Meet the captain of the realists on the Church and women

[gilliam]

No matter where one stands on women priests in the Catholic Church, the issue obviously isn’t going anywhere, and real progress on empowering women thus must come elsewhere. Nobody makes that case better today than Lucetta Scaraffia, as her latest book shows.

cruxnow.com/analysis/2016/12/31/meet-captain-realists-church-women/

 

[TCEL]

I think the captain of the realists on the Church and women is Mary.

 

[carefullytread]

What I found interesting about the article were the concrete suggestions of how women could be given a larger role in the Church without changing doctrine. I haven’t seen many of those before and it offers an example of feminist thinking that could also be called Catholic. Feminist who argue for women priests may be right or wrong about a lot of things, but they seem to fundamentally misunderstand how the Church views herself and which avenues of change are realistic vs which are impossible.

 

[abucs]

I think in general the male way of decision making for large systematic organisations works better.

I see the male tendency as having well developed and defined ways of looking at organisational structures with reference to faith and then to be compassionate within those guidelines. People learn boundaries, a logical way of looking at things, an orientation of self improvement given a confidence in well settled truths, compassion and mercy for those on the periphery and a strongly defined culture which binds people together.

In general the female perspective is to put the person or the emotive instance first and look to change the rules around those cases. This way works very well in smaller groups when emotional ties between people are strongest and people can all recognise and give respect to other people’s points of view and their sacrifices. The more people involved, the more this dynamic no longer works. The frustration i think that some people encounter is that they look at the world in a ‘small level’ way and then just think that the world’s problems would be solved if just ‘everybody did this, or acted like that’. It of course does not work that way at the larger level as people have learned, with for example, political concepts such as socialism.

The older i get the more i am inclined to agree with the very intelligent Ukrainian woman who first pointed this out to me.

Many in the church have learned to distrust the ‘feminist push’ within our churches due to experience and the obvious attachment to ‘victim politics’ which has poisoned discourse in so many ways and in so many categories over the last few decades.

 

[ShrodingersCat]

I think in general the male way of decision making for large systematic organisations works better.

I see the male tendency as having well developed and defined ways of looking at organisational structures with reference to faith and then to be compassionate within those guidelines. People learn boundaries, a logical way of looking at things, an orientation of self improvement given a confidence in well settled truths, compassion and mercy for those on the periphery and a strongly defined culture which binds people together.

In general the female perspective is to put the person or the emotive instance first and look to change the rules around those cases.

And you are basing this opinion of observance of how many large systematic organisations being run by women? I’m guessing the answer to that is none, because I can’t think of any.

I am fairly certain that it’s been demonstrated that mixed perspectives (be it race, gender, whatever) result in better teamwork and productivity and what have you. The church has theological reasons for women priests, which is fine, but ‘women being too emotional’ is not one of them and frankly it’s insulting to suggest that a woman can’t make a logical decision and put emotions aside.

Besides, it stereotypes women. I am female and far more logical than many guys I know.

 

[abucs]

And you are basing this opinion of observance of how many large systematic organisations being run by women? I’m guessing the answer to that is none, because I can’t think of any.

Well a few things can be said here.Firstly i work in the education sector which is comfortably 75% women. I can talk to you all day about that if you like.

I can also speak about a theology department i have been involved with which was dominated by ‘Catholic’ feminists. It was this experience which first turned me from the politically correct dogma of ‘equality’. God help the church if these people ever got to be priests. They would look to destroy the church with division within a generation or two.

Then there is the international Anglican communion which is in bitter division and freefall now with its move from Christianity to secular inclusion which has been led and justified morally by the large influx of women priests and then bishops and their male supporters.

Next there is the different voting patterns of women and men where women generally tend to go for the big government, politically correct view of government which looks good in the short term but in the long term creates massive problems. Not just in regards to social welfare but immigration as Angela Merkel is finding out right now.

I am fairly certain that it’s been demonstrated that mixed perspectives (be it race, gender, whatever) result in better teamwork and productivity and what have you.

Really? I have heard it stated emotionally as politically correct dogma but have not heard much intelligence behind it.

The church has theological reasons for women priests, which is fine, but ‘women being too emotional’ is not one of them and frankly it’s insulting to suggest that a woman can’t make a logical decision and put emotions aside.

This was not stated in the simplistic way you have accused and you should retract it and deal more realistically with what was said.

Besides, it stereotypes women. I am female and far more logical than many guys I know.

This seems to be a good example of extrapolating from the personal to the general. It is a bit like someone saying that men, in general make better firemen because they are taller and stronger and then a lady pointing out that she is taller and stronger than many men she knows. It is not a refutation at the general level but at a personal one. There is a difference between what works at the specifically personal and the generally systematic level.

I think in general men’s way of thinking lends itself better to the general systematic level.