C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
Who taught you that?
- Status
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
scripturecatholic.com/husband_headship.html
1 Cor. 11:3 – “But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.”
“For the man is the head of the woman in perfect order when Christ who is the Wisdom of God is the head of the man.”* Augustine, Against the Manichaeans 2, 12, 16 (A.D. 391).*
A
Amolibri
Guest
When you use the term “fairer” sex you automatically set women as “different” and less. Why should women be denied any opportunity pursued by men btw? Just wondering.
**There are plenty of feminists I would assume who are not in favor of abortion, in fact I would hazard a guess that most are not in favor of it. Being in favor of the right to choice is not the same. And as to ABC, well, you are going to have a hard row to hoe convincing even men that this is a bad thing if you arent’ Catholic. 85% of catholics use it, and 98% of the pop. at large believes it is a good thing./**QUOTE]
Spirit, you have said a mouthful…keyboard full
One thing I’d like to know is who and why was God assigned a gender???
J
jennifer67
Guest
Well,
I recently revived a thread on another forum and some people objected. I am very new here so didn’t know I was supposed to check the date of the thread and then not revive it.???
Anyway, looking for something interesting in the fora and stumbled upon this. Someone might object to the reviving of it???
I am a 40 year old attorney and my mother was a full time nursing supervisor throughout her married life.
She taught me in no uncertain terms that I must get an education and be able to go out and support myself - both to take care of myself and any children in the event of being widowed or abandoned etc…I grew up with an awareness of the plight of women of my mother’s generation who were subjected to a tidal wave of divorce, leaving them impoverished and struggling to care for children after devoting themselves to being mothers and homemakers.
I do believe a woman has an obligation to train herself if possible to assist in the support of the family or to be the sole support if needed. I am frustrated but compassionate to see so many struggling on their own with children in my generation and the next…
In my extended family a woman would be seriously frowned upon for marrying before completing her basic education (university degree).
We live in a society where a woman cannot expect to find a man to be a strong leader/provider and be committed to a traditional role. This may not be rare, but it seems so.
I respect men who take on the lifetime obligation of taking care of their families but I didn’t wait for one to appear and expect one to take care of me forever.
Does this make me a feminist? Who knows - during my college days at a Catholic university women were under pressure to go around denying any tendency toward feminism (or forget about ever having a date!)
There are problems with modern feminism and I don’t subscribe to much of what it has offered, but it is sad that college educated women had to shut down their minds and play pretty and dumb sometimes to get the approval of our male peers/community.
Even today I get grief, often from women, when I display competecy, strength or any semblance of having authority in my professional role! Men are actually more respectful/admiring often.
I like to turn that off and enjoy my feminine side in my personal life, but sometimes a woman who displays softness can be subject to attempts to take advantage. So it can be hard.
Furthermore, I personally have experienced numbers of men masquerading under the “traditional” guise. I’ve seen men use their greater strength and greater ease with dominant behavior to control their families in the interest of serving only the man’s selfish desires. Signs of this are domineering, controlling behavior and such.
I believe the passages in the Bible about marriage are beautiful - the man loving his wife as his own body…would this were more common.
Should I meet a man who could lead in the Bible sense, putting my needs and the needs of children in the forefront, I would respect him and give him a chance to show me how that might work…
But in the meantime I am awful glad I can support myself as my mother required of me and enjoy the stimulation of my career.
It is hard sometimes to figure out how to date some of these Catholic guys - but I have been surprised how many admire a woman for her accomplishments, something not so common when I was in college playing Miss Nice (don’t worry I am not too too smart!)
Interested in more discussion if anyone so desires…seems my posts are boring and noone replies!
I recently revived a thread on another forum and some people objected. I am very new here so didn’t know I was supposed to check the date of the thread and then not revive it.???
Anyway, looking for something interesting in the fora and stumbled upon this. Someone might object to the reviving of it???
I am a 40 year old attorney and my mother was a full time nursing supervisor throughout her married life.
She taught me in no uncertain terms that I must get an education and be able to go out and support myself - both to take care of myself and any children in the event of being widowed or abandoned etc…I grew up with an awareness of the plight of women of my mother’s generation who were subjected to a tidal wave of divorce, leaving them impoverished and struggling to care for children after devoting themselves to being mothers and homemakers.
I do believe a woman has an obligation to train herself if possible to assist in the support of the family or to be the sole support if needed. I am frustrated but compassionate to see so many struggling on their own with children in my generation and the next…
In my extended family a woman would be seriously frowned upon for marrying before completing her basic education (university degree).
We live in a society where a woman cannot expect to find a man to be a strong leader/provider and be committed to a traditional role. This may not be rare, but it seems so.
I respect men who take on the lifetime obligation of taking care of their families but I didn’t wait for one to appear and expect one to take care of me forever.
Does this make me a feminist? Who knows - during my college days at a Catholic university women were under pressure to go around denying any tendency toward feminism (or forget about ever having a date!)
There are problems with modern feminism and I don’t subscribe to much of what it has offered, but it is sad that college educated women had to shut down their minds and play pretty and dumb sometimes to get the approval of our male peers/community.
Even today I get grief, often from women, when I display competecy, strength or any semblance of having authority in my professional role! Men are actually more respectful/admiring often.
I like to turn that off and enjoy my feminine side in my personal life, but sometimes a woman who displays softness can be subject to attempts to take advantage. So it can be hard.
Furthermore, I personally have experienced numbers of men masquerading under the “traditional” guise. I’ve seen men use their greater strength and greater ease with dominant behavior to control their families in the interest of serving only the man’s selfish desires. Signs of this are domineering, controlling behavior and such.
I believe the passages in the Bible about marriage are beautiful - the man loving his wife as his own body…would this were more common.
Should I meet a man who could lead in the Bible sense, putting my needs and the needs of children in the forefront, I would respect him and give him a chance to show me how that might work…
But in the meantime I am awful glad I can support myself as my mother required of me and enjoy the stimulation of my career.
It is hard sometimes to figure out how to date some of these Catholic guys - but I have been surprised how many admire a woman for her accomplishments, something not so common when I was in college playing Miss Nice (don’t worry I am not too too smart!)
Interested in more discussion if anyone so desires…seems my posts are boring and noone replies!
A
adrift
Guest
And the Children? Who is rearing them? Is it babysitters, daycare, nannies and schools? Feminism promoted the idea of “quality not quantity” and our children have suffered. The children being shuffled off to spend hours with those whose only interest in them was the dollar.
How many women are working at the level you indicate? Most women are in minimum wage jobs. They need their job plus their husbands to make ends meet. They don’t have the luxury of staying home and rearing their children. It is a shame that the only equality that some see is that of the almighty dollar. Feminism promoted the idea that being a mother and taking care of the children was demeaning and made the women less than the man. Somehow the women taking care of the family made her less equal. It was a lie but many bought into it with the result that being a mother and homemaker has been devalued which is what feminism was trying to accomplish.
J
jennifer67
Guest
You present things to think about.
None of this is ideal. I would have enjoyed staying home and caring for children but that is not an opportunity all people get.
My sister, a CPA, did take off quite a few years to raise her children, but is now teaching community college which still allows summers off when the kids are home.
My own parents worked opposite shifts, 7-3, 3-11 so we were never with babysitters, but it was a sacrifice for them.
I do believe if possible to manage on one income it is good to explore that.
I never did study up formally on feminist thought, having to be rather practical and get out in the real world and get on with it, so can’t offer an educated critique/analysis.
Can comment on the realities women face. My father and I often disagree because he looks back on a golden era when a family could survive on one income and the mother could be at home which he says was “better for everyone” but I question him on that last point.
Was it better for women who were trapped in the reality of abusive marriages - when they couldn’t leave due to an inability to support themselves? My own beauty queen grandmother married young, had 5 children and lived a life in a state of total dependency and poverty beholden to my alcoholic grandfather, eventually losing all her children to the local orphanage. What if she had been able to remove them all from that environment and support them?
The state of total dependency on a man is a very precarious position to be in.
I don’t deny my father his longing for a golden era but question whether that era was really so golden or did that reality have some darkness?
Was it good for women of all talents to be tracked into one way of life however gratifying that may be for most?
Some women have a contribution to make outside of the home and thus single life can be a vocation too. Today’s women have a choice.
Of course, once having entered a marriage, the parties need to honor their commitment and put children first but there is some flexibility in options.
Well, that is all for now…just wonder sometimes how to navigate this with the single men I am meeting…luckily they seem reasonable and respectful of my pursuits.
None of this is ideal. I would have enjoyed staying home and caring for children but that is not an opportunity all people get.
My sister, a CPA, did take off quite a few years to raise her children, but is now teaching community college which still allows summers off when the kids are home.
My own parents worked opposite shifts, 7-3, 3-11 so we were never with babysitters, but it was a sacrifice for them.
I do believe if possible to manage on one income it is good to explore that.
I never did study up formally on feminist thought, having to be rather practical and get out in the real world and get on with it, so can’t offer an educated critique/analysis.
Can comment on the realities women face. My father and I often disagree because he looks back on a golden era when a family could survive on one income and the mother could be at home which he says was “better for everyone” but I question him on that last point.
Was it better for women who were trapped in the reality of abusive marriages - when they couldn’t leave due to an inability to support themselves? My own beauty queen grandmother married young, had 5 children and lived a life in a state of total dependency and poverty beholden to my alcoholic grandfather, eventually losing all her children to the local orphanage. What if she had been able to remove them all from that environment and support them?
The state of total dependency on a man is a very precarious position to be in.
I don’t deny my father his longing for a golden era but question whether that era was really so golden or did that reality have some darkness?
Was it good for women of all talents to be tracked into one way of life however gratifying that may be for most?
Some women have a contribution to make outside of the home and thus single life can be a vocation too. Today’s women have a choice.
Of course, once having entered a marriage, the parties need to honor their commitment and put children first but there is some flexibility in options.
Well, that is all for now…just wonder sometimes how to navigate this with the single men I am meeting…luckily they seem reasonable and respectful of my pursuits.
M
marci
Guest
I think the movement originally brought about many needed changes for women and children, but I believe it was hijacked by the radicals and began moving in a different direction.
Unfortunately, however noble the beginings, for me and many in my generation, the word “feminist” will forever conjure up images of bras burning.
As a SAHM (mid-thirties) I can say that I have experienced disaproval of my chosen “career”, but mainly from older women. The younger generation seem to be less inclined to wrap up the chose to stay at home with male dominance, but rather see it as a choice.
The thing I am most saddened to see coming out of the movement is really the attitude of modern men. I have found among this generation a lack of appreciation and respect for their wives who decide to stay home. It seems that they value the additional paycheck more than the devotion to children, home and family.
Also, most of the women I know who do work outside the home are still caring the majority of home and child duties, reguardless of their job or income. I believe there is alot of burn out. Women, it seems today, are carrying much more on their shoulders then any generation before them, and in some ways I guess we’ve asked for it.
As far as what God thinks of feminism, I think he gave us the ideal of womenhood through Mary. He gave us the “how to” on relations between men and women through the Bible. We just haven’t done a very good job of listening.
Unfortunately, however noble the beginings, for me and many in my generation, the word “feminist” will forever conjure up images of bras burning.
As a SAHM (mid-thirties) I can say that I have experienced disaproval of my chosen “career”, but mainly from older women. The younger generation seem to be less inclined to wrap up the chose to stay at home with male dominance, but rather see it as a choice.
The thing I am most saddened to see coming out of the movement is really the attitude of modern men. I have found among this generation a lack of appreciation and respect for their wives who decide to stay home. It seems that they value the additional paycheck more than the devotion to children, home and family.
Also, most of the women I know who do work outside the home are still caring the majority of home and child duties, reguardless of their job or income. I believe there is alot of burn out. Women, it seems today, are carrying much more on their shoulders then any generation before them, and in some ways I guess we’ve asked for it.
As far as what God thinks of feminism, I think he gave us the ideal of womenhood through Mary. He gave us the “how to” on relations between men and women through the Bible. We just haven’t done a very good job of listening.
J
jennifer67
Guest
There’s a lot to this issue and a lot to think about, especially for me trying to maintain my feminity and play some sort of role as a woman in society while having to be out there in a tough world…
I never gave a lot of time or attention to the feminist movement, not liking the radical aspect you refer to which among others denigrates the role of motherhood/spouse which I believe to be holy…
but after some dating experiences in the past couple of years, I had a bit more curiosity and understanding of it…yes, I think men could do better…I haven’t experienced the men not valuing wives at home - most women in my sister’s community have had that option and the men support them in that…
what I find is that perhaps due to the changes in society, partly related to the movement, men don’t…this sounds so obvious…but don’t play their role in respecting women…
Despite the emphasis on education, I was also brought up to be a lady, be modest, nurturing and such…one would think when dating a Catholic male, this would be understood and respected, but it almost has become not an expression of traditional values, but weakness in the modern males eyes and an invitation to take advantage or hold women like that in contempt…perhaps too strong language…there just is a lack in some (I know there are great men out there too that cherish women) of value for women whereas at least in the past when women played traditional roles in the family women were held in esteem…
My description above might be muddled, but in reaction I drafted up a personal “Manifesto” and even picked up a random paperback referencing feminism…but through it out after reading that having children is oppression etc…etc…
Anyway, being practical and wanting to live in the world and not in my head, I am looking these days to define my femininity according to the Bible, dropping any counterproductive socially imposed ideas…not based on that.
Well, that’s all for now… I’ll let you know when I get it all figured out!
I never gave a lot of time or attention to the feminist movement, not liking the radical aspect you refer to which among others denigrates the role of motherhood/spouse which I believe to be holy…
but after some dating experiences in the past couple of years, I had a bit more curiosity and understanding of it…yes, I think men could do better…I haven’t experienced the men not valuing wives at home - most women in my sister’s community have had that option and the men support them in that…
what I find is that perhaps due to the changes in society, partly related to the movement, men don’t…this sounds so obvious…but don’t play their role in respecting women…
Despite the emphasis on education, I was also brought up to be a lady, be modest, nurturing and such…one would think when dating a Catholic male, this would be understood and respected, but it almost has become not an expression of traditional values, but weakness in the modern males eyes and an invitation to take advantage or hold women like that in contempt…perhaps too strong language…there just is a lack in some (I know there are great men out there too that cherish women) of value for women whereas at least in the past when women played traditional roles in the family women were held in esteem…
My description above might be muddled, but in reaction I drafted up a personal “Manifesto” and even picked up a random paperback referencing feminism…but through it out after reading that having children is oppression etc…etc…
Anyway, being practical and wanting to live in the world and not in my head, I am looking these days to define my femininity according to the Bible, dropping any counterproductive socially imposed ideas…not based on that.
Well, that’s all for now… I’ll let you know when I get it all figured out!
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
You’re right. I didn’t state the truth in that post.
It’s true that God would be beyond gender. The Divine nature of Christ would be beyond gender, as would the Holy Spirit (or Ghost, if you prefer), but it still stands, as you stated above, that the fleshly nature of God the Son is entirely and eternally male.
Also he taught us to think and speak of God as a father. Why contradict the words and teachings of Christ? When we baptize a child “In Nomine Patri, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti,” or in a faithful vernacular rendering of that formula, we have a valid baptism. Insert ungendered language, and the baptism is invalid.
Why change the words of the Savior? Was he not God?
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
How do you know this? Have you had a private revelation or something?
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
It’s true that he doesn’t need it, but why do we have to go to Mass, obey the moral precepts, etc., if God doesn’t want our obedience?
What good is this whole “Catholic thing” if it’s just a game we’re playing, and not something that provides us with eternal life?
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
The Magisterium of the Church is the determiner of the status of particular scriptures, and for some crazy reason she has maintained the words of the Savior.
Go figure
S
SoCalRC
Guest
This is probably a good example of why we, as Catholics, are not Sola Scripture. If one continues to read 1 Cor. 11, one would find it self evident that women’s heads should be covered in Mass, and so on. However, being blessed with a living Magesterium, we have proper guidance. The Church understands that 1 Cor 11 must be taken in context, both historical and theological.
As the NAB notes, Paul in primarily using a local custom and particular instance to introduce a theological concept of heirarchy, which he better develops in a later letter. The irony, of course, is that by interpreting the letter as above, in contrast to the Church’s more nuanced understanding of proper male, female relationships, one is, in fact, missing what Paul is fundementally trying to teach.
Think about it, by placing one’s own interpretation of scritpture ahead of the Holy See, one is foresaking one’s proper role in the heirarchy of the body of the faithful - something we believe to be created by God. Having forsaken one’s proper role in God’s Church, one is no longer a proper Christian model - hence no longer a suitable fit for Paul’s analogy above.
A
adrift
Guest
Abuse should never be tolerated. In times pass, it was hidden. My aunt would say she ran into a door. I was an adult before I knew the truth. Her husband didn’t support her. They rarely lived together. She raised three children on her own. This was in the 30’s - 60’s. She retired in the 70’s
We have many wonderful examples of the vocation of the single life such as Kateri Tekawitha. Another aunt of mine never married she was born in 1898. She had opportunities to marry but no desire. Women have had choices. That is not to say that it was easy. It wasn’t. The choices now are not easy. I know women who would like to stay home but can’t. They really don’t have a choice.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
To someone with faith, even a historian with faith, the resurrection of Christ is certainly “historic.”
The modern, secular, concepts of empiricism and falsifiability ought to be subordinated to the virtue of faith, imo.
As for giving you advice, I shouldn’t have. I got carried away.
But I don’t understand your point of view. Not necessarily your points, but the whole purpose of it. If the Church isn’t timeless and objective in regards to truth, what good is it?
If we can change the words of the Savior, was he God? If a dogma that is temporal life feminism, which won’t be present in recognizable form in 200 years, can contradict and conquer the immutable faith, what good is the faith?
Was St. Paul wrong, was St. Augustine wrong, was St. Padre Pio wrong? Is our truth not their truth? If it isn’t, why be Catholic?
I
2 years ago, I was an ultra-liberal atheist. Though I’m a man I paid lip service to feminism. What I can’t grasp, however, is how it can be reconciled, at least in its contemporary form, with the Bible and with the living Magisterium of the Church.
One of the greatest benefits of Christ walking the Earth is that we have an image and experience of God in a concrete form. He isn’t this abstract principle that we can twist and reevaluate every couple of decades. He came in concrete form, because he is a real, concrete entity, and we experience him in concrete form in the Eucharist. As such, his timeless moral law, things like his human gender, etc. are as real and pervasive today as yesterday, imo. If it isn’t, let’s dismantle the Catholic Church and found another institution, because it clearly doesn’t possess the truth.
God is not “ungendered” in the sense that feminists use that phrase today. God has no gender, it’s true, but God is beyond gender. He can’t be confined to gender. He is still, however, “Pater Noster,” and as such cannot be described, in my opinion, in any feminine way, because he specifically instructed us, in the sacred languages of his preaching and the New Testament, to use specifically male language
Ungendered in this instance doesn’t mean that he is as female as he is male, or vice-versa. Due to the finite nature of our minds, however, and the natural and supernatural realities of gender, we have no recourse but to conceptualize and describe God in masculine terms.
R
RobbyS
Guest
And human beings are not beyond gender. The masculine and the feminine are,as the Church teachers, distinct but complementary. Males and females are different kinds of human beings. That males are generally stronger and more agressive than females explains the relative dominance of males over females. Where the woman does not submit, the males may use physical force to compel her to obey. One cannot simply by passing laws avoid violence between men and women, usually with thr woman getting the short end. Just as one cannot by law make all males equal in a society, or all females, or at least no more than relatively so, can equality between men and women be imposed.
I find bizarre, the emergence of the class of transgenders
They apparently are persons confused by the sexual roles that society offers them. Uncomfortrable in their own skin, they try to trade places with the other sex, hoping to fit in better. Sometimes the confusion may have physical causes, but as we seldom know the full histories, nor can know them, it is virtually impossible to speak of cause and effect.
S
SoCalRC
Guest
Yes, that is why the Church has a more adult and nuanced understanding of proper male female relationships than literalist interpretations of once sided topical correspondance from St. Paul.The Magisterium of the Church is the determiner of the status of particular scriptures, and for some crazy reason she has maintained the words of the Savior.
Go figure
Remember, our Lord became man at a time and in a culture which was a lot more akin to extreme Islam in relionships between the sexes than anything remotely in our experence today. Men did not talk to women other than their wives and immediate family, and even then only in controlled circumstances - yet the Gospels give us many examples of Jesus not only talking to strange women, but to those at the fringes of society in the most inappropriate circumstances. He even allowed himself to be touched by women of ill repute in public situations.
Likewise, at a time when women had virtually no proper role in Church, Jesus not only engaged a women in discussion, but insisted on referring to her as Daughter of Abraham, a phrase one will find in no other ancient Jewish text. In other passages, Jesus rebuked a women for placing her normal societal duties as a female in the house ahead of her duty to understanding and following God.
Does this make our Lord a feminist? I would say no. Just as Church teaching is a poor fit for ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ labels in US politics, Jesus actions and the Church’s understanding of male/female duties and relationships is a poor fit for either extreme feminism or subservant sexism. The difference is that the Church’s position is based on natural law and the inalienable rights of every human person, spelled out so eloquently by the Second Vatican Council. The alternatives, although seemingly opposites, are really just both examples of a foundation of personal insecurity instead of the foundation of respect we find in Church teaching and scripture.
P
PrayforMallory
Guest
I’m not suggesting that men and women aren’t absolutely equal in every sense when it comes to worth, intelligence, talent, etc. I’m not saying that a woman can’t be president. As a matter of fact, one of the greatest Catholic rulers of all time, Queen Isabella, was obviously a woman.
What I am saying, is that if Jesus wanted to take on the tenets of what we call “feminism,” he could have. If he wanted us to refer to God as mother, he could have, instead of giving us his own mother to refer to as our mother.
If he didn’t want the man to be the head of the household, well, he could have stated otherwise. Did he lie to us when he said this? If he wanted women’s ordination, he could have ordained women. If he wanted divorce, he could have stated otherwise. There were plenty of cultures around the world that didn’t hold to our concepts of gender. He could have come through them. He didn’t. He came through a patriarchal Jewish culture, and he set up a patriarchal Church.
That said, I agree with the crux of your post.
As for the second half of your post, well, the part about the Church becoming "adult,"and the Second Vatican Council part, catch me on the Traditional Catholicism section.
S
Salonika
Guest
Would you clarfiy what you mean by “may” - as my response depends on whether you mean “is allowed to” or “is likely to”.
Yes, most unfortunately some men do react with physical force to what they see as disobedience by a woman and in my view this is not acceptable - nor is it the other way round.
But if you are saying that it is okay for a man to use physical force to complel her to obey, then this is totally unacceptable. When would this start? The day the woman said “no” to marriage, or the first time they said “no” to anything else.
A general comment - not in response to RobbyS - any movement/group/church/religion can be demolished if the views of the most of the exteme are considered its norm.
This seems to me to be happening here in regards to feminism - especially after the improvements feminism has bought to many women’s lives are stated.
My choices, and those of my sisters, would have been very limited if I had been born even in 1800’s. I would not have been able to leave a marriage that had not worked out whatever the reason as I would have owned nothing - not even the clothes I wore. If I had not married I would have been considered “a poor thing” probably eking my life out as “a poor relation” in a brother or sister’s house or in some else’s as a governness if I was lucky and my father had considered that a girl should be literate. Otherwise a pittance as a seamstress or down a mine, perhaps.
Given these improvements I think God approves of feminism while being sad when it is rides rough-shod over the rights of others but then I think God also feels the same way whenever anyone’s rights are stamped.
T
thomfra
Guest
Q1. What do you mean?
Q2. I’ve never really thought about it.
- Status