blackforest
Well-known member
I’m clearly getting strung along here, so I’m going to bow out now. The next time you make a claim that women should be deprived of the right to hold public office, kindly back it with facts and moral reasoning.
In very rare move, Pope dismisses conservative US bishop Strickland
- Thread starter ralfyman
- Start date
- Status
blackforest
Well-known member
Friend, I did not ask for your help. I asked for a defense of your position, which I think we both know is indefensible.
Back to Bishop Strickland, I’m more inclined to believe that much is being made over a nothing-burger - Analysis: Bishop Strickland’s removal is ‘administrative’—not a punishment
Back to Bishop Strickland, I’m more inclined to believe that much is being made over a nothing-burger - Analysis: Bishop Strickland’s removal is ‘administrative’—not a punishment
Last edited:
Charbel2
New member
The only defense of my position, along with the rest of my life, that I consider crucial is that which I must offer to God on the Day of Judgment. His criterion, His value system, is the one that counts for eternity. It is that defense which I attempted to communicate to you, thinking that you, as I, seek Truth over the “reasonings” of this world. But you certainly have the freedom to your own personal moral judgments, for now.
Maybe I read wrongly your forum name “blackforest.” To me it declared a dark place to be lost in.
Maybe I read wrongly your forum name “blackforest.” To me it declared a dark place to be lost in.
blackforest
Well-known member
It is the most beautiful place in Germany, but if you must know, I named myself after a favorite desert. 
Fair enough. But you have not demonstrated to me how depriving women of the right to hold public office is “Truth” or God’s value system. It certainly sounds like your truth. But we are not a relativistic faith.
blackforest
Well-known member
Indeed not. But where there are no Magisterial statements prohibiting women from holding public office, please humbly recognize that you are sharing your personal belief and not Church teaching.
Charbel2
New member
And you please realize the same of your personal opinion on the matter. There is no dogmatic pronouncement that women are OK for positions of secular authority.
btw - I did not oppose women’s “holding public office.” There are many positions in government that do not include authority over men.
But also please realize that the matter is not trivial or without importance. Genesis does not explicitly cite God’s will for a democratic structure in the family, nor provide a way for husband or wife - at their choice - be one or the other: father or mother - their choice. God does have a will on these matters, even if the Church has not become dogmatically privy to it. “Common sense” used to be assumable; the “natural moral law” used to be more discernible. All before man became smarter than God.
Oh - btw - this article in Lifesite is, I believe, relevant; you might be interested to read it, concerning the intrusion of modernism/progressivism into the Church via “synodality.”
btw - I did not oppose women’s “holding public office.” There are many positions in government that do not include authority over men.
But also please realize that the matter is not trivial or without importance. Genesis does not explicitly cite God’s will for a democratic structure in the family, nor provide a way for husband or wife - at their choice - be one or the other: father or mother - their choice. God does have a will on these matters, even if the Church has not become dogmatically privy to it. “Common sense” used to be assumable; the “natural moral law” used to be more discernible. All before man became smarter than God.
Oh - btw - this article in Lifesite is, I believe, relevant; you might be interested to read it, concerning the intrusion of modernism/progressivism into the Church via “synodality.”
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
My view is actually rooted in the Church. The Church has not only condoned but repeatedly canonized women holding positions of leadership and authority over men - St. Joan of Arc and St. Genevieve come immediately to mind. Do you consider these women to be in a state of sin? Do you feel the Church was wrong in canonizing them?
So you believe that you hold a special knowledge to which Mother Church, in her centuries of infinite wisdom, has yet to “become dogmatically privy?” Relying on personal interpretation in this matter is the work of Protestants. In Catholicism, it paves the way for heresy.
Charbel2
New member
This is getting too time-consuming, bf. I’ll respond to this as my last on this matter.
His commentary on 1 Tim 2:12:
- Those in heaven were in the state of grace at death. Many saints committed some sin in their lives, but died in grace.
- Women can “lead” in a good, womanly way, in sharing their thoughts and opinions respectfully, but closing to the man in authority with something like, “But the final decision must be yours, of course.”
- Do you think the Church was wrong in canonizing St. Paul the Apostle?
Was the Church wrong in canonizing and made a Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas?
His commentary on 1 Tim 2:12:
Was the Church wrong in canonizing (and also a Doctor of the Church) St. John Chrysostom, on the passage 1 Tim 2:11-15, as I cited before?
Matters not defined by the Church may be discussed, and various understandings (when not contradicting any defined matters) may be offered to help advance understandings and teachings of the Church. Mother Church does not teach as of God beyond what has been revealed to her with certainty, following Jesus who taught:
Leaping toward a charge of heresy here is a bit hasty.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
You may bow out at any time. I’d like to comment so that any lurkers know that your line of thinking is atypical and not endorsed by our Church.
St. John of Arc was canonized BECAUSE she led men into battle, (among other reasons), whereas St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Paul were not canonized because he believed women to be lesser than men. So you analogy falls short. And thank goodness St. Joan of Arc did not defer to her male troops with - how did you phrase it? -
Men and women are both sinners. I’d hate to think of a woman deferring to a man’s sinful decisions when she actually knows the morally right course of action. (And vice versa, for that matter).
Where the saints you named were speaking to culture (patriarchal, in their cases) and not official dogma, the Church does not command that women cover their heads or stay silent. Indeed, many parishes would crumble if it weren’t for the women leading ministries, serving as lectors and cantors, etc. Again, they were not canonized because of their beliefs in this matters.
St. John of Arc was canonized BECAUSE she led men into battle, (among other reasons), whereas St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Paul were not canonized because he believed women to be lesser than men. So you analogy falls short. And thank goodness St. Joan of Arc did not defer to her male troops with - how did you phrase it? -
I’m sorry you believe St. Joan of Arc to be in a state of sin for saving France and Catholicism. I, for one, am glad that her troops were willing to take orders from a woman.
Men and women are both sinners. I’d hate to think of a woman deferring to a man’s sinful decisions when she actually knows the morally right course of action. (And vice versa, for that matter).
Can you see how declaring that the Church has yet to “become dogmatically privy” to your personal interpretations may come off as presumptuous? Discussion of these matters is one way, but implying that the Church needs to become enlightened enough to adopt your views is quite another.
Where the saints you named were speaking to culture (patriarchal, in their cases) and not official dogma, the Church does not command that women cover their heads or stay silent. Indeed, many parishes would crumble if it weren’t for the women leading ministries, serving as lectors and cantors, etc. Again, they were not canonized because of their beliefs in this matters.
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
This is a really good point. If women shouldn’t lead men, it would be condemned Magisterially. But the converse is not true; as a woman, I no more need the Vatican’s permission to run for Senate than I need it to adopt another cat or order pizza for dinner, (both of which I’m considering today 
)
)
This is key. This is very key.
However, it has only been in the past 50-75 years, in the history of the world (queens reigning in their own right, and leaders such as St Joan of Arc, aside), that women occupying positions of leadership in the secular world has been an issue. That roughly coincides with the post-Vatican II era, aggiornamento, and the reluctance of the Church to take “politically incorrect” stances on anything (unless it is something where there is no “gray area” such as abortion or women’s ordination), a fortiori under the present pontificate.
Put another way, lots of luck getting the Church to speak out against it.
Last edited:
- Status