Teatime with Freud

[shortnun]

Bump for Hughey

[franciscanheart]

thank you shortnun. i will edit this for my reply.

[franciscanheart]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']I'm back from my wedding (not [i]mine[/i], but one I went to) and will attempt to address all questions/comments in an orderly and articulate fashion....[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
glad you're back.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Hughey, for the sake of continuity, I too shall try to keep my argument focused on American culture. Whereas you hold that a manipulation of roles in society and the household results in their weakening, I ask if it is responsible for us as a Church to limit men and women into (in my opinion) narrow categories? I think the Church is slowly coming to terms with the idea that they must address those members of the body of Christ who (for good or ill) no longer fit into the prescribed categories for men and women. [right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
allow me to clarify my thinking: knowing that the Church is the head of the Body of Christ, that She is supreme on earth, when i think i think more as the way God intended things, not necessarily what the Church has emphasized throughout history. I do not believe this to be a matter so much of the Church (still again recognizing that in the end everything will be) as much as it is human nature.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']My starting point for understanding humanity begins with the moment of human creation. The God-give free will and intellect human beings possess separates us from all other creation. The responsiblity that comes from such gifts (that of intellect and free will) is huge. It is from here that I further strive to understand the role that humans have in bringing about the common good, the Kingdom of God, and how men and women interact to bring this about. I do believe that there are tremendous similarities in the biological make-up of men and women. That having been said, I acknowledge the differences as well (sheer physical strenght and cognitive processes are two differences that come to mind). As for whether or not these differences necessitate or illude to predefined roles that are divinely defined, I am not certain. I see the Church's teaching of the complimentarity of men and women as one attempt to understand human creation and our relationship to the divine.[/quote]
I am breaking up your quotes for clairty's sake.

Okay... Acknowledging the differences men and women have from birth -- you say you see physical differences and differences in the cognitive process. I doubt you would say that this was not the intentional design of God for the man and the woman. How then do you come to the belief that these have no real bearing on what the roles of men and women possess? These natural differences would also create naturally defined roles, would you not agree?

You go on to say: "I see the Church's teaching of the complimentarity of men and women as one attempt to understand human creation and our relationship to the divine." Would you not agree that the relationship with the divine is the most perfectly designed relationship that there is? Unless you disagree, why then would you want to stray from the design? Why would you put pride and a feeling of necessarily needing to be accepted as just as good as the man standing next to you (in your eyes) in order to feel at ease?

I feel as though you are intimidated by the status that men have had in past times.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']When I say "human beings exist in a constant state of change" I am implying that human beings, by our very nature (biologically and thus from the moment of our divine creation), are social. We exist in relationship with one another (and with our Creator), not as individual, isolated entities. So when you (or someone else) implies that there is a deficiency in our current existence (this is obvious, as we are sinful) and that there is something to which we must return, I hesitate. I believe that the graced existence we live in drives us forward each day, closer to the parousia--where God will be all in all. So when something of the past, or of yesteryear, is cited as ideal, I worry about how realistic it is that we could "return" to that. Is that reality of the past capable of being a reality now? and so forth. It is helpful to look to our past (as a human race, as a Church, a nation, a person, etc) and to learn from our mistakes. It is dangerous when we do not learn from our experiences. Likewise, it is also dangerous when are naiive enough to believe that we could isolate positive aspects of history and bring them into the future without any (negative) repercusions.[/quote]
Hesitate no more! But seriously... when I say that we should "return" to a specific state, this case I believe I have said "natural state", I am implying simply the state we are born in. I will elaborate more if you need me to but mostly I want to clarify that I do not believe that returning to the ways of "yesteryear" would help society any more than cough drops help with a cold. That being said, I do believe we have done things correctly in the past and could apply those same principles to todays society. I agree that it is not practical to assume that we can isolate positive aspects of history and expect great things, however, I do believe that principles can be adapted to today's culture. I think it is also necessary to recognize mistakes in the here and now. Hindsight is wonderful but if we can self-evaluate and admit mistakes and be okay with anxiousness about fixing them then I believe we can do great things and make huge strides towards making our Lord the "all in all" of which you speak.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']As for women and men being equal and complimentary at the same time... by saying that men and women are complimentary implies that there are roles that one person has obligations in the relationship to the other person. This does not result, for me, in a partnership, but can result in a hierarchy of one set of roles being more important than another. Equality does not negate the obligations that one person has to another. It allows for a partnership between a man and a woman to not have exclusive obligations to one another (such as who is the "nurturer" or "protector"). Thus in an equal relationship where the roles and obligations are held in common and shared, both persons still find fulfillment in the relationship (as is the claim made in the complimentary view).[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
I am struggling with understanding why you feel so supressed by men's roles in our lives. I think it is fair to say that yes, complimentary would imply that each person has certain obligations or roles that they must play in the relationship. I do not think, however, that it is fair to anyone, the men or ourselves, to say that this will necessarily result in something negative. Could this result in a hierarchy and is that okay? Yes and yes. It says in the bible that wives should be submissive to their husbands. The man is, in the end, the head of the household. I know that a lot of women struggle with that issue and I see that as a problem in society. I see that as an indicator that something has gone horribly wrong in the raising of youth and what it means to be respected and valued. It is a humbling thing to be under our husbands and a very beautiful thing. Now things of course change in the workplace and that is something that of course has changed because of the number of women in the workforce today.

I will quote you again for clarity: "Equality does not negate the obligations that one person has to another. It allows for a partnership between a man and a woman to not have exclusive obligations to one another (such as who is the "nurturer" or "protector"). Thus in an equal relationship where the roles and obligations are held in common and shared, both persons still find fulfillment in the relationship (as is the claim made in the complimentary view)."

I do believe that much of what you are calling equality is found in "the complimentary view". Complimentary does not automatically cancel out the relationship's communication. It takes two people to make it work and in order to have a healthy relationship the two must work together on just about everything. I do not believe though that natural roles or established roles could hinder this. Could the roles be pushed to the extreme that there is a chance of hinderance? Of course. There is with anything. However I would disagree with you if you said that any establishment of roles, flexible or not, would hinder the relationship and establish a negative hierarchy.

One example that comes quickly to mind is the guitar. The left hand is in charge of the neck, placing fingers on specific strings at specific frets. The right hand is in charge of the strum and guides the piece along. Together, positioned and carried out correctly, a beautiful sound is made. Without the left the right does no good and without the right the left does no good. They each have their own role in making the sound and each of them is important.

I would dare say that if a person has trouble finding fulfillment even though she is submissive to her husband, there are some issues that go back again to society's view of supression of women. Submission is a beautiful thing.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Certainly such questions, when done in pursuit of the truth, are not foolish. And if they are, then we can start a "geniuses Club" together. I too am enjoying all those involved and contributing to this conversation.[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
Thanks. For the record: I am still enjoying this conversation even though I had to wait for a good time mentally to sit down and reply.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Socrates, my own opinions and understanding about men and women and their roles toward spreading the Kingdom of Heaven remain unformed as pertains to complimentary and equal views of sexuality. Conversations such as this, that are genuine in their search for the truth, are helping my in my pursuit. In my understanding it is the complimentary view of sexuality that is the basis for the Church's teachings on family and society. My questioning of this teaching is done with a hope that I will better understand it and the implications (positive and negative) that come about as a result.[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right][/quote]
Such a search as this for the truth behind it all is awesome. It definitely wins my admiration and respect.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 12:21 PM']Birgitta, I do not necessarily think that complimentarity precludes equality.

However, I do think that complimentarity can lead to an implied hierarchy that I am uncomfortable with. I would emphasis new definitions of such terms whereby [i]an understanding of equality includes a fulfillment of personhood[/i] in another.
[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I do believe that the complimentary roles include such that you wish to see. I hope that through this conversation you will see more and more the equality that helps to strengthen the complimentarity of the sexes together in a relationship.


phew... im done. i look forward to reading your response! (i do apologize for taking so long)

[franciscanheart]

okay maybe not quite... haha.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:06 PM']Raphael, you're correct in that the Holy Trinity is comprised of co-equal beings (and is without sex and gender  : ).

Part of the point I want to make is that [u]both [/u]complimentarity [u]and[/u] equality can lead to [b]inequality[/b]. And because I'm arguing the other side of the coin in this conversation (and trying to develop my own thoughts on the matter), I want to propose that humanity remains interdependant on one another to further the message of the Gospel. I am not 100% comfortable saying that men and women must be seen as complimentary to one another. Men need not be dependant on women, nor women on men for salvation, a satisfying life, etc. However, men and women are called into relationship with one another and the Divine Creator to bring about the Kingdom of God here and now.

According to [url="http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/hierarchy"]Merriam-Webster, hierarchy has five definitions.[/url] In my previous posts, I am using the fourth.
[right][snapback]850901[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I will agree with you in that I think it is unhealthy for men or women to feel as though they are completely dependent upon the opposite sex in order to have a fulfilling life or to reach salvation. However, in saying that it is also necessary to point out that the relationship between a man and a woman could potentially help a great deal in reaching salvation. After all, is it not the responsibility of the spouse to help the other get to Heaven?

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 05:23 PM']Yes yes, I'm not Unitarian. I'm down with three in one.
Both the position that men and women are complementary, and the view that they are equal, can become disordered to the point where individuals are not valued for the contributions they make to a relationship.

Recently I've argued that in some complementary relationships for there tends to be an inequality (or a hiearachy) of one person over another. Some more recent posts have asked if I think complementary relationships cannot be equal. My response to the wording we're currently using to describe complementarity is that complementarity does preclude equality. Equality of the sexes does result in fulfillment if the relationship is healthly. But in an equal view, men and women are not necessary for fulfillment.
[right][snapback]850939[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I believe that hierarchies, in certain cases, can be unhealthy and detrimental to the relationship. However, I do not believe this to be the case is every situation or even the majority of situations, especially when the couple has good values. Each relationship must be evaluated based on morals and mental health of course but I do believe a relationship can be successful with the "hierarchy" in place.

Also, I would like to point out that many of the things you claim are missing from the "complimentary view", in my opinion, are not. Complimentary sexes would exclude the possibility of a single life, excluding the priesthood, convents and monastaries. This is simply not the case. We are whole in and of ourselves without the other sex but there is a different kind of union, a different kind of wholeness, that stems from the joining of the two that is, in my opinion, quite undeniable.

[franciscanheart]

bump for shortnun when she returns

[Socrates]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 9 2006, 11:21 AM']I do not fully understand what you mean by "modern social movements" that you say work in opposition to the Church's teaching of complimentary sexuality. Yes, I acknowledge that some feminist and even economic and political views do not support the teachings of the Church. But at the same time, I know that those movements have at times called to the Church to acknowledge its short comings and have brought about much needed reforms.
[/i] in another.
[right][snapback]850433[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This post shows serious problems in your thinking.

You see the Church's teachings as having "shortcomings" which need to be "corrected" by the teachings of liberalism and feminism.

Rather than reject the wisdom of the Church when it conflicts with feminist ideology, you should strive to understand Church teaching and conform your own ideas to it.

Following the teaching of the Church brings about harmony and joy.
Feminism and other false ideologies have brought about the breakdown of the family and morality and social disentigration.

The modern social movements of which I speak are:

1) The "sexual revolution," spurred by contraception and abortion, which has helped break down the complimentary nature of the sexes. Man and wife are no longer in the complimentary union of marriage and raising of children, but are now "independent," "equal" "partners" at each other's disposal, serving only the purpose of gratifying one another's lust.

2) Feminism, which seeks to give women a false "equality" with men, and pridefully spurns the role of wife and mother. Feminists seek "equality" with men by trying to become the same as men, and independent of men, rejecting the beauty of their feminine role as man's help-mate, but setting themselves up as rivals and enemies of men.
Abortion becomes a "woman's right."

3) The homosexual "rights" movement, which rejects the complimentary role of the sexes entirely. Since the two sexes are no longer complimentary, and men and women are "freed" from their natural roles as mother and father, why should they need each other at all, if they do not desire? This is uncomplimentary "equality" taken to its logical extreme. It now makes no difference in one's life whether one is a man or a woman.

These movements are all related. God created the human race man and woman for a reason, and he created woman to be man's help-mate.

If the two sexes were not created to be complimentary, there would be no reason to create man and woman.

[franciscanheart]

bump for shortnun for the morning. good morning everyone.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[img]http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/uploads/av-657.jpg[/img]

[shortnun]

I'm off to stuff folders and make photocopies at work.... but I'll be able to responsd this afternoon. And, I can only imagine that L_D's post means he's sitting in and listening to our conversation.... super!

Happy day to you all...

[Laudate_Dominum]

[shortnun]

My goal in my reply is to be both articulate and respond directly to what has already been asserted:

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']Okay... Acknowledging the differences men and women have from birth -- you say you see physical differences and differences in the cognitive process. I doubt you would say that this was not the intentional design of God for the man and the woman. How then do you come to the belief that these have no real bearing on what the roles of men and women possess? These natural differences would also create naturally defined roles, would you not agree?
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Complementarity begins with what separates men and women. Chromosomal differences identify us as male and female bodies. I do not believe, however, that chromosomes (or the Divine) identify us as either “masculine” or “feminine.” I reiterate my belief that genders are historical and social constructs. My question then is: ought we place such ontological meaning on the chromosomal differences of sex?

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']You go on to say: "I see the Church's teaching of the complimentarily of men and women as one attempt to understand human creation and our relationship to the divine." Would you not agree that the relationship with the divine is the most perfectly designed relationship that there is? Unless you disagree, why then would you want to stray from the design? Why would you put pride and a feeling of necessarily needing to be accepted as just as good as the man standing next to you (in your eyes) in order to feel at ease?

I feel as though you are intimidated by the status that men have had in past time.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I believe that by our very creation—of enfleshed beings—made in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of truly entering into (in part now, and fully after death) the greatest relationship of all—that of the Triune God. It is relationship of friendship as seen in the Godhead that I wish to imitate most.

My question to a man would be, “Do you need to feel better than the woman next to you in order to feel at ease?” My desire to be accepted as equal as the man or woman next to be stems from my belief that we are ontologically equal. What you detect as intimidation of men’s status in history is not so much intimidation as it is, perhaps, discomfort.

In my opinion, the complementarity view places too great of an emphasis on the genital differences (consequently, reproductive responsibilities) between men and women. For me, sexual characteristics and behaviors do not need to show divisions between people. If what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman, are constructed socially, then why are we correlating them with biology?

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']Hesitate no more! But seriously... when I say that we should "return" to a specific state, this case I believe I have said "natural state", I am implying simply the state we are born in. I will elaborate more if you need me to but mostly I want to clarify that I do not believe that returning to the ways of "yesteryear" would help society any more than cough drops help with a cold. That being said, I do believe we have done things correctly in the past and could apply those same principles to today’s society. I agree that it is not practical to assume that we can isolate positive aspects of history and expect great things, however, I do believe that principles can be adapted to today's culture. I think it is also necessary to recognize mistakes in the here and now. Hindsight is wonderful but if we can self-evaluate and admit mistakes and be okay with anxiousness about fixing them then I believe we can do great things and make huge strides towards making our Lord the "all in all" of which you speak.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I’m glad, hughey, that you and I are at a state where we can acknowledge the dangers of uprooting previous historical behaviors and replanting them in the present.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']I am struggling with understanding why you feel so suppressed by men's roles in our lives. I think it is fair to say that yes, Complementarity would imply that each person has certain obligations or roles that they must play in the relationship. I do not think, however, that it is fair to anyone, the men or ourselves, to say that this will necessarily result in something negative. Could this result in a hierarchy and is that okay? Yes and yes. It says in the bible that wives should be submissive to their husbands. The man is, in the end, the head of the household. I know that a lot of women struggle with that issue and I see that as a problem in society. I see that as an indicator that something has gone horribly wrong in the raising of youth and what it means to be respected and valued. It is a humbling thing to be under our husbands and a very beautiful thing. Now things of course change in the workplace and that is something that of course has changed because of the number of women in the workforce today.
[right][snapback]851616[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
In my mind, there is no “good hierarchy.” I think that by separating men and women—by historically emphasizing the differences—the effects have been detrimental to both men and women. By saying a woman is to be “receptive” and a man is to be “active,” women have not developed positively as whole beings. Nor would I say such logic has contributed to a holistic development of men. There are men who still believe that anger and physical violence are the only appropriate and successful ways for them to express emotion and resolve conflict.

I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:28 PM']I will quote you again for clarity: "Equality does not negate the obligations that one person has to another. It allows for a partnership between a man and a woman to not have exclusive obligations to one another (such as who is the "nurturer" or "protector"). Thus in an equal relationship where the roles and obligations are held in common and shared, both persons still find fulfillment in the relationship (as is the claim made in the Complementarity view)."

I do believe that much of what you are calling equality is found in "the complimentarity view". Complimentarity does not automatically cancel out the relationship's communication. It takes two people to make it work and in order to have a healthy relationship the two must work together on just about everything. I do not believe though that natural roles or established roles could hinder this. Could the roles be pushed to the extreme that there is a chance of hindrance? Of course. There is with anything. However I would disagree with you if you said that any establishment of roles, flexible or not, would hinder the relationship and establish a negative hierarchy.

…

I would dare say that if a person has trouble finding fulfillment even though she is submissive to her husband, there are some issues that go back again to society's view of suppression of women. Submission is a beautiful thing.
[right][snapback]851616[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
If I may, allow me to describe the view of complimentarity as “equality with distinctness.” Whereas you place the distinctness on chromosomal differences, and thus social differences, I would highlight the beauty that comes from being created distinct from the divine. We were given the gifts of intellect and free will.

When I say that I am unsatisfied (or whatever) with the complimentary view, I shall now wish to elaborate my desire for an equal view of men and women. The differences between a man and a woman, between two men or two women, should never be considered unimportant. Nor should we say that an equal perspective places less importance on what our bodies do. In fact, by recognizing the commonality we share in our bodiliness, we see ourselves as temples of God. Sharing bodies allows us to recognize and share vulnerabilities, our finitude, and to be mirrors of God for one another.

By beginning the common ground that all humans share, BODIES, we are able to recognize and acknowledge the relational life of God within each of us. The desire for God is within all of us, and it calls us into another person and into God. Then we grow to recognize and appreciate the differences in one another, only after first seeing the similarities.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:44 PM']I will agree with you in that I think it is unhealthy for men or women to feel as though they are completely dependent upon the opposite sex in order to have a fulfilling life or to reach salvation. However, in saying that it is also necessary to point out that the relationship between a man and a woman could potentially help a great deal in reaching salvation. [b]After all, is it not the responsibility of the spouse to help the other get to Heaven?[/b]
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[emphasis mine] Without a doubt!

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:44 PM']I believe that hierarchies, in certain cases, can be unhealthy and detrimental to the relationship. However, I do not believe this to be the case is every situation or even the majority of situations, especially when the couple has good values. Each relationship must be evaluated based on morals and mental health of course but I do believe a relationship can be successful with the "hierarchy" in place.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would probably ask you to define “success” in this case, but I don’t really know how productive that would be. I think I made my point above when I said that I do not hold any human hierarchy to be one in line with the teachings of the Gospel.

[quote name='hugheyforlife' date='Jan 10 2006, 12:44 PM']… Complementarity sexes would exclude the possibility of a single life, excluding the priesthood, convents and monasteries. This is simply not the case. We are whole in and of ourselves without the other sex but there is a different kind of union, a different kind of wholeness, that stems from the joining of the two that is, in my opinion, quite undeniable.
[right][snapback]851633[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I too do not wish to understand human sexuality and human relationships as that which would devalue priesthood, vowed religious life, or the single life.

[shortnun]

Still attempting to maintain the atmosphere of [i]conversation[/i], I shall now reply to/for Socrates...

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']You see the Church's teachings as having "shortcomings" which need to be "corrected" by the teachings of liberalism and feminism.

Rather than reject the wisdom of the Church when it conflicts with feminist ideology, you should strive to understand Church teaching and conform your own ideas to it.
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Please understand me: Both “liberalism” and “feminism” have their shortcomings. But the Church has room for improvement, too. By engaging in this conversation, I am making a genuine attempt to reconcile, and bring into conversation, the teachings of the Church with “feminist” and “liberal” ideas. The Church I am a part of, that [i]we [/i]are a part of, [u]does not condone[/u] blind obedience to its teachings. If it did, there would be no need for a well-developed conscience.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']….

The modern social movements of which I speak are:

1) The "sexual revolution," spurred by contraception and abortion, which has helped break down the complimentary nature of the sexes. Man and wife are no longer in the complimentary union of marriage and raising of children, but are now "independent," "equal" "partners" at each other's disposal, serving only the purpose of gratifying one another's lust.
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Please find that the position I have asserted on “equal” views of the sexes does not condone seeing the partners as “at each other’s disposal, serving on the purpose of gratifying one another’s lust.”

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']2) Feminism, which seeks to give women a false "equality" with men, and pridefully spurns the role of wife and mother. Feminists seek "equality" with men by trying to become the same as men, and independent of men, rejecting the beauty of their feminine role as man's help-mate, but setting themselves up as rivals and enemies of men.
Abortion becomes a "woman's right."
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Women are equal to men, and pride remains a sin all sexes are to avoid. Where is the discussion on the beauty of the masculine role as woman’s help-mate? A feminist philosophy where women are the rivals and enemies of men saddens me greatly. A feminist philosophy where women and men are seen as co-creators and partners in the salvation of themselves and others is beautiful.

Abortion is, in my opinion, indirectly related to the discussion on this thread, though I would be happy to engage in a conversation about it at another time.

[quote name='Socrates' date='Jan 10 2006, 09:27 PM']3) The homosexual "rights" movement, which rejects the complimentary role of the sexes entirely. Since the two sexes are no longer complimentary, and men and women are "freed" from their natural roles as mother and father, why should they need each other at all, if they do not desire? This is uncomplimentary "equality" taken to its logical extreme. [b]It now makes no difference in one's life whether one is a man or a woman.[/b]

These movements are all related. God created the human race man and woman for a reason, and he created woman to be man's help-mate.

If the two sexes were not created to be complimentary, there would be no reason to create man and woman.
[right][snapback]852246[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[Emphas mine] It does not make a difference (in terms of my salvation or how I am to live) if I was born a man or a woman. What effects my salvation and how I am to live is that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again for MY sins. I have been given a gift of a graced existence. What makes a difference is that I respond to that loving gift with LOVE.

THE END....



I'm very much enjoying this conversation. I thank Hugheyforlife and Socrates, as well as others, for their contributions. It may take me a day or two to respond, but I can't wait to read responses! God Bless

[Azriel]

I'm trying to digest this entire thread but I wanted to give a shout out to Shortnun for this:

[quote][Emphas mine] It does not make a difference (in terms of my salvation or how I am to live) if I was born a man or a woman. What effects my salvation and how I am to live is that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again for MY sins. I have been given a gift of a graced existence. What makes a difference is that I respond to that loving gift with LOVE.[/quote]

This is a really powerful statement. Thank you for it.

[franciscanheart]

just letting you know i am on and reading your post... very long! i am excited! thanks for responding so carefully shortnun!

[franciscanheart]

wow shortnun... you have truly outdone yourself. that was awesome. i must admit that i am not at this time ready or able to respond the way i would like so i am going to take a break (probably until friday night) to respond... unless of course that is too much time. i look forward to reading others' thoughts if they have them.

i will also admit at this time that i am at a loss for words. you make some really great points and things that i do agree with which makes me reconsider where i stand on all of this. quite frankly this view has only evolved and become one that i claim in the past couple of years. i thought i stood unwavering but i suppose its better that i do not. i will pray about this and think about it before responding again. -- mostly what concerns me is that i will give the impression that i do not agree with what you are saying or that i will agree to the extent that it would be presumed i had no feelings of nervousness about some of it. but again... i need more time to think about it all.

what an awesome conversation. i did not see this coming but it was a nice surprise!

[shortnun]

Hughey! God bless you... you're wonderful. Please reply at your leisure... and perhaps there are others who want to jump in in our lull.... after I get back into classes next week, I'll be on less frequently... so my length replies probably indicate how much less of a life I've had lately. :

As for me, I'm looking at how I understand human sexuality in light of the Church's teachings, and those of the social sciences. This too is only something I've really read about in recent history.

Awesome conversation indeed, the work of the Holy Spirit perhaps? :

[franciscanheart]

yes i too shall be on much less often. when im not in school i have absolutely no life ('tis better this way than what it used to be) so i have a lot of time to just goof off - or post at length to wonderful conversations. : anyway... thanks for keeping this up!


good luck to you in your schoolwork. st thomas aquinas, pray for us! okay... goodnight thread.

[Socrates]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 04:21 PM']Still attempting to maintain the atmosphere of [i]conversation[/i], I shall now reply to/for Socrates...
Please understand me: Both “liberalism” and “feminism” have their shortcomings. But the Church has room for improvement, too. By engaging in this conversation, I am making a genuine attempt to reconcile, and bring into conversation, the teachings of the Church with “feminist” and “liberal” ideas. [b]The Church I am a part of, that [i]we [/i]are a part of, [u]does not condone[/u] blind obedience to its teachings. If it did, there would be no need for a well-developed conscience[/b].[/quote]
You are wrong on that last part. As Catholics, we are to accept and obey the Church's teachings, whether we "understand" them or they agree with our own personal preferences or not. We must first obey, and then seek to understand.
We are not do disregard or dissent from Church teachings until we feel they make perfect sense to us. A well-formed conscience is one that is conformed to what the Church teaches, not one that simply follows one's own imperfect and fallible opinions.

And the Church is infallible, while feminism and liberalism are not (being merely human ideas). If part of these philosophies (or any other human philosophy) is contrary to Church teaching, it must be rejected.
The Church has no need of "improvement" or being "reconciled" to dubious human theories.

[quote]Please find that the position I have asserted on “equal” views of the sexes does not condone seeing the partners as “at each other’s disposal, serving on the purpose of gratifying one another’s lust.”
Women are equal to men, and pride remains a sin all sexes are to avoid. Where is the discussion on the beauty of the masculine role as woman’s help-mate? A feminist philosophy where women are the rivals and enemies of men saddens me greatly.[b] A feminist philosophy where women and men are seen as co-creators and partners in the salvation of themselves and others is beautiful[/b].[/quote]
That is what it means for men and women to be complimentary.

[quote]Abortion is, in my opinion, indirectly related to the discussion on this thread, though I would be happy to engage in a conversation about it at another time.[/quote]
Sadly, abortion is a major part of modern feminism and the sexual revolution. Its acceptance in society springs from the contraceptive mentality and the feminist rejection of motherhood.

[quote][Emphas mine] It does not make a difference (in terms of my salvation or how I am to live) if I was born a man or a woman. What effects my salvation and how I am to live is that Jesus Christ lived, died, and rose again for MY sins. I have been given a gift of a graced existence. What makes a difference is that I respond to that loving gift with LOVE.[/quote]
While this is true that both men and women may be saved through God's grace, men and women are called to live out their salvation in different ways.

For instance, as a man I could fulfill my vocation by marrying a woman and having children. I could NOT by "marrying" another man.
A woman cannot be a priest, though she can be a nun.
Men and women have different roles, and both feminism and the "gay" movement seek to deny this.

[quote]THE END....
I'm very much enjoying this conversation. I thank Hugheyforlife and Socrates, as well as others, for their contributions. It may take me a day or two to respond, but I can't wait to read responses! God Bless 
[right][snapback]853294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
My pleasure.

[franciscanheart]

Forgive me if I come back to these quotes a number of times. It has been a while since we have discussed this and I have been thrown out of my groove so to speak. I do have a few elementary thoughts here but if I come up with something more in the next couple of days I might like to revisit them. [oh and i will put bolded numbers next to paragraphs in longer quotes in order to correspond them to my own answers and make reading a little easier for everyone]

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM']Complementarity begins with what separates men and women. Chromosomal differences identify us as male and female bodies. I do not believe, however, that chromosomes (or the Divine) identify us as either “masculine” or “feminine.” I reiterate my belief that genders are historical and social constructs. My question then is: ought we place such ontological meaning on the chromosomal differences of sex?[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]What about when Jesus was on earth? Not denying his divinity would it not be possible for his recognition of the roles/genders/differences in sex to be used as proof that the Divine does recongnize such things? What about the book of Hosea which speaks so much of the roles of men and women? What about Mary, our Mother, and her role in our life versus God, the Father? "Masculine" and "feminine" as defined by genetic makeup may not be one of the features which the Father chooses to dwell on for our bodies are purely devices in which to live on earth and serve Him. However, I do not believe that He would have created us with such hormonal differences (which create different feelings and interpretations in men and women) on accident or that He would do it without some real purpose. Such a question has to be based on the assumption that genders are in fact historical and social constructs. I am not sure I have reached a point in which I would be willing to attempt an answer. Let me think about it for a day or two and I will come back with something.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM'][b](1)[/b]I believe that by our very creation—of enfleshed beings—made in the image and likeness of God, we are capable of truly entering into (in part now, and fully after death) the greatest relationship of all—that of the Triune God. It is relationship of friendship as seen in the Godhead that I wish to imitate most.

[b](2)[/b]My question to a man would be, “Do you need to feel better than the woman next to you in order to feel at ease?” My desire to be accepted as equal as the man or woman next to be stems from my belief that we are ontologically equal. What you detect as intimidation of men’s status in history is not so much intimidation as it is, perhaps, discomfort.

[b](3)[/b]In my opinion, the complementarity view places too great of an emphasis on the genital differences (consequently, reproductive responsibilities) between men and women. For me, sexual characteristics and behaviors do not need to show divisions between people. If what it means to be a man, and what it means to be a woman, are constructed socially, then why are we correlating them with biology?[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[b](1)[/b]I agree whole-heartedly and feel much the same way though I do feel the word "friendship" is weak. I have yet to find a word that fits though so it will suffice to say that I completely agree.
[b](2)[/b]Intimidation - discomfort - all seem to fall back on the same kind of interior desires in my mind. I think it is a more recently historical and social construct which causes discomfort in the female mind when these issues are discussed rather than a historical and social construct which has created gender and gender roles. The later I would say more appropriately fall under a category like instinct.
[b](3)[/b]I suppose we would first point to biology to recognize what is male and what is female. I would not necessarily agree that such a huge emphasis is placed on the reproductive responsibilities (we know who needs to do what). And if by sexual characteristics and behaviors we are again referring to the marital act then I would say again that a great emphasis is not (and is not necessarily needed to be) placed on such things by the complimentary view. If however, by sexual characteristics we are speaking of gender roles then yes, emphasis is placed on such characteristics.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM'][b](1)[/b]In my mind, there is no “good hierarchy.” I think that by separating men and women—by historically emphasizing the differences—the effects have been detrimental to both men and women. [b]By saying a woman is to be “receptive” and a man is to be “active,” women have not developed positively as whole beings.[/b] Nor would I say such logic has contributed to a holistic development of men. There are men who still believe that anger and physical violence are the only appropriate and successful ways for them to express emotion and resolve conflict.

[b](2)[/b]I have no problem in having children identifying their parents as authoritative guardians who are concerned for the well-being of their children. I consider it a tremendous tragedy when youth are raised with being respected or having values. It is humbling for parents to struggle to know each other more deeply every day, and to unite in their service to God (either with their children, with their work, or both). [b]The man is not THE head of the household. If there is a head, it is the Triune God.[/b][right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
[b](1)[/b]emphasis mine. I do not think it is fair to blame the seperation of the natural roles and insticts of the sexes for an unhealthy forming of a woman. I would agree that few women today truly develop a complete image of themselves as they should but I do not believe it is the sole responsibility of men or anyone for that matter due to the seperation of something so natural. I think women are degraded and less fully developed due to social ideas about weight, height, hair color, skin color, and other physical features which change depending on your region and still somehow determine "beauty". I would say that the "campaign for real beauty" by the dove company is not simply a good marketing strategy but a real recognition of a problem not based on gender roles. Men struggle with many of the same issues.

As far as anger and violence are concerned in resolving problems: it is not a problem seen only in men. In fact I have seen much more of this developing in a higher percentage of women that I know these days too. Gender roles do not necessarily define ones ability to solve a problem rationally nor should it be said that the seperation of sexes affects it. Until there is a study that says that unless all people are equal men and women will resort to violence and anger in order to solve problems, I would say that the majority of that behavior was established at a young age due to influences in biology as well as upbringing (not excluding the mother or sisters).

[b](2)[/b]emphasis (again) mine. I would agree with the end of that sentence. God is ruler and leader (or rather should be ruler and leader) of all of our lives. However, I would like to hear how you propose to run a household where the man is not the head of the household. I will hold off on my comments until that time.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM']If I may, allow me to describe the view of complimentarity as “equality with distinctness.” Whereas you place the distinctness on chromosomal differences, and thus social differences, I would highlight the beauty that comes from being created distinct from the divine. We were given the gifts of intellect and free will.

When I say that I am unsatisfied (or whatever) with the complimentary view, I shall now wish to elaborate my desire for an equal view of men and women. The differences between a man and a woman, between two men or two women, should never be considered unimportant. Nor should we say that an equal perspective places less importance on what our bodies do. In fact, by recognizing the commonality we share in our bodiliness, we see ourselves as temples of God. Sharing bodies allows us to recognize and share vulnerabilities, our finitude, and to be mirrors of God for one another.

By beginning the common ground that all humans share, BODIES, we are able to recognize and acknowledge the relational life of God within each of us. The desire for God is within all of us, and it calls us into another person and into God. Then we grow to recognize and appreciate the differences in one another, only after first seeing the similarities.[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]Reading this it sounds as if we share the same views but label them differently. I do not yet see anything in this snipet of your post which I would disagree with. I will think it over for it is possible I have missed something. But I would go out on a limb anyway here and say we feel quite the same on this.

[quote name='shortnun' date='Jan 11 2006, 05:02 PM']I would probably ask you to define “success” in this case, but I don’t really know how productive that would be. I think I made my point above when I said that I do not hold any human hierarchy to be one in line with the teachings of the Gospel.[right][snapback]853279[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]I am looking for the quote (I'm sure you know which it is) from the bible about women being submissive to their husbands and husbands being kind to their wives. It is hard for me to understand, knowing of these and other passages similar, how you could claim that a 'hierarchy' of sorts is not in line with the teachings of the Gospel. Another instance that comes to mind is when they ask Jesus about the coin which has Caesar's face printed on it. Here is a quote I found while looking for the verses. "We are not made for equality, but for obedience and worship." --C.S. Lewis

[franciscanheart]

I am really interested in this human hierarchy thing... you know, how you dont agree that it is in line with the Gospel and how I feel it is perfectly in line... ((yes this was an honest --but unnecessary-- comment used to bump the thread for shortnun))