “feminine” things or behavior and intrinsically “masculine” things or behavior?

Ah, that’s easy. Priesthood is for men only.

 

[Sarcelle]

I am simply shocked at how the culture’s attitude of masculinity and femininity has taken over the thinking of my fellow Catholics. The idea that “gender roles” are “social constructs” and that a show like My Little Ponies is only “for girls” because society says so and a show like GI Joe is only “for boys” because society says so, is not Catholic (nor is it scientific - the most recent brain science shows that boys and girls naturally think differently and enjoy different things).

Again, I’m just shocked. I couldn’t image a different response on an LGBT forum than the one I’v received here.

If you want something more authoritative than the Catholic Encyclopedia then here is Pius XII on the same subject. Can any of you agree with him?

"But man and woman cannot maintain or perfect this equal dignity of theirs unless they respect and make use of the distinctive qualities which nature has bestowed on each sex: physical and spiritual qualities which are indestructible, and so co-ordinated that their mutual relation cannot be upset without nature itself intervening to re-establish it. These peculiar characteristics which distinguish the sexes are so obvious to everybody that nothing short of willful blindness, or a doctrinaire attitude as disastrous as it is utopian, can ignore or fail to see their importance in the structure of society.

Indeed, this co-ordination of the sexes through the characteristics peculiar to each is such as to extend its influence to every single manifestation of the social life of man."

(“every single manifestation” would, of course, include hobbies.)

IOW, boys aren’t girls with a “pp” and girls aren’t boys without one. Our souls and minds are as different as our bodies. Such a difference naturally expresses itself in different hobbies, including different toys and TV shows for children.

Even my four yr old understands that.

To reiterate my original point, the “Bronies” are not doing anything sinful, but their behavior is odd in the extreme and something I’d try to help them through if they were my family or friends.

I get that the sexes are different. However we tend to view the sexes in terms.of stereotypes not archetypes such as girls liking pink, being ditzy, makeup and fashioned obsessed while boys are supposed to be all good in sports. Frankly this leaves out us nerds.

I work as an engineer, am occupation which is typically male. For hobbies, I like to bake, embroider and garden. I also like watching football, especially the Steelers.

So am I sinning since I am not in a typical.feminine field such as fashion design or teaching? How about my liking to watch football. Is that problematic?