Teatime with Freud

[shortnun]

Back on my laptop... and the quote boxes are working...

[quote][quote]I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.[/quote]
To expound my previous thoughts on this I turn to a statement from Era Might... there is a debate (or was a debate) going on in the debate table about submission... Era Might had something to say which I agree with 100%...
[quote][i](Era Might @ Feb 2 2006, 12:44 PM)[/i]
[b](1)[/b] It is a mutual submission. But in the same way male and female are equal yet different, so this submission is mutual yet essentially different. The submission of a wife is to the husband as head of the family, as the visible sign of authority. The submission of the husband is to the wife as his own flesh. Her good is his good. He must humbly submit to her wisdom and her gifts, because they have become his own. He can't make decisions despite her, but with and for her.

John Paul emphasizes that the submission is mutual because ultimately, both are subject to Christ. The relationship is an ongoing, mutual effort to discern and carry out the will of Christ. This does not abolish proper roles (man is, by nature, a leader), but it puts them in proper light. It's much like Augustine and his own conception of the episcopacy: "I am a Bishop for you, but I am a Christian with you". Headship is not an occasion for dominance, but service.[/quote]
[quote][i](Era Might @ Feb 2 2006, 01:24 PM)[/i]
[b](2) [/b]Too many chiefs, not enough indians, as they say.

A husband has to trust in his wife's wisdom, because it is her gift as a woman. But a wife also has to trust in his decisions as leader and head of the family, because it is HIS gift as a man. This doesn't mean whatever he commands is law, if not motivated by charity and right reason. But if a husband and a wife are both working with the mind of Christ, then the husband must have the role of leadership. A humble docility to this leadership is a virtue on the part of the wife.[/quote]
He stated quite eloquently what I struggled to say above.[/quote]
Before I reply, I wish to state that by no means do I wish to take Era Might's (or YM Nolan's) comments out of context, or misinterpret them. Likewise, I do not wish for him to feel he [i]has [/i]to reply or become involved in this conversation if he doesn't wish to do so. However, Hughey has utilized them in her response, and I wish to acknoweldge her response.

[b](1) [/b]Yes, mutual submission is clearly necessary in any true relationship. The best example of where mutual submission allows the relationship to flourish is in marriage. I agree that his good is her good, and her good is his good. The two are to make decisions as one, with and for each other. Furthermore, as Era references JPII, both are of course subject to Christ and to God's will for their lives. Nor is headship an occassion for dominance, but for service.

Yet my point that still remains, why is the man is head and the woman is not? More importantly, [u]when two become one, you disolve the ability to have a hierarchy! [/u]

[b](2)[/b] Pardon me for being a literalist, but I mean this quite honestly.... a man doesn't have wisdom, he only has the ability to lead his family? I appreciate the clarifications that Era makes... that obedience to the husband's decisions is only right if they are make with charity and in right reason. But perhaps the question that needs to be asked next is this:

In a marriage (so as to not go off on too many tangents--a marriage between a man and a woman), [u]what does it mean to be the (a) leader?[/u]

[quote]And YMNolan said this... (I cut out part that I felt did not apply to this.)
[quote][i](YMNolan @ Feb 2 2006, 02:01 PM)[/i]
I think there's another way of looking at submission (subordination) that needs to be pointed out when referring to Ephesians 5:21-33

For the man, Christ asks him to make a sacrifice for his wife parallel to Christ's own sacrifice for His Church.  In marriage man must give everything he has to protect her, support her, and please her.  This is a big part of what love is, choosing to sacrifice your own personal agenda for the well being of another.  It is through the combined wisdom of both the husband and wife that decisions are made.

For the woman, she is asked to be submissive - not as a slave to a master.  Christ wants only the best for woman.  They deserve a man who is willing to sacrifice for them.  They deserve a man who chooses to love and protect and lay down his life for his spouse.  By being submissive, a wife is allowing her husband to make the sacrifices that Christ intended for both of them.  By submitting, she is agreeing to allow the man to carry out his vocation.[/quote]
Their wisdom and eloquence far outmeasures my own but they have said what thoughts my mind produces.[/quote]
Hughey, I presume that the quote from Ephesians is what you were looking for in your earlier posting.... and I agree, the quotes you've brought in to this thread a very eloquent. I am particularly struck by YM Nolan's comment above. My conclusion, having read his words of wisdom, is that I agree. From how I define men and women as equal (as opposed to complimentary)--which I have tried to make clear in my previous posts--both persons must be willing to support, protect, and please the other. The marriage will not work unless personal agendas are cast aside and sacrifices are made. Above all, the two--as one--must cast aside their wills for the will of God.

And as a woman deserves the best, so too does the man. The man must be willing to sacrifice, and so too the woman. The woman must chose to love and protect and lay down her life for her spouse, just as the man must chose. Both persons are called to make sacrificies so that their wills might be aligned with the Divine Will.

So I think that about wraps things up........ Hughey (and all others), what I have left unclear, forgotten, or neglected? Please let me know. I look forward to reading any and all replies. Peace of Christ to you all.

[Socrates]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 01:09 PM']I disagree, a well-formed conscience [u]does not equal [/u]a conformed one. Conformity, to me, implies passivity. We are not members of a passive Church. That having been said, as Christians we must understand that submitting our will to the will of God is the right and true thing to do. But will and conscience are two different things to me (and we can argue that tract if you want, but I'd really have to brush up on my philosophy for that one.... )
[/quote]
It's not really clear what you are trying to say here - perhaps its merely a difference of terminology - but are you saying one's conscience should [b]not[/b] be conformed to Church teaching??

If that is what you are implying, you are wrong. Conforming one's conscience to the teachings of Holy Mother Church is not merely something passive, but is an active seeking of the truth of Church teachings, and is actively forming one's conscience to agree with the teachings of Christ's Church.
We are called to imitate Christ, and the Church teaches us how to do this. We are not supposed to "do our own thing."

If one's "conscience" is ever opposed to Church moral teaching, it has not been correctly formed and is wrong. If we know what the Church teaches on something, yet wilfully choose to do or believe otherwise, we are not following our conscience, but willfully sinning!

A correctly formed conscience is never in opposition to the Church's teachings.

[quote]Yes, feminism and liberalism are fallible. I've never said otherwise. But Socrates, I'm concerned by your definition of the Church as infallible. If the Church said euthanasia is an acceptable medical practice, would we agree, of course not! Forgive my rash example, but the Church infallibility is a teaching of the Catholic faith I firmly uphold. Blind obedience and acceptance without questioning the teachings of the Church (that are authoritative, not authoritarian and not infallible) is just not right[/quote]
The Church is indeed infallible when teaching on faith and morals.
You claim here to believe in the Church's infallibility in one sentence, but in the next deny it!

The Church never said, and never will say, that euthanasia is an acceptable practice, so your example is nonsensical. If it said such a thing, the Church would not be infallible. Either the Church is or is not infallible on moral teaching, so take your pick. You can't play it both ways.

It seems you are setting up "conscience" as some independent authority by which to judge and evaluate Church teaching. ("I'll follow Church teaching only if it agrees with my 'conscience' - if not, I'll reject the Church teaching.")
This is not true Catholic teaching on conscience. This kind of thought basically leads to following one's own personal opinions (mislabeled "conscience") rather than the infallible teaching of Christ's Church. This is the essence of pick'n'choose "cafeteria Catholicism." People have used "conscience" to justify almost every sin, from contraception, to homosexuality, to abortion and euthanasia.


[quote]My point is that there is no difference in how we are called to live out our salvation. If there is a difference it is between the path of lightness (which leads to God in heaven) and the path of darkness (which leads to an eternity of emptiness). The role men and women have to play in their salvation is [i]one that brings about the reign of God here and now.[/i][/quote]
Men and women follow different paths to holiness - not contradictory paths, but complimentary paths.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 02:51 PM']And now, my long over due response to Hughey...   

Grrrrrrrr I can't get the quote boxes to work.    And if I wait until they do work, I probably won't have time to respond. So here's the key:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[i]Italics= My older post[/i]
[b]Bold= Hughey's response to that older post[/b]
[color=blue]Blue= My current response to Hughey  [/color]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[b]Forgive me if I come back to these quotes a number of times. It has been a while since we have discussed this and I have been thrown out of my groove so to speak. I do have a few elementary thoughts here but if I come up with something more in the next couple of days I might like to revisit them. [oh and i will put bolded numbers next to paragraphs in longer quotes in order to correspond them to my own answers and make reading a little easier for everyone].[/b]
[i]Complementarity begins with what separates men and women. Chromosomal differences identify us as male and female bodies. I do not believe, however, that chromosomes (or the Divine) identify us as either “masculine” or “feminine.” I reiterate my belief that genders are historical and social constructs. My question then is: ought we place such ontological meaning on the chromosomal differences of sex?[/i]
[b]What about when Jesus was on earth? Not denying his divinity would it not be possible for his recognition of the roles/genders/differences in sex to be used as proof that the Divine does recongnize such things? What about the book of Hosea which speaks so much of the roles of men and women? What about Mary, our Mother, and her role in our life versus God, the Father? "Masculine" and "feminine" as defined by genetic makeup may not be one of the features which the Father chooses to dwell on for our bodies are purely devices in which to live on earth and serve Him. However, I do not believe that He would have created us with such hormonal differences (which create different feelings and interpretations in men and women) on accident or that He would do it without some real purpose. Such a question has to be based on the assumption that genders are in fact historical and social constructs. I am not sure I have reached a point in which I would be willing to attempt an answer. Let me think about it for a day or two and I will come back with something.[/b]
[color=blue]Your point regarding the intent of the Creator in making men and women arbitrarily different is valid. My response would be, (seeing as all this is speculation since we don't know the will of God) perhaps men and women were intentionally created as man and woman. THE END... perhaps the differences between us are only so that we may further fall in love with God and see the image of Christ reflected in the faces of others.[/color][right][snapback]899093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I can see why you would want to understand it so that there were no underlying factors or agendas but I still hold firm to my belief that there is more than a face and a body part (or parts) which seperate us. I can understand appreciation for a difference in gender or race but I also believe, especially knowing the complexity of all things human, that there is something beyond that, there is something there that is not simply skin deep.

Please do not assume that I have not considered your ideas. This conversation would not be effective for either party should each of us refuse to question our own understandings. I have questioned myself and my beliefs and understandings and still I come to the same conclusion.

I look back to the way things were when God first made Adam and Eve and I look at the natural progression of times. I try to allow room for error in the judgements of different societies, recognizing most especially that with innovation and with certain things of the 20th and 21st century there also came a people of 'equality'. No matter how much I tried I could not convince myself of this theory that the only differences were differences that were purely physical and pschological (and only on one level).

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 02:51 PM'][i][b](1)[/b]I believe that by our very creation—of enfleshed beings—made in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of truly entering into (in part now, and fully after death) the greatest relationship of all—that of the Triune God. It is relationship of friendship as seen in the Godhead that I wish to imitate most.[/i]
[b][B](1)[/b]I agree whole-heartedly and feel much the same way though I do feel the word "friendship" is weak. I have yet to find a word that fits though so it will suffice to say that I completely agree.[/B]
[color=blue]Ah the inadequacies of the human language... *sigh*....[/color]

***[right][snapback]899093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
yeah youre tellin me.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 02:51 PM'][i][b](3)[/b] In my opinion, the complementarity view places too great of an emphasis on the genital differences (consequently, reproductive responsibilities) between men and women. For me, sexual characteristics and behaviors do not need to show divisions between people. If what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman, are constructed socially, then why are we correlating them with biology?[/i]
[b][B](3)[/b]I suppose we would first point to biology to recognize what is male and what is female. I would not necessarily agree that such a huge emphasis is placed on the reproductive responsibilities (we know who needs to do what). And if by sexual characteristics and behaviors we are again referring to the marital act then I would say again that a great emphasis is not (and is not necessarily needed to be) placed on such things by the complimentary view. If however, by sexual characteristics we are speaking of gender roles then yes, emphasis is placed on such characteristics.[/B]
[color=blue]In terms of reproductive responsibilities I am not speaking of "what needs to happen when you have sex", as I am speaking of what this translates to in our culture.... in extreme cases, this means women are submission and should always be pregnant. And men should always "be spreading their seed." (This example is intentionally hyperbolic.)[/color][right][snapback]899093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I understand the desire to show the most extreme cases but I believe it also necessary to note that these extremeties are not the ideal conditions for either of us and I find it hard to believe that anyone who agreed with me would condone such a thought... or behavior.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 02:51 PM'][i][b](1)[/b] In my mind, there is no “good hierarchy.” I think that by separating men and women—by historically emphasizing the differences—the effects have been detrimental to both men and women. By saying a woman is to be “receptive” and a man is to be “active,” women have not developed positively as whole beings. Nor would I say such logic has contributed to a holistic development of men. There are men who still believe that anger and physical violence are the only appropriate and successful ways for them to express emotion and resolve conflict. [/i]
[b][B](1)[/b] I do not think it is fair to blame the seperation of the natural roles and insticts of the sexes for an unhealthy forming of a woman. I would agree that few women today truly develop a complete image of themselves as they should but I do not believe it is the sole responsibility of men or anyone for that matter due to the seperation of something so natural. I think women are degraded and less fully developed due to social ideas about weight, height, hair color, skin color, and other physical features which change depending on your region and still somehow determine "beauty". I would say that the "campaign for real beauty" by the dove company is not simply a good marketing strategy but a real recognition of a problem not based on gender roles. Men struggle with many of the same issues.

As far as anger and violence are concerned in resolving problems: it is not a problem seen only in men. In fact I have seen much more of this developing in a higher percentage of women that I know these days too. Gender roles do not necessarily define ones ability to solve a problem rationally nor should it be said that the seperation of sexes affects it. Until there is a study that says that unless all people are equal men and women will resort to violence and anger in order to solve problems, I would say that the majority of that behavior was established at a young age due to influences in biology as well as upbringing (not excluding the mother or sisters).[/B]
[color=blue]An articulate response with which I agree.[/color][right][snapback]899093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 02:51 PM'][i][b](2) [/b]I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.[/i]
[b][B](2)[/b] I would agree with the end of that sentence. God is ruler and leader (or rather should be ruler and leader) of all of our lives. However, I would like to hear how you propose to run a household where the man is not the head of the household. I will hold off on my comments until that time.[/B]
[color=blue]I think I may address your issues of heads of households in my responses to your subsequent responses. If I do not, I hope you will be kind enough to remind me to return to this point, if you wish for this discussion to go further.[/color][right][snapback]899093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think you did this very nicely and so there is no real need for a comment here.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 02:51 PM'][i]If I may, allow me to describe the view of complimentarity as “equality with distinctness.” Whereas you place the distinctness on chromosomal differences, and thus social differences, I would highlight the beauty that comes from being created distinct from the divine. We were given the gifts of intellect and free will.

When I say that I am unsatisfied (or whatever) with the complimentary view, I shall now wish to elaborate my desire for an equal view of men and women. The differences between a man and a woman, between two men or two women, should never be considered unimportant. Nor should we say that an equal perspective places less importance on what our bodies do. In fact, by recognizing the commonality we share in our bodiliness, we see ourselves as temples of God. Sharing bodies allows us to recognize and share vulnerabilities, our finitude, and to be mirrors of God for one another.

By beginning the common ground that all humans share, BODIES, we are able to recognize and acknowledge the relational life of God within each of us. The desire for God is within all of us, and it calls us into another person and into God. Then we grow to recognize and appreciate the differences in one another, only after first seeing the similarities[/i].
[b]Reading this it sounds as if we share the same views but label them differently. I do not yet see anything in this snipet of your post which I would disagree with. I will think it over for it is possible I have missed something. But I would go out on a limb anyway here and say we feel quite the same on this.[/b]
[color=blue]My suspicion is that we are more alike minded than we may have first thought. That having been said. I still hold firm to the fact that it is the starting point that offers the greatest distinction between equality and complimentarity. The former assumes that men and women are the same and digresses from there. The latter assumes that men and women are different and draws conclusions thusly. The bottom line may be that we are all human, and thus different from the Divine who created us. And in that sense, decisive answers to such questions will remain outside of our grasp.[/color][right][snapback]899093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If it is the bottom line then I know for certain a conclusion will never be reached because, as you stated, the answers to such questions will forever remain outside our grasp (unless of course the Good Lord wished us to know). At the same time I believe that either way it is healthy discussion and good for our spiritual beings to at least attempt to understand our making and thusly our Maker.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 02:51 PM'][i]I would probably ask you to define “success” in this case, but I don’t really know how productive that would be. I think I made my point above when I said that I do not hold any human hierarchy to be one in line with the teachings of the Gospel.[/i]
[b]I am looking for the quote (I'm sure you know which it is) from the bible about women being submissive to their husbands and husbands being kind to their wives. It is hard for me to understand, knowing of these and other passages similar, how you could claim that a 'hierarchy' of sorts is not in line with the teachings of the Gospel. Another instance that comes to mind is when they ask Jesus about the coin which has Caesar's face printed on it. Here is a quote I found while looking for the verses. "We are not made for equality, but for obedience and worship." --C.S. Lewis [/b]
[color=blue]Your quote from CS Lewis is certainly one for meditation. First and foremost we are made to obey and worship our God. This is certain. As far as scriptural citations are concerned. I hope to deal with this further in my next response. [/color]
[right][snapback]899093[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
*hums to herself while she scrolls down to next paragraph*

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 06:18 PM']Before I reply, I wish to state that by no means do I wish to take Era Might's (or YM Nolan's) comments out of context, or misinterpret them. Likewise, I do not wish for him to feel he [i]has [/i]to reply or become involved in this conversation if he doesn't wish to do so. However, Hughey has utilized them in her response, and I wish to acknoweldge her response.[right][snapback]899344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
aww come on you know you're pressuring them to join in the conversation

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 06:18 PM'][b](1) [/b]Yes, mutual submission is clearly necessary in any true relationship. The best example of where mutual submission allows the relationship to flourish is in marriage. I agree that his good is her good, and her good is his good. The two are to make decisions as one, with and for each other. Furthermore, as Era references JPII, both are of course subject to Christ and to God's will for their lives. Nor is headship an occassion for dominance, but for service.

Yet my point that still remains, why is the man is head and the woman is not? More importantly, [u]when two become one, you disolve the ability to have a hierarchy! [/u][right][snapback]899344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I suppose hierarchy is a word which should be used with caution considering the type of society in which we all have been raised. I am afraid that since our very distant beginnings we have been taught that hierarchies are a thing of the past and that they are such because of a certain, pardon the language, evil that is contained in them. The word seems to suggest a type of slavery or possibly a hidden agenda. Knowing how you have responded to YMNolan, I will stop here because I believe we have perhaps reached a simple conclusion.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 06:18 PM'][b](2)[/b] Pardon me for being a literalist, but I mean this quite honestly.... a man doesn't have wisdom, he only has the ability to lead his family?  I appreciate the clarifications that Era makes... that obedience to the husband's decisions is only right if they are make with charity and in right reason. But perhaps the question that needs to be asked next is this:

In a marriage (so as to not go off on too many tangents--a marriage between a  man and a woman), [u]what does it mean to be the (a) leader?[/u][right][snapback]899344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would suppose it means taking into consideration the best interest of all those whom you care for. It is taking into mind what is good and just and right. It is choosing holiness over sinfulness (perhaps selfishness) and putting those you lead before yourself. It is accepting the perfect will of the Father and helping to facilitate it on earth.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 06:18 PM']Hughey, I presume that the quote from Ephesians is what you were looking for in your earlier posting....  and I agree, the quotes you've brought in to this thread a very eloquent. I am particularly struck by YM Nolan's comment above. My conclusion, having read his words of wisdom, is that I agree. From how I define men and women as equal (as opposed to complimentary)--which I have tried to make clear in my previous posts--both persons must be willing to support, protect, and please the other. The marriage will not work unless personal agendas are cast aside and sacrifices are made. Above all, the two--as one--must cast aside their wills for the will of God. [right][snapback]899344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Although I do agree the passages from the Bible are eloquent I was more so referring to YMNolan and the others. I do believe YMNolan said it the best -- like he took the thoughts from my head and painted them on the screen for me. He is a wise man. I am afraid I have been a poor conversationalist in the sense that for so long now I have struggled to articulate what I was quite certain we agreed on. I am afraid that certain connotations were misconstrued because of our culture and has lead to a lengthy and repetitive conversation (though I do admit that I enjoyed every bit of it).

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 06:18 PM']And as a woman deserves the best, so too does the man. The man must be willing to sacrifice, and so too the woman. The woman must chose to love and protect and lay down her life for her spouse, just as the man must chose. Both persons are called to make sacrificies so that their wills might be aligned with the Divine Will. [right][snapback]899344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I agree completely.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Feb 27 2006, 06:18 PM']So I think that about wraps things up........ Hughey (and all others), what I have left unclear, forgotten, or neglected? Please let me know. I look forward to reading any and all replies. Peace of Christ to you all. 
[right][snapback]899344[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I think this really does wrap it up. Of course if you have anything that you think I missed then please share!

[HomeTeamFamily]

shew thats alot of words

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='VoloHumilisEsse' date='Feb 28 2006, 12:11 AM']shew thats alot of words
[right][snapback]899705[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[HomeTeamFamily]

girls

[franciscanheart]

*wonders how he knew she was thinking: boys *