1. Yes, the bible tells men to love and take care of their women. I guess that is a hard thing to do given that women are so unclean and unreasonable. Still however, it doe not contradict the central point that by subjecting women to the rule of men you are treating them as *lesser* and *inferior* beings.

2. Christ included women all the time, he listened to thier advice, and within the initial organization of his followers there was no strict heirarchy putting women at the bottom. I'm not saying anything about what Jesus really believed, but he certainly gave a more radical example about the equality of women than subsequent sects of Christianity.

3. Of course the Catholic Church has changed it's doctrinal position on things. Quite a lot, in fact. Obviously, the Church's position has and always will be that they were just "ahem, clarifying things". Right.

Just recently the Church reversed it's opinion on babies and limbo.
http://cbs3.com/topstories/Limbo.Catholic.Church.2.303594.html

Early on in Christianity the Church changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday in the name of it's authority as leader of the faith, nothing more.

The Catholic Church initially supported Slavery as a natural institution, but then dramatically changed that position and labaled it an abomination in the 1400s (rather a good change, in my view).

The Catholic Church also accepts the (now) patently obvious proposition that the earth is not, physically, the centre of the Solar System, despite denying this as an important element of Church doctrine for centuries.

The Vatican II sect altered the doctrine of "No Salvation Outside The Church" and the Latin mass in 1960, after the Vatican II council.

4. How does disallowing contraceptives result in a woman becoming "preganant against her will"?
Well, uh..... lot's of women *are* raped all the time. Both married and non-married. Furthermore, according to the church, women in a marriage cannot refuse sex. And we all know how common forced marriages used to be until secular government took over, ja?

In any case, the scriptural rationales are dubious, and the only authority given by the Church is that it must be right because they say so, and have said so for a while.

5. So feminism degrades women, huh?

To such a degree that it was equally in tragedy to things like the Second World War? I am very interested in hearing how you justify this. :)

--------


Anyways, I think it is clear that the Chruch sees women as lesser beings. It basically says so, all the time. I really don't think this fact is particularly disputable.

what about that one pope that was a chick

Nola;

"Essentially, what Paul said is that wives should submit to their husbands (since there has to be some way to break 1-1 ties), and husbands should do whatever is best for their wives (putting themselves second, which usually means doing what your wife wants to do)."

He also said that women should be silent in public, that they shouldn't draw attention to themselves when men are around, that women should obey their husbands like the good Christian obeys the Church, but whatevs.

Why must 1 v1 situations be resolved with one person getting their way over the other person? If two people are equal, it seems just that they should get their way an equal amount of time. Unless of course one person is inherently inferior and oughto be treated as such by the other person.

Oh wait that would mean Church Teachings are sexist. Oops.

Isn't the pope a nazi?

Thanks for misquoting me Nola. I said not an extremem Religious Right. you said Conservative. Two very different things. My parents are Conservatives and I am a right leaning centrist. Yet we both have no problem with modern feminism.

Please do not put words in my mouth again.

Friendly Sword -
1. You seem to be defining "worth" and "power" as somehow equivalent. Could you please justify this?

2. Yes, Christ included women in lots of things, just as women like Catherine of Sienna have been involved quite heavily in things in the Church. Not really sure what the point is here.

3. I am aware of the position on limbo. First of all, that is some decidedly horribly reporting by CBS (no surprise there) that demonstrates a complete inability to understand what the actual Church teaching is or was. Here is the actual output from the Vatican:
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

On your other points, do you have anything that says those were doctrines (since they were not), or just particular opinions of the church at the time. Note that anything that is a doctrine would either be pronounced Ex Cathedra (really short list there), or be promulgated by the Magesterium as one.

4. Yes, women are raped. For some reason I doubt the reason the vast majority of women take contraceptives is just in case they get raped. Also, a primary purpose of marriage is procreation, and when you enter into a Catholic marriage, you actually agree to this during the marriage rite. So if you don't want to be in a Catholic marriage, then don't be. Also, women can't be "forced" to have sex, but both husbands and wives (subject to the same rules here) are supposed to agree to it if the other one desires it (subject to all of the other rules about marriage in general), though abstinence can be practiced for grave reasons if they couple can not, for whatever the grave reasons are, afford to conceive a child.

5. In short, feminism degrades women by essentially saying that women should be more like men, which must mean that there is something wrong with being like women (or else why would you want to be like men instead?). In addition, it devalues the family, has resulted in an increased divorce rate, and has also resulted in overall lower happiness among women.

What I find amusing is that although Christianity set the basic pillars of what we call the Modern Western Civilization by either creating or preserving the values in which it was based, but somehow people keep pointing fingers to the main institution in the History of Christianity, which through hard times kept itself alive for two millennia by sticking to the same values, and consider it somewhat not up to the standards of this same civilization.

@JesusPetry:
Christianity did not set the basic pillars of Modern Western Civilization. As much as the church wishes to take credit for that...

" 2. Your analogy in your second post is not analagous at all; you can't just throw something like that in there and have it make sense. Essentially, what Paul said is that wives should submit to their husbands (since there has to be some way to break 1-1 ties), and husbands should do whatever is best for their wives (putting themselves second, which usually means doing what your wife wants to do). "

It is very much analogous. The fact that you are asked to care for something, doesn't mean you are considered his equal.

The care that is asked there of the husband towards the wife, is something I could ask of a child who purchases a pet, to put it in less inflamatory words.

It does not, in any way, make woman and man equal in the eyes of the bible, and Friendly Sword has shown plenty of examples where the Bible truly does consider the woman to be inferior.

Draugnar - It appears our definitions of conservative and even of feminism may vary a bit. I apologize if my paraphrasing did not capture your thoughts. When I see "feminism", there are two possible definitions that come to mind. The first is that women and men are of equal worth. This I heartily accept (and so does anyone else reasonable). The second is the men and women are equal, as in logically equivalent. This I firmly reject; it makes no sense whatsoever because men and women are quite different from each other in ways other than just our reproductive organs. Since the first one is not usually debated, I tend to assume the second one is under debate.

Tantris - Then who did?

Xapi - You must be mistaking "love" and "care". To love your wife as Christ loves the Church means to put her before everything else (other than God), not to just make sure she stays fed and sheltered. Also, as I stated to Friendly Sword, you can not just arbitrarily define "power" and "worth" as equivalent. Our worth is inherent as beings created in the image of God, not in how much power we have. One man is not "worth" more than another man just because he is his boss, nor is a husband "worth" more than his wife because he acts as the head of the household.

Nola: You seem to be missing my point entirely.

It is not about what is asked of the husband, the husband could be asked to dance circles around the wife before sex for all I care, and it wouldn't make a difference.

My point is this:

1 - Friendly Sword quoted some stuff wich portray women as inferior to men.

2 - You answered with a different quote, presumably from the same section that one of FS's quotes was taken, that describes what is expected of a man who marries a woman (whatever that may be, I concede you are correctly interpreting what is asked from the husband and have no interest to nitpick on the difference between love and care and whatever)

3 - My point is that what is asked of the husband for his wife in no way reflects the two parts of a marriage to be equal, and so in no way contradicts FS's point that the woman is considered the inferior or weaker sex.

Regarding worth vs power, while I agree in principle, there's a distintion to be made:

If I say that both black and whites are of equal worth, but that whites are to have power over blacks in all or most situations, then I am a hypocrit, and a racist.

@nola:
Well, it bases itself in Greece and Rome, and is built up using thinking from the Renaisance. If you look into the progression of thinking through those times, they make much more sense than saying it is based on Christianity. Christianity has often been dragged behind, mostly against its will. Thank goodness we weren't based on Christianity.

Tantris, you seem to be ignoring the long period of Barbarian invasions, and I did mention that some values were *preserved* rather than *created* by Christianity.

Tantis - Then what happened between about 450 AD (when Rome fell, though it was falling before then) and the next 1000 years or so before the Renaissance kicked off? Even during the Renaissance, the universites were almost all Catholic universities (since the Church was the primary educator of most everyone).

@Nola - the third is that men and women should have equal access and opportunity. This is the one sexists like to overlook.

So, both of your arguments is that the Catholic Church helped preserve knowledge? Ok, maybe. Though, we have gotten original writings from Rome and Greece.

Just as long as you are not arguing that Christianity actually was responsible for creating any of the values, morals, or ethics of Western Civilization, sounds good.

Xapi - I am not sure how a wife submitting to her husband of the head of the household makes her inferior - could you explain? Keep in mind that both of these must be taken together, not separately. Thus, the wife submits to her husband with the understanding that he will put her first, which frankly means that what she wants to have happen is generally what is going to happen. If neither spouse is "in charge" as it were, then how are disagreements supposed to be resolved exactly (and I mean real ones that have real consequences)?

On the race example, race and sex are quite different (one is mostly just a pigmentation difference, while our sex has a rather huge impact on our person). Also, the marriage relationship is a voluntarily entered three-way (God, husband, wife) covenant, so no one is forced into it, and to force someone into it is wrong (and one of the questions asked at Catholic marriages, the first one actually, is "Are you here freely and of your own will?" or something to that effect). So, in entering marriage, both parties should know what they are agreeing to.

@Nola - the husband putting his wife first means that he will generally do what he thinks is best for both of them, no watter what her opinion is. The comparison to Christ makes it clear. Did He do what His disciples wanted (run away, lets go somewhere they won't find you, don't let the children in, send that whore away, yadda, yadda, yadda) or did He do what was best for them and us.

Of course, that is Paul's words: the words of a flawed man. Paul was a sexist. The times in which he lived and the fact that he wasn't Christ guaranteed it. And that is a sexist statement because it basically say "give you wife what she wants if it won't hurt anything and keep her safe and warm and dry, like a puppy or a kid". It says nothing of respecting her opinion.

Draugnar - I would argue that men and women have equal access and opportunity already. For more physical-type jobs, women actually have extra access (lower standards), and for more mental jobs, they have the same access. Unmarried women have about the same success rate as unmarried men. Married women, however, have priorities that tend to make it a lot harder to advance in companies, and as a result they have lower positions. I am not sure how this is unfair, though, since as an employer I can't have my VP going on leave for 3 months every couple of years.

Draugnar - Were you not just arguing a minute ago about your belief in the Bible (or did I miss something)? Do you think it is the inspired Word of God, or not? I just need to clarify so that we can continue our discussion on the same page.

" I am not sure how a wife submitting to her husband of the head of the household makes her inferior - could you explain? "

It doesn't, really.

It's the fact that women are always expected by the Church to submit to her husband that shows that the Church considers them inferior.

" If neither spouse is "in charge" as it were, then how are disagreements supposed to be resolved exactly (and I mean real ones that have real consequences)? "

I don't know. I suppose it depends on what subject is the matter, and wich spouse is better equiped to decide or more influenced by the desition.

For instance, I want to have children within the next year, and my wife (we're not married, but we might as well be) doesn't, she's thinking 2 or 3 years minimum. In this case, since it would be her who would be most affected by the pregnancy, I have let her desition stand (meaning that I have taken down "my half" of the power to choose, giving in to her wishes) whereas in many other things, she let my desition stand even on disagreement (for instance, regarding wich city we would live, since I was the one who had the chance at a steady and reasonably paid job at my home town, whereas if I had to move to hers, I would have had to start from scratch).

*************************************************************

Having said that, you are still missing the point. I'm not saying that the paragraph about husband loving wife is a proof that the woman is considered inferior, I'm just saying that it's not proof that the women is considered equal.

Xapi - We are a bit closer to understanding each other it appears.

First of all, at least within Catholic teaching, neither your nor your wife should be delaying children except for grave reasons (though if she is not your wife you should be). This is not really that well defined, but I don't really want to go there right now because it is complicated and a bit personal. And anyway, in whatever matter, a husband should know what his wife thinks, and if she thinks it is best to not do something (in particular if it affects her), then he has to think pretty hard about it if he really were to disagree (since he has to do what is best for her). Also, as far as decisions go, if the husband knows that his wife is more knowledgeable about something, then he can just do whatever she says (since he knows that she knows more).

On the original point, however, the Church teaches that men and women are different but of equal worth. In modern society, worth has become equated with power (in large part through the feminist movement), so we tend to see things this way even when we are not thinking about it. A man's role (at least within the family) is to be the provider and protector of his family (in a broad sense). A woman's role (again, within the family) is to be the life-giver (since only women can do this) and caregiver for her family. These are quite different, but neither is "better" than the other.

On a final note, it is really only in Christian societies (at least of the larger ones that have survived for a while) that women are considered to have equal worth to men. Look at women in Greece/Rome prior to Christianity - they had no rights at all, especially in Greece. This is still the case in many modern societies, but Christianity specifically prohibits women from being treated as inferior to men, but it does still acknowledge that men and women have fundamentally different roles in the family, and since society is an extension of the family, in society as well.

@nola "On a final note..."
What? Where are these Christian societies? We talking America here, because there was a hard fought battle to give women the vote just 100 years ago. The church had nothing to do with it. England? France? Germany?

@nola - My views of the Bible are that the Old Testament starts as a series of morality plays written for an early man who couldn't grasp the concepts we are just now beginning to understand with regards to the universe and includes some history with regards to the life and times of Moses. The New Testament should be viewed in three manners. The Gospels and Acts are the history of Christ and His followers after His ascension and I accept them letter for letter, word for word. Paul's letters are studied opinions with some good stuff in them, but still influenced by the world around him at the time (i.e. sexism and slavery). Revelations is a vision presented to John in a way his primitve, by today's standards, mind could understand. It is allegory and metaphor and should not be taken literally.

So that, in a nutshell, is my view of the Bible.

Tantris - This appears to be, once again, the power=worth argument. What I meant was that women were/are treated as being of equal worth to men as persons. This belief derives from Christian theology and philosophy. There is no such belief to be found in ancient Greek/Roman systems nor in a significant portion of other modern systems that lack a Christian basis.

@ Nola: I was making examples related to my personal life and how we handle desition-making when we both have our equal part of the desition to make.

I am not trying to live under Catholic teachings, and I am aware that, in that light, we're clearly living in "sin" or something to that effect.

" And anyway, in whatever matter, a husband should know what his wife thinks, and if she thinks it is best to not do something (in particular if it affects her), then he has to think pretty hard about it if he really were to disagree (since he has to do what is best for her). Also, as far as decisions go, if the husband knows that his wife is more knowledgeable about something, then he can just do whatever she says (since he knows that she knows more). "

This is rather clear, but there is still a position of power, and while you might try to embelish it, the truth is that the Bible (whomever wrote that part, at least) puts the husband in the position of power over the wife because he considers him inherently better fit to make those desitions. Or do you think they flipped a coin to see who would be the head of the household?

Now, don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying they (the people who wrote the Bible, or that part of it) were evil bastards, they were products of their time, a time were women truly were considered less, and I'm sure that, at that time, they were much more lenient towards women than the mayority of the people.

But, times change. And the problem is that if we take what 2000 years ago was probably a great advance for the betterment of humanity (that the wife was to be loved dearly and treated accordingly) and consider that to be the pinnacle of achievement in terms of the equality of the sexes, then we are just plain wrong.

You see, from this doctrine, it makes sense that women can't vote. Why should they, if the husband will vote considering what is best for her?

"In modern society, worth has become equated with power (in large part through the feminist movement), "

There I was thinking that that was the work of Capitalism... silly me...

Now, seriously, I think that is just plain wrong. We've been judging people's worth over their power for quite a number of years, I think.

And I also second Tantris's questions.

Well...worth then, hmm. Ok, I think that at the moment, women are actually worth more in most parts of the world than men...part of the Christian tradition was buying and selling people, something they had in common with many cultures.(they did change at some point, but part of their traditions none-the-less) Now, we don't really allow that in most western cultures, so it is hard to find the true market value for a man vs a woman here. I also don't know that I want to go down that path of putting numbers of dollars on people...
Well, I guess we could do by the amount people earn, and generally men earn more.

I'm sorry, if it isn't in giving women the right to vote, hold office and the like, and it is in this "worth" stat, then how do I find the "worth" stats?

OK, I have to get back to some things, but here is Pope John Paul II's Apostolic Letter on the Dignity of Women, which is in large part related to what we have been talking about anyway. I think it will explain some things better than I can:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_15081988_mulieris-dignitatem_en.html


Not to try to cover too much of what the Pope says, but you will notice an emphasis on service (note Christ: "I come not to be served but to serve") and union with God as the means by which we express and realize our human dignity and worth, not by our political/social/monetary/etc. power.