men v. women

[myduwigd]

I have no idea if this has been brought up before, but oh well. (btw, im [b]not[/b] a feminist)

Paul says in Corinthians that women should not talk in church and should cover their heads (1 Cor. 11:3, 14:34-35). People have told me that they interpreted him as being sarcastic and kind of mocking that idea, but I cannot see how that is true reading that passage. Any ideas/explanations?

OK, I've heard that God created man first for a reason, pick whichever one you like, but I'm wondering why GOd created woman from man. In 1 Cor. 11:8 Paul says that man is the image of God and woman is the image of man. This is probably because I do not understand this concept, but personally I do not want to be the image of man. It really makes it sound like woman is lower/lesser, indirectly made in God's image where as man is directly.

But, I love Peter when he says that men should serve women as Christ serves and leads the church. I understand that and it is a beautiful role and does not lead to any type of male dominance carp. I know that Jesus loved women and has special roles for them in the church and in building His kingdom.
basically I'm confused about why woman was made from Adam's rib and not immediately in God's image and why Paul is acting like such a chauvanist (sp?).

Thanks a bunch!

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote]OK, I've heard that God created man first for a reason, pick whichever one you like, but I'm wondering why GOd created woman from man. In 1 Cor. 11:8 Paul says that man is the image of God and woman is the image of man. This is probably because I do not understand this concept, but personally I do not want to be the image of man. It really makes it sound like woman is lower/lesser, indirectly made in God's image where as man is directly.[/quote]

Woman was made from Man's side as the Church was formed from Christ's side. It was a prefigurement.

Women are not lower or lesser, but equals with men, sharing in the same nature, as Christ and the Church share in the same nature. They are different, however, as men have been given the charge, in the image of Christ in the Christ/Church relationship, to lead, and women have been given the charge to submit. However, men are only to use their authority in order to submit to their wives, i.e. to serve them (all true authority is geared toward service), and women are to submit in order to support their husbands. Each has a role which compliments and completely serves the other.

Read my tract on [url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=22554"]Theology of the Body[/url], if you like.

[MichaelFilo]

Covering a woman's head is a practice that should still be in effect. Women should cover their heads because of their role... much like women have to dress differently then men because of their bodies (jeans aren't interchangable from a guy to a girl because of the fit). It isn't an inferiority thing that women should have to cover their heads, but that we are different yet equal. Apotheon could probably do this discussion more justice. I am sure I have seen St. Linus say something about women covering their heads and it's neccessity for salvation. Although could have just been a discussion that took it out of context.

God bless,
Mikey

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 18 2005, 06:19 PM'] Covering a woman's head is a practice that should still be in effect. Women should cover their heads because of their role... much like women have to dress differently then men because of their bodies (jeans aren't interchangable from a guy to a girl because of the fit). It isn't an inferiority thing that women should have to cover their heads, but that we are different yet equal. Apotheon could probably do this discussion more justice. I am sure I have seen St. Linus say something about women covering their heads and it's neccessity for salvation. Although could have just been a discussion that took it out of context.

God bless,
Mikey [/quote]
But it isn't required and not necessary for salvation.
This topic has been discussed and can be found in the old threads.
No Saint is infallable.

[Birgitta Noel]

Awww, too bad you're not a feminist, Pope John Paul II is.....

I'll leave you to mull over that for a while, but now I need to go to bed.....

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Birgitta Noel' date='Feb 19 2005, 01:55 AM'] Awww, too bad you're not a feminist, Pope John Paul II is.....

I'll leave you to mull over that for a while, but now I need to go to bed..... [/quote]
Birgitta, don't pick on him.

JPII is a true feminist. I'm a true feminist. Most of the men and women here are true feminists.

I'm sure he's just not too accustomed to hearing the difference between true feminism and pseudofeminism.

[Donna]

Why leave the angels out of the blame? Doesn't St. Paul also say the woman's head should be covered (while praying in church) "because of the angels"?

I've long pondered that, plus the covering the power of her head---her hair. I've come to no conclusions, tho. However, I can see in my little daughters sometimes an impatience with head-covering. A hasty "why do only [i]we[/i] do thus?".

If not for despicable male attitudes which can be evident and in the air, even around parishoners we barely know/hang out with, perhaps their hastiness would be lessened.

I'm way into hats these days, a good alternative to the veil.

I honestly don't know if it's necessary for salvation, but it is Apostolic Tradition, and Scriptural explicitly. Hmm, maybe I already answered my own question. Cmom will point out the new norms...but now that I think of it, has there been anything actually reversing the custom? Or is it all just not doing it anymore?

Yes, it's sort of strange when I think my image came from Adam (but is also in God's), and the man being head of the woman. If I should happen to get vexxed thinking about these things, I turn to Our Lady and think of her. She is the seat of wisdom. And all the rest. But, God didn't spare His own Mother the sword of sorrow...she is the Queen of martyrs and suffered the most of any (human) person!

But I don't think she let it get to her, if she was being dissed for being a woman. St. Joseph surely would've treated her like the regal queen she is.

So, when I'm in a snit about Catholic male attitudes (I see this more, being around Trads), well, that's what my girlfriends are for. You know, the ones who make mincemeat out of the learned but slightly misogynist males.

But I love St. Paul, he's helped me a great deal; I'm sure he could take it if I were to yell at him.

[argent_paladin]

There are two accounts of the creation story. In verse 27 of chapter 1, God creates human, "male and female". It is only in the second account that God creates Adam first and then Eve from the side of Adam. There are many and varied rich interpretations for this. I suggest the Pope's own in "The theology of the Body".
The metaphor of Christ and His Church is one of the most common for understanding the relationship between husband and wife. You alluded to it before but quoted it inaccurately. In Ephesians, husbands are told to love their wives and wives are to "be subject" to their husbands. Other translations say "subordinate", "submit" or "be submissive". All of these have a hierarchical sense, containing the term "sub-" in them, which means beneath or under. Supporting this interpretation is the next clause that says that as Christ is the had of the church, so is the husband the head of the wife. This makes sense in the context of a "one-flesh" relationship. Bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh all under one head.
There are many interpretations of this. One is that Paul is telling men to love their wives because this is difficult for men to do, but easier for women. And he told women to submit to their husbands because that is hard for women to do, but easier for men. Another way of looking at it is to see that "submission" means "under the mission", that is, women are serving men as they are fulfilling their calling or mission to be the head of the household and follower of Christ.
Even with all these interpretations, it is a difficult passage for many modern people to take. But it must be understood, as I said before, that this is in the context of a one-flesh, sacramental relationship that reflects the mystical union of Christ and His Church. So it is no wonder that it doesn't make much sense to people who reject the Church.
And honestly, what is more difficult: to serve (as we are all called to serve Christ) or to "love your wives as Christ loved the and delivered himself up for it"? Husbands are called to love in a sacrificial way, to the point of dying for their families. That is a high standard to live up to, impossible without God's grace.

[argent_paladin]

Note that Paul is referring specifically to men and women in the spousal relationship only in the Ephesians passage and that should not be enlarged to all men and all women. Husband and wife have special obligations and bonds with one another. Paul didn't say "women submit to men" but "wives be submissive to your husbands". Very big difference.
And one thing about the headcoverings...
"If it be a shame to a woman to be shorn or made bald, let her cover her head."
So, Paul is using a cultural argument. That is, his "fashion suggestions" for women are dependent upon the cultural norms for woman. And in fact, the culture has changed. It is no longer shameful for a woman to have short hair. Yes, it may be a bit odd, but not shameful. Therefore, it is not necessary for a woman to cover her head.
The last passage about the angels is especially interesting. Most translations say that a woman ought to "have a symbol of authority on her head," because of the angels and because woman was made for man.
It is very difficult to understand Paul's meaning here because woman was made for man, but man was also made for woman, they are complimentary. Also, every man is "of woman" in the sense that all men are born of their mothers. If it is important that Eve came from the side of Adam, why isn't it important that all other men come from the side or womb of women?
I am afraid that this passage is opaque apart from the cultural context of headcoverings as signs of authority and respect. In our society, it was the norm that men remove their hats to show respect for women, which seems to be the opposite of Paul's own time. It is difficult and usually futile to try to import cultural norms into a completely foreign environment.

[Mrs. Bro. Adam]

If you look more into the head covering, it was a custom of the day. That's why Paul said that the women should also wear head coverings.

[AndreaMercer]

[quote]Covering a woman's head is a practice that should still be in effect. Women should cover their heads because of their role[/quote]

What are you refering to as being their "role?"

I'm not going to veil myself. But, I'm interested to learn more. I'm sure there are more threads out there on it, anyone know one of the top of their heads (no pun intended)?

I suppose I need to know what you define a woman's role as in order to develop my opinon on that quote.

[MichaelFilo]

St.Linus was a respectable pope... no tjust "some saint". Either way the current Magisterium defines the practice as purely a par tof that culture of that time. I'd contend that the practice was done away with quite recently... but I won't, as a Catholic I am to submit to Her teachings obediantly. ::sigh::

God bless,
Mikey

[Mary's Knight, La]

i know catholic women (younger and older) who still wear veils, if only the doilie variety. Having seen it, I'm all for it. It impresses upon me the modest character of the woman all the more, though they are modest all the time.

I would say that if wearing one drives a woman further from God, unless norms require it, then best to forego it however, to those whom it will not bother I recommend it unless it becomes distracting.

about the suggestion of hats I'm not so sure... the veils are definitely tasteful but they could never be considered accessories the way a hat could... my personal preferences runs like this: veil-->uncovered head-->hat

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Feb 19 2005, 03:07 AM'] JPII is a true feminist. I'm a true feminist. Most of the men and women here are true feminists.

I'm sure he's just not too accustomed to hearing the difference between true feminism and pseudofeminism. [/quote]
Oh please, do share.

Since this is the definition of feminism:

[quote]Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: 'fe-m&-"ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes[/quote]


I'd like to know how your "true feminism" differs.

[rufiokicks]

[quote name='MichaelFilo' date='Feb 18 2005, 04:19 PM'] we are different yet equal [/quote]
Did you mean separate but equal? That wording makes me uncomfortable...why does it matter if a girl covers her head? What are we veiling ourselves from exactly?