Tis_Bearself
Patron
Well, we can’t be responsible for people who choose to be willfully stupid about faith matters.
Pope Francis Assigns Vatican Office to Promote Women's Participation
- Status
Tis_Bearself
Patron
The fact that they weren’t officially declared doctors of the church till 1970 doesn’t mean that they hadn’t been having a huge influence on Church thought for the several hundred years before their names were officially put on the list.
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
You obviously missed the point.
Jim
Jim
Tis_Bearself
Patron
Recognizing the influence of someone who has been having an influence for 500 years is just recognizing the obvious. It’s not a “promotion”.
it also shows that women have an influence whether the Church recognizes it or not.
it also shows that women have an influence whether the Church recognizes it or not.
Last edited:
J
JimR-OCDS
Guest
It took Vatican II and 500 years for it to happen, which is the point.
Jim
Jim
D
DarkLight
Guest
I’m not sure I’d describe it as willfully stupid.
There are a million denominations out there and most people don’t see Catholicism as something special out of all those denominations. Unless you plan on spending your entire life just researching matters of faith, you’re going to have not much more than a cursory pop culture knowledge of most of the options out there, and you’re going to have to make decisions based on a fairly shallow understanding.
There are a million denominations out there and most people don’t see Catholicism as something special out of all those denominations. Unless you plan on spending your entire life just researching matters of faith, you’re going to have not much more than a cursory pop culture knowledge of most of the options out there, and you’re going to have to make decisions based on a fairly shallow understanding.
Tis_Bearself
Patron
What kind of decisions would unstudied non-Catholics make about Catholicism?
If you mean the kind of attitude like “The Church is oppressive to women in the saints it promotes” the correct answer is “no it’s not, go do some research”.
I myself don’t feel responsible for promoting some image of the Church to people who can’t be bothered to learn.
Many of them will persist in their stereotype or misunderstanding anyway because they don’t really care about getting it right.
If you mean the kind of attitude like “The Church is oppressive to women in the saints it promotes” the correct answer is “no it’s not, go do some research”.
I myself don’t feel responsible for promoting some image of the Church to people who can’t be bothered to learn.
Many of them will persist in their stereotype or misunderstanding anyway because they don’t really care about getting it right.
Last edited:
D
DarkLight
Guest
Whether out of all the myriad religious options out there, what we’re saying is that they should spend the limited time they have doing research about Catholicism instead of another faith that appears better at first glance. Because you’re going to have to dismiss 95% of the religious content out there at first glance if you expect to make a decision before you die and still be able to have a job and fix dinner and all that sort of thing.
Remember for most people, they’re not seeing the choice as between “catholicism” and “non-catholicism.” They’re seeing the choice between catholicism and anglicanism and presbyterianism and orthodoxy and all the varieties of baptist, plus a myriad of non-christian religions each of which has its own variations like that, and they’re going to have to make some fairly quick decisions about which of those options they’re going to research.
Remember for most people, they’re not seeing the choice as between “catholicism” and “non-catholicism.” They’re seeing the choice between catholicism and anglicanism and presbyterianism and orthodoxy and all the varieties of baptist, plus a myriad of non-christian religions each of which has its own variations like that, and they’re going to have to make some fairly quick decisions about which of those options they’re going to research.
Last edited:
7
7_Sorrows
Guest
what exactly is the higher end of the church?
S
stpurl
Guest
The point being that, according to you, unless a woman is recognized in exactly the way that a male is recognized, i.e. a ‘title’ like Doctor of the Church, then she isn’t ‘equal to’ a man? That the Church’s ‘power’ rests in what TEMPORAL power (including a ‘spiritual power’, i.e. the power of presiding at Mass, hearing confessions, voting in conclaves, wearing mitres, etc) a MAN possesses, and not in how a person (the majority of men as well as women) are doing in their lives to try to follow Christ?
Pretty sad. As I said, the majority of men in this world will not be priests, will not be ‘theologians’, will not be working in some ‘office’ of the Church. But I suppose the fact that we now have to meet quotas, and are beating our breasts for all the women we supposedly ‘wronged’ throughout history because they (along, as I said, with the majority of men) did not have those ‘positions’, is more important (perception is EVERYTHING in today’s shallow egalitarian world) than whether or not all those supposedly ‘wronged’ women would have even WANTED those jobs, or whether or not today’s women in being pushed to ‘demand’ them (notice how little is said of call, service but all of "demand’ and ‘power’) at the expense of, dare I say it, men who have, for various reasons, been marginalized out of much of modern Christianity/the Catholic Church?
We hear, “What would Jesus do”? We don’t want to hear, “What has Jesus said”. We always want to change it (because what He said was either 'limited by the society of the times", ‘misunderstood’, ‘subject to the whims of those horrible patriarchs and misogynists’ etc). We want to show how much better we are NOW.
And pat ourselves on the back for our enlightenment. Pride, just pride.
Pretty sad. As I said, the majority of men in this world will not be priests, will not be ‘theologians’, will not be working in some ‘office’ of the Church. But I suppose the fact that we now have to meet quotas, and are beating our breasts for all the women we supposedly ‘wronged’ throughout history because they (along, as I said, with the majority of men) did not have those ‘positions’, is more important (perception is EVERYTHING in today’s shallow egalitarian world) than whether or not all those supposedly ‘wronged’ women would have even WANTED those jobs, or whether or not today’s women in being pushed to ‘demand’ them (notice how little is said of call, service but all of "demand’ and ‘power’) at the expense of, dare I say it, men who have, for various reasons, been marginalized out of much of modern Christianity/the Catholic Church?
We hear, “What would Jesus do”? We don’t want to hear, “What has Jesus said”. We always want to change it (because what He said was either 'limited by the society of the times", ‘misunderstood’, ‘subject to the whims of those horrible patriarchs and misogynists’ etc). We want to show how much better we are NOW.
And pat ourselves on the back for our enlightenment. Pride, just pride.
A
Angel_Bradford
Guest
What did Jesus say?
L
Lea101
Guest
Well, honestly I’m glad he’s doing this.
People honestly need to look beyond their comfortable western society and look at Catholicism in other cultures, firstly.
And also, I’m frankly tired of the thinly veiled misogyny or the flowery view on women. I mean, we’re just as bad and good as men.
Complementarianism, if that’s a word, and the vague feminine genius (I love JP2 to death, don’t get me wrong, but it’s vague as heck) have been shoved down a bunch of women’s throats + manipulated to limit women’s freedom/make them feel bad about themselves.
This is not to say that it has not done a lot of good too, of course. I’m just pointing out the negatives that people don’t realise or want to talk about.
If the church can address it, it would be good. I love our Pope and priests but I don’t think we’ll see it adequately being discussed soon. We’ll probably get another bunch of flowery language about the theology of women. This isn’t an attack on the Church but rather my observation from most religious leaders who are frankly, older.
I would also like to learn about the supposed authentic masculinity in the Church. I think we learn womanhood better when we know manhood and vice versa.
People honestly need to look beyond their comfortable western society and look at Catholicism in other cultures, firstly.
And also, I’m frankly tired of the thinly veiled misogyny or the flowery view on women. I mean, we’re just as bad and good as men.
Complementarianism, if that’s a word, and the vague feminine genius (I love JP2 to death, don’t get me wrong, but it’s vague as heck) have been shoved down a bunch of women’s throats + manipulated to limit women’s freedom/make them feel bad about themselves.
This is not to say that it has not done a lot of good too, of course. I’m just pointing out the negatives that people don’t realise or want to talk about.
If the church can address it, it would be good. I love our Pope and priests but I don’t think we’ll see it adequately being discussed soon. We’ll probably get another bunch of flowery language about the theology of women. This isn’t an attack on the Church but rather my observation from most religious leaders who are frankly, older.
I would also like to learn about the supposed authentic masculinity in the Church. I think we learn womanhood better when we know manhood and vice versa.
L
Lea101
Guest
Pretty much, lol. I have seen guys in the Church who would basically insist and praise women doing all the heavy lifting behind the scenes. But unfortunately, behind the scenes is what they want. They would freak out over female altar servers, female emhc or female teachers in the seminary. A bunch of catholic youth ministers in the US have talked about similar attitudes they received, but I don’t follow much on them?
L
LittleFlower
Guest
Long overdue, we have a National Office for the Participation of Women here in Australia.
I think it is vital that women are encouraged to continue their important work in the Church.
Happy women means happy next generations! Women connected to their faith is very important.
I think it is vital that women are encouraged to continue their important work in the Church.
Happy women means happy next generations! Women connected to their faith is very important.
A
Axsenex
Guest
I’ve got no problem with it.
P
phil19034
Guest
They were canonized Saints. You are making it seem like we have very few female Saints.
How about you look closer at the list of Doctors again. Until 1920, every single one of them were Priests or Bishops. Then in 1920, St. Ephrem, a Deacon who lived from 306 to 373 AD, was finally added to the list. Again, it took 1547 years for St. Ephrem to be declared a Doctor of the Church!
I don’t think this was anything anti-woman. I think they were limited to Priests and Bishops until 1920. Then, after Vatican II, they decided to no longer limit the Doctors of the Church to Ordained Clergy.
God Bless
Last edited:
S
stpurl
Guest
So wait, are you telling us that ‘unless women have positions in the Church other than cooking, cleaning, and teaching little children’ (and please do tell me that other countries absolutely have no women in the Church teaching ‘older children’, running prayer groups for adults, etc., studying and contributing to various ‘minstries’ within the church outside what you mentioned). . .that somehow they aren’t important?
That they simply must have ‘official titles’ which some (but by no means most) men may have?
That somehow either just in the last 50 years or so women are being ‘called’ to titles and positions, but weren’t before? Or that they were all along, but ‘denied’ somehow?
Or is this simply a perception that ‘power’ lies in titles, and only ‘power’ matters in Christian life?
Tell you what. Why don’t you start setting up quotas and giving titles to all those ‘cooking and cleaning’ ministriesand demanding that x percent be filled by men,
If there are ‘imbalances’ and 'men get all the work in this area", and you want to open it up to women, do the same thing where 'women have all the work in that area; insist that men be represented to the same degree you’re insisting on women elsewhere.
That they simply must have ‘official titles’ which some (but by no means most) men may have?
That somehow either just in the last 50 years or so women are being ‘called’ to titles and positions, but weren’t before? Or that they were all along, but ‘denied’ somehow?
Or is this simply a perception that ‘power’ lies in titles, and only ‘power’ matters in Christian life?
Tell you what. Why don’t you start setting up quotas and giving titles to all those ‘cooking and cleaning’ ministriesand demanding that x percent be filled by men,
If there are ‘imbalances’ and 'men get all the work in this area", and you want to open it up to women, do the same thing where 'women have all the work in that area; insist that men be represented to the same degree you’re insisting on women elsewhere.
Last edited:
L
Lea101
Guest
Um calm down…
It’s not that they aren’t doing those things and hence they’re not important. It’s about why are they not doing it/getting the recognition they deserve. In this conversation, it’s about women who are being ignored because they are women and that the others feel that they are not supposed to be there.
You’re building a strawman argument here.
It’s not that they aren’t doing those things and hence they’re not important. It’s about why are they not doing it/getting the recognition they deserve. In this conversation, it’s about women who are being ignored because they are women and that the others feel that they are not supposed to be there.
You’re building a strawman argument here.
S
stpurl
Guest
Thanks for responding.
I am a woman.
Please don’t patronize me with the ‘um, calm down’. That’s uncalled for. There are things called "PM"s if you wish to make personal remarks.
I think the strawman is attempting to make ‘recognition’ the be-all and end-all, as if a woman is only important when she is perceived as holding ‘power’ (and I would think the same for a man, as well.)
Also, in case the ‘calm down’ was directed at ‘all caps’, I’m not just a woman, I’m an old woman who tends to use more ‘real mail’, in my letters I rely on capitalization to make my words emphatic, and I keep forgetting that in the cyber world it has a different connotation, so I have edited my earlier post to use ‘bold’ instead. Is that better?
I would also be interested in your take on the latter portion; there is and has been an imbalance for decades where things like ‘cleaning, cooking, child care, elder care’, etc. have been maintained by women. Do you not think that more men need to be appointed to these ministries, as they are vitally important (more people in the world are won to Christianity not by theological arguments but by seeing the faith ‘in practice’).
I am a woman.
Please don’t patronize me with the ‘um, calm down’. That’s uncalled for. There are things called "PM"s if you wish to make personal remarks.
I think the strawman is attempting to make ‘recognition’ the be-all and end-all, as if a woman is only important when she is perceived as holding ‘power’ (and I would think the same for a man, as well.)
Also, in case the ‘calm down’ was directed at ‘all caps’, I’m not just a woman, I’m an old woman who tends to use more ‘real mail’, in my letters I rely on capitalization to make my words emphatic, and I keep forgetting that in the cyber world it has a different connotation, so I have edited my earlier post to use ‘bold’ instead. Is that better?
I would also be interested in your take on the latter portion; there is and has been an imbalance for decades where things like ‘cleaning, cooking, child care, elder care’, etc. have been maintained by women. Do you not think that more men need to be appointed to these ministries, as they are vitally important (more people in the world are won to Christianity not by theological arguments but by seeing the faith ‘in practice’).
Last edited:
- Status