A
angel12
Guest
You are absolutely correct.
- Status
A
adgloriam
Guest
You do make a few arguments for me to unpackage, here goes:
1º Since I joined CAF there was that Swedish-church push for gender neutral liturgy ( I could never have imagined something like that before joining CAF.) But there have been other such cases in recent times.
2º You’ll notice the above is dated 2017 and 2005. Thus, when Fr.John Hardon made that speech he was indeed right about what was to come. It’s copyrighted 1998 (he died in 2000) but the speech was probably made long before, in the the 80’s or early 90’s.
3ºOne CAF’er I met over 65 years old said he’d been a choir director for over 30 years, and those linguistic changes had been made gradually over a long span of time. (Starting with less relevant liturgical songs.)
So Fr.John Hardon was indeed right, having a far reaching vision, about several of the points he made.
Three moments here:
1º Since I joined CAF there was that Swedish-church push for gender neutral liturgy ( I could never have imagined something like that before joining CAF.) But there have been other such cases in recent times.
2º You’ll notice the above is dated 2017 and 2005. Thus, when Fr.John Hardon made that speech he was indeed right about what was to come. It’s copyrighted 1998 (he died in 2000) but the speech was probably made long before, in the the 80’s or early 90’s.
3ºOne CAF’er I met over 65 years old said he’d been a choir director for over 30 years, and those linguistic changes had been made gradually over a long span of time. (Starting with less relevant liturgical songs.)
So Fr.John Hardon was indeed right, having a far reaching vision, about several of the points he made.
A
adgloriam
Guest
@Rhubarb, please, please Humor me on this to the best of your abilities: Tell me that the moment you step outside the English speaking space all of the following loses any sense you may attribute to it. That a non-english native reserves the outright right to dismiss the following on simple basis of linguistics. That those words don’t exist, because they can’t be translate - there being no equivalent for those concepts in other languages, because the speakers of other languages don’t deem those concepts worthy of an expression or of being expressed.
Again, as Fr.John Hardon said several times over:
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_013.htm
E
Edward_H
Guest
The only feminism worth listening to is one that encourages women to get on the Cross daily, dying to themselves so that they can resemble Jesus, so that when God the Father looks at them, He will see His Son.
That’s not a popular message, but it’s the hard and good truth.
And of course - to counter a few commenters - the only male-ism - or whatever the word is - is one that encourages men to get on the Cross with Jesus daily, dying to themselves for the good of their wife and chidlren.
From St Josemaria:
“This is what Our Lord wants, for we need it if we are to follow him closely. There is no other way. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in each soul — in yours. Be docile and present no obstacles to God, until he makes your poor flesh like that of Jesus on the Cross.”
That’s not a popular message, but it’s the hard and good truth.
And of course - to counter a few commenters - the only male-ism - or whatever the word is - is one that encourages men to get on the Cross with Jesus daily, dying to themselves for the good of their wife and chidlren.
From St Josemaria:
“This is what Our Lord wants, for we need it if we are to follow him closely. There is no other way. This is the work of the Holy Spirit in each soul — in yours. Be docile and present no obstacles to God, until he makes your poor flesh like that of Jesus on the Cross.”
Last edited:
R
Rhubarb
Guest
Those are things, yes. But they’re not a 'feminist movement". Feminism is a broad category of many bundled of thinkings and arguments. The Declaration of Sentiments has nothing about worship liturgy. Lucretta Mott didn’t have anything to say about changing liturgies. Or Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Or Louisa May Alcott. Or Simone de Beauvoir… etc. etc. etc.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s certainly something to be said about people wanting to reform liturgy. But to castigate “feminism” as the problem throws the baby out with the bathwater. Like I said, I really like JP2’s quote on the subject.
Don’t get me wrong. There’s certainly something to be said about people wanting to reform liturgy. But to castigate “feminism” as the problem throws the baby out with the bathwater. Like I said, I really like JP2’s quote on the subject.
A
adgloriam
Guest
@Rhubarb give me some slack here. I understand what you are saying and I appreciate it. You are right on most of what you say (but unjust in criticizing Fr.John Hardon, he did have his reasons, and he was right to a good extent.)
The same JPII you quote, and Ratzinger after him, never failed to defend the family and conjugal love. We are criticizing what perhaps lacks a term and because of it falls under the monolith, which is the modern cultural tendency to declare war between the genders, setting them against each other. I can’t recall any exact document, but I am sure the popes denounced that tendency (perhaps not associating a noun to the tendency).
The last such example was actually in the Viganò letter, when the núncio said pope Francis told him: “not to fall into ideologies”. And ideologies are generally called “isms” in Europe, “the isms” because of morphology creating a concept by inflecting a noun. [And were the English language not so powerful morphologicaly at inflecting words, they wouldn’t be endlessly “coining terms” for everything.]
The same JPII you quote, and Ratzinger after him, never failed to defend the family and conjugal love. We are criticizing what perhaps lacks a term and because of it falls under the monolith, which is the modern cultural tendency to declare war between the genders, setting them against each other. I can’t recall any exact document, but I am sure the popes denounced that tendency (perhaps not associating a noun to the tendency).
The last such example was actually in the Viganò letter, when the núncio said pope Francis told him: “not to fall into ideologies”. And ideologies are generally called “isms” in Europe, “the isms” because of morphology creating a concept by inflecting a noun. [And were the English language not so powerful morphologicaly at inflecting words, they wouldn’t be endlessly “coining terms” for everything.]
A
adgloriam
Guest
A final note, and I’ll call it a day, it’s past my bedtime - and I still have a personal letter to write.
Of that list I actually only know Simone de Beauvoir, inseparable of Sarte. For Europeans the pair makes for a fetish analyses, because Sarte consecrated and popularized the “figure of the intellectual” in popular culture, precisely at time when mass attendance to college commenced. I’ve read a bunch of their stuff. Sartre’s early works bashed at the ‘petit-bourgouise’ and thus incited revolt against the virtue of work and diligence. And so forth (his critique of "the humanist’ in “La Nausée”)…
I’ll say Beauvoir serves as no example in her choice of lovers, living without marrying, an so forth…The antithesis of catholic doctrine on the family. And that misguidance is, somewhat, historically indisociable.
A
adgloriam
Guest
@DarkLight I’ve come across your writing before, and I like it. It’s articulate, well structured, methodical, wealthy in experiential. And for some reason, you to, at times, engage in threads on these issues.
Then I thought I’d interact with you by way of a post. But I read somewhere you were experiencing some difficulties, and in honesty, I felt humbled to address a person undergoing hardship that seemed harder than mine. Also, because I didn’t want, in any way, to add to any hardship.
And that being said, which is faint yet personal, an introduction more than a debate, I’ll address some of what you shared to the best of my ability.
Woman are the object of attention, men chase after woman. That is somehow written in our natures (JPII elaborated on it in “Love and Responsibility”). And as in all things, that is also subject to sin. Some societies -even neighborhoods- are more violent than others. And the normal behavior between the genders is more ritualized/encoded than we’d at first imagine, suffices to say changing societies changes what is taken as normal interaction.
Regrettably, those behaviors you and others described are to an extent transversal and thus the tendency remits in fact to our nature, to innate impulses.
However, the only critic I’d hold of feminism is the frequently associated tendency to be hostile towards men. Which can be an overreaction, unjust if misguided, leading to positive social reinforcement of hostility. And that would be it. Then a single question would follow: do feminist correct other woman for being unjust to a man? (Does the term ‘feminist’ share catholic morals or oppose it?)
Because I’ve had my share of woman’s injustice, and their peers reinforcement of that injustice. So I sometimes refer to feminism (for lack of a better term) as “that peer social positive reinforcement of that injustice”. Now here it gets really interesting (because for this I have not found a term): The same way some of those deplorable behaviors you mentioned are both sin and nature - characteristic of men. Woman also has a particular nature, which is not so evident nor obvious. And pertaining to the more common forms of injustice -particular to that gender- which and what would that be? And what would we call that positive social reinforcement? [And here I fail completely, unable to find even a word.]
Then I thought I’d interact with you by way of a post. But I read somewhere you were experiencing some difficulties, and in honesty, I felt humbled to address a person undergoing hardship that seemed harder than mine. Also, because I didn’t want, in any way, to add to any hardship.
And that being said, which is faint yet personal, an introduction more than a debate, I’ll address some of what you shared to the best of my ability.
Woman are the object of attention, men chase after woman. That is somehow written in our natures (JPII elaborated on it in “Love and Responsibility”). And as in all things, that is also subject to sin. Some societies -even neighborhoods- are more violent than others. And the normal behavior between the genders is more ritualized/encoded than we’d at first imagine, suffices to say changing societies changes what is taken as normal interaction.
Regrettably, those behaviors you and others described are to an extent transversal and thus the tendency remits in fact to our nature, to innate impulses.
However, the only critic I’d hold of feminism is the frequently associated tendency to be hostile towards men. Which can be an overreaction, unjust if misguided, leading to positive social reinforcement of hostility. And that would be it. Then a single question would follow: do feminist correct other woman for being unjust to a man? (Does the term ‘feminist’ share catholic morals or oppose it?)
Because I’ve had my share of woman’s injustice, and their peers reinforcement of that injustice. So I sometimes refer to feminism (for lack of a better term) as “that peer social positive reinforcement of that injustice”. Now here it gets really interesting (because for this I have not found a term): The same way some of those deplorable behaviors you mentioned are both sin and nature - characteristic of men. Woman also has a particular nature, which is not so evident nor obvious. And pertaining to the more common forms of injustice -particular to that gender- which and what would that be? And what would we call that positive social reinforcement? [And here I fail completely, unable to find even a word.]
D
DarkLight
Guest
I daresay that includes dealing with people who want to hold you back from that goal because it’s not proper masculine or feminine behavior. And working to remove those barriers for others.
The saints were docile and submissive before God. That does not mean being either of those things before standards imposed by people.
The saints were docile and submissive before God. That does not mean being either of those things before standards imposed by people.
D
DarkLight
Guest
Lots of thoughts here, perhaps not all that I can fit in a post!
An old thread of mine, someone posted that the Church has always had to take the good and leave the bad. Ever since the early church dealing with greek and roman thinkers, we have had to wrestle with how various movements and philosophies comported with the faith. I don’t think we can either accept feminism outright nor discard it utterly. There are true injustices - sometimes even in our own countries or even our own churches. There are also parts of mainstream feminism we obviously cannot accept.
As far as the spectrum goes - I do see many feminists who will say that it is also unjust to expect that women are somehow more holy or sainted than men. It can’t be a goal of equality if women are not held to account for their behaviors. That said, there can be a tendency to give too much leeway to women’s behaviors. It’s hard to say a specific response without some context, which obviously you don’t have to give. (Easy example: I don’t have much problem with getting a frosty reception approaching a woman at a bus stop, in large part because that’s not really a social area. I’d have more issue with the same in, say, an office environment.)
E
Edward_H
Guest
Yes. The only goal we have should be what is serving God, pleasing Him the most.
What others think of this goal is immaterial to us.
Vanity is worrying about what others think of us. Acting for human respect is vanity.
Docility, properly understood, means doing God’s will, above our own.
What others think of this goal is immaterial to us.
Vanity is worrying about what others think of us. Acting for human respect is vanity.
Docility, properly understood, means doing God’s will, above our own.
D
DarkLight
Guest
I’m of two minds of this. We shouldn’t be seeking to earn human respect. That said, most of us live in a society. I realize perfectly well that I am not able to earn my money to live off of, nor obtain any education in my faith, except that there is someone else involved. And sometimes that means what others think can cause problems either for ourselves or for others - unjustly if the opinions are formed from injustice. It is a good goal of the faithful to ensure justice for all, and not only in the strictly legal sense.
A
adgloriam
Guest
Main definition of respect is: “not saying something” (dictionary). To respect someone, is to not tell him something (whether right or wrong.) The books of wisdom in scripture have several instances about respect, about wise social conduct conductive to respect, to earning and garnering respect, maintain respect.Edward_H:
Vanity is a different thing, it’s pride in what others think of us. Which is different from rejoicing in God given wisdom conductive to harmonious human relations and the joy they bring.
blackforest
Well-known member
I’ve long believed that the Catholic obsession and even scrupulosity surrounding modesty is just as damaging as media hyper-sexualization. Both turn women into objects responsible for how others around them respond. I finally found an article that states the same.
I’m all for modesty as an expression of humility and eschewing narcissism in many areas of our lives, including how we dress. But a lot of Catholics need to take a candid and uncomfortable look at how an unhealthy preoccupation with modesty can be damaging to women.
E
Edward_H
Guest
I used to think that way.
Then a good, solid priest on a retreat tested me on why I am concerned about human respect.
Some good interior work in this topic.
Then a good, solid priest on a retreat tested me on why I am concerned about human respect.
Some good interior work in this topic.
E
Edward_H
Guest
Desire for human respect is a sign vanity, putting our security in what others think of us.
E
edwest
Guest
Human respect is meant to be mutual.
S
Sarcelle
Guest
I am of two minds about this.
Being too concerned about what others think is not good and could be a form of vanity. I also agree about pleasing God rather than pleasing men.
However, this lack of respect for others can lead to widespread social injustice. Take for example the lack of respect for the humanity of the unborn. It does matter in this case because it leads to the mass slaughter of the most vulnerable of humans.
I can think up of more injustices that were born as a result of one group being thought of as less than human by another group.
We must speak out against this root cause of injustice instead of being indifferent to it because what does it matter what men think? It does matter if leads to bad fruit.
In summary, we must put God before other’s opinions however there is a time where we must speak against the prevailing zeitgeist if it leads to bad or even poisoned fruit.
Being too concerned about what others think is not good and could be a form of vanity. I also agree about pleasing God rather than pleasing men.
However, this lack of respect for others can lead to widespread social injustice. Take for example the lack of respect for the humanity of the unborn. It does matter in this case because it leads to the mass slaughter of the most vulnerable of humans.
I can think up of more injustices that were born as a result of one group being thought of as less than human by another group.
We must speak out against this root cause of injustice instead of being indifferent to it because what does it matter what men think? It does matter if leads to bad fruit.
In summary, we must put God before other’s opinions however there is a time where we must speak against the prevailing zeitgeist if it leads to bad or even poisoned fruit.
Last edited:
A
Aquinas11
Guest
Yes but I’d go even further. I like the 20/40/60 rule
When we’re 20, we are worried about what people think of us.
When we’re 40, we dont care what people think of us.
When we’re 60, we realize that people aren’t thinking of us - people think about themselves.
- Status