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.
Dear Baelor,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above.
Indeed, dear bother, there are some things that are self-evident and one such thing is that women are simply not adapted to undertake certain tasks owing to their physical frame. Even St. Peter refers to women as the “weaker sex” (I Pet. 3: 7). Their natural physical weakness is undeniable and requires no verification.
As regards women fighting on the front line in war zones, apart from any moral considerations, that fact that they are the “weaker sex” does not not make them very suited to such an enviroment and all the rigours that accompany it. Moreover, the woman’s male collegues would be continually feeling protective of her, male chivalry has not cmpletely died out, dear friend. Clearly, this would be problematic in a war zone and could endanger the lives of others. Many, my dear friend, would deem this to be evidence enough, asside from the fact that it is utterly unethical to put the fairer sex in such situations. The godless clamour by some today to allow women to fight in zones close the enemy, is acutated politcally correct idealogy and fanatical views of equality. Catholics should give such ungodly thinking a jolly wide-berth.
The priesthood and religious are indeed exceptions, as is the case of those who will never marry for one reason or another, and this I have not denied. However, dear friend, this in no way undercuts the truth that it was God’s intention for men and women to enter into holy wedlock for mutual companionship and for procreation. The text in Genesis which states that it is not good for man to be alone underscores this truth and was, in fact, the basis for the institution of marriage in the frist place.
The acceptable reasons for a women remaining single would be that she simply does not meet some chap with whom she ever becomes romantically involved, or she is called to the religious life. The same reasons would apply to a man, with the addition that he might be called to the priesthood. At any rate, Catholics have never defended the modern notion of women defering marriage and starting a family just so they can selfishly pursue a career, that, my dear borther, is both un-Catholic and unbiblical and is by product of radical femenism.
An obligation is laid upon you to recieve biblical teaching that has perpetual validity, for even the Holy Mother Church cannot trump the timesless teaching of Sacred Scripture, nor would they ever dream of doing so. Moreover, St. Paul’s words in Titus 2: 5 do not occur in some metaphorical context, thus they ought to be taken literally, unless there is good reason to do otherwise. As someone has said, “when the literal sense makes good sense be careful not to make it nonesense” - wise counsel indeed. St. Paul is giving very practical instructions to the womenfolk and his words about them being “workers at home” occur amidst other requirements such as loving husbands and children, being sensible, chaste, kind and submissive to husbands. None of this has been abrogated and remains binding upon those who profess godliness, including the requirement to be “workers at home”.
An obligation is laid upon a man to provide for and support his family, my dear friend. This is a truth and so one can never state it to often - “If anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially his own family, he has disowned the faith and is worse than an unbeliever” (I Tim. 5: 8). Of course there may be cases where, owing to severe health problems, a man cannot be the breadwinner and in that case the woman will have to work, but this is not normative.
God bless.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait
Pax
This would imply that it is always wrong for a man to do anything which Portrait sees as a woman’s role, perhaps unless necessity for survival or some such thing comes into play. However, he is basing his understanding of what is a womans role off of the interpretation of some people within the church on a particular scripture. In other words, his reason is because some people said so. Yes, they were people within the church, but just because you are a member of the church or even a clergy does not imbue you with infallibility. I would have much less of a problem with what he is saying if he would admit that differences in gender roles are based upon real differences in those of each gender. Because then it is simply a matter of determining what is actually a difference between men and women a) always and b) generally and then developing rules corresponding to a) and b) such that those based on differences always existing should always be followed, but those based on general differences need only be followed if those same differences are carried over into the particular man and woman in a particular marriage. In other words, these type b) rules can never be given as absolute, but only as a general rule, and they should not be held as a society as an absolute for the same reason. If you agree with this basic principle, then all that remains is determining what the differences actually are. 