Vatican says feminism "lethal" to families

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vatican says feminism "lethal" to families Sat 31 July, 2004 11:39 By Shasta Darlington

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Modern feminism's fight for power and gender equality is undermining the traditional concept of family and creating a climate where gay marriages are seen as acceptable, the Vatican says.

In a 37-page document "On the Collaboration of Men and Women in the Church and in the World", the Vatican said women should be respected and have equal rights in the workplace, but differences between the sexes must be recognised and exalted.

"Recent years have seen new approaches to women's issues" including a tendency "to emphasise strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism", it said on Saturday.

The document, which re-stated Catholic Church positions, including the ban on female priests, said that many women felt they had to be "adversaries of men" in order to be themselves.

"Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women ... which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."

The document is a booklet-letter to bishops by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department in charge of safeguarding and interpreting doctrine.

It criticises feminism's attempt to erase gender differences.

This has "inspired ideologies which, for example, call into question the family in its natural two-parent structure of mother and father, and make homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent, in a new model of polymorphous sexuality," it says.

NO TO GAY MARRIAGE

Pope John Paul has repeatedly defended traditional marriage from the trend towards legalising same-sex unions in the United States and Europe.

After Massachusetts became in May the first state in America to permit gay marriages, the issue has been hotly debated ahead of U.S. presidential elections.

The document called for greater recognition of a woman's role as a mother and urged society to value it as real work.

But it also said women's access to the workplace and to positions of authority should not be limited.

"Although motherhood is a key element of women's identity, this does not mean that women should be considered from the sole perspective of physical procreation," it said.

The Vatican said women who choose to be full-time mothers should not be stigmatised, but at the same time, it appealed to governments to make it easier for mothers to hold outside jobs without "relinquishing their family life".

In the introduction, Ratzinger says the letter is meant "as a starting point for further examination in the Church, as well as an impetus for dialogue".

Among other issues, the document addresses the recurring question of whether the priesthood should be opened to women -- a possibility repeatedly denied by the pope.

The document says woman's role within the Church as a witness and "bride", as exemplified by the Virgin Mary, is key but different from man's.

"The reservation of priestly ordination solely to men does not hamper in any way women's access to the heart of Christian life," it said.

The Church teaches that it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles.

Groups that favour female ordination say Christ was only acting according to the social norms of his times.

-- - (David@excite.com), July 31, 2004

Answers

Top

-- - (David@excite.com), July 31, 2004.

I do not believe that gender equality has anything to do with gay marriage. And yes, I am against gay marriage, against abortion, but for equal rights for women.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), July 31, 2004.

I am also against gay marriage, against abortion, and for equal rights for women. But I reject today's militant feminism, which has nothing to do with equal rights for women, which champions things which are harmful to women, and which rejects those things that are of greatest value to the majority of women - God, family, marriage, and motherhood.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 31, 2004.

I'm at a loss to understand the modern femminist movement in the first place. What else do they want? Don't they already have equality in most respects? I mean I understand why they would still be mad at some corporations like Walmart, who are notorious for discriminating against women, and they should keep on fighting them. But it seems to me that's not even what they're concentrating on. What do they want?

-- Anti-bush (Comrade_bleh@hotmail.com), July 31, 2004.

I think the militant feminists have a serious inferiority complex, that is mostly of their own making.

Now, as to Walmart, to be fair, I would bet that most women working there have kids or parents to take care of, and probably ask for time off or rescheduling for this or that. You cannot reasonably expect to be promoted over some single (or married breadwinner) person who in all likelihood had to pick up the slack for you. Any place that offers flexible scheduling around school, working mothers, etc (like fast food places),--if you take those jobs, that is your "benny" that you enjoy--that flexibility the other employees and management don't have, and that's why THEY get paid more and promoted over you. Strange how some people don't get that.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), July 31, 2004.



Modern Feminism is basiclaly about oen uppign men and feelign empowered... basiclly they need to feel special and grwat, as if they are better than everyone else, and naturlay, they need an enemy, which or them is Men. Just lik a school ully may pick on the chess Club or Boy Scouts. It has nohign to do with equel rights for owmen and everythign to do with makign themselves feel powrful.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), July 31, 2004.

Yay. :) This will be a very helpful document for articulating why modernist feminism, and chauvanism, are not the only two options (isn't it interesting that the feminists accuse the faithful of thinking in blacks and whites?)

A look at Catholic.com's "Women priests" Q&A page (http://www.catholic.com/library/Women_and_the_Priesthood.asp) shows that the early Church Fathers expressed many views which either are, or are not in line with the current understanding. After all, we cannot exactly take the hard line (as Tertullian does) against women teaching, leading, or even prophesying, what with St. Anna the Prophetess proclaiming the coming Christ, and a fair number of Old Testament prophetesses.

The most important evolution in the Church's (qua People of God) understanding in the last two millenia was to dispose (a) the belief that women are more easily tempted to evil than men, ala Eve; and (b) the belief that men are, by their nature, functionally/intellectually/spiritually superior to women or that women are incapable of leading.

For example, consider the following from John Chrysostom:

"[W]hen one is required to preside over the Church and to be entrusted with the care of so many souls, the whole female sex must retire before the magnitude of the task, and the majority of men also, and we must bring forward those who to a large extent surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature" (The Priesthood 2:2 [A.D. 387])."

Is Chrysostom implying here that women, as a sex, could never "surpass all others and soar as much above them in excellence of spirit as Saul overtopped the whole Hebrew nation in bodily stature?" Honestly, I think that it's possible, although one may interpret this otherwise. Today it must be believed that women can indeed "surpass all others" and that the reservation of Ordination to men cannot stand upon the assumption of greater male merit.

But also, note the following:

"Hands are not imposed on her, because she does not offer the oblation and she does not conduct the liturgy. Ordination is for the clergy because of the liturgy; but a widow is appointed for prayer, and prayer is the duty of all" (The Apostolic Tradition 11 [A.D. 215])."

Note the priority of liturgy! Priests are for the liturgy. They are ordained, are defined by, and serve the liturgy. The liturgy is their reason for being, and Ordination conforms to the principles already set. This is connected to the iconical importance of Ordination--just as the corpus on our crucifixes is male, so is the priest-as-male is carved from the oak of the laity to stand before the congregation and raise his arms.

In the same vein, from Augustine,

"[The Quintillians are heretics who] give women predominance so that these, too, can be honored with the priesthood among them. They say, namely, that Christ revealed himself . . . to Quintilla and Priscilla [two Montanist prophetesses] in the form of a woman" (Heresies 1:17 [A.D. 428])."

What better evidence is there of the strong iconic importance of priests? It was so strong then that even ancient 'modern feminists' believed it necessary that both Christ and presbyter share a gender.

Also of great importance is Christ's choice of apostles. Was it simply unthinkable to have women lead in his day? If it was, things must have changed radically in a very short time. Very suddenly, the Fathers find themselves forced to answer that very charge.

"For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225])."

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies, 377.).

Also important is that Catholic priesthood must be understood Catholicly, which is to say, as a devout disciple of Christ.

He tells us this, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." -Matt 20: 25-28

This is the essence of priesthood. From the Pope in Rome to Fr. Ted down the street, this is their guide, their law; and this is the measure of their priesthood. Would the modernist feminist relish the chance to live priesthood according to this dictum?

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 01, 2004.


**I messsed up; here's the 2nd half of my rant, non-underlined**

Also of great importance is Christ's choice of apostles. Was it simply unthinkable to have women lead in his day? If it was, things must have changed radically in a very short time. Very suddenly, the Fathers find themselves forced to answer that very charge.

"For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225])."

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies, 377.).

Also important is that Catholic priesthood must be understood Catholicly, which is to say, as a devout disciple of Christ.

He tells us this, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." -Matt 20: 25-28

This is the essence of priesthood. From the Pope in Rome to Fr. Ted down the street, this is their guide, their law; and this is the measure of their priesthood. Would the modernist feminist relish the chance to live priesthood according to this dictum?

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 01, 2004.


**doggonit!**

Also of great importance is Christ's choice of apostles. Was it simply unthinkable to have women lead in his day? If it was, things must have changed radically in a very short time. Very suddenly, the Fathers find themselves forced to answer that very charge.

"For, if it had been necessary that women should teach, then our Teacher would have directed them to instruct along with us" (Didascalia 3:6:1–2 [A.D. 225])."

"From this bishop [James the Just] and the just-named apostles, the succession of bishops and presbyters [priests] in the house of God have been established. Never was a woman called to these. . . . According to the evidence of Scripture, there were, to be sure, the four daughters of the evangelist Philip, who engaged in prophecy, but they were not priestesses" (Epiphanius of Salamis, Against Heresies, 377.).

Also important is that Catholic priesthood must be understood Catholicly, which is to say, as a devout disciple of Christ.

He tells us this, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt. But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant; whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave. Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom for many." -Matt 20: 25-28

This is the essence of priesthood. From the Pope in Rome to Fr. Ted down the street, this is their guide, their law; and this is the measure of their priesthood. Would the modernist feminist relish the chance to live priesthood according to this dictum?

-- anon (ymous@god.bless), August 01, 2004.


The Vatican expresses the heart and mind of God. It has also been my sorrow for a long time to see the spiritual death and decay of the so called modern woman, stripped off all womanhood and her degeneration into just a female homo sapiens animal, both physically and psychologically. Where are the genuine feminine qualities gone, like modesty, coyness, softness, gentleness, kindness, love, long suffering, etc., gone, both the beautiful internal and external feminine expressions? Even her naturally beautiful feminine form has now being replaced by ugly forms distorted by demonic desires and passions, either due the effects gluttony, hatred, impurity, or too much self-deprivation in vanity. As I look around, I see the man becoming more and more feminine and mellowed, and the soft man is an easy target for the feminists for humiliation.

Nevertheless, I believe a large majority of feminists themselves are a product of bad men and women, irresponsible and loveless parents, a godless society with its (cunningly) manipulated principles of upbringing children, a self-centered and perverse generation, a culture of irresponsible sexual behaviors, etc. This is the fruit. It has taken a time of shame, humiliation, rejection, anger, bitterness, and hatred to make such a person. These are the unfortunate poor self-deceived souls.

Surprisingly, the very hardcore feminists are not necessarily a product of many unfortunate life events. The hardcore feminists are very bright and intelligent people who have become bitter and wicked because of some insignificant event that hurt their pride or simply pride with no reason. These are recruited by demons and given great demonic powers, wisdom, knowledge, inspiration, even to the point of being spiritual influential, so that many are led to suspect God and his Church. They are able exercise influence over directly and indirectly upon persons of high rank, politicians, media, press, and even upon some high-ranking individuals of the Church. One example of their shrewdness and slyness is the Cairo Conference, where to get more powers and sexual freedom through the Law as they desired, they very cunningly brought out issues of women of veiled in Islamic countries, circumcision in the African countries, etc., when the actual truth was that they cared nothing for these miserable women. It was with difficulty the Church could counter them, esp., measure to consider abortion as a family planning method.

Over 25 to 30 years, their continuous propaganda via media, TV, and magazines has borne fruit in creating a world where women who is no longer happy to be a woman. As the devil puts it, "We don't want to be a obedient slaves to our father, brothers, husband, children, etc.," and faithfulness and love are to be considered a real bondage. Today, we have a woman who wants freedom, self- determination (abortion, contraception, etc.), and power (to be like men or a god, not very different from the temptation in the Garden of Eden). She is willing to loose everything, even the most precious soul to gain all these. Not a few go to the extremes degenerating into various perversions, some into cults of goddesses, and some even into nervous breakdown, suicide, etc.

Just see the change! Not many years ago, we had a woman who would burst into tears if referred to in a sexual way. Today we have a woman who is elated to glory if called a "bitch." We see the same things are happening all over again that happened in the Garden of Eden. Ungodly women are listening to the devil's voice resounding from the tree of knowledge (the world) and ungodly men are gulping it down what these women are saying without reserve.

The Church with her divine wisdom stands like a beacon of light to the nations, saying, "Come eat of my bread and drink of the wine I have mixed. Forsake foolishness that you may live; advance in the way of understanding." (Prov.9:5-6). We are indeed fortunate to have a Church who is right when we are wrong!

-- Leslie John (lesliemon@hotmail.com), August 01, 2004.



I have placed a summary analysis from Catholic World News on this on the thread here



-- Bill Nelson (bnelson-nospam@hotmail.com), August 01, 2004.


-my contribution to the subject:

Pastoral or Anti Family?

Daniel////

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), August 04, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ