Three Principals For Honoring Your Husband

[Portrait]

Somehow I am not surprised that you’re saying that.

But note that you are betraying the principal of interpreting the Bible as literally as possible (a principal you used to justifying limiting women’s role in society) in this instance.

Moreover, if you feel like to denying that, I would like to remind you that there is a record of every post in this thread. And I am more than willing to repost your words again.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

What I have said previously, dear friend, is that when the literal sense makes good sense we must be careful that we do not make it nonsense, for example by giving Sacred Scripture a figurative interpretation when a literal one is called for, as in Titus 2: 5.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[The_Patriarch]

ryecroft:
Why does it ALWAYS have to be the woman that has to for go the career when this argument comes up? If you want to be a wife and mother - that’s wonderful - if you feel called and are able to be one without having to work that’s great! But not all of us feel called to do that - why does it always have to be the woman that has to give up her career for the ‘good’ of the family? I know 3 homes (Catholic) where the man stays at home to watch the kids and the woman works outside the home. They are wonderful families! The woman gets to have the kids and fulfill her desire to have her career outside the home. Just because this wasn’t the way things were done in Biblical times does not make them wrong - and I don’t know of anywhere the Church teaches that says the mother should stay at home.
God Bless
Rye

Maybe he’s implying that the “Career” of the woman has ALWAYS been a stay at home mom, hence you are giving up your “Career” if you work outside the home.

 

[Baelor]

To expect Holy Mother Church to produce a chapter and verse text condemning women soldiers fighting in close-combat as inherently immoral, is surely to adopt a fundamentalist approach to things, dear friend.

I am not expecting the Church to produce a chapter and verse text; this discussion is a more general one about women and how they may best serve God. If you think that that is a “self-evident” and simplistic issue, you may go and believe that on your own, but I think that we both know that such a topic is not trivial, nor is it self-evident.

Furthermore, you still have not actually argued successfully for your case. I even provided a schematic twice for you. The problem is that you use “self-evident” as a justification. Everything that is self-evident has a secondary justification that is demonstrable. The fact that you are unable to provide it speaks volumes about the validity of your argument.

The Church expects us to employ our sanctified common sense in such matters

I would highly recommend employing it so that you may come to the correct conclusion.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear akela,

Cordial greetings and a warm welcome to the world of CAF.

St. Gianni cannot be the normal pattern, dear friend, for married Catholic women with children. She regarded her calling to work in the field of medicine as a ‘mission’, so it is not improbable that she was endowed with special grace for that calling, in addittion to being a wife and mother. However, unless we have some such special and unique calling, God ordinarily calls married women to being “workers at home” (Titus 2: 5) and they should not ever consider that role inferior or unfullling. For a woman to be called to a role outside of domesticity is an exception rather than the rule, which is why there is only one St. Gianni. St. Paul’s words are not culturally conditioned and occur amidst requirements for a women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, to be chaste, kind and submissive. Moreover, the text forms part of practical instructions to Titus and so there is no good reason not to take them literally. They have perpetual validity and remain authoritative today.

We are all called to forsake a sinful life and to pursue holiness, thus the example of St. Augustine is relevant to us all, whoever we are.

You are quite correct, dear friend, anyone can become a saint and we ought to strive to live a life of sanctity and separation from the godless world and its extra to the normal indulgences.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

How would you know?
What reason (if any) is there to believe that it was any more or less culturally conditioned than Saint Paul’s endorsement of slavery?

 

[Baelor]

How would you know?
What reason (if any) is there to believe that it was any more or less culturally conditioned than Saint Paul’s endorsement of slavery?

It’s self-evident. Duh.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Baelor,

Cordial greetings and a very good day.

The reason why the Church has not declared female soldiers fighting in war zones immoral, is because that is a self-evident truth and any Catholic with a well-formed conscience can easily see that. The Church will not spoon-feed the faithful on a matter that is patently obvious, my dear friend.

Will respond to your post of yesterday a little late, so please stand by.

God bless.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

Your reasoning is faulty.
The Church rules on plenty of things that it considers patently obvious.
Like women not being allowed to become priests.

 

[irishpatrick]

Originally Posted by irishpatrick
A woman who said yes to God, who understood that she was being called to a higher order, who understand that she was being called to serve all humanity as a humble servant, and she embraced that call with such amazing love. Yeah, no redeeming value in any of that, right?

Perhaps if that was what I actually said.
What I really said was:

So what?

The most central and defining event/aspect of the Virgin Mary is her virgin motherhood, yet the Church doesn’t want women to imitate that (even though we have the technology to make it possible today).

The Virgin Mary is of limited use as a role model for women at best

P.S. My point was, that women cannot be expected to live like the Virgin Mary, and even the Catholic Church doesn’t really expect them to try (otherwise why would it ban artificial insemination, something that makes virgin birth possible?).

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).

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again.

That, dear friend, is jolly sweeping generalization. Devout Christian husbands have always valued their wives and recognised the importance of their work as wives and mothers. Moreover, they have also recognised the key role played by women in giving birth to children and then nurturing and instructing them in godliness, hence the saying that a child first learns about God on its mother’s knee. Even non-religious men have appreciated their wives and the domestic work that they daily undertake within the home, I knew many such decent men in the neighbourhood in which I was raised here in the UK. They were good family men who worked jolly hard whilst their wives kept house and home. Those were truly happy homes, my dear friend, where the children were contented and respectful towards their parents and elders.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

So what?
You have done virtually nothing BUT generalize about women in this thread.

Moreover, just because its a generalization doesn’t mean it is not true.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, the few women who made it into the history books for the most part did so by acting in a manner you would regard as manly.

 

[Baelor]

You made the offensive comment stand by itself. “The Virgin Mary is of limited…”

It is very obviously not offensive. AA is not insulting Mary nor denying any theological doctrines according to Mary. You may find it incorrect, but it is not offensive.

 

[Portrait]

You could dismiss the idea of imitating any of the saints based on similar reasoning.

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

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Isn’t it also possible that what you said was highly offensive to many?

Yes, but that doesn’t mean what I said was untrue.
Many people would be offended by the statement that communism does not work.
Or that Scientology is a false religion.

 

[Portrait]

Your reasoning is faulty.
The Church rules on plenty of things that it considers patently obvious.
Like women not being allowed to become priests.

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again and thankyou for the above.

The issue of woman’s ordination to the priesthood is, dear friend, an issue of major doctrinal importance and thus the Church must needs declare its postion plainly on such a matter.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

 

[Litcrit]

Women have had careers since the beginnning of time honey:

seamstress, caring for farm animals, harvesting a crop, bakery, creamery, etc.

Women have never spent 100% of their time in their home ever (the exception was the 20th century when the term “housewife”, or “homemaker” was first coined.

In my country, the span of time between everyone - men and women - working in the fields and everyone - men and women - working outside the home in order to secure survival was only about a decade (1930-1940) during which a tiny portion of bourgeois women took pride in not having to work because their husbands were rich. We never even had a time in our quite eventful and economically unstable history when surviving with only one person in the family working was really feasible for 99% of the people. Imagine if the Church - Catholic or Orthodox - actually ever universally declared that mothers are sinning by financially providing for their families!

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear Baelor,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

**To expect Holy Mother Church to produce a chapter and verse text condemning women soldiers fighting in close-combat as inherently immoral, is surely to adopt a fundamentalist approach to things, dear friend. **The Church expects us to employ our sanctified common sense in such matters, just as it does say in the area of immodest attire. Thus, for example, do we really require some official pronouncement telling us that a mini-skirt or a low-cut top revealing cleavage is unseemly and therefore trespasses the boundaries of propriety?

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

What is your tactic of interpreting Scripture literally (often in spite of papal pronouncements when it comes to women) but a Fundamentalist approach?

 

[AngryAtheist8]

Dear AngryAtheist,

Hello again. Thankyou for the above.

What I have said previously, dear friend, is that when the literal sense makes good sense we must be careful that we do not make it nonsense, for example by giving Sacred Scripture a figurative interpretation when a literal one is called for, as in Titus 2: 5.

Warmest good wishes,

Portrait

Pax

In other words, you give yourself the right to interpret Scripture literally or figuratively at your own discretion.

Nice little system you have there

 

[Baelor]

The issue of woman’s ordination to the priesthood is, dear friend, an issue of major doctrinal importance and thus the Church must needs declare its postion plainly on such a matter.

What you are suggesting in terms of the role of women, etc. is an issue that would dictate the daily and spiritual lives of the seven billion humans living on this planet and all those that came before and will come after. I fail to see how this does not qualify as something upon which the Church “must needs declare its position plainly.”

 

[irishpatrick]

How would you know?
What reason (if any) is there to believe that it was any more or less culturally conditioned than Saint Paul’s endorsement of slavery?

You do not know what Paul was doing. he was NOT concerning himself about social justice, he really never was. He was attempting to make clear that nothing in this life compares to the next life, and that we need to keep our eye on Christ. He admonishes slaver owners to be kind to their slaves, while also admonishing slaves to remember that Jesus transcends everything in this life. I feel you are trying to compare the Biblical accounts of slavery to same variety the USA was guilty of before the Civil War, the two are not remotely close. Slavery was the norm in the days of the Romans, and Paul certainly understood what suffering was considering he was imprisoned, tutured, etc. at the hands of others. His ministry was NOT about trying to change the secular world, it was about trying to change and convert souls to Christ. Everything Saint Paul did was for the salvation of souls. Paul made it clear that the slaves were to serve their masters “according to the flesh,” which means that in all higher order matters, every person is to raise their minds and souls to Jesus.

Finally, Saint Paul makes it clear he does not support institjutionalize slavery in this passage:

Galatians 3:26-28 26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

It is easy to grab passages here and there to try to make a point, yet one must really understand Scripture and the faith, in order to have any chance at proper exegesis. Be careful yanking passages in an attempt to win arguments…no first the full context of not only that passage, but how it folds into all of Sacred Revelation.

 

[Baelor]

You do not know what Paul was doing. he was NOT concerning himself about social justice, he really never was. He was attempting to make clear that nothing in this life compares to the next life, and that we need to keep our eye on Christ…His ministry was NOT about trying to change the secular world, it was about trying to change and convert souls to Christ. Everything Saint Paul did was for the salvation of souls.

So why should we regard his views on marriage and the proper role of women differently from his statements on slavery?

 

[irishpatrick]

So why should we regard his views on marriage and the proper role of women differently from his statements on slavery?

As I said, Saint Paul’s ministry is/was all about the spiritual, not the worldly. He speaks to Divine realities, not to worldly acceptance. The Gospel, the true Gospel as properly understood, is rarely ever understood by those who do not believe.

 

[AngryAtheist8]

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

Patently (and obviously) false.
There are many female doctors today (and in the past there were many female nurses).
Moreover many female nurses and doctors have also been mothers.