L
Les_Richardson
Guest
My 2 cents for your scrap-book BarbaraTherese.
Actually, as a man, I can understand your point of view, ie. you don’t have to like it, but you are not about to defy the Church.
Can you imagine how a Protestant minister must feel when God unequivocally shows him that he must be a Catholic? I think about this every time I listen to Marcus Grodi. Most of those ministers coming into the Church are married. Essentially they are called to be out-of-work, at least in the vocation they had been following, because the priesthood is celibate. That must be a hard blow, personally as well as financially.
The other issue, from a man’s perspective is this. Perhaps God is compensating men for the fact that he chose a woman to take the highest place of honour and veneration in the Kingdom, second only to Jesus Himself, who is God as well as man. It is rather unfair, isn’t it, that a man could not be the God-bearer? Or that it is only women that can create and grow life inside of them, a high honour, wherein God participates by infusing a soul to make a brand new human being to love Him.
Order of authority aside, everything the vast majority of men do is because of women, the woman if he is a married man in the traditional (Catholic)sense, or women generally if he is the decadent secular man. Look around you, virtually everything in pop culture is centred on women. Now that culture, it is true, despite 40-50 years of feminism, totally objectifies women, and cons them into thinking they chose that highly sexualized existence.
Take a look at a couple of high-school teenagers walking down the street. It’s classic. The boy will be wearing a knee length oversized T-shirt, baggy pants with the crotch at knee level and a peak-cap turned a quarter turn. (Thirty years ago we would have felt sorry for such a kid, either for his poverty or for his mental incapacity) The girl beside him will be following the Turkish fashion trend, the belly dancer look, highly sexuallized, (not nearly as comfortable as the boy beside her in hot weather I’d guess), the underwear(if that is what it is) pulled up above the belt line of the low-rider jeans, shorts, mini-skirt or whatever she’s wearing, to add focus to the groin area below the exposed belly (pierced quite often). Add a tight short top and you have it. (Thirty years ago we would have thought this outfit denoted a street hooker)
The pair are walking anachronisms in the feminist sense, yet there they are, the latest in pop culture. She’s the object, he’s the follower.
It has been forever thus. Us old guys laugh at it sometimes, but nothing much has changed. Women rule the world anyway, we know that. The only guys that real bug the feminists are the celibate males. The feminists sense they have no hold on those guys and it irritates them. A sign of contradiction, yes?
Actually, as a man, I can understand your point of view, ie. you don’t have to like it, but you are not about to defy the Church.
Can you imagine how a Protestant minister must feel when God unequivocally shows him that he must be a Catholic? I think about this every time I listen to Marcus Grodi. Most of those ministers coming into the Church are married. Essentially they are called to be out-of-work, at least in the vocation they had been following, because the priesthood is celibate. That must be a hard blow, personally as well as financially.
The other issue, from a man’s perspective is this. Perhaps God is compensating men for the fact that he chose a woman to take the highest place of honour and veneration in the Kingdom, second only to Jesus Himself, who is God as well as man. It is rather unfair, isn’t it, that a man could not be the God-bearer? Or that it is only women that can create and grow life inside of them, a high honour, wherein God participates by infusing a soul to make a brand new human being to love Him.
Order of authority aside, everything the vast majority of men do is because of women, the woman if he is a married man in the traditional (Catholic)sense, or women generally if he is the decadent secular man. Look around you, virtually everything in pop culture is centred on women. Now that culture, it is true, despite 40-50 years of feminism, totally objectifies women, and cons them into thinking they chose that highly sexualized existence.
Take a look at a couple of high-school teenagers walking down the street. It’s classic. The boy will be wearing a knee length oversized T-shirt, baggy pants with the crotch at knee level and a peak-cap turned a quarter turn. (Thirty years ago we would have felt sorry for such a kid, either for his poverty or for his mental incapacity) The girl beside him will be following the Turkish fashion trend, the belly dancer look, highly sexuallized, (not nearly as comfortable as the boy beside her in hot weather I’d guess), the underwear(if that is what it is) pulled up above the belt line of the low-rider jeans, shorts, mini-skirt or whatever she’s wearing, to add focus to the groin area below the exposed belly (pierced quite often). Add a tight short top and you have it. (Thirty years ago we would have thought this outfit denoted a street hooker)
The pair are walking anachronisms in the feminist sense, yet there they are, the latest in pop culture. She’s the object, he’s the follower.
It has been forever thus. Us old guys laugh at it sometimes, but nothing much has changed. Women rule the world anyway, we know that. The only guys that real bug the feminists are the celibate males. The feminists sense they have no hold on those guys and it irritates them. A sign of contradiction, yes?
