Is the patriarchy a good thing?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnz123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am referring to sexual morality and sexual immorality. THAT is the primary problem today. Too many women and men no longer respect themselves or each other. Casual sex is better? Go to the CDC website and see how Sexually Transmitted Diseases are doing in the United States. Some people don’t care. It’s at epidemic levels. But they still don’t care.

If men and women want to heal from the poison that’s being pumped into them by TV and movies, they need to give that up. Give it up before they find themselves alone and unloved, except by their family.

I heard a 17 year old say the following to his parents: “When I turn 18, I don’t have to listen to you anymore!”

Instead of building a community, some people are insisting on living in isolation from others, even if they have a family. What is good for me as an individual, what is good for my isolated, personal family. Not healthy.
 
And that is the stumbling block. Decades of slow and gradual deformations in TV and in movies. What is R today in movies would have been cut out not too long ago. Some radio stations refused to play certain, immoral songs. But those who wanted things their way kept using a smokescreen they called ‘freedom’ to get their way. Today, we are neck-deep in perversion on TV and in movies. Some young people who have not studied history may think that things have always been this way. Is it better? No. It is poison.
 
Human dignity starts with human decency, whether you’re Catholic or not.
 
You are engaging in dodging and weaving here. Only engaging the points you wish to engage and painting with a very wide, broad brush. Saying all women this and all women that. What? Do you think women could not think for themselves prior to 1970?
 
edwest211 said:
And that is the stumbling block. Decades of slow and gradual deformations in TV and in movies. What is R today in movies would have been cut out not too long ago. Some radio stations refused to play certain, immoral songs. But those who wanted things their way kept using a smokescreen they called ‘freedom’ to get their way. Today, we are neck-deep in perversion on TV and in movies. Some young people who have not studied history may think that things have always been this way. Is it better? No. It is poison.
Click to expand...
The US, at least, is governed by the First Amendment. But honestly, network tv these days is a lot less risque than it was in the 1990s. But I suspect your objection is to showing things like empowered women and homosexuals.
 
LumineDiei said:
You do understand that those verses were written in the context of their time, do you not?
Click to expand...
The plenary inerrancy of sacred scripture is still Catholic teaching. The doctrine applies to the intention of the inspired author. What do you think St. Paul intended by writing those verses?
 
johnz123 said:
As for the rest of society I go back to my original quote:
“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. My people, those who lead you cause you to err, and destroy the way of your paths.”
Isaiah 3:12
Click to expand...
Is the UK cursed because they have a queen and a female Prime Minister?

This is getting too close to the Christian Reconstructionists who recommend that women be treated as perpetual minors, always under the authority of a man, like her father when unmarried and her husband when married.

Are women allowed to be supervisors in the work place or are they allowed to teach men subjects like Hebrew or Mathematics at University? Or are women forbidden from those too?
 
Neithan said:
40.png
LumineDiei:
You do understand that those verses were written in the context of their time, do you not?
Click to expand...
The plenary inerrancy of sacred scripture is still Catholic teaching. The doctrine applies to the intention of the inspired author. What do you think St. Paul intended by writing those verses?
Click to expand...
Let’s be honest, St. Paul could be a bit of a jerk.

Okay, that’s a bit strong, but he, like St. Augustine after him, had this tendency of using quite strident language, and having some peculiar distaste for women. I’d say both men did a lot to give the Church a wholly unhealthy obsession with sex.
 
The old “answering a question with a question” trick is one of my favourites. I see you also appreciate it. So I think St. Paul’s intention is that women should not teach or have positions of authority over men in the church, which, technically, they do not. This rules out deaconesses giving homilies during Mass, for sure. It also rules out women in the curia authoring official documents with teaching authority (if they are ever permitted into the curia). Mother Angelica is one of my favourite Catholic teachers; but she never taught in any official capacity.

I honestly find this a difficult passage, and I don’t buy into the whole “we are in a patriarchy” thing either; but I respect the faith (obviously) and believe that Jesus chose St. Paul specifically (he already had 12 leaders) for the good of the church. I wish he would have explained why a little better.

So what do you think?
 
So let me guess, you think the Church just stopped in its tracks at the Council of Trent.
 
Yeah but there is no plenary inerrancy in those authors. St. Thomas, who is my favourite philosopher of all time, actually argued against the Immaculate Conception of Mary. He has some creative points there, and I think technically everyone first develops female characteristics (my biology is not the best but I think the inherited Y chromosome doesn’t initially direct development at conception) and then differentiates; but “defective and misbegotten” is probably not one of his most inspired phrases.
 
I think specifically St. Paul means teaching authority, as in giving the homily or a sermon. This is egregiously sexist according to today’s standards of course. In the church I grew up in we had a woman pastor and she catechized me, so it’s not like women are incapable of this. But St. Paul didn’t want it (we should keep in mind the prominence of priestesses among the gentiles), and the Holy Spirit inspired him to write it. What do we make of that?
 
Last edited:
Wow wow. I don’t dislike women. Neither do I believe they are perpetual children. I was just trying to point out that my beliefs are quite mild compared to the early church fathers. (Aquinas of course was much later)
 
Last edited:
niceatheist said:
I’d say both men did a lot to give the Church a wholly unhealthy obsession with sex.
Click to expand...
OK I disagree with you about St. Paul on that point. Let’s say, just for fun, that you also believe that Jesus miraculously appeared to St. Paul on the road to Damascus, chose him to preach to gentiles, and the Holy Spirit inspired him to write those verses to Timothy with a supernatural guarantee of inerrancy. Why do you think that would happen? Jesus already had 12 leaders, if he wanted to show his preference for male leaders.
 
I was listening to Larry King who also thought the Church had an unhealthy obsession with sex. He called a Bishop or Cardinal friend to ask about this. The reply he got was, “Larry, you’re the one calling me.” Apparently, that subject had not come up between them until then.

The Church was always right about human sexuality. Fortunately, some people are starting to realize that casual sex is bad for them.
 
I believe what the Church teaches, yes. Women are not to have teaching authority, which rules out ordination or any role integral to the hierarchy (so in that sense, patriarchy might be a fair critique since effective power is entirely in the hands of men). As for the parish accountant or a woman working for a diocese, I don’t know; what do you think?

What do you think St. Paul himself intended, and why do you think Jesus specifically chose him to write scripture?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top