SSPX and women in positions of authority

[GerardP]

You know GerardP, I seem to remember Jesus washing His disciples feet to show them that they were not called to “lord it” over those over whom they had authority but to be of loving service. How does that jive with your referring to the spiritual head of the home as “top dog”? I find the use of this term offensive both to a man’s masculinity and to his wife’s femininity.

Frankly, I don’t think you’re being honest. I think you are pretending to be offended.

Secondly, the jumping to conclusions is evident “top dog” and “under dog” are terms referring to the old mill workers also called “overdog” and “bottomdog” “Dogs” were the clamps that held the wood.

It’s also a term used in Gestalt therapy as a method of working out problems.

Many people on these forums would be far less needlessly offended if they would do a bit of etymological research before they post.

 

[GerardP]

I think you have hit the nail on the head with this; the “top dog” reference is offensive and shows that poster’s true colors. Perhaps it’s time for those of us with more reasonable points of view to ignore him.

See post #161. I think you are simply looking for an excuse to bail from the discussion. That’s fine but this 'true colors" is more true of you than I. My true colors have been evident from the start. I’m Catholic and I think like a Catholic and I’m not afraid to go against the prevailing trends if they are opposed to the common sense teaching of the Catholic Church.

I’ve answered with Church teaching and common sense virtually every point that has been brought up.

They are conveniently ignored and a more hysterical straw man argument is brought up at each turn.

 

[GerardP]

Gerard, now you’ve really spun out of control. I’m normal and “feminine” by anyone’s standards.

No criteria for what constitutes “standards” and “normal”?

I stayed at home with my girls the entire time they were in school, loving it. I’ve worked in education and the arts, and am now home again to be able to spend more time with my husband, and volunteer instead.

That’s very nice, glad you didn’t go into refereeing.

The type of “feminism” I embrace is pro-life and supports equality in social, political and economic spheres.

How is that feminism? And why is it important to support 'equality" (another vaguely defined term) in social, political and economic spheres?

How did you come to the conclusion that these areas are important? What are the standards by which you judge them?

I believe individuals should have access to careers based on their specific abilities, not on pre-conceived archaic notions.

I can’t help but notice the emphasis on “the self” that you seem to think is so important. Some people have great abilities in a particular area but choose not to use them because of other factors in life that are more important. The great pianist Teresa Carreno regretted the fact that her career took so much from her children. Alicia De Laroccha is another example from the same genre.

If a woman cannot “make the cut”, she shouldn’t be in the profession. I believe in high standards.

That’s the “I can do anything better than you.” fallacy. Some jobs like the priesthood are not suited to women and some are not suited to men. Many women could probably handle all of the duties and responsibilities of the priesthood as well as or better than men. But it is simply not in their nature to be priests.

I also believe in common sense, and also in the fact that we are no longer in the middle ages.

Don’t fool yourself into thinking the middle ages were so bad. There’s a lot of Protestant misinformation that has been spread around. Western Europe was a lot better off when there was one religion of Christianity. You might want to read Regine’ Pernoud’s “Those Terrible Middle Ages.” (She’s a woman! I wonder why she didn’t become a referee.) Or Tom Wood’s “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization”

The people of the Middle Ages put God in the Center of their lives. It wasn’t just a soft and airy distraction made of good thoughts. They went “Cross Creeping” on Good Friday. Would that Catholics would have the guts and piety to do that nowadays.

I think that this is exactly the view the Church has espoused.

Churchmen have adopted this attitude and that’s why the Church is in dire straits in this day and age.

As Chesterton said as one of his reasons for being Catholic, "It is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age.

Off now to make dinner for my sweet, reasonable, very masculine husband

A good man is a gift from God. I hope you appreciate it and don’t forget it.

 

[GerardP]

I don’t know why you inserted the qualifier “considered” but that’s not germaine to the discussion. Suffice it to say you agree that the husband is the head of the household.

I didn’t say that–but I agree–I do not wish to be a man–but we are equal in dignity and equal as human beings. We have different bodies, which would mean we were created for different purposes–to thwart the purposes God gave us, would be wrong. (ie: birth control, aborting babies, etc) But, for women to work in the same roles as men do–say in police roles, or as principals of schools, etc…is not thwarting God’s purpose.

Wait, you keep taking this “not thwarting” as if that is a positive affirmation. Eating candy all day is not poisonous for most people and not illegal but it’s certainly not good for you.

How are women being police or public administrators or referees more suited to these jobs than men?

Equal in dignity but not in authority or function. Your husband’s duty is to get you and he and your children and whatever extensions you can make into the larger family and community to Heaven. Your job is to help him accomplish that.

I like how your worded this. ]

I can’t take credit for it. Bishop Williamson of the SSPX has hammered that point in for years now.

Again–not sure how the initial topic of this thread led you to say this?

Men and women have specific natures and should adopt roles conducive to that nature.

The female in question in this news story, is not thwarting her God given role as wife (I don’t know if she is married or not–just saying in general)…if our roles outside of the home, cause us to thwart God’s purpose for our lives–that is a different story.

Obviously this woman from the interview I’ve seen and what I’ve read has a completely superficial understanding of what her role is. In her mind, she is a gender neutral participant in an activity where “the children get to be stars” and “this is their time to shine.” (I can’t imagine a man having this attitude. I wonder if it affects her objectivity when calling a game.)

Meanwhile, she does not know that she is transgressing a gender role that would have a more profound impact on shaping the character and the souls of young men.

The Church teaches this–but the Church does not teach that women should not be working in the world. In many civilzations, for matters of survival in many cases, women work in the fields, in factories, etc…to provide for their families.

Practical matters often force non-ideal compromises. But let’s not lose track of what the ideal is.

(Phillipines, Africa, etc) The Church has never taught that women should not hold jobs outside of the home–nor has the RCC ever said that women should stick to jobs that are strictly for females, which I’m sure you might think that is a broad spectrum.

The Church never had to teach formally many things about the family, but the family was in trouble when Leo XIII was Pope. It would have been unthinkable and completely irrelevant for Popes and bishops to teach about family ideals when families already knew these things.

As I pointed out above JPII and Card. Ratzinger obviously felt the need to softly put out a message that women should be able to live without prejudice the natural calling of staying at home and raising children. This is in reply to the horrific ridicule that women were subjected to for maintaining traditional standards in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

The Church’s stance will never change when it comes to clergy positions–it does not condemn or speak out against women working in positions of authority in the secular world.

Again, it’s not appropriate to think of the Church as “as long as they haven’t condemned it, it must be good.” They might yet condemn it. What damage will have been done by then?

If you believe it does, please show me in the CCC where it protests against women working outside of the home, in jobs that, in your opinion, should only be for men.

You’ll find the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas who actually rates higher than the CCC for the teaching of the Church. I’m no fan of the CCC. I prefer the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It’s very clear and the commentaries aren’t as confused as the CCC.

Please do not talk about female wrestlers/boxers, etc…they are not who we are talking about here.

I’ve used them as examples of women working in fields that are against the femine nature.

haha And those are not places of authority, anyways. Thank you, Gerard.

Authority is not the real issue. The statement from the SSPX concerning this should have cleared that up. It’s about the nature of women and the nature of men and what jobs are conducive to each.

 

[whatevergirl]

I don’t know why you inserted the qualifier “considered” but that’s not germaine to the discussion. Suffice it to say you agree that the husband is the head of the household.

Wait, you keep taking this “not thwarting” as if that is a positive affirmation. Eating candy all day is not poisonous for most people and not illegal but it’s certainly not good for you.

How are women being police or public administrators or referees more suited to these jobs than men?

Equal in dignity but not in authority or function. Your husband’s duty is to get you and he and your children and whatever extensions you can make into the larger family and community to Heaven. Your job is to help him accomplish that.

I can’t take credit for it. Bishop Williamson of the SSPX has hammered that point in for years now.

Men and women have specific natures and should adopt roles conducive to that nature.

Obviously this woman from the interview I’ve seen and what I’ve read has a completely superficial understanding of what her role is. In her mind, she is a gender neutral participant in an activity where “the children get to be stars” and “this is their time to shine.” (I can’t imagine a man having this attitude. I wonder if it affects her objectivity when calling a game.)

Meanwhile, she does not know that she is transgressing a gender role that would have a more profound impact on shaping the character and the souls of young men.

Practical matters often force non-ideal compromises. But let’s not lose track of what the ideal is.

The Church never had to teach formally many things about the family, but the family was in trouble when Leo XIII was Pope. It would have been unthinkable and completely irrelevant for Popes and bishops to teach about family ideals when families already knew these things.

As I pointed out above JPII and Card. Ratzinger obviously felt the need to softly put out a message that women should be able to live without prejudice the natural calling of staying at home and raising children. This is in reply to the horrific ridicule that women were subjected to for maintaining traditional standards in the late 60’s and early 70’s.

Again, it’s not appropriate to think of the Church as “as long as they haven’t condemned it, it must be good.” They might yet condemn it. What damage will have been done by then?

You’ll find the teaching of St. Thomas Aquinas who actually rates higher than the CCC for the teaching of the Church. I’m no fan of the CCC. I prefer the Catechism of the Council of Trent. It’s very clear and the commentaries aren’t as confused as the CCC.

I’ve used them as examples of women working in fields that are against the femine nature.

Authority is not the real issue. The statement from the SSPX concerning this should have cleared that up. It’s about the nature of women and the nature of men and what jobs are conducive to each.

i thought authority was part of the title of this thread–i thought that is what the OP asked?

 

[whatevergirl]

Gerard–can you point to where your views somewhat align with Jesus’ on this subject? I’d be curious to see that. Thank you!

 

[seekerz]

Frankly, I don’t think you’re being honest. I think you are pretending to be offended.

Secondly, the jumping to conclusions is evident “top dog” and “under dog” are terms referring to the old mill workers also called “overdog” and “bottomdog” “Dogs” were the clamps that held the wood.

It’s also a term used in Gestalt therapy as a method of working out problems.

Many people on these forums would be far less needlessly offended if they would do a bit of etymological research before they post.

You still haven’t answered the question about “lording it” over those under authority, which is the context in which I objected to the term “top dog”.

 

[latinmasslover]

Who’s lording authority over another? Gerard reiterated the Scriptures, oooh.

Jesus didn’t specifically address the issue of women, but then that’s why He and the Father sent the Holy Ghost, and what He says is:

1 Corinthians 11
…the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man…the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

Ephesians 5
…Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church…Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and delivered Himself up for it…This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife as himself; and let the wife fear her husband.

1 Timothy 2
In like manner, women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty…Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence…(ch. 5) I will, therefore, that the younger should marry, bear children, **be mistresses **[not career oriented] of families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil.

1 Peter 3
In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands…For after this manner heretofore the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance. Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, *giving honour to the female *as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers may not be hindered.

If anyone has a problem with this, he or she needs to rant to God who decided things this way. Women have been given many graces and privileges from God, as have men. For women to moan and groan about not being able to do their own thing is ungratefulness to God, pride in thinking she knows better than God, and will lead to envy, a capital sin.

 

[childofmary1143]

Who’s lording authority over another? Gerard reiterated the Scriptures, oooh.

Jesus didn’t specifically address the issue of women, but then that’s why He and the Father sent the Holy Ghost, and what He says is:

1 Corinthians 11
…the head of every man is Christ: and the head of the woman is the man…the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. For the man was not created for the woman: but the woman for the man.

Ephesians 5
…Let women be subject to their husbands, as to the Lord: because the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ is the head of the Church…Therefore as the Church is subject to Christ: so also let the wives be to their husbands in all things. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved the Church and delivered Himself up for it…This is a great sacrament: but I speak in Christ and in the Church. Nevertheless, let every one of you in particular love for his wife as himself; and let the wife fear her husband.

1 Timothy 2
In like manner, women also in decent apparel: adorning themselves with modesty…Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to use authority over the man: but to be in silence…(ch. 5) I will, therefore, that the younger should marry, bear children, **be mistresses **[not career oriented] of families, give no occasion to the adversary to speak evil.

1 Peter 3
In like manner also, let wives be subject to their husbands…For after this manner heretofore the holy women also who trusted in God adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands: as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters you are, doing well and not fearing any disturbance. Ye husbands, likewise dwelling with them according to knowledge, *giving honour to the female *as to the weaker vessel and as to the co-heirs of the grace of life: that your prayers may not be hindered.

If anyone has a problem with this, he or she needs to rant to God who decided things this way. Women have been given many graces and privileges from God, as have men. For women to moan and groan about not being able to do their own thing is ungratefulness to God, pride in thinking she knows better than God, and will lead to envy, a capital sin.

Please cite me the passage that refereeing at a basketball game is a capital sin? Otherwise stop your bloviating and learn some commonsense.

People who have a problem with a woman refereeing a game has problems.

 

[latinmasslover]

Please cite me the passage that refereeing at a basketball game is a capital sin? Otherwise stop your bloviating and learn some commonsense.

People who have a problem with a woman refereeing a game has problems.

Please cite for me the passage that endorces women running back and forth on a field in man’s clothes, shouting like a man. The behavior required is unfeminine.

If you can’t see that giving in here and there leads to bigger problems, you’re the one lacking common sense.

 

[GerardP]

You know GerardP, I seem to remember Jesus washing His disciples feet to show them that they were not called to “lord it” over those over whom they had authority but to be of loving service.

That’s a very post-Vatican II modernist exegesis. Here are the Haydock notes on that passage.

Ver. 4. He riseth from supper; that is, after supper was done, or ended, as it is here said, (ver. 2. and 1 Corinthians xi. 25.) girded himself like a servant, to wash and wipe the feet of his apostles. (Witham) — If we compare the text of the four evangelists, it will appear that the washing of the feet preceded the institution of the blessed Eucharist, of which St. John is silent. (Bible de Vence)

Ver. 5. St. Ambrose and St. Bernard shew that this washing was mysterious, and significative of the very great purity expected of those that receive the blessed Eucharist.

Ver. 6. Lord, dost thou wash my feet? My master, my Lord, the true Son of the living God, wilt thou wash the feet of me, thy servant, thy disciple, a poor vile sinner? this must not be. (Witham)

Ver. 8. If I wash thee not, thou shalt have no part with me. At this, Peter, as one thunderstruck, replied: Lord, not my feet only, but my head; whatever my Lord pleaseth. (Witham)

Ver. 10. He that is washed, &c. The feet are always apt to contract some dust or dirt; and in the mystical sense, he that is washed by the sacraments of baptism, or penance, from greater sins, must still endeavour to cleanse, and purify his affections from lesser failings of human frailty. And you, my apostles, are clean from greater offences, but not all of you, meaning the traitor Judas. (Witham) — It is impossible that the extremities of the soul (if we may be allowed the expression) should not, as long as we tread upon this earth, receive some stain or other; although in the opinion of men, the soul appear just. Many indeed after baptism, are covered with the dust of sin, even to the head, but those who are disciples indeed, need only to wash their feet. (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.) — The foulness of the feet, when the rest is clean, signifies the earthly affections, and remains of former sins remitted, which are to be cleansed by devout acts of charity and humility. (St. Ambrose, lib. iii. de Sacram. chap. 1; St. Bernard, de cæn. Dom. ser. 1.) — Though his disciples were clean, still he washed their feet, comformably to that of the Apocalypse, chap. xxii. “He that is clean, let him be cleansed still.” (Origen, tract. 32. in Joan.)

Ver. 14. You also ought to wash one another’s feet. Not that he made this a standing precept according to the letter; but designed it as a lesson in humility. We find this custom literally observed in several churches, as it is now down every year by diverse prelates, and by Christian kings and princes. (Witham) — He gives us an example of a more elevated act of virtue, that we may at least learn to practise the lower degrees of it. For he indeed was their Lord, but when we perform this office, we can but do it to our fellow-servants. (St. Chrysostom, hom. lxx. in Joan.) — That it is, blessed Peter, which you were ignorant of, but which he promises to explain afterwards. (St. Augustine, tract. 58. in Joan.)

How does that jive with your referring to the spiritual head of the home as “top dog”? I find the use of this term offensive both to a man’s masculinity and to his wife’s femininity.

This was already dealt with.

 

[GerardP]

You still haven’t answered the question about “lording it” over those under authority, which is the context in which I objected to the term “top dog”.

What does “lording over” have to do with anything on this thread? The SSPX isn’t “lording over” anything and the fact that God has ordered things a certain way is not “lording anything”. By your reasoning any leader who actually leads and knows he has authority is “lording over.”

 

[childofmary1143]

Please cite for me the passage that endorces women running back and forth on a field in man’s clothes, shouting like a man. The behavior required is unfeminine.

If you can’t see that giving in here and there leads to bigger problems, you’re the one lacking common sense.

Please cite me a passage that commands the rosary being said? Can’t do it? So then we shouldn’t pray the rosary?

Since you said it is capital sin to equate refereeing at a basketball game to being ungrateful to God then I ask you AGAIN to produce such document.

 

[latinmasslover]

Please cite me a passage that commands the rosary being said? Can’t do it? So then we shouldn’t pray the rosary?

Since you said it is capital sin to equate refereeing at a basketball game to being ungrateful to God then I ask you AGAIN to produce such document.

Let’s not get ridiculous. Not everything is in the Bible, but you can’t change what is. Many look at the letter and try to twist the meaning…this is what the devil does, as the Gospels show.

What is it you don’t understand about what I already said? Look at how the feminist movement began, and look at how it is now. Very different. This is the point that I’m trying to make. It’s not possible to give into the world even a little because it will never stay at “a little.”

 

[whatevergirl]

Let’s not get ridiculous. Not everything is in the Bible, but you can’t change what is. Many look at the letter and try to twist the meaning…this is what the devil does, as the Gospels show.

What is it you don’t understand about what I already said? Look at how the feminist movement began, and look at how it is now. Very different. This is the point that I’m trying to make. It’s not possible to give into the world even a little because it will never stay at “a little.”

Um, I’m not subject to all men in this world–only my husband. Those passages were dealing with marital issues, and issues dealing with the clergy, and matters of the Church. I am not subject to other men other than my husband…if my husband wouldn’t have an issue with me refereeing a basketball game, be it men’s or women’s teams–that is what matters. That is what Scripture is talking about. Women are not subjects of men in the secular world.*** We are to look to our husbands as the head of household…not look at all men. outside of our marriage, as rulers of us in secular life***. I think we are MISusing the above Scripture to back up a woman refereeing a basketball game, and somehow insinuating that it’s a) sinful and b) somehow violating Scripture. A woman refereeing a male basketball team’s game is not going against Scripture. I wouldn’t do it, personally–haha…but, it doesn’t violate Scripture. Plainly put, feminism is not a healthy thing–that I agree with. But, one does not need to abandon her feminity to be in sports, nor does a woman need to subscribe to feminism in order to work in a male dominated field. (speaking of corporate America, not Ultimate Fighting, and the like)

I think that if we are going to use Scripture, we should use Scripture that is somewhat similiar to the subject. Talking about men as heads of household has no bearing on this subject at all.

 

[whatevergirl]

What does “lording over” have to do with anything on this thread? The SSPX isn’t “lording over” anything and the fact that God has ordered things a certain way is not “lording anything”. By your reasoning any leader who actually leads and knows he has authority is “lording over.”

Actually, I think what seekerz meant is that when you posted ‘top dog,’ it implies that someone is underneath. (in this case, a wife) Being the head of household doesn’t place a wife beneath that of her husband–but rather beside him. I’m not 100% certain–but I think that is the point seekerz was trying to make.

 

[SenorSalsa]

Gerard please do proper research before you pretend to be an Etymologist.

"I can’t prove the stories untrue, but I’m extremely suspicious of them.** That’s because all the early examples I’ve been able to trace refer to literal dog fights, in which the dog on top is clearly getting the better of the dispute and is able to impose himself on the one underneath. I can’t find a single historical example that refers to the sawing of wood.**

As always, it’s hard to prove a negative. But I remain sceptical. It wouldn’t be too surprising to find that top dog, bottom dog and related terms later became attached to the upper and lower sawyers through the obvious association of ideas (though, as I say, I can’t find any evidence for this at all). But the earliest examples show that the origin does lie in literal dog fights.

If anyone can find a usage of top dog before 1859 that relates to sawing wood, and hence before the first known example that refers to a dog fight, I shall accept the tellers of the tale are right. But not otherwise!"worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-top2.htm
I think this author has more authority than you, he writes definitions for the Oxford English Dictionary
worldwidewords.org/personal.htm

 

[Margarite]

You know when the more moderate people respond, we give reasonable comparisons, but when you SSPX people respond, you go extreme with porn and women cage fighters. Sure those things are gross and disgusting, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about reasonable careers. Such as CPA, architect, engineer, scientist, etc… or even refereeing. These are roles that have been traditionally male, but may I ask why? You say they are not feminine. What is wrong with a woman wearing shorts? What is wrong with a woman running? What is wrong with a woman yelling? I know many feminine women who yell.
So What is wrong with a woman wearing shorts, running and yelling?
People I have read say that she may try to seduce the boys, I saw a picture of this woman, and if she were trying to seduce anyone she had better give up. Her hair is short she wears a baggy shirt, and shorts. This is ridiculous.

If you have a problem with baggy shirts on women I say you are silly. Baggy is better when a woman is involved with sports because then it does not become form fitting and neither does it crawl up and show her middle. T-shirts are perfect. Shorts are practical. Short hair, that is no ones business, she can cut her hair any way she likes. So the only thing you can say is that this is a man’s job. Why? If running, yelling and wearing shorts and a baggy shirt is just fine, then why can’t she ref?

Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

 

[latinmasslover]

That’s because all the early examples I’ve been able to trace refer to literal dog fights, in which the dog on top is clearly getting the better of the dispute and is able to impose himself on the one underneath.]

If you don’t know much about fighting, never forget this: there’s more advantage to being below than above!

 

[whatevergirl]

You know when the more moderate people respond, we give reasonable comparisons, but when you SSPX people respond, you go extreme with porn and women cage fighters. Sure those things are gross and disgusting, but we are not talking about that. We are talking about reasonable careers. Such as CPA, architect, engineer, scientist, etc… or even refereeing. These are roles that have been traditionally male, but may I ask why? You say they are not feminine. What is wrong with a woman wearing shorts? What is wrong with a woman running? What is wrong with a woman yelling? I know many feminine women who yell.
So What is wrong with a woman wearing shorts, running and yelling?
People I have read say that she may try to seduce the boys, I saw a picture of this woman, and if she were trying to seduce anyone she had better give up. Her hair is short she wears a baggy shirt, and shorts. This is ridiculous.

If you have a problem with baggy shirts on women I say you are silly. Baggy is better when a woman is involved with sports because then it does not become form fitting and neither does it crawl up and show her middle. T-shirts are perfect. Shorts are practical. Short hair, that is no ones business, she can cut her hair any way she likes. So the only thing you can say is that this is a man’s job. Why? If running, yelling and wearing shorts and a baggy shirt is just fine, then why can’t she ref?

Yours Through Our Lady,
Margarite

Agreed.