I
irishpatrick
Guest
Scripture can never be treated so simply. Please provide the passages you are concerned with, and we can discuss those.
- Status
T
thewanderer
Guest
Portrait,
I am still confused about your position on St. Joan of Arc. What people are trying to explain is the fact that since there has been a legitimate exception to this rule you wish to lay down that women should not enter the military this particular rule you wish to uphold cannot be an absolute rule. If it were an absolute rule then it would by definition be impossible for any exceptions to ever exist. If it cannot be taken as an absolute rule, one must accept that it is a general rule, in other words, legitimate exceptions exist, however rare. If you are willing to admit that these rules you are laying down are not absolute rules, but rather general rules to which it is possible for exceptions to exist, then the disagreement is not about the rule itself, but about the frequency of the exceptions. I fail to see how you can deny that there are exceptions, as the examples of St. Joan of Arc and St Gianna are clearly examples held up by the Church of exceptions to the rules that you seem to be claiming are absolute. In order to be intellecctually honest about this you have two options.
I am still confused about your position on St. Joan of Arc. What people are trying to explain is the fact that since there has been a legitimate exception to this rule you wish to lay down that women should not enter the military this particular rule you wish to uphold cannot be an absolute rule. If it were an absolute rule then it would by definition be impossible for any exceptions to ever exist. If it cannot be taken as an absolute rule, one must accept that it is a general rule, in other words, legitimate exceptions exist, however rare. If you are willing to admit that these rules you are laying down are not absolute rules, but rather general rules to which it is possible for exceptions to exist, then the disagreement is not about the rule itself, but about the frequency of the exceptions. I fail to see how you can deny that there are exceptions, as the examples of St. Joan of Arc and St Gianna are clearly examples held up by the Church of exceptions to the rules that you seem to be claiming are absolute. In order to be intellecctually honest about this you have two options.
- Accept the teaching of the Church that legitimate exceptions to these rules exist, and so that the rules are not absolute, but rather general rules.
- Hold onto the idea that these rules are absolute and so claim that the Church was wrong to set up Sts Joan of Arc and Gianna as examples of legitimate exceptions to these rules.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear the wanderer,Portrait,
I am still confused about your position on St. Joan of Arc. What people are trying to explain is the fact that since there has been a legitimate exception to this rule you wish to lay down that women should not enter the military this particular rule you wish to uphold cannot be an absolute rule. If it were an absolute rule then it would by definition be impossible for any exceptions to ever exist. If it cannot be taken as an absolute rule, one must accept that it is a general rule, in other words, legitimate exceptions exist, however rare. If you are willing to admit that these rules you are laying down are not absolute rules, but rather general rules to which it is possible for exceptions to exist, then the disagreement is not about the rule itself, but about the frequency of the exceptions. I fail to see how you can deny that there are exceptions, as the examples of St. Joan of Arc and St Gianna are clearly examples held up by the Church of exceptions to the rules that you seem to be claiming are absolute. In order to be intellecctually honest about this you have two options.
It is a very simple either or Portrait, you cannot hold both.
- Accept the teaching of the Church that legitimate exceptions to these rules exist, and so that the rules are not absolute, but rather general rules.
- Hold onto the idea that these rules are absolute and so claim that the Church was wrong to set up Sts Joan of Arc and Gianna as examples of legitimate exceptions to these rules.
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Hope all is well. Thankyou for your response above.
The examples which you cite are, dear sister, exceptions rather than the rule, but I agree that occasionally God does raise up women for specific tasks, as he did indeed in the case of Deborah in the O.T. Deborah did hold a high position of eminence in Israel and was a prophetess who judged during a period of bitter oppression by neighbouring enemies. She summoned Barak to raise ten thousand men to engage the enemy. Moreover, she dominated the scene enough by her faith and strength of character for him to beg her to accompany his troops in battle. However, such instances are uncommon and cannot therefore serve as a template for Catholic married women, who are encourgaged to be “workers at home” (Titus 2: 5). We must needs distinguish between special individuals raised up for special occasions and the multitudes of ordinary Catholic women, to whom St. Paul’s requirements continue to apply.
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
T
thewanderer
Guest
Portrait,
You misunderstand me completely if you believe I am trying to do away with the recognition that men and women are different. I have proclaimed as much myself already multiple times on this thread.
Talking about something as a “norm” which “allows exceptions” implies that it is not an absolute rule.
So it seems as though you agree that these rules you are laying down are not absolute rules. If you could clarify whether or not you actually believve them to be absolutes that would be extremely helpful for this discussion.
B
bearer
Guest
Skimming through this thread, and admittedly very quickly at that, I have come to one conclusion in particular: that pride, as timeless a vice as it is, has been magnified and increased by socio-political empowerment, especially by way of democracy and the like. God commands us to surrender and to submit for His sake and others’, and yet people still have a difficult time accepting it because we’re used to putting ourselves and our desires first.
Marriage is the most ancient institution in human history, and it was directly given to us as a gift of God. All the so-called rights and democratic ideals that have crept into human culture over the centuries, if anything, have done more to damage and destroy marriage than to strengthen it.
To make a long story short, people need to get over their aversion to humility and do what God wants, not what they want. Scripture repeatedly demonstrates the ideal marriage, the ideal husband, and the ideal wife, despite human frailties. It’s not that difficult to understand, if you actually want to understand it. Read the Bible, read the teachings of the Church, and stop complaining about the need to surrender and submit. That’s what we’re all here to do in one way or another, for God’s sake, for our brothers’ and sisters’, and for ours…
Marriage is the most ancient institution in human history, and it was directly given to us as a gift of God. All the so-called rights and democratic ideals that have crept into human culture over the centuries, if anything, have done more to damage and destroy marriage than to strengthen it.
To make a long story short, people need to get over their aversion to humility and do what God wants, not what they want. Scripture repeatedly demonstrates the ideal marriage, the ideal husband, and the ideal wife, despite human frailties. It’s not that difficult to understand, if you actually want to understand it. Read the Bible, read the teachings of the Church, and stop complaining about the need to surrender and submit. That’s what we’re all here to do in one way or another, for God’s sake, for our brothers’ and sisters’, and for ours…
L
Litcrit
Guest
Well, I’m not sure exactly how much “femensim” has to do with our choices, but in the case of our family, we can very easily answer this question.
My dear, calm, patient, nurturing, neat, clean husband who is a homebody has a high school diploma and couldn’t get a job to feed us even if he wanted one - which he doesn’t. He’s quite happy being a SAHD. He might get a job as a construction worker or factory worker and be outside of the house 10 hours a day and still not be able to feed us and be miserable.
But there’s no need for that. I’m an active sort of person who enjoys varied settings and activities. I hold an M.Sc. and am writing my doctoral dissertation. I can feed the family by teaching at a university 6 hours a week. I enjoy my work and think of it as a mission. I had 18 months of maternity leave with both my children and loved the exhilaration of going back to work and exchanging ideas with my students, inciting them to think critically.
We spend the vast majority of our time together as a family - Dad, Mom and the kids as opposed to one parent with the kids with the other parent constantly absent due to work. This wouldn’t be possible if we went against both our God-given natures and tried to force ourselves into the role of the other.
S
Serap
Guest
I think it’s justified for women to go back to work; just as women had full time jobs tending to their family business (i.e. farm).
Most women get bored when the kids are in school. I believe this b/c of the women I’ve spoken to. This is the time when many mothers re-enter the workforce.
Honestly, I don’t blame them. There is only so much to do around the house in a day. It can all be done in an hour or two at most. Then there’s the rest of the day where you’re looking at the walls thinking…“what now?”.
S
Serap
Guest
yes, that would be tough.Not if you homeschool. Tough job.
i couldn’t do it. kudos to those who can.
P
Portrait
Guest
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
S
Serap
Guest
Angry Athiest,
I have to admit that you did touch on Mother Mary with a bit of disrespect. I know you didn’t mean it literally.
As you are on a Catholic website and we love and honour Mary, perhaps you could just send an apology or just a clarication of what you meant by (and I’m paraphrasing what you wrote):
“Mary is not a good role model for women” or something like that. You would redeem yourself to many who do hold Mother Mary in high esteem. You are a very intelligent and thoughtful Atheist and it’s ok for us to disagree so long as we respect eachother’s beliefs and differences.
I have to admit that you did touch on Mother Mary with a bit of disrespect. I know you didn’t mean it literally.
As you are on a Catholic website and we love and honour Mary, perhaps you could just send an apology or just a clarication of what you meant by (and I’m paraphrasing what you wrote):
“Mary is not a good role model for women” or something like that. You would redeem yourself to many who do hold Mother Mary in high esteem. You are a very intelligent and thoughtful Atheist and it’s ok for us to disagree so long as we respect eachother’s beliefs and differences.
B
Baelor
Guest
You are correct. The motives could be bad. But they could also be good, and of course those kinds of questions do not apply to women called to the single non-religious life.
The quotations provided by Portrait as evidence, for instance.
You have not explained why they could not be paradigms.
M
Mickey
Guest
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.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Please post what YOU personally want to discuss, not references to what others have already discussed. I have tried to answer your questions. If you cannot give me a direct question, with a direct post describing your concern, than there is no reason to continue.
B
Baelor
Guest
That is not what was said, nor was “something like that” said. You have the right to be offended, but others are not obligated by etiquette to respond accordingly.
I agree. But clearly this is easier said than done, since both of us believe we have well-formed consciences but espouse mutually exclusive beliefs.
You cannot generalize on that basis; all women are different.
The Catholic faith has not spoken against women soldiers, and the acknowledgment of what you claim is actually a rejection of reality.
You are employing circular reasoning. Rephrased, your argument is as follows:
Woman cannot fight in combat, and that Joan of Arc is an exception to this rule because God raised her up. How is this known? Because she fought in combat and women cannot fight in combat.
That is logically fallacious. You need to demonstrate on an independent basis that Joan of Arc was unnatural in order to disprove the notion that she should be considered an example of women being disposed to fight in combat.
Interesting. You must not have a very high opinion of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.
I am waiting for the provision of any official Church document or teaching that supports your viewpoint.
Oh, Portrait, I will pray for you! “Self-evident” is the refuge of those who recognize that they are wrong but unwilling to acknowledge this fact.
The Church speaks about plenty of self-evident issues. If the Church thought women soldiers were problematic, it would not mention them in official documents with no mention of their problematic nature, nor would it let such a great injustice go unaddressed for such a long time.
That does not need proof. What does need proof is that women are incapable of being in that environment, and that the issues you list are specific to men. I find it hard to believe that you would make an argument based on violence, as if this is a reason for discouraging only one of the sexes from combat.
That general statement does not involve a specific prescription, so it is not relevant.
This is factually incorrect. Women who pass all of the examinations have demonstrated that they are suited based on physical and emotional make-up.
B
Baelor
Guest
There are more salient topics to discuss than this one, so let us end it here.Please post what YOU personally want to discuss, not references to what others have already discussed. I have tried to answer your questions. If you cannot give me a direct question, with a direct post describing your concern, than there is no reason to continue.
L
LucyLight
Guest
**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**
You need to do some serious self-examination and find out what it is that is driving you to speak falsely about the Church’s teaching. Pope John Paul II praised and thanked women who work outside of the home. The Church does not say that women can’t or should not work outside of the home. We are not protestants, we don’t follow everything St. Paul says we follow what the Church says and the Church does not follow everything St. Paul says. For example, St. Paul says that women should not teach and have authority over men. The Church does not follow this as women teach at seminaries, run parishes etc. Portrait you sound like a good protestant maybe you should start your own church then you could make up all the rules.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait**
You need to do some serious self-examination and find out what it is that is driving you to speak falsely about the Church’s teaching. Pope John Paul II praised and thanked women who work outside of the home. The Church does not say that women can’t or should not work outside of the home. We are not protestants, we don’t follow everything St. Paul says we follow what the Church says and the Church does not follow everything St. Paul says. For example, St. Paul says that women should not teach and have authority over men. The Church does not follow this as women teach at seminaries, run parishes etc. Portrait you sound like a good protestant maybe you should start your own church then you could make up all the rules.
I
irishpatrick
Guest
Very well.
R
ryecroft
Guest
Portrait -
I just really don’t get it - why is it that you feel you’re the one who gets to decide what is an exception and what isn’t. Why is it that you believe we should take what the Bible teaches literally and then you say ‘oh well that’s an exception so don’t take that part literally…’ (granted I’m paraphrasing what you’ve been saying) - you CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either it’s all taken literally or it’s all up to interpretation.
I’m glad your rules or beliefs are NOT those of the Catholic Church. There is nothing what-so- ever wrong with a woman either being single and pursuing a career (and yes she can even do this to God’s Glory believe it or not - you don’t have to have kids or be a Nun to be a woman and give God Glory!) or a woman being married, having kids and a full time career. Just because she does or I do does not prove I am a selfish wife or selfish with my family. It just means I make the time. A woman can have a family and a full time career (and yes one that was even at one point in the military) - and I am offending God in NO WAY by doing this. I love God, I love my family and I love my career - I thank God I’ve been given the ability to do all of these things. (And just because a woman does these things does NOT necessarily make her some ‘radical’ feminist!)
Your way of belief may have been popular at one time - and for that time it worked - heck it could (and does) even work today-but we as women sometimes get to choose (thank God) how we’d like to live our lives (as SAHM, as a woman with a career or as a wife with a career). But you seem to want to condemn all ‘career’ women who don’t necessarily have to work - but choose to work - as selfish women who don’t care about their husbands or kids - I love my family - just because I have a career doesn’t mean I have chosen a selfish path - and no where in the Bible does it say that by doing this I have (nor in the CCC).
God Bless
Rye
I just really don’t get it - why is it that you feel you’re the one who gets to decide what is an exception and what isn’t. Why is it that you believe we should take what the Bible teaches literally and then you say ‘oh well that’s an exception so don’t take that part literally…’ (granted I’m paraphrasing what you’ve been saying) - you CAN’T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS. Either it’s all taken literally or it’s all up to interpretation.
I’m glad your rules or beliefs are NOT those of the Catholic Church. There is nothing what-so- ever wrong with a woman either being single and pursuing a career (and yes she can even do this to God’s Glory believe it or not - you don’t have to have kids or be a Nun to be a woman and give God Glory!) or a woman being married, having kids and a full time career. Just because she does or I do does not prove I am a selfish wife or selfish with my family. It just means I make the time. A woman can have a family and a full time career (and yes one that was even at one point in the military) - and I am offending God in NO WAY by doing this. I love God, I love my family and I love my career - I thank God I’ve been given the ability to do all of these things. (And just because a woman does these things does NOT necessarily make her some ‘radical’ feminist!)
Your way of belief may have been popular at one time - and for that time it worked - heck it could (and does) even work today-but we as women sometimes get to choose (thank God) how we’d like to live our lives (as SAHM, as a woman with a career or as a wife with a career). But you seem to want to condemn all ‘career’ women who don’t necessarily have to work - but choose to work - as selfish women who don’t care about their husbands or kids - I love my family - just because I have a career doesn’t mean I have chosen a selfish path - and no where in the Bible does it say that by doing this I have (nor in the CCC).
God Bless
Rye
L
Litcrit
Guest
I may have misunderstood, but all I got from Angry Atheist 8 was the notion that the Virgin Mary is not an example most human beings are likely to be able to follow in *literal *terms, as we can’t and shouldn’t *literally *be doing what She did. It is therefore not quite productive to give Her example in little literal details of life (She wasn’t employed, She didn’t use a cellphone, She didn’t give birth in a hospital, She always covered Her head, etc.)
English is not my native language, so I may have misunderstood, as I said. But I didn’t see anything offensive - intentionally or otherwise - in AngryAtheist’s post.
M
Mickey
Guest
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?
- Status