Man and Woman
“It is not good that the man should be alone.” I hope this is a truth that we can agree on – we have it on Good Authority. We may also agree on this: Civilization has resisted this truth of God in a determined way for a very long time. Men have depreciated, devalued and rejected the gift and the gifts of women in an accelerating way – such that today, the situation is worse than ever, and we are advancing in the wrong direction.
There is an increasing “masculinization” in the secular culture, and this unbalanced trend will be a disaster for any society. Society needs the perspective, the God-given genius, the special touch of woman to keep us from falling irrevocably into the mechanistic, production-oriented, efficiency-driven, gadget- and sex-obsessed dysfunctional craziness that we are headed toward.
It is not good that the man should be alone – and this culture increasingly rejects woman and the gifts of woman that are given to keep us human, and to keep us sane. The women that we accept, and reward, and praise are increasingly women made or remade in our own image: the image of man. Our culture values strength – not the interior strength of woman, but the strength of man – and we bend women toward this image. We want pseudo-women made in the image of pseudo-man, pseudo-women who can curse along with us, and lust along with us, and drink along with us, and cheer at the football games and the fighting scenes and cheat and steal with the worst of us. We value the pseudo-women who are pseudo-men in every way but one way: we want them to still give us sexual pleasure.
This is not only shameful, it is suicidal. Man without woman will degenerate into a pseudo-society of savages.
It is so obvious: the world needs the truth of Christ! And because He sent the Church, the world needs the Church – and is it not obvious that the Church needs Mary, the archetype of woman, of Eve kept faithful and fruitful.
The Catholic Church needs to embrace Mary in true devotion. Many non-Catholics need to turn from their secular and unbalanced influences, and return to God’s way – to receive gratefully the feminine gifts from God for the Church, radiating from and through Mary. It is not good for the man to be alone; man needs the woman God gave him. It is not good for the Body of Christ, the Church, to work in the garden apart from the woman given to Him: Mary, mother of the faithful. Without her, we are unbalanced, out of equilibrium, off-center, untrue.
Thomas
Thomas, you wrote: "There is
Thomas, you wrote:
"There is an increasing “masculinization� in the secular culture," There is no room for increasing masculinization in ecclesiastical culture. It's absolute.
You wrote:"Man without woman will degenerate into a pseudo-society of savages." Certainly into a society of child abusers.
You wrote:"Society needs the perspective, the God-given genius, the special touch of woman " No more than does the sacramental ministry. As an old lady and veteran of hundreds of confessions, I know what a joy and what a relief it would have been for me to experience those special gifts in the sacrament.
Finally biology teaches us that we are a little mixture of both genders and surely a cross fertilizationb of gifts would benefit everyone without retricting anyone to one set of gifts.
And Mary was one tough cookie.
Hello frannie, I strongly
Hello frannie,
I strongly agree with much of what you wrote:
(1) You wrote -
"There is no room for increasing masculinization in ecclesiastical culture. It's absolute."
We very sadly see in the Church these forces from the world, yes. I was happy to talk a few years ago with a very intelligent, capable and insightful nun who was beginning to teach and hold an administrative position in a seminary in the northeast. She saw a main goal as helping the men toward better understanding and ability to listen to the women they would encounter as priests. Many came to the seminary somewhat challenged in that area, for one reason or another - and so the last thing they needed in preparation for the priesthood would be (further) isolation from women, and from the thought and perspectives of women!
So no, "masculinization" (in the hierarchy) is not really "absolute" - but I agree, it is a problem. May the good Lord help us to correct this problem. Mary, and right devotion to Mary, can help greatly in this regard, as would the common-sense leadership of the bishops toward this.
(2) You wrote -
"Thomas wrote:"Man without woman will degenerate into a pseudo-society of savages." Certainly into a society of child abusers."
As well as a multitude of other horrors.
(3) You wrote -
"Thomas wrote:"Society needs the perspective, the God-given genius, the special touch of woman " No more than does the sacramental ministry. As an old lady and veteran of hundreds of confessions, I know what a joy and what a relief it would have been for me to experience those special gifts in the sacrament."
Again, yes, we need reform in many seminary programs - more input from women in the training of priests, and in the daily ministry of priests. Priests need to develop more and more a truly interior life, a life of prayer from which a fruitful ministry can flower. As a man, I too have experienced much less in the confessional that I wanted and hoped for. I'm sure that many priests are trying to be helpful, and offer advice and counsel that they think to be appropriate. And sometimes they are helpful.
(4) You wrote -
"Finally biology teaches us that we are a little mixture of both genders and surely a cross fertilization of gifts would benefit everyone without restricting anyone to one set of gifts.
And Mary was one tough cookie."
I would phrase it a bit differently. We are not a mix of genders, we are either male or female, but we are given a range of gifts and potentialities. And yes Mary was and IS strong - and strong in her full womanly way, as God made her.
Thomas
As a wife of 37 years, and
As a wife of 37 years, and mother of 8, I guess I am "faithful and fruitful" but I also have an identity in my own right as a woman and a professional--and as a Catholic who never ceases to be amazed at the way we women are treated in the Church.
And I would NEVER insult my husband by implying that my role in life is to keep him from "...sex obsessed dysfunctional craziness".
At least it gave us a good laugh!
The purported
The purported 'masculinization' of the culture is an interesting and oddly clever way of disabling women through a reverse-stereotyping of the fictitious male.
Let me explain.
As the mother of three sons and a daughter and the soon-to-be grandmother of a granddaughter, and as a woman, I take issue with the dichotomization but, especially, with the caricature of masculinity:
Thomas writes: "There is an increasing “masculinization� in the secular culture, and this unbalanced trend will be a disaster for any society. Society needs the perspective, the God-given genius, the special touch of woman to keep us from falling irrevocably into the mechanistic, production-oriented, efficiency-driven, gadget- and sex-obsessed dysfunctional craziness that we are headed toward."
While, as a historian, I know that patriarchy is a serious structure of un-freedom for women, I don't think it can be reduced to 'masculine characteristic'. Patriarchy is a system of power that aims at exploiting the system-defined powerless 'Other" - women. The cultural characteristics of disorder that you refer to, Thomas, are, I think, more a depiction of class construction based on the capitalism of a social order geared to survival of the brutish. In such a system, all people learn the use of the weapons required to dominate ("dysfunctional craziness') OR submit to the status of the barely-secure with the second-best tool at hand (in the case of American capitalism, consumption...)
As for the yearned for alternative that Thomas suggests, namely, a cultural order balanced by 'feminine' virtues comprising, one assumes, the counter-weight to 'male' vices, whose 'special tough' saves us all ... well, this is simply an age-old and frankly very adolescent ideal. It is a fiction that is most alarming when it is institutionalized in a religious system of exclusion based on a false piety (Dennis, I think you are right on the mark, in your comments.)
Having raised adolescent boys, I understand the cherished ideal. Having seen those boys grow into men, I applaud their maturity. If institutions could only mature in the way of women and men, the grief of our separation would be so greatly healed as to make real, the truest gift of our Gracious Creator - New Life in Christ Jesus. When we come to the place of genuine belief that, truly, God makes all things new and is continually revealing Godself to us Christ-present, then perhaps we shall be able to put aside these vain idealizations.
Let's make it simple: we sin by hurting women; we sin by excluding any child of God from the fullest potential that God intends for all of us.
Let's NAME our sin and stop with these tortured rationalizations that use pretty ideals that simply hold up the old system of hurt and pain while purporting to recognize 'special gifts'.
By the way, my idea of masculinity is based on my knowledge of the men I love who, ... guess what! ... look a lot in their goodness like the women I love.
The Rev. Dr. E. McCoy
"Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you." (John 20:21)
Hello Elaine, Two things:
Hello Elaine,
Two things: first, do I understand you correctly that you have a "unisexual" perspective on humanity? That you see men and women different only in their bodies? If this is the case, I suggest that you rethink this - it is the result of the very forces I spoke on in the original post. We are more than our bodies, and our bodies have an integrity with our souls - and the human person, body and soul, is expressed (and expressed differently) as a man or a woman. The two are not identical, but are made complementary.
Second, you see the modern aberrations in culture as due to "capitalism"? You wrote, "more a depiction of class construction based on the capitalism of a social order geared to survival of the brutish." If this were the case, would we not see a utopia (using your standards) in the various socialist and communist economies?
Thomas
"It is not good that the man
"It is not good that the man should be alone." Seems a good reason, "we have it on good authority," for priests to marry.
I agree that priests NEED to
I agree that priests NEED to seek and to receive feminine input, advice, perspectives, points of view. Priests need to listen to women especially, and to respect their unique insights and concerns, seriously taking them into account in decision-making.
Sometimes it happens that priests unduly guard themselves against, of feel threatened by, the considered advice and concerns of laity in general - man and women. This is wrong, and is dangerous, and is detrimental to the good of the Church. It is also against Canon Law, a point included in the Catechism:
907 “In accord with the knowledge, competence, and preeminence which they possess,
Thomas
fThe Iroquois solved this
fThe Iroquois solved this problem most creatively. Their chief was always male, but he could only be appointed by the council of elder women. Transferring this to church governance, it would mean that bishops would be appointed by the synod of old women and the pope by the College of Crones. I'd be more than willing to give it a try.
Hello frannie, That is an
Hello frannie,
That is an interesting tradition. I can see the human wisdom in it - although I think I'd try to set up some sort of input from both men and women....
Thanks for sharing that, however. I wonder how it worked out.
Thomas
As far as I know, it worked
As far as I know, it worked very well. It was the European invasion, European wars and the subsequent encroachment of European society that took its toll on Iroquois culture. Accordint to Benjamin Franlin, some remnant of their political structure remains in the idea of sovereign states joined together to form the Union.
Frannie, this is still in
Frannie, this is still in effect amongst the Iriquois and the other tribes of the Five Nations and it still works well.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Three cheers for the
Three cheers for the Iroquois!!! I love it.
It seems to me that what the
It seems to me that what the Church really needs to do is look at what Christ taught. It's a spirituality with many feminine qualities. Qualities such as compassion, love, forgiveness, and non judgment. In many ways Jesus came to save men, not women.
Women got His message seemingly easier than men did. Women had the courage to act from their belief and stay by Him when the men hid. Jesus didn't give His mother to Peter. He gave her to the only male who had the guts to stay by Him. The only one who acted from his love for Jesus and not fear for his own self. The same apostle who Peter was jealous of and competed with, in his almost stereotypical male way.
Look to restore a true feminine balance to the Church within yourself Thomas. Do what Jesus asked of you. Don't look for women to save you from your uncivilized male ways. Look within yourself.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Strange advice, colkoch -
Strange advice, colkoch - "don't look to women"? Why not? God gave woman to man, as He gave man to woman - will you reject God's gift, and insist, "No thanks, I'll do it myself!"
God does not want us to be isolationists, but rather to give and to receive gifts among ourselves in a communion of love.
You also strangely wrote, "In many ways Jesus came to save men, not women." This is profoundly wrong, although I suspect you meant it only as a rhetorical excess, an exaggeration to make your point that woman in general have a greater natural receptivity to spiritual things - a point I would not argue.
Thomas
Excuse me for butting in
Excuse me for butting in here, but Thomas, our primarily relationship is between ourselves and God. We are to represent God to one another and share the gifts he gave us, but we are not to assert that God has given other people gifts based solely on their gender and then demand those gifts be shared with us. You write as if you believed that God gave every and any woman to every and any man, and that therefore men have every right to expect that women will do for them that which they prefer not to do for themselves. That is silly and immature.
Thomas, in the end it is
Thomas, in the end it is about ourselves. We as individuals make the choices which effect us. You can choose to give me all the gifts you want, but it is up to me to receive those gifts. In that sense of choice we are isolationist.
My statement about Jesus coming to save men and not women was in some sense rhetorical, but it was also based on the fact that, as you say, "women in genreal have a greater natural receptivity to spiritual things." The operative word in your sentence is receptivity.
Receptivity is a characteristic which is reinforced culturally for women, but not for men. My point is that Jesus was trying to turn that notion on it's head. Receptivity is a critical aspect of humaness and not limited to one gender.
Jesus taught women that listening to their internal sense of truth was as valid or more valid than any notion of submission to an external male authority figure. This is especially brought out in the story of Martha and Mary, and with the Mary who annointed Him with expensive oil.
Complimentarity, in my opinion, is a spiritual trap for both genders. It's too limiting. It may seem to those living exclusively in material definitions of gender to be the RIGHT way, but in the life of the Spirit it's a real stumbling block.
http://enlightenedcatholicism-colkoch.blogspot.com
Thomas, do you know any
Thomas, do you know any actual women? What you describe is a characature based on what is found on television, which is itself merely one sensationalized example of today's woman. What I see, Thomas, in the real world, is men who are more involved in the day to day of their families. They are men who care about their children's feelings as much as, if not more than, their acheivements. I see men who respect their wives' needs and acheivements, instead of insisting their accomplishments in the domestic arts be the measure of their femininity. Men openly shop, cook, bake, clean, and worry these days, while women still do these things plus take the pressure off men by also contributing to the household's finances. Your problem I think is that women have changed, though not in the extreme way you describe, but you do not want to change in the way men have changed.
Marie, the caricature of
Marie, the caricature of television is not insignificant! It is our public education. Are you telling me that the medium and the methods of advertising that constitute a multi-billion dollar industry is based on a stupid presupposition - that TV does not sell? Are you telling me that the education delivered by the stupid two-dimensional models of popular entertainment are useless and sterile? I think not. And certainly the entertainment and advertising industries agree.
BTW, the model you describe sounds somewhat "unisex" to me. Do you intend to describe a unisex model? Do you see masculine and feminine roles in humanity as indistinguishable? That men and women differ only biologically, but not intrinsically or spiritually?
Thomas
Thomas, my initial reply to
Thomas, my initial reply to you has not posted, so I will try again.
I think men and women differ biologically, but not spiritually. In other words, this spiritual masculine/spiritual feminine thing appears to be overblown. I think it is a useful and somewhat poetic way of looking at humanity and God, but that from God's perspective we are just ourselves sans reproductive roles.
When it comes right down to living, people do what needs to be done, even though they may at some point in their lives have tried on whatever charicature was prominent in the media. Your cry of alarm cannot be based on what real people are doing. I think you are admitting that by your defense of television as a determinant of social behavior.
Thomas, I only see what
Thomas, I only see what there is, and I do not bother figuring out whether this is appropriately masculine or feminine. I did not make up how I see people behaving in their day to day lives.
I tend to think that our perception of what is properly masculine and what is properly feminine is varies based on what behaviors we witnessed in the male and female people in our lives while we were young and impressionable. On the other hand, what sells on TV, sells because it grabs our attention, not because it conforms to our presuppositions.
The differences I see between male children and female children is that girls' pretend play involves acting out relationship issues, while boys' play tends to be competitive and physical. However, when people become adults, their natural tendencies are put to the service of functioning in the society in which they live. Depending on the demands of that society, more or less of their natural impulses may be engaged, but they do not limit or predetermine what people can accomplish.
Who is this 'we' who bend
Who is this 'we' who bend women towards this terrible image, who want "pseudo-women made in the image of pseudo-man", etc.,etc? Sounds like the answer is in the first sentence: "the man". So "we"(men) are invited to remake "our" women to fit the model? Sounds a bit sexist to me. Even as a man it makes me question the reliability of the model and the leadership as envisaged. We (men) need women (as per 'the model")so that we (men)will not "degenerate into a pseudo-society of savages". There is something strangly illogical, domineering and traditionaly superior in this post.
Thomas, this is not personal but I guess yes it is in a real way. You have adopted the male-sexist, exclusionist model of fundamentalist Catholicism, holus bolus and speak it back to us. My intended point is that in the big picture you have described the hierarchical position on women in brief. It is mysoginistic in that it can't handle, is afraid of, hates real women, self-described, self-asserting and wielding human power, and equality in a feminin, nurturing way. It is exclusionary in the sense that women are needed like we need herds of beef, for protein, to keep up our civilizational strength, so we won't starve. It is ignorant and anti-social in that it does not listen, does not respect, does not seek to understand from the source but to project, impose and, yes, demand that woman conform to an image that may or may not be alien
Someone of the pietist bent will counter with the charge of sacralige - the model is Mary, Virgin Mother of Christ. But it isn't. It is the model created, sculpted and concretized (i.e., icon, idol, image) by a church that obscures its misogyny in platitudes of 'receptive' (to), 'waiting' (for), being 'the vessel'(of), 'obedient' (to), etc.,etc. And what is the corelative to these role definition goodies: the man- receptive to the man and what he gives; waiting for the man to come (arrive); being the vessel of the man. When one completes the sentences it blows the 'model' out of its water of sanctimonious male superiority.
I will seek to talk to Mary directly in the fullness of her womanhood and motherhood not the 'idol' created, dressed up and de-womanized. I will listen to the Chuch discuss women things when women share as peers at the table, at the altar, in the pulpit, in their own right.
Would you say that the
Would you say that the 'virgin' culture of Mary takes away from the 'woman' culture of Mary that has been overlooked? What are the ramifications of this throughout the OT and the church? Does it influence celibacy? Does it influence the church's thinking on the semi-uncleanness of the married state?