A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
The Arabs (particularly the Saudis) do largely exclude their women from wider society. Which in practice has only lowered their status.
- Status
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Do you support this position on women or not Portrait:
Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God gives men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men are intended by God to be teachers and leaders in the Church, the family, and society. Women should not have any kind of teaching role over adult men. Women should not have any kind of leadership role over adult men.
Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
This passage is often rejected by Christians, because they are following the ideas of their culture rather than the ideas of Christ. Women sometimes say that marriage is a “50-50 partnership,” but such is not the teaching of Christ. A woman who seeks power over her husband, who fights with him for control of the family, will ruin her marriage and her family. A wife sins against God if she rejects her husband’s authority over her or if she seeks to have authority over him.
Women should not be Lectors at holy Mass. Women should not read the Scriptures aloud to the faithful at Mass. Women should not distribute holy Communion at Mass. Women should not speak at the time of the homily, not even to describe some worthy work of mercy in which they are involved. It is shameful in God’s eyes for a woman to have any such role of leadership or teaching at holy Mass and at any time in the Sanctuary.
Moreover, women should not be in charge of leading or administering a parish, even one which lacks a pastor. Women should not be on the parish council, for this is a leadership role which assists the pastor, much as the Twelve Apostles assisted Christ.
Sacred Scripture clearly teaches that God gives men and women different roles in the Church, the family, and society. Men are intended by God to be teachers and leaders in the Church, the family, and society. Women should not have any kind of teaching role over adult men. Women should not have any kind of leadership role over adult men.
Women should not be political leaders. In politics, a woman should not be President or Vice President or Senator or Representative or Governor or a State legislator. A woman should not have any elected or appointed political position with authority over men, because it is contrary to the teaching of Scripture. A woman should not be Judge in any court of law, because courts have authority over men.
This passage is often rejected by Christians, because they are following the ideas of their culture rather than the ideas of Christ. Women sometimes say that marriage is a “50-50 partnership,” but such is not the teaching of Christ. A woman who seeks power over her husband, who fights with him for control of the family, will ruin her marriage and her family. A wife sins against God if she rejects her husband’s authority over her or if she seeks to have authority over him.
Women should not be Lectors at holy Mass. Women should not read the Scriptures aloud to the faithful at Mass. Women should not distribute holy Communion at Mass. Women should not speak at the time of the homily, not even to describe some worthy work of mercy in which they are involved. It is shameful in God’s eyes for a woman to have any such role of leadership or teaching at holy Mass and at any time in the Sanctuary.
Moreover, women should not be in charge of leading or administering a parish, even one which lacks a pastor. Women should not be on the parish council, for this is a leadership role which assists the pastor, much as the Twelve Apostles assisted Christ.
T
thewanderer
Guest
I’m not really sure why you think that. To be honest Portrait is the only person on this tread who could even be interpreted as holding a position which leads to the oppression of women, but ven he has not outrightly explained himself in such a way as to be clear that that is what he means. Well, maybe the part about expecting all married women to stop working, but even there, maybe if he were pushed we would see that his understanding is more nuanced than that? I admit that it is possible that his view is every bit as oppressive to women as some of you are assuming… But unless i’ve really missed something it isn’t necessarily so.I think this is the most sickening thread I’ve ever seen on a Catholic forum…
I give up!
L
Litcrit
Guest
I am outraged by this - in my husband’s name. He’s the homemaker - a SAHD who does the majority of the household work - and people assume that he is looking for work or that he must be miserable because he’s not contributing enough to the family financially and that I must be on his case constantly because I’m the breadwinner.
Nothing could be further from the truth. We’re very happy as a family and my career (university teacher) enables us to actually spend the majority of time together. I greatly respect what he does and am angry that society at large does not.
However, I believe that it is because this was traditionally the sphere of women that such a bias exists - these activities are inferior because they are “women’s work.” Feminism has tried to rectify that, but the 2nd wave of feminism often made the mistake of proposing that the only way that women can be truly equal was to opt out of the lowly work of childcare and homemaking, whereas I believe more men should “opt in” to greater degrees, as suited to the needs of individual families comprised of different individuals with different penchants, talents, and temperaments.
Men should prove that these tasks - childcare, cleaning, cooking, washing - are not lowly menial tasks unworthy of respect by participating in them more. They can’t breastfeed, but there’s little else they can’t do. And, in many cases, they do many of these tasks quite well. My husband is better than me at most of them.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
That’s a good point.
Most women have always worked.
Its only with the emergence of a large middle class in the 19th century that the ideal of a housewife who stayed home while her husband worked became mainstream.
S
Serap
Guest
good for you and your husband!!!
I was a SAHM for 2 years (one year when dd was born and one year when ds was born). It was WAY harder than going to work AND being a mom. SAHP (parents) have a very difficult job…the hardest job in the world and it’s so undervalued.
The second wave of feminism did quite a bit of damage to women’s credibility when it comes to feminism.
R
ringil
Guest
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear AngryAtheist,
Hello again.
It is certainly true, my dear friend, that Catholics can become so imbued with the spirit of the age that “truth will not feel right” and that because Church teaching and dogma is at variance with the prevailing culture it will be rejected almost uncritically. Thus I would wholeheartedly endorse what Mr. Conte says as regards that, for I myself am continually saying much the same thing on CAF. There is a tendency among modern Catholics to reject anything that preceded the day before yesterday as being of little value and as having nothing to say to the modern age.
The roles of men and women are becoming very blurred these days and our post-modern society, in its fanatical obssession with equality and the elimination of ‘sexism’, is trying to obliterate the God-given distinction between men and women. There surely needs to be a radical rethink on the place of women in society and what sort of occupations can realistically be open to them. Incontrovertibly, women soldiers, for example, fighting on the frontline is a most unacceptable and distasteful instance of fanatical gender blurring to fit in with political correct idelology. As for women leaders of religion, well the Catholic Church forbids women from entering the priesthood, and thus the hierarchy, and that is a source of indignation to some, especially liberal Catholics, who feel it is discriminatory in today’s world where women are entering so many occupations that have previously been the preserve of men.
Mr Conte is correct in stating, dear friend, that God assigns different roles for men and women in Church, family and society. Ideally, women are to enter into holy wedlock and be devoted to their husbands and raising godly offspring for the next generation. God has indeed given women the role of instructing and guiding children, for this is what motherhood entails. It used to be said in bygone days, that children learned first about God and Christ’s religion upon their mother’s knee. How true is that today?
Not permitting women to enter politics or the judiciary is, I agree, rather radical stuff to us living in the 21st century, but I think even here the chap has a point. These high powered jobs carry an overwhelming amount of responsibility and women holding these positions just do not sit comfortably with St. Paul’s teaching. Perhaps we do need to think the unthinkable today and reassess the whole direction in which modern society is presently moving. What will all this end in and will even ordinary ‘moderate’ people like that end when it arrives? Will there be much regret and will men start to see the light when it is too late to reverse things?
The writer is correct in regarding wives being submissive and obedient to their husbands, for that is basic biblical teaching (Eph. 5: 22; Col. 3: 18). If that is erroneous, then St. Paul was in error in stating it and is, indeed, guilty of being ‘mysoginistic’ - something which some people are not ashamed to affirm to support their liberal viewpoint.
As for women being Lectors at Mass, reading Sacred Scripture or being exrtaordinary ministers, these are issues about which pious Catholics entertain differing opinions.
In all fairness to Mr. Conte, he does state on the home page of his site “that most of my theological writings are speculative, rather than dogmatic. Also, many of the ideas expressed on this site are a matter of pious disagreement among faithful Catholics”. That to my mind, dear friend, seems jolly balanced and charitable. Really, my dear friend, do not think that Ron Conte is saying anything dreadful or sinister like that, although I will conceded that some things are a bit radical, at least by today’s standards. In any event, he is at liberty to ventilate his opinions, just as you and I are, dear friend, but we do not have to accept them.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
L
Litcrit
Guest
Inadequate… not enough! You should be eschewed and denounced!As a SAHD I feel so. . . inadequate now. . .
(sarcasm)
Off with your head!
B
Baelor
Guest
All should be open – I fail to see any Church teaching that would require women to eschew particular occupations, save religious orders.
If it is so incontrovertible, why have you not provided the damning evidence?
No, the Church does not teach that. The Church explicitly rejects the notion that all women must be married.
Really? Does the Church teach that this is impermissible? Does the Church teach that the husband’s “duty is to earn the money to support his family?”
R
ryecroft
Guest
I applaud you and your husband! I must say not many men seem capable of dealing with1 kid let alone 2 or 3 or more! I don’t mean to get off on another subject but let me relay this story:
My good friend had her 3rd child and had literally not had a break - away from the kids for nearly 8 years -(not at all - not even a trip to the store on her own - she always had at least one oeshe stopped teaching and became a SAHM- I went to visit and before going up my friend spoke to her husband and explained I wanted her and I to go and have a little fun on our own like we used to do before we both had our own families. He agreed that we could have a week - but then my friend said ‘I don’t really want to be away from the kids that long…’ - I told her I completely understood as she hadn’t been apart from her kids since they were born - well o.k. she did have one day in hospital for surgery but I don’t think that was considered a holiday…) and she said she would like to go for at least 3-4 days (already had the awesome hotel room with the spa down stairs, etc - ) Our 1st day we leave the house with our bags packed for a jaunt and drive to the city we were going to stay in - we got to the hotel and took a quick nap and headed for the spa for massages -we had left the number for an EMERGENCY only- when we got out of our massages we had a message to call home - thinking it was an emergency we called from right there - her husband wanted to know how to change the diaper pail thing…45 minutes or so later at the pool we had another call -to shorten the rest of the story, we had about 5 more calls within the next few hours and an angry husband father letting us know miserable he was stuck at home with the kids. Unfortunately, we gave in and didn’t even make it for a full night - including the driving time we got somewhere between 7-8 or 9 hours.
More men need to stay at home taking care of the kids - no one can replace your mom ever but dads need to be required to take care of all the kids at once - just like mom does - even if it’s just for a wife’s holiday for a few days every year or so.
God Bless
Rye
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
So you *do *support reducing women to the status of chattel (something that even Pope John Paul II rejected).
Well, at least you’re honest:shrug:
2
28562
Guest
Amen.
A
AngryAtheist8
Guest
Would women even be educated in this ideal world that you imagine?
What would be the point in a society where they could never use such knewledge?
After all, illiterate women are even easier to relegate to the domestic sphere (and that is part of your ideal).
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well.
Some positions, dear friend, are highly unsuitable for a women and Church teaching is not required to tell us that sort of thing.
It surprises me, and possibly others also, that you ask for irrefutable evidence to show that women fighting in combat zones is both unacceptable and distasteful. Surely that, dear friend, is more than apparent to those who profess religion.
Again, that marriage is normative for men and women needs no official verification from the Church. We learn from Sacred Scripture that it was not good for man to be alone, which is why Eve was created to be a ‘helpmate’ for him. Indeed, this was the whole basis for the institution of marriage, as well as the procreation and education of children and the mutual fulfilment of husband and wife. However, I have already stated in previous post that I accept that not all women will marry, for one reason or another. Nevertheless, it is wrong for a women to reject entering into wedlock, simply so she can selfishly pursue a career without having to get ‘tied down to family life’. The Church has never endorsed such a position and does not do so now.
It is the women, according to St. Paul, who is to be the “worker at home” (Titus 2: 5), not the man. Thus it is a resonable deduction that it is the duty of the man to be the sole breadwinner in the family. Surely the Church, dear friend, does not need to teach such a basic truth as the husband’s duty to support his family. Moreover, any devout Catholic man will wish to do that anyway, unless he is prevented from doing so by some chronic illness. Most decent Catholic men take a delight in providing for their wife and children.
God bless and goodbye for now. This will be my final post today, but I hope you and all other contributors to the current thread will enjoy the rest of their day.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
C
Ceil-1
Guest
My experience with people with this ultra-conservative view is that it is a bit emotionally unbalanced.
It is my opinion that, so long as God and husband (or wife) and family are priorities in one’s life, then there is liberty to handle it all in any way the couple sees fit. Requiring everyone to fit in the same mold is narrow-minded and smacks of a psycholocigal imbalance. If we could have equality with women without the anti-child/anti-marriage propaganda in the culture, it would be perfect.
A single woman can and should do as she darn well pleases, so long as it is not sinful.
I have had to struggle with this very issue from the side of wanting to be just a wife and mother, but, my husband requiring me to work outside the home. I know a couple who lives an authentic Catholic lifestyle with him at home, and her with the high-profile job. They are pillars of the community.
It is my opinion that, so long as God and husband (or wife) and family are priorities in one’s life, then there is liberty to handle it all in any way the couple sees fit. Requiring everyone to fit in the same mold is narrow-minded and smacks of a psycholocigal imbalance. If we could have equality with women without the anti-child/anti-marriage propaganda in the culture, it would be perfect.
A single woman can and should do as she darn well pleases, so long as it is not sinful.
I have had to struggle with this very issue from the side of wanting to be just a wife and mother, but, my husband requiring me to work outside the home. I know a couple who lives an authentic Catholic lifestyle with him at home, and her with the high-profile job. They are pillars of the community.
B
Baelor
Guest
Sorry, I forgot that some things are just self-evident and that anyone who disagrees with you is a victim of the modernist fallacy and feminist insidiousness and the culture of death and etc.
What is obvious to me as a professor of religion is that anyone fighting in combat zones is distasteful because wars are the one of the most tragic reflections of humanity’s fall.
I do not think it surprising at all, however, that one should ask why women should not be allowed to fight in wars for their country or values.
If it is so incontrovertible, demonstrate that to us. You established how obvious the fact is, so providing the “irrefutable evidence” should be child’s play.
But the priesthood and religious life and the single state are all acceptable vocations/callings, so clearly not every individual is subject to that teaching.
What would acceptable reasons for a woman remaining single be? What would acceptable reasons for a man remaining single be?
Please quote these questions in your next response and provide a list without commentary, so that I may actually understand whence you are coming.
I am not obligated as a Catholic to take everything St. Paul says at a literal level when it comes to the institution of marriage, or anything, for that matter. The Church has not taught that nor does it teach that now.
Simply stating something to be the case does not make it so.
T
thewanderer
Guest
Baelor, I think your argument against the obviousness of women not being allowed to fight should be St. Joan of Arc. Sure, I am all for not demanding that women fight, but it would be wrong to prevent them as it is clear that they are at times called to make such a sacrifice. If the lord calls we must answer, and, as evidenced by St. Joan of Arc, the Lord has seen fit to call women to battle and so will likely do so again. 
L
Litcrit
Guest
The actual Greek can be interpreted and translated in many ways, and the general idea (to keep at home, to be concerned with domestic affairs) appears in other writings of the period and is quite frequently taken to mean “don’t be a gossiping busybody, mind your own business.”
There are Protestants that interpret this verse to mean that women are not to leave the house. Thankfully, we have the Tradition to help us interpret the Scriptures. So we don’t handle snakes to prove our faith, for instance.
B
Baelor
Guest
"thewanderer:
Great examples, thanks.
Thank you for letting me know! If you have any specific sources, let me know – I can read Ancient Greek (although I was trained in older dialects than Koine) and maybe post some translations here.
Or pluck our eyes out whenever they cause us to sin.
- Status