Vatican fears feminism "lethal" for families

Vatican fears feminism "lethal" for families
"Expert" Church aims at feminism, homosexuality

Let us be clear at the outset: the "lethal effect" refers to the death of the traditional family structure. The Vatican letter is not nearly so irresponsible as the headline might suggest, although it is brimming with both the traditional pomposity of the papacy and the traditionally sweeping condemnation that makes its arrogance so poignant.

Frances Kissling, of Catholics for Free Choice, said, "The demonization of feminism is most disturbing . . . It takes extreme positions that may have been historically held by five people and casts them as if they were held by every woman."

I might take a moment to chide Ms. Kissling; she ought to be a little less liberated with her talk. After all, these are religious folks she's talking about, and while I get what she means by "five people," there is a strong chance that traditionalists would take her literally. And that leads to a headache in the morning. At least she won't go to hell for taking a pill for that.

Suzanne Scorsone, spokesperson for Archbishop Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic of Toronto, said, "Somewhere down the line, the thinking became a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. The thinking became that male and female relationships became all about the domination of one of the other. For women to get married was like they wimped out." According to the Toronto Star, Scorsone suggested that this way of thinking contributes to many homosexual relationships.

What's puzzling is that the letter is also laced with compassionate passages, and also goes so far as to distort the Bible.° Elisabeth Schussler Fiorenza, of Harvard Divinity, noted that the only real surprise about the document was the timing. "It has some positive things in it, but the political function of the document is the same as the ones before," she said. "It's trying to make a theological case, which they're really not able to make, against the full equality of women in the church."

While the Letter expressly states that a woman should not have to choose exclusively between career and family, it seems to want to blame uppity women for homosexuality and smack women back into their places as "helpmates".

So it seems then, that according to the Vatican, a woman is important because without her a man's life would be sterile and baneful.

I would remind the Cardinal Ratzinger that a woman is important at least because without her a man's life would not be.

Clearly, the saddest part is where the Letter discusses the fundamentally spiritual dimension of motherhood. Such rubbish is very possibly the sublimation of the human sex drive.

Give it a read. It's almost humorous. It would be if it wasn't intended to be taken seriously. In that sense, it's a little sick. But I suppose that's another mystery. The headlines are sharp, and somehow overstated. In making more of the situation than necessary, the media has managed to suck the vitality out of it, and reduce it and shift the debate to something trivial and even demeaning. It's not like there's not a legitimate story going on. The Vatican just smiled and smacked "woman" in the jaw, and apparently for no good reason.
___________________

Notes:

° distort the Bible - The first distortion to strike me is rather simple, superficial, and perhaps inconsequential. See Part II.7 of the Letter, regarding Original Sin. Eve was not present when God issued the command to not eat of the tree of knowledge. See Genesis 2, even in a Catholic Bible; the order (v. 16-17) comes before Eve is created (v. 18-23).

Works Cited:

• Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." May 31, 2004. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html
• Williams, Daniel and Alan Cooperman. "Vatican Letter Denounces 'Lethal Effects' of Feminism." Washington Post, August 1, 2004; page A16. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30761-2004Jul31.html
• Williams, Daniel, Alan Cooperman and Priya Ramanujam."Vatican criticizes 'lethal effects' of feminism." Toronto Star, August 1, 2004. See http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...982&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724

See Also

• U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. New American Bible See http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/index.htm

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Dear Tiassa,

Women are silly.

They had it made. They could stay home. Men were being paid enough to support the both of them.

But they roared their demands "Make us Slaves too!"

Capitalism replied "Okay, if you ask real nice, and say 'pretty please' we'll do you a big favor and make you Slaves too".

Now with both Man and Woman working they have just as hard a time of making ends meet as when the Man used to support the both of them. But the kids need to go to daycare. But no one cooks and the Family sitdown Dinner is a matter of historical record.

But somehow we are supposed to think that the Vatican is being reactionary. But really? Can we say that things are better now then they were before? We did not used to have a 50% divorse rate. The Illegitimacy Rate did not used to exceed the rate of legitimate births. Juvenial Crime didn't used to carry a case load greater then the adult crime rate. But now it does.

Maybe the Vatican wishing to wind back the Clock is impractical, but maybe you should appreciate the Sincerity of the Sentiment. It used to be Good. Now it is bad. It seems ridiculous to defend what is bad against what was better.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would find you hilarious if I didn't know a post-Buddhist who feels the same way, and perhaps even moreso. Diversity is sometimes remarkably consistent.

:m:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the Vatican is just getting around to addressing feminism? Did they also issue a statement on suffragettes and poodle skirts?

And people say the Catholic Church thinks in centuries... pshaw!

 

Tiassa, the position seems to be: women are equal to men, but both have different roles. Can you find any Catholic who claims to be as close to God as Mary? The paper also does not seem to generalizing to the work force but inside church and the family. I'd hardly call that arrogant.

 

Okinrus:

As to arrogance, it's there at the outset:

The church may have a perennial interest in whatever concerns men and women, but I would hardly call it expert in humanity by any definition. (There's an obsolete definition that can be twisted to suit the occasion, but even then it's a verb to start with.)

This is the result of Catholic doctrine. There are some occasions the Church just looks at something wrong because it insists on some doctrinal position. It is only doctrinal logic that fails to see in something like the part about original sin (II, 7)--

--the inherent assertion that marriage and therefore the traditional family are in part a punishment intended for woman by God.

And what right does a group of men sworn to chastity have to tell a woman what her virginity and motherhood mean? The sheer pomposity of assigning the burden of social morality onto a woman is offensive in and of itself. (See III, 13)

Sexction IV and the Conclusion ... I don't know where to begin. They're bleeding over with haughty presumption. The best thing I can say about the Letter is that Timothy didn't appear anywhere in it. But applauding that is a bit like applauding the thief in the night for getting into the yard without making the gate squeak.
____________________

• Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." May 31, 2004. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

See Also -

• Dictionary.com: "expert" - See http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=expert

 

When the Church uses the word "Church" she means the collective Church, both on earth and in heaven. Hence, the wisdom that is contained in her teaching may be considered to be "expert" for the very reason that God is the expert at everything.

You're quoting it out of context, as should be seen by reading further. "...In this tragic situation, the equality, respect and love that are required in the relationship of man and woman according to God's original plan, are lost." Christians don't consider themselves under the old Law. In fact, there's a prophesy in Jeremiah or Isaiah that a women shall encompass a man in desire.

I thought you believed in free speech? I don't think the church's writings on this matter is formed in isolation, away from all lay persons.

The article is going along the theme of the self-fullfilling media stereotype of women, which drives many to be come outspoken against what they believe is a patriachical society. They deny tradition, even that which is has proved fruitful, for the sheer sight that it was developed in part by men.

Although the section recognizes the unique role of women, there's no assigning of the "burden" of social morality.

 

Now that's a credential to be proud of.

You'd think with that kind of backing they'd get it right more often than they do. And sooner.

Yeah, Christians and the Law is a strange subject in and of itself.

And I think you are reading out of context. What does that equality, respect, and love represent?

Consider it thematically:

We see in the first bulleted passage that woman is made for Adam's benefit. Regardless of how Christians stand with the Law, we also see from the second, women just need to shut up and take it. The third simply reminds us why women ought to be happy being excluded from the priesthood.

That is the respect and equality the Church believes in and is advocating.

Cheap response. I was referring to the moral right. The Church has a legal right to say most anything it wants, but in the end the Church's "speech" represents a form of authority that really is quite irresponsible. What moral authority has the Church to twist and pervert people's minds? Only their consent? Whence comes that consent? Largely from spiritual blackmail? Sack the Church--it has no moral authority to assert so recklessly about matters it is demonstrably incapable of understanding.

Well, I tell you, neither Wiccans nor atheists nor Buddhists nor even Lutherans wrote this.

If they want to put the lay people's names on the document, that's fine. As for now, we're dealing with the Pope and the Prefect of Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.

The crimes of the American patriarchal society, at least, are not mere media stereotypes.

Perhaps you would like to expand on what those fruitful traditions are.

The unique role of women seems to be to carry that burden of social morality:

It was awful nice of them to stick in a token "father" when discussing the genius of woman.

Before we go limiting ourselves and pointing out that, well, within a family it is a very good idea for a mother to be active, as opposed to aloof or inactive, we should also look at those who are not within a family in which they are raising children:

See that bit about "biological determinism"?

Two little words. Seem subtle, don't they? They make all the difference in a world. "Liberation from biological determinism" is liberation from "woman as a baby factory."

All else--her equality, her respect, her love, stem from being a baby factory, and it is a potentially lethal threat for the traditional family, according to the Church, to think otherwise.

The difference between the compassionate equality of Ratzinger's Letter and the equality it fears is that the Church sees equality inasmuch as "a place for everyone and everyone in their place," while what they fear tells people to do what they do best and maximize their potential contribution to humanity.
____________________

• Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. "Letter to the Bishops of the Catholic Church on the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World." May 31, 2004. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

 

In general you are reading behind the lines, seeing what just isn't there.

Need. The two were mutually dependent upon each other.

So you believe that women should maintain an outlook where they are conflict with males?

There are many things that women do that men could not do.

Well, to say that priest live in isolation is quite wrong. Priests typically have to deal with many sorts of people.

Not sure what you mean by this. A child and his mother or father is a family.

No, I don't think so, because there's a physical difference between men and women. Of course, since the Church welcomes vocations to the monastary, I'd hardly call the church pro-baby-factory.

 

Now you are seeing what just isn't there. I cited where I'm getting my interpretation. "Because you say so," does not a valid point make.

Until such a time when women are respected as human beings full and equal, they damn well better fight for it. I can't imagine that complacency under the yoke of irrational men is a solution that will bring us any real progress.

Such as?

And try not to go for the obvious ones. I'll go so far as to say there's a difference between what nature dictates and what humanity dictates. The one is a matter of reality while the other is mere opinion.

As someone who has dealt with sexual abuse survivors and counseled against suicide, I don't see how that gives me the right (e.g. moral authority) to tell a woman how to feel about such issues. Even if I trained to do such things professionally, I would not have that right.

I was pre-empting any notion that a woman's equality included not having children. Such as "biological determinism", as in the statement,

• "This theory ... intended to promote equality of women through liberation from biological determinism, has ... inspired ideologies which ... call into question the natural two-parent structure ... and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent in a new model of polymorphous sexuality."

Now think about it. The Church sees a "lethal effect" for families in the evolution of the family. In other words, for women to liberate themselves from biological determinism is a potential "lethal" blow to the family. The Church is incapable of seeing the positive aspects of the evolution of families. "Traditional" families have failed America inasmuch as the "traditional" family is as much a risk as any other form. What, exactly, is the problem with questioning the "natural two-parent structure"?

And I won't argue that you're not entitled to your opinion.

 

@ tiassa,

just a quick question, if science could allow for the male gender of the humans species to bear children, would you support such a change?

"equal, but different".

 

My only worry is that it would become trendy and insincere. As that's a purely superficial and temporal concern, though, sure, why not? It's low on my priority list, though.

 

By divine design, man is to be the “head” of woman – in society, in the church, and in the home (1 Cor. 11:3; Eph. 5:22–24). This graduation of authority rests on two bases: first, the original constitution of the sexes as created; and, second, woman’s role in the Fall.

Concerning the former, the Bible teaches that:

1. Woman was made as a help for man – not the reverse (Gen. 2:18,20).

2. Paul wrote: “For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man: for neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man” (1 Cor. 11: 8,9).

3. And again, “For Adam was first formed, then Eve” (1 Tim. 2:13).

As to the woman’s role in the Fall, she believed Satan’s lie that she might become as God, and hence, was “beguiled” (Gen. 3:13; 2 Cor. 11:3) or “deceived” (1 Tim. 2:14), whereas Adam, laboring under no such deception (1 Tim. 2:14), merely sinned due to his weakness for the woman (Gen. 3:12). Accordingly, woman’s subjection was increased after her fail (Gen. 3:16).

These facts do not suggest that woman is inferior to man, but they do mean (to those who respect the testimony of Scripture) that she is subordinate in rank to man. It ought to be emphasized that as Christ’s subjection to the Father involved no deprivation of dignity (Phil. 2:5–11), so there is none in woman’s subjection to man. So, as we shall presently observe, because of these historical facts, the sphere of woman’s activity has been divinely circumscribed.

Full article here: http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/womensRole.htm

 

Southstar,

You paint the perfect picture of Christian bigotry and intolerance and as such sets a strong stand for outlawing Christianity on the grounds of sexual discrimination and as a divisive and socially offensive institution.

 

Either your girlfriend or wife should be informed of this, or should you lack either, be ridiculed for not being able to get any due to self-inflicted religiously self-justified brainlessness.

Good job.

 

Society decided to outlaw Child Labor -- for two reasons: 1.) Children should not waste themselves in Slavery, and 2) They cheapened wages.

So... 1) Women should not be wasted in Slavery, and 2) Women flooding the job market (ballooning the Labor Pool to twice it Natural Size) cheapens wages.

If women don't want to stay at home, visiting with all the other women who don't go to work either, because they are afraid their loud mouths might cause them to be beaten by their overwrought husbands, then let them become Nuns -- such is why God created that wonderful Institution.

 

Underwater, unaware

I absolutely adore the work of Peter Gabriel:

Far be it for me to tell anyone what that all actually means. But if for some reason you don't get it, don't worry about it. Really, it's not that important a point.

 

Dear Tiassa,


I'm a Marian. And I am a Father of a Daughter. So I do not hate women... or, well, not as a necessary point of doctrine, however the particulars play out.

But I do not think women are doing themselves a service by making themselves into semi-quasi-men. It sounds patronizing, but I think women are better then that.

I also think men should limit their interactions with women. Most of the problems between men and women arise because no effort is made to maintain a discreet distance. Honestly I wonder why husbands and wives find it necessary to live in the same apartments. If the husband shows up for an occassional meal and social hour, that should be plenty, and most marriages would be the happier for it. Too much socializing together makes Women out of Men and Men out of Women, to the detriment of both.