Pope hits out at feminist radicals

[ricatholic]

redkim:

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’ll answer the how question first: look at how a decades late reaction to a few fringe(most likely non-catholic) feminists gets the conservatives all in a lather like they were romans at the coloseum.

And what is the practical purpose of the church’s efforts here? Is it to get the rad fems to return or to pat the members of the choir on the back.

Radical feminism is as much a threat to the church as mice.It is a strawman. How many practising catholics have been lost to feminism as opposed to any of the myriad of provocations that the church has come up with on her own?

As for the roles of the different genders within the church, it is clear that Jesus had more of a role for us than the church gives to either man or woman.

Peace

 

[frdave20]

The only way that i think this document would produce any real effect is if the faithful themselves took the initiative to read it; or if our priests intended to discuss the theology and meaning behind it in their homilies. what are the chances of that happening?

 

[deogratias]

It was written to the Bishops but is available for the laity to read.

Many laitry to not read any Churh Documents depending more on opinion than fact to guide them through life.

 

[redkim]

ricatholic:

I’ll answer the how question first: look at how a decades late reaction to a few fringe(most likely non-catholic) feminists gets the conservatives all in a lather like they were romans at the coloseum.

And what is the practical purpose of the church’s efforts here? Is it to get the rad fems to return or to pat the members of the choir on the back.

Radical feminism is as much a threat to the church as mice.It is a strawman. How many practising catholics have been lost to feminism as opposed to any of the myriad of provocations that the church has come up with on her own?

As for the roles of the different genders within the church, it is clear that Jesus had more of a role for us than the church gives to either man or woman.

Peace

I think the Pope was addressing many congregations of nuns in addition to the bishops and laity. Many women have left the Church because of what they perceived as sexist doctrine or discipline.

And while what the Pope says is primarily aimed at Catholics, it really isn’t just for Catholics. Let’s face it, this society has a lot of problems, and not all of us are Catholic. Yet the pope must speak to these problems. Catholics should be at the forefront of fixing these problems.

The fact that what the Vatican is saying also coincides with what many very secular studies are also saying is something that should NOT be overlooked.

 

[ricatholic]

redkim:

I think the Pope was addressing many congregations of nuns in addition to the bishops and laity. Many women have left the Church because of what they perceived as sexist doctrine or discipline.

And while what the Pope says is primarily aimed at Catholics, it really isn’t just for Catholics. Let’s face it, this society has a lot of problems, and not all of us are Catholic. Yet the pope must speak to these problems. Catholics should be at the forefront of fixing these problems.

The fact that what the Vatican is saying also coincides with what many very secular studies are also saying is something that should NOT be overlooked.

If the pope is trying to teach the middle by pointing out the errors of the edges, perhaps his effort, or more clearly the effort of Ratzinger, is to provide a chilling effect on the middle.

We didn’t teach our boys to be respectfull of women by using the most horendous examples of abuse of women, but by showing them how to love their mother.

Unfortunately the reception by the more liberal orders may be that the men in Rome are trying to equate them with the most radical secular feminists, and the members of those orders knowing that is not the case will dissmiss what the letter says and the backlash will be those that stay with the church out of fear will continue to stay and some who are pursuing truth will see this as another example of the truth being perverted and will leave.

Peace

 

[Minerva]

redkim,

I spent alot of time with conservative Catholics for several years and they spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing about things like “authentic femininity” gender roles, working moms, the threat of feminism, etc, etc.

I know you are not saying women have to stay home, but plenty of conservative Catholics, including alot on this site, do say that very thing. From personal experience, I can tell you that working mothers are sneered at in many conservative Catholic circles.

As for the studies that show SAHM familes are happier, could you please cite a source for this? Frankly I doubt one can have an objective study on this issue because both sides are so passionate about their view. In my own experience I haven’t perceived any difference in SAHM and working mom families. I know well-adjusted children with working mothers and messed up brats with SAHMs. And vice versa. I think the happiness of a family more depends on the moral values the parents impart to their kids, how important GOd is in the family, and also whether the parents are doing what they want to do. If a woman is a SAHM and loves it, then most likely her kids will be happy too. If she’s a SAHM but doesn’t want to be, that’s going to trickle down and have negative effects on her kids. Same with working moms. Every family is different, which is why one-size-fits-all gender roles make no sense.

 

[Faithful_2_Rome]

If a woman TRULY wants to know what being a “feminist” is all about, she’ll flip on EWTN, and watch “The Abundant Life” hosted by Johnette Benkovic…She is a TRUE CATHOLIC FEMINIST in every sense of the (PROPER) WORD.

 

[misericordie]

Panis Angelicas:

This is so true. I agree 100%.

Not only does a truly holy person “not care” whether or not she receives recognition, I would think that she would actually prefer not to receive accolades here on earth at all.

Of what value, really, are repeated “thanks” and “pats on the back” in the long run?

What little good works we may have accomplished are then rewarded with a few fleeting words of praise. Personally, I’d rather not have them spoken. I’d rather lay up my treasures in heaven, than receive rewards here on earth.

Better that we receive our rewards for whatever poor little works we do, when we face the Just Judge. Any accomplishments on my part are insignificant enough, (especially when compared to the Saints!) but to constantly receive public recognition for anything I might do, would be unbearable.

I hope one day to stand before God and have Him show me at least one good thing I did to please Him, that went unrewarded while I was on earth.

Pax Christi. <><

Excellent, I totally agree with you, and especially with saint Thomas Aquinas above.

 

[misericordie]

redkim:

I think the Pope was addressing many congregations of nuns in addition to the bishops and laity. Many women have left the Church because of what they perceived as sexist doctrine or discipline.

And while what the Pope says is primarily aimed at Catholics, it really isn’t just for Catholics. Let’s face it, this society has a lot of problems, and not all of us are Catholic. Yet the pope must speak to these problems. Catholics should be at the forefront of fixing these problems.

The fact that what the Vatican is saying also coincides with what many very secular studies are also saying is something that should NOT be overlooked.

I wonder if the Pope was addressing the ultra feminists in the Parishes of the Archdiocese of New York? Or maybe some who tend to lean towards the feminist way in the afformentioned Archdiocese’s Chancery office?
In any even hurray for the Pope: now who is going to put what the Vatican says into practice here in the Catholic Church in the USA? Hopefully some Bishops who seem to believe the USCCB is independent from Rome, may take heed at the Vatican’s advice, and not seek as is common, to be waived from that too.

 

[redkim]

ricatholic:

If the pope is trying to teach the middle by pointing out the errors of the edges, perhaps his effort, or more clearly the effort of Ratzinger, is to provide a chilling effect on the middle.

We didn’t teach our boys to be respectfull of women by using the most horendous examples of abuse of women, but by showing them how to love their mother.

Unfortunately the reception by the more liberal orders may be that the men in Rome are trying to equate them with the most radical secular feminists, and the members of those orders knowing that is not the case will dissmiss what the letter says and the backlash will be those that stay with the church out of fear will continue to stay and some who are pursuing truth will see this as another example of the truth being perverted and will leave.

Peace

If that’s the case, then that’s their problem and are reading the document with a chip on their shoulders or with prejudice.

 

[redkim]

Faithful 2 Rome:

If a woman TRULY wants to know what being a “feminist” is all about, she’ll flip on EWTN, and watch “The Abundant Life” hosted by Johnette Benkovic…She is a TRUE CATHOLIC FEMINIST in every sense of the (PROPER) WORD.

Yeah, but I can’t stand her. She’s too plastic-y looking with that constant smile…

 

[redkim]

misericordie:

I wonder if the Pope was addressing the ultra feminists in the Parishes of the Archdiocese of New York? Or maybe some who tend to lean towards the feminist way in the afformentioned Archdiocese’s Chancery office?
In any even hurray for the Pope: now who is going to put what the Vatican says into practice here in the Catholic Church in the USA? Hopefully some Bishops who seem to believe the USCCB is independent from Rome, may take heed at the Vatican’s advice, and not seek as is common, to be waived from that too.

I have no idea. I don’t know any women in the Archdiocese of NY. And since I don’t know them, I can’t say what their politics are and so I cannot call them ultra-feminist or not.

As to who will try and implement what the Vatican says: I’m not sure anyone can implement it except individual women. Certainly our priests and bishops can encourage it from the pulpit, but I don’t think it’s anything that can be enforced.

 

[redkim]

Minerva:

redkim,

I spent alot of time with conservative Catholics for several years and they spend an inordinate amount of time obsessing about things like “authentic femininity” gender roles, working moms, the threat of feminism, etc, etc.

I know you are not saying women have to stay home, but plenty of conservative Catholics, including alot on this site, do say that very thing. From personal experience, I can tell you that working mothers are sneered at in many conservative Catholic circles.

As for the studies that show SAHM familes are happier, could you please cite a source for this? Frankly I doubt one can have an objective study on this issue because both sides are so passionate about their view. In my own experience I haven’t perceived any difference in SAHM and working mom families. I know well-adjusted children with working mothers and messed up brats with SAHMs. And vice versa. I think the happiness of a family more depends on the moral values the parents impart to their kids, how important GOd is in the family, and also whether the parents are doing what they want to do. If a woman is a SAHM and loves it, then most likely her kids will be happy too. If she’s a SAHM but doesn’t want to be, that’s going to trickle down and have negative effects on her kids. Same with working moms. Every family is different, which is why one-size-fits-all gender roles make no sense.

Minerva:

I am admittedly going to take the lazy way out and recommend the book I am currently reading: “Taking Sex Differences Seriously” by Steven E. Rhoads. He cites all sorts of sources for the info you are looking for.

And you are right, one size fits all is a good thing. No one is saying that they are. We simply have to NOT deny or STOP denying that women are more suited to certain tasks than men and vice versa. Of course I am speaking in generalities, since there are always exceptions.

In my own family my mother worked because she had to. We wouldn’t have been able to pay bills if she didn’t. Dad had a good job, too. Although mom worked, it was in a very traditional occupation: nursing. My dad was a plumber. So, my mom was in a caring profession and my father was in a “handy” occupation. Very traditional roles for male and female. My mother said that if they could afford it, she would have worked less or not at all. But they couldn’t afford that. I mean, if my mother didn’t work it would be a serious financial hardship.

My mother was definitely NOT looked down upon by anybody for working. Not by any stretch of the imagination. From stay at home moms to working moms, no one looked down on her for it. Perhaps that is a luxury of the middle class and stays out of us working class schmos.

When we were sick, it was mom we wanted. Dad was okay and we knew he’d be helpful, but it was really mom we wanted. When we were hurt; it was mom we went to. Why? Because that’s what moms do.

There were 3 girls and 2 boys in the family. Both of my sisters got married and stayed at home to raise their small families. My older brother got married and when his wife became pregnant, she decided to become a stay at home mom herself. She was also a VP at her company. All three siblings are quite happily married. In all three marriages it is the husband who is the primary breadwinner and the wife who is the primary caregiver at home. And believe me, the men in those marriages are QUITE attentive to their children (all boys, btw…I have not one niece!). They are better caregivers than their fathers were.

Interestingly, my mother made more money than my father. And because both worked for the state, everyone knew it. HOWEVER, he was the one who handled the finances, thereby giving him the “power” of being the primary breadwinner without him actually being it. He made the ultimate financial decisions, with (name removed by moderator)ut from of course. So, I guess my parents were untraditionally traditional…

 

[ricatholic]

Has anybody out there read the letter and followed its premises from the beginning?

In the beginning it says that the female liberation movement originated as a response to an abuse of power. It then goes on to say that then women denigrated scripture by saying that the gender roles in the bible are part of the cause.

Then it set up the concept that the rad fems are therefore threatening because they are against scripture.

But let’s look at the facts, Catholics do not believe that Genesis is literal. But the letter uses the language of Genesis to make its point about feminism.

Yet we are CHRISTIANS and despite what may be said about the OT as being the inspired word of God, the church admits that the message of Jesus was a development of the OT and while not different per se, it is more.

When Jesus asks if we fed Him, was the least a person or a man or a woman? Do we treat everyone as if they could be Jesus? Because that is what Jesus instructed us to do.

I am fearfull that this letter is not really about radical feminists, because how many of them are really catholics anyway? This is about feeding meat to the lions and keeping the church firmly rooted in the extremes that bracket the gospels.

Peace

 

[Shoshana]

Minerva:

I know you are not saying women have to stay home, but plenty of conservative Catholics, including alot on this site, do say that very thing. From personal experience, I can tell you that working mothers are sneered at in many conservative Catholic circles.

.

Maybe the idea of working moms and having their children go to daycare is a Russian error that Our Lady of Fatima. It is Russia that promulgated such a thing and it has infiltrated the society to the point where there is no clue as to where this comes from. Back in the 20-30’s when women HAD to work due to an ineffective husband, etc (not because they needed new clothes or a new car), it was a very shameful thing. They were considered, as children would see them, as the dregs of society.

This ‘need’ to work due to personal satisfaction and not so much out of necessity, due to a higher quality of life and not poverty has had it s effect on society. Whether we like it or not. Other people are raising our children so the parents could go to work and obtain a myriad of toys not only for the children but also for themsleves. Bigger house, two cars, a boat, a cottage, etc etc…but we must limit our children to two as we cannot afford them…we need to finance whatever we want and not necessarily what we need.

OK that is it. I’m off my podium now. Have a nice day, as I go to work…

Blessings,
Shoshana

 

[redkim]

ricatholic:

Has anybody out there read the letter and followed its premises from the beginning?

In the beginning it says that the female liberation movement originated as a response to an abuse of power. It then goes on to say that then women denigrated scripture by saying that the gender roles in the bible are part of the cause.

Absolutely. I’ve met many a woman on b’net who has complained that the bible has a gender bias in favor of males and that is against women.

Then it set up the concept that the rad fems are therefore threatening because they are against scripture.

Absolutely. I’ve read books and articles by these women going back as early as my college years. This is on target.

But let’s look at the facts, Catholics do not believe that Genesis is literal. But the letter uses the language of Genesis to make its point about feminism.

That’s not a fact. Catholics can look at it literally or not. Even if they do not look at literally, it is a story that reflects men and women and their roles, to an extent.

Yet we are CHRISTIANS and despite what may be said about the OT as being the inspired word of God, the church admits that the message of Jesus was a development of the OT and while not different per se, it is more.

And your point here is what?

When Jesus asks if we fed Him, was the least a person or a man or a woman? Do we treat everyone as if they could be Jesus? Because that is what Jesus instructed us to do.

Naturally. Not sure what your point is.

I am fearfull that this letter is not really about radical feminists, because how many of them are really catholics anyway? This is about feeding meat to the lions and keeping the church firmly rooted in the extremes that bracket the gospels.

Peace

Radical feminists eventually trickle down to mainstream feminists, which eventually trickle down into mainstream society. Mainstream society is the concern, not just some radicals. If radicals were not influencing society already, this letter never would have been written. And I don’t know what the HECK you mean by “the extremes that bracket the gospels.”

 

[redkim]

Shoshana:

Maybe the idea of working moms and having their children go to daycare is a Russian error that Our Lady of Fatima. It is Russia that promulgated such a thing and it has infiltrated the society to the point where there is no clue as to where this comes from. Back in the 20-30’s when women HAD to work due to an ineffective husband, etc (not because they needed new clothes or a new car), it was a very shameful thing. They were considered, as children would see them, as the dregs of society.

This ‘need’ to work due to personal satisfaction and not so much out of necessity, due to a higher quality of life and not poverty has had it s effect on society. Whether we like it or not. Other people are raising our children so the parents could go to work and obtain a myriad of toys not only for the children but also for themsleves. Bigger house, two cars, a boat, a cottage, etc etc…but we must limit our children to two as we cannot afford them…we need to finance whatever we want and not necessarily what we need.

OK that is it. I’m off my podium now. Have a nice day, as I go to work…

Blessings,
Shoshana

If a mom doesn’t HAVE to work full time outside of the home, or to at least have flexible hours where she can be at home with her children (didn’t anyone notice that piece in the letter?), then it’s best that she doesn’t. And many moms won’t, even if only to realize that if they worked, they would be doing so only to pay the baby sitter or childcare center.

 

[ricatholic]

redkim:

Absolutely. I’ve met many a woman on b’net who has complained that the bible has a gender bias in favor of males and that is against women.

Does that bias come from Jesus?

Absolutely. I’ve read books and articles by these women going back as early as my college years. This is on target.

That’s not a fact. Catholics can look at it literally or not. Even if they do not look at literally, it is a story that reflects men and women and their roles, to an extent.

If they have a choice then it is optional. That is my point, it doesn’t have to be taken as gospel.

And your point here is what?

Naturally. Not sure what your point is.

Radical feminists eventually trickle down to mainstream feminists, which eventually trickle down into mainstream society. Mainstream society is the concern, not just some radicals. If radicals were not influencing society already, this letter never would have been written. And I don’t know what the HECK you mean by “the extremes that bracket the gospels.”

What trickles down out of the filter of reason? That men and women are exactly the same? You know that is not the conclusion.

What is the fear,that the rad fems may have a few good points mixed in with the junk ?That might be what the church fears.

As for the extremes, that’s a riddle.

Peace

 

[redkim]

Originally Posted by redkim
*Absolutely. I’ve met many a woman on b’net who has complained that the bible has a gender bias in favor of males and that is against women.

Does that bias come from Jesus?*

*I don’t believe there is a bias on the part of those who put together the bible. I think people are putting today’s evolved thinking into yesterday’s mores. That’s not fair and that isn’t from Jesus.

Absolutely. I’ve read books and articles by these women going back as early as my college years. This is on target.

That’s not a fact. Catholics can look at it literally or not. Even if they do not look at literally, it is a story that reflects men and women and their roles, to an extent.

If they have a choice then it is optional. That is my point, it doesn’t have to be taken as gospel.

It does have to be taken “as gospel” in that it teaches us the profound truths of our relationship to God and to each other.
*

Radical feminists eventually trickle down to mainstream feminists, which eventually trickle down into mainstream society. Mainstream society is the concern, not just some radicals. If radicals were not influencing society already, this letter never would have been written. And I don’t know what the HECK you mean by “the extremes that bracket the gospels.”

What trickles down out of the filter of reason? That men and women are exactly the same? You know that is not the conclusion.*
That absolutely is the conclusion: that men and women are virtually interchangeable in society. This is patently wrong.

What is the fear,that the rad fems may have a few good points mixed in with the junk ?That might be what the church fears.

As for the extremes, that’s a riddle.

Peace

No, the fear, if that’s what you want to call it, is that radicalism affects society. Look at how many women claim the Church is sexist and leave it…or worse, ignore it.

 

[ricatholic]

redkim:

No, the fear, if that’s what you want to call it, is that radicalism affects society. Look at how many women claim the Church is sexist and leave it…or worse, ignore it.

Radicalism does affect society, the most radical of all was Jesus and His concepts about the inherent value of every person.

As for women leaving the church because they perceive it to be sexist, what would ever give them that idea?

Peace