RadTrad Reader Posts an Article Which Goes To the Very Roots of the Feminist Errors So Prevalent in Our Traditional Communities.






No, A Christian Can’t be a Feminist  
By: Khater Augustine
            When speaking with fellow Catholic college students about my opposition to Feminism, I will often hear things like “Yes Khater, I agree with you. Third wave Feminism is awful!”  Their agreement often turns to shock and horror when they find that not only do I oppose 3rdwave Feminism, but also 2ndand 1stwave Feminism. They ask, surprised “So you don’t think women should be able to vote?” This is the response one will get from most so called “conservatives” today. The embrace of Feminism is one of the more revolting aspects of our emasculated modern “conservatism” It is even more saddening that otherwise orthodox Christians have embraced this movement, a movement which the preeminent Southern Presbyterian theologian and political philosopher  R.L Dabney in his tract entitled “Women’s Rights, Women” called “sheer infidelity”   Feminism, or the “Women’s Rights Movement” as it was called in Dabney’s time is so opposed to Scripture, Tradition, and reality that one hardly knows where to begin with criticisms. 

            To have any real discussion on the errors of Feminism, we must first determine what Feminism is. There can be no exact definition of Feminism, because as a social and political movement, it will have varying definitions depending on the one defining it. We can however, get a fairly clear view of what its principles are. The modern idea of “waves” of Feminism is wrongheaded and shallow. It assumes that the three waves of Feminism were different movements with different goals and aims. Rev. Dabney saw, at the root of Feminism, two fundamental claims. First “that the legislation, at least of society, shall disregard all the natural distinctions of the sexes and award the same rights and franchises to both in every respect”: and second that “women while in the married state shall be released from every species of conjugal submission.”  According to Dabney, these two claims would require “The assimilation of the garments of the two sexes, their competition in the same industries and professions, and their common access to the same amusements and recreations.” These are the principles of all the so called “waves” of Feminism. Feminism is the advocacy of legislation and cultural attitudes that disregard the differences between the sexes, remove women from their God-given roles as wives and mothers by encouraging them to enter the workforce, and eliminate the role of men as the heads of their wives, their households, and society. It makes little difference whether it’s Susan B. Anthony lobbying for women’s suffrage, or Lena Dunham lobbying for abortion and contraception. The objects of their lobbying may be different, but the goals are the same. The reason the “waves” are seen as different by moderns is because each wave was clearer about its radical intentions than the last. The first wave came toward the end of the 19th century, a time when American society was extremely conservative, and still relatively Christian. This being the case, the advocates of the “first wave” knew there were certain boundaries they could not cross, and so worked with what they had. First wave Feminism followed in the wake of Radicalism, which began as a Northern political movement for Abolition. What we call “1st wave” Feminism called for women’s suffrage, and the easing of divorce laws. By demanding women’s suffrage, it denied male headship over civil society, and called for a formal rejection of the indissolubility of marriage.  The so called “second wave” of Feminism came during the 1960s: that disastrous decade that saw the end of prayer in public schools, the beginnings of the movement for legalized abortion, and the rise of modern Leftism in the United States.  America was still at least a nominally Christian nation at the time, so this group still had certain limits. Second wave Feminism was much broader in its attack. It pushed for equality in the workplace, and the elimination of gender roles in the family. Second wave Feminism led, quite tragically, to the virtual end of all-male higher education in the United States. Third wave or what we might call “modern Feminism” has no limits or restraints. America is no longer even nominally Christian, and so there are no boundaries in the way of these “modern” Feminists... They lobby for abortion on demand, free condoms in public schools, and even the absolute end of masculinity. Anything that is slightly masculine must go. We see this at Harvard, where their Leftist administration is attempting to forcefully shut down harmless all-male social clubs that have been around for centuries, because they “exclude women.” Each “wave” is more radical than the last, and as this wave is much more radical than the first two, it is viewed as novel or crazy by most modern “conservatives.” As Dabney rightly puts it “What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of conservatism; it is now conservative only in affecting to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution; to be denounced and then adopted in its turn. American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition.”
Now then, as we have given the principles of Feminism, and taken a brief look at its history, let us move on to the subject of this article: the incompatibility of Feminism and orthodox Christianity. We turn first to Holy Scripture, which is the very Word of God Almighty. We must say with Pope Leo XIII that “For all the books which the Church receives as sacred and canonical are written wholly and entirely, with all their parts, at the dictation of the Holy Ghost; and so far is it from being possible that any error can co-exist with inspiration, that inspiration not only is essentially incompatible with error but excludes and rejects it as absolutely and necessarily, as it is impossible that God Himself, the supreme Truth, can utter that which is not true. . . . It follows that those who maintain that an error is possible in any genuine passage of the sacred writings either pervert the Catholic notion of inspiration or make God the author of such error” No clear teaching of Scripture can be wrong or changed: except of course, in cases where the Old Law is replaced by the New Covenant. If this is the case, then it follows that all forms of Feminism are, as Dabney rightly called them “sheer infidelity”, because they impugn the authority and inerrancy of Scripture. The Scriptures speak in no uncertain terms regarding the role of women. As St. Paul states “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself it’s Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everythingto their husbands.”(Eph 5:22-24) Further he states “I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of every wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God” (1 Cor 11:3-4) It may be argued that in the broader passage of this particular verse, Paul is discussing head coverings, but that does not nullify this statement, or make it any less authoritative. Finally, Paul says women ought to “love their husbands and children, be pure, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.”(Titus 2:3-5) These verses leave no room for question or doubt. The primary role of women is as wives and mothers, in submission to their husbands.  Thus, Holy Scripture and Feminism are absolutely incompatible. Modernists may argue that these verses were “only for that time”, and that “we know better now.”  As Leo points out, this is not the orthodox Christian approach to hermeneutics. Others may try to contextualize these verses to fit a modern, Feminist prospective. This is impossible to do and a heterodox practice besides. To impose modern categories of thought on clear teachings of Holy Scripture is to deny its infallibility. If St. Paul was wrong about all of this, on what basis can we say that he wasn’t wrong about homosexuality, fornication, and all of his other teachings? Either Scripture is the Word of God or it is not. If it is, then there is no room for debate among orthodox Christians on this issue. As Paul says in 1 Cor 2:6-7 “Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age, or of the rulers of this age who are doomed to pass away. But we import a secret and hidden wisdom of God. Which God decreed before the ages for our glory.” It is clear that the teachings of Paul in Scripture are not just for that age or time, but for all ages, because they come from God.  
As faithful Catholics, Scripture is not our only guide.  Dabney was no Catholic, but this is not merely a Protestant reading of the text. On the contrary, this is also the perennial teaching of the Church.  In his commentaries on the letters of St. Paul, St. John Chrysostom commenting on St. Paul’s words,  states ““Wives be subject to your husbands” he writes to wives: “That is, be subject for God’s sake, because this adorns you, Paul says, not them. For I mean not that subjection which is due to a master nor yet that alone which is of nature but that offered for God’s sake.” St. Augustine in his work “On Marriage and Concupiscence” writes   “Nor can it be doubted, that it is more consonant with the order of nature that men should bear rule over women, than women over men. It is with this principle in view that the apostle says, ‘The head of the woman is the man;’ and, ‘Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands.’ So also the Apostle Peter writes: ‘Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.”  St. Thomas says in his Summa Theologica   “For the higher reason which is assigned to contemplation is compared to the lower reason which is assigned to action, and the husband is compared to his wife, who should be ruled by her husband, as Augustine says”  Pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical Rerum Novarum states “Women, again, are not suited to certain trades; for a woman is by nature fitting for home work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty, and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family.” In Arcanum Divinae, Leo goes on to say “The husband is the chief of the family and the head of the wife. The woman, because she is flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bone, must be subject to her husband and obey him; not, indeed, as a servant, but as a companion, so that her obedience shall be wanting in neither honor nor dignity. Since the husband represents Christ, and since the wife represents the Church, let there always be, both in him who commands and in her who obeys, a heaven-born love guiding both in their respective duties. For "the husband is the head of the wife; as Christ is the head of the Church. . . Therefore, as the Church is subject to Christ, so also let wives be to their husbands in all things."  We see from these statements that the teaching of Scripture is backed by the authority of the Church’s preeminent theologians. It was only until after the Council that this understanding, fell out of favor with mainstream Catholic theology. Vatican II brought with it novelties and error, and the question of the role of women was no exception. John Paul II, perhaps the most ardent promoter of the Council, published  a “Letter to Women” in which the traditional teaching of the Church on this point was ignored and replaced by an understanding that is indistinguishable from that of modern humanitarians. He writes “Thank you, women who work! You are present and active in every area of life-social, economic, cultural, artistic and political. In this way you make an indispensable contribution to the growth of a culture which unites reason and feeling, to a model of life ever open to the sense of "mystery", to the establishment of economic and political structures ever more worthy of humanity.” It’s hard to say what “economic and political structures even more worthy of humanity” are being referred to in this statement. We see here, as in so many other places, a clear contradiction between the understanding of the Church before and after the Council. 
 Modernists and secularists argue that the traditional position of the Church somehow lessens the worth of women. A more accurate summation of our position is that God has given men and women different roles in society and that it is their obligation and duty to fulfill them. This is a view that is at odds, not just with Feminism, but with modern thinking as a whole. One of the fundamental errors of modernism is egalitarianism: the idea that all people are fundamentally equal and deserve equal rights and opportunities. This view is neither conservative nor Christian, nor it might be added, compatible with the laws of nature. We see a clear hierarchy in Paul: the subordination of wives to husbands, slaves to masters, and the church to Christ. This is clearly an anti-egalitarian structure. There are as Dabney puts it “superiors and inferiors” when it comes to civil society. If we say that men are to rule society, and if the house is a microcosm of a society, then it would not be rash to say that only men should be given the vote in a traditional Christian state. There are of course, distinctions that must be made. We live in a secular democratic society, and in our current situation, it is probably best to encourage conservative women to vote for the sake of the common good.  It must also be made clear that while the role of women is as ideally wives and mothers, there are exceptions to this in our modern society. Modern Capitalism has made it very hard for a man to support a family on one wage, so there are times when a woman must work to make ends meet. However, if a man makes enough to shelter, feed, and clothe his family, the woman’s place is always in the home as wife and mother. 
            The greatest example of womanhood we get in Holy Scripture is that of the Blessed Virgin Mary. The Blessed Virgin exemplifies all of the virtues of women mentioned by Paul to their fullest capacity. She must therefore be an example and a role model for all Christian women. When she is told that God has chosen her to be the mother of our Lord by the Angel Gabriel, she rejoices saying “All generations shall call me blessed.”  We ought to note why she says this. She is called “blessed” not because she had a great career and made millions, which is what Feminism seeks for all women. She is called Blessed because God chose her to be a mother, and not just any mother, but the mother of our Lord. She is in this sense the Mother of God. The importance of motherhood for women cannot be overstated when discussing this. One of the great tragedies of modern popular Christianity is that in discussions of womanhood, Mary is almost never mentioned. We are instead given secular reasons for why Feminism is good or bad. To ignore the Blessed Virgin in this discussion would be a grave error on our part. 
            We might say that society is like a body. Feminism, then, is like a cancer to the body. Once the cancer has spread, there is little, if any hope of survival. Feminism is but one of the many cancers which are slowly killing Western society. Dabney accurately stated that this lust for egalitarianism, of which Feminism is a major part will “destroy Christianity and civilization in America.”  The natural question that follows from all thinking people is, “What are we to do?” “How might we avoid our destruction?” To this question I can give no answer. When there is little hope of survival of the patient, a doctor will be honest, and tell the patient he is very likely to die. So I will say, that in my estimation, it is very likely that all of this innovation and toying around with infidelity will lead to the death of Western Civilization. All hope is not lost.  The only thing that can save us now is the grace and mercy of God. Only a miracle would turn Feminists back to God and his clear teachings. We must pray daily for God’s grace and mercy on our society, and do whatever we can in our lives to be examples of Christian virtue and wisdom. The rest is up to God.

Comments

  1. There are also exceptions as to who should run the household affairs. If the husband doesn't show interest, or if he's incapable of doing his duty in this regard, then the wife should step in and manage the house independently of her husband. Some wives are better than their husbands with the finances, hiring contractors, keeping on top of the home's maintenance, and they may make better decisions regarding their children's health and education etc. Some husbands admit they are lost without their wives.

    Who should be the head of the house? It should depend on who is better for the job. For the sake of a successful marriage, a wise husband would know when to hand over the reigns to his wife.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oops! Meant to say "reins", not "reigns".

      Delete
    2. This opinion is not Catholic. If a husband is incapable of managing his household, something is seriously wrong, and he needs to talk to a priest about how to do his job.

      Even if a husband were seriously ill, he could make decisions on how a household is to be managed.

      Delete
    3. This opinion is not Catholic. If a man isn't interested in managing his household, something is seriously wrong, and he needs to talk to a priest about how to do his job. For a man to quit managing his household would be to abandon the duty God has given him in life.

      Delete
    4. Regarding my comment on the mutual duties of husband and wife, it is not my *opinion* that a wife may run the household independently of her husband. It is a teaching from Catholic moral theology:

      "The wife may run the household independently of her husband if he takes no interest in household affairs or if he is incapable of doing his duty in this regard." (Moral Theology, by Fr. Heribert Jone, 201.--III. Mutual Obligations of Husband and Wife.)

      Delete
    5. Mr. Augustine, kindly show us proof that this is not Catholic:

      "The wife may run the household independently of her husband if he takes no interest in household affairs or if he is incapable of doing his duty in this regard." (Moral Theology, by Fr. Heribert Jone, 201.--III. Mutual Obligations of Husband and Wife.)

      Delete
    6. Again, quoting one moral theologian proves nothing definitive and is misleading given the context of the discussion.

      Yes, if the husband shows no interest in doing his duty, the wife ought to fill in for him for a time out of necessity. However, I hope you'd agree that something is seriously wrong with the husband in question. He needs to talk to a priest about how to do his job. After this, things are back to normal. If a husband continually shows no interest in doing his duty, then he sins gravely.

      It is not Catholic to imply that there is anything normal in a wife ruling her house. Fr. Jone was speaking of an abnormal situation which ought to be fixed.

      Delete
    7. Are you a theologian? The Church's accepted teachings on moral theology are clear. If you thought they were taken out of context, then you would have proved it. There was no need for the additional sophomoric commentary.

      Delete
  2. I'm 65. I do not think women should vote. Women are too emotional and sappy. Leave politics to men, and let females do what they were created to do best.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed, although that will not convince most of our position.

      Delete
    2. When people are desperate for approval, they'll accept it from a troll.

      Delete
    3. Oh please, my article has been endorsed by several Society priests and a number of respected traditionalist academics I've shown it to. I'm far rom "desperate for approval"

      And of course, anyone who disagrees with you must be a troll.

      Delete
  3. The author said: "...only men should be given the vote in a traditional Christian state... (But since) we live in a secular democratic society... it is probably best to encourage conservative women to vote for the sake of the common good."

    Where does it say in Catholic dogma or moral theology that women should *not* vote? Should a woman also forfeit the right to choose her own husband and depend on her male relatives to do it for her?

    According to Catholic moral theology: "It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate." Since unworthy candidates have almost always existed, even in traditional Christian states, then it is the duty of Catholic women to vote as faithful Catholics, or to even run for office.

    Traditionalist men can be so incredibly condescending. Women don't require their permission to vote, or to say and do what is right (or wrong). Like it or not, God also gave women free will.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Reread the article carefully. It's clear you don't get what I'm saying. There's a distinction between principles and degree

      Delete
    2. Reread the article carefully and consider the distinctions I make. This is not a question of permission or free-will. This is a question of the roles God has given men and women and how they might best fulfill them.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Augustine, thank you. It was mostly a fine article. There's no need to reread it, as the distinctions were clear. Regarding women and voting, you said:

      "If we say that men are to rule society, and if the house is a microcosm of a society, then it would not be rash to say that only men should be given the vote in a traditional Christian state. There are of course, distinctions that must be made. We live in a secular democratic society, and in our current situation, it is probably best to encourage conservative women to vote for the sake of the common good."

      But Catholic moral theology makes no such distinctions:

      "Voting is a civic duty... It might even be a mortal sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate." (Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 205.-- 3. Election of good representatives.)

      What you said regarding the vote contradicts Catholic moral theology. It also disparages, not only the feminists, but Catholic women as well.

      Delete
    4. Saying "Catholic moral theology makes no such distinctions" is misleading. You quoted one moral theologian, and moral theologians often disagree with one another.

      Fr. Jone isn't even discussing who ought to be given the vote. He is discussing voting in itself and the effects it can have. We are discussing two different things here. Again, distinctions. I'd recommend the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on it, which backs my position.
      https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geK.WhYpldsJcAB6FXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTEyN2RmZ2w0BGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMxBHZ0aWQDQjg3MDZfMQRzZWMDc3I-/RV=2/RE=1570362146/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.newadvent.org%2fcathen%2f15687b.htm/RK=2/RS=7mhNieFIjnlf4Gd9ZvnGq1jX4EE-

      Delete
    5. Mr. Augustine, you are the one who is misleading. When I said, "Catholic moral theology made no *such* distinctions", I was referring specifically to the distinctions that you made in your article. And I didn't just quote a "theologian". I referred to a book, which priests used as a guide/reference since 1961.

      You are also misleading when you say "Fr. Jone is discussing voting in itself". That is ludicrous. You know very well he is discussing a civic duty, which applies to women as well.

      Delete
  4. The article is very one-sided. If a husband understood his role as husband, then he'd probably get more respect and co-operation from his wife.

    Regarding the *mutual* obligations of husband and wife:

    "The husband sins by not making it possible for his wife to live according to her social standing, or by imposing work upon her that is not done by women of her state or condition.

    "The woman sins by neglecting her domestic duties, by spending, against the will of her husband, larger sums from the common fund than is customary by women of her condition." (Moral Theology, by Fr. Heribert Jone, O.F.M. Cap., J.C.D.)

    Also, the husband "is *not* commanded to rule, nor instructed how, nor bidden to exact obedience, or to defend his privilege; all his duty is signified by love." (A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, Third Edition.)

    ReplyDelete
  5. Your author appreciates all of the comments so far. Please read the article carefully and grasp the distinctions I make before rushing to judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Your author appreciates all of the comments so far. Please read the article carefully and consider the distinctions I make before passing judgment.

    ReplyDelete
  7. One final word of advice to the young author. Although it's true that feminism is incompatible with Christian orthodoxy, your article would have been more effective had you concentrated less on the rank of the sexes and more on the Christian view of woman's double life-task:

    "As an individual, woman's life-task is her moral perfection; as a member of society, her task is in union with man to represent and develop humanity in all its aspects... The Christian view of woman's sphere is that her proper influence *should* extend to Church and State, provided her double life-task is thereby not impeded. (A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, 3rd Edition, 1958, Woman).

    Our judgments regarding woman's life-task should not be hyper-focused on the rank of the sexes. We should not be saying, "Men are to rule society, and since the house is a microcosm of a society, then only men should be allowed to do this or that activity". It would be less insulting and more compatible with the Christian view to say, "If this activity impedes woman's double life-task, then she should stop doing it". Or, "If this activity impedes man's obligations, then he should stop doing it."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I pointed out in the article, egalitarianism is fundamental error in society today(it's even infected most Catholics) Ranks and hierarchy must be emphasized to combat this error. If we read Joseph de Maisre's works against the French Revolution, we see that this is an aspect he focuses on quite a bit. What I said in that quote will not insult any thinking Traditional woman. If it insults a feminist, so be it. The interlocutors of Socrates were insulted by his propositions until they were finally forced to concede them. Sometimes those who are asleep need a splash of cold water to the face. The truth hurts.

      Delete
  8. Mr. Augustine, you are incredibly fixated on the ranks of the sexes. In paragraphs 3 and 4 alone you mentioned twenty-three times that a woman should submit to her husband, be obedient to her husband, be subject to her husband, that man is the head of woman, that man rules over woman, etc., etc., ad nauseum. Twenty-three times! It's enough to make anyone sick.

    It seems your problem is not just with the feminists.

    Are you a theologian, Mr. Augustine, to be putting words in Fr. Jone's mouth (see comments above)?

    You had no problem quoting a protestant as a source for your essay, but you refuse to accept Catholic teaching. I didn't just quote a "theologian". It is the Church's accepted teaching on the subject, whether you like it or not. That is why it's in a book of theology, with an imprimatur, as a guideline for priests. Apparently that is not good enough for you.

    I don't think you want to convert anyone to your side. If anything your tactics are a big turnoff.





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I do not have the time to keep going back and forth with you, but I'd reiterate the need to read what I say carefully.(and understand the distinctions I make)

      I used Dabney as a political philosopher(just as one might use Plato or Aristotle who certainly weren't Catholic) He wrote excellent essays on politics, philosophy, and I use many Catholic sources as well. Many Protestants have written excellent essays on politics and philosophy(Calhoun, Althusius, Filmer, etc)

      Something being in a theology manual does not make it the teaching of the Church. It makes it the opinion of that particular theologian.

      Delete
    2. Mr. Augustine, you really dug yourself into a big hole by saying that moral theology is only the opinion of a particular theologian. Is that what moral theology is? Do we get to choose which moral laws to obey just because we think they're only the opinion of some theologian?

      For your information, Fr. Jone's book was "universally accepted throughout the Catholic Church as authoritative and reliable, written specifically as a handbook of moral theology for priests, and recognized everywhere as the best book of its type."

      And what gives *you* the authority to say a man "sins gravely" if he doesn't follow your advice (See your comment Oct. 5 @ 8:52 pm)?

      Your puffed-up attitude suggests that you are *the* authority on moral theology. You have shown a total disrespect towards the integrity of authoritative Catholic teaching on Morals. Good-bye.


      Delete
    3. You are right, I would have dug myself into a hole, if that were what I said. There seem to be two problems here. First, we seem to be talking past one another to some degree. Second, I still doubt you understand what I'm saying. I'd also note before I go on that making insinuations about people you don't know serves absolutely no purpose.

      1. I did not say that moral theology is the opinion of a particular theologian. I said that something being in a moral theology manual does not of itself make it the teaching of the Church.(and insofar as it is not universally accepted, it is the opinion of that particular theologian) There's a reason we have many moral theology manuals. There are different schools of moral theology, some more "rigorist" and some more "laxist" Moral theologians take slightly different approaches. That's why moral theologians will speak of different "opinions" on certain questions in moral theology manuals.
      2. My problem is not with what Fr. Jone says per se but more with the implication you seem to draw from his statements. Let's look at the Moral Theology Handbook of Fr. Dominic Prummer O.P on this question. Fr. Prummer says

      " There are certain duties which are mutual and others which are peculiar to husband or wife.
      1. a) The following obligations are mutual : i) mutual love both affective and effective ; ii) the rendering of the marriage debt ; iii) life in common (mutual companionship).
      2. b) The husband is obliged i) as head of the family to guide his wife, children and servants ; ii) to provide for his wife and family sufficient food, clothing and maintenance ; iii) to administer family property wisely.
      3. c) The wife is obliged : 1) to show due obedience to her husband ; ii) to pay careful attention to the home and to the education of her children.
      4. Scholium. The emancipation of women. Although this question does not fall within the province of the virtue of piety, however since it affects relationships between husband and wife it may be useful to mention
      1 The Code of Canon law (c. 1113) has this to say on the question : “ Parents are bound by a most serious obligation to provide for the religious and moral as well as the physical and civil education of their children and to care for their temporal welfare.”

      a few points which moral theologians ought to keep in mind regarding this question which is agitating the minds of men and States to-day.

      1. So far as their souls, supernatural grace, and destiny are concerned, men and women are equal.
      2. Although in general woman is weaker than man in her physical and intellectual powers, nevertheless there are many women who can do exactly the same work as men. Therefore there is nothing in the work itself to prevent such works and duties being given to capable women, such as the office of doctor, teacher, etc.
      3. God created woman as man’s helper and formed her from Adam’s rib ; furthermore He has excluded her from the priesthood. All this would seem to indicate clearly that it was never God’s intention for complete equality to exist between man and woman. Therefore the radical emancipation of women and their complete equality with men seem to be alien to the Creator’s intention.
      4. A woman’s chief duty is care for the home and therefore any form of emancipation which disrupts family life must be rejected.
      5. So far as Catholicism is concerned, there is nothing to prevent (at least in itself) capable women from possessing the right to vote even in political matters. But it is an entirely different question whether any useful purpose is served either in respect of the State or Church by granting women the right to vote in any particular district"

      Delete
    4. Note Fr. Prummer says two things. First, a husband is OBLIGED to guide his wife and children, and to provide them with food, clothing, and shelter. This is his duty. As this is his obligation, it would certainly seem to follow that he sins gravely if he does not fulfill it. I don't deny that there are men who fail in this regard(there certainly are) Nor did I deny that women must fill in for men if they were to fail in their duty. What I am saying is that it is not normal for men to show disinterest in the management of their household, and for women to fill in for them(there is something disordered about this because a man is not fulfilling the obligation he has received from God) “But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel” ( 1 Tim 5:8)
      Second, there is nothing inherently wrong with women voting per se, but whether they ought to be given the right, and whether it would serve any useful purpose, is a completely different question as far as the Church is concerned. That's why the writers of the Catholic Encyclopedia article I linked to oppose women's suffrage.

      This illustrates the point I was making about the differences between moral theologians. In any case, Fr. Jone for his part nowhere insists that women have a right to vote from a Catholic prospective. That's something you read into him. My issue isn't with anything Fr. Jone says, it's with what you draw from his statements.

      Again, it's best to grasp the necessary distinctions and difficulties of these questions before accusing people of rejecting Church teaching/authority and calling them "sophomoric"

      Delete
    5. Don't change history and twist things around. You are the one drawing from Fr. Jone's statements.

      Fr. Jone said: "It might even be a *mortal* sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate."

      What is a *mortal* sin, Mr. Augustine? Should I ignore Fr. Jone's teachings because Mr. Augustine says they're just the opinion of one theologian? Should I assume I would not be committing a *mortal* sin under the conditions specified by Fr. Jone, just because you say so, Mr. Augustine?

      Delete
    6. Once again, Fr. Jone's book was "*universally* accepted throughout the *Catholic Church* as *authoritative*".

      Delete
    7. "Voting is a civic duty... It might even be a *mortal* sin if one's refusal to vote would result in the election of an unworthy candidate." (Moral Theology, Fr. Heribert Jone, 205.-- 3. Election of good representatives.)

      Delete
    8. My dear friend, you have been thoroughly refuted. and now you simply repeat yourself. You did not address anything I said in my previous reply nor the quote I gave from Fr. Prummer on the topic. You obviously have a very limited understanding of basic theological principles. No particular moral theologian is authoritative on his own. For something to be authoritative, it must be a defined teaching of the Church. (also, you never sourced the quote that said that Jone was universally accepted and authoritative. where does that come from? Fr. Prummer was widely used in Catholic seminaries before Vatican 2, so he was eminent in his own right) That doesn't even matter, because I don't disagree with Fr. Jone, I disagree with your reading of him.

      Let me try to clarify again, seeing as logic and reading comprehension seem to be weak points of yours. Fr. Jone says voting is a civic duty, and that not voting in certain cases may be a mortal sin. I absolutely agree with this. However, saying that voting is a civic duty in no way amounts to saying that everyone has a right to vote. Those are two fundamentally different questions. Saying that voting is a civic duty means that all who can vote, ought to vote. Now who ought to be given the right/ability to vote is a totally different question, as Fr. Prummer points out.

      Just to be crystal clear, I don't disagree with a thing Fr. Jone says in regard to voting. You just misunderstand him.

      Counting the number of times I say things(very odd), accusing me of rejecting the authority of the Church without a grasp of basic theological principles, not addressing quotes from eminent theologians I post- not good habits.

      Delete
  9. I'll just through in my tuppence worth. The list below includes just a few examples of woman who clearly made decisions regarding the running of their households.... countries over the course of history. Funnily enough they are Saints of the Catholic Church. In St Catherine's case she helped overcome the great schism.

    A Catholic's duty to fulfil the obligations of their office trumps any simplistic interpretation of where men and women sit within a given hierarchical framework.

    A parent's duty is to raise their child/children in order to save their souls. If this requires one parent to take the lead in decision-making according to their gifts and abilities, it is of no concern which parent takes the lead. The idea that all men (as opposed to women) automatically as part of their nature, possess superior skills or ability to make decisions, is humbug. I know of many examples of one or the other gender lacking in this regard. The depiction of men as the head and the woman as the heart of the family, does not translate somehow into man making all decisions and woman submitting. This distinction is made, due to the fact that many males have stronger logical functions than emotional functions and females the converse; HOWEVER this is not a universal rule which holds up in all cases. In any event the roles are complimentary, as in decisions are made as one, not as one over the other.

    1. Saint Olga, regent of Kievan Rus' for her son Svyatoslav from 945 until 960;

    2. St Jadwiga (Polish: [jadˈviɡa] ( listen)), also known as Hedwig, was the first female monarch of the Kingdom of Poland, reigning from 16 October 1384 until her death. Reign‎: ‎16 October 1384 – 17 July 1399;

    3. St Adelaide of Italy (931 – 16 December 999 AD)

    4. Saint Cunigunde of Luxembourg, OSB (c. 975 – 3 March 1040);

    5. Saint Margaret of Scotland (Scots: Saunt Magret, c. 1045 – 16 November 1093), also known as Margaret of Wessex, was an English princess and a Scottish queen;

    6. St catherine of siena

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thank you, Peter, for your Catholic sense and common sense. It happens too often nowadays that Catholic teaching is not good enough for some. They feel they have to spread their erroneous and Pharisaical ideas with no authority to do so. Your comment will be the last word on this for me. Thank you and God bless!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I don't disagree with a thing Peter says. In implying that I'm a Pharisee and everything else, you just make it clearer that you don't understand my position. As I stated in another reply, I take the same position as Fr. Dominic Prummer O.P. He expresses the Catholic position on this question in the clearest and most concise terms. If you agree with Fr. Prummer, you agree with me.

      " There are certain duties which are mutual and others which are peculiar to husband or wife.
      1. a) The following obligations are mutual : i) mutual love both affective and effective ; ii) the rendering of the marriage debt ; iii) life in common (mutual companionship).
      2. b) The husband is obliged i) as head of the family to guide his wife, children and servants ; ii) to provide for his wife and family sufficient food, clothing and maintenance ; iii) to administer family property wisely.
      3. c) The wife is obliged : 1) to show due obedience to her husband ; ii) to pay careful attention to the home and to the education of her children.
      4. Scholium. The emancipation of women. Although this question does not fall within the province of the virtue of piety, however since it affects relationships between husband and wife it may be useful to mention
      1 The Code of Canon law (c. 1113) has this to say on the question : “ Parents are bound by a most serious obligation to provide for the religious and moral as well as the physical and civil education of their children and to care for their temporal welfare.”

      a few points which moral theologians ought to keep in mind regarding this question which is agitating the minds of men and States to-day.

      1. So far as their souls, supernatural grace, and destiny are concerned, men and women are equal.
      2. Although in general woman is weaker than man in her physical and intellectual powers, nevertheless there are many women who can do exactly the same work as men. Therefore there is nothing in the work itself to prevent such works and duties being given to capable women, such as the office of doctor, teacher, etc.
      3. God created woman as man’s helper and formed her from Adam’s rib ; furthermore He has excluded her from the priesthood. All this would seem to indicate clearly that it was never God’s intention for complete equality to exist between man and woman. Therefore the radical emancipation of women and their complete equality with men seem to be alien to the Creator’s intention.
      4. A woman’s chief duty is care for the home and therefore any form of emancipation which disrupts family life must be rejected.
      5. So far as Catholicism is concerned, there is nothing to prevent (at least in itself) capable women from possessing the right to vote even in political matters. But it is an entirely different question whether any useful purpose is served either in respect of the State or Church by granting women the right to vote in any particular district"

      Fr. Prummer doesn't need to couch Catholic teaching in feminist language like some folks apparently do.

      Delete
    2. "Duty" is a correlative of "right". If a duty is imposed on a person, by a proper authority, then the duty must also involve a right as correlative, in order to enable the duty to be fulfilled. (A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, Third Ed.)

      Delete
  11. Dear, young man, if you're high-fiving yourself because you think you whipped this old woman, you might like to sober up a bit. I may be older and slower, but at least I'm not wet behind the ears.

    It's always easier to "win" an argument when you make stuff up.

    Are you aware that the co-relative of "right" is "duty" (A Catholic Dictionary, Attwater, 3rd Ed., 1958, Right.)? Think about it... You said I wrongly assumed that women had the "right" to vote because I read too much into Fr. Jone's teaching regarding our civic duty to vote. However, Fr. Jone said, "Voting is a civic *duty*" (and he did not make exceptions regarding the sexes). Since "duty" is a co-relative of "right", then I judged correctly that Fr. Jone meant women also have the "right" to vote. You were wrong.

    My reference books contradict your online sources. Regarding suffrage, "The civic person has the *rights* to *equal* suffrage and participation in politics..." (See citation above). This is in agreement with Fr. Jone's teaching. There are no distinctions made regarding the sexes. And before you falsely accuse me again of taking things out of context, I did not. I provided a source. Check it out.

    You also misrepresented what Fr. Jone meant regarding the duties of husband and wife. If he meant that men "sin gravely" (as you put it), when they allow their wives to manage the house independently, he would have said they "sin gravely". The purpose of his book was to eliminate guesswork and shooting from the hip.

    Once again, you proved you don't know what you're talking about. But keep on making stuff up, young man, if it makes you happy. You'll only be fooling yourself. I'm done with you. Well done.

    Can't say it's been a pleasure, but I wish you well. You have much to learn about real life.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You continue to display your ignorance by calling Fr. Dominic Prummer(a moral theologian who was eminent before the Council and who's work was widely used in Catholic seminaries) an "online source" You never address what he says, because he refutes your position. As I've tried to point out over and over again, this is a question where distinctions are crucial.. You continue to misuse your own reference books. You specifically quote the dictionary as saying that a duty is a right if the duty is imposed on a person by a civil authority. Well again, who ought to have that duty(right) is a totally different question(as Fr. Prummer points out)

      Fr. Prummer is clear that men are OBLIGED to manage their households. St. Paul says the same. You don't care what Sacred Scripture or orthodox moral theologians say, so you try to find a way around them.

      You're so deep in the feminist muck it's impossible for you to consider other prospective. I have Scripture, the Fathers. and the pre-conciliar moral theology in support of my position. The only thing you can come up with is misreadings of dictionaries and theologians. You accuse others of not knowing what their talking about and having a lot to learn, but your not very good at forming any sort of coherent point.

      Just to let you know, Fr. Prummer work is used in moral theology courses at the SSPX seminary here in the United States.

      Goodbye, Ms. Feminist

      Delete
  12. I'm not reading comments. Just a clarification. Under the entry for "right" (in the dictionary I cited above), it is stated two different times that "the correlative of right is duty". It is mentioned once in relation to the Rights of Man. But it is stated again (at the very bottom) in relation to Human Rights, i.e., of the human person, of the civic person and of the social and working person.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Paris will be burned" ---- Our Lady of La Salette: Collapsed Spire, Collapsed Catholic Civilization. How the Notre Dame Fire is an Image of the Real Church's Situation Today.

SSPX Accuses Francis of Heresy. As Far as I can tell, a "Document for Human Fraternity" that was intended to be spread throughout the world and bore the signature of Francis is a Public Act. No? So Francis is a Public Heretic or Public Apostate, No?

Amazon Facial Recognition Technology Determines that Sister Lucy I and Sister Lucy II are not the Same Person. Not One Match Amidst Thousands of Comparisons.