Certain attitudes in traddom

[SBroxson]

Regarding the issue of female education, it seems clear to me that the Church has always been at the forefront of educating women and upholding the dignity of women.

Of course, this is NOT feminism: which was from the beginning of (at least the 3rd wave) explicitly anti-religious, anti-family, anti-morality, etc.

Pope John Paul II addressed gender issues, and feminism. In doing so, I don’t believe that he ever fully understood, on a secular level, what “feminism” was. It is my sense that he always viewed it as just a good faith misunderstanding, rather than rebellion against God.

The fact the feminism latched onto some legitimate issues does not mean that it was legitimate. All movements latch onto something legitimate for credibility, even when they are not fundamentally motivated by good.

JPII said that we need a new Christian feminism, but he never said that we needed a new Christian Nazism, Communism, or anti-Christ. Some things are reformable, and others are not: he thought that feminism was reformable; I disagree with his assessment.

 

[JReducation]

JReducation, we are talking past each other because we are addressing issues in different senses.

First, let me directly address the more sophisticated and intellectual approach that you are using. The problem with pointing out parallels and analogies is that, according to Pope Benedict, there are none. He claims that what happened when the new mass was drawn up and implemented was simply unprecedented in the whole history of the Church. In this view, the examples that you raised were not precisely identical in every way: to the contrary, they were dramatically different in profound ways.

(Of course, you do not have to agree: most of his comments were made before he was Pope, but in any event he would not have intended them to be taken as infallible pronouncements. His view does seem to me to be correct given my knowledge of Church history–but I am not an expert.)

It is true that he said this many years ago. I think what is unfortunate is that the man is not being allowed to change his mind. I don’t mean by you. I mean by many people. His statements in recent years are not the same as his statements of many years ago. This happens. There was a time when Fr. Ratzinger also suggested that the Church recondier mandatory celibacy. Today, Pope Benedict would not propose such an idea. Do you see where I’m going with this? We can’t just pull from what he said in the past and repeat it so often that we forget what he is saying today. People are doing this to the poor man.

Putting aside that issue, I have no disagreement with your points, and they bear keeping in mind–especially the sharp diminishment of liturgical variety after Vatican II.

Now, as to the sense in which I was viewing the matter: the point of view of the average, perhaps working class, pew Catholic who has neither knowledge nor interest in such things as the distinction between forms and rites.

I understand what you’re saying here. I think it’s unfortunate that the “average” Catholic in the pew has no such interest, because it would help him or her understand many things that appear confusing.

My original comment was this: I do not deny that the EF and OF are the same rite, but the prohibition of the traditional Latin mass did “tend to undercut” the concept that it was the same mass. I think that is clearly true: without exception (i.e., show me any other example, and it is true of that example too).

I agree. I know that I was one who truly believed that we could not longer celebrate the EF, even though my own community never celebrated it as Diocesan priests did. However, when the EF disappeared off the radar, so did the Seraphic Missal. What’s equally interesting is that the missal that is approved for current use is the missal of 1962. The Seraphic Missal is not allowed, because it predates 1962. LIttle things like this led many of us to misunderstand and we preached what we understood instead of what was fact. I for one am sorry about that.

So, I was using terms such as “same” and “mass” in purely ordinary, pedestrian sense. Your examples of different masses were the exceptions that proved the rule. The simple fact is that the vast majority of Catholics the majority countries of the world (primarily exempting Byzantines) experienced the traditional Latin mass–which had only experienced minor tweaks within his life time, and the life times of his father, and his father’s father…

I agree that there is this simple Joe and Jane Catholic. Here is where we can help them. We can teach them that it was not always the case. That in fact, in the Church’s 2,000 year history, the first 1500 years had a diverse liturgical history, with many forms of the one Latin Rite and that even after it was standardized at the Council of Trent, many forms were allowed to remain in use. Even those people who attended parishes run by religious communities that used these forms, did not know the other form, because until recently, people were not as mobile. You did not get out of your parish too often.

 

[JReducation]

Regarding the issue of female education, it seems clear to me that the Church has always been at the forefront of educating women and upholding the dignity of women.

We agree on that. I believe that we agree that the so called doctrine that is being marketed by some extreme traditionalist individuals, never was a doctrine. Therefore, it’s just as much an error as those who promote a woman’s right to choose, because she has the right to be an active participant in her reproductive healthcare. Both are doing what you say, begining with a truth and ending up in an eror.

Pope John Paul II addressed gender issues, and feminism. In doing so, I don’t believe that he ever fully understood, on a secular level, what “feminism” was. It is my sense that he always viewed it as just a good faith misunderstanding, rather than rebellion against God.

I believe he did understand it. He looked at the great women in Church history for his understanding. I believe that we don’t understand feminism and we use femnist and feminism interchangeably and they’re not the same. I’m remembering something that came up very early in Franciscan history. As you probably know, religious orders of women and later religious congregations of women, were always subject to male governance.

When the question of governance came up with St. Clare and her nuns, she expected St. Francis and the friars to be actively involved in their government as were other male religious in the government of their female counterparts. Francis, very aware of Clare’s gifts and of her strong leadership skills stated that Franciscan women were never to be subject to any male authority on earth except the pope. Outside of that, they were to govern themselves and provide for their own pastoral care. Clare proceeded to rewrite the rule that Francis gave her and she inserted into the rule that the superior had to govern taking into account the local culture, needs of the sisters, their personalities and wishes, their tastes, comfort and duties and that the sisters needed to be heard in the community chapter and the superior was to submit to them. In essence, the superior was a democartic leader who could only enforce what her sisters allowed her to enforce. Clare abdicated the leadership of the Franciscan houses of women. While the males were governed by a central General Superior and his council, Franciscan women have always governed themselves at the local level. The men around them are not allowed to interefere.

This is the model of feminism at which Bl. John Paul is looking. He’s looking at women such as Giana Molla, Maria Monterssori and many other women who have led inside the Church and in the secular world. He has a belief that man can change and must change. That man has used “sin” as a tool to manipulate women.

The fact the feminism latched onto some legitimate issues does not mean that it was legitimate. All movements latch onto something legitimate for credibility, even when they are not fundamentally motivated by good.

This is what moral theology calls “the Feminist Movement” passing off as feminism.

JPII said that we need a new Christian feminism, but he never said that we needed a new Christian Nazism, Communism, or anti-Christ. Some things are reformable, and others are not: he thought that feminism was reformable; I disagree with his assessment.

Because feminism, as understood through the language of Theology of History is good. Remember who wrote that document for Pope John Paul. It was Cardinal Ratzinger. The document is an almost literal reproduction of Bonaventure’s writings on theology of history. The document was never intended to be read by the layman. It was meant for bishops who should understand theology of history and see how through history, God has used women to fulfill his plan for humanity.

Does this make sense?

By the way, thank you for taking the time to respond so clearly and with such detail. It helped me understand what you’re saying.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[At_Trent]

Not according to the various states…

Most states set some clear limits on what parents can or cannot do in raising their children.

In most, education is compulsory, and proof of said education is required. Which means, if you choose to keep your child out of the public schools, you are required by law to either have enrolled them in an accredited home school program or an accredited private school program.

Most states also limit corporal punishment… from Florida’s “Not allowed outside of school” through Alaska’s “maximum 3 strikes with bare hand on the clothed buttocks, and no visible mark 15 min later.”

Almost all specify you must provide adequate nutrition.

And ALL states in the US and ALL provinces in Canada specify that, if you can’t or won’t meet the minimums set by the state, they can and will take your children away from you.

I realize that, but none of that pertains to the type of supervision we are talking about.

 

[SBroxson]

JReducation, regarding the mass, I have only this further response: I do not believe that Pope Benedict has changed is mind on the matter of continuity vs. rupture.

It is true that Pope Benedict voiced some very strong criticisms of the Novus Ordo before becoming Pope, and has now fallen silent. But Pope JPII was once asked about some of his earlier positions: he did not repudiate them, he merely pointed out that he was now Pope…and that changes his responsibilities (and perhaps even his freedom to voice personal opinions?). Pope Benedict has been a strong supporter of the EF as Pope: I see no evidence of change.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Pope Benedict has changed his position. In fact, let’s go even further! Let’s imagine that next week he makes the following statement: “You know, I have been thinking. I now think that the Novus Ordo is a FAR superior formulation to the primitive EF; although I’ll continue to permit the EF as a condescension to benighted souls who can’t see that.” I still believe that he would follow up by saying: “However, the end does not justify the means. Within the Church, continuity is fundamental, and rupture is always bad. So, those drawing up the Novus Ordo were still wrong in creating a rupture with the past, but God can bring good out of our mistakes.”

If anything, as Pope he has stressed the issue of rupture verses continuity ever more.

 

[Dan_Daly]

The statements:

A) I’m in favor of the education of women.

B) I’m in favor of women going to college.

Are not the same thing. One can be in favor of both, against both, or in favor of one and not the other. College, at least the vast majority of colleges in the United States, are incredibly CLOSE minded places that seek to stamp out the Christian faith in those who arrive embracing it. Can spiritual growth occur in such an environment? Yes it does, but not because of the institution- rather inspite of it. The same can be said of most pre-college institutional education.

Pax.

 

[SBroxson]

Jreducation:

“I believe [JPII] did understand it. He looked at the great women in Church history for his understanding. I believe that we don’t understand feminism and we use feminist and feminism interchangeably and they’re not the same…”
“[JPII is] looking at women such as Giana Molla, Maria Monterssori and many other women who have led inside the Church and in the secular world. He has a belief that man can change and must change. That man has used “sin” as a tool to manipulate women…”
“This is what moral theology calls “the Feminist Movement” passing off as feminism…”
“Because feminism, as understood through the language of Theology of History is good.”​

I think that you have illustrated the matter well: and so I will take some time to explain my strong disagreement. But to do so, I will reluctantly first use a reductio ad Nazism.

Hitler was born Catholic, Catholic Bavaria figured heavily in the rise of Nazism, and he addressed social injustices that were wrong from a Catholic perspective. However, that does not make Nazism Catholic!

From the beginning, Hitler’s purposes were Satanic: a rejection of Catholicism. He did not latch on to legitimate issues to make the world more Catholic, but rather as a ruse to make the world more Satanic. Satan ALWAYS uses some truth to deceive: because a total lie simply will not sell.

“Nazism” describes a secular political movement of “Nazis”: there is no distinction.

“Nazism” is not a Catholic word, and is totally opposed to Catholicism: therefore, we cannot look back in history for Nazi Catholics–because, by definition, if they were Catholic they fall outside of the definition of “Nazi.” Words are not defined through wishful thinking.

Nazism must be directly opposed, and a new Catholic Nazism makes as much sense as an authentically Christian anti-Christ.

More later…

 

[SBroxson]

Generally, feminism is viewed as having 3 waves: it is without doubt that the 3rd wave was zealously anti-Christian and anti-Catholic. The question remains, what of the earlier two waves?

The record is confusing: clearly, most were not as radical as the 3rd wave, and some earlier feminists directly opposed some positions of current feminists. On the other hand, you can point to statements which pre-figured the trajectory that feminism ultimately took, and you could argue that the underlying assumptions of feminist drove it to inevitable conclusions.

Be that as it may, we have to live the hand that we are dealt: and from the 1960’s on “feminism” referred to the 3rd wave.

One way to understand a philosophy is its fruits. When Catholics (e.g., Catholic nuns) start saying that they support “feminism” what happens? Do they become more like St. Claire? Or do the generally become more like Gloria Steinem? Do they grow in peace and love, or do they generally grow in anger and hate?

The original and enduring thrust of 3rd waive feminism was that marriage and the family was a patriarchal tool of oppression of women (and sex within marriage a form of prostitution if not rape). How to escape that oppression?

1. Divorce. Many have puzzled how it could be possible that feminism–which supposedly is a movement in support of women–could have been so strongly in favor of easy divorce which has harmed women so terribly. The answer is simple: feminism was about the destruction of the family, not helping women.
2. As people want sex, the notion that the legitimate place for sex is within marriage needed to be overthrown if marriage was to be overthrown. Many have wondered why Feminism has been so in favor of sexual liberation, since it primarily liberated men to behave like pigs and it hurt women (who are more susceptible to disease, and more easily emotionally hurt). The answer is simple: feminism is not about helping women, but destroying the family…and innocence.
3. Both within marriage and without marriage, it was vital that women be able be economically independent. Non-discrimination in the workplace is an admirable end! But for them, it was a means, not an end. (If it had not advanced their goal of destruction of the family, they would have rejected it as quickly as they did the women who were victimized by President Clinton.)

• Single women would not need to get married at all, because they would be economically (as well as sexually) independent.
• Married women would be able to divorce more easily.
• Even women who remained in a family would have that family rendered less meaningful. There is a difference between the Proverbs 31 wife and the modern wife regarding economic activity divorced from the home. Many have wondered why feminists think it is wrong for a woman to take care of her own children, but its fine if she is working at a day care center and caring for the children of others. The answer is simple: in both cases, mother is kept away from her own child and is kept outside the home. Moreover, both women are paid workers, giving them greater independence from the father of the child.
• Artificial birth control and abortion are key in ensuring that families, in the fullest sense of the word, are not formed. Many have wondered why feminists have been so silent about coerced abortions, sex-selection abortions (killing female babies), and adoption as a possible choice. The answer is simple: feminism is not about choice or helping women; it is about death and the destruction of the family.

Women working outside the home has resulted in children being very difficult to afford: the prices of homes got bid up by two income families, and day care is expensive. Moreover, never in the history of the world have large numbers of women been willing to have many children only to have them raised by strangers.

Women still needed a husband, but with the cry of “the personal is the political” feminism had the solution: henceforth, women would be married to the government. The government would provide all the security (of every type) that a man used to provide. It might be puzzling why feminists have not railed that men are not nearly as marriageable these days, but of course that was the point–not a problem.

Many wonder why feminists have been so silent about the high incidence of lesbian violence, and why they have been so resistant to admitting that violence and sexual molestation by men most commonly arises in the case of a boy friend (or replacement husband). Again, the point is destruction of the family.

If it is feminism, it is BY DEFINITION opposed to Catholicism.

 

[Dan_Daly]

Well said.

Feminism is anti-Catholic. “But the Church is FOR the dignity of women!” comes the objection…but it’s not an objection at all. Feminism is AGAINST the dignity of women- and men. It’s roots are in atheism in general and Darwinism in particular.

Here’s a good sermon on the topic:

AudioSancto.org/auweb/20040208-Feminism-The-Demeaning-of-the-Holy-Family.mp3

“Ten Books that Screwed up the Word” by Benjamin Wiker does a good job of getting down to the roots of the ideology.

Pax.

 

[CB_Catholic]

The statements:

A) I’m in favor of the education of women.

B) I’m in favor of women going to college.

Are not the same thing. One can be in favor of both, against both, or in favor of one and not the other. College, at least the vast majority of colleges in the United States, are incredibly CLOSE minded places that seek to stamp out the Christian faith in those who arrive embracing it. Can spiritual growth occur in such an environment? Yes it does, but not because of the institution- rather inspite of it. The same can be said of most pre-college institutional education.

Pax.

In real life, though, the people that say they oppose the education of women and women going to college has no other meaning than that. They truly believe this is Catholic teaching. So while what you say may be true, it really is not a consideration for most people. They consider the “education of women” as being a college education, because in most developed countries education up to certain grade levels or age is mandatory, and they don’t oppose that. They only oppose post-secondary education for women. Women should marry, stay home, and raise a family, period, is what they mean.

They don’t tend to philosophize these things. It’s cut and dried, black and white among a certain type of fundamentalist and traditionalist Catholics (and this also is seen in some Protestant circles also). Note I said a certain type, not all.

Likewise, the people who say they favor the education of women usually mean a college education, and they aren’t thinking along your lines. The argument is pretty cut-and -dried, and they don’t tend to philosophize about it either. They believe it’s up to the woman, a personal choice, and women have the right to pursue it.

 

[SBroxson]

Within feminism there was a blatant hatred of men–one half of the human race.

Feminists virtually never directly stated that men are inferior, and women are superior–rather they came up with long lists of women’s virtues and men’s faults…never identifying a single male virtue nor female fault (outside of “false consciousness” where a woman has been “duped” into patriarchal thinking).

Now here comes JPII with the call for a new Christian feminism: and he uses exactly the same tactic! Although he admits that we are all affected by original sin, there is a feminine genius but no masculine genius. Specific male faults are identified, but no female faults. (Christopher West also follows this path. And the tortuous logic used by both to explain away Scriptural endorsement of the headship of the husband are a wonder to behold.)

But if male=inferior and female=superior, then the concept of complementarity is nonsensical as is a male Savior, a male priesthood, and a Father in heaven.

But if JPII was dangerously naive (in my view), he was at least a gentleman and a Christian. It is gentlemanly to seek to think higher of the sex of a man’s mother, sister, wife, and daughter. It is Christian to take the plank out of one’s own eye first.

Still, there are Christian points that the Pope could have made, such as the following.

Feminism is Marxist. (Feminists have told us that. Explicitly. Plus you can see it from their rhetoric.) Marxism only recognizes power: specifically, political and economic power. It rejects the power of love.

Instead of effectively endorsing the feminist slander of the universal oppression of women by men, the Pope could have challenged feminists. He could have pointed to many places in the Bible during periods of time in which women had few legal rights: and yet men often underwent tremendous hardships (and even death) for the sake of women and to please them. Feminists can explain St. Paul saying that it was better (at the time) to not marry, for a wife would be anxious to please her husband, but they cannot explain why he also said that a husband would be anxious to please his wife.

He could have pointed to Mother Teresa who walked into a Calcutta slum and wound up talking to rulers–and lecturing them. Because of the power of love.

Christianity is ancient, and authentically Catholic civilizations are largely a thing of the past. Therefore, to endorse the modern slanders of our ancestors tends to discredit Catholicism itself. Moreover, we believe that we are fallen, and so oppose any evolutionary notion that we are approaching utopia on earth. If it is in the human anthropology of fallen man to always oppress women, then that is not likely to ever change for long. But fortunately it is not. Men love women, and always have.

This point is complicated, but essentially Marxism is based upon self-righteousness, vanity, and regarding people as less than human. People are divided into 2 classes (looking at it from various angles): and oppressor class; and a victim class. The oppressor class is pure evil (unless ideologically enlightened), and the victim class is pure good (except for the damage done by the oppressor). But if the oppressed are human, they will have their own faults too–they will not be mere puppets of the oppressor class. And self-righteousness is a sin, not a virtue.

 

[Dan_Daly]

In real life, though, the people that say they oppose the education of women and women going to college has no other meaning than that. They truly believe this is Catholic teaching. So while what you say may be true, it really is not a consideration for most people. They consider the “education of women” as being a college education, because in most developed countries education up to certain grade levels or age is mandatory, and they don’t oppose that. They only oppose post-secondary education for women. Women should marry, stay home, and raise a family, period, is what they mean.

They don’t tend to philosophize these things. It’s cut and dried, black and white among a certain type of fundamentalist and traditionalist Catholics (and this also is seen in some Protestant circles also). Note I said a certain type, not all.

Likewise, the people who say they favor the education of women usually mean a college education, and they aren’t thinking along your lines. The argument is pretty cut-and -dried, and they don’t tend to philosophize about it either. They believe it’s up to the woman, a personal choice, and women have the right to pursue it.

Some people philosophize, some don’t. There is an underlying philosophy behind our actions, even for those who don’t “philosophize” as such.

The actions of marrying, taking care of a home, and raising a family- are very educational. This should be obvious to all, but many, dismiss any education that is not directly associated with an “educational institution” as no education at all.

As we look at all the Saints, we see many, many, men and women who became educated, especially about God, through life experience, family education, and self directed learning. This is just one example of how feminism is an anti-Catholic ideology. It dismisses all this as nothingness or worse oppression.

 

[JReducation]

The statements:

A) I’m in favor of the education of women.

B) I’m in favor of women going to college.

Are not the same thing. One can be in favor of both, against both, or in favor of one and not the other. College, at least the vast majority of colleges in the United States, are incredibly CLOSE minded places that seek to stamp out the Christian faith in those who arrive embracing it. Can spiritual growth occur in such an environment? Yes it does, but not because of the institution- rather inspite of it. The same can be said of most pre-college institutional education.

Pax.

Within feminism there was a blatant hatred of men–one half of the human race.

Feminists virtually never directly stated that men are inferior, and women are superior–rather they came up with long lists of women’s virtues and men’s faults…never identifying a single male virtue nor female fault (outside of “false consciousness” where a woman has been “duped” into patriarchal thinking).

Now here comes JPII with the call for a new Christian feminism: and he uses exactly the same tactic! Although he admits that we are all affected by original sin, there is a feminine genius but no masculine genius. Specific male faults are identified, but no female faults. (Christopher West also follows this path. And the tortuous logic used by both to explain away Scriptural endorsement of the headship of the husband are a wonder to behold.)

But if male=inferior and female=superior, then the concept of complementarity is nonsensical as is a male Savior, a male priesthood, and a Father in heaven.

But if JPII was dangerously naive (in my view), he was at least a gentleman and a Christian. It is gentlemanly to seek to think higher of the sex of a man’s mother, sister, wife, and daughter. It is Christian to take the plank out of one’s own eye first.

Still, there are Christian points that the Pope could have made, such as the following.

Feminism is Marxist. (Feminists have told us that. Explicitly. Plus you can see it from their rhetoric.) Marxism only recognizes power: specifically, political and economic power. It rejects the power of love.

Instead of effectively endorsing the feminist slander of the universal oppression of women by men, the Pope could have challenged feminists. He could have pointed to many places in the Bible during periods of time in which women had few legal rights: and yet men often underwent tremendous hardships (and even death) for the sake of women and to please them. Feminists can explain St. Paul saying that it was better (at the time) to not marry, for a wife would be anxious to please her husband, but they cannot explain why he also said that a husband would be anxious to please his wife.

He could have pointed to Mother Teresa who walked into a Calcutta slum and wound up talking to rulers–and lecturing them. Because of the power of love.

Christianity is ancient, and authentically Catholic civilizations are largely a thing of the past. Therefore, to endorse the modern slanders of our ancestors tends to discredit Catholicism itself. Moreover, we believe that we are fallen, and so oppose any evolutionary notion that we are approaching utopia on earth. If it is in the human anthropology of fallen man to always oppress women, then that is not likely to ever change for long. But fortunately it is not. Men love women, and always have.

This point is complicated, but essentially Marxism is based upon self-righteousness, vanity, and regarding people as less than human. People are divided into 2 classes (looking at it from various angles): and oppressor class; and a victim class. The oppressor class is pure evil (unless ideologically enlightened), and the victim class is pure good (except for the damage done by the oppressor). But if the oppressed are human, they will have their own faults too–they will not be mere puppets of the oppressor class. And self-righteousness is a sin, not a virtue.

I think that you make some interesting point, but I think that you misunderstand Pope John Paul. Ther reason that he does charge at the femenist movement or speak to both genders is because that was not the request that was made of him. He was asked to speak to women about the strength and potential of women.

When I was a student in Rome, I had the opportunity to take a course with Cardinal Ratzinger, “Theology of History”, a subject that he loves and is excellent at teaching. Cardinal Ratzinger had the habit of thinking out loud. He still does and often gets into trouble, because his thoughts are so complex that most people don’t understand what he’s talking about and then run with their misunderstanding. The Pope ends up having to issue some kind of claficiation.

Anyway, on one of those days when he was thinking he said something that I will never forget. He said that throughout history God has shown us that the faithful do not own Peter. This was in response to a question by one of the theology students to something that Pope John Paul had said. The student began with a phrase that sets, now Pope Benedict, off like a rocket. “The pope should have said”

I’ve learned to come at what the pope says not from what I think he should have said or how he could have said it. I come at it from his point of view. I believe that we have to ask ourselves, “What is he thinking? How does he arrive at that conclusion? What does he want to teach his listeners?” What I think is not important. At the end of the day, he’s the pope and I’m a nobody.

I find that when I come at something from his point of view, I learn a great deal.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SBroxson]

I think that you make some interesting point, but I think that you misunderstand Pope John Paul. Ther reason that he does charge at the femenist movement or speak to both genders is because that was not the request that was made of him. He was asked to speak to women about the strength and potential of women…

I’ve learned to come at what the pope says not from what I think he should have said or how he could have said it. I come at it from his point of view. I believe that we have to ask ourselves, “What is he thinking? How does he arrive at that conclusion? What does he want to teach his listeners?” What I think is not important. At the end of the day, he’s the pope and I’m a nobody…

I take your points, although I think they go a bit far.

First, my point was not me, or even what the Pope was asked to speak about at a certain time, but society facing an inhuman philosophy which was anti-Catholic.

Secondly, if it comes to the point, I am NOT a nobody: like every other human, I was created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ died for me. More to the point, the laity do indeed have a role in secular society, and so it is entirely appropriate to form an opinion about a secular threat that has strong religious dimensions.

 

[JReducation]

I take your points, although I think they go a bit far.

First, my point was not me, or even what the Pope was asked to speak about at a certain time, but society facing an inhuman philosophy which was anti-Catholic.

Secondly, if it comes to the point, I am NOT a nobody: like every other human, I was created in the image and likeness of God, and Christ died for me. More to the point, the laity do indeed have a role in secular society, and so it is entirely appropriate to form an opinion about a secular threat that has strong religious dimensions.

You will not find a man in Church History who had stronger opinions about the world around him than Francis of Assisi. Yet, you will always find him concluding every thought and every prayer reminding himself and his brothers that we are no body. In the great scheme of things, the only thing that we can own is our sin.

At the end of the day, compared to the Successor Peter and the successors of the Apostles, we are very small indeed. Our role has to be exercised within the parameters of our vocation and at the rung of authority assigned to us by Christ himself.

Yes, we have a duty in the marketplace. But we must always remember that we are not at the top of the pecking order. Our Church is hierarchical. Human beings, be they popes or laymen, often tend to think of themselves as very important.

St. Maximilian Kolbe once wrote that true poverty is the vocation of every Catholic, not just religious. One can onlly achieve true poverty when one lets go of: self, intelligence, and opinions. Only when one does so can love find a place in our life.

What does he mean?

In the first place, letting go of self, is pretty obvious. He’s talking about generosity and placing the other before ourselves.

In the second place, letting go of intelligence, is less obvious. This comes from Franciscan theology, better explained by St. Bonaventure. Intelligence is a gift that must always be used for the Church and at the discretion of the Church, not of the individual. Gifts are not to be horded. In other words, whatever we know or think we know, must be examined against what those in authority say.

In the third place, comes letting go opinions. Maximilian is again reclining on Franciscan theology, which has always tuaght that we tend to be very opinionated and as a result, we want to dictate to others, including those who are placed over us. God did not create the world that way. Each person and everything that he created has a place, purpose, role and rank.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[SBroxson]

…At the end of the day, compared to the Successor Peter and the successors of the Apostles, we are very small indeed. Our role has to be exercised within the parameters of our vocation and at the rung of authority assigned to us by Christ himself.

Yes, we have a duty in the marketplace. But we must always remember that we are not at the top of the pecking order. Our Church is hierarchical. Human beings, be they popes or laymen, often tend to think of themselves as very important…

Let’s start with this: according to the Church, the primary roll of the laity is NOT limited to “the marketplace”–i.e., purely economic issues. We are citizens, voters, and members of secular society–and in these realms our role is primary, not secondary.

For some 50 years, we have witnessed the ravages to our society done by 3rd wave feminism. These have included legalization of abortion, no-fault divorce, homosexual marriage, artificial birth control which now must be subsidized by Catholics, and increasing restrictions on speech, families, and churches…need I really go on? Because a whole book could be written.

We experienced feminism extensively: in college, in diversity classes, in ordinary conversation, in publications and talks. Do I really need to go on? Because this too could be a book.

Any suggestion concerning the Church is typically greeted with words along the lines of yours which I understand to mean: Catholicism is hierarchical, and that means shut up. If that is your meaning, I view it as a non-sequitur. And a particularly amusing one.

The Church used to speak in terms authoritative and which may strike us moderns as even authoritarian. But Vatican II consciously adopted a new approach: scorning hurling anathemas at the world, and longing to patiently explain itself to the world; and Vatican II was the strongest statement yet about the role and dignity of the laity. And yet, any kind of questioning about the prudence of any approach taken at or since then typically is greeted with something like: The Church is hierarchical! Peter has spoken! Shut up!

Interestingly, that is not the position taken by the Vatican itself! Popes and prominent bishops have stated that other religions have a great deal of wisdom, and perhaps even have things to teach us in certain ways. Moreover, listening and dialogue have been key concepts–even concerning matters of faith and morals. I have never heard any type of statement from recent Popes of the type that one routinely hears directed at traditionalists unless the Pope is directly addressing the problem of a bishop, priest, or theologian of the Church who is leading others into error…and even then it is very rare indeed.

Feminism is purely secular–although it has profound religious implications and is an attack on our faith. Our detailed and deep experience with feminism does indeed give us some ability to suggest insights and suggestions on how to counter this movement.

I also must address your comment which seem to me to be intended to be personal spiritual guidance. If so, a public forum is not the place, your comments were not responsive to the intent of my comments (although I may have not expressed myself adequately), and there are other spiritual dangers if one assumes that disagreement with one’s view indicates a spiritual problem.

Perhaps this is the problem: were my comments merely a matter of past talks of a Pope, then perhaps it would be mere criticism. But those talks lead to a very current adoption of some influential Catholics of a “new Christian feminism.” Perhaps that is what I need to explain–however, it cannot be done briefly since the issue is so sensitive…because men and women are bound together so closely…and usually with such love.

 

[SBroxson]

I post this with reluctance, because it could so easily be misunderstood–and shortening it would absolutely guarantee misunderstanding! But I believe that the subject is of incalculable importance, and it explains why addresses given long ago (by Pope John Paul II) are worth revisiting.

I had a discussion with an admirable Catholic/wife/mother friend concerning the specific talks that we had each heard concerning the “new Christian feminism” (proposed by Pope John Paul II). These talks were given by orthodox, devout, admirable women academics, but they seem to me to play into the hands of feminists. Also, when women say exactly the same thing as the Pope (who is a man), the effect is entirely different for reasons explained below.

To highlight the problems with this approach, I wrote this proposed alternative speech for such women speakers to point up some of the deeper spiritual and tactical problems of the Catholic feminist approach (in a way that I have not been able to duplicate in any other way, nor seen anybody else duplicate).

The problem is that we are so tenderly protective of women–and properly so!–that any hint that they too may not be perfect (i.e., fallen) is hard to bear. Feminists have used this against us–which accounts a great deal for their astounding success.

So, here is the imaginary speech by a woman to women in 3 parts. PLEASE READ THE DELIVERY AS BEING DELIVERED IN A LIGHT-HEARTED, PLAYFUL, HUMOROUS MANNER.​

Listen up ladies! (As for the men, I would beg you to close your ears. *I would not want you to adopt the self-righteousness embraced by so many women over the last 50 years.)

We are all affected by original sin. Fallen manhood can be a terrible thing, worthy of Satan himself. Stupid ugliness! Or perhaps ugly stupidity. But this is what we women have somehow overlooked for some 50 year: fallen womanhood is also…well, fallen. Ugly. And fallen manhood can be redeemed by Christ too.

Feminists have portrayed manhood as consisting of nothing other than faults, and womanhood as consisting of nothing other than virtues. Pope John Paul II continued that theme, but this is what we missed: he was a man. He was criticizing his own sex, and praising the opposite sex. He was taking the plank out of his own eye first. He was rejected self-righteousness and vanity–and embracing humility. He was dying unto his (male) self. We should have followed his example. But instead, we often bought into feminist vanity–even some good Catholic women!

So, our task is clear. To do what the Pope did: to specifically identify faults of our own sex, and virtues of the opposite sex! Having delayed for some 50 years, let us begin at once. It will be fun!

Well, ok, I’ll start out with still another slam against men: really, it is quite impossible for a group of women to have a conversation without doing so. Feminism posed this offer to men: we will give you promiscuous sex without responsibility! Men quivered: what could be the price of such a wonderful (in terms of fallen manhood) gift? Feminisms answer? All you have to give up is your self-respect. Your dignity as a man. Oh, yes, also the hope of health and happiness for your sons and your daughters. And American manhood cried as if with one voice: “Thank God! [Well, ok, “Thank Satan!”] We were afraid that we would have to give up something important!” Ugly stupidity.

But here’s what we women don’t want to think about. Are men really inferior? All truth is God’s truth, but does God really teach that to us? He does not, does He? And there can be no complementarity between the sexes if women have no faults and men no virtues. And what of the image of God as Father, a male Savior, and male priests if there is no good in men at all?

So, this is what logically follows. For every fault–really, really ugly fault–that we find in men, there would presumably be some corresponding fault of equal ugliness in women. So, all those girl-talks that we have used to define just how terrible men are: we have to have the same number figuring out just how terrible are we–and it is THESE sessions that make us Christian rather than self-righteousness.

And you know how we find such wonderful things about ourselves that make us want to cry? If that is anything other than vanity, then we must find an equally marvelous male virtue. Moreover, as women, it is up to us to focus on the male virtues, not our own, as part of dying unto the self.

You know these forwarded emails we sometimes send each other detailing how wonderful women are–of course, with the introduction that we women don’t give ourselves near enough credit! Let me say this as gently as possible: did you know that men don’t do that? Ever. They don’t have the feminine genius of transparent vanity.

 

[SBroxson]

PART 2 OF IMAGINED TALK:

So, all of these millions of conversations that we’ve had over the last 50 years–running men down and praising women–have only dug us deeper and deeper into a hole. We’ve got a lot of work to do!

Where to start? We could start with this: there is no masculinist movement–and never has been. The current “men’s movement” is infinitesimal, and it basic premise is the modest claim that men are people too.

True, if you look back into history, you can find writings of men which propose that women are–at least in some ways–inferior to men. An extreme view would be that they essentially viewed women as dogs. But if you read there writings in their entirety, and the writings of their contemporaries, you can see that women were regarded as (at worst) beloved dogs. It is reserved to the feminine genius to have a whole movement dedicated to viewing the opposite sex as DESPISED dogs.

I wonder if it is possible to build on that thought? Hmm. Writer Warren Farrell made a practice when traveling to try to sit near same-sex tables. This is what he found: women are a whole order of magnitude more likely to criticize their husbands and boyfriends than men are to criticize their wives and girlfriends. Now, Farrell was secular, but do we really not know what he was talking about?

A recent Wall Street Journal column gave an antidotal example of this phenomenon. The writer told her husband’s best friend that they had had a serious argument that day. Could he come over? He did. The boys went out on the deck and talked…very, very seriously. They would lean forward and talk, and then sit back and think, and then repeat the process. The next morning, her husband handed her a cup of coffee: the fight was over. But what did the boy’s talk about? This is what she found out: they were discussing whether synthetic motor oil was better, or worse, for their motorcycles. (Synthetic won the day.)

She contrasted that with a girl friend who had told everybody that she knew, two radio stations, and the internet, what a totally evil man her husband was. But, he wasn’t, and they got back together again–but she had ruined all real possibility of continuing the friendship between him and her family and friends. The fruits of vicious stupidity.

In fact, when Farrell does marriage counseling, he commonly asked the wife to agree to this: no promises of confidentiality when her girl friends want to tell her what they really think of her husband. He also finds that a woman sometimes completely gives up on a marriage because she has talked, and talked, and talked, and it just hasn’t done any good: but they were mostly talking to their girl friends, not their husbands.

We have been speaking of just a few of the various manifestations of fallen woman’s stupid ugliness. Or should we say ugly stupidity? What great fun we’re having! No?

How odd. We’ve had such fun slamming men for 50 years: how could it not be fun to slam ourselves? Well, ok, we’ll take a little break.

What I’ve been referencing above is the negative side of a characteristic that can also be positive: women’s greater ability to understand and discuss emotions. Some of our discussions about men are honest and charitable efforts to find a solution. (But we all know that for most of us, most of them are not.) Indeed, men and women tend to have different qualities, on average, which are good in some situations and bad in others.

And there is even something of our “vanity”–or something that somewhat resembles vanity–which is not necessarily sinful: which our husbands like (and which may even excite them). Which gives a dignity and mystery to our womanhood, and which can allow our beauty to shine (in a way that is not sinful). If we lacked this feminine pride (in a good sense), we might not be put on a pedestal…and it is important that we are–not for our sake, but for our husband’s sake…for the sake of his soul.

And I’ll also grant that the differences between men and women are so great that we just have to joke about them–and as long as there is no malice, there is seldom any harm.

Look, feminism has exploited qualities of traditional culture (including Catholicism) and used them against us: protectiveness toward women, honoring women, and not holding women fully responsible for their actions.

Let’s discuss that last, because it seems insulting to women. Women have often not always had fully equal legal rights to a man–indeed, we did not even have the vote until relatively recently! And yet, here is the truly bizarre thing: feminism agreed the we are not fully responsible for our decisions and choices–while, at the same time, heatedly rejecting the notion.

For the Catholic, the most critical example is abortion. Although you would not have guessed it from feminist rhetoric, scientists have actually determined where babies come from! (Hopefully, they did expend undue effort.) It turns out that the choice to have sex is a choice to possibly have a baby. Duh.

So, what happens–in the feminist view–when there is a pregnancy? Well, the man–having made a choice–becomes responsible for his choice: he must provide child support for 18-22 years. (Presumably, his body is somehow involved in making the money to make all these payments: *indeed, he may even have a job involving physical danger.) How about the woman? Well, she is not responsible for her choice. According to feminists! She needs another choice when the pregnancy test comes back. But she’s not even responsible for even that choice: she needs additional choices each day of the pregnancy (and according to some, even after the baby is born)! So it is only a slight exaggeration to say that, according to feminists, being a woman means never having to say that you are responsible.

 

[SBroxson]

END OF TALK (PART 3):

On a more mundane level, studies have found that women are more likely to use the passive voice: which blurs responsibility.

Let’s turn now to voting. G. K. Chesterton’s objection to women voting rested upon conversations that he had with his wife and his housekeeper: they didn’t want it, and that ended all enquiry for him. But others raised a more substantive objection: women might be too concerned with kitchen table issues–petty personal issues. Now here comes feminism to say: “the personal is the political!” Which really is a very terrible political philosophy if you care anything at all about limited government–or limiting government debt.

When you look how women vote and men vote: where there is a difference, women are wrong. Seriously. In issue after issue. But which women are wrong? Single women are wrong (speaking in generalities): married women vote much as their husbands (especially if they have children). So, the effective result of women being deprived of the vote all those years was that the votes of single women didn’t count. I’m certainly not suggesting that we abandon the vote, but there you have it.

Now, before ending, let me warn you that disregarding men’s virtues can be fatal–literally! There was a situation during 9/11 in the world trade center. It has been included in a number of write ups, and the man was interviewed by NPR and you can hear his story. Listening to him, you can see that he is a kind man…but clearly a man and even protective of others. Ugh! When the lights went off, he retrieved his “personal flashlight.” (That would be a Sure Fire, or similar, flashlight that is favored by equipment-guys.) He got all of his staff out (whom were female), and started down the stairs. On the stairs, they met two women. (In the NPR interview, he called them a “couple.”) The women told them that there was a raging inferno below, and it was not possible to pass: they should all go to the roof where helicopters would save them. He argue that going up made no sense. His view was bolstered by the fact that there was no major amount of smoke in the stairwell. As they were having the discussion, there was a yell for help: a man on the floor where they stopped had been pinned…and our hero went to free him. When he came back out, the women were gone–up the stairs.

Now, don’t you just know what the conversation was like the second that he left? The rolling of the feminine eyes! These liberated New York women certainly weren’t going to listen to a man! *Who had a “personal flashlight” no less!

Any way, he and the man that he rescued went down the stairs and to safety. They found the “inferno”: there was a crack in the door, and you could see fire and it did look frightening, but it really was no big deal. No great amount of heat in the stairwell. No smoke. No problem. At all. The two women just over-reacted to the stimulus (as women are more likely to do)…and it cost them their lives as well as the lives of the women who listened to them.

There was a time when women looked up to men: when they did, men acted much better and also put women on a pedestal–men and women looked up to each other. Now we look down on each other. How’s it working out for us? How pointlessly foolish we’ve been!

It’s interesting that this orgy of criticism of men, and the refusal to see anything good in them, happened during the same period of the self-esteem movement. Now, we know the problems with the self-esteem movement, but isn’t it interesting that we were so willing to imply to our own sons that there was nothing possibly good for them to aim for other than to be like a woman–and we knew that would never sell? So, we brought our sons up without any positive goal, and left manhood to the punks to define…and have reaped the whirlwind. We destroyed the hope of health and happiness for our sons and our daughters. We’ve rejected the nobility of all of our male ancestors, our sibling, our husbands, and the fruit of our wombs. Now, was that stupid ugliness, or ugly stupidity? *

What madcap fun we’ve been having! And there is so much more to do!

Oh, by the way, if you disagree with any–or all–of the feminine faults that I’ve suggested: fine!!! But understand this: you must come up with equally ugly alternatives. Or admit that you believe men are inferior. Which is not Christian. And THAT’S not funny.

 

[TrueLight]

END OF TALK (PART 3):

On a more mundane level, studies have found that women are more likely to use the passive voice: which blurs responsibility.

Let’s turn now to voting. G. K. Chesterton’s objection to women voting rested upon conversations that he had with his wife and his housekeeper: they didn’t want it, and that ended all enquiry for him. But others raised a more substantive objection: women might be too concerned with kitchen table issues–petty personal issues. Now here comes feminism to say: “the personal is the political!” Which really is a very terrible political philosophy if you care anything at all about limited government–or limiting government debt.

When you look how women vote and men vote: where there is a difference, women are wrong. Seriously. In issue after issue. But which women are wrong? Single women are wrong (speaking in generalities): married women vote much as their husbands (especially if they have children). So, the effective result of women being deprived of the vote all those years was that the votes of single women didn’t count. I’m certainly not suggesting that we abandon the vote, but there you have it.

Now, before ending, let me warn you that disregarding men’s virtues can be fatal–literally! There was a situation during 9/11 in the world trade center. It has been included in a number of write ups, and the man was interviewed by NPR and you can hear his story. Listening to him, you can see that he is a kind man…but clearly a man and even protective of others. Ugh! When the lights went off, he retrieved his “personal flashlight.” (That would be a Sure Fire, or similar, flashlight that is favored by equipment-guys.) He got all of his staff out (whom were female), and started down the stairs. On the stairs, they met two women. (In the NPR interview, he called them a “couple.”) The women told them that there was a raging inferno below, and it was not possible to pass: they should all go to the roof where helicopters would save them. He argue that going up made no sense. His view was bolstered by the fact that there was no major amount of smoke in the stairwell. As they were having the discussion, there was a yell for help: a man on the floor where they stopped had been pinned…and our hero went to free him. When he came back out, the women were gone–up the stairs.

Now, don’t you just know what the conversation was like the second that he left? The rolling of the feminine eyes! These liberated New York women certainly weren’t going to listen to a man! *Who had a “personal flashlight” no less!

Any way, he and the man that he rescued went down the stairs and to safety. They found the “inferno”: there was a crack in the door, and you could see fire and it did look frightening, but it really was no big deal. No great amount of heat in the stairwell. No smoke. No problem. At all. The two women just over-reacted to the stimulus (as women are more likely to do)…and it cost them their lives as well as the lives of the women who listened to them.

There was a time when women looked up to men: when they did, men acted much better and also put women on a pedestal–men and women looked up to each other. Now we look down on each other. How’s it working out for us? How pointlessly foolish we’ve been!

It’s interesting that this orgy of criticism of men, and the refusal to see anything good in them, happened during the same period of the self-esteem movement. Now, we know the problems with the self-esteem movement, but isn’t it interesting that we were so willing to imply to our own sons that there was nothing possibly good for them to aim for other than to be like a woman–and we knew that would never sell? So, we brought our sons up without any positive goal, and left manhood to the punks to define…and have reaped the whirlwind. We destroyed the hope of health and happiness for our sons and our daughters. We’ve rejected the nobility of all of our male ancestors, our sibling, our husbands, and the fruit of our wombs. Now, was that stupid ugliness, or ugly stupidity? *

What madcap fun we’ve been having! And there is so much more to do!

Oh, by the way, if you disagree with any–or all–of the feminine faults that I’ve suggested: fine!!! But understand this: you must come up with equally ugly alternatives. Or admit that you believe men are inferior. Which is not Christian. And THAT’S not funny.

What is the point of this post? To point out that women are not perfect?