What does God make of feminism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter thomfra
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
SpiritMeadow said:
I’m sorry, your point escapes me. I didn’t know God had rights. I thought he was omnipotent. He gives rights.
Click to expand...
He’s owed worship and obedience by human beings. These we can phrase as his “rights,” if we are going to use such vague language to begin with.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
There is tons of scripture that refer to God in female attribute. God is considered by even the orthodox as ungendered, neither male nor female. Jesus gave us a way of looking at God as dear as our own fathers. The analogy of as dear to us as our own Mothers would have been as apt, but in his society, Father carried more weight. We have I hope moved a bit foreward as he also showed us by his constant involvement with women, usually women who were rejected by the society of his day.
Click to expand...
We have not, and cannot, “move forward” beyond the teachings of the Lord.

The Lord became man.“Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” Where in Scripture, or in Sacred Tradition, is it “Mother, Daughter, and Holy Ghost?”

Show me one passage in the Bible, or admit you deny the infallible Word of God.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
You misunderstand I think. Feminism supports generally the right of each woman to choose how to use her body. Not all agree with Catholic teaching on this issue as you can surmise. Most Catholics favor the right of women to choose, though they themselves might never choose abortion and many might as well work hard for all alternatives other than abortion. ABC does in fact contribute to the decrease in abortions and that is one of the reasons it is supported. It has been my contention that NFP is a direct result of the overwhelming refusal of Catholic men and women to use no method of avoiding pregnancy other than avoidance.

And you are quite right, the main argument here is that unlike themselves, those who disagree are not properly catechised.
Click to expand...
Women don’t have the “right” to use their bodies in any way. Neither do men.

The flesh is to be crucified, remember?

Ah… The “Spirit” of Vatican II.
 
I think God prefers Catholicism to feminism any day! 👍

Catholicism is sufficient for respecting the dignity of women and for seeing to it that they are not deprived of their rights as human beings.

Feminism (only God knows what that really means 😃 , everyone has his/her own definition 😃 ) is a worldly initiative, not a Catholic one. Catholicism is sufficient, and therefore, feminism is not required.
 
iaskquestions said:
I think God prefers Catholicism to feminism any day! 👍

Catholicism is sufficient for respecting the dignity of women and for seeing to it that they are not deprived of their rights as human beings.

Feminism (only God knows what that really means 😃 , everyone has his/her own definition 😃 ) is a worldly initiative, not a Catholic one. Catholicism is sufficient, and therefore, feminism is not required.
Click to expand...
In an ideal world, yes. This may well be true. But what do you mean by “worldly initiative”? I mean, everything we do is a worldly initiative. The spread of Catholicism wouldn’t have occurred without the Portuguese, the Spanish and the French getting in their boats and subjugating a few billion souls. In the same way, we wouldn’t be sitting here speaking as equals without feminism.
 
thomfra said:
I mean, everything we do is a worldly initiative. The spread of Catholicism wouldn’t have occurred without the Portuguese, the Spanish and the French getting in their boats and subjugating a few billion souls.
Click to expand...
How can you say such a thing? St. Thomas (Christ’s apostle) came upto India preaching the gospel. The Catholic Church did not ask these conquerors to invade lands so that they could preach. They invaded for their own interests. However the church just used this fact to her advantage.

Not everything we do is a worldy initiative. If the motive behind the initiative is doing what Christ requires, then it cannot be termed as a worldy initiative. I don’t think Christ requires “abortion rights, and reproductive rights (including access to contraception and quality prenatal care)”.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism
thomfra said:
In the same way, we wouldn’t be sitting here speaking as equals without feminism.
Click to expand...
Sorry, the Catholic Church has never treated women as “unequals”. Even if feminism didn’t exist, you would still be sitting here as an equal.
 
Who were the **earliest advocates **of feminism?

I’ll name 2 of them.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism

**1) Voltairine de Cleyre **-

"she was placed as a teenager into a Catholic convent by necessity, because her father could not support the family. This experience had the effect of pushing her towards** atheism **rather than Christianity. "

“Throughout her life she was plagued by illness and depression, **attempting suicide on at least two occasions **”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltairine_de_Cleyre

2) Margaret Sanger

“On October 16, 1916, Sanger opened a family planning and birth control clinic at 46 Amboy St. in the Brownsville neighborhood of Brooklyn, the first of its kind in the United States”

“Sanger also had offending words for Catholics when she stated that she believed that they were “black moles…invading our buildings of democracy”

"In the early 1960s, Sanger promoted the use of the newly available birth control pill. "

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

So you see what kind of people started the movement.
 
Jesus asks that we take up the way of the cross not the way of feminism. He asks that we proclaim the good news just as Paul and Peter did.

Feminists need to drop the term “feminist” and start using the term Catholic or Christian.

There are many feminist who can’t accept that God IS the FATHER. They actually think that the bible is wrong to call God the Father.

Sadly many feminists would not even wash the feet Jesus because he is a man. They argue that it isn’t fair that God isn’t a woman.

For this reason, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a feminist to enter into the kingdom of God.

Many women today need to obey thier husbands and view him as the head of the family under God. That is the natural order of things.
 
thomfra said:
In an ideal world, yes. This may well be true. But what do you mean by “worldly initiative”? I mean, everything we do is a worldly initiative. The spread of Catholicism wouldn’t have occurred without the Portuguese, the Spanish and the French getting in their boats and subjugating a few billion souls. In the same way, we wouldn’t be sitting here speaking as equals without feminism.
Click to expand...
Don’t change the subject. Radical, bra burning, men hating feminism as espoused by NOW has turned women into slaves to immoral living. It drove a wedge between men and women. It encouraged women to embrace victimhood and reject healing. They would always be at war with the enemy - men.

The “worldly initiative” refers to the secular humanist agenda of NOW and Gloria Steinem.

Peace,
Ed
 
JamesG said:
Many women today need to obey thier husbands and view him as the head of the family under God. That is the natural order of things.
Click to expand...
That’s an interesting statement to make.

…and I hazard to say, a broad based stereotype that would probably inspire the wrath of a feminist!

Not all men are of the moral, ethical (and let’s face it, some men are just not capable) fabric to be the “head of the family”.
This is unfortunate, but a rather pervasive reality in today’s society. 69% of post secondary graduates are female in my area- and PS grads have been consistently shown to be higher earners and more stable in terms of the actual physical means to support and “head” a family.
Is it the most traditional way? No. Personally, I won’t marry a man who doesn’t have a square head on his shoulders (and an intellectual level at least equalling mine), so the idea of my being the head of a family is not one that I will stomache. It is something that would immasculate my FH in my opinion. (And as a disclaimer to all- I know there are fabulous men who are SAHD’s and SAH’s, but it’s not a lifestyle for me)

However, there are situations where it is best for the family for the women to NOT bear under their husbands, but rather, lift them up to a greater life that they cannot provide by their own means. This is not to say that they should disrespect their husbands… but if a husband were to object to a wife taking a more active and dominant role in the family when it would clearly better/benefit the situation, then the husband is displaying characteristics of the vice of pride and not looking out for the best interests of the family. That only proves that he is further incapable of being a sensible head of family.
 
ghaybyers1 said:
Not all men are of the moral, ethical (and let’s face it, some men are just not capable) fabric to be the “head of the family”.
Click to expand...
Yes, that’s true, especially in today’s world, where many “men” are no longer men.
ghaybyers1 said:
Personally, I won’t marry a man who doesn’t have a square head on his shoulders (and an intellectual level at least equalling mine), so the idea of my being the head of a family is not one that I will stomache.
Click to expand...
That should be the attitude! 👍 These days, a lot of women don’t seem to think about all these things when choosing a husband, and vice versa.
ghaybyers1 said:
However, there are situations where it is best for the family for the women to NOT bear under their husbands, but rather, lift them up to a greater life that they cannot provide by their own means.
Click to expand...
Certainly true. If a man is not doing what he is supposed to do as the head of the family, then his wife has every right to question and challenge him to do it.

In fact, the wife’s submission to her husband relies upon the assumption that the husband loves her as Christ loved the Church! If he is not loving her as Christ loved the Church, then the wife can question him.

There are two wonderful articles that I’ve read regarding this. You might find them to be very useful.

Spiritual headship: jimmyakin.org/2004/04/spiritual_heads.html

**The Authority of Women: **catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0004.html
 
PrayforMallory said:
He’s owed worship and obedience by human beings. These we can phrase as his “rights,” if we are going to use such vague language to begin with.
Click to expand...
No doubt. I guess I just look at it differently. I can’t conceive of God asking for worship or obedience. I assume God is delighted with our offer of worship and obedience to what we conceive of as his desires for us. God certainly can have no need of such things as I see it.
 
PrayforMallory said:
We have not, and cannot, “move forward” beyond the teachings of the Lord.

The Lord became man.“Father, Son and Holy Ghost.” Where in Scripture, or in Sacred Tradition, is it “Mother, Daughter, and Holy Ghost?”

Show me one passage in the Bible, or admit you deny the infallible Word of God.
Click to expand...
We as Catholics do not read the bible literalistically. I need admit no such thing nor show you anything. It is a given that God is ungendered. That is the teaching of the Church. We are interpreting the Bible all the time. Your use of Holy Ghost suggests you were not Catholic from the start. ?
 
PrayforMallory said:
None that I know of now. Perhaps countries in Africa and Latin America where Catholicism thrives.
Click to expand...
Sorry but Latin America is not sound anymore as huge numbers are leaving the Church for to become evangelicals.
 
PrayforMallory said:
Women don’t have the “right” to use their bodies in any way. Neither do men.

The flesh is to be crucified, remember?

Ah… The “Spirit” of Vatican II.
Click to expand...
That is of course your opinion, but thanks for the label. I never mentioned Vatican II whatsoever. That is most dismissive of you and quite uncharatible I must say.
 
edwest2 said:
Don’t change the subject. Radical, bra burning, men hating feminism as espoused by NOW has turned women into slaves to immoral living. It drove a wedge between men and women. It encouraged women to embrace victimhood and reject healing. They would always be at war with the enemy - men.

The “worldly initiative” refers to the secular humanist agenda of NOW and Gloria Steinem.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Ed every time this subject comes up, you talk about bra burning and men hating. When are you going to get unstuck from the 60’s? I’ve never seen anyone with such powerful anger at the 60’s as you. The world did not stop there, it’s moved on.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
We as Catholics do not read the bible literalistically. I need admit no such thing nor show you anything. It is a given that God is ungendered. That is the teaching of the Church. We are interpreting the Bible all the time.
Click to expand...
Catholic do not teach that nothing in the bible is literal

From the Catechism:
110
In order to discover the sacred authors’ intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at that time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current. “For the fact is that truth is differently presented and expressed i**n the various types of historical writing, in prophetical and poetical texts, and in other forms of literary expression.”**76
We can distinguish three stages in the formation of the Gospels:
Click to expand...
Code: 
1. The life and teaching of Jesus. The Church holds firmly that the four Gospels, **"whose historicity she unhesitatingly affirms, **faithfully hand on what Jesus, the Son of God, while he lived among men, really did and taught for their eternal salvation, until the day when he was taken up."99
Click to expand...
Code: 
2. The oral tradition. "For, after the ascension of the Lord, the apostles handed on to their hearers what he had said and done, but with that fuller understanding which they, instructed by the glorious events of Christ and enlightened by the Spirit of truth, now enjoyed."100
Click to expand...
Code: 
3. The written Gospels. "The sacred authors, in writing the four Gospels, selected certain of the many elements which had been handed on, either orally or already in written form; others they synthesized or explained with an eye to the situation of the churches, while sustaining the form of preaching, but always in such a fashion that they have told us the honest truth about Jesus."101
Click to expand...
The Church does not teach nor has it ever taught that nothing in the bible is “not literal”. The bible contains many different types of literature not just myth. No where in the Catechism is this idea put forth.
Your use of Holy Ghost suggests you were not Catholic from the start. ?
Click to expand...
Up until the 60’s the Catholic Church used Holy Ghost. It was changed so as not to confuse people with the current understanding of ghost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top