Pope hits out at feminist radicals

[Redeemerslove]

http://au.news.yahoo.com/040730/19/q4qr.html

As a woman this makes me HAPPY!!! :dancing:

I’ve long discussed with my peers the evils of the feminist movement, and the destruction it has brought to the church and the country. I am so pleased the Vatican is speaking out.

However, does any one think this will change anything? Will the message of this letter find it’s way into our local parishes?

I am a relatively “new” catholic. I do not mean to sound cynical. Honestly…does this bring hope?

Lilder

Lllder, there are many branches of feminism. We even had a Catholic feminist branch in my old, ver orthodox, diocese.

Those feminists that demean the god-given role of women in the family, teach evil doctrines. But many feminists don’t hold to that view, rather like the intent of the ideological mothers of feminism, they seek social equality with men in the political sphere. This kind of feminism is fine, and the holy father did not seek to condemn this non-radical branch of feminism.

 

[Redeemerslove]

ricatholic:

Quite correct, it was Ratzinger speaking.

Peace

The documents written by the CDF (Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith) come with ordinary magisterial authority. Since the Pope reviews and approves or dissapproves them.

 

[Lilyofthevalley]

Deogratius, I am sorry you had trouble understanding my post, let me repeat it in an easier form, The feminists which are angry that women are born with uteruses need to be stopped. They see motherhood and marriage as a horrible misdeed towards women.

 

[Digitonomy]

The BBC put out a “debate” which basically allows two commentators to have their say on this paper. Pretty shallow stuff, but the second part, by “a leading Catholic journalist,” is well-written.

Head-to-head: The Vatican on women

 

[yinekka]

What is your definition of an “opus dei type” ?

 

[deogratias]

What is your definition of an “opus dei type” ?

Holy.

 

[redkim]

ricatholic:

Read the intended story, the paper wasn’t written by the pope, it was written by Ratzinger.

BTW,
How many radical feminists do you guys think are really out there, and in the church?

Since it is generally women who do most of the heavy spiritual lifting at the parish level, it seems that the church would be better served by recognizing their efforts instead of wasting time attacking the female fringe elements.

Peace

ricatholic:

It’s not as “fringe” as you think. I am currently reading a book called “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” by Steven E. Rhoads.

While he does not speak about women and the Church, he does indicate that feminists in society at large are doing a grave disservice to humanity by denying that gender is anything but a social construct. He has plenty of science to back him up and saying that gender is indeed biological.

 

[ricatholic]

redkim:

ricatholic:

It’s not as “fringe” as you think. I am currently reading a book called “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” by Steven E. Rhoads.

While he does not speak about women and the Church, he does indicate that feminists in society at large are doing a grave disservice to humanity by denying that gender is anything but a social construct. He has plenty of science to back him up and saying that gender is indeed biological.

So how many women agree that gender is " a social construct". I would venture a guess that you would find few people who agree with that and that even among feminists, only that those that have the ability to ignore the obvious would agree with that.

I would bet that outside of a actual gathering of feminists, that you would have to actually search for people that would agree with that position.

Peace

 

[johnnyjoe]

ricatholic:

Read the intended story, the paper wasn’t written by the pope, it was written by Ratzinger.

BTW,
How many radical feminists do you guys think are really out there, and in the church?

Since it is generally women who do most of the heavy spiritual lifting at the parish level, it seems that the church would be better served by recognizing their efforts instead of wasting time attacking the female fringe elements.

Peace

Really, Ri?
What would constitute “heavy spiritual lifting” - ironing the vestments and putting colorful (dare I say “rainbow”) banners in the “worship space”?
Organizing a Peace & Justice boycott for grapes at the local A&P market?

Is there really a gender in-equality with regards to “spiritual heavy lifting”?

Are there women administering last rites in the middle of the night?

I think your oblique and obscure comment deserves some real development…let’s stretch out the “spiritual heavy lifting” definition and spell it out so all of us can know the deep and unrecognized contribution you seem to be alluding to…

 

[ricatholic]

johnnyjoe:

Really, Ri?
What would constitute “heavy spiritual lifting” - ironing the vestments and putting colorful (dare I say “rainbow”) banners in the “worship space”?
Organizing a Peace & Justice boycott for grapes at the local A&P market?

Is there really a gender in-equality with regards to “spiritual heavy lifting”?

Are there women administering last rites in the middle of the night?

I think your oblique and obscure comment deserves some real development…let’s stretch out the “spiritual heavy lifting” definition and spell it out so all of us can know the deep and unrecognized contribution you seem to be alluding to…

JJ, While you may be correct that the women did support the boycott grapes thing that led to better working conditions for the migrant workers in the SE( mainly catholics,btw), I was referring to the woman who run the hospitality commitees. the liturgy commitees, who attend the daily masses in much higher %'s then men, the pious women who form the foundation of most rosary and prayer groups, the woman who come out on pro life nights and get in the busses for the trips to DC. Generally those women who are active in the church in our parish are way more conservative than me and certainly not styreotypical feminists or feminists at all.

As for your insults toward the rainbow decorations, it was Jesus that was the first to publicly associate with the dregs of society , and bring the light upon the needs of the least, perhaps His inspiration is that which makes people want to light up our worship places.

Peace

 

[johnnyjoe]

Ri,

You correctly saw my point, that the “spiritual heavy lifting” in this Church is indeed done by many women, who see the Blessed Mother, and her service in humility and meeknees, as the highest calling of being a Catholic. They are the radical feminists of this world, tirelessly saying rosaries for those who don’t know them, and may not care. These are the real spiritual warriors of the Church, and they don’t give a fig about women’s ordination, or the “male-domination” of the hierarchy. They know that the men who lead the Church are to do so as Priest-Servants, and that when they fail, they need the prayers of our pious “Church-Lady” prayer warriors even more. They seek not to destroy the Church heirarchy because sinners are in it, they seek to pray for the health of the heirarch, and offer thier support to see that prayer come to fruition.

As for the rainbow decorations…well, they are quite simply banal and ugly…very 70’s…

 

[csr]

A good book, by the way: The Privilege of Being a Woman by Alice von Hildebrand. Veritas Press, 2002.

 

[redkim]

Maybe among your average women who simply wants equal pay for time worked, you won’t find many who totally agree with it, but in academics and leading academic feminists you would. Even Glorie Steinem believes it is a social construct.

ricatholic:

So how many women agree that gender is " a social construct". I would venture a guess that you would find few people who agree with that and that even among feminists, only that those that have the ability to ignore the obvious would agree with that.

I would bet that outside of a actual gathering of feminists, that you would have to actually search for people that would agree with that position.

Peace

 

[ricatholic]

redkim:

Maybe among your average women who simply wants equal pay for time worked, you won’t find many who totally agree with it, but in academics and leading academic feminists you would. Even Glorie Steinem believes it is a social construct.

Red, I would agree that the most radical may feel that way, but what fraction of a percent are they?

There are other larger populations by % that have done more harm than a few fringe feminists. Even Stienam got married!

Peace

 

[Winters]

Forgive me if I’m jumping in at the wrong spot, but what Ratzinger wrote should have been written 35 years ago. The differences between men and women were just as obvious then as they are now and these differences were never a justification for the injustices done to women.

I remember a relative of mine claiming in the 1970’s that men could nurse babies with ‘just a slight hormone adjustment’. The nonsense that the 2 sexes are really identical can be found quite regularly in the media of today and on our college campuses. Somehow, when the glaring differences jar political correctness (for example, athletic performances) we are supposed to delete such instances from our memory banks.

Assuming that women and men are the same sure confused me and made my marriage particularly difficult. When I finally realized that my wife never will see things the way I do (at least partly because I am male and she is female), things improved a lot.

Sticking by the truth, despite the short-term consequences, is always the better path - I’m glad the church is embracing fundamental sexual differences before pop culture.

 

[ricatholic]

The thing about this that troubles me is that it distracts from Jesus’ message. While it may be true that Jesus had different roles for men and women, the path He laid out for all of us is one.

This feminist topic is like reading last decades newspapers, for most intents and purposes the radical feminists have lost all traction in their quests and the rational areas that regard real equality and such are the only ones embraced by the populous.

The church (both institutional and congregational) should be a beacon of truth (Jesus’) and by doing so it would make the fringe elements on both edges of the spectrum irrelevent.

Peace

 

[redkim]

ricatholic:

Red, I would agree that the most radical may feel that way, but what fraction of a percent are they?

There are other larger populations by % that have done more harm than a few fringe feminists. Even Stienam got married!

Peace

What I’m saying is that they are NOT fringe. They are the cutting edge, which means that mainstream feminism will go that way, if it is not curbed now. We can see it already with the idea that men are as good at or are wired to be as good at nurturing children as women. There have been numerous studies showing that this is not true.

And, yeah, I agree that only the fringe probably don’t want to get married, but I’m not talking about them. The fringe are not nearly as harmful, as you already pointed out, as what the cutting edge feminists are.

 

[redkim]

ricatholic:

The thing about this that troubles me is that it distracts from Jesus’ message. While it may be true that Jesus had different roles for men and women, the path He laid out for all of us is one.

This feminist topic is like reading last decades newspapers, for most intents and purposes the radical feminists have lost all traction in their quests and the rational areas that regard real equality and such are the only ones embraced by the populous.

The church (both institutional and congregational) should be a beacon of truth (Jesus’) and by doing so it would make the fringe elements on both edges of the spectrum irrelevent.

Peace

How in the world does this new letter take away from Christ’s message? Of course our roles are one, but men and women do it differently, just like in procreation: both have roles to procreate, but both do it differently: one in a man’s capacity, and one in a woman’s capacity.

I suggest you read two books:

“Women in Christ: Toward a New Feminism” by Michele Schumacher

And:
“Taking Sex Differences Seriously” by Steven Rhoads.

 

[Minerva]

I disagree, ricatholic, Jesus never said anything about different roles for men and women. That’s why I have such a hard time understanding why conservative Catholics obsess so much about gender roles, femininity, being a “true woman”, etc, etc when Jesus said NOTHING about such things. Jesus never condemned women for being “unfeminine” - Jesus never said a woman’s place is in the home - Jesus never said gender is an essential quality of our souls. If following gender roles was so important to salvation, don’t you think Christ would’ve mentioned it?

 

[redkim]

Minerva:

I disagree, ricatholic, Jesus never said anything about different roles for men and women. That’s why I have such a hard time understanding why conservative Catholics obsess so much about gender roles, femininity, being a “true woman”, etc, etc when Jesus said NOTHING about such things. Jesus never condemned women for being “unfeminine” - Jesus never said a woman’s place is in the home - Jesus never said gender is an essential quality of our souls. If following gender roles was so important to salvation, don’t you think Christ would’ve mentioned it?

Minerva:

Cutting edge feminism spends more time on gender roles than does Conservative Catholicism. They spend more time denying that there are inherent gender roles hard-wired into our bodies than anybody else. And no one is talking about condemning anyone here, but it most definitely is wrong for certain segments of society to deny what is biologically given.

Now, no one is saying that women HAVE to stay at home and SHOULDN’T go out to work, but studies show that children and family life is much happier when MOM (not dad) can stay at home full-time or even part-time.

That’s the big white elephant in the room that nobody wants to talk about for fear of being biased against women. It is true nonetheless.