Three Principals For Honoring Your Husband

  • Thread starter Thread starter judcargile
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Mickey said:
I think you would be better served following the advice of an apostle from Sacred Scripture rather than an opinion from a pope.
Are you sure about that?
Do you know what St Paul means by this?
Actually, he sounds like a solid traditional Catholic.

He does not mock you…why must you mock him?
Click to expand...
You and Portrait are traditional Catholics (i.e., pre-Vatican 2), no?
 
Mickey said:
I think you would be better served following the advice of an apostle from Sacred Scripture rather than an opinion from a pope.
Are you sure about that?
Do you know what St Paul means by this?
Actually, he sounds like a solid traditional Catholic.

**He does not mock you…why must you mock him?/**QUOTE]

I was making light of Portrait’s incredibly rude and offensive posts. Just because he adds jolly good day or whatever doesn’t change anything. Hey you could join his church!
Click to expand...
 
Mickey, just so you know, many on this thread are disagreeing with Portrait not because they don’t believe there is a difference between men and women, but because we believe Portrait is taking generalities and turning them into absolutes. I have asked him about this, explaining what the two options are, (ie the rules are general because there are exceptions or the rules are absolute, no exceptions allowed) and he did not give a direct response, so I have asked him again. Hopefully he will have the intellectual integrity to explain to us exactly what his position actually is. I am very confident that if he is willing to admit that the rules cannot be applied as *absolute *rules, but instead must be understood as general rules he will find much less oposition on this thread. The problem is that he has come across as though he wishes to apply these rules as absolutes. The fact that he has not been willing to say that this is not what he means makes it appear even more as though it actually is what he means. I hope this helps to explain the reaction against Portrait in this thread.
 
Portrait, I am going to repost my question clearly, to make sure it doesn’t get lost in all the posts as it is very important in any discussion to actually understand what the other person is saying.

Which of the following two statements is correct about your opinion that women should not a) work in the military, b) work in politics, c) hold a paid position of any sort if married.
  1. It holds always and everwhere no matter what, no exceptions allowed and so is an absolute rule and the Church wrongfully set up St. Joan of Arc and St. Gianna as examples for the faithful
or
  1. There are legitimate exceptions and so the rule is not absolute, but rather is a general rule.
 
Portrait said:
Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

That is not correct, dear friend. The saints are worthy of emulation indeed, but they must not be used for polemical purposes to support opinions that are at variance with Sacred Scripture.

St. Gianni was a pious and heroic woman and her life has much to teach us, but her decision to be a mother and to work in the field of medicine was unique. She regarded her calling to medicine as a ‘mission’, which was clearly out of the ordinary, but her example does not warrant discarding biblical teaching on the usual role of married women being “workers at home” (Titus 2: 5).

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
Other women may similarly find their calling to be doctors, lawyers, engineers and soldiers. It is not for you to decide who has a calling to work in any capacity, whether in or outside the house, whether a man or a woman.
 
thewanderer said:
The problem is that he has come across as though he wishes to apply these rules as absolutes.
Click to expand...
I don’t think that’s it at all. I think he has already answered you aptly and respectfully. He has explained that we respond to these issues with a properly formed conscience…and the exceptions are not the norm.

It saddens me to see so much opposition to his edifying posts.
 
Mickey said:
I don’t think that’s it at all. I think he has already answered you aptly and respectfully. He has explained that we respond to these issues with a properly formed conscience…and the exceptions are not the norm.

It saddens me to see so much opposition to his edifying posts.
Click to expand...
If he does actually think that the rules are only general rules, not absolute ones, why has he not yet been willing to state so clearly even though there has been a dispute about what he means by it? That is why I am trying to get a direct response from him. If he does actually think what you believe he does, then he will be vindicated, if not, then everyone else is justified in the suspicions they have. I certainly hope he is willing to say that the rules cannot be applied absolutely, and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, but for the sake of clarity, especially because of the way this conversation has gone I believe it is important to actually get a direct response from Portrait himself.

[Edit: Just for clarity’s sake, I unfortunately believe there is a possibility that by stressing that St. Joan and St. Gianna are *exceptions and not the norm he means to imply that women nowadays should never aspire to such things, which amounts to an attempt to apply the rule as an absolute even while admitting of exceptions. The possibility of this point of view is why I am asking for clarification]
 
Portrait said:
Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

The passage from Titus 2: 5, dear friend, is not culturally bound because it is a text that deals with timesless truths and requirements for Catholic women who profess religion. St. Paul’s postion on slavery was necessarily conditioned by the prevailing situation in the Roman Empire, which obviously would not endure indefinetly.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
As people have pointed out before, women had no choice but to obey their husbands in that society (the law and culture demanded obedience from women). Just as slaves had no choice but to obey their masters in that society (the law and culture demanded it).

You have shown no reason why the teaching on slavery is conditional and the one of female submission is not. Your reasoning appears inconsistent at best.
 
Mickey said:
He is charitable and respectful in every one of his posts.
You could learn much from him.
Click to expand...
In all sincerity Mickey, Portraits views are hurtful to several different groups of people(working moms, stay at home dads etc.). Telling working mothers to examine their motives for working outside of the home is beyond rude. There are real people in these forums who are affected by what is said.

btw, I would like to see Portrait answer thewanderers question.
 
Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
Originally Posted by irishpatrick
You made the offensive comment stand by itself. “The Virgin Mary is of limited…”

That is complete nonsense, and absolutely offensive to any person who loves Our Lady. It makes no difference if you believe any of this, it was and is offensive to minimize Mary’s role in the lives of women today. Further, you completely distort the reason the Church views Mary’s contribution as being unique–it has nothing to do with modern science, it has to do with the fact that Mary did say yes to God, and she did conceived Jesus by the Holy Spirit, as a virgin!

Your remark was/is highly offensive, and you should take it back or at least apologize because you are simply mistaken. Mary’s humble acceptance of her call by God remains critical for all people, and certainly for women (or would you say someone like Mother Teressa also was meaingless).

I thought you were supposed to be ignoring me.
That didn’t last long
The_Patriarch said:
Do you have a job:confused: You sure are on here a lot. Maybe a stay at home mom:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that was not an insult.
I actually work in catering and keep odd hours.
Moreover, sometimes when I am working on the computer I will take a break for a few minutes to check on Catholic Answers on other sites that interest me:shrug:
 
Portrait said:
Dear AngryAthesist,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

Women who are single, dear friend, can pursue a career as a doctor until and if they enter into wedlock, after which they should relinquish their jobs and devote their energies to being full-time housewives and mothers (Titus 2: 5).

The ultimate rule for life pleasing to God is: ‘Not my will, but Thine’. Self-pleasing, one of the supreme motivations of disordered humanity, is fatal in the long run for lasting happiness. In their desire to be ‘career women’, women must ask themselves what are their real motives for wanting to work and be a mother. Is it because they and their husbands are greedy of gain, rather than having insufficient funds to pay the power bill? Is it because they do not want to let go of their independence and their own income? Is it because they have embraced the godless and warped thinking of secular radical femensim and want to merge this with their Catholicism? Women need to do some serious self-examination and find out what it is that is driving them and why they cannot devote themselves exclusively to being homemakers.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
What if anything are you basing this on?
The Catholic Church certainly doesn’t teach what you advocate (as I have pointed out before by referencing documents such as Pope John Paul II’s Letter to Women).

Moreover, as I have also pointed out, plenty of women have had to work to support their family (its actually the historical norm). So expecting most women to be happy homemakers who don’t do paid work is unreasonable at best.
 
Portrait said:
Dear the wanderer,

(Snip)

Legitimate exceptions, dear sister, are not normative, otherwise they would not be exceptions, and so should not be used for polemical purposes to undercut the clear and unambiguous biblical teaching on the role of women, which is ordered by the the divine providence.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax
Click to expand...
The probem Mickey is that what Portrait means by saying that legitimate exceptions are not normative. This could be interpreted in several different ways. It could mean that they should not effect an actual rule to be put in place as an absolute rule, or it could mean that the rule is actually only a general rule to be followed, not something that can be applied to everyone. Which is why I am asking Portrait to give a clear responce to my question. It really shouldn’t be that difficult, if this is all a mistake and the people on this thread are misunderstanding him, then he can easily clear that up by answering my question.
 
Portrait said:
Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

Catholicism, dear friend, teaches that we should listen to the moral sense of the faithful throughout the ages and use our sanctified common sense, guided by a well-formed conscience, in our decision making.

That women are not equipped for close-combat on the battlefield is something that we gather from a woman’s physical and psychological make-up. The refusal to acknowledge this, dear friend, owes more to the radical femenist lobby than to the Catholic Faith. Its sentiments are “Be agressive, be assertive, be a contender with men, not fearing to take them on. Dont’s focus on the family and marriage”. That is its deplorable and shameful vision, my dear brother. It is labouring to eliminate all the differences between men and women and that is impious ideology that should be given a wide-berth by all those who profess religion.

For Joan of Arch to have achieved what she did, strongly suggests that she was uniquely raised up by God, like Deborah in the O.T., for a specific purpose (see my post to ‘thewanderer’ above). Evdidently, she was elevated by God “above the normal activity of women”.

The Church, dear brother, is silent respecting the immorality of women serving in war zones because the very notion is so obviously repugnant to those who have not lost their moral sense. If and until the magisterium issues some official declaration upon the matter, which it does need to do about something so self-evident, I and many other Catholics will continue to to oppose efforts to repeal the rules forbidding women to serve on the front-line. There is everything repugnant and distasteful about the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7) fighting, which includes bayonetting troops, in close-combat and I am sorry, my dear brother, that you are unable to see this. Men have always been involved in battles and are physically equipped to function in such a harsh environment, that I would have thought needs no proof.

We can, dear friend, make a blanket statement about women, in the same way as St. Peter makes a blanket statement respecting women, calling them the ‘weaker sex’. Men must be assessed for active service to discover whether they are able and capable, but they are not being assessed on the basis of their gender. Women are rightly debarred form engaging in combat because they are not suited to this sort of activity on account of their physical and emotional make-up. Even the military top brass here in the UK recognise this, plus the fact that their male comrades would be wont to protect them and save them, thus putting lives at risk.

Sorry, dear chap, but this is not a matter of personal belief, but something that is apparent even to military personnel, who are surely best placed to judge such issues.

God bless and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait:tiphat:

Pax
Click to expand...
Since when has the Catholic Church ever refused to condemn a practice it regarded as evil because it saw the evil as so obvious?
That doesn’t make sense or match the actual practices of the Catholic Church.
 
Mickey said:
A bit? Please forgive my zeal…but it was an outright insult to Our Lady.
Why would you think this? ** It was written literally.**

I know you are attempting to be gentle here…but I for one see it as an offensive attack on the most holy Mother of God.
Click to expand...
No it wasn’t.
I suggest you start actually reading the things you are commenting on (such as this thread).

I was saying that it is unreasonable (so unreasonable that even the Church has never expected it) to have the expectation that women will live like the Virgin Mary because there is no way that people could imitate things such as the Immaculate Conception.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top