Spiritual motherhood

[Gabriela]

39 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

not to be explicit but look at the human body... women are designed to be receptive, physically, and their virginity has to do (in part) with the absence of another being taken into themselves. 

Right. That's obvious. But we're all called to be receptive to the Holy Spirit, right? I mean, I just interviewed 45 priests about preaching and every single one said he tries to be receptive to the Holy Spirit. So vajayjay or no vajayjay—what's the difference spiritually?

I can't see any.

[Maggyie]

well, the Church feels our bodies have implications for our vocations. There's a reason why Jesus was incarnate as a man and not a woman for instance...

[Gabriela]

16 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

well, the Church feels our bodies have implications for our vocations. There's a reason why Jesus was incarnate as a man and not a woman for instance...

Right. I've read those documents. I just didn't find in them any clear answer to how our bodies have implications for our vocations (I mean, aside from the fact that we just stipulate that only women can be CVs and only men can be priests and deacons). I couldn't care less that it's like that: Let the Church stipulate whatever sex restrictions She wants. But I've yet to hear any cogent, convincing explanation of why it's that way.

I thought you were saying the same thing in your first post in this thread. Guess I misunderstood?

[Maggyie]

my point of view is that the "spiritual maternity" stuff (or spiritual parenthood if your prefer) is a bit bogus as far as treating it like it's anything besides ordinary, run of the mill Christian life. In my experience it functions as a sop to childless women to make up for the Church's relentless focus on the virginity/maternity dichotomy. Also as a sop to women who wish they could be priests; sort of a "well you can't do that so do THIS."

However, the "THIS" isn't anything approaching the dignity of priesthood or the feminine achievement of biological motherhood - it is identical to regular, run of the mill Christian practice, and seems a bit of an insincere project. 

[Gabriela]

18 minutes ago, Maggyie said:

my point of view is that the "spiritual maternity" stuff (or spiritual parenthood if your prefer) is a bit bogus as far as treating it like it's anything besides ordinary, run of the mill Christian life. In my experience it functions as a sop to childless women to make up for the Church's relentless focus on the virginity/maternity dichotomy. Also as a sop to women who wish they could be priests; sort of a "well you can't do that so do THIS."

However, the "THIS" isn't anything approaching the dignity of priesthood or the feminine achievement of biological motherhood - it is identical to regular, run of the mill Christian practice, and seems a bit of an insincere project. 

Aha. I see what you're saying now. I agree with you.

Although, I wouldn't say that the ordinary, run of the mill Christian life doesn't approach the dignity of priesthood (or religious life or consecrated virginity) or motherhood (or fatherhood). I definitely would agree that that's how Catholics treat it: We elevate priests and religious and mothers especially to absurd heights at times, creating all manner of vocational hierarchies that I think are silly and insecure. In reality, though—as opposed to in social practices—I think the regular, run of the mill Christian is in many ways more dignified than the others, precisely because s/he gains no recognition for his/her vocation.

[Amppax]

2 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Right. That's obvious. But we're all called to be receptive to the Holy Spirit, right? I mean, I just interviewed 45 priests about preaching and every single one said he tries to be receptive to the Holy Spirit. So vajayjay or no vajayjay—what's the difference spiritually?

I can't see any.

You don't think that there's a connection between the physical and spiritual? 

[Gabriela]

18 minutes ago, Amppax said:

You don't think that there's a connection between the physical and spiritual? 

Of course I do. I just can't see how physical sex, as a category, makes a difference for the spiritual. I'm totally open to someone showing me how. I've always got an ear open for good arguments or explanations on this, but I've yet to hear one. That's all I'm saying.

If you can give me one, by all means, please do!

[LittleWaySoul]

On 10/27/2016 at 8:15 PM, Gabriela said:

Of course I do. I just can't see how physical sex, as a category, makes a difference for the spiritual. I'm totally open to someone showing me how. I've always got an ear open for good arguments or explanations on this, but I've yet to hear one. That's all I'm saying.

If you can give me one, by all means, please do!

I think this is one of the areas of theology which has yet to be developed. I also think this is what Pope Francis said when he called for there to be a "theology of women" a while back. Especially in today's day and age, the spiritual distinction between masculine and feminine is an important one which I think we have yet to fully flesh out (no pun intended).

[Socrates]

On 10/27/2016 at 7:57 AM, Gabriela said:

 . . .

All that being said, I see much less distinction between the genders in Christians than I do in the world. . . 

Obviously, you've never been to a good Traddie parish.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Socrates said:

Obviously, you've never been to a good Traddie parish.

On the contrary, I've been to many.

[Amppax]

On 10/27/2016 at 8:15 PM, Gabriela said:

Of course I do. I just can't see how physical sex, as a category, makes a difference for the spiritual. I'm totally open to someone showing me how. I've always got an ear open for good arguments or explanations on this, but I've yet to hear one. That's all I'm saying.

If you can give me one, by all means, please do!

Well it's not just physical. I'm opposed to drawing a sharp distinction between aspects of the person. A person is male or female, and the various aspects of a person (physical, spiritual, mental, etc) are interrelated. 

That's not necessarily an argument, just a couple thoughts. The flaw I see in "I don't see how physical sex, as a category, makes a difference for the spiritual" is the view that these are separate categories, rather than interrelated aspects, of the person. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you. 

Of course, that doesn't give you the how. As far as that goes, I'm afraid I don't have an argument at this point. It is certainly something worth thinking about, and developing. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Amppax
Added last paragraph.

[Gabriela]

1 hour ago, Amppax said:

Well it's not just physical. I'm opposed to drawing a sharp distinction between aspects of the person. A person is male or female, and the various aspects of a person (physical, spiritual, mental, etc) are interrelated. 

That's not necessarily an argument, just a couple thoughts. The flaw I see in "I don't see how physical sex, as a category, makes a difference for the spiritual" is the view that these are separate categories, rather than interrelated aspects, of the person. Perhaps I'm misinterpreting you. 

Of course, that doesn't give you the how. As far as that goes, I'm afraid I don't have an argument at this point. It is certainly something worth thinking about, and developing. 

By "categories" I don't mean the different aspects of the individual, but the "categories" male and female. Even if we agree (which I do) that the whole person is male or female, not just their physical or spiritual being, one still can only say that the whole person is either male or female. Two categories. No more.

Hermaphrodites and maybe eunuchs present a bit of a problem there. But perhaps that's good: Starting with some confounding but classic cases like that could help Catholics figure out what it is about maleness and femaleness that (supposedly) corresponds to certain spiritual things like vocations or states in life.

Again, at present, I'm not convinced there is any such correspondence. I want to see the evidence first, not just assume it's there.