You can't be both a Catholic and a Feminist

[migurl]

Anyone read the Bible lately? I recommend the book of Sirach it’s got good stuff. AS far as the Catholic Church and feminism goes I am a woman and I believe in the equality of women but not the superiority of them. I think that there are things women do better and things that men do better. Being a Catholic woman means that we respect out religious leaders, our fathers and our husbands and that those people are responsible for caring for us, loving us and teaching us. It means that my primary responsiblity in life is raising and educating my children in the Catholic faith, and if I can, marry a man who will be a supporter of this and who will provide our family with the nessesities. It means not being selfish and putting my wants, desires or aspirations before the wellfare of my family and accepting that if I can stay home (ie. my husband makes good money) that I should in order to be there for my family instead of leaving from 8-5 to find my “individaulity” or supprt myself or so I’ll have the extra cash to get my hair colored every 6 months or afford a 50" TV. Material things aren’t that necessary.

 

[LSK]

AS far as the Catholic Church and feminism goes I am a woman and I believe in the equality of women but not the superiority of them.

That is a great definition of feminism.

I think that there are things women do better and things that men do better. Being a Catholic woman means that we respect out religious leaders, our fathers and our husbands and that those people are responsible for caring for us, loving us and teaching us.

GOOD point! In my case, for instance, my mother was dumped by my father and she had to step up to the plate and full fill both roles. While I respected my father as required by the Church, he never held the same esteem in my eyes as that incredible woman who kept her faith, provided for her children and loved Jesus.

It means that my primary responsiblity in life is raising and educating my children in the Catholic faith, and if I can, marry a man who will be a supporter of this and who will provide our family with the nessesities.

And in my case, it means living chastely, being of service to God and my fellow humans and being a spiritual mother and sister to good women, such as yourself, who are raising good Catholic children.

It means not being selfish and putting my wants, desires or aspirations before the wellfare of my family and accepting that if I can stay home (ie. my husband makes good money) that I should in order to be there for my family instead of leaving from 8-5 to find my “individaulity” or supprt myself or so I’ll have the extra cash to get my hair colored every 6 months or afford a 50" TV. Material things aren’t that necessary

And it means that you never lose your individuality no matter how you chose to serve God. GOOD STUFF HERE!!!

 

[ncjohn]

LSK:

double ditto.

cake anyone?

I’m up for it! I’ll bring the coffee.

 

[buffalo]

ncjohn:

I’m up for it! I’ll bring the coffee.

What happened to the beer? :crying:

 

[fix]

After reading through these posts I have to wonder why use the word feminist to desrcibe oneself? There are both men and women who understand that the Church teaches men and women are equal in dignity, but not the same. Why choose a word that carries such poloitical baggage that has come to really be understood to be radical feminism and not just so-called equal rights?

 

[ncjohn]

buffalo:

What happened to the beer? :crying:

Beer doesn’t go particularly well with cake.

I’ll definitely be there come Miller time though! :yup:

 

[ncjohn]

fix:

After reading through these posts I have to wonder why use the word feminist to desrcibe oneself? There are both men and women who understand that the Church teaches men and women are equal in dignity, but not the same. Why choose a word that carries such poloitical baggage that has come to really be understood to be radical feminism and not just so-called equal rights?

There are two answers that spring immediately to my mind. The first is to clear up the misconception of what “feminism” is and to show that true feminism is in line with Catholic teaching, as you note. Just because some feminists have added other baggage to their definition does not change its inherent meaning. I guess it kind of becomes like the “Taking back the Rainbow” concept that many here have adopted.

I think the second–and ladies please correct me here if I misstate–is that because true feminism was not practiced for so long and women were not treated with equal dignity, women had to join together-- just as workers did in the labor movement–to bring attention to and rectify that situation.

Ideally, we’ll get to a point over time where dignity is afforded to all and these labels and distinctions won’t be even useful, much less necessary.

Peace,

p.s. Come and have some cake fix, it’s really good!

 

[kev7]

ncjohn:

Since this question is a current and ongoing issue in the Church, which has not been settled, I’m not sure what you might be basing this opinion on, much less the very uncharitable closing statement.

:

not true, the issue is CLOSED. John Paul II made this very clear
the issue is only open in the minds people who don’t want to accept church teachings but still want to call themselves catholics.

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68

 

[kev7]

Catholic2003:

To respond in kind, your anti-feminist ideology is more important to you than the teachings of the Catholic Church. Waaaay more important, apparently.

If being a catholic and defending my views from the perspective of a Catholic labels me an anti-feminist. then so be it. I don’t really care. Yes you are right. My catholic perspective on the world is WAY more important then the transient and confusing nature of feminism.

 

[kev7]

Catholic2003:

To respond in kind, your anti-feminist ideology is more important to you than the teachings of the Catholic Church. Waaaay more important, apparently.

If being a catholic and defending my views from the perspective of a Catholic labels me an anti-feminist then so be it. I don’t really care. Yes you are right. My catholic perspective on the world is WAY more important then the transient and confusing nature of feminism.

 

[kev7]

fix:

After reading through these posts I have to wonder why use the word feminist to desrcibe oneself? There are both men and women who understand that the Church teaches men and women are equal in dignity, but not the same. Why choose a word that carries such poloitical baggage that has come to really be understood to be radical feminism and not just so-called equal rights?

Exactly! Why chose to associate yourself with an organization that doesn’t have a clear dogma? Who is the authority on what is feminist? Where is the catechism of feminism that we use to certify its position? It doesn’t exist! You simply take what you like from it and then use it as a source of identity.

Sadly, there are many who do the same with the Catholic Church. They apply the same concepts to their faith.

You either ARE a catholic and accept all church teachings or you ARE NOT!

The Catholic church teaches exclusive truth, unlike feminism that teaches relativism.

 

[ncjohn]

kev7:

not true, the issue is CLOSED. John Paul II made this very clear
the issue is only open in the minds people who don’t want to accept church teachings but still want to call themselves catholics.

1577 "Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination."66 The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry.67 The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ’s return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible.68

While really off the topic, I’ll address this anyway. That is true for the priesthood. There is ongoing discussion and study on the diaconate. The infallibility document issued by JP2 only addressed the priesthood.

Yes, it would require a change in the definition of Holy Orders, but as I understand it, that is a Church discipline issue, not a doctrinal issue.

As far as calling oneself Catholic, being Catholic is an objective fact. If you are baptized Catholic you are Catholic, end of discussion. If you are going to claim to follow all teachings of the church, you don’t get to choose to reject that one either.

Peace,

 

[kev7]

ncjohn:

There are two answers that spring immediately to my mind. The first is to clear up the misconception of what “feminism” is and to show that true feminism is in line with Catholic teaching, as you note. Just because some feminists have added other baggage to their definition does not change its inherent meaning. I guess it kind of becomes like the “Taking back the Rainbow” concept that many here have adopted.
!

The problem with this is that there is NO authority on feminism. You might support a "pure view " of feminism but there will be countless others who would argue in favor of a different “pure view” of feminism.

 

[kev7]

ncjohn:

That is true for the priesthood. There is ongoing discussion and study on the diaconate. The infallibility document issued by JP2 only addressed the priesthood.

Yes, it would require a change in the definition of Holy Orders, but as I understand it, that is a Church discipline issue, not a doctrinal issue.

Peace,

my original point from which your response orginated was directed toward the church teaching on holy orders. A teaching that one of the “catholic feminists” here did not accept.

 

[ncjohn]

kev7:

The problem with this is that there is NO authority on feminism. You might support a "pure view " of feminism but there will be countless others who would argue in favor of a different “pure view” of feminism.

Actually, you set the ground rules by trying to define feminism in only your way, and then claim that people can’t be feminists and Catholic. The problem is, as you note, that there is no authority, including yours, so therefore there can be more than one definition.

In the “pure view” as you call it above and which many of the people here apparently subscribe, it is in line with Catholic teaching and there is no conflict.

 

[ncjohn]

kev7:

You either ARE a catholic and accept all church teachings or you ARE NOT!
QUOTE]

I guess my final post on this since it has been pretty much beat to death, but to re-emphasize this point:

This statement is contradictory on its face. By virtue of my baptism I am objectively Catholic according to the Church’s teaching. If you deny that, you are in fact rejecting the Church’s teachings which in your view makes you not Catholic, although you are apparently also objectively Catholic.

I hope you can come to peace with all of this in your heart. Bringing yourself such turmoil is not good for either your soul or your spirituality. If I can help with your cross in some way, I’m willing to do so, as I hope you’ll help with mine.

Peace,

 

[Catholic2003]

kev7:

the issue is only open in the minds people who don’t want to accept church teachings but still want to call themselves catholics.

You are mistaken as to what the Church teaches on this issue, and you are slandering (or is that libelling?) faithful Catholics based on your ignorance.

kev7:

1577 “Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.”

This refers to the present state of canon law. What I’m talking about is the possibility of changing canon law to permit ordaining women to the permanent diaconate. Ordinatio Sacerdotalis rules out any future possibility of ordaining women as priests, but leaves open the question of whether the Church could ordain female deacons.

 

[Joseph_Bilodeau]

kev7:

Exactly! Why chose to associate yourself with an organization that doesn’t have a clear dogma? Who is the authority on what is feminist? Where is the catechism of feminism that we use to certify its position? It doesn’t exist! You simply take what you like from it and then use it as a source of identity…

I note you have not yet answered my question as to whether self identification as pro-life is as incompatible in your view as self identification as feminist. The points about radical baggage being assiciated with feminism are well made, but it should be noted that some who identify themselves as pro-life carry baggage of their own. Some examples being those who self identify as pro-life, but hold animal life as being of equal or greater value than human life and those who believe in murdering abortionists. Naturally, these deviants to not change the true nature of a genuine respect for human life any more than deviants who self identify as feminists change the the true nature of a genuine respect for women.

So I ask again: If it wrong for a Catholic to self identify as a being a Feminist, is it also wrong for a Catholic to self identify as being Pro-Life? If not, why not?

 

[kev7]

Joseph Bilodeau:

Given the absolutist position taken in this thread, I think this question deserves a serious answer. Can we have no identities other than as Catholics? According to the OP, we should not have any philosophical identities, such as Feminist or Republican. How far does this go?

The only philosophical idenity you need is a catholic one. If you are a catholic then you should only vote for the party that supports your views as a catholic.

I consider myself to be Pro-Life, based on strong convictions that I have, in agreement with the Church, on the value and dignity of human life. Other posters here have stated that they consider themselves to be feminists based on strong convictions they have, in agreement with the Church, on the value and dignity of women.

But the OP objects to their identifying themselves as Feminists, saying they should identify as Catholic only. Does this mean that I should not identify myself as Pro-Life?

You should Identity yourself as Pro-life Catholic. Not a pro-life feminist. There are so many Catholic Pro life groups that NEED YOU! why join with the feminists?

I don’t think it is fair to Jesus when you take his teachings and promote them under another name. When you say to someone “Feminism promotes pro-life” you are taking the truth that Jesus gives us and giving the credit to feminism for it.

I guess this is just a problem with American culture. It is full of modern relativism. Everyone seems to have the need to belong to many groups and organizations regardless of how transient and inconsistent they are. It is no wonder the catholic church is having a hard time in NA. None just wants to be a Catholic.

In this regard, our Islamic frends are more faithfull. Just about everything they do is based on their faith to Islam.

 

[kev7]

Joseph Bilodeau:

So I ask again: If it wrong for a Catholic to self identify as a being a Feminist, is it also wrong for a Catholic to self identify as being Pro-Life? If not, why not?

As per my previous post. I submit that it is.

Furthermore, it is not the case that feminism is promoting the Mock Ordination of Women?

Read the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis of Pope John Paul II, which states that “the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church’s faithful” (n. 4). For this reason, the above-mentioned “priestly ordination” constitutes the simulation of a sacrament and is thus invalid and null, as well as constituting a grave offense to the divine constitution of the Church. Furthermore, because the “ordaining” bishop belongs to a schismatic community, it is also a serious attack on the unity of the Church. Such an action is an affront to the dignity of women, whose specific role in the Church and society is distinctive and irreplaceable.