Catholics and Women

[waanju]

Last night, I went to a talk called “Is the Bible Oppressive to Women?” given by a protestant chaplain at my school. This talk was partially sponsored by my ecumenical Bible study group (which has thankfully shown a very positive attitude towards Catholicism up to this point).

Though he dismissed compatibilist views on gender towards the beginning, as something he just wouldn’t talk about, the talk was mostly good. He mentioned old testament women like Esther, Ruth, and Judith, then talked about Veronics, Mary Magdeline, ect. He mentioned that the first people to learn about the Resurrection were female. He talked about widows in the Bible and how Jesus used women as examples of good character sometimes, which was unheard of in that time. He even mentioned that Jesus’s statements against divorce protected women. He also affirmed that God has no gender even though we call Him “Father”, and that both Adam AND Eve were made in His image (here’s where I think is great example of compatible nature, but okay). He mentioned that all the oppression of women that people attribute to Christianity is really people behaving in a very un-Christlike manner. In all, it was a pretty good talk.

But then, during the last five minutes, he started saying that Catholics are sexist.
His main points here were about the priesthood and birth control. SIGH
With priesthood, he mentioned deaconesses and Priscilla and stuff. HE said that the Catholic idea that priests have to be men because Jesus was a man is silly, because Jesus, as a part of a genderless God, had a male body to primarily be human, not man. He said that the prohibition of female authority was written with a different word than “authority” elsewhere in the Bible, and was actually a prohibition of oppressive authority that priestesses of fertility cults in the area had. He further dismissed the whole “man as head” thing by saying that “head” didn’t have the same connotation back then and actually meant something like “origin”.
As for birth control, he said that it was oppressive to women and that it’s not anywhere in the Bible (being a sola scriptura type of guy, he needs biblical evidence.) Shockingly, he even hinted at a wishy washy view on abortion by saying that “The Bible doesn’t say anything about life until the womb. And even then, it’s unclear. God doesn’t literally knit of with needles (laughter). And they did not have a clear understanding of biology then. They didn’t know how babies were made, which is why there’s all that seed language. That’s why the Bible doesn’t talk about birth control: it was beyond scientific understanding of the time.” Then he said he and his wife used birth control. He concluded by saying “I don’t mean to bash on Catholics, but there it is”.

I gave him my email address and asked if we could talk later. What should I say to defend the church? He seems like he’d be most receptive to biblical evidence, but I don’t want to say anything incorrect.

 

[1ke]

Well, my first suggestion would be to get a copy of the book The Bible And Birth Control by Charles Provan (a non-Catholic) through inter-library loan and become familiar with it along with the encyclicals Casti Connubii and Humanae Vitae.

Regarding priestly ordination, JPII’s Ordinatio Sacredotalis should be used.

 

[KP3243]

Adam and Eve after the pill is another good book.

 

[KP3243]

The whole Catholics are sexist issue comes from being American and the fact their church is only a few hundred years old and has probably never suffered a persecution. We have to get out of an American mentality and take 2,000 years of Catholic history into account. Catholics are universal so when we make a rule it is applied in every country, we also know that that all the popes for the first three hundred years were martyred as well as all the Apostles except Saint John. During World War II lots of Bishops and Cardinals and priests like Saint Maximilian Kolbe were sent to Dachu Concentration Camp and Auschwitz and just a few months ago a priest in the Sudan was crucified by the Muslim controlled government officials. He wasn’t nailed in the hands and feed but he was tied up with rope and died of suffocation. The world has persecuted the clergy since Jesus himself was executed. Can you even imagine what crimes would happen to women clergy, let’s not pretend that the rest of the world is progressive and women universally have equal protection under the law and they can defend themselves against gangs of men and that the Catholic Church is universally embraced. If you know what happened to women in Sierra Leone the past decade for no reason other than they are women I can only imagine it would be worse for a woman who had a leadership role in the Church because every dictatorship persecutes the Catholic Church because the Church always opposes infringements to human dignity.

 

[DebChris]

You might want to stay out of the discussion about birth control. Contraceptives take away the responsibility of considering the consequences of actions. Contrary to popular opinion, they can actually mean less respect for the woman.
Genesis 25 describes the conflict between Esau and Jacob taking place within Rebekah’s womb.
You could point to various female Saints who challenged the status quo by educating others during a time when girls/women were not normally educated and demonstrated leadership in other ways.
Just spent the day at a Women’s Conference. “Behind every successful man is a woman.” Women do play a role in salvation history.

Years ago, I watched a movie about the Garbage People of Juarez, Mexico. A parish in El Paso provided an outreach after reading the gossip message about giving to those who have no ability to repay what they have received. Women and children were the first to accept the gossip message, accepting the salvation of Jesus Christ. The church established in Juarez became vibrant when men took over the leadership roles to which they have been called. It is the women who led the men to Christ.

As Catholics, think about the importance we place on the role of Mary in making our salvation possible.

 

[edwest2]

Last night, I went to a talk called “Is the Bible Oppressive to Women?” given by a protestant chaplain at my school. This talk was partially sponsored by my ecumenical Bible study group (which has thankfully shown a very positive attitude towards Catholicism up to this point).

Though he dismissed compatibilist views on gender towards the beginning, as something he just wouldn’t talk about, the talk was mostly good. He mentioned old testament women like Esther, Ruth, and Judith, then talked about Veronics, Mary Magdeline, ect. He mentioned that the first people to learn about the Resurrection were female. He talked about widows in the Bible and how Jesus used women as examples of good character sometimes, which was unheard of in that time. He even mentioned that Jesus’s statements against divorce protected women. He also affirmed that God has no gender even though we call Him “Father”, and that both Adam AND Eve were made in His image (here’s where I think is great example of compatible nature, but okay). He mentioned that all the oppression of women that people attribute to Christianity is really people behaving in a very un-Christlike manner. In all, it was a pretty good talk.

But then, during the last five minutes, he started saying that Catholics are sexist.
His main points here were about the priesthood and birth control. SIGH
With priesthood, he mentioned deaconesses and Priscilla and stuff. HE said that the Catholic idea that priests have to be men because Jesus was a man is silly, because Jesus, as a part of a genderless God, had a male body to primarily be human, not man. He said that the prohibition of female authority was written with a different word than “authority” elsewhere in the Bible, and was actually a prohibition of oppressive authority that priestesses of fertility cults in the area had. He further dismissed the whole “man as head” thing by saying that “head” didn’t have the same connotation back then and actually meant something like “origin”.
As for birth control, he said that it was oppressive to women and that it’s not anywhere in the Bible (being a sola scriptura type of guy, he needs biblical evidence.) Shockingly, he even hinted at a wishy washy view on abortion by saying that “The Bible doesn’t say anything about life until the womb. And even then, it’s unclear. God doesn’t literally knit of with needles (laughter). And they did not have a clear understanding of biology then. They didn’t know how babies were made, which is why there’s all that seed language. That’s why the Bible doesn’t talk about birth control: it was beyond scientific understanding of the time.” Then he said he and his wife used birth control. He concluded by saying “I don’t mean to bash on Catholics, but there it is”.

I gave him my email address and asked if we could talk later. What should I say to defend the church? He seems like he’d be most receptive to biblical evidence, but I don’t want to say anything incorrect.

First, regarding the sexist charge.

"It seems, in fact, that oftentimes the ideas on the equality of rights between men and women have been marked by an antagonistic approach which exalts opposition between them. This approach juxtaposes woman against man and vice-versa, while the identity and role of one is emphasized with the aim of merely diminishing that of the other. Success in the quest for equality and the empowerment of women can best be achieved when such antagonism gives way to mutual respect and recognition of the identity and the role of one towards the other.

“A second tendency is to blur, if not entirely deny, the differences between men and women. In order to avoid the domination of one sex over the other, their differences tend to be obscured or viewed as mere effects of historical and cultural conditioning. Physical difference is often minimized, while the purely cultural dimension is maximized and held to be primary. This blurring of differences has impact on the stability of society and of families and, not least, on the quality of the relations between men and women. Equality between women and men and the empowerment of women will be attained when the differences of the sexes are recognized and highlighted as complementary and the cultural element of gender is understood in its proper context.”

Full document here: vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20070308_women_en.html

1. Artificial birth control is wrong. Natural Family Planning is normal and natural

vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

1. Priestly ordination cannot be given to women.

“Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church’s divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful.”

Full document here: vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html

Peace,
Ed

 

[KP3243]

Catholics don’t believe in artificial contraception because how it destroys the family and society. Every potential problem that artificial contraception could cause that Pope Paul VI in his encyclical Humane Vitae saw as a problem has come to fruition. Couples who practice natural family planning have a 98% marriage rate and the Catholic Church is the only one telling women that the World Health Organization classifies birth control in the same carcinogenic category as asbestos and lead paint. It’s why Americans have all sorts of infertility issues because you are taking a healthy female reproductive system and chemically altering it for years. Research is limited but if they are starting to find trends where women on birth control staring from age 14 on by the time they are 30 they have a reproductive system of a 55 year old woman.

 

[PaulToJesus]

Last night, I went to a talk called “Is the Bible Oppressive to Women?” given by a protestant chaplain at my school. This talk was partially sponsored by my ecumenical Bible study group (which has thankfully shown a very positive attitude towards Catholicism up to this point).

Though he dismissed compatibilist views on gender towards the beginning, as something he just wouldn’t talk about, the talk was mostly good. He mentioned old testament women like Esther, Ruth, and Judith, then talked about Veronics, Mary Magdeline, ect. He mentioned that the first people to learn about the Resurrection were female. He talked about widows in the Bible and how Jesus used women as examples of good character sometimes, which was unheard of in that time. He even mentioned that Jesus’s statements against divorce protected women. He also affirmed that God has no gender even though we call Him “Father”, and that both Adam AND Eve were made in His image (here’s where I think is great example of compatible nature, but okay). He mentioned that all the oppression of women that people attribute to Christianity is really people behaving in a very un-Christlike manner. In all, it was a pretty good talk.

But then, during the last five minutes, he started saying that Catholics are sexist.
His main points here were about the priesthood and birth control. SIGH
With priesthood, he mentioned deaconesses and Priscilla and stuff. HE said that the Catholic idea that priests have to be men because Jesus was a man is silly, because Jesus, as a part of a genderless God, had a male body to primarily be human, not man. He said that the prohibition of female authority was written with a different word than “authority” elsewhere in the Bible, and was actually a prohibition of oppressive authority that priestesses of fertility cults in the area had. He further dismissed the whole “man as head” thing by saying that “head” didn’t have the same connotation back then and actually meant something like “origin”.
As for birth control, he said that it was oppressive to women and that it’s not anywhere in the Bible (being a sola scriptura type of guy, he needs biblical evidence.) Shockingly, he even hinted at a wishy washy view on abortion by saying that “The Bible doesn’t say anything about life until the womb. And even then, it’s unclear. God doesn’t literally knit of with needles (laughter). And they did not have a clear understanding of biology then. They didn’t know how babies were made, which is why there’s all that seed language. That’s why the Bible doesn’t talk about birth control: it was beyond scientific understanding of the time.” Then he said he and his wife used birth control. He concluded by saying “I don’t mean to bash on Catholics, but there it is”.

I gave him my email address and asked if we could talk later. What should I say to defend the church? He seems like he’d be most receptive to biblical evidence, but I don’t want to say anything incorrect.

Boy, a waste of time refuting…

 

[Nimzovik]

What a public display of ignorance and buffoonery on the part of the speaker.

It is time we get Anti -Catholic speech classified as Hate Speech.

 

[Nimzovik]

How did Adam and Eve ever survive without Planned Parenthood? Oh… wait a minute… hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm…

 

[on_the_hill]

I can only imagine it would be worse for a woman who had a leadership role in the Church because every dictatorship persecutes the Catholic Church because the Church always opposes infringements to human dignity.

I’m not going to get in this debate except to point out this is a weak argument.

One shouldn’t deny a vocation to a discerning adult out of fear it might be too dangerous for her (or him).

Also, given the atrocities that occur, how could it be worse? One can’t reasonably say that the priests suffer any more physical and emotional pain than the women do.

As for the rest: not an argument I’m joining.

 

[on_the_hill]

I gave him my email address and asked if we could talk later. What should I say to defend the church? He seems like he’d be most receptive to biblical evidence, but I don’t want to say anything incorrect.

I don’t think you should bother with him. The most you’ll get out of it is frustration.

 

[Bookcat]

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html

 

[JimG]

You might want to stay out of the discussion about birth control. **Contraceptives take away the responsibility of considering the consequences of actions. Contrary to popular opinion, they can actually mean less respect for the woman. **Genesis 25 describes the conflict between Esau and Jacob taking place within Rebekah’s womb.
You could point to various female Saints who challenged the status quo by educating others during a time when girls/women were not normally educated and demonstrated leadership in other ways.
Just spent the day at a Women’s Conference. “Behind every successful man is a woman.” Women do play a role in salvation history.

Years ago, I watched a movie about the Garbage People of Juarez, Mexico. A parish in El Paso provided an outreach after reading the gossip message about giving to those who have no ability to repay what they have received. Women and children were the first to accept the gossip message, accepting the salvation of Jesus Christ. The church established in Juarez became vibrant when men took over the leadership roles to which they have been called. It is the women who led the men to Christ.

As Catholics, think about the importance we place on the role of Mary in making our salvation possible.

Contraceptives DO result in less respect for women. Plent of documentation of the sad results in “Adam and Eve After the Pill,” by Mary Eberstadt.

Any Protestant who favors birth control, of course, goes against the views of all the leaders of the Reformation, from Luther to Calvin to Zwingli.

 

[brandymmiller]

But then, during the last five minutes, he started saying that Catholics are sexist.
His main points here were about the priesthood and birth control. SIGH
With priesthood, he mentioned deaconesses and Priscilla and stuff. HE said that the Catholic idea that priests have to be men because Jesus was a man is silly, because Jesus, as a part of a genderless God, had a male body to primarily be human, not man. He said that the prohibition of female authority was written with a different word than “authority” elsewhere in the Bible, and was actually a prohibition of oppressive authority that priestesses of fertility cults in the area had. He further dismissed the whole “man as head” thing by saying that “head” didn’t have the same connotation back then and actually meant something like “origin”.
As for birth control, he said that it was oppressive to women and that it’s not anywhere in the Bible (being a sola scriptura type of guy, he needs biblical evidence.) Shockingly, he even hinted at a wishy washy view on abortion by saying that “The Bible doesn’t say anything about life until the womb. And even then, it’s unclear. God doesn’t literally knit of with needles (laughter). And they did not have a clear understanding of biology then. They didn’t know how babies were made, which is why there’s all that seed language. That’s why the Bible doesn’t talk about birth control: it was beyond scientific understanding of the time.” Then he said he and his wife used birth control. He concluded by saying “I don’t mean to bash on Catholics, but there it is”.

I gave him my email address and asked if we could talk later. What should I say to defend the church? He seems like he’d be most receptive to biblical evidence, but I don’t want to say anything incorrect.

Alright, let’s revisit your protestant pastor’s arguments.

1. The Catholic Church is sexist because it doesn’t allow women into the priesthood.

This is a misunderstanding of the function of the priesthood. The Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ. Christ is the Bridegroom. It is in the union of Christ and His Bride that the children of God are born. The role of the priest is to place his body, mind, and soul in the service of Christ allowing Christ to work through him to create those children.

Women cannot be priests because if you were to have a woman marrying the Church, as priests must do, then the relationship between the two would be sterile. There would be no children of God produced and the function of the priesthood would not be fulfilled. It isn’t sexist, unless you consider God to be sexist because He decided on how things were to operate.

1. The rejection of Birth control is non-Biblical

But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother’s wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.What he did was wicked in the LORD’s sight; so he put him to death also. - Genesis 38:9-10

Onan was using one of the oldest methods of birth control known to man - coitus interuptus, or pulling out. This was wicked in God’s eyes, and God killed Onan for it. This shows you that not only did our ancestors KNOW what caused pregnancy - fancy that - but that God didn’t approve of birth control.

Yet you say, “For what reason?”Because the Lord has been witness between you and the wife of your youth, with whom you have dealt treacherously; Yet she is your companion
And your wife by covenant. But did He not make them one,having a remnant of the Spirit?
And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore take heed to your spirit, And let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.Malachi 2:14-16

Here we see it expressly put into words that God created the marriage covenant - for the purpose of bringing about Godly offspring. Birth control defeats that purpose, which is why it is inherently displeasing to God.

God replied: Even so, your wife Sarah is to bear you a son, and you shall call him Isaac. It is with him that I will maintain my covenant as an everlasting covenant and with his descendants after him - Genesis 17:19

Here, we see even before Sarah is pregnant that God has already decided on a name for Isaac and decided on a destiny for him. There can be no room for an argument
that God stands firmly on the side of the Catholic Church when it comes to birth control. He is the author of life, and He really doesn’t appreciate it when we try to dictate terms to Him.

The truth about birth control is that it is harmful to women no matter what form of it is used. Even condoms are not good for women, as they deprive the women of some very important health benefits that are derived from the absorption of semen that takes place in the vaginal canal. Condom usage can also increase the risk of miscarriage because the woman’s body isn’t being exposed to her husband’s genetic material and so the body is more likely to see the baby as a foreign object to be rejected. The pill has disastrous affects on her sex drive, immune system, and overall health. The IUD can cause uterine perforations and infections leading to sterilization, not to mention the fact that it outright causes abortions.

It’s the height of arrogance to think that we should be dictating to God who gets put on the invitations list for Earth, which is effectively what we are doing when we are using birth control. God knows who needs to be here and when.

 

[oneofmany]

It is strange isn’t it that non-Catholics can say the church is sexist but when Mary is brought up as the mother of God they almost faint. LOL

 

[DebChris]

It is strange isn’t it that non-Catholics can say the church is sexist but when Mary is brought up as the mother of God they almost faint. LOL

Most prominent Catholic woman of the 20th century=Blessed Teresa of Calcutta.
Regardless of gender, the Catholic Church calls us to servant-leadership. The servant will is not necessarily seen while influencing others.
Therese of Lisieux was a Carmelite nun, as was Theresa of Avila.
I like the story of St. Scholastica and her brother Benedict during their final visit. He wanted to leave, but she bowed her head in prayer and a storm caused him to stay.
St. Elizabeth Seton is credited with establishing Catholic education in America.

 

[waanju]

He sent me an apology!

This was my response, do you think it was okay/charitable/accurate? I know that it’s a weird slant to sort of skip over theology, but it’s directed specifically towards his apology

First, I want to thank you for your apology. It means a lot to me that you acknowledged the hurtful nature of your comments. I think it is important that we as Christians remember “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”.

  The reason I was upset is partially because I felt that your comments, and those of others with similar views, dismissed the importance that women do have in the Catholic church as being less simply because we are not priests. In Catholicism, women are not given a less important role. Like men, we serve as Eucharistic Ministers, Parish administrators, catechists, and theologians, actually comprising an overwhelming majority in such positions (83%). Several of the Doctors of the Church are women, and we take religious vows and form orders of sisters and nuns that are vital to the spiritual and physical health of the Church. Beyond this, Catholicism acknowledges the undeniable importance of women with our veneration of Mary, Queen of Heaven, and, to a lesser extent, of countless female saints like Joan of Arc, Maria Goretti, and others. Because I am so conscious of this importance of women in Catholicism, I feel slighted and see charges of sexism on the basis that women cannot be priests as an elevation of priests, and all men, above the importance that women do have in the church. Because of this, your comments implied a dismissal of the importance Catholics place on me, on Mother Theresa, on Sharon Daly.  I also felt as if you were dismissive of the theological reasons behind why the priesthood is only open to men, which I will gladly discuss if you would like. I also felt that you wrongly singled out Catholicism, when, while their theological reasons are very different, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in the United States, also reserves the role of pastor specifically for men. 

    That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. Thank you again. I really enjoyed the other parts of your talk. If you would like a Catholic perspective in future discussions or events, I would be delighted to provide it. God bless and enjoy your Thanksgiving.

 

[LightBound]

He sent me an apology!

This was my response, do you think it was okay/charitable/accurate? I know that it’s a weird slant to sort of skip over theology, but it’s directed specifically towards his apology

First, I want to thank you for your apology. It means a lot to me that you acknowledged the hurtful nature of your comments. I think it is important that we as Christians remember “In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity”.

  The reason I was upset is partially because I felt that your comments, and those of others with similar views, dismissed the importance that women do have in the Catholic church as being less simply because we are not priests. In Catholicism, women are not given a less important role. Like men, we serve as Eucharistic Ministers, Parish administrators, catechists, and theologians, actually comprising an overwhelming majority in such positions (83%). Several of the Doctors of the Church are women, and we take religious vows and form orders of sisters and nuns that are vital to the spiritual and physical health of the Church. Beyond this, Catholicism acknowledges the undeniable importance of women with our veneration of Mary, Queen of Heaven, and, to a lesser extent, of countless female saints like Joan of Arc, Maria Goretti, and others. Because I am so conscious of this importance of women in Catholicism, I feel slighted and see charges of sexism on the basis that women cannot be priests as an elevation of priests, and all men, above the importance that women do have in the church. Because of this, your comments implied a dismissal of the importance Catholics place on me, on Mother Theresa, on Sharon Daly.  I also felt as if you were dismissive of the theological reasons behind why the priesthood is only open to men, which I will gladly discuss if you would like. I also felt that you wrongly singled out Catholicism, when, while their theological reasons are very different, the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest protestant denomination in the United States, also reserves the role of pastor specifically for men. 

    That said, I accept and appreciate your apology. Thank you again. I really enjoyed the other parts of your talk. If you would like a Catholic perspective in future discussions or events, I would be delighted to provide it. God bless and enjoy your Thanksgiving.

I’m glad he sent you an apology and common ground was found. I would say that his opinion may have been jaded by the some of the more vocal Radical Traditionalists who think women should not be in any of the above roles you mentioned, or even getting an education past high school. All it takes is one of those misogynistic comments to make non-Catholics think we’re all like that or that’s what the Church teaches.

 

[waanju]

I’m glad he sent you an apology and common ground was found. I would say that his opinion may have been jaded by the some of the more vocal Radical Traditionalists who think women should not be in any of the above roles you mentioned, or even getting an education past high school. All it takes is one of those misogynistic comments to make non-Catholics think we’re all like that or that’s what the Church teaches.

Okay, so I kind of lean towards being a traddie in some areas. I like old school devotions, I think TLM is great (though I usually go to NO, and love the NO also. As long as rubrics are followed, the difference is a matter of taste), I think some additions that people make to Mass run the risk of being irrelevant. But I’ve never even heard of that level of misogyny! I’ve heard the EM thing. But I didn’t know the issue was one of gender! I personally think EM’s should only be used RARELY and the priest should distribute communion, but that’s not because of women. It’s because when I used to EM I noticed that little “crumbs” of the Eucharist always ended up on my hands, and some of the other EMs just brushed them off on their clothes, not thinking about how they were throwing Jesus all over the floor! And people ave dirty hands and stuff… Which is why I personally choose to take communion on the tongue now and mot EM, because I don’t want to worry about keeping my hands clean and getting all the little crumbs from my fingers. (sorry rant) I’ve heard altar servers, with the idea that part of altar serving is discernment of the priesthood. Okay, I GUESS that’s open for debate.
But I’ve NEVER heard people that think women shouldn’t be catechists ect.! and not go to college! WHY? What do people even use as a justification? I know lots of radtrads think women should be stay at home moms. I’m not going to get into that. But aren’t radtrads also big on homeschooling? Wouldn’t the mother make a better teacher if she herself were educated? ARGGGGGGHHHHHH that is so uncool!