Feminists?

[Tinkerlina]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1727509' date='Dec 14 2008, 01:15 AM']How is Mary docile? She argues with an angel at the Annunciation. She yells at Jesus [nicely] when he is found at the Temple. She even asks him to perform a miracle, he demurs, and she tells the steward to " do whatever he tells you" knowing full well he won't let her down. She follws him over hill and dale while he preaches and stands under the cross as he dies in agony after his friends run away. She is active, strong, reliable, determined woman - anything but dull. [/quote]

Maggie was quoting me and I wasn't talking about the Blessed Mother-I was referring to the image of what a woman is "supposed" to be I was getting from TotusTuusMaria's post-I was saying that that was the impression I was getting but I hoped I was wrong! Katie

[Tinkerlina]

You know, I have to add: as much as the posts putting the statements St. Paul was making in context made me feel a WHOLE lot better-why isn't it more widley known that he was talking in a specific situation, about specific people? I think a lot of St. Paul's writings cause a lot of confusion, even anger, that could be so simply assuaged by having more context. I don't know, I mean, of course I realize there is a context for everything in the Bible, it just seems like CCD classes or whatever should teach people like me how to understand the historical, psychological, audience oriented contexts better and forestall a whole lot of issues! Katie

ETA: Btw, sorry to be hogging this thread.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Tinkerlina

[Maggyie]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1727536' date='Dec 14 2008, 02:27 AM']I don't understand what the distinction is, though-if I'm getting the wrong impression, what is the right impression? -Katie[/quote]


Totus describes Mary very well, and Mary definitely didn't lead a life of Victorian boredom, don't worry I know you weren't originally referring to Our Lady, I kinda complicated the discussion bringing her in again although I don't think Victorian women were that bored... that is just us projecting from our own time period, with all of our technology, packed schedules and go go go lifestyles - in reality what gives life its interest is relationships with the opposite sex, family, friends, and other social partners, and they had just as much of that in Victorian times as nowadays.

I think in describing the Blessed Mother TotusTuusMaria gives a good description of what the Biblical ideal of a woman is - modest, obedient, and so forth. I realize that these adjectives are offensive to a lot of girls but that's Christianity for you, always counter-cultural. I think a word that works better for modern ears than "silent" is "recollected." Being recollected doesn't have anything to do with being shy or timid or any other personality trait, the way some women might be shy and some might be outgoing, it means a composure and a reserve that speaks volumes. It doesn't mean women can't "lead" but it does mean our ideal form of leadership looks different from what the convention might be... the same way Mary "led" the early Christians as the first disciple without usurping St. Peter, the way she leads us to Jesus without aggression, always with gentleness, inviting rather than compelling or demanding. Mary is the perfect exemplar of the old saying that "the hand that rocks the cradle is the hand that rules the world." She had no formal leadership role, she was the very opposite of "loud and proud" and yet as the Mother of God, responsible for the education and formation of His humanity, she truly changed the world, pondering in the silence of her heart the mysteries unfolding within her and before her eyes.

I am trying to think of other examples... it's embarrassing but the first thing that springs to mind is "Steel Magnolias" or Scarlett O'Hara's mother in Gone With the Wind...

A woman could do a lot worse than heeding the advice of God's Word in St. Paul, even to the literal letter, although I certainly am not able to do it. Let's not forget that bit about the meek inheriting the earth!

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1727543' date='Dec 14 2008, 12:33 AM']You know, I have to add: as much as the posts putting the statements St. Paul was making in context made me feel a WHOLE lot better-why isn't it more widley known that he was talking in a specific situation, about specific people? I think a lot of St. Paul's writings cause a lot of confusion, even anger, that could be so simply assuaged by having more context. I don't know, I mean, of course I realize there is a context for everything in the Bible, it just seems like CCD classes or whatever should teach people like me how to understand the historical, psychological, audience oriented contexts better and forestall a whole lot of issues! Katie

ETA: Btw, sorry to be hogging this thread.[/quote]

Most cradle Catholics have a juvenile understanding of their faith because some stopped their religious education in 12th grade or even sooner. I am a major proponent of adult education in the church outside of RCIA. We need an adult understanding to truly form our consciences properly. Learning about who wrote the bible, for whom, even in what language and when, can really make a lot of stale passages come to life. Our faith is alive and growing, and strength and power come from knowledge.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1727212' date='Dec 13 2008, 07:52 PM']Like Here

1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.[/quote]

That is a better explination however I just don't see how it fits.

While St. Paul may have been writting to one specific Church in response to their problems his comments do not seem specific to that one Church.

"But I suffer not a women to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"

That seems to be a general principal Paul feels is correct, and not limited to this one Church. What is the next line by which he justifies this teaching?
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"

He does not justify his teachings by the pragmatic necessity of that one church, but rather points back to God's creation and uses this to justify his teachings. Then he moves on to point out the proper role of women

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

From speaking of these general conditions and truths he concludes that a women may be saved through childbearing etc.


I'm the first to admit I'm not a new Testament scholar. I do not speak Greek and have no training whatsoever in the area. But based on my best abilities in looking at the English I just don't think that claim honestly follows the text. Moreover I don't believe the Church followed this explination through its history.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1727212' date='Dec 13 2008, 07:52 PM']Like Here

1 Timothy 2
1I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men;

2For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.

3For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;

4Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.

5For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

6Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.

7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.[/quote]

That is a better explination however I just don't see how it fits.

While St. Paul may have been writting to one specific Church in response to their problems his comments do not seem specific to that one Church.

"But I suffer not a women to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence"

That seems to be a general principal Paul feels is correct, and not limited to this one Church. What is the next line by which he justifies this teaching?
"For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression"

He does not justify his teachings by the pragmatic necessity of that one church, but rather points back to God's creation and uses this to justify his teachings. Then he moves on to point out the proper role of women

"Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."

From speaking of these general conditions and truths he concludes that a women may be saved through childbearing etc.


I'm the first to admit I'm not a new Testament scholar. I do not speak Greek and have no training whatsoever in the area. But based on my best abilities in looking at the English I just don't think that claim honestly follows the text. Moreover I don't believe the Church followed this explination through its history.

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Tinkerlina' post='1727409' date='Dec 14 2008, 12:11 AM']I don't know...to me being quiet, silence, etc is more of a personality trait. Some people, men and women, are louder, more assertive, more outgoing. Others are more quiet, keep to themselves. It doesn't seem to me that one is better than the other.[/quote]

Certainly, being quiet, shy, and such can be an aspect of someone's temperment, however being silent is also something we practice and should practice. It is an action in the way I (and I believe St. Paul) was speaking of it. An action to be practiced.

It is in silence that we hear God. It is in silence that we usually pray or find it easier to pray. Silence is something one can and should practice. Pope Benedict told the young people when he came to America this past year, "Do not be afraid of the silence or stillness..." He told the young people that it was one of the four essential aspects that we should consider when looking at the examples of holiness from the lives of the saints. Silence is where God speaks to the soul. And if one is not silent then they will not be able to hear. A Poor Clare nun wrote, "God speaks to the heart and the heart knows how to listen only if it is silent and is withdrawn in solitude.”

St. Paul says that women should "learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men; she is to keep silent."

I am not a biblical scholar myself. When I read this I accept it and deep down I understand my place and role and how this verse applies to me as a woman, however to explain it to someone else I just cannot do. I would be too afraid to say something wrong and pass it off as the Church's interpretation. So, I went to the only commentary I have, that being the Navarre. I trust that it cannot lead us astray in the Church's interpretation of what St. Paul is saying. It doesn't say much, but what it does say may shed some light on this verse we are looking at.

[b]"I permit no woman to teach": in this chapter [i]St. Paul is giving general regulations for liturgical assemblies; therefore, this prohibition is not an absolute one:[/i] it refers only to public acts of worship. In order to make it clear that he is not just giving a personal opinion, he sets the prohibition into the context of the divine plan of Creation and the biblical account of the Fall; his arguments are not sociological ones, not confined to a particular culture; they are theological arguments. [i]There are no grounds for accusing St. Paul of being anti-woman: no one of his time spoke as vigorously as he did about the basic equality of men and woman [/i](Gal 3:28), and certain women (Priscilla and Lydia, for example) played an important part in helping him to spread the Gospel. What he is saying is simply this: the essential equality of man and woman does not mean that they have identical roles in the Church. Also, although women are forbidden to teach in a public, official setting (that is the role of the hierarchy) they can and should teach religion in the context of the catechesis and the family life.[/b]

[quote]As far as teaching and being used as a vessel by God and for Him-isn't that true of men and women alike?[/quote]

True, however, in liturgical assemblies and public worship, the woman has no teaching position. Her role always has her in a position in this instance where silence and learning in submission is called for. This seems to be what St. Paul is referring too. St. Paul is not saying the woman should never speak again if a man is in any room with her. There is a time and place for everything. And in the particular instance the woman should be silent and learn in submission.
It is never the role of the woman to lead the flock or to teach in "official settings." However, there is a time and a place for her to teach (as is her Christian duty and as pointed out above). She is called to stand up for what is good and truthful, as all Christians are.

[quote]And I don't understand what you mean by "we should be ashamed at the wa women have behaved." What women, exactly?[/quote]

Women have fallen short of their calling... everyone of them; starting with Eve. She allowed her pride and her vanity to take over, and she ate of the apple. We tease men often that Eve was not the only one to mess everything up and how if Adam had done so and so and yada yada Eve wouldn't have did what she did. When it comes down to it though: Eve really messed it up and what she did doesn't have an excuse. She sinned because of her pride and vanity.

Women have used those gifts and characteristics they have (their beauty more so then all) and have purposefully in many cases led men astray and taught their daughters and sons immodesty. They have not been guardians of purity at all; nor have they even tried to be. Women can be and have been vain, prideful, selfish, nagging, and deceitful. We could say, "well men suffer from yada and yada too." Well, we are not talking about men and how they have been total mess-ups when it comes to their calling (and we all know - including men - that they have). We are talking about women, and there are many famous women biblically/historically that one can say: "Yeah, in that instance she really was not behaving as a woman of God should behave."

And we should be ashamed not of the women, but of these women's actions (and we ourselves who mostly suffer from the same failings). We still lead men into sin, give into vain thoughts, be naggging-know-it-alls instead of the helpful companions God made us to be. We do need to keep in mind our weakness. From a supernatural point of view, knowledge of weakness, is a grace. Alice von Hildebrand asks, "How many mistakes could we all have avoided if we had reminded ourselves that without God's help we can do nothing?" We should keep in mind the failings of these women and our weaknesses, and we should be humble.

[quote]While some of St. Paul's ideas make sense, such as being submissive in prayer-why does he only speak to women about this? Shouldn't all people be submissive in prayer?[/quote]

St. Paul said that women should "learn in silence with all submissiveness" in the instances of liturgical assemblies. This totally reasonable. Men have a role of teaching. They also have a time to be silent and listen to their fellow man teaching too. However, not all men; as some teach. Women though - across the board - have the role of silence.

And yes, all are called to be submissive in prayer. As said, I am not a biblical scholar. Paul has said many things, and not all of them I am aware of at this point or can remember. I wouldn't make the sweeping statement that he has not said men too should not be humble and submissive in prayer. We all should be humble and submissive toward God and those teaching with His authority. I am sure he must have.

[quote]The picture your post paints in my mind is a quiet, docile and dull Victorian woman who sits in the corner and keeps quiet. I'm sure you mean a lot more, but that's what I'm getting and it sure as heck isn't anything close to what I think women have to be like. -Katie[/quote]

A woman who is silent, docile, modest, obedient, and so on is not a dull woman. With those virtues, have just described the Blessed Virgin, who was anything but dull.

When we read the Gospel she is not in our faces. She is off to the side, "pondering things in her heart." She is at the feet of her son. She is following Joseph. She is the handmaid of the Lord. In our day, where these virtues and moral values are seen as weak, we, who do not wear always our "lenses of the supernatural" may very well say these things are synonymous with dullness. If the woman is not independent, powerful, successful, famous, etc... well, she is just kinda dull. It is so false. When we wear the "lenses of the supernatural" we see things very differently.

The woman I paint; the woman all women should be is: docile, modest, obedient, silent, pure, loving, kind, having courage, strong... the woman is the Blessed Virgin. All women should strive to be as she was. These virtues are the fruits of growing in union with God.

Edited December 15, 2008 by TotusTuusMaria

[TotusTuusMaria]

[quote name='Hassan' post='1727708' date='Dec 14 2008, 03:39 PM']That is a better explination however I just don't see how it fits.

While St. Paul may have been writting to one specific Church in response to their problems his comments do not seem specific to that one Church.[/quote]

I agree. It is important to know that St. Paul was writing about a specific group of women or a situtation concerning the women of a church; however he does not just say "those women." He says women. The sex. What he says about the behavior women should have at prayer applies to all females.

Not being a biblical scholar myself and being known to mis-interpret in the past, if I am wrong in this, I submit to the Church.

Edited December 15, 2008 by TotusTuusMaria

[CatherineM]

I would like to point out that Eve was not a party to the original covenant between Adam and God. She hadn't been created yet. She really should have had a better lawyer.

[Giolla]

I think Feminism to a degree is fine but I believe that feminist movement was the start of most modern evils (abortions, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.) so again the idea in society that woman is equal to a man is fantastic, but what that lead to was evil.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

In simple terms, it worked well in theory, when applied in real life, it got out of hand.

[Lena]

[quote name='Giolla' post='1728325' date='Dec 15 2008, 02:01 PM']I think Feminism to a degree is fine but I believe that feminist movement was the start of most modern evils (abortions, homosexuality, pre-marital sex, etc.) so again the idea in society that woman is equal to a man is fantastic, but what that lead to was evil.[/quote]

Abortion, homosexuality, and pre-marital sex aren't modern evils by any means, they've been around the block in history for quite some time. Yes, they are MUCH more accepted (practiced?) now, for a number of reasons. The idea that women and men are equal (the premise of feminism) did not create those stated evils at all.

[Galloglasses' Alt]

He's stating that the movement did, not the original ideas.

[Giolla]

[quote name='Galloglasses' Alt' post='1728690' date='Dec 15 2008, 06:29 PM']He's stating that the movement did, not the original ideas.[/quote]

Right, it was idea. The ideals have been around for a very long time. When the feminist got their right it open the floodgates so that all other "oppressed minorities".

[Lena]

[quote name='Giolla' post='1728738' date='Dec 15 2008, 07:12 PM']Right, it was idea. The ideals have been around for a very long time. When the feminist got their right it open the floodgates so that all other "oppressed minorities".[/quote]

I understand your post now, I just don't agree completely--I don't think it's as cut and dried as that. I agree though, that of course the status quo was disrupted, with all that implies.

I'm not saying you in particular, but it's disconcerting to read that some people think feminism, feminists, single-handedly brought evil into this world. I really hate reading that. Change comes when people want it, it's a social movement that involves everyone as a collective whole.