Pope Francis Assigns Vatican Office to Promote Women's Participation

[Elizabeth3]

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.

You should look up the talks by Dr. Deborah Savage. (She has youtube videos and papers online) She agrees that the church has done too much talking about the feminine genius and thinks we need to talk about the masculine genius because we will understand each other better if we explore both. She said she figured if JP II, who was a man, could write a theology of woman, she figured she could begin the process of exploring and writing a theology of man.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

I’d bring up the fact that Mitt Romney has binders full of women, but I don’t think that would be helpful to the situation.

Ok, that made me actually laugh out loud!

 

[LilyM]

So which competencies for these roles would you suggest women either don’t or can’t have in equal measure to men?

 

[Elizabeth3]

For example, in 2015, when Justin Trudeau chose his cabinet, he was asked to speak to the effect of how it was made up of 50% men and 50% women. He said something like “because it’s 2015.” I wouldn’t consider something like that sufficient. You choose the MOST COMPETENT people to be apart of your cabinet, not JUST because they’re female and you choose them for the sake of having half women.

Are you really saying that there are so few sufficiently capable, competent women in the whole of Canada that Trudeau can’t possibly recruit the required (low) number from among them without automatically having a drop in.quality?

I think what he’s saying (and he can correct me if I’m wrong), is that when Trudeau was asked about the 50/50 split on his cabinet, it would have been better if he had said they were the most competent people for the job. To say “because it’s 2015” implies that many of the women were hired because of meeting “quotas” rather than their competency.

I also think his points about hiring the best person for the job would mean that if the cabinet were 75% women and 25% men then that would be fine because that is how it worked out when considering all the candidates. The same if the numbers were vice-versa.

If that is his meaning, I agree.

 

[semper_catholicus]

I never suggested that women (in the cabinet) didn’t have the competencies to the extent that men do.

 

[semper_catholicus]

This. This is exactly what I was trying to say.

 

[LilyM]

semper_catholicus:

For example, in 2015, when Justin Trudeau chose his cabinet, he was asked to speak to the effect of how it was made up of 50% men and 50% women. He said something like “because it’s 2015.” I wouldn’t consider something like that sufficient. You choose the MOST COMPETENT people to be apart of your cabinet, not JUST because they’re female and you choose them for the sake of having half women.

Are you really saying that there are so few sufficiently capable, competent women in the whole of Canada that Trudeau can’t possibly recruit the required (low) number from among them without automatically having a drop in.quality?

I think what he’s saying (and he can correct me if I’m wrong), is that when Trudeau was asked about the 50/50 split on his cabinet, it would have been better if he had said they were the most competent people for the job. To say “because it’s 2015” implies that many of the women were hired because of meeting “quotas” rather than their competency.

I also think his points about hiring the best person for the job would mean that if the cabinet were 75% women and 25% men then that would be fine because that is how it worked out when considering all the candidates. The same if the numbers were vice-versa.

If that is his meaning, I agree.

Well, I heard the same comment and read no such thing into it. Why on earth should it be assumed that he did anything other than choose the most competent people for each job merely because more of them are women than was the case previously? That’s really a slap in the face to the women he chose, and women in general.

I gave my understanding upthread - that in 2015 women are, for the most part, equally competent as men to hold most jobs, cabinet posts included. As I said, I’d imagine there are enough sufficiently qualified women for such a relatively small number of posts, and that as for many jobs there usually isn’t a lot separating the top contenders.

Therefore, given that women are also roughly half of Canada’s workforce, a 50/50 split should be roughly the norm and expected rather than worthy of comment.

 

[semper_catholicus]

May I ask if you’re Canadian?

 

[Lea101]

I’ve heard some of her talks and I don’t really like it, if I’m going to be honest here.

 

[Lea101]

You’re obviously entitled to your position, but as someone living in a country where only boys are allowed to serve, I find it silly to turn away a girl just because there’s a possibility of a boy becoming a future priest.

NOTE: please do not reference altar servers, lectors, and EMHC (where a priest has the right to limit entry to the sanctuary to men during mass)

But why not? Isn’t that an area of concern if a priest thinks only men should carry out these roles if the Church as a whole is not opposed to women doing that?

 

[LilyM]

Good. If women DO have the competencies to the same extent that men do, then why is it even suspect in any way when they are given Cabinet jobs to the same extent that men are?

The only issue I would have would be if the women chosen were demonstrably less competent in some way than the male contenders. That hasn’t been established. Nor has it been established that Trudeau was in any way placing gender above competence.

 

[stpurl]

“Women seek”. . .why do they seek, Jim?

Are they listening to the Holy Spirit? Or another spirit?

I’m not criticizing the Holy Father. I’m not saying that women are not worthy (but then again, I’m not into 'power structures". My faith is in God-made-Man, Jesus Christ, and NOT in a power structure).

“Things change in the Church” well, if you mean we no longer have public confessions, wear robes and sandals, segregate the sexes at Mass, among a host of other ‘changes’, I agree. No doubt the churchgoer in the 4th century would have been amazed at simply the idea of being able to GO to a church and not be hauled off for the weekly Christians/Lions games, but there were also other ‘changes’ in society.

And the early Christians, in worshiping ‘right next to’ perhaps a slave or a gentile would have been amazed at the changes in society!

But one must carefully consider each change itself.

No doubt the early Monophysites thought their change of Christian doctrine was not only more ‘reasonable’, but far more likely to bring in converts.

If the ‘bottom line’ is getting people ‘into a group’, then if a change in what the group offers or teaches will attract more people, heck yeah, who wouldn’t change?

But is the ‘bottom line’ in Christianity getting people ‘into a group’ just to slap them with the label of ‘Catholic’? Do we just want bodies to ‘claim’ even if among say 10 different converts ‘to the Catholic Faith’ each and every one of them disagrees with a core Catholic teaching?

Do we want Catholics who join the Church because, “They really care about the EARTH” but who think the ‘white thing’ is a symbol of some guy who lived a long time ago and wants us all to love each other", and whose conception of Catholic doctrine has really nothing at all to do with the Man Christ Jesus and everything to do with 'saving the planet?"

Or Catholics who ‘pick and choose’, and then loudly proclaim, according to their choices, that AS Catholics they support the most anti-Catholic teachings imaginable, but demand that their ‘choice’ be given the very same ‘status’ as authentic teaching — nay, demand that the ‘authentic’ be jettisoned and their ‘choice’ substituted for same?

Again, I’m not saying that ‘promoting women’s participation’ is wrong. I’m saying though (and I’m not accusing Pope Francis of doing this, either) that saying or implying that 'The Church" is doing this because the Church needs to ‘give women power’. . .that is the problem, that is the wrong idea, that is what people ‘fear’, Jim. Not ‘women priests’. . . no, what is the real worry is the secularization and profanation of the Catholic Faith as ‘just another social justice club’, one that takes orders not from God, but from ‘society’.

 

[LilyM]

No. But I do have an interest in Canadian politcs.

I’m not in general a fan of Trudeau, far from it, but I think the ‘because it’s 2015’ comment was spot on. And given that he chose a cabinet most of whom had some life/work experience relevant to their respective portfolios, I don’t think competence is really an issue.

 

[semper_catholicus]

Well, I am a Canadian citizen, and I just learned something about the Cabinet; apparently the Cabinet is supposed to be representative of the Members of Parliament, meaning gender, race etc. should be represented in the Cabinet as it is in Parliament. Women, despite making up only 27.2% of Parliament make up 50% of the Cabinet. Upon learning this, it becomes clear that Trudeau the Court Jester had chosen to make a gender-balanced Cabinet just for the sake of having a gender-balanced Cabinet.

 

[mrsdizzyd]

Or it could be that he found that the most qualified people for the job were 50% female.

 

[HolySpirit]

Or even 50% male.

 

[angel12]

becomes clear that Trudeau the Court Jester had chosen to make a gender-balanced Cabinet just for the sake of having a gender-balanced Cabinet.

In other words, you object to a (non-existent) gender-based quota when you thought that resulted in equal numbers for women. But you’re fine with a gender-based quota that would keep the number of women down.

 

[angel12]

apparently the Cabinet is supposed to be representative of the Members of Parliament, meaning gender, race etc. should be represented in the Cabinet as it is in Parliament.

Please provide the legal citation for this. None of the Canadian sources I’ve found regarding Cabinet makeup reference any such requirement.

 

[semper_catholicus]

It isn’t a legal requirement, but it’s generally what’s expected and what’s been done in the past. Theoretically, the Prime Minister could make his Cabinet up of entirely non MPs if he wanted to, but it never happens.

 

[Elizabeth3]

Why on earth should it be assumed that he did anything other than choose the most competent people for each job merely because more of them are women than was the case previously? That’s really a slap in the face to the women he chose, and women in general.

Because when people talk about ensuring things are 50/50, then it does bring to mind the question of whether either the men or women were hired due to competency or sex. Was there a point where a few more highly competent people of either sex were passed by in order to achieve a predetermined percentage of sex? It’s not just a slap in the face to the women. It’s a slap in the face to both.

Therefore, given that women are also roughly half of Canada’s workforce, a 50/50 split should be roughly the norm and expected rather than worthy of comment.

But is the workforce at those few coveted top jobs roughly 50/50? Not because women aren’t competent to fill those positions but because women generally are less likely to seek them out when prioritizing family and what they want for their lives. Let’s face it. Those top jobs are brutal in terms of any kind of a personal or family life whether male or female.

Even if there is an even percentage at the top, those people worked really hard to achieve that level of success. I would think it would be quite disheartening to find out that there were quotas involved to fill the positions. It’s one thing if Trudeau hired the best and that’s just how things came out but another if it was planned that way.

Gender Quotas in Hiring Drive Away Both Women and Men