Women

[1ke]

That’s rude. I haven’t been brainwashed by anyone. What’s nonsensical about what I asked? I’m being respectful, trying to ask questions about matters that concern me and you respond with “wow you’ve been brainwashed.”?

Well, it seems to me-- although I could be mistaken-- that you did not actually take time to read the bible, understand it, and ask these questions. Did you really read through the whole bible and come across these things in an honest fashion?

Or, did you copy this list-- along with the erroneous interpretations-- wholesale from a book or website? That seems the more likely scenario to me.

Have you taken time to do bible study and understand the context, the literary genres, the symbolism? It doesn’t sound like it to me.

If you start at the beginning, and study Catholicism in an orderly fashion-- someone suggested Frank Sheed’s book, excellent choice-- I think it will be more fruitful.

 

[1ke]

Mulieris Dignitatem is a great encyclical by JPII on the dignity and vocation of women.

 

[DavidFilmer]

You’re trying to insult me and I find it rude

Okay, I’m done here. I was actually enjoying this exchange, but now I see that you are very easily offended. I wouldn’t want to offend you further (and I probably would).

 

[inkaneer]

Well my discernment here is that the op is not the Catholic she claims to be. If she were then why list one’s religion as “irresolute”? Irresolute means “uncertain how to act or proceed : vacillating” according to Merriam & Webster. Her questions are clearly devoted to feminist issues and allegations of male chauvinist scriptures. She gives away her real intent when she writes:

“It’s just a little suspicious God just happened to go along with a male dominated society. Do you get what I’m saying?”

I guess the part about Eve listening to and believing a talking serpent doesn’t warm the cockles of your heart either does it? I’m sorry but I do not believe you are who you say you are. I believe your religion is feminism not Catholicism.

 

[Equites_Christi]

It’s just a little suspicious God just happened to go along with a male dominated society. Do you get what I’m saying?

Dear,

I think with this you answer all your own questions. Until a little while ago, ‘society’ was male dominated. Nearly EVERYWHERE. That is how the ancient world operated all the way up until recent times, and therefore that is what God had to ‘go along with’. God was not going to foist upon them modern egalitarianism, because they wouldn’t get it. We are the stupid little children, and therefore when God reveals something to us, He has to slow down to our pace.

 

[crazzeto]

Well my discernment here is that the op is not the Catholic she claims to be. If she were then why list one’s religion as “irresolute”? Irresolute means “uncertain how to act or proceed : vacillating” according to Merriam & Webster. Her questions are clearly devoted to feminist issues and allegations of male chauvinist scriptures. She gives away her real intent when she writes:

“It’s just a little suspicious God just happened to go along with a male dominated society. Do you get what I’m saying?”

I guess the part about Eve listening to and believing a talking serpent doesn’t warm the cockles of your heart either does it? I’m sorry but I do not believe you are who you say you are. I believe your religion is feminism not Catholicism.

One could be baptised, even confirmed Catholic… Yet unsure of the faith, and unsure of what to do. Iresolute would fit no?

OP,

As I’m sure many have said, it is not about God "going along with a male dominated society… In fact, the great evangalist St. Paul tells us:
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=11&l=11&f=s#x

But yet neither is the man without the woman, nor the woman without the man, in the Lord.

also
drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=11&l=12&f=s#x

For as the woman is of the man, so also is the man by the woman: but all things of God.

We, all of us, were created for a purpose with speacial gifts and yes, even limitations. But how can we say one is truely greater than the other? Yes men were designated to serve as the normative head of the Christian faith and even the family… But yet, it is a Woman, not a Man, who is the first and greatest Christian of all time. It is the blessed Virgin Mary how was crowned Queen of the Angels. And we Men (as well as woman) here on earth are her sons and daughters who look to her for intercession.

So think of it this way, did God designate that it should be an all male preisthood, and there for all us layfolk (man and women alike) subject to them? Yes, but are they not then subject to God, Christ? And do they not look to a woman, the Blessed Virgin Mary for constant guidence, prayers and intercession? And knowing that this woman is Immaculate, and perfectly formed to the one true Triume God via the Son, Christ doesn’t that put them kind of a step below the Blessed Virgin Mary, queen of the angels.

I mean hey, you don’t see any male Pope, Bishop or Priest userping the title.

 

[Deconi]

Well my discernment here is that the op is not the Catholic she claims to be. If she were then why list one’s religion as “irresolute”? Irresolute means “uncertain how to act or proceed : vacillating” according to Merriam & Webster. Her questions are clearly devoted to feminist issues and allegations of male chauvinist scriptures. She gives away her real intent when she writes:

“It’s just a little suspicious God just happened to go along with a male dominated society. Do you get what I’m saying?”

I guess the part about Eve listening to and believing a talking serpent doesn’t warm the cockles of your heart either does it? I’m sorry but I do not believe you are who you say you are. I believe your religion is feminism not Catholicism.

Ease up a little, Ink. There are Catholics who have been around for about 30years espousing the same misconseptions! I’ve met and seen many on TV also.

It is just part and parcel of being alive that the ability to think can take you in all directions until you settle on a subject that takes your fancy.

The OP is fine to ask and display ‘her’ feminism views. The question is whether the ‘answers’ will satiate her ‘will.’

 

[Charlotte1776]

The topic of perceived sexism in the Bible is a frequently debated one and I think it’s very unfortunate that it is a stumbling block for many women. But, after struggling so hard for things as simple as voting rights and the ability to be something other than a nurse or teacher, I can see why many women would be angry with certain passages in the Bible that appear to say that God wants society to oppress women. I have never felt that the Bible espoused sexism, and I’ll try my best to explain why. It’s something I’ve never been able to articulate quite right, though.

As another poster pointed out, THE highest ranking, most respected, most important, and best loved person God ever created was a woman - Mary. She is honored far, far above any created man. If you just stop and really think about that for a minute, it’s quite amazing.

There is also the issue that not everything written in the Bible is condoned by God. There are passages about war, murder, infidelity, and all sorts of things that God is 100% AGAINST. They are all evidence of humanity’s sinful, fallen nature and are included to show us why we need salvation through Jesus Christ. For most of human history, nearly all societies were patriarchal. It doesn’t mean that God intended it to be that way. In fact, there are many verses about the equality of men and women, such as Galations 3:28

There is neither Jew nor Greek: there is neither bond nor free: there is neither male nor female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus.

There is also this important passage in Ephesians 5

Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing** her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself**

Paul clearly says that men are to treat their wives with the utmost care, respect, and love, even to the point of sacrificing themselves for her if needed just like Christ died for the Church. Verse 31 says that in marriage, a man and woman become two equally important parts of one whole. And considering that God created marriage as a symbol of His love for humanity and His relationship with it, I think that’s a critically important thing to understand. I would suggest reading more about the theology behind marriage.

So, we are all equally important and equally loved by God. Women are not “second class citizens” to Him.

I think the main problem is defining what exactly sexism is. For some, anyone or anything that says there are differences between men and women is sexist. The problem with that definition is that there ARE differences between the sexes. Some are obvious (such as the fact that only women can give birth), and some are more subtle, such as the fact that fatherlessness causes specific psychological problems in children that aren’t caused by not having a mother. There’s just something different about men and women and we’re only now starting to research what those innate, subtle, but clearly present differences are.

For me, sexism is anything that claims that women are not as valuable as men. You brought up a lot of isolated verses that at first glance appear to support that notion, but the Bible as a whole makes it clear that’s not what God believes. A quick google search and a look at what some of the other posters have said can address a lot of your concerns about those specific verses. I think a lot of them, specifically ones about infertile women and ones where a women is described as beautiful, have nothing at all to do with sexism to begin with. The rest of them seem to come from the laws God gave the Jews back in the Old Testament. I don’t know as much about Old Testament Theology as I would like, but if I remember correctly what I said earlier about patriarchal societies applies a lot to it. In other words, some of the laws were reflections of what was going on at the time more than they were relfections of what God actually wanted his creation to be like. Maybe there are some posters on the forums who know more about Jewish laws and customs who can answer them for you better.

I really hope that you find satisfying answers to your questions, because this topic can be a hard one for some people do deal with. It’s not something to dismiss as silly feminist ramblings as some of the other posters seem to think, and I hope you’ll just ignore their insults as you search for the truth.

 

[BurkinaFaso]

Polygamy is not justified.

Then I ask, can you explain this verse? It seems to approve of polygamy.

“If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.” Exodus 21:10

Well my discernment here is that the op is not the Catholic she claims to be. If she were then why list one’s religion as “irresolute”? Irresolute means “uncertain how to act or proceed : vacillating” according to Merriam & Webster. Her questions are clearly devoted to feminist issues and allegations of male chauvinist scriptures. She gives away her real intent when she writes:

“It’s just a little suspicious God just happened to go along with a male dominated society. Do you get what I’m saying?”

I guess the part about Eve listening to and believing a talking serpent doesn’t warm the cockles of your heart either does it? I’m sorry but I do not believe you are who you say you are. I believe your religion is feminism not Catholicism.

What? I am Catholic because I was baptised and confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church. I’m having doubts right now so it would not be entirely appropriate for me to call myself Catholic because at this point, I don’t believe. My REAL intent is to find out if Christianity is legit or not. Why is that so hard to believe?

---

The other verses, I have trouble with…I don’t think I’ll get clear answers [that is fine, I’ll buy a book or something] but here is one I feel is VERY straight and to the point and I have a lot of trouble with it:

“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death…” Deuteronomy 22:20-21

What is this “proof of virginity”? As far as I know, theres is no way to prove or disprove a woman’s virginity. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. Surely they’re not speaking of the hymen which is now notorious for not being an accurate indicator of virginity?

 

[crazzeto]

Burkina,

First appologies for the posters that question what you posted, as I and some others stated no one has the right to do that. I hope you will read some of the better responses here and ponder them. I particularly like Charlotte1776’s. I think she nailed what I as a guy could only hope to express.

 

[PennyinCanada]

Can I throw in my own parable? Humor me a moment.

Two people walk up to the doors of a bank, one lady, one gentleman. The gentleman opens the door, with the sweep of his arm he says, “Ladies first”.

Response one:

1. Thank you very much, said with a smile.
2. I’m perfectly capable of opening the door myself, thank you very much.

The gentleman offered a respectful and kind action. What is the loving response? No brainer, #1 of course. #2 seems to perceive a kindness as a) some kind of fault and b) refused to extend a kindness when a moment presented itself.

Even if someone is unkind to us, we are to practice being kind in the midst of it. What is our measure of generosity extended to our neighbor? It will be measured to us. Practicing virtue and recognizing our own faults (and not our neighbors’) should be our daily bread.

It is the opposite of the practice of Christian virtue to look, find fault, highlight them, put them forward for everyone else to see. The original poster took much time and effort to do that and I propose a change of direction. Change of habit, especially with Lent approaching.

Rather than accusing God of things perceived, try spending time during the day giving thanks to God. Be grateful for your eyesight, your abilities, your loved ones, that the sun is shining. No longer take a victim role but a loving one. Take your eyes off how you are wronged and look to how to bless others. You will have much more joy in you life, which is what I wish for you. (Try more to be like the person in #1 and be less of #2. Dual meaning not implied here, but you will be generous and give me the benefit of the doubt I hope. )

 

[centurionguard]

Can I throw in my own parable? Humor me a moment.

Two people walk up to the doors of a bank, one lady, one gentleman. The gentleman opens the door, with the sweep of his arm he says, “Ladies first”.

Response one:

1. Thank you very much, said with a smile.
2. I’m perfectly capable of opening the door myself, thank you very much.

The gentleman offered a respectful and kind action. What is the loving response? No brainer, #1 of course. #2 seems to perceive a kindness as a) some kind of fault and b) refused to extend a kindness when a moment presented itself.

Even if someone is unkind to us, we are to practice being kind in the midst of it. What is our measure of generosity extended to our neighbor? It will be measured to us. Practicing virtue and recognizing our own faults (and not our neighbors’) should be our daily bread.

It is the opposite of the practice of Christian virtue to look, find fault, highlight them, put them forward for everyone else to see. The original poster took much time and effort to do that and I propose a change of direction. Change of habit, especially with Lent approaching.

Rather than accusing God of things perceived, try spending time during the day giving thanks to God. Be grateful for your eyesight, your abilities, your loved ones, that the sun is shining. No longer take a victim role but a loving one. Take your eyes off how you are wronged and look to how to bless others. You will have much more joy in you life, which is what I wish for you. (Try more to be like the person in #1 and be less of #2. Dual meaning not implied here, but you will be generous and give me the benefit of the doubt I hope. )

Well I may not be the only gentlemen who has noticed what you wrote.

Chivalry and being a Gentlemen is less noticed today.

But if it hurts to say this I’ve seen elderly women hold the door for younger women and don’t even get a nod of acknowledgement. Sadly; nothing really new these days.

How many men at CAF can always honestly say they get a thank you everytime they hold the door whether it be a women or man?

I still get thank yous without looking for them and yes I’ll continue to hold the door.

Peace
Chris

 

[Nita]

Then I ask, can you explain this verse? It seems to approve of polygamy.

“If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.” Exodus 21:10

This verse appears in a section of ordinances connected to behaviors that are not necessarily in accordance with God’s will. The general theme of these particular verses (1-11) is slavery. When God says “If he marries another…” that does not mean that God approves of that marriage. Likewise, in verse 12 of the next segment, when God says “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies …” does not mean God accepts such behavior.

What God is doing in these verses is establishing laws that regulate, in some way, people who are guilty of these behaviors.

 

[Nita]

…
The other verses, I have trouble with…I don’t think I’ll get clear answers [that is fine, I’ll buy a book or something] but here is one I feel is VERY straight and to the point and I have a lot of trouble with it:

“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death…” Deuteronomy 22:20-21

What is this “proof of virginity”? As far as I know, theres is no way to prove or disprove a woman’s virginity. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. Surely they’re not speaking of the hymen which is now notorious for not being an accurate indicator of virginity?

This verse is in connection with a man who seeks to put away his wife, claiming she was not a virgin when he married her. The “proof of virginity” consisted of the cloth upon which the newly married couple consummated their marriage. There would be blood on the cloth if the woman was a virgin. This cloth was kept as proof of her virginity at the time of marriage. (cf. Dt. 22:15,17 "Her father and mother…shall bring with them the tokens of her virginity… (vs 17) “…behold these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the ancients of the city;”

I presume that failure to be able to produce such a cloth is what is mean by the phrase “and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found”.

The Haydock Bible has very good explanatory footnotes. ( haydock1859.tripod.com/ )
This link will take you directly to Deuteronomy Chapter 22: haydock1859.tripod.com/id515.html

 

[inkaneer]

What? I am Catholic because I was baptised and confirmed into the Roman Catholic Church. I’m having doubts right now so it would not be entirely appropriate for me to call myself Catholic because at this point, I don’t believe. My REAL intent is to find out if Christianity is legit or not. Why is that so hard to believe?

Your problem is that you equate equality of the sexes with women competing with men. Maybe if you try thinking of men and women not as competitors but rather as complimentors then you would not come off as the man hating feminist that your posts seem to portray you as.

By the way being baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church does not make you Catholic. Recall that Martin Luther was not only baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church but ordained a priest too. Nestorius was that also and a bishop to boot. In fact, if you search Church history every heretic was baptized and confirmed Catholic. So that does not make one Catholic. What makes one Catholic is obedience to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and that Magisterium says, among other things, that scripture [all scripture] is inerrant and the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women as priests. Now are we Catholic by being obedient to the Magisterium, accepting all the teachings of the Church or has some other belief system interposed itself???

This is the Catholic Church not the Catholic Cafeteria. You do not have the option of picking and choosing what you want to believe and you can’t be luke warm on this either. Recall what the Book of Revelation said about people who were luke warm in their faith.

 

[crazzeto]

Your problem is that you equate equality of the sexes with women competing with men. Maybe if you try thinking of men and women not as competitors but rather as complimentors then you would not come off as the man hating feminist that your posts seem to portray you as.

By the way being baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church does not make you Catholic. Recall that Martin Luther was not only baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church but ordained a priest too. Nestorius was that also and a bishop to boot. In fact, if you search Church history every heretic was baptized and confirmed Catholic. So that does not make one Catholic. What makes one Catholic is obedience to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church and that Magisterium says, among other things, that scripture [all scripture] is inerrant and the Catholic Church has no authority to ordain women as priests. Now are we Catholic by being obedient to the Magisterium, accepting all the teachings of the Church or has some other belief system interposed itself???

This is the Catholic Church not the Catholic Cafeteria. You do not have the option of picking and choosing what you want to believe and you can’t be luke warm on this either. Recall what the Book of Revelation said about people who were luke warm in their faith.

Innakeeper, if you really want to get technical then being a Heretic requires

1. full knowlege
2. obstenant denial

Point one can be debated, but I would suggest to you that this thread is proof that we haven’t yet arrived at point two. The OP is a seeker right now, she needs answers. We should be joyous at the oppertunity to try and help the OP navigate the complexities of sexism and theology.

God bless,

 

[inkaneer]

Innakeeper, if you really want to get technical then being a Heretic requires

1. full knowlege
2. obstenant denial

Point one can be debated, but I would suggest to you that this thread is proof that we haven’t yet arrived at point two. The OP is a seeker right now, she needs answers. We should be joyous at the oppertunity to try and help the OP navigate the complexities of sexism and theology.

God bless,

Then she can take my posts as pre-cautionary so that she cannot claim she did not have full knowledge or that she was obstinate in her denial [if she does reject the Magisterium]. She is currently on very dangerous ground. Hopefully she will see the futility of women trying to be men and embrace her femininity. A woman who wants to be unrestrained by her femininity is similar to a train freed from the restraints of track. It just doesn’t work out very well.

 

[crazzeto]

Then she can take my posts as pre-cautionary so that she cannot claim she did not have full knowledge or that she was obstinate in her denial [if she does reject the Magisterium]. She is currently on very dangerous ground. Hopefully she will see the futility of women trying to be men and embrace her femininity. A woman who wants to be unrestrained by her femininity is similar to a train freed from the restraints of track. It just doesn’t work out very well.

Perhaps some greater charity would be called for, lets bare in mind that many people come from many different backgrounds and experiences. People don’t just become convinced of the many view points the OP has over night typically.

So lets bare this in mind, before we start using works like “heretic”. We’re only 3 pages now into this thread.

 

[inkaneer]

Perhaps some greater charity would be called for, lets bare in mind that many people come from many different backgrounds and experiences. People don’t just become convinced of the many view points the OP has over night typically.

So lets bare this in mind, before we start using works like “heretic”. We’re only 3 pages now into this thread.

I never accused her of heresy or of being a heretic. So let’s not falsely attribute any such accusation to me. All I did was to refute her allegation that since she was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church that she was a Catholic. My exact response was:

“By the way being baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church does not make you Catholic. Recall that Martin Luther was not only baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church but ordained a priest too. Nestorius was that also and a bishop to boot. In fact, if you search Church history every heretic was baptized and confirmed Catholic. So that does not make one Catholic.”

 

[1ke]

I never accused her of heresy or of being a heretic. So let’s not falsely attribute any such accusation to me. All I did was to refute her allegation that since she was baptized and confirmed in the Catholic Church that she was a Catholic. My exact response was:

“By the way being baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church does not make you Catholic. Recall that Martin Luther was not only baptized and confirmed in a Catholic Church but ordained a priest too. Nestorius was that also and a bishop to boot. In fact, if you search Church history every heretic was baptized and confirmed Catholic. So that does not make one Catholic.”

However, you are not correct. It is exactly our baptism (and profession of faith & confirmation for a convert) that makes us Catholic.

Martin Luther was a Catholic until the day he died, and actually into eternity. He was an excommunicated Catholic, one in objectively grave sin. But, a Catholic nonetheless.