Women's roles in the Church

[Raafat]

JNo, no, no. Women aren’t to be submissive to men. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong. Dead wrong. A wife is called to be submissive (under the mission of her husband, whose job is to get himself and his wife) to Heaven. An adult woman is only to be submissive to her and that doesn’t include anything sinful he asks of her. The husband is to always put his wife’s needs above his own desires and be willing to die for her. A minor female is to be obedient to her parents.

But submissiveness here means what? Can he ask her not to work? It is not sinful but that is blatant misogyny. All the talk about about willing to die for her and putting her needs above his is all fine but it must go both ways not the man only as the sole giver. A minor male or female is to be obedient to their parents.

Two thoughts on women being silent in Church: one thought is that St Paul was advising this as Corinth was a little on the rowdy side and women were yelling across the room to their husbands during worship time. The other is that it was reinforcing that only men were to be priests and proclaim the Gospel and the homily (teaching). You must understand things in context.

The Church was rowdy because men and women were uncivilised the whole chapter talks how bad men and women were. I get that men are only to be priests, although I have my problems with that but it is not that big of a deal. But why shouldn’t they teach and proselytize? Do they lack the mental capacity? NO! Do they lack integrity? NO! Why then should they be submissive and silent in situation in which men shouldn’t be submissive and silent.

 

[Raafat]

Aren’t women our equal partners? Equal in dignity and value and capabilities?

Equal partners, yes.

Equal in dignity, yes.

Equal in value, yes.

Equal in capabilities, absolutely not.

Let’s see a man give birth to a child, or a woman get a woman pregnant. It’s a modernist lie to say men and women have equal capabilities. Women are capable of many things which men are incapable of. Men are capable of many things which women are incapable of.

Equal in capabilities in the mental dimension and most of the physical dimensions. I don’t mean reproductive capacities :v

 

[Raafat]

Spy squashes that idea

I went to the museum of fine arts, on a date,

and she was seeing things in the art that I didn’t…

And vice versa …

But in the church… I draw a line with certain things…

I think Paul said to Timothy - to let the older women teach the younger woman…

And Why shouldn’t they teach men?

 

[Raafat]

Yeah. Paul did come across as rather uncharitable on some of the things he wrote, but I think it was Peter who even said that Paul is a little hard to understand? If he is that way in his own time, it’s no wonder why modern society still gets confused over his letters too!

For all I see that his words are very tricky to be interpreted in any form other than their face value.
With all due respect if he didn’t mean what he wrote, he is a bad writer.

 

[Raafat]

In regards to teaching: St. Paul is referring during mass only. He’s referring to the Sermon / Homily

I guess in the mass, everyone is silent. What about the sermon / Homily? Can’t a woman stand and have a good lecture?

 

[Raafat]

the reason women are not presently required to wear veils in Church is because it is a cultural issue, not a doctrinal one. Paul gives a doctrinal support of it, but it is a discipline that the Church has the authority to relax.

Many of the objections to Paul are thus because we read him by introjecting our modern Western concepts into the text.

Why should he a custom be supported by a doctrine in the first place?
We have a very different cultural and I’m an Eastern fellow and have never set foot in the west and I find him troubling at times.
For me, when reading his epistles, it goes like great, nice, that’s very deep and he’ just a man from that time who hates women.

 

[guanophore]

Why should he a custom be supported by a doctrine in the first place?

Because in the Church, all things are subject to Christ. So if there is any reason to wear a veil, it would be to glorify Him.

If there are any Church disciplines that are not rooted in doctrine, what would be the point of having them?

We have a very different cultural and I’m an Eastern fellow and have never set foot in the west and I find him troubling at times.

I don’t doubt!

For me, when reading his epistles, it goes like great, nice, that’s very deep and he’ just a man from that time who hates women.

I must admit I found some of his expressions alarming.

 

[Seagull]

I remember hanging out with Maryknoll sisters -
This was in Mexico somewhere - in the 80s -
One of those dusty towns - visiting them -
They were giving a talk -
Why God could very well be a - she -
I sat through that.
One of the worst lectures still, for me.
Top of the list.

I do like Divine Mercy diary
And Interior Castles -
And other women written books.

 

[Sarcelle]

Is anybody here disputing that though?

There is no question that husbands are to be the spiritual leaders of their household and to lead their wives and children towards God and heaven.

What is being called to question is that all women are to be submissive to all men. So a single woman is supposed to be submissive to any random man on the street. That is what LumineDiei was trying to say which keeps getting ignored.

 

[Sarcelle]

There was a thread on world news I think where it was debated whether it was okay for a husband to tell his wife who to vote for. Those for it were quick to quote Paul.

What do you think?

 

[exnihilo]

But submissiveness here means what? Can he ask her not to work? It is not sinful but that is blatant misogyny. All the talk about about willing to die for her and putting her needs above his is all fine but it must go both ways not the man only as the sole giver. A minor male or female is to be obedient to their parents.

Feminism is an awful thing. It has helped destroy the family. It’s fruits are evil. It isn’t our only problem, but a very serious one.

The man is naturally the leader and the woman the follower. Feminists will have a fit at reading that, but it is true. That doesn’t mean there aren’t exceptions. It doesn’t mean any particular person is good at his role.

Christianity, being the true Faith, recognizes this reality. It therefore instructs us to properly act given this reality. It encourages us to not go to unjust extremes. Western Civilization raised women to the status they now enjoy precisely because it was Christian.

 

[Happymom]

I don’t know what the heck is going on with these posters but what I have to say is men and women are equal but not the same. Ephesians 5 chapter is about men and women and their roles. Women do have to help their husbands and their children and on the opposite end husbands need to watch over their wives and family as head of the household. Which comes along with treating their wives with love and respect. Take a cue from the Holy Family of Jesus Mary and Joseph. This is how Christ is with the church. The church is the bride and the groomsmen is Christ. Christ doesn’t come to serve but to serve likewise men are to serve their family. So and what really this is all saying is men and women should serve each other as equals no one is superior over the other. We are all servants to each other helping each other get to heaven.

 

[Tulitas]

It’s astounding to read on CAF that people have no idea the cultural norms of Biblical times.
This question has been answered so many times it’s crazy.
No, Paul didn’t hate women or dismiss them as unworthy.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

In regards to teaching: St. Paul is referring during mass only. He’s referring to the Sermon / Homily

I guess in the mass, everyone is silent. What about the sermon / Homily? Can’t a woman stand and have a good lecture?

Only a bishop, priest or Deacon is allowed to give the sermon / homily.

Now a layperson (male or female) may be a guest speaker to talk about a specific topic, but no lay person may give the sermon / homily

 

[phil19034]

There was a thread on world news I think where it was debated whether it was okay for a husband to tell his wife who to vote for. Those for it were quick to quote Paul.

What do you think?

Yeah, that may or may not be taking Paul out of context.

However, if it was due to moral reasons then the husband might be in his right. For example: assuming the couple has kids, a husband & wife can’t teach children different morals. I.E. dad teaches one set of morals and mom teaches a different set. For example: dad teaches abortion is murder, mom says it’s a “woman’s right to choose.” You can’t teach kids different morals. You have to get on the same page.

Paul teaches that the Father is the spiritual head, and the father is held more accountable for the child’s spiritual formation.

Now, if Dad is teaching sin, then he looses his right.

So in regards to telling his wife how to vote, I think it really depends. If it’s to protect the kids from scandal, then he’s right. If it’s because he and his wife differ on taxes then he’s wrong.

Note: if the roles are reversed: husband is pro choice and wife is pro life, then he’s teaching sin so the wife is now in her right to tell him how to vote.

 

[Elizabeth3]

But submissiveness here means what? Can he ask her not to work? It is not sinful but that is blatant misogyny. All the talk about about willing to die for her and putting her needs above his is all fine but it must go both ways not the man only as the sole giver. A minor male or female is to be obedient to their parents.

Casti Connubii will help to understand what is meant and not meant by subjection in a Christian context. You will see the Church doesn’t get into particulars but gives a lot of leeway for each couple to work this out however they see fit. Ultimately, they are both submitted to Christ through His Church, so that is the guide that helps the most with discernment of questions. A husband can’t just unilaterally forbid his wife to work but if he sees that there are grave reasons why she shouldn’t, he can present the case to her and they both should commit it to prayer, reason, and common sense so they hopefully will find unity in their decision.

From Casti Connubii…

1. This subjection, however, does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband’s every request if not in harmony with right reason or with the dignity due to wife; nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors, to whom it is not customary to allow free exercise of their rights on account of their lack of mature judgment, or of their ignorance of human affairs.
2. Again, this subjection of wife to husband in its degree and manner may vary according to the different conditions of persons, place and time. In fact, if the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family. But the structure of the family and its fundamental law, established and confirmed by God, must always and everywhere be maintained intact .
3. With great wisdom Our predecessor Leo XIII, of happy memory, in the Encyclical on Christian marriage which We have already mentioned, speaking of this order to be maintained between man and wife, teaches: “The man is the ruler of the family, and the head of the woman; but because she is flesh of his flesh and bone of his bone, let her be subject and obedient to the man, not as a servant but as a companion, so that nothing be lacking of honor or of dignity in the obedience which she pays. Let divine charity be the constant guide of their mutual relations, both in him who rules and in her who obeys, since each bears the image, the one of Christ, the other of the Church.”[30]

 

[Spyridon]

I know a few women’s groups who would look forward to having you as their guest speaker!

Let’s see a woman get a woman pregnant with her own sperm, then I’ll concede that women are equal in capability with men.

For what it’s worth, I don’t believe men are equal in capability to women either. I’ve yet to see a man breast feed his baby.

 

[catholic1seeks]

You will find that it is very common for people on these forums to excuse each other of “blasphemy.”

 

[dochawk]

There was a thread on world news I think where it was debated whether it was okay for a husband to tell his wife who to vote for.

“tell her”???

My wife has always figure that it was my duty to figure it out for both of us.

She insists that I mark up the ballot pamphlet.

When we were in exile, she made me punch both ballots for absentee voting . . .

(OTOH, has anyone actually read The Mouse that Roared? When women’s suffrage came up, Count Mountjoy dismissed the notion on the grounds that as long as men had been voting, women had been telling them who to vote for, and that suffrage would merely give married women two votes . . . )

hawk

 

[Spyridon]

Do a Google search. In Australia according to the Daily Mail scientists are working on a process where women can get pregnant from cells from another part of a woman’s body. And Scientific American has an article stating that men have the ability to lactate. So, you might want to start thinking of some different examples. Just sayin’

Yeah, because scientific tinkering = natural equal capabilities.

My argument still stands.

Take 10 random women and 10 random men off the street, and have them lift various weights. I’ll bet everything I own the men, on average and in general, are physically stronger than women.

Women are capable of things which men are incapable of.
Men are capable of things which women are incapable of.

No amount of psychotic letist propaganda will change this cold, hard, empirical, objective fact.