The Church and Women

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flame4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Flame4

Guest
Every time I look at cultural references of women and the Church (books/movie,etc), in the past, it has always been negative. This has me wondering how much of it is true? Now I am in no way interested in supporting female priests, abortion or the like and I’m not looking for a debate on that. But I’m worried about how the Church did treat women in terms of what they *do *have a right to and their dignity as a person.

I keep in mind that The Virgin Mary is an important figure to the Church then and now, and that St. Paul very much introduced the idea of having to loving your wife.

My question is, has our culture and how the Church treats women in the Church been overblown/false/out of context? As well could you provide me with any sources for furthur reading on the topic (online or books)?

Thank you very much and God Bless:)
 
Flame4 said:
My question is, has our culture and how the Church treats women in the Church been overblown/false/out of context? As well could you provide me with any sources for furthur reading on the topic (online or books)?
Click to expand...
Yes. Feminism, to a large extent, is a variation of Marxism that replaces class warfare with sex warfare. It puts everything into a paradigm of men as oppressor and women as oppressed. This is a distorted view of both the present and the past.

Some good books on this are: Warren Farrell, Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?:A Debate
Christine Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?: How Women Have Betrayed Women
ibid., The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men.

A website that deals with these issues in current events is: glennsacks.com/blog/

I can’t think of anything at the moment specifically about portraying the Church as patriarchal oppressor, but the same principles apply.
 
Flame4 said:
Every time I look at cultural references of women and the Church (books/movie,etc), in the past, it has always been negative. This has me wondering how much of it is true? Now I am in no way interested in supporting female priests, abortion or the like and I’m not looking for a debate on that. But I’m worried about how the Church did treat women in terms of what they *do *have a right to and their dignity as a person.

I keep in mind that The Virgin Mary is an important figure to the Church then and now, and that St. Paul very much introduced the idea of having to loving your wife.

My question is, has our culture and how the Church treats women in the Church been overblown/false/out of context? As well could you provide me with any sources for further reading on the topic (online or books)?

Thank you very much and God Bless:)
Click to expand...
i think the problem is that modern thinking sees traditional roles of women are weak and oppressive. while its true that some treatment of women in the past were indeed oppressive, like less rights, no education, not everything associated with women in the past is bad. but they get lumped into one big package anyway. like today, some would see it degrading for a woman to stay at home and raise the kids. i think thats crazy. they’d rather have other people raise their kids? and this undermines the importance of a mother in the upbringing of children
 
George Tavard’s Woman in Christian Tradition contains a nice survey of Catholic thought on women throughout the ages.

See here for a link to the relevant section.
 
The Church (and all society) “mistreated” women in the past according to modern man because modern man thinks that women should be the same as men and men the same as women. On the contrary, to respect the dignity of either, one ought to emphasize their proper roles in society and the Church rather than trying to make them an homogeneous unit, which they are not. Each is created with a different purpose. Each should fulfill his natural and supernatural purpose in life in a different way, as ordered by God in the creation of Adam and Eve and explained by St. Paul in I. Cor. xi.
 
Why not look at the women of the Church? From the Old Testament and the likes of Ruth, Judith, etc. to the Blessed Mother (the primary example of womanhood for all time and places), to Saint Mary Magdelene to the holy virgins martyred by the Romans such as Saints Lucy and Agatha to the Desert Mothers such as Saints Mary of Egypt and Theodora. We can look to Saint Scholastica the sister of Saint Benedict who brought her brothers monastic tradition to women, to the great women of the Middle Ages such as the martyrs Saints Flora and Maria, to the great women of the Late Middle Ages and Renaissance such as Saint Elizabeth of Hungary, Saint Catherine of Siena, Saint Catherine of Genoa, Saint Teresa of Jesus, to the saintly women of modern times (the last 200 years) such as Saint Bernadette, Saint Therese of the Child Jesus, Saint Edith Stein. And there are thousands of more examples.

A Doctor of the Church is one whose personal teaching is of the highest value and authority in the Church. In the 2000 year history of the Church there are only 33 Doctors and of those 33, three are women.

Do the math, the Church has from day one had the highest esteem for women.
 
Give feminism its due. Like MANY left wing groups, they actually do a pretty good job of identifying genuine injustice and raising people’s awareness of it. Throughout most of human history women were taken advantage of by men because men COULD. All humans being fallen, it just isn’t surprising. Until VERY recently might made right more often than principle did. For crying out loud, women weren’t even allowed to VOTE until a hundred years ago! It’s idiotic to say there has not been a cultural poor treatment of women and that that culture did not manifest itself in the behavior of priests and bishops from time to time too.

Having identified the cruelty of women’s contributions being undervalued by men, feminists proceed to their fatal mistake. They AGREED with the mysoginists that caring for children, keeping an organized home and volunteering in the community are inferior and less valuable roles than being a salaryman or entrepenuer. So instead of working to alleviate the problem, they made it worse. What this culture needs to recognize is that the REAL work of civilization and culture happens in the family home. The rest just puts food on the table and a roof over our heads. We will reap the consequences of neglecting our family and community life very soon.

As far as the church goes, the same reasoning needs to apply. Instead of agitating to make women into men, how about we actually examine and appreciate the contributions women have been making (and trying to make) all along? While Christ clearly established a male priesthood, this doesn’t mean women can’t have leadership roles. Why shouldn’t women like Mother Theresa or Angelica have (name removed by moderator)ut in the College of Cardinals? (It has not always been necessary to be a priest to be a cardinal) Why with so many dying women’s orders is it such a struggle for the new and thriving small ones to acquire properties for novitiates and mother houses? Why did(do?) the US bishops see Mother Angelica’s EWTN as a threat instead of a boon? These are legitimate questions to ask as we examine ourselves to see if we a truly appreciating the contributions of women.
 
choy said:
i think the problem is that modern thinking sees traditional roles of women are weak and oppressive. while its true that some treatment of women in the past were indeed oppressive, like less rights, no education, not everything associated with women in the past is bad. but they get lumped into one big package anyway. like today, some would see it degrading for a woman to stay at home and raise the kids. i think thats crazy. they’d rather have other people raise their kids? and this undermines the importance of a mother in the upbringing of children
Click to expand...
The media filters reality and is generally pro-class warfare. The desire was to create a permanent victim status for women, with the eternal enemy being men.

The goal was to destroy the family. Part of the way they made women feel like victims was to tell them they needed to be empowered. During World War II, just prior to the Baby Boom Generation, women were working in factories, welding, assembling and riveting. They flew factory finished aircraft to dispersal airfields. But, such a positive history would dull the sharp knife of oppression that was being marketed.

I knew women who arrived in this country after World War II as refugees. They learned to speak English and got jobs. Then, when it was time to have kids and be a homemaker, they decided to stay home.

“modern thinking” is simply another word for advertising. Betty Friedan, author of The Feminine Mystique, and co-founder of the National Organization for Women, called the family, “a comfortable concentration camp.” This gross and disgusting comparison represented the distorted thinking being marketed. Feminist Icon, Gloria Steinem, said, “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Clearly, the desire was to destroy the normal relationship structure between men and women and turn it into a power/class struggle.

God bless,
Ed
 
manualman said:
Give feminism its due. Like MANY left wing groups, they actually do a pretty good job of identifying genuine injustice and raising people’s awareness of it. Throughout most of human history women were taken advantage of by men because men COULD. All humans being fallen, it just isn’t surprising. Until VERY recently might made right more often than principle did. For crying out loud, women weren’t even allowed to VOTE until a hundred years ago! It’s idiotic to say there has not been a cultural poor treatment of women and that that culture did not manifest itself in the behavior of priests and bishops from time to time too.

Having identified the cruelty of women’s contributions being undervalued by men, feminists proceed to their fatal mistake. They AGREED with the mysoginists that caring for children, keeping an organized home and volunteering in the community are inferior and less valuable roles than being a salaryman or entrepenuer. So instead of working to alleviate the problem, they made it worse. What this culture needs to recognize is that the REAL work of civilization and culture happens in the family home. The rest just puts food on the table and a roof over our heads. We will reap the consequences of neglecting our family and community life very soon.

As far as the church goes, the same reasoning needs to apply. Instead of agitating to make women into men, how about we actually examine and appreciate the contributions women have been making (and trying to make) all along? While Christ clearly established a male priesthood, this doesn’t mean women can’t have leadership roles. Why shouldn’t women like Mother Theresa or Angelica have (name removed by moderator)ut in the College of Cardinals? (It has not always been necessary to be a priest to be a cardinal) Why with so many dying women’s orders is it such a struggle for the new and thriving small ones to acquire properties for novitiates and mother houses? Why did(do?) the US bishops see Mother Angelica’s EWTN as a threat instead of a boon? These are legitimate questions to ask as we examine ourselves to see if we a truly appreciating the contributions of women.
Click to expand...
The Feminist Movement and the National Organization for Women were not solution oriented. When NOW first began, I agreed with one thing - equal pay for equal work. That has not yet happened. In the meantime, NOW appears to have abandoned its role to stop the objectification of women through pornography and strip clubs.

The desire for anyone, including women, to have ‘leadership’ roles is usually presented from a worldly and distorted perspective. All Bishops, Cardinals and Priests are servants. The Church is not a multinational corporation and should not be viewed as one. Being a servant of God is not a social position like being the CEO of a corporation.

God bless,
Ed
 
manualman said:
Give feminism its due. Like MANY left wing groups, they actually do a pretty good job of identifying genuine injustice and raising people’s awareness of it. Throughout most of human history women were taken advantage of by men because men COULD. All humans being fallen, it just isn’t surprising. Until VERY recently might made right more often than principle did. For crying out loud, women weren’t even allowed to VOTE until a hundred years ago! It’s idiotic to say there has not been a cultural poor treatment of women and that that culture did not manifest itself in the behavior of priests and bishops from time to time too.
Click to expand...
Men took advantage of women. Women took advantage of men. Men took advantage of men. Women took advantage of women. People are fallen so all these things happened. When one only considers the first one of these it gives a distorted view. Voting was not something anybody did until relatively recently. Women may have been one of the last groups to receive the right to vote, but it wasn’t something most women were interested in.

I know a feminist who lives on a farm. When she sees the farm animals mating in the barnyard she makes comments about how terrible it is that the male animals are raping the female ones. It just doesn’t make sense to apply the concept of rape in this situation, but she is so stuck in seeing males as oppressors that she does. That is how feminism works. Everything is twisted to be seen as male oppression. Many of the things we think we know about history have been through this filter and, upon examination, make no more sense than saying that roosters rape chickens.
 
floresco said:
Men took advantage of women. Women took advantage of men. Men took advantage of men. Women took advantage of women. People are fallen so all these things happened. When one only considers the first one of these it gives a distorted view. Voting was not something anybody did until relatively recently. Women may have been one of the last groups to receive the right to vote, but it wasn’t something most women were interested in.

I know a feminist who lives on a farm. When she sees the farm animals mating in the barnyard she makes comments about how terrible it is that the male animals are raping the female ones. It just doesn’t make sense to apply the concept of rape in this situation, but she is so stuck in seeing males as oppressors that she does. That is how feminism works. Everything is twisted to be seen as male oppression. Many of the things we think we know about history have been through this filter and, upon examination, make no more sense than saying that roosters rape chickens.
Click to expand...
As a farmer I can tell her that a female cow, unless she is in heat will not stand still for that terrible bull. When female animals are in heat they go looking for a male animal of their species and the poor guy is so driven by her wiles that he cannot refuse her. Male animals have little sexual interest in females who are not in heat. The exception is members of the primates.
 
floresco said:
Men took advantage of women. Women took advantage of men. Men took advantage of men. Women took advantage of women. People are fallen so all these things happened. When one only considers the first one of these it gives a distorted view. Voting was not something anybody did until relatively recently.** Women may have been one of the last groups to receive the right to vote, but it wasn’t something most women were interested in. **
I know a feminist who lives on a farm. When she sees the farm animals mating in the barnyard she makes comments about how terrible it is that the male animals are raping the female ones. It just doesn’t make sense to apply the concept of rape in this situation, but she is so stuck in seeing males as oppressors that she does. That is how feminism works. Everything is twisted to be seen as male oppression. Many of the things we think we know about history have been through this filter and, upon examination, make no more sense than saying that roosters rape chickens.
Click to expand...
Really? How do you know this? Did you ask them? Women were “jailed” if there was even a whiff they were meeting to push the idea that women should vote. Are you ok with that? Women aren’t interested in politics…so therefore they wouldn’t be interested in voting? 🤷 I guess while the men smoke their cigars in the den and talk about world affairs, the women should head to the kitchen and wash the dishes and talk about laundry, teething , potty training, cloth vs. disposable and the latest pot roast recipe. You’ve got to be kidding me? I bet you gave your wife and iron for her birthday. :rolleyes:
 
Julianna said:
Really? How do you know this? Did you ask them? Women were “jailed” if there was even a whiff they were meeting to push the idea that women should vote. Are you ok with that? Women aren’t interested in politics…so therefore they wouldn’t be interested in voting? 🤷 I guess while the men smoke their cigars in the den and talk about world affairs, the women should head to the kitchen and wash the dishes and talk about laundry, teething , potty training, cloth vs. disposable and the latest pot roast recipe. You’ve got to be kidding me? I bet you gave your wife and iron for her birthday. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I’ve read books and essays written by women before they could vote. One of the biggest tasks of those who believed in votes for women was to convince women that it was a good idea. I’ve heard of suffragettes being jailed for disruptive demonstrations, not for holding peaceful meetings. When/where did this happen?

In my experience, women tend to be far less interested in politics than men tend to. And women tend to be more interested in laundry, teething, etc. than men tend to. I do not find it difficult to believe older writings that indicate that most women in the past did not care about getting to vote.

I find it interesting that you assume that I am a married man. I wrote nothing to indicate that I was either.
 
rwoehmke said:
As a farmer I can tell her that a female cow, unless she is in heat will not stand still for that terrible bull. When female animals are in heat they go looking for a male animal of their species and the poor guy is so driven by her wiles that he cannot refuse her. Male animals have little sexual interest in females who are not in heat. The exception is members of the primates.
Click to expand...
This woman was raised on a farm and must, at some level, know better. Her feminist indoctrination overrides things that she knows to be true.
 
I would suggest that it is our modern society that truly mistreats women as is born out by the women themselves, according to a recent study today’s women are more depressed and miserable than their parents ever where.

This is due to modern society removing the supports previous women enjoyed which had been put in place to assist them fulfil their unique feminine vocation.

As to the Chruch’s treatment of women you just need to look at the situation between Catherine of Aragorn and Henry VIII of England, the Church defended the honour and rights of Catherine of Aragorn against the king of England despite the heavy price it cost.

And this was not a one off the Chuch had done the same against Henry IV when he wanted to divorce his wife Queen Margot.

The Chruch at that time was the principal defender of the rights of women and as far as I am concerned is still today, the only difference is in what the Chruch considers a woman’s right as opposed to what the modern world does.
 
Julianna said:
Really? How do you know this? Did you ask them? Women were “jailed” if there was even a whiff they were meeting to push the idea that women should vote. Are you ok with that? Women aren’t interested in politics…so therefore they wouldn’t be interested in voting? 🤷 I guess while the men smoke their cigars in the den and talk about world affairs, the women should head to the kitchen and wash the dishes and talk about laundry, teething , potty training, cloth vs. disposable and the latest pot roast recipe. You’ve got to be kidding me? I bet you gave your wife and iron for her birthday. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
That might be taking the original statement a BIT out of context and seems to be mostly an emotional reaction. In fact, the suggestion that the majority of women were not interested in voting was a proposition put forth in some of the original arguments against women’s suffrage.

A related argument was that women would become corrupted by politics and the direct competition in voting between men and women would result in a loss of chivalry.

The problem is that today when people are presented with these arguments they immediately dismiss them as prejudicial, misogynistic or react emotionally. Personally, I think some of the objections to suffrage were valid and at least arguably, have resulted today. Whether that is enough to outweigh the benefit of the right to vote is another issue entirely.
 
Advocatus_Fidei said:
Women actually actively campaigned AGAINST them getting the right to vote. Don’t judge the past by today.
Click to expand...
Even today, voter turnout statistics indicate that a significant proportion of people of both sexes do not think voting is very important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top