Again, what an odd thought. For the first millenia infanticide was the major problem confronted by the Church as it spread to gentiles. This was virtually always performed by fathers on new borns. Look at this quote from Pope Stephen V in the 9th century:
I see this quoted quite a bit on pro-life web sites as evidence that the Church has always opposed abortion, but when you read everything in context it is perhaps even more disturbing. The Pope appears to be really saying, ‘look, our teachings are that it is murder when the baby is still in the womb, of course you cannot let the fathers in your flock continue to bury their unwanted new born children alive…’
Yes, a number of feminists consider what they call “reproductive rights” important, but there is nothing to suggest that they significantly drive actual numbers. Remember, they are the most likely to use birth control. On the flip side, about 60% of all abortions in the US are procurred by woman near or below the poverty level. Over half of them already have children. Blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately over represented, which means that Christians and Catholics are disproportionately over represented.
Mary was submissive to God, but to man? Not hardly. Read her song in the Gospel. Try reading anything about Latin American biblical study, a short work like THE GOSPEL THROUGH THIRD WORLD EYES, or something like THE BIBLE OF THE OPRESSED. Both the Marys who are prominent in the Gospels are viewed, quite rightfully I think, as powerful and forceful children of God.
I am also at a loss as to what hierarchy you think God designed. In Christianity, woman were priests for centuries, at least in Pauline Christianity. Our current male dominated heirarchy really dates from feudalism. An all male clergy was really the only practical way for the Church to maintain control of its massive land assets.
Well, that is the struggle of Roman Catholicism. You either accept you are part of an apostolic Church with the Gift of Authority, or you do not. It is easy to follow teachings we already understand and support. Harder when they challenge our immediate wishes.
I find it odd that your would cite Pope Pius XI. First of all, we are talking about a 20th century Pope. Most assuredly, we had Christian marriage for the 19 centuries prior. Second, he was a highly progressive Pope. He rejected the prior Church position on a theocratic monarcy as the ideal form of government, decried both socialism and unrestrained capitalism, and took an open stance against anti-semitism. He is probably best known for “Quadragesimo Anno”. But “Costi Canubi” is not as conservative as it might seem. It is best known for reaffirming Church objections to birth control, but his view on marital roles was actually considered too liberal by many at the time. Personally, I think that his utter condemantion of eugenics is the most noteworthy aspect of the document.
Theological opinion was mixed, his was not. He immediately saw the eugenics movement, which was really based in the US, as a grave evil. For most of the world it took the Nazi application during the holocaust for the lesson to sink in.
Something I find a little disturbing is that you insist on putting your disagreemeint with your wife in the context of heresy. You don’t appear to say, ‘this is how I want you to behave’. You insist on putting your position as an issue of faith. But, as you have already acknowledged here, that argument itself is based on you rejecting the Church’s Gift of Authority and inserting your own opinion in place of the magisterium. If you cannot, yourself, submit to the teachings of the Church, why would you expect her to submit to you?
