What Is a Catholic Feminist? (A thoughtful blog post I wanted to share)

[LemonAndLime]

I’ve noticed that too. It’s like ‘we don’t like it, therefore it must be Communist!’

Homosexuals, feminists, Obama, Democrats, the British, Europeans… all socialist.

And me too apparently. I suppose I shouldn’t have been wearing my Red Army suit while posing on forums - giving out my commune address and calling others Comrade.

Or maybe I was just expressing an opinion different to another poster, who knows?

 

[Contarini]

All feminists, especially the pro-choice ones, are against Playboy magazine, etc.

Unfortunately, that’s not true. There are contemporary feminists who think pornography is just fine.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Unfortunately, that’s not true. There are contemporary feminists who think pornography is just fine.

But tell me - are they the minority, or the majority?

 

[Joan1969]

No. That’s what many people call “second wave feminism.” Most contemporary feminists would reject the idea of interchangeability with men, although they might argue that gender is highly fluid and that people can’t be neatly divided into male and female (hence the great attention presently paid to transsexuals, “intergendered” people, etc.).

Contemporary “third wave” feminism is a mixed bag. In many ways it’s not so much a single movement as a more mature and hence a more diverse expression of feminism. That’s one reason why more conservative women feel freer to identify themselves as feminists. The typically third-wave concern with toxic “male” patterns of behavior (very different from the second-wave tendency to want women to look more like men) can be the basis for a robust prolife feminism (prolife feminists argue that abortion is one of the most horrific examples of violence against the female body, and against the helpless generally whether male or female, and thus that feminists who support abortion as an expression of women’s autonomy are selling out to the violent, toxic, male-dominated culture), for opposition to pornography, even for the glorification of chastity as an expression of women’s dignity and independence from men. At the same time, much third-wave feminism has gone in directions that are radically incompatible with orthodox Catholicism. This is particularly the case with regards to homosexuality and questions of gender identity, but also sexual morality generally and often abortion as well (most feminists remain prochoice, alas, and third-wave prochoice feminists are often less restrained in their advocacy of abortion than second-wave feminists for whom it was simply a regrettable necessity to defend women’s autonomy).

If you want a basic definition of feminism in Christian terms: the one given me by a friend in grad school (and a convert to Catholicism, incidentally) was: “feminists believe that women are made in the image of God.” In Thomistic terms, feminists would say that women are made in God’s image not only in the principal sense (which is uncontroversial) but in every way whatsoever. (In the link I provided, see article 4, reply to objection 1, where Aquinas distinguishes between the “principal” and secondary meanings of the divine image.) That’s why it’s pretty hard to be a feminist and not believe in women’s ordination. The Catholic denial of women’s ordination seems intrinsically tied to the Thomist belief that women are, in a secondary sense, not made in God’s image but rather ordered toward men. I think that the other places where many feminists contradict Catholic doctrine–sexual morality and abortion chief among them–are not intrinsic to feminism. One can certainly make a case that denial of women’s ordination has nothing to do with qualifying the affirmation that women are made in God’s image, but I have never found these arguments convincing.

Edwin

Hi Edwin,

Thanks for the post and the distinction. I must admit, I have thought more about what you would call “second wave” feminism.

As a Catholic, I would have to soundly reject any worldview that does not affirm and uphold the Fatherhood of God. God is our Father in reality, but the few maternal images of Him that exist are only analogies. It is my impression that this would put me very much at odds with third wave feminists. I’d also reject the obscuring of gender or pro-homosexuality thinking of any description.

It would be helpful if you would give an example of a prominent third wave feminist. Though from what you said they seem to run quite a gamut in terms of ideas. Is there any one idea that unites feminsm and makes it one coherent thing? I don’t see how an appeal to the “image of God” can apply to the many feminists who are not theists.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I read this post and it really got me thinking. I’ve claimed to be a feminist on this forum and have been told that if I’m a feminist, I must be pro-choice, and I can’t be a Catholic and a feminist. So, what is a Catholic feminist? Please read the whole post, it is really interesting and there’s a message for Catholic men at the end.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/what-is-a-catholic-feminist/#ixzz1NaeZdruk

A friend of mine shared this blog post with me on facebook. Wonderful article.

I personally am of the opinion that Catholics today have the unique opportunity to reclaim the label of feminism from those who have unjustly usurped it with anti-child - and thus anti-woman - policies.

 

[kildare]

I liked the blog. Its really about charity and not judging others, based on their sex. Pure christian teaching!

Jesus was working class, and he was always with women, and children. That was scandalous at the time.
The founders of Christianity were not princes or wealthy lords, like Buddha, Mohammed, Moses or even Abraham. Led by a carpenter there were fishermen, tax collectors and prostitutes. Nobodies basically!
For so long women were the great nobodies in history. The much lauded Greek civilisation were completely mysoginistic and absolutely forbade educating women. If you look to the non-christian lands to the east, you will see that their cultures are far more restrictive on women, Some new age feminists like to blame the catholic church for attempting to squash women (see the fim Agora), but the reality is Joan, Hildegard, Catherine all became great names in Europe in the middle ages, and the church had a lot to do with it.

Again, like the lie that the church is antagonistic to science and enlightenment is the lie that the church is out to keep women down. Looks like the father of lies has been busy of late.

 

[Jesus_123]

+**One of my sons . . . **when very young . . . had a great curiosity as to how things are made/put-together . . . (his grandfather was an engineer) . . . I used to put an assembled toy in each corner of his playpen and he had a marvelous time discovering how to take each toy apart and then discovering how to put them back together again . . . but now and again . . . after much trial and error . . . he would call me or his father and sweetly announce . . . “all broke” . . . and hold out the toy for us to reassemble . . .

Essentially this thread reminds me of a number of **God’s **children having reached the phase where the consensus of opinion is that the world we live in in regard to the word “feminism” . . . and even the use of the word “feminism” is seriously problematical . . . no matter how innocently it may be applied . . . and knowing it to be so . . . using my little son’s so-true words that . . . our world is truly . . . “all broke” . . . and the corruption of the word “feminism” is just a rather large part of the terrible sin-full brokeness of the world/culture we live in today . . .

Using the word **“feminism” **in today’s day and age is like offering water from a well of what should be pure water . . . but when attempting to drink from that well it is discovered to be . . . **deadly toxic poisoned water **. . . trying to ignore this world wide reality or attempting to reclaim the word “feminism” won’t change the tainted adulterated poisoning of the corrupted word/term in any way . . .

Juxtaposed to Catholic Christianity . . . in today’s Christian world . . . this world’s confusion of ideas known as “feminism” is in no way considered Catholic or Christian . . . but rather it has become a non-Christian . . . world-wide heretic and quite deadly . . . CULT . . . which contains some really dangerous grossly false beliefs in regard to both men and women . . . their created differences, purposes and healthy relationships . . .

For God’s children/Christians we can just offer this now poisonous word and all its corruption . . . as a part of our broken sinful world . . . up to our Gracious Heavenly Father . . . and trusting God’s mercy and in the promises of God . . . and commiting our lives to our Crucified Lord Jesus . . . go about about trusting Jesus to open up all the doors in every area of our life here on earth . . . for our present and for all the days to come in the future . . . living by faith . . . not by sight . . .

:bible1: Trust in the Lord with all thine heart ; and lean NOT unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. ***- Romans 12:16 ***​

LemonAndLime . . . you’re a brand new Catholic . . . perhaps leaving preoccupation with “feminism” behind . . . you might find that directing your enthusiasm to your now being a newly professed . . . “Catholic” . . . which is a marvelous good reality . . . and seeking out and studying Sacred :bible1: Scripture and **The Catechism of the Catholic Church **might prove to be a really positive and blest pursuit as you grow in the grace of God . . .

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Holy Mother Mary+
. . . thank you Holy Mother Church+​

 

[Jesus_123]

+Oops! . . . correction . . . the :bible1: Scripture quote is from Proverbs not Romans . . .

:bible1: Trust in the Lord with all thine heart ; and lean NOT unto thine own understanding. 6 In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the Lord, and depart from evil. ***- Proverbs 3:5-7 ***​

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You Sweet Spirit of our Holy God+​

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

attempting to reclaim the word “feminism” won’t change the tainted adulterated poisoning of the corrupted word/term in any way

Nonsense.

While I agree that in contemporary developed western society, “feminism” has become quite corrupt as a concept, that in no way negates the necessity or goodness of the term’s true meaning, nor does it justify surrendering the term itself to those whose positions are actually bad for women.

Words are simply labels that reflect realities. A word like “feminism” can’t be intrinsically corrupt, so it’s the height of absurd linguistic essentialism to imply that the word’s corruption is implicit or irreversible. It’s just plain false - and dangerous.

 

[francisca]

If one talks about gender equality why would she label it feminism?
Isn’t it easier to just use specific term for specific issue instead of lumping them all together under feminism label which definition is unclear to most people (public)?

Even about gender equality one must be specific regarding which area of equality: whether in workplace or in sexual behavior, or in raising children. Some feminists promote equality in sexual behavior so that if men go to strip clubs, female must go male strip clubs too.

Woman has many issues, those would be easier to talk about without introducing an obscure term such as “feminism”. To introduce new label without having any specific definition will only limit public support towards the issue.

 

[Joan1969]

If one talks about gender equality why would she label it feminism?
Isn’t it easier to just use specific term for specific issue instead of lumping them all together under feminism label which definition is unclear to most people (public)?

Hi Francisca,

But even in speaking of gender equality we are using a term too vague to be useful. Unless one believes that men and women should be strictly interchangable (an unreachable and damaging goal), then clearly there are areas where men and women should be pretty much equivalent (equal rights to testify in court, for instance) and others where they won’t be (how much the entire female population earns in the work force, as opposed to the entire male population).

I guess that’s been what I’ve been trying to say in this thread. There are scores of different ways that men and women might either need equality, or might need to be different. Each issue is very unique, so simplistic terms like “women’s liberation” really end up being unhelpful.

God Bless,
Joan

 

[bhall0689]

Most contemporary feminists would reject the idea of interchangeability with men, although they might argue that gender is highly fluid and that people can’t be neatly divided into male and female (hence the great attention presently paid to transsexuals, “intergendered” people, etc.).

 

[severus68]

Hi Edwin,

As a Catholic, I would have to soundly reject any worldview that does not affirm and uphold the Fatherhood of God. God is our Father in reality, but the few maternal images of Him that exist are only analogies. It is my impression that this would put me very much at odds with third wave feminists. I’d also reject the obscuring of gender or pro-homosexuality thinking of any description.

God Bless,
Joan

I might have misunderstood what you say above and if so my apologies. God is God. Christ as God made Man came to earth as a man but God is neither a man nor a woman. We are made in God’s image. We usually refer to God as ‘He’ and "Him’ for convenience. What is wrong with a person seeing the maternal charecteristics of God please?

 

[severus68]

If one talks about gender equality why would she label it feminism?
Isn’t it easier to just use specific term for specific issue instead of lumping them all together under feminism label which definition is unclear to most people (public)?

Even about gender equality one must be specific regarding which area of equality: whether in workplace or in sexual behavior, or in raising children. Some feminists promote equality in sexual behavior so that if men go to strip clubs, female must go male strip clubs too.

Woman has many issues, those would be easier to talk about without introducing an obscure term such as “feminism”. To introduce new label without having any specific definition will only limit public support towards the issue.

Feminism is the correct term. If you read what the actual definition is, it is about equality.

With equality, there is choice, choice in every aspect. Your example of men going to strip clubs is not the best. Since when has the Church said its ok for men to go to strip clubs please?

Human beings have many issues full stop.

 

[severus68]

Homosexuals, feminists, Obama, Democrats, the British, Europeans… all socialist.

And me too apparently. I suppose I shouldn’t have been wearing my Red Army suit while posing on forums - giving out my commune address and calling others Comrade.

Or maybe I was just expressing an opinion different to another poster, who knows?

Well, aren’t we more quasi communist? That was rather funny LemonandLime.

 

[severus68]

I read this post and it really got me thinking. I’ve claimed to be a feminist on this forum and have been told that if I’m a feminist, I must be pro-choice, and I can’t be a Catholic and a feminist. So, what is a Catholic feminist? Please read the whole post, it is really interesting and there’s a message for Catholic men at the end.

Read more: ncregister.com/blog/what-is-a-catholic-feminist/#ixzz1NaeZdruk

Just found this thread, thank you for starting it. I do not see any contradiction in being Catholic and a feminist. Welcome to the Church.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Just found this thread, thank you for starting it. I do not see any contradiction in being Catholic and a feminist. Welcome to the Church.

Thank you, and I quite agree. Glad to see it’s caused some debate.

 

[LemonAndLime]

Well, aren’t we more quasi communist? That was rather funny LemonandLime.

Thank you.

Myself and my country/health service has been called a socialist in a matter-of-fact tone so many times I’ve grown fed up of arguing so instead I quite agree with them…

…

…, comrade.

 

[silentstar]

Good Morning Gift,

I respect what your parents did, and if people do things that way I have no quarrel, espeicially if they are able to work things out so that the kids get an abudance of parental attention. The logistics of that may be unrealisitc for many, since a full-time job has a way of demanding lots of time, and part-time jobs are not enough for a family’s needs.

Many families may go a more traditional route with the woman staying home and the man taking the full-time work. Or, perhaps, the woman takes part-time work or just doesn’t seek the promotions that she might because she is making herself more available to the family. These are very common choices, more so than men staying at home, or a truly equal child-rearing situation. So it’s reflected in what women, on the whole, tend to make in paid employment. That’s not a problem.

God Bless,
Joan

Actually I think it is a problem b/c men die and people get divorced and too many SAHMs end up either in poverty or with a lower standard of living than they should have, as they enter their 50s and beyond. I have bipolar disorder and ended up on disability after working for 18 years as an adult and summer jobs before that. I’ve been on disability for 2 and 1/2 years and have done volunteer work and am now starting to think about career options. The problem is that the corporate world too often demands a full-time or draining part-time schedule for mothers and views them as out of date if they are out of the workforce for more than a couple of years. Yes people can be employed after a long break, but often at a lower level and/or making less money than they should be given education, training, and prior experience.

Men have the same problem: men who become ill or disabled or who choose to take time out face similar obstacles. I think there is no rational reason to attach a stigma to being out of the workforce for several years such that people automatically come back at a lower grade and less pay. However I also think both men and women could do work from home, even if just a few hours a week, if the workforce was more flexible.

I think economists call this ‘off-ramps’ and ‘on-ramps.’ It is all too easy to develop a condition that gets you off the track in terms of working but it can be hard to come back. I don’t think people who have had gaps in their resume should be stigmatized the way they often are.

That said, I was making a good living before I became too disabled to work and there is no chance of me going back to that or similar job; my former job was a case of once you are out, it’s over. I’m focusing on “reinvention” as the buzzword goes and trying new things. However I do really think it’s a problem that the corporate mentality is so widely accepted that long breaks are viewed as highly detrimental. I also think companies and other groups such as nonprofits should be far more flexible with mothers than they are. If they said OK take a year off and then work 5 hours a week for another year or two and then see how things go, some mothers might have an easier time. A lot of people don’t want to completely quit but end up being forced into it b/c the workforce is not flexible and these days with computers, blackberrys, cell phones and numerous other forms of technology, flexibility makes more sense than it used to, in my opinion.

 

[Jesus_123]

I might have misunderstood what you say above and if so my apologies. God is God. Christ as God made Man came to earth as a man but God is neither a man nor a woman. We are made in God’s image. We usually refer to God as ‘He’ and "Him’ for convenience. What is wrong with a person seeing the maternal charecteristics of God please?

**The Catechism of the Catholic Church
Paragraph 2. THE FATHER

I. "IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SON AND OF THE HOLY SPIRIT"**

239 By calling God “Father”, the language of faith indicates two main things: that God is the first origin of everything and transcendent authority; and that **he **is at the same time goodness and loving care for all **his **children. God’s parental tenderness can also be expressed by the image of motherhood,62 which emphasizes God’s immanence, the intimacy between Creator and creature. the language of faith thus draws on the human experience of parents, who are in a way the first representatives of God for man. But this experience also tells us that human parents are fallible and can disfigure the face of fatherhood and motherhood. We ought therefore to recall that **God **transcends the human distinction between the sexes. He is neither man nor woman: is he is God. He also transcends HUMAN fatherhood and motherhood, although **he is their origin and standard:63 no one is father as God is Father.​

:compcoff: Link: vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P17.HTM​

+Militant feminists completely misinterpret and constantly misrepresent the phrase from the Catechism that “He is neither man nor woman.” . . . and they perpetuate their false witness/lie by repeating just that little phrase out of context . . . over and over and over . . . presenting their corrupt lying interpretation of this phrase as if it were some sort of foundational truth . . . The Catechism of the Catholic Church portion quoted above clearly states God is not man or woman . . . and of course He IS NEITHER ** a man nor a woman . . . **man and woman are **. . . CREATURES . . . CREATED BEINGS . . . GOD . . . is NEITHER a creature NOR a created being . . .

Continuing on in reality . . . their is another creation reality connected to that little phrase . . . regarding our Holy God’s holy wonder and purpose of profound differences between his created attributes of . . . male and female . . . the masculine and the feminine . . . as complimentary and reciprocal necessities within creation . . which are present and surround us throughout all of God’s created world . . . **in which God always ** presents Himself in all three persons . . . Father . . . Son . . . and Holy Spirit . . . as clearly and irrefutably . . . MASCULINE . . . throughout Sacred :bible1: Scripture . . . and . . . The Blessed Virgin Mary . . . the Holy MOTHER of God . . . is the feminine creature our God has created and provided for mankind to come to know . . . understand . . . and embrace the epitomy of holyness of the feminine . . .
Whether the created creature is a duck or a whooping crane. . . a minnow or a whale . . . or a skunk or a grizzly bear . . . or a tree, plant or flower . . .or a human being . . .
**(and God is **neither a duck nor a whooping crane . . . nor a minnow nor or a whale . . . nor a skunk nor a grizzly bear . . . nor a tree, plant or flower . . . nor a human being) . . . **they alL are created male and female . . . masculine and feminine ** . . .

"So, human nature is called man or mankind, and each human person is a man, just as the divine nature is called God and all Three Persons are God. (The sexual distinction is expressed as male and female, though man and woman also does so. Even these contain implicitly the evidence of the origins of woman from man in the economy of creation.)"

​

​

- EWTN Online Library​

​

​

:compcoff: EWTN Link: ewtn.com/expert/answers/bible_versions.htm#inclusive

. . . all for Jesus+
. . . thank You our Gracious Triune God+
. . . thank you Dear Blessed Virgin Mary+​