Is the patriarchy a good thing?

[Neithan]

Let’s not forget everything else St. Paul wrote:

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well.

He obviously did not despise or disrespect women and their importance to the church.

 

[Neithan]

That seems fair but above ^ it seemed like you were dismissing those verses in a historical-critical way, as simply irrelevant because of the context of the time in which they were written. That doesn’t align with plenary inerrancy.

 

[TMC]

That seems fair but above ^ it seemed like you were dismissing those verses in a historical-critical way, as simply irrelevant because of the context of the time in which they were written. That doesn’t align with plenary inerrancy.

The Catholic Church does not teach plenary inerrancy. (Not sure you are saying the Church does.)

 

[Neithan]

Wrong. I’ll engage you on this but in a different thread.

 

[TMC]

Wrong. I’ll engage you on this but in a different thread.

OK. Maybe we have a different understanding of plenary inerrancy, but I am pretty sure of my position. Happy to agree that is not a topic for this thread.

 

[Sarcelle]

“Men should not sit and listen to a woman . . . even if she says admirable things, or even saintly things, that is of little consequence, since it came from the mouth of a woman.”
Origen

St. Louis Montfort must not have listened since at the request of the Blessed Mother, he started the devotion of the rosary.

The Church should not have made St. Therese of Lisieux and St Teresa of Avila, Doctors of the Church?

 

[Neithan]

The Church should not have made St. Therese of Lisieux and St Teresa of Avila, Doctors of the Church?

That’s a great point too. And St. Hildegard of Bingen is one of my favourites for sure. So while we value women as teachers in the church and their contributions to the faith are substantial, they can’t wield authority as part of the infallible magisterium. Anything they teach has to be confirmed by clergy (as with all laity). It’s a bit weird. But it’s not our weirdest belief, and weird is sometimes good.

Edit: I just looked it up and the most recently named Doctor of the church, Gregory of Narek (2015 by Pope Francis), I think was also a layman (monk). [— nevermind, sorry, he was a priest-monk.]

 

[Lea101]

I don’t get the vast amount of replies. This has a pretty straightforward answer by the Church.

JPII said that women can, heck, are needed in various aspects of community. Including public office, workplaces and in the homes. He said that they can add something that men couldn’t. We can go into more detail as to what the heck he meant by that, but it is pretty clear that women can take on these leadership roles in the first place.

With the exception of the priesthood, women are allowed to lead men in their workplaces or country. If this somehow upsets you, there’s a bunch of lovely Islamic countries out there lol!

Also, it’s better to live in 2019 than any other time in the past. POC and women have equality (legally), we have amazing medical breakthroughs and we can connect to our loved ones easily. There are bad parts too, but that’s something humans have been dealing with since forever.

We can also look back and whine about how SAHMs are being judged today. They shouldn’t be, I agree. But if women want to be SAHMs, they have the freedom to be that assuming their husband is okay with that.

It’s silly to want to go back to a time where other women’s ambitions have actual restrictions just because a bunch of women now dislike the judgemental looks from other women.

 

[PetraG]

Also, it’s better to live in 2019 than any other time in the past.

We really don’t get a choice about what time in history we live in.
This world is still a vale of tears, and it doesn’t really matter which human beings get themselves put in charge. If they wield authority as Our Lord commanded, things go well. If they don’t, there shouldn’t be a surprise or all the blame put on those being lead when things go badly.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Exactly…

 

[Sarcelle]

Yes

My grandparents owned a grocery store. It was small but everyone in the extended family worked in it.

My father had outside employment but my mother, aunts and even us kids, after school, worked in that store.

So it’s not always the husband/father working outside, kids and wives in the suburbs scenario going on.

 

[Chronologic4]

Patriarchy is good.

 

[nunsense]

Patriarchy is good.

Nope. Disagree.

 

[Sarcelle]

It can be good or it can be bad.

The patriarchy of God is good, the patriarchy of Saudi Arabia is bad.

 

[PetraG]

It can be good or it can be bad.

The patriarchy of God is good, the patriarchy of Saudi Arabia is bad.

As an example: a patriarchy going to be bad when it is run by men who cannot or will not recognize that differences between the sexes is not incompatible with the concept of basic fairness in employment.
If a governor isn’t deeply interested in justice and the concept of leaders who use their office to serve others instead of to advance themselves and opportunities for their chosen favorites, that will be a bad governor, no matter who or what it is.
A Christian who governs according the Gospel, however, will govern justly and without self-interest or favoritism.

 

[niceatheist]

Ah, I see, so a patriarchy is great so long as it is convinced that it’s fair. And how would it know it was unfair? Would women have any say, or would they be polled, or would their husbands and fathers inform the patriarchy?

Are we talking the cold hard iron cage of the Saudis or a gilded cage?

 

[MagdalenaRita]

My grandparents owned a grocery store. It was small but everyone in the extended family worked in it.

This was the same for me growing up. My parents owned a grocery store. That was their livelihood. Neither one worked anywhere else, though. My parents were together most everyday, all day for about 50 years. My mother would take off from the grocery store work a day or two per week and catch up on the housework. They were a team. Myself and all my siblings helped out after school and in the summer.
It wasn’t always perfect but it was good.

My grandparents were the same way on the farm. They worked together every day, all day as a team farming and raising a large family.

Even though all worked as a team, there was no question whether or not our families were patriarchies. The husband was the head of the home. It was just as simple as that. No proclamation. It just was, and I never heard my mother or my grandmother complain about it.

 

[MagdalenaRita]

Ah, I see, so a patriarchy is great so long as it is convinced that it’s fair. And how would it know it was unfair? Would women have any say, or would they be polled, or would their husbands and fathers inform the patriarchy?

Patriarchy does not equal oppression. Patriarchy does not equal unfairness.

Every person in the world has someone who is in authority over them, somewhere.

What is hard, is accepting that authority and submitting to that authority.

Also, deciding what is fair is a good question because how in life do we truly decide what is fair? I’m sure you heard the saying, “life is not fair”. What seems fair to one person, might not seem fair to another person.

That is why we have the Catholic Church, to give us that path. To be that light. Plus we have the example of the Holy Family, that gives us a good example of how a family should be.

 

[PetraG]

Ah, I see, so a patriarchy is great so long as it is convinced that it’s fair. And how would it know it was unfair? Would women have any say, or would they be polled, or would their husbands and fathers inform the patriarchy?

Are we talking the cold hard iron cage of the Saudis or a gilded cage?

No, no…a patriarchy is acceptable provided it actually is fair.
Honestly, I don’t have a problem with a monarchy, per se, if it governs justly.
I don’t know how a government does that unless it listens to feedback. That could happen in a lot of ways.

Let us face it, after all: Does our democracy always provide us with a representative government that listens to those who vote? No. Our government, if we are honest, is responsive to those who provide the money to advertise for candidates in order to win them the popularity needed to get elected and re-elected. Is the US government just? Oh, sure it is. It is just a lot more just for people who throw a lot more money at it.

As for mentioning Saudi Arabia, I think that example is what those in the business call a “dog whistle.” It is very similar to the case when the suggestion that there is such a thing as modest dress is met with cries of “BURKA!!” or the suggestion that no one ought to go without basic health care is met with cries of “SOCIALISM!!” It is, at best, a very lazy mode of political argumentation.

 

[niceatheist]

So in other words the patriarchy would be fair, by its own standards, and if any woman should disagree, well, as you put it, “everyone has someone over them”.