www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Male/Female Nurturer

Okay.....now I'm REALLY going to open a can of worms.

Big time.

Women are not supposed to be included in the body politic! Leadership and rulership are exclusively male domains. Even one who is a queen is so because of the covenantal relationship she enters into with the king, and any authority she bears comes from him and the union she has with him.

We have become so democratized that we forget the entire fabric and structure of the covenant as God intended it to be and as it is laid out in the Bible. Covenantal headship is a distinctly male domain, and is representative of the Father's rule over Creation. This is PRECISELY why there are no women priests and can never be. It is a completely WRONG typology!! The male is the protector/leader. The woman is the submissive/nurturer. Unfortuately, in this country we have far too many women walking around wishing they had a set between their legs and taking every opportunity they can to try to act male, which means they become a witch on wheels! Not having the innate authority which God granted to men, a woman boss has to become three times as nasty as a man to carry one third the weight.

Now you can call me a Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon slope head, or whatever term you wish to use, but since God established the pecking order and we find it laid out in the Holy Scriptures as such, I am intend to follow the structure of life as He laid it out, and not as some whiney liberal politico wishes it could be.

Having said that, let me add this addendum:

The reason that this even became an issue was that rather than men honoring women and making womanhood a place of protection and joy for them, it was made a place of abuse and terror in many cases. How many men winked and turned a deaf ear to the cries of abused women, refusing to make the law protect them as equals in terms of the rights of protection, seeking happiness, and joy in their marriages? A man could pretty well treat his wife as a slave or as property and the "good ole boy" network looked the other way. I am not for "women's rights" as defined by the feminazis, but I am neither for standing by while women are treated with contempt within the marital union or in society in general.

Perhaps if men had acted like the Christians they professed to be in this country, instead of using those "wives submit to your husband" verses as a convenient club of submission, we would never have even come up this road. It's amazing what a little Christian charity can do.

Knowing and following ones' God defined role in life is not the same as nisogyny, but unfortunately, our current crop of liberals is teaching young people that this is exactly what it is.

Brother Ed

Yeah!!! Let's take back their right to vote. Let's not allow women to hold elected office. No women in positions of leadership in the workplace. No women teachers. Let's get real here. I would hate to think of what society as a whole and individual families, which are microcosms of society, would be like if it were not for the countless instances in which capable women have assumed roles of authority and leadership. Saying that there should not be women priests, as a matter of the magisterial teaching of the Church, and saying that women have no role to play in positions of leadership and authority in secular society are two separate matters. Again, I would not want to envision a world in which women are entirely excluded from positions of leadership and authority.

Ryan

Who is saying that?

See Brother Ed's post above,

Yupper. Cro-magnon man said it!

Want an apology?

Sorry. None coming. They DO NOT BELONG IN POSITIONS OF LEADERSHIP!!!!

Authority is vested in males. Women are nurturers.

I have nothing against certain positions being filled by young and even married females, but when the babies come -- that is job # 1!

Brother Ed:

Who says that being a nurturer and holding authority are mutually exclusive? I know women who are not particularly nurturing, while I can also show you men who are. Furthermore, what about women who are not able to have children? What about young children whose mothers' are dead? Are their fathers unable to be nurturing? Also, I don't see anyone asking for an apology. I will, however, say that I think that you are entirely wrong, and I will not apologize for saying that. While I agree that the usual order of things is such that it has always been the case and likely will continue to be the case that men will hold more positions of leadership more often than women, I see no basis in either Holy Scripture or the teachings of the Church to exclude women entirely from positions of leadership. I would also point out that Deborah was among the judges of Israel.

Ryan

Let me come to Brother Ed's defense to a limited degree. To the extent that the focus, in the modern world, of the relationship between men and women has been on equality in the work place and equality in the political arena, the revelation regarding the most essential and important accept of the relationship between men and women, as set forth in Genesis, has been blurred. The consequences of blurring this revelation are evident in the breakdown of marriage and the family, and the utter and most despicable disregard for human life.

If society is to foster true Christian families, it has to have institutional means to do that and it must protect and foster the most important institution, marriage. From my legal perspective that is not happening.

George Washinton in his farewell address said:


What is more fundamental than the revealed truth expressed in Genesis? And what is now more under attack than the first divine institution, marriage?

I began this thread with a quotation from JP II's letter to families. I quote him again:


Changing the Creed to fit the modern view of "us" only helps to blur what's really important. As a Church, we need to stay focused. The truths in the Creed should measure modern man, not vice versa.

IM:

I largely agree with what you're saying. However, I repeat that I see know basis for excluding women from holding positions of leadership and authority. Brother Ed, of course, is free to hold the opinion that women do not belong in places of leadership. However, I suspect that he cannot provide much of an argument based in Holy Scripture and the magisterial teachings of the Church to support that opinion.

Ryan

PLease tell me you are joking with me. I cannot believe that someone could read the Holy Scriptures and come up with such a statement. From Genesis to Revelation, there is absolutely no evidence that God ordained the female to positions of authority and leadership. In fact, He says quite the opposite:

Isa 3:12 [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

In the context of the chapter, being ruled over by a woman is a judgement upon a nation for their wickedness and turning from the Lord.

Jesus could have set this straight for all time simply by choosing six women to lead the Church. Now there would be equality and the giving of authority to women.

Jesus did not.

Every covenant in the Holy Scriptures was made with a man as the covenantal head. Our Lord came to set up a KINGdom, not a queendom, i.e., a political state headed by a MALE! In fact, there is no evidence that God's desire for mankind's rulership ever was democracy. (mob rule). And in the eternal state, we will be members of the heavenly KINGdom.

Then there is the whole issue of the typology of sexuality within the image/icon of mankind to God. That would need several pages, with appropriate footnots.

You were joking, right?

Brother Ed

PS.....There are no exceptions to the rule. The problems come because men and women are disobedient to God's rule of Law and because the Church is not doing what they should be doing.

But Ed has an important point:


Society does not see that as job # 1. And yet I think he is right.

JP II in that same letter states:



I assume Ed would also state that he would have no problem having these same roles filled by older women who have reared their children. And there will always be exceptions, the widow who must work, the single woman called to service etc. etc.

But the fact remains, in the normal course of things, if the woman is bearing children, she is the primary nurturer in the child's tender years. The ideal is that she should be able to be home with her children. This also means that real fatherhood means providing so that this ideal can be reached.

And then the question of being open to life arises. JP II says this:


One of the interesting economic consequences of our failure (as a society) to reproduce might be rather severe because social security is dependent upon having workers who can support the older generation. If, however, because of economic circumstances, the older generation is deemed to be too much of an economic burden, they will be done away with. Think of Terri Schiavo.

If the Church doesn't keep society focused on the most important truths, who will? But the Church must keep herself focused on these truths. That doesn't seem to be happening too much, but I think the tide is changing.

Who says that being a nurturer and holding authority are mutually exclusive?

The distinctivness of male/female sexuality. Testosterone and nurturing simply don't mix. That does not mean that a man cannot be caring, but there is a difference between being Christlike and caring, and being nurturing.

I know women who are not particularly nurturing, while I can also show you men who are.

The aberration is not the norm. I have this philosophical argument with my son all the time as he tries to convince me that wickedness is normal (liberalism).

Furthermore, what about women who are not able to have children?

Still doesn't qualify them to be leaders. Covenantal headship is a male domain, which includes political leadership

What about young children whose mothers' are dead? Are their fathers unable to be nurturing?

That's correct. A male cannot nuture like a female can. It is in the genes.

Also, I don't see anyone asking for an apology.

I was anticipating outrage. I'm not a very PC person in this day and age.

I will, however, say that I think that you are entirely wrong, and I will not apologize for saying that.

Argue with God when you meet Him. He's the One Who set up male/female sexuality and the differences that come with it. He's the one who didn't ordain women as apostles. I'm just relating the facts.

While I agree that the usual order of things is such that it has always been the case and likely will continue to be the case that men will hold more positions of leadership more often than women, I see no basis in either Holy Scripture or the teachings of the Church to exclude women entirely from positions of leadership. I would also point out that Deborah was among the judges of Israel.

Read the story. Israel lacked any sort of thing that had a set between their legs and would step up to the plate. The aberation is not the norm, but feminism of this way wants to make it that way.

Look at the disintegration of families, the objectivization of women as sex objects, and the harm being done to women as they are treated as objects and tell me that this is a good thing. I have read articles by women on the subject who blame feminism directly for this lamentable set of conditions. The proper regard of God given sexual roles places women in a much better and higher position than feminism does.

Brother Ed:

No, I'm not joking. You have provided nothing that causes me to change my mind. Nothing in your responses shows me anything that bars women from holding all positions of authority or leadership. Furthermore, I don't believe that hormones control people to the extent you do. I have also seem numerous instances in my life where if it were not for the leadership and authority exercised by women, it would have been disastrous. The mere fact of being a man does not make a man qualified for authority or leadership, and the mere fact of being a woman does not make a woman a nurturer.

The Catholic Church gives the lie to your assertion here, thank God.

Women have and do hold many positions of legitimate authority in the Church and in those positions have been strong leaders and gentle nurturers as well.

It's not what you say that is entirely false. It is the over-generalization that renders your position ludicrous.

Apparently you like the attention. Most women I know and admire put boys like you to work caring for others, or heavy manual labor. Helps tone down those raging hormones and reins in delusions of adequecy in males.

Mary

Christ is Risen!

Since the above posts do not discuss the Revised Divine Liturgy, the posts have been separated off, renamed, and made into another thread here in Town Hall.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator

And this is why the Church is in the sad shape it is in. Personal opinion and feelings override what scripture teaches.