Alright, to straighten this mess out won’t be too difficult.
- I stated that the “times” of St. Maximilian were such that the error of using feminine names had less impact than today.
That makes sense. I agree.
- You seem to think that “cultural standards” dictate what is inherent to the nature of males and females.
No, I agree with you - cultural standards don’t
dictate what is inherent to the nature of males and females, but there are certain manifestations of inherent maleness or femaleness that are culturally exclusive, just as some manifestations of inherent maleness or femaleness are
intrinsic and
not determined by culture. But I certainly agree with you that
many manifestations of masculinity and femininity are
innate, not culturally determined.
My point was that the event that sparked this thread - the decision that a woman could not referee a middle school boys’ basketball game - was not justifiable. A female referee being inappropriate in a middle school boys’ basketball game goes against
neither the innate, objective, divinely established norms of masculinity and femininity nor the current cultural standards of what constitutes masculinity and femininity.
No. You fail to see as Cardinal Siri pointed out that as pants are no longer seen as exclusively masculine, that has lead to a 'gender neutrality" that is unnatural. Therefore both men and women have sacrificed their identities as men and women in order to accomodate women wearing men’s clothing.
I don’t think so, for the simple reason that
fashion does not objectively, innately correspond to the inherent, distinct nature of men and women; which types of clothing are considered masculine and which are considered feminine change over time.
That kind of change is okay, since clothing is a man-made invention whose standards are governed by the conventions of the time.
Now, I
fully agree with you that in a time period in which pants are seen as exclusively masculine, it would have been
inappropriate for a woman to wear pants, as this
would have been seen as a rejection of femininity to some extent. That is wrong.
But since pants are no longer seen as exclusively masculine, a woman’s wearing pants - and certainly no woman is or should be obligated to do so - is no longer a rejection of her innate femininity.
Now,
why is it okay for pants to be no longer seen as exclusively masculine? Because their connection to masculinity is not an objective, metaphysical one, but a subjective, cultural one. Pants are not an invention of God’s that are ontologically masculine.
Only cultural standards made them masculine. And cultural standards are subjective and can change.
Men are designed by God as men and women designed as women by God in all times and all cultures. There is no application of that fact (not principal) There is only cultural accretions that either harmonize or go against that fact.
Of course men are designed by God to be men at all times and women are designed by God to be women at all times - as you put it, “all times and all cultures.” But
some -
not all, not even close to all - standards of what is masculine and what is feminine (again, the pants example) can
legitimately change over time.
To use my example from before: a woman is designed by God to be a woman and must live and act as a woman
at all times and in all cultures. But
in our time and our culture, pants are not seen as exclusively masculine. They now make pants specifically designed for women. It is therefore entirely appropriate for a woman to wear such pants and still be living according to their innate femininity.
No. It’s not personal discomfort. It’s based on a much larger perception than you are willing to concede. There is a principle at work here. To coordinate and work to change the culture to one that is conducive to God’s order. The fact that this culture dehumanizes men and women and works against God’s order is what you refuse to see.
There absolutely are principles at work here. Men are created to be men, and women to be women, and there is an objective, ontological difference. A woman’s refereeing a middle school boys’ basketball game is not in violation of that principle.
Hah! That’s a laugh. It is a rather banal and patronizing reformulation of simple Catholic teaching in order to present Catholic teaching without having to spill the beans about curbing the passions, and the sins associated with a misuse of the reproductive process.
It is in no way banal or a mere reformulation. It is built firmly on an entirely new philosophical path forged by JPII and others (based on phenomenology) in response to the shift in how philosophy has been done since the Enlightenment. It is the very definition of “new and original.”
Please show me where the theology of the body says one doesn’t have to curb the passions, and while you’re at it, which sexual sins does the theology of the body justify?
As I said before,
no Catholic has to become a phenomenologist and fully embrace the theology of the body. But to paint such a complex, largely unexplored body of work with the broad, dismissive strokes you have
does show a lack of understanding.
Exactly how does he “discourage” it? You can put the quote up since you have the book. Does he tell people that it is a sin crying to heaven for vengeance?
Unfortunately, my copy of the book is many miles away right now. But your request is quite reasonable, and as soon as I can get my hands on a copy, I will provide the quote. I promise. Hold me to it!
I think what you are saying, if I could restate it–is that you are not saying people shouldn’t retire from working–I think for me personally, I can see myself doing charity work when I ‘officially’ retire from my job. I would like to possibly babysit my grandkids someday…and other things–I look forward to retirement for many reasons–it will be nice to not have an alarm clock to control my mornings.
