A possibly naive question: how accurate is this?
#11
(08-08-2017, 07:48 AM)In His Love Wrote: I saw this on OnePeterFive a moment ago:

" Felix_Culpa6 days ago

It's a hard truth to say these days, but women exist to serve men, not the other way around. (1 Cor 11:8-9: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”) In particular, women exist to allow men to reproduce (Summa Theologia, 1st part, question 92: "I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.") Women, in humility, should accept that this is the limit of their place in the universe."


I know that Eve was created to be the helper and companion for Adam. But there's just something about how this is phrased that I find disturbing. "...this is the limit of their place in the universe." It sounds like, "Women should know their place" couched in pious language. I have no problems whatsoever with accepting my place in the universe, but this sounds like women are all slaves to men. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It has no upvotes, so it's not exactly a supported view, at least among the 1P5 readers who have looked at the combox thoroughly.

St. Joan of Arc led an army after having angelic visions and didn't waver, even when the clergy of her own Faith set her ablaze. God the Father changed Sarai's name to Sarah, or "Princess." The Church is feminine, the spotless Bride of Christ. Christ shed His Precious Blood for Her. Our Lady...I mean...yes, she's the handmaid of the Lord, but she's also the Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Universe, Queen of Angels, etc. She has a reign.

This post just makes it sound like it confirms liberals' views of what the Church thinks about women, that we're all broodmares that should be barefoot and pregnant for their men. Am I missing something? I have absolutely no qualms being submissive to my future husband (I actually very much support and approve of that), but something in this, like I said, disturbs me. I'm no liberal when it comes to the view of women in the Church. I was annoyed recently because one of our local Catholic Women's League members (I believe she's part of CWL, or at least she read at one of the CWL-supported Masses) added "and daughtership" after the words "adoption to sonship" (so, "adoption to son and daughtership," ugh) in the Mass readings, apparently not understanding that women are part of "sonship" just like we're part of "mankind." But I also don't like being viewed like the "little woman" who needs to "know my place."

Help, please?

Whoever made that stupid comment needs help, not you.
[-] The following 1 user Likes Credidi Propter's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
#12
(08-09-2017, 01:13 AM)Credidi Propter Wrote: Whoever made that stupid comment needs help, not you.

Well, that's a relief. :D It definitely didn't sound like the proper Catholic view.
Reply
#13
Although disrespect towards women is not part of authentic Catholicism, it can't be denied that there has always been misogyny in the Catholic tradition.

We should be aware that not everything passed down through tradition is worthy of being preserved, even it is something preached by some Fathers:

Quote:     [For women] the very consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame.–Saint Clement of Alexandria, Christian theologian (c150-215) Pedagogues II, 33, 2

·         In pain shall you bring forth children, woman, and you shall turn to your husband and he shall rule over you. And do you not know that you are Eve? God’s sentence hangs still over all your sex and His punishment weighs down upon you. You are the devil’s gateway; you are she who first violated the forbidden tree and broke the law of God. It was you who coaxed your way around him whom the devil had not the force to attack. With what ease you shattered that image of God: Man! Because of the death you merited, even the Son of God had to die... Woman, you are the gate to hell. –Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225)

·         Woman is a temple built over a sewer.–Tertullian, “the father of Latin Christianity” (c160-225)


·         Woman does not possess the image of God in herself but only when taken together with the male who is her head, so that the whole substance is one image. But when she is assigned the role as helpmate, a function that pertains to her alone, then she is not the image of God. But as far as the man is concerned, he is by himself alone the image of God just as fully and completely as when he and the woman are joined together into one. –Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Regius (354-430)

·         Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his. Therefore she is unsure in herself. What she cannot get, she seeks to obtain through lying and diabolical deceptions. And so, to put it briefly, one must be on one's guard with every woman, as if she were a poisonous snake and the horned devil. ... Thus in evil and perverse doings woman is cleverer, that is, slyer, than man. Her feelings drive woman toward every evil, just as reason impels man toward all good.–Saint Albertus Magnus, Dominican theologian, 13th century

·         As regards the individual nature, woman is defective and misbegotten, for the active force in the male seed tends to the production of a perfect likeness in the masculine sex; while the production of woman comes from a defect in the active force or from some material indisposition, or even from some external influence. –Thomas Aquinas, Doctor of the Church, 13th century        
(I am not sure if all those quotes are authentic, but some of them certainly are)
"Cor Jesu Rex Et Centrum Omnium Cordium, miserére nobis "

“To pray is to shed blood.” - Silouan the Athonite
Reply
#14
Thank goodness Our Lord didn't think this way.
Reply
#15
Please accept my apologies for confronting you with these crude statements. But it is important to know where some traditionalist positions originated from. We should not consider anything by St Aquinas or St Augustine infallible, considering the bad fruits some of their teaching might bear in human relationships. There are some traditionalists who abuse their women and refer to these authors.

If you want to read an account of how a woman can thrive in spite of being attacked with this kind of statements, read a biography about St. Teresa of Avila. It is impressive how she continuously 'outwitted' chauvinist superiors, while practicing perfect humility. Nowadays, her superiors are forgotten and she is a Doctor of the Church, the most read author in Spanish language of all times and Founder of more than 10 monasteries. Besides, she had been the spiritual teacher of St. John of the Cross.

For a contemporaneous view of the dignity of the woman body, check out JPII 'theology of the body'. There is a good introduction to it by Christopher West, called "Theology of the Body for Beginners".
"Cor Jesu Rex Et Centrum Omnium Cordium, miserére nobis "

“To pray is to shed blood.” - Silouan the Athonite
Reply
#16
I guess I'm frustrated because I reject both too far right and too far left views of women. I'm anti-feminism, anti-women "priests," anti-abortion, anti-contraception, but I'm also anti-"women are here to be subservient to men, full stop," and it hurts to think that people I would see if I make it to Heaven believed on earth that I was heavily deficient because God Himself knit me in my mother's womb to be a woman. I just want some clarity on this issue.

I'm going to read these in my spare time:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-i...tatem.html

https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-...women.html

I also found a series by Wordnet Productions (Fr. Michael Manning, SVD) called God's Women, that I'm listening to.
[-] The following 1 user Likes In His Love's post:
  • JosefSilouan
Reply
#17
I found this video to be very helpful.



I would also like to add that your St. Thomas Aquinas quote is cut off a bit prematurely. I found an addition to it.

" On the other hand, as regards human nature in general, woman is not misbegotten, but is included in nature's intention as directed to the work of generation. Now the general intention of nature depends on God, Who is the universal Author of nature. Therefore, in producing nature, God formed not only the male but also the female."

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1092.htm

Also, a great response (also from Aquinas) to the quote which led to this thread in the first place:

"I answer that, It was right for the woman to be made from a rib of man.

First, to signify the social union of man and woman, for the woman should neither "use authority over man," and so she was not made from his head; nor was it right for her to be subject to man's contempt as his slave, and so she was not made from his feet.

Secondly, for the sacramental signification; for from the side of Christ sleeping on the Cross the Sacraments flowed--namely, blood and water--on which the Church was established."

That is absolutely beautiful language.
[-] The following 1 user Likes In His Love's post:
  • JosefSilouan
Reply
#18
(08-09-2017, 07:08 AM)JosefSilouan Wrote: For a contemporaneous view of the dignity of the woman body, check out JPII 'theology of the body'. There is a good introduction to it by Christopher West, called "Theology of the Body for Beginners".

Ah, yes. "Theology of the Bawdy" as we used to call in in the seminary ...

West himself has said "Theology of the Body" is meant to "complete what the sexual revolution began."

Dr. Alice von Hildebrand once said about West's presentation of sexual mores that he ignores the "tremendous dangers" of our fallen nature and concupiscence : "It is something that calls for holiness, which very few of us achieve. It is a sheer illusion to believe that by some sort of new technique we can find the solution to the problem ... It seems to me that [West's] presentation, his vocabulary, the vulgarity of things that he uses are things that simply indicate that even though he might have good intentions he has derailed and is doing a lot of harm."
Reply
#19
(08-08-2017, 07:48 AM)In His Love Wrote: I saw this on OnePeterFive a moment ago:

" Felix_Culpa6 days ago

It's a hard truth to say these days, but women exist to serve men, not the other way around. (1 Cor 11:8-9: "For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.”) In particular, women exist to allow men to reproduce (Summa Theologia, 1st part, question 92: "I answer that, It was necessary for woman to be made, as the Scripture says, as a "helper" to man; not, indeed, as a helpmate in other works, as some say, since man can be more efficiently helped by another man in other works; but as a helper in the work of generation.") Women, in humility, should accept that this is the limit of their place in the universe."


I know that Eve was created to be the helper and companion for Adam. But there's just something about how this is phrased that I find disturbing. "...this is the limit of their place in the universe." It sounds like, "Women should know their place" couched in pious language. I have no problems whatsoever with accepting my place in the universe, but this sounds like women are all slaves to men. Maybe I'm reading too much into it. It has no upvotes, so it's not exactly a supported view, at least among the 1P5 readers who have looked at the combox thoroughly.

St. Joan of Arc led an army after having angelic visions and didn't waver, even when the clergy of her own Faith set her ablaze. God the Father changed Sarai's name to Sarah, or "Princess." The Church is feminine, the spotless Bride of Christ. Christ shed His Precious Blood for Her. Our Lady...I mean...yes, she's the handmaid of the Lord, but she's also the Queen of Heaven, Queen of the Universe, Queen of Angels, etc. She has a reign.

This post just makes it sound like it confirms liberals' views of what the Church thinks about women, that we're all broodmares that should be barefoot and pregnant for their men. Am I missing something? I have absolutely no qualms being submissive to my future husband (I actually very much support and approve of that), but something in this, like I said, disturbs me. I'm no liberal when it comes to the view of women in the Church. I was annoyed recently because one of our local Catholic Women's League members (I believe she's part of CWL, or at least she read at one of the CWL-supported Masses) added "and daughtership" after the words "adoption to sonship" (so, "adoption to son and daughtership," ugh) in the Mass readings, apparently not understanding that women are part of "sonship" just like we're part of "mankind." But I also don't like being viewed like the "little woman" who needs to "know my place."

Help, please?

If you make the proper distinctions and understand the principles, then it's not totally off base, but it is horrifically presented and does not strike the correct Catholic balance. It comes off more as a fundamentalist Protestant and less like the Catholic truth.

On one hand all human beings are equal : We have been created by God, given an immortal soul, have the same ultimate goal which is eternal supernatural happiness in union with God in Heaven, and we all have the means by which to attain this end.

On another hand Baptized have a higher dignity : they have been given by God the gift of Faith and Sanctifying Grace.

On yet another hand not all are equal in dignity : God loves certain people more than others : "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated" (Rom 9.13) He loves all, but he gives certain men more grace than others, which means he give certain men more dignity.

So every man and woman is different in dignity beyond what is shared between the two : human nature. 

And yet we also have natural differences: Each has biological and psychological differences, and each has a particular role in society to play. Woman was meant to be a helpmate to man, so there is a degree of difference. That may not play out in all cases (e.g. St. Joan of Arc) but it is precisely that these are exceptions that show the normal order of things. Not all women are St. Joan of Arc. Hers was a very special vocation.

Most men are called to be fathers of families, breadwinners and the leaders of society in their own particular way. Most women are called to be mothers of families, helpmates to their husband and the pillars that support the men and allow the society to be managed by them effectively.

This is the role God has destined for each that the dignity of man and woman is found. There are exceptions, but those will be by force of circumstances, or in the case of religious and clergy, for a higher supernatural motive.

It is sophstry and fallacy to try to opposed Feminism and "Barefoot and Pregnant". One is a liberal extreme, the other is a Protestant/chauvinist extreme. And in the middle on a high peak above those is the balance that the Church has always promoted.

Our ideals can easily be seen in the Holy Family. Our Lady and St. Joseph are perfect examples of the role that both man and woman are normally meant to play in society. There will be some exceptions, but these will be by God's particular will for someone, either due to circumstances which make them take on a role outside of the normal scope, or for a higher supernatural motive.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • In His Love
Reply
#20
Thank you, MM. I appreciate your feedback. :)
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)