CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group  

Go Back   CatholicPlanet.Net discussion group > Catholicism > Controversies about Catholicism
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 30th November 2006, 01:14 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

I agree with most of your most recent post.

But comparing Mary to a politician, that is a stretch!


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 30th November 2006, 02:33 AM
Joan
 
Posts: n/a
Default thank you

What wonderful, thoughtful, and respectful posts to a deliberately provocative essay. I appreciate each one of you, and each insight you so generously and articulately shared. I am deeply reassured; which I did not expect at all.

Ultimately the Mighty God will bring restoration and balance to pass, so that His blessings of joy and contentment can prevail in these so damaged human relationships. "....not by power, not by might, but by My Spirit, says the Lord." When the times are right, and in God's Providence, a balance and a healing correction of Christian roles will take place. And it will be good, all will be well and all will be well.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 30th November 2006, 10:40 PM
VeiledProphetess
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

I do feel called to make changes in this regard. I actually gave up being a lector once, and they asked me to come back--I work as a police/fire dispatcher, and my experience on the radio means I can read/project well.

Part of my problem in this whole area is what you and other posters have mentioned--the influence of secular society. When I was younger, a woman had to have some skirts in her wardrobe--certain places required them. Now, a woman has to have some pants--some jobs require them, including mine in certain situations. This is not that big of an issue, but it is symbolic of the larger situation. I don't think we will turn the clock back in this regard. Able-bodied women are expected to be self-supporting, at least if they don't have small children.

Ron, I am curious--Do you believe women should have the right to vote?
What do you think of the role of women in traditional Muslim societies?
And do you think our society could be turned around in a more Christian direction? I must confess, I easily get discouraged when I see the culture becoming increasingly secular. It's so easy these days to get written off as a "religious fanatic" if one takes faith seriously.

As far as being a lector goes, I'm confused by St Paul's dictum that a woman should not pray --or prophesy-- with her head uncovered. What exactly did he mean by prophesying in this context? Is it something that could still happen today? I don't necessarily think he meant it would occur during worship, but if not, what did he mean?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 1st December 2006, 02:05 AM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeiledProphetess View Post
Ron, I am curious--Do you believe women should have the right to vote?

A society based on faith and reason could have men and women voting, or it could have only men voting. For example, voting for Pope is done only by men. This is neither contrary to faith nor contrary to reason. A women's religious community might have only women voting. Other situations may have both men and women voting.

However, it is not a right to be demanded. We must consider how God wants us to order ourselves. In some nations, it may be better not to have voting at all. It depends on the circumstances and the will of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeiledProphetess View Post
What do you think of the role of women in traditional Muslim societies?
Islamic society contains a better understanding of certain truths, in particular, that men and women are to have a certain separateness and certain differences in roles, behavior, and dress.
However, they lack Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium, so they cannot decide even among themselves what is the correct point of view on that question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeiledProphetess View Post
And do you think our society could be turned around in a more Christian direction? I must confess, I easily get discouraged when I see the culture becoming increasingly secular. It's so easy these days to get written off as a "religious fanatic" if one takes faith seriously.

There will be constant turmoil and upheaval and suffering in the world, from the start of the tribulation until the reign of the great monarch. Even in the days prior to the three days of darkness, the secular forces of society will have the greater influence. Then after those three days, the people who are left alive will be submissive to the teaching of the Faith.

Quote:
Originally Posted by VeiledProphetess View Post
As far as being a lector goes, I'm confused by St Paul's dictum that a woman should not pray --or prophesy-- with her head uncovered. What exactly did he mean by prophesying in this context? Is it something that could still happen today? I don't necessarily think he meant it would occur during worship, but if not, what did he mean?

Women can teach other women and children, women can witness to the effect of faith in their own lives before men and women, women can participate in public prayers. But they cannot take a leadership role, even in prayer or prophesy.

An example: during a Mass that I attended, our priest was giving a sermon. During the sermon he asked one of the women to stand up and tell about an experience she had. She did so. She described that her father had cancer, the doctors had given up, and yet prayer improved his condition. Then she sat down and he continued his sermon. This is an example of a fitting witness or prophesying of a woman to a group that included men. But she did not speak from the pulpit; she did not lead a group in prayer; she did not take a role only fitting for a man.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 1st December 2006, 05:28 AM
Joan
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Interesting proposals. One can envision a realignment of society different from the prevailing norm. I can envision an altered cultural landscape, in which gender roles and expectations regain a more wholesome balance, a more natural and less narcissistic, strife ridden order.

It is, however, very fortunate that an opinion is just an opinion. Unless any of us is anointed to say Thus Spake the Lord then we must collect our reasons and examples and express what is an idea, an opinion. My invaluable, amazingly insightful “invisible friend” Ron says he actually would contemplate doing away with democratic institutions and women’s suffrage. Help!  I wish you to reconsider your opinion!

The disorder we face in our society is more than gender roles, it is the result of a de-Christianized society. One example: we have the freedom to say whatever we want, but we must not be the sort of people who wish to say obscene and vile things, or the freedom ceases to be beneficial. The vote of godly females is no threat to Christianity or the social order. The vote of ungodly people of either sex is a threat to all that holds society back from barbarism.

“A society based on faith and reason could have men and women voting, or it could have only men voting. For example, voting for Pope is done only by men. This is neither contrary to faith nor contrary to reason. A women's religious community might have only women voting. Other situations may have both men and women voting.” Yes, I can see this as reasonable, within the context of your example. The relentless coeducation unisex trend could be supplanted without damage to reason, justice, dignity.
“....men and women are to have a certain separateness and certain differences in roles, behavior, and dress.”

Then we come to the vote, to democracy: “However, it is not a right to be demanded.” Yes it is. Our Creator endowed us with certain inalienable rights, but these rights have to be defended. The vote enables us to safeguard our rights. These rights will be denied, weakened, expunged, at the whim of the empowered to the disadvantage of the disenfranchised. Fallen humanity cannot be trusted to guard the best interests of disenfranchised persons.

Felons have forfeited the right to vote. Children are unfit to vote, and are not able to maturely consider with long term wisdom, that is why voting is an adult right. Surely you would not seriously consent to relegate adult females to a voting status assigned to convicted felons and minor children? That isn’t different but equal in worth and dignity, nor is it about filling different roles. Rather, it says that women are in fact inferior to males and unfit to have a voice. It will fall to superior orders of humanity to make decisions that impact female lives.

“We must consider how God wants us to order ourselves.” How are we to know? By models found in Scripture? There is more than one model documented in Scripture. Who gets to pick? Who interprets? Even the Pontiff and the Bishops are wrong about some political and social issues that adversely affect our country. There are adverse consequences when these mistaken views prevail by consent--imagine if they were able to prevail by fiat—would you find it just, beneficial, desirable? I think not, and by analogy, as a woman I would not find it equitable, beneficial, just to have my life ordered by fiat rather than franchise.

Without the vote, there is no redress. In fact what you propose is a form of theocratic tyranny. The Pontiff himself, the Bishops, and certainly not the general run of practicing Christians have sufficient justice, humility, wisdom, insight or empathy to be allowed to govern unchecked.

Before black people won the right to vote and dismantled Jim Crow laws that thwarted their franchise, they had no protection from injustice and abuse. Lynching, thefts, all manner of injustice were their lot. Before women had the franchise, there was no protection of financial rights, no recourse from domestic violence and no protection from poverty apart from dependency on a male. These are just a few examples of the way this world works, when there is no vote.

“In some nations, it may be better not to have voting at all. It depends on the circumstances and the will of God”

I cannot imagine which nation you have in mind. The Iraqi people braved terror and death, 80% turned out to vote. Their freedom is being stolen from them by murderers, who win by terrorizing people into silence and compliance—and these violent, fanatical religious zealots believe they are ordering things in accordance to the will of God.

Call to mind Ruth and Naomi, destitute and beggars. Their only hope was the good will of a distant male relative—and even he had to announce to his men, “don’t rape this woman.” Without his special protection, it was just accepted that destitute women would be exploited, attacked and raped. There was no redress or avenue to respectable independence. That is the result of being voiceless, inferior, powerless. Depriving women of the right to vote ought to be unthinkable, yet you find it a potentially valid option.

The loss of faith and increase of sinfulness is the root of our social ills, not the empowerment of women. The degree to which females are sinners is the degree to which the abuse of our freedoms has had a negative impact; the same with men.

Unless you are referring to the Kingdom of God, in which human nature has been healed and redeemed and governed by the King of Kings, then it will be unjust, dangerous to women, ever to surrender the vote. Men cannot be trusted to shun self-interest, pride, hardness of heart. Never will I consent. Sin is the culprit and root of ills, not women.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 1st December 2006, 07:12 AM
VeiledProphetess
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ron,

Thanks for the example of a woman prophesying. That makes sense.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 1st December 2006, 01:11 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

Joan,

Interesting topic.

I think that there will not be much democracy during the time of the great monarch's reign. Notice that the Saints and Blesseds have called him a monarch. He reigns as a king. He will have political power that is unprecidented within democracy. Scripture also calls him the king of the Greeks, because Greece is where democracy began; so he is in some sense a democratic leader, but in a system where he has so much unchecked authority as to be truly also like a king. The main check and balance against his authority will be the Pope and the grace of God.

When I said voting is not a right to be demanded, I meant for men and women. The world belongs to God; we belong to God. We must do God's will and if the vote against God's will is unanimous, it is still wrong. The Israelites were not a democracy. The early Church was not a democracy. The kingdom of Heaven (as you pointed out) is not a democracy. The great monarch's kingdom has very limited democratic elements.

Democracy can be good and useful, but it can also result in a society that continually decays, voting in favor of abortion, contraception, embrionic stem cell research, human cloning, gay 'marriage', etc. Basically, the current democratic system has failed, mainly because of the separation fo Church and state. In the great monarch's kingdom, I believe that the Pope will have the authority to veto laws, and change or institute laws moto proprio.

A reasonable society cannot be based on voting alone. It might seem to protect your rights, but then they will vote against Christianity (as will happen in the distant future). It is the tyranny of the majority. Voting and democracy, if it is a part of society, must be tempered by faith and checked not merely by democracy itself, but by the Church.

Christ did not teach democracy. It is an invention of human reason, useful but limited.

An example of a nation that is better off without voting today: Pakistan, which would probably fall into the hands of Islamic extremists if a vote for president were held today.

Concerning the authority of the Pope, it is the teaching of the Church that the Pope has authority over every human person on earth.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 1st December 2006, 03:02 PM
Hope
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Joan: I share your concerns. When a group of people (and woman are at least half the population) loses their right to vote, they lose their voice. If mankind was not filled with sinners, this would be OK to accept (but then again, our rights would not need protected in that scenerio), then it would be OK for half the adult population to make the decisions for the other half. But that is not the case, and time and time again, those that could vote, took advantage over those that could not.

To promote a democracy where only a portion of good citizens are allowed a voice in a world filled with self-serving, evil people--is inadvertantly promoting discrimination and abuse. I think this is why it is so troubling when Ron seems gung-ho about the idea of women being silenced at the ballot box. Maybe he's not gung-ho and is just saying that he thinks it is going to happen, but I get the impression that he thinks this would be a good thing. Am I wrong?

Many woman never marry (by choice or because of lack of proposals) or are widowed or divorced and have no men to stand up for them at the voting booth or elsewhere. Even married women have no assurance that their husband will have their interest in mind. It wasn't long ago in the US that women were not allowed to own property. If they had no son and their husband died, they were often forced off of their homes and property and left destitude. History teaches us that demoracy works for those that are allowed to vote, but not for those who are banned from casting the ballot.

Is it no wonder comments about taking away the right to vote does not set well with women?

Yet, I totally see Ron's point about democracy not working everywhere. There are places in the world where it would result in additional chaos and can never work as things stand. I also see how it can cause societal decline. But the decline is not because woman are voting, but because both men and women have lost their moral foundation (God of the Christians). The Church isn't a democracy, but Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world, and when He went about establishing His Church, He did not take it upon Himself to destroy current systems of government. I'm probably overgeneralizing, but it seems that He is OK with how Caesar rules, as long as the people under Caesar, first give God His due.

If people really want to go back to the way it used to be, and/or if their is a true Monarch like days of old, Ron and most men will also lose their right to vote too. They too will have to comply to the authority of the king and his nobles and/or the pope and the bishops. The middle class will probably be a thing of the past. The extremely wealthy may have some say, but the average man will have no voice. When democracy was developed, for a long time, only male property owners could vote--this left out the majority of males.

The system of Church government leaves out the majority of males as well. Isn't it only the pope and bishops have a say in what happens? Because the Church works this way, does this mean that it is better that the government imitate this? Because a country was governed a certain way in the past, does that sanctify the practices of that government from then to enternity?

How would the average man feel if he learned that the world was going back to a feudal system of government and that he would be in the peasant class and no longer allowed to vote? Or that the Church in Rome and the Bishops under it was in charge of the secular government and it would be making the all the decisions for his countrymen?

I think going to such a system would make most men very uneasy and they would not accept this quietly. If men consider how they would feel if their right to vote was taken away under a monarchy, maybe they can empathize with why some women cannot go gently into such a future as Ron envisions. It is frightening.

Last edited by Hope : 1st December 2006 at 03:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 1st December 2006, 06:53 PM
Ron Conte Ron Conte is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,768
Default

You have misunderstood what I am saying.

I am not predicting that only men will be able to vote under the great monarch; I don't know exactly what form government will take at that time.

Nor am I recommending men only voting for secular society in general.

However, you know well that only men vote for the Pope, and that only men are Bishops and Popes in the Church. So the secular idea of men and women having the same roles in voting and leadership cannot be applied in every situation.

A faithful and reasonable society or organization or group could have only men voting, or it could have men and women voting.


Ron
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 1st December 2006, 08:26 PM
Hope
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ahh . . . I skimmed over the statement below, missing the meaning and wisdom behind it.

You wrote:

Quote:
. . . reasonable society cannot be based on voting alone. It might seem to protect your rights, but then they will vote against Christianity (as will happen in the distant future). It is the tyranny of the majority. Voting and democracy, if it is a part of society, must be tempered by faith and checked not merely by democracy itself, but by the Church.

Thanks for clarifying.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.