Three Principals For Honoring Your Husband

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear ryecroft,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response above and please forgive the delay in replying, but yesterday in the UK was a public holiday so I was otherwise engaged.

Traditionally, dear friend, when a Catholic women entered into wedlock it was usual for her to relinquish her occupation and become a full-time housewife and mother. This in itself is a full-time job, hence the old adage ‘a woman’s work is never done’, thus the strain and stress of simultaneously working and being a homemaker is considerable and puts a women under enormous pressure. In any event, this is an unnatural set up as His intention was for a women to gratefullly receive the divinely ordained role of motherhood (see I Tim. 5: 14; Titus 2: 4). Indeed, it is by accepting her proper sphere that a woman fulfills her true destiny - “Woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty” (I Tim. 2: 15).

As regards St.Gianni, it is quite true that she did harmonize the arduous demands of motherhood with being a doctor, but she regarded the field of medicine as a ‘mission’ and so probably received special divine grace to combine the two effectively. However, this is unique and we cannot use, for polemical purposes, the case of St. Gianni as a template to justify a wholesale departure from the norm of married women being “workers at home”. That, my dear friend, is just plain disengenuous**. That she was both holy and heroic admits of no doubt, but I do not think that she should be used to support the case of those who defend the right of married women to work.**

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Statements like this and your endorsement of Catholic Planet makes me wonder if you would advocate some sort of Catholic (sharia style) state enforced gender segregation if that were on the table?

 

[Portrait]

No, it does not. The fact that women in general are weaker does not mean that they should be prohibited from “too difficult and onerous tasks,” only that one may expect (given a normal distribution of strength) that fewer women than men will meet the requirements of particular jobs. In other words, why not take the women who are strong enough to serve in the military and not the ones who are not?

You still have not explained why women should be categorically denied access to certain professions. That reasoning makes no sense whatsoever, and the fact that this is not obvious to you is truly baffling.

Could you substantiate this with data or studies? That is, please demonstrate to us that all women “are not suited to combat zones” etc., because in order to deny women access to the military, one would need evidence demonstrating that every single woman ever is incapable of serving.

Okay, that makes perfect sense. It is obviously impossible that there are different personalities and dispositions among men, but not among women.

Joan of Arc was not a unique figure. She was an individual and a woman who was capable of serving in the military. This is exactly how the military should be approached: on the basis of individuals. Those strong enough to withstand military duty should be permitted to serve, and as you yourself admit, some women (e.g. Joan of Arc) are capable of serving.

What is not aberrant is a woman recognizing that she can best serve God’s will as a single woman.

Source?

We need not follow everything that everyone says in the Bible literally. The Church has never taught this.

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and my apologies of the delay in replying.

Notwithstandanding that some women may be endowed with the physical strength to undertake labour that is normally associated with men, this does not morally justify them in taking up this work, for it is tantamount to a denial of their femeninity and womanhood and makes less distinct the God-given distinction between the sexes. In short, my dear friend, it is downright unnatural and has more in common with a radical femenism than an orthodox Catholicism. Indeed, this why certain occupations, such as women fighting on the front-line, should not be open to the “weaker sex”.

Studies and data are not required for what is a matter of plain common sense, dear brother. However, even here in the UK the British government has rejected plans for the repeal of rules that bar women from close-combat roles. This was rightly amid concerns that male soldiers were more likely to risk death in an attempt to save their wounded female commrads, rather than continue fighting. Moreover, the military top brass were of the opinion that only a few female soldiers had the raw physical strength required to clear battlefield obstacles, storm trenches and bayonet troops to death, especially given the jolly heavy load that infantrymen are now required to carry. All this is self-evident and any Catholic with a modicum of moral sense can see that such a harsh environment is no place for a woman and child-bearer. A few years ago no one would seriously deny any of this, dear chap, and that some people are now vociferously arguing for it just demonstrates the inroads of militant femenist ideology upon current thinking. Do you really, as a professing Catholic, wish to be identified with such a godless ideology that seeks to blur the distinctions between men and women?

It is undeniable that women in the front-line would make more male soldiers vulnerable, for it is deeply ingrained into a man’s nature to want to protect women and shield them from danger. Not even a militant femenism can erradicate this God-given instinct, dear friend. The fact is that women can never be equal to men and that is why they were made differently. By nature they incapable of the sort of speed, strength and aggression required for survival in a war zone. This has nothing to do with tradtional cultural stereotyping, as some ignorantly suggest, but has everything to do with a woman’s emotional and physical make-up with which she was created.

We can acknowldege the equal worth and dignity of women without denying the patently self-evident truth that men and women have different strengths, perspectives and roles. Sadly, our culture is increasingly putting the rights of women above the importance of human life (this can be most clearly seen in the matter of abortion). However, the faithful are under an obligation to distance themselves and denounce this godless ideology which now plagues our Western culture.

Joan of Arc, dear friend, cannot be template for Catholic woman, giving them encouragement to fight in front-line combat. She was especially endowed by God, like Deborah in the O.T., at a specific time, but her case cannot and should not be considered normative - solitary cases make bad law.

A woman can serve God as a single women in an occupation, until and if she enters into marriage. Nevertheless, holy wedlock is normative for “the vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator” (CCC, para. 1603). Men and women are not meant to be alone, unless they have been called to the priesthood or the religious life, or if they do not happen to become romanticallly involved through no deliberate choice of their own.

We need to follow everything in Sacred Scripture literally that is intended to be taken literally. Can you provide a good reason, my dear brother, as to why you think that text should not be taken literally, but interpreted in a figuratively?

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

That, my dear friend, is very subjective statement, since I could say that your own understanding of this document is “obviously biased”, based upon your own pre-conceived notions regarding the role and place of women in contemporary society. That said, I believe that my reading of a ‘A Letter to Women’ is, in fact, perfectly reasonable, even if others disagree profoundly with it.
Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

You believe its reasonable.
So what?

The fact remains that you have taken a document that specifically praises women who work and somehow interpreted it as supporting your notion that women working is bad.

That would be like me claiming the existence of a Phone Book proves that phones are no good

 

[AngryAtheist8]

So Portrait would also think that Joan of Arc was also an anomily and that women should not see her as a template if they wish to join the army.

EVEN though, Joan of Arc was designated as the patron saint of women in the service.

Well, I’m glad I didn’t marry Portrait

Maybe you shouldn’t read that much into it.
Portrait’s commentary is so obviously unsupported by any type of evidence or logic that I am beginning to suspect that he is just posting sexist things to get a reaction out of us (i.e. trolling).

His commentary about St.Gianni struck me as exactly the sort of thing that a troll in his position would say. Because he essentially said:
The fact that the Church labeled a woman doctor as a saint says nothing about women doctors (keep in mind this is coming from a supposed Catholic).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and my apologies of the delay in replying.

Notwithstandanding that some women may be endowed with the physical strength to undertake labour that is normally associated with men, this does not morally justify them in taking up this work, for it is tantamount to a denial of their femeninity and womanhood and makes less distinct the God-given distinction between the sexes. In short, my dear friend, it is downright unnatural and has more in common with a radical femenism than an orthodox Catholicism. Indeed, this why certain occupations, such as women fighting on the front-line, should not be open to the “weaker sex”.

Studies and data are not required for what is a matter of plain common sense, dear brother. However, even here in the UK the British government has rejected plans for the repeal of rules that bar women from close-combat roles. This was rightly amid concerns that male soldiers were more likely to risk death in an attempt to save their wounded female commrads, rather than continue fighting. Moreover, the military top brass were of the opinion that only a few female soldiers had the raw physical strength required to clear battlefield obstacles, storm trenches and bayonet troops to death, especially given the jolly heavy load that infantrymen are now required to carry. All this is self-evident and any Catholic with a modicum of moral sense can see that such a harsh environment is no place for a woman and child-bearer. A few years ago no one would seriously deny any of this, dear chap, and that some people are now vociferously arguing for it just demonstrates the inroads of militant femenist ideology upon current thinking. Do you really, as a professing Catholic, wish to be identified with such a godless ideology that seeks to blur the distinctions between men and women?

It is undeniable that women in the front-line would make more male soldiers vulnerable, for it is deeply ingrained into a man’s nature to want to protect women and shield them from danger. Not even a militant femenism can erradicate this God-given instinct, dear friend. The fact is that women can never be equal to men and that is why they were made differently. By nature they incapable of the sort of speed, strength and aggression required for survival in a war zone. This has nothing to do with tradtional cultural stereotyping, as some ignorantly suggest, but has everything to do with a woman’s emotional and physical make-up with which she was created.

We can acknowldege the equal worth and dignity of women without denying the patently self-evident truth that men and women have different strengths, perspectives and roles. Sadly, our culture is increasingly putting the rights of women above the importance of human life (this can be most clearly seen in the matter of abortion). However, the faithful are under an obligation to distance themselves and denounce this godless ideology which now plagues our Western culture.

Joan of Arc, dear friend, cannot be template for Catholic woman, giving them encouragement to fight in front-line combat. She was especially endowed by God, like Deborah in the O.T., at a specific time, but her case cannot and should not be considered normative - solitary cases make bad law.

A woman can serve God as a single women in an occupation, until and if she enters into marriage. Nevertheless, holy wedlock is normative for “the vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator” (CCC, para. 1603). Men and women are not meant to be alone, unless they have been called to the priesthood or the religious life, or if they do not happen to become romanticallly involved through no deliberate choice of their own.

We need to follow everything in Sacred Scripture literally that is intended to be taken literally. Can you provide a good reason, my dear brother, as to why you think that text should not be taken literally, but interpreted in a figuratively?

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Ah, a Biblical literalist.
Tell me, do you think that shellfish should be banned and slavery should be legal (as the Bible would suggest) too?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day. Thankyou for your response and my apologies of the delay in replying.

Notwithstandanding that some women may be endowed with the physical strength to undertake labour that is normally associated with men, this does not morally justify them in taking up this work, for it is tantamount to a denial of their femeninity and womanhood and makes less distinct the God-given distinction between the sexes. In short, my dear friend, it is downright unnatural and has more in common with a radical femenism than an orthodox Catholicism.** Indeed, this why certain occupations, such as women fighting on the front-line, should not be open to the “weaker sex”.**
Studies and data are not required for what is a matter of plain common sense, dear brother. However, even here in the UK the British government has rejected plans for the repeal of rules that bar women from close-combat roles. This was rightly amid concerns that male soldiers were more likely to risk death in an attempt to save their wounded female commrads, rather than continue fighting. Moreover, the military top brass were of the opinion that only a few female soldiers had the raw physical strength required to clear battlefield obstacles, storm trenches and bayonet troops to death, especially given the jolly heavy load that infantrymen are now required to carry. All this is self-evident and any Catholic with a modicum of moral sense can see that such a harsh environment is no place for a woman and child-bearer. A few years ago no one would seriously deny any of this, dear chap, and that some people are now vociferously arguing for it just demonstrates the inroads of militant femenist ideology upon current thinking. Do you really, as a professing Catholic, wish to be identified with such a godless ideology that seeks to blur the distinctions between men and women?

It is undeniable that women in the front-line would make more male soldiers vulnerable, for it is deeply ingrained into a man’s nature to want to protect women and shield them from danger. Not even a militant femenism can erradicate this God-given instinct, dear friend. The fact is that women can never be equal to men and that is why they were made differently. By nature they incapable of the sort of speed, strength and aggression required for survival in a war zone. This has nothing to do with tradtional cultural stereotyping, as some ignorantly suggest, but has everything to do with a woman’s emotional and physical make-up with which she was created.

We can acknowldege the equal worth and dignity of women without denying the patently self-evident truth that men and women have different strengths, perspectives and roles. Sadly, our culture is increasingly putting the rights of women above the importance of human life (this can be most clearly seen in the matter of abortion). However, the faithful are under an obligation to distance themselves and denounce this godless ideology which now plagues our Western culture.

Joan of Arc, dear friend, cannot be template for Catholic woman, giving them encouragement to fight in front-line combat. She was especially endowed by God, like Deborah in the O.T., at a specific time, but her case cannot and should not be considered normative - solitary cases make bad law.

A woman can serve God as a single women in an occupation, until and if she enters into marriage. Nevertheless, holy wedlock is normative for “the vocation to marriage is written in the very nature of man and woman as they came from the hand of the Creator” (CCC, para. 1603). Men and women are not meant to be alone, unless they have been called to the priesthood or the religious life, or if they do not happen to become romanticallly involved through no deliberate choice of their own.

We need to follow everything in Sacred Scripture literally that is intended to be taken literally. Can you provide a good reason, my dear brother, as to why you think that text should not be taken literally, but interpreted in a figuratively?

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Its worth noting that many societies (such as Saudi Arabia’s or Afghanistan’s) still operate under the basic premise of female inferiority and unfitness for anything but the domestic sphere.
It is also worth noting that these are horrible places for a woman to live, that they create a situation where the lives of women and girls are literally worth less (if not actually worthless) compared to the lives and reputations of men.

 

[Baelor]

for it is tantamount to a denial of their femeninity and womanhood and makes less distinct the God-given distinction between the sexes.

Really? I do not remember God ever telling us that to be a woman means not to fight in war. Femininity is not incompatible with being a soldier, and you are simply asserting distinctions where there need be none. Both men and women speak the same language; that is not a violation of the “God-given distinction.” Now, both women and men are educated, and that is not a violation of the “God-given distinction.” Why should I believe that God wants no women soldiers?

Studies and data are not required for what is a matter of plain common sense, dear brother.

It is neither common or sensible, so I fail to see the basis for your argument.

All this is self-evident and any Catholic with a modicum of moral sense can see that such a harsh environment is no place for a woman and child-bearer.

“No True Scotsman,” yes, yes. How…unsurprising.

Such a harsh environment is no place for a child-bearer; fortunately, women need not be child-bearers in order to have Christ-filled lives, although many will. This is a non-argument.

Do you really, as a professing Catholic, wish to be identified with such a godless ideology that seeks to blur the distinctions between men and women?

I have no qualms about being identified with that which is true, regardless of who believes it. Fortunately, the Church teaches the truth, so I need not worry about my associations.

It is undeniable that women in the front-line would make more male soldiers vulnerable, for it is deeply ingrained into a man’s nature to want to protect women and shield them from danger.

Proof? That it is natural and not societal?

The fact is that women can never be equal to men and that is why they were made differently. By nature they incapable of the sort of speed, strength and aggression required for survival in a war zone. This has nothing to do with tradtional cultural stereotyping, as some ignorantly suggest, but has everything to do with a woman’s emotional and physical make-up with which she was created.

Not all women are the same. You have still not addressed the issue of why women who pass all of the tests required to be in the military should be barred. They clearly do have the requisite makeup.

Joan of Arc, dear friend, cannot be template for Catholic woman, giving them encouragement to fight in front-line combat. She was especially endowed by God, like Deborah in the O.T., at a specific time, but her case cannot and should not be considered normative - solitary cases make bad law.

But solitary cases justify the statement that women are capable of fighting in wars. Joan of Arc was a woman and fought in a war. Therefore, women are capable of fighting in wars.

The fallacy in your argument is to lump women together in a group. I see no reason to do so. Some women are capable of fighting in wars, some are not. Some men are capable of fighting in wars, some are not. You deal with specifics for men, but not for women. You have not justified why taking women as a whole makes sense, and so your argument is a no-go from its beginning.

Because you seem to have problems with constructing your posts, I will help you out. Here is a schema of your argument as it should be presented:

1. It makes sense to make blanket statements about women while dealing with particulars regarding men
2. The God-given distinction between men and women exists.
3. This distinction involves women not fighting in wars.

Therefore, women should not fight in wars.

I agree with 2) already. The problem is that you have not actually justified 1) or 3) on any grounds other than your own belief.

Men and women are not meant to be alone, unless they have been called to the priesthood or the religious life, or if they do not happen to become romanticallly involved through no deliberate choice of their own.

That is not what the Church teaches.

We need to follow everything in Sacred Scripture literally that is intended to be taken literally. Can you provide a good reason, my dear brother, as to why you think that text should not be taken literally, but interpreted in a figuratively?

Provision is a broad term.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Really? I do not remember God ever telling us that to be a woman means not to fight in war. Femininity is not incompatible with being a soldier, and you are simply asserting distinctions where there need be none. Both men and women speak the same language; that is not a violation of the “God-given distinction.” ** Now, both women and men are educated,** and that is not a violation of the “God-given distinction.” Why should I believe that God wants no women soldiers?

It is neither common or sensible, so I fail to see the basis for your argument.

“No True Scotsman,” yes, yes. How…unsurprising.

Such a harsh environment is no place for a child-bearer; fortunately, women need not be child-bearers in order to have Christ-filled lives, although many will. This is a non-argument.

I have no qualms about being identified with that which is true, regardless of who believes it. Fortunately, the Church teaches the truth, so I need not worry about my associations.

Proof? That it is natural and not societal?

Not all women are the same. You have still not addressed the issue of why women who pass all of the tests required to be in the military should be barred. They clearly do have the requisite makeup.

But solitary cases justify the statement that women are capable of fighting in wars. Joan of Arc was a woman and fought in a war. Therefore, women are capable of fighting in wars.

The fallacy in your argument is to lump women together in a group. I see no reason to do so. Some women are capable of fighting in wars, some are not. Some men are capable of fighting in wars, some are not. You deal with specifics for men, but not for women. You have not justified why taking women as a whole makes sense, and so your argument is a no-go from its beginning.

Because you seem to have problems with constructing your posts, I will help you out. Here is a schema of your argument as it should be presented:

1. It makes sense to make blanket statements about women while dealing with particulars regarding men
2. The God-given distinction between men and women exists.
3. This distinction involves women not fighting in wars.

Therefore, women should not fight in wars.

I agree with 2) already. The problem is that you have not actually justified 1) or 3) on any grounds other than your own belief.

That is not what the Church teaches.

Provision is a broad term.

I still suspect that in Portrait’s ideal world, women wouldn’t be educated at all (because as I said before, that would make it much easier to limit them to the domestic sphere, and keep any future women in that society from getting uppity).

 

[Baelor]

I still suspect that in Portrait’s ideal world, women wouldn’t be educated at all (because as I said before, that would make it much easier to limit them to the domestic sphere, and keep any future women in that society from getting uppity).

I actually was wondering about that, which made me hesitate to put it in.

 

[Portrait]

No.
Traditionally men, women, and children all worked on a farm (or other family business). The housewife is a historical anomaly that only became possible when a large middle class began to emerge in the 19th century.
The (historical) norm is everybody in the family having to work.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

The homemaker is not some sort of historical oddity, my dear friend, but originates with St. Paul and his understanding of motherhood and being a Christian wife. This is the correct paradigm, given by divine inspiration, and, if this has been departed from at certain periods in history, that does not render the biblical model invalid or irrelevant.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Litcrit]

Ladies,

Just a side note, these threads can be very disconcerting to those of us that have an education, a career, an at home husband, etc.

Thank you, Serap, for this post.

Thankfully, some of us are too busy, happy and fulfilled with our families, careers and continuing education that we have no time to be feeling disconcerted.

 

[Zosimus41]

It´s possible for a woman to be submissive to her husband if indeed the husband is doing a good job in being the spiritual leader and a good provider in the home.

The bible not only states that the wife should be submissive but that the Husband should also love their wives just like Christ love the Church.

THe key to this sentence is that Christ loved the Church and gave His life for his Church. With that love, came respect. This is the ideal Catholic marriage!

A husband should love and respect his wife in order for the wife to submissive and put all her trust to her husband. That being said, reality is very different, not all men due to our sinful nature, love the Church just like Christ did and not all men give the respect their wives deserves. Because of this, women should not put up with an abusive behavior. WOmen should not tolerate abuse and women has the right to correct the treatment she is receiving from her husband. Good communication is essential to the success of a marriage.

SO if the husband is not a good providor for the home he doesnt deserve his wife to be submissive? What if he lost his job and is having a hard time finding another one?

LOL seems Ive dated these types of women before Back in my early days that is.
Everything is great and dandy until the money runs out! j/k

 

[Serap]

SO if the husband is not a good providor for the home he doesnt deserve his wife to be submissive? What if he lost his job and is having a hard time finding another one?

LOL seems Ive dated these types of women before Back in my early days that is.
Everything is great and dandy until the money runs out! j/k

No. that’s the “Real Housewives of Beverley Hills”

 

[Serap]

Thank you, Serap, for this post.

Thankfully, some of us are too busy, happy and fulfilled with our families, careers and continuing education that we have no time to be feeling disconcerted.

Good for you! I used to let these threads get to me. Now I just laugh at the craziness of it all.

I should start up a thread: “Men are not emotionally able to care and love their children”

I wonder how many responses I’d get from angry men LOL

Us women, get to wrapped up in this stuff. We just need to take all of this with a grain of salt. I am finding this quite entertaining and am not emotionally involved.

I have to admit, I really respect AngryAthiest’s philosophy on life. How he cannot believe in God, I find confusing, but he’s pretty bright and knowledgeable.

 

[Portrait]

Really? I do not remember God ever telling us that to be a woman means not to fight in war. Femininity is not incompatible with being a soldier, and you are simply asserting distinctions where there need be none. Both men and women speak the same language; that is not a violation of the “God-given distinction.” Now, both women and men are educated, and that is not a violation of the “God-given distinction.” Why should I believe that God wants no women soldiers?

It is neither common or sensible, so I fail to see the basis for your argument.

snip…

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your response above.

Femininity, dear friend, most decidedly is inconsistent with a woman fighting in the front line and the very notion would have been deemed contrary and repugnant to Christian womanhood as understood by traditional Catholicism. Nobody spoke about such issues because nobody needed to, for the whole notion would have been at variance with the moral sense of the faithful. An isolated example, such as Joan of Arc, was an exception rather than the rule. She was, undoubtedly, especially raised up by God, much in the same as Deborah was in the the O.T. However, it is disengenuous to call her into service for the purposes of justifying women soldiers as normative.

To want to espouse the cause of women serving in military combat must surely be one of the most bizzare aberrations indulged in by the radical feminist movement. It beggars belief, my dear brother, that some modern Catholics vehemently support a woman’s ‘right’ to be be able serve in such a capacity, as they should be able to perceive that this role is both unnatural and distasteful.

Again, Child-bearing is normative for women, save in the exceptions with which we both agree, and I am surprised that you challenge this, my dear chap. Please note that I did not state that unless a women is a child-bearer then she cannot bring glory to God.

That women differ from men in so many ways is an obvious fact of human nature, dear friend; healthy young women are wont to get pregnant and there is a profound difference between male to male bonding and male to female bonding - a factor that can mean the difference between life and death on the battlefield. Irrespective of the social changes that have taken place, the faithful will respect the dignity and value of matrimony and motherhood. Moroever, they will be in the forefront of those who uphold the traditional model of men and women and their respective roles and spheres. Remember, it was because misguided military leaders in America put women in harm’s way, that Jessica Lynch, and other young women like her, have been shot, raped and permanently traumatized. A Catholic with a well-formed conscience does not require Holy Mother Church to tell him that all this is immoral and unacceptable. “A woman being brutally killed along side men is a long-awaited femenist dream of equality” (Kate O’ Beirne).

Even if some masculine women have the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-contact combat, that does not mean that they should engage in such combat and enter a war zone. If such a step is a fundamental contradiction of a women’s God-given femeninity, as well as being unnatural, then it should be steadfastly avoided. Again, even if a solitary example can be found, this clearly does not legitimize women fighting generally and give carte blanche approval of women fighting in war zones. That, my dear brother, seems very much like an argument used by those desperate to uphold some viewpoint at all costs.

The God-given distinction between men and women does preclude the latter from being engaged in combat, because it is a denial of the role assigned to her by God and is therefore contrary to authentic femeninity and womanhood. As stated previously, dear brother, it is by a humble acceptance of her proper sphere that a women fulfills her true destiny. We can assert this with confidence because it is disclosed to us in Divine Revelation - “Yet a woman will be saved through bearing children…” (I Tim. 2: 15). It is by bearing children and being a mother that a woman attains genuine happiness. It is God’s good will that the woman should influence mankind from the bottom up, so to speak. She must choose to do that for which by God’s creation-ordinance she is most naturally equipped, both physically and spiritually, rather than hanker after spheres of employment that are not her proper preserve.

God bless, my dear brother, and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
I still suspect that in Portrait’s ideal world, women wouldn’t be educated at all (because as I said before, that would make it much easier to limit them to the domestic sphere, and keep any future women in that society from getting uppity).

I actually was wondering about that, which made me hesitate to put it in.

I suspect that I am more blunt than you are.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by AngryAtheist8
No.
Traditionally men, women, and children all worked on a farm (or other family business). The housewife is a historical anomaly that only became possible when a large middle class began to emerge in the 19th century.
The (historical) norm is everybody in the family having to work.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above response.

The homemaker is not some sort of historical oddity, my dear friend, but originates with St. Paul and his understanding of motherhood and being a Christian wife. This is the correct paradigm, given by divine inspiration, and, if this has been departed from at certain periods in history, that does not render the biblical model invalid or irrelevant.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Saint Paul endorsed slavery, so I would hardly consider him THE authority on moral behavior and proper social relations.

Frankly I view Saint Paul as a bit of a sellout.
Taking whatever genuinely revolutionary message Jesus had and making it more marketable by doing things such as supporting slavery and male dominance of the family and society.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Originally Posted by Mayita30
It´s possible for a woman to be submissive to her husband if indeed the husband is doing a good job in being the spiritual leader and a good provider in the home.

The bible not only states that the wife should be submissive but that the Husband should also love their wives just like Christ love the Church.

THe key to this sentence is that Christ loved the Church and gave His life for his Church. With that love, came respect. This is the ideal Catholic marriage!

A husband should love and respect his wife in order for the wife to submissive and put all her trust to her husband. That being said, reality is very different, not all men due to our sinful nature, love the Church just like Christ did and not all men give the respect their wives deserves. Because of this, women should not put up with an abusive behavior. WOmen should not tolerate abuse and women has the right to correct the treatment she is receiving from her husband. Good communication is essential to the success of a marriage.

SO if the husband is not a good providor for the home he doesnt deserve his wife to be submissive? What if he lost his job and is having a hard time finding another one?

LOL seems Ive dated these types of women before Back in my early days that is.
Everything is great and dandy until the money runs out! j/k

I believe marriage should be more of a partnership.
To honest, if I married a woman who acted like a doormat and expected me to make all the important decisions I would lose respect for her (and most likely interest in her).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your response above.

Femininity, dear friend, most decidedly is inconsistent with a woman fighting in the front line and the very notion would have been deemed contrary and repugnant to Christian womanhood as understood by traditional Catholicism. Nobody spoke about such issues because nobody needed to, for the whole notion would have been at variance with the moral sense of the faithful. ** An isolated example, such as Joan of Arc, was an exception rather than the rule. She was, undoubtedly, especially raised up by God, much in the same as Deborah was in the the O.T. However, it is disengenuous to call her into service for the purposes of justifying women soldiers as normative.**To want to espouse the cause of women serving in military combat must surely be one of the most bizzare aberrations indulged in by the radical feminist movement. It beggars belief, my dear brother, that some modern Catholics vehemently support a woman’s ‘right’ to be be able serve in such a capacity, as they should be able to perceive that this role is both unnatural and distasteful.

Again, Child-bearing is normative for women, save in the exceptions with which we both agree, and I am surprised that you challenge this, my dear chap. Please note that I did not state that unless a women is a child-bearer then she cannot bring glory to God.

That women differ from men in so many ways is an obvious fact of human nature, dear friend; healthy young women are wont to get pregnant and there is a profound difference between male to male bonding and male to female bonding - a factor that can mean the difference between life and death on the battlefield. Irrespective of the social changes that have taken place, the faithful will respect the dignity and value of matrimony and motherhood. Moroever, they will be in the forefront of those who uphold the traditional model of men and women and their respective roles and spheres. Remember, it was because misguided military leaders in America put women in harm’s way, that Jessica Lynch, and other young women like her, have been shot, raped and permanently traumatized. A Catholic with a well-formed conscience does not require Holy Mother Church to tell him that all this is immoral and unacceptable. “A woman being brutally killed along side men is a long-awaited femenist dream of equality” (Kate O’ Beirne).

Even if some masculine women have the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-contact combat, that does not mean that they should engage in such combat and enter a war zone. If such a step is a fundamental contradiction of a women’s God-given femeninity, as well as being unnatural, then it should be steadfastly avoided. Again, even if a solitary example can be found, this clearly does not legitimize women fighting generally and give carte blanche approval of women fighting in war zones. That, my dear brother, seems very much like an argument used by those desperate to uphold some viewpoint at all costs.

The God-given distinction between men and women does preclude the latter from being engaged in combat, because it is a denial of the role assigned to her by God and is therefore contrary to authentic femeninity and womanhood. As stated previously, dear brother, it is by a humble acceptance of her proper sphere that a women fulfills her true destiny. We can assert this with confidence because it is disclosed to us in Divine Revelation - “Yet a woman will be saved through bearing children…” (I Tim. 2: 15). It is by bearing children and being a mother that a woman attains genuine happiness. It is God’s good will that the woman should influence mankind from the bottom up, so to speak. She must choose to do that for which by God’s creation-ordinance she is most naturally equipped, both physically and spiritually, rather than hanker after spheres of employment that are not her proper preserve.

God bless, my dear brother, and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

The whole Christian religion is based on a non-normative event.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again and thankyou for your response above.

Femininity, dear friend, most decidedly is inconsistent with a woman fighting in the front line and the very notion would have been deemed contrary and repugnant to Christian womanhood as understood by traditional Catholicism. Nobody spoke about such issues because nobody needed to, for the whole notion would have been at variance with the moral sense of the faithful. An isolated example, such as Joan of Arc, was an exception rather than the rule. She was, undoubtedly, especially raised up by God, much in the same as Deborah was in the the O.T. However, it is disengenuous to call her into service for the purposes of justifying women soldiers as normative.

To want to espouse the cause of women serving in military combat must surely be one of the most bizzare aberrations indulged in by the radical feminist movement. It beggars belief, my dear brother, that some modern Catholics vehemently support a woman’s ‘right’ to be be able serve in such a capacity, as they should be able to perceive that this role is both unnatural and distasteful.

Again, Child-bearing is normative for women, save in the exceptions with which we both agree, and I am surprised that you challenge this, my dear chap. Please note that I did not state that unless a women is a child-bearer then she cannot bring glory to God.

That women differ from men in so many ways is an obvious fact of human nature, dear friend; healthy young women are wont to get pregnant and there is a profound difference between male to male bonding and male to female bonding - a factor that can mean the difference between life and death on the battlefield. Irrespective of the social changes that have taken place, the faithful will respect the dignity and value of matrimony and motherhood. Moroever, they will be in the forefront of those who uphold the traditional model of men and women and their respective roles and spheres. Remember, it was because misguided military leaders in America put women in harm’s way, that Jessica Lynch, and other young women like her, have been shot, raped and permanently traumatized. A Catholic with a well-formed conscience does not require Holy Mother Church to tell him that all this is immoral and unacceptable. “A woman being brutally killed along side men is a long-awaited femenist dream of equality” (Kate O’ Beirne).

Even if some masculine women have the necessary emotional and physical make-up to engage in close-contact combat, that does not mean that they should engage in such combat and enter a war zone. If such a step is a fundamental contradiction of a women’s God-given femeninity, as well as being unnatural, then it should be steadfastly avoided. Again, even if a solitary example can be found, this clearly does not legitimize women fighting generally and give carte blanche approval of women fighting in war zones. That, my dear brother, seems very much like an argument used by those desperate to uphold some viewpoint at all costs.

The God-given distinction between men and women does preclude the latter from being engaged in combat, because it is a denial of the role assigned to her by God and is therefore contrary to authentic femeninity and womanhood. As stated previously, dear brother, it is by a humble acceptance of her proper sphere that a women fulfills her true destiny. We can assert this with confidence because it is disclosed to us in Divine Revelation - “Yet a woman will be saved through bearing children…” (I Tim. 2: 15). It is by bearing children and being a mother that a woman attains genuine happiness. It is God’s good will that the woman should influence mankind from the bottom up, so to speak. She must choose to do that for which by God’s creation-ordinance she is most naturally equipped, both physically and spiritually, rather than hanker after spheres of employment that are not her proper preserve.

God bless, my dear brother, and goodbye for now.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

At least you admit that in your vision of the ideal society, women would be firmly at the bottom.