That Which Goeth Before Destruction
By A Simple Man
As far as Americans are concerned, the month of June has
become synonymous with a certain something known as Pride Month, wherein
deviant sexualities are celebrated, various corporations put rainbows into
their logos to commemorate them, and the attitude of “Celebrate, or else!” is
imposed writ large on popular society. (That June is also the month dedicated
to the Sacred Heart of Jesus adds a touch of blasphemy to these proceedings.)
With that being said, the connection of ‘pride’ with deviant sexualities seems
unfounded at first glance, at least in a moral sense; it is only thanks to the
Stonewall riots of 1969 (and the subsequent marches and parades on the
anniversaries thereafter) that pride became a buzzword inextricably linked with
gay and lesbian groups (which, as time has gone on, has accrued more and more
aberrant sexualities, to the point where it’s become a joke at how long the old
LGBT acronym has become). To cite a quote from the National
Historic Landmark Nomination for Stonewall (which it certainly is, but for
all the wrong reasons): “Up
to 1969, this movement was generally called the homosexual or homophile
movement…in June 1969, New York police raided the Stonewall Inn, a bar on
Greenwich Village's Christopher Street that was popular with male homosexuals.
The bar's clientele took umbrage, and for the first time in history homosexuals
fought back. The police were stunned....Word spread of the spontaneous
rebellion and immediately the movement acquired a grass-roots appeal and began
to burgeon. Many new activists consider the Stonewall uprising the birth of the
gay liberation movement. Certainly it was the birth of gay pride on a
massive scale.” (Italics is emphasis mine.)
Since then, the association of June with ‘Pride Month’ has
only increased, especially after civil recognition was given by Bill Clinton as
far back as 1999 (Presidential
Proclamation 7203 — Gay and Lesbian Pride Month, 1999), and by Barack Obama
during each year of his presidency. Without a doubt, the very concept of pride in
this sense has been inculcated into the popular culture as a modern civic
‘virtue’; if one dares dispute its status, castigation as a civil heretic
awaits you from the secular orthodoxy. Woe to those who call good, evil; and
evil, good!
Introibo has already published a
post on the sheer statistical evidence regarding the physical and mental
problems associated with the deviant behaviors and lifestyles of the LGBTQ+
movement; however, it would behoove us to investigate the lessons of moral
theology with regards to pride, since it is a commonly held sentiment in many
other aspects beyond the inherently impure manner of Pride Month (such as pride
in one’s accomplishments, being proud of one’s family or country, and so
forth). After all, Pope St. Gregory the Great famously labelled pride the “queen and mother of all the vices,”
so we should be especially on guard against it.
What is pride? Per the Catholic Encyclopedia,
it is “the excessive love of
one’s own excellence.” It does not take long to see how this definition
applies to the modern celebrations of Pride Month, given the bombastic parades
and in-your-face behavior of those who proclaim their sexual proclivities with
such effusive gusto. But how does pride manifest in our own lives, wherein the
temptation to boast of one’s works may rear its ugly head?
First, we turn to the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas.
Per Question 162 of the
Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa Theologiae, which deals with
pride exclusively (all punctuation and spelling is as cited, save for certain
citations which have been truncated for the sake of readability):
- From Article 1, Whether pride is a sin, St. Thomas lists an objection with regards to how God promised to make Jerusalem an “everlasting glory, a joy unto generation and generation” (Isaiah 60:15 from the Douay-Rheims, rendered as “[Jerusalem] shalt be the pride of ages, the joy of succeeding generations” in the Knox Bible), so how then could pride be bad? Likewise, there is the objection that it is not a sin to want to be like unto God, and is not pride merely the imitation of exaltedness, where God is the most exalted over all? St. Thomas answers: “right reason requires that every man's will should tend to that which is proportionate to him. Therefore it is evident that pride denotes something opposed to right reason, and this shows it to have the character of sin…Pride [superbia] may be understood in two ways. First as overpassing [supergreditur] the rule of reason, and in this sense we say that it is a sin. Secondly, it may simply denominate "super-abundance"; in which sense any super-abundant thing may be called pride: and it is thus that God promises pride as significant of super-abundant good. Hence a gloss of Jerome on the same passage (Isaiah 61:6) says that "there is a good and an evil pride"; or "a sinful pride which God resists, and a pride that denotes the glory which He bestows." It may also be replied that pride there signifies abundance of those things in which men may take pride. […] Reason has the direction of those things for which man has a natural appetite; so that if the appetite wander from the rule of reason, whether by excess or by default, it will be sinful, as is the case with the appetite for food which man desires naturally. Now pride is the appetite for excellence in excess of right reason. Wherefore Augustine says…that pride is the "desire for inordinate exaltation": and hence it is that, as he asserts…"pride imitates God inordinately: for it hath equality of fellowship under Him, and wishes to usurp Hi. [recte His] dominion over our fellow-creatures."”
-
From Article 2, Whether pride is a special
sin, he answers: “…it may
be considered as having a certain influence towards other sins. On this way it
has somewhat of a generic character, inasmuch as all sins may arise from pride,
in two ways. First directly, through other sins being directed to the end of
pride which is one's own excellence, to which may be directed anything that is
inordinately desired. Secondly, indirectly and accidentally as it were, that is
by removing an obstacle, since pride makes a man despise the Divine law which
hinders him from sinning, according to Jeremiah 2:20, "Thou
hast broken My yoke, thou hast burst My bands, and thou saidst: I will not
serve." It must,
however, be observed that this generic character of pride admits of the
possibility of all vices arising from pride sometimes, but it does not imply
that all vices originate from pride always. For though one may break the
commandments of the Law by any kind of sin, through contempt which pertains to
pride, yet one does not always break the Divine commandments through contempt,
but sometimes through ignorance. and sometimes through weakness: and for this
reason Augustine says…that "many things are done amiss
which are not done through pride."“
-
From Article 6, Whether pride is the most
grievous of sins, he answers: “…on
the part of the aversion, pride has extreme gravity, because in other sins man
turns away from God, either through ignorance or through weakness, or through
desire for any other good whatever; whereas pride denotes aversion from God
simply through being unwilling to be subject to God and His rule. Hence
Boethius…says that "while all vices flee from God, pride alone
withstands God";
for which reason it is specially stated (James 4:6) that "God
resisteth the proud."
Wherefore aversion from God and His commandments, which is a consequence as it
were in other sins, belongs to pride by its very nature, for its act is the
contempt of God. And since that which belongs to a thing by its nature is
always of greater weight than that which belongs to it through something else,
it follows that pride is the most grievous of sins by its genus, because it
exceeds in aversion which is the formal complement of sin.”
The remainder of Question 162 is well worth reading in its
entirety. A good companion piece to also review is Question 132 of the Second
Part of the Second Part on Vainglory, since such is a daughter of pride.
Secondly, we shall turn to the Doctor of Moral Theology, St.
Alphonsus Liguori. Per Volume I of his Theologia Moralis (version cited
is the 2017 publication from Mediatrix Press, translated from the Latin by Ryan
Grant; all citations referred to by St. Alphonsus are redacted for the sake of
readability; all other punctuation, formatting, and spelling is as cited), from
pp. 460-464:
“Pride…is
a mortal sin by its genus if it is consummated and carried out, i.e. if
someone so desired to excel that he refused to be subject to God, superiors,
and their laws. Nevertheless, it is imperfect in a case where someone that does
not refuse to be subject to those whom he ought, only magnifies himself in his
own emotions, and it is only venial, as Cajetan and others teach…without
contempt of God and of others, to raise himself more than the just, it is not a
grave disorder: still it would be grave if it were done with notable contempt
of others, by being pleased with the abjection of others.
“The
daughters of pride are three: 1) Presumption [ASM’s Note: Not to be confused with
the sin of presumption which hopes for salvation without doing anything to
deserve it due to an improper and badly regulated hope in God’s mercy], which is the appetite for
undertaking something beyond one’s strength. It is commonly only a venial sin;
still it becomes mortal if it causes injury to God or neighbor, e.g. if
one were to presume ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the power of Holy Orders;
likewise if one were to presume the office of a doctor, a defense attorney, a
confessor, etc. without due experience…2. Ambition, which is a disordered desire
for dignity and honor that is not due, or due to one greater, such as if one
were to solicit a benefice or office for which he was not worthy, or illicit in
the mode and measure; e.g. by simony. It is a venial sin per se,
but it becomes mortal either by reason of the matter, from which, or by reason
of the means, by which an honor is sought, or by reason of the loss which is
inflicted on one’s neighbor. […] 3. Vainglory, viz. desire for inane glory, has
its end in the disordered manifestation of a proper excellence, whether true or
false. It is called vain, when it is sought for an evil, false, or fictitious
thing, or something that is not worthy of glory…such as from riches, trifles,
etc., or among those who do not judge rightly about a matter, or without a due
purpose. It is a venial sin of itself, but is often a mortal sin per
accidens…
“[…]
Pusillanimity corresponds to these three daughters of pride, whereby someone
lacking in confidence would detract honors, glory or a duty from himself for
which he is worthy. It is venial of its nature; and it becomes mortal if one
were to detract from something to which he is held under mortal sin.
“Thus,
the following are resolved:
1. Hearing praise for himself or another on a matter that is mortally evil, one
sins mortally if he would approve it, support, or admire it as worthy of praise.
[…] Disparaging another on account of vengeance not taken up, or some other
grave evil, or a sin that was omitted…he sins mortally because it is a species
of boasting and it is with approbation of sin, and the occasion to commit it.
[…] To exonerate oneself too much from a spirit of levity or vanity, in itself
is only a venial sin. […] To feign holiness with a will to not really have
it…is a mortal sin. […] To feign wickedness is a sin (because it is a lie and
certainly scandalous; it can also be mortal)…”
Lastly, we turn to McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P.’s Moral
Theology from 1958 (hosted in the
public domain by Project Gutenberg), and shall quote paragraphs 2557
through 2561 in their entirety (all punctuation is as cited):
2557. Pride.—Pride is an inordinate desire of one's own personal excellence.
(a)
It
is a desire, for the object of pride is that which is pleasing and yet not easy
of attainment.
(b)
The
desire is concerned with excellence, that is, with a high degree of some
perfection (such as virtue, knowledge, beauty, fame, honor) or with superiority
to others in perfection.
(c)
The
excellence sought is personal; that is, the object of pride is self as exalted
on high or raised above others. Ambition seeks greatness in honors and
dignities, presumption greatness in accomplishment, and vanity greatness in
reputation and glory; pride, from which these other vices spring, seeks the
greatness of the ego or of those things with which the ego is identified, such
as one's own children, one's own family, or one's own race.
(d) The desire is inordinate, either as to the matter, when one desires an excellence or superiority of which one is unworthy (e.g., equality with Our Lord), or as to the manner, when one expressly desires to have excellence or superiority without due subjection (e.g., to possess one's virtue without dependence on God or from one's own unaided merits). In the former case pride is opposed to greatness of soul, in the latter case to humility. The contempt which is proper to pride is a disdain for subjection, and the contempt which belongs to disobedience is a disgust for a precept; but pride naturally leads to contempt for law and for God and the neighbor (see 2367).
2558. The Acts of Pride.—
(a)
In
his intellect, the proud man has an exaggerated opinion of his own worth, and
this causes his inordinate desire of praise and exaltation. But pride may also
be the cause of conceited ideas, for those who are too much in admiration of
themselves often come to think that they are really as great as they wish to
be.
(b)
The
will of the proud man worships his own greatness, and longs for its recognition
and glorification by others.
(c) In his external words and works, the proud man betrays himself by boasting, self-glorification, self-justification, by his haughty appearance and gestures and luxurious style, by arrogance, insolence, perfidy, disregard of the rights and feelings of others, etc.
2559. The Sinfulness of Pride.—
(a)
Complete
pride, which turns away from God because it considers subjection detrimental to
one's own excellence, is a mortal sin from its nature, since it is a manifest
rebellion against the Supreme Being (Ecclus., x. 14). Such was the pride of
Lucifer, but it is rare in human beings. Complete pride may be venial from the
imperfection of the act, when it is only a semideliberate wish.
(b) Incomplete pride, which turns inordinately to the love of created excellence but without disaffection to superiors, is in itself a venial sin, for there is no serious disorder in the excess of an otherwise indifferent passion. But circumstances may make this pride mortal (e.g., when it is productive of serious harm to others).
2560. Pride Compared with Other Sins.—
(a)
Gravity.—Complete
pride is less than hatred of God, for the former has as its object personal
excellence, the latter separation from God. But after hatred of God complete
pride is worse disloyalty than any other mortal sin; it separates from God
directly, since it abjures allegiance to the Supreme Being, while other sins
separate from God only indirectly, since they offend, not from contempt, but
from ignorance, or passion or excessive desire.
(b)
Origin.—Pride
was the first sin, because by it the angels and our first parents fell, the
angels desiring likeness to God in beatitude, Adam and Eve likeness in
knowledge (Ecclus., x. 15; Prov., xviii. 11; Tob., iv. 14).
(c) Influence.—Pride is called the queen and mother of the seven capital vices—namely, vainglory (2450), gluttony (2473), lust (2494), avarice (2426), sloth (1322), envy (1342), and anger (2549)—not in the sense that every sin is the result of pride (for many persons sin from ignorance, passion, etc.), but in the sense that the inordinate desire of personal excellence is a motive that can impel one to any kind of sin, just as covetousness offers a means that is useful for every temporal end (I Tim., vi. 10). Pride is also most dangerous, since it steals away the reward of virtue itself (Matt., vi. 2); and, as humility is the first step towards heaven, pride is the first step towards hell.
2561. Abjection.—The other extreme of pride is abjection.
(a)
As
a turning away from these higher things to which one should aspire, this sin is
the same as littleness of soul, and it is opposed to greatness of soul (see
2451).
(b)
As
a turning to lower things or to a submission to others which is unreasonable,
this vice is directly opposed to humility. Examples are persons of knowledge
who waste their time on menial labor when they should be more usefully employed
in other pursuits, or who permit themselves to be corrected and guided by the
errors and false principles of the ignorant.
[ASM’s Note: In this sense of lowering oneself for improper reasons or for
false pretenses, abjection can be considered an example of “false humility.”]
To summarize, the following general principles can be taken from the
prior citations on the matter of pride:
1)
Pride is rightly called the mother of vices because,
of its nature, it is rooted in aversion to being subject to anyone else,
be it God or one’s lawful superiors.
2)
A given manifestation of pride may be either
venial or mortal dependent on the matter which it relates to, the means by
which it occurs, and the effects it has on oneself and others in terms of
damage or proportionality.
3)
A given manifestation of pride is a sin either directly
(due to being related explicitly to the matter which one is expressing pride
in, e.g. boasting of one’s accomplishments vaingloriously) or indirectly
(due to one’s pride resulting in a defect or vice that leads to a sin of a
different stripe, e.g. through pride in one’s will, one is discordant
with one’s neighbor on a matter in which they should be in harmony).
As such, with regards to the modern examples of pride
discussed previously, we can conclude as follows:
1)
Pride, in the sense of those who speak of Pride
Month, is a mortal sin. For those who are not LGBTQ+
themselves yet still celebrate Pride Month, it is sinful due to expressing
approval and approbation for objectively impure behavior. In addition, for
those who are themselves LGBTQ+, the celebration of Pride Month is an objective
expression of their refusal to be subject to the natural law and the moral law
of God, as well as an inordinate desire to glory in their impure lifestyle
(notwithstanding their identification of such behavior as integral to their
very being, as though such impurity were an immutable part of their very
existence).
2)
Pride, in the sense of being proud of one’s
accomplishments (or the accomplishments of one’s family, one’s friends, and so
forth), can be sinful to the degree in which one treats such
accomplishments with undue proportion (e.g. crowing to
one’s co-workers about getting the Employee of the Month award instead
of, for example, accepting it humbly and without any fuss…or perhaps even
turning it down) and to the degree in which one treats such accomplishments as
being solely due to one’s own talents without regard to what God has given them
(whether it be natural gifts or supernatural graces).
3) Pride, in the sense of being proud of one’s country (i.e. patriotism), can be sinful to the degree in which one treats the ideals and actions of the nation in relation to the rights of God (e.g. the difference between the natural desire to protect one’s homeland vs. seeking undue glory by means of martial or ideological conquest; or, the difference between celebrating objectively good ideals promoted by one’s country vs. celebrating all of its cultural mores, even if they be at variance with the moral law of God).
In conclusion, the antidote to all manifestations of
pride is the virtue of humility: recognizing our total dependence upon
God without debasing ourselves unduly (e.g. by comparing ourselves to mere
animals, and therefore becoming like irrational beasts); restraining our
passions, and not letting inordinate desire and ambition inform our conduct;
aiming at higher things without thought to our own powers, but with confidence
in God’s help; duly esteeming our fellow man rather than ourselves, subjecting
ourselves accordingly without vainglory; and lastly (but not exhaustively),
understanding the duties which we are called to perform, according to our state
of life.
Armed with such virtues, what attraction can the false
gospel of Pride Month have, which glories in the false identification of sexual
deviancy with human nature? None whatsoever, I dare to say! For, as the Book of
Proverbs teaches in verse 2 of chapter 11, “where
pride is, there also shall be reproach: but where humility is, there also is
wisdom.”
With the current apostasy, people have become proud, they do what was once and still is forbidden, and they accuse those who oppose their disorders of being intolerant or backward-looking. How can anyone be proud of suffering from sexual disorders ? It is because they are deceived by the demon who makes them believe that it is good to be gay, and also by the Vatican 2 sect which encourages them in this bad way. It is not without reason that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed and the same fate awaits this evil world.
ReplyDeleteGood day off, Introïbo! And God bless A Simple Man who is doing a great job!
Simon,
DeleteThank you! I really need the time. I'm glad A Simple Man can handle things!
God Bless,
---Introibo
This month is dedicated to crying out to heaven for vengeance.
ReplyDeleteI'm intrigued by the part above from St. Alphonsus which says: Pusillanimity corresponds to these three daughters of pride, whereby someone lacking in confidence would detract honors, glory or a duty from himself for which he is worthy. It is venial of its nature; and it becomes mortal if one were to detract from something to which he is held under mortal sin."
I understand the idea of false humility due to a lack of courage but if somebody believes they are not worthy (even though they are) of an honor or a glory, nor believes something to be truly his/her duty (even though it may appear to be) I don't understand how that can be a sin. Did not many saints shun opportunities they were worthy of, such as St. Anthony of Padua who asked the Franciscans permission to give him simple lowly tasks and to remain hidden to spend his free time in prayer until one day unbeknownst to the Franciscans, the Dominicans had ordinations and St. Anthony's superior picked and commanded him to preach a sermon for the Dominicans. Out of reluctance and obedience he did so, and they were amazed at how great a preacher he was and to this day he is known as the hammer of heretics. Am I missing something here?
Lee
Lee,
DeleteTo clarify St. Alphonsus's point, he is referring to situations where (as a matter of vow, duty, or some other obligation that you are beholden to per your state of life) you are **required** to perform a particular action that you nonetheless refuse to do so out of misguided humility (which is properly called pusillanimity).
In St. Anthony's case, he performed the duties he was called to do with great humility, with a preference for those that were of minimal visibility; he was not **required** to deliver sermons as an integral part of his vocation. However, when his superior commanded him to do so, St. Anthony obeyed and did so to the best of his ability (regardless of his own personal reluctance); he did not deliver a poor, unworthy sermon out of an undue desire to be humble, but wisely spoke according to his own God-given gifts.
McHugh, O.P. and Callan, O.P. provide some more details on pusillanimity that I think will be helpful:
xxxx
2451. Vice Opposed to Greatness of Soul by Defect.—The sin opposed to greatness of soul by defect is pusillanimity (littleness of soul), which does not desire great things when one should desire them.
(a) Pusillanimity is sinful, because it excludes nobility of soul, springs from a lazy ignorance of one's own ability and worth and from a false fear of failure, and leads to the loss of great things that could be done for God and humanity. The Scriptures reprove Jonas, who fled from the great task set for him by God (Jonas, i. 1 sqq.), and the fearful servant who hid his talent in a napkin (Matt, xxv. 24 sqq.). Pusillanimity is not to be confused, therefore, with humility; for humility excludes the unreasonable or immoderate desire of excellence, whereas pusillanimity represses even that desire of greatness which is reasonable and moderate. Indeed, meanness of spirit may be associated with pride on account of obstinate refusal to take upon oneself what is commanded (Prov., xxvi. 16). Thus, Moses and Jeremias showed humility by their fears of unworthiness (Exod, iii. 11; Jerem., i. 6), but they would have sinned by pusillanimity, and also by pride, had they held out against God's charge to them.
(b) Pusillanimity is per se a venial sin (see 2450), but it may become mortal on account of its matter or consequences, as when one is so self-depreciative as to neglect grave obligations of correcting abuses. It is essentially more evil than presumption [ASM's Note: as before, not to be confused with the sin of presumption, but to the particular vice that is a daughter of pride], for it turns one away from things and pursuits that are noble, and is thus more opposed to greatness of soul; but radically presumption is more evil, as it springs from pride (Ecclus., xxxvii. 3). The dread of attempting great deeds or pursuits is sometimes no sin at all, as when it is due to inculpable ignorance of what one can do or what one deserves, or from a fear that overpowers judgment, or from bodily disease, or from a sense of inferiority caused by education, excessive repression and habit (Col., iii. 21).
xxxx
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Lee,
DeleteI don't know if my way of reasoning is correct, but I try to link this passage on pusillanimity by St. Alphonsus to the case of the unprofitable servant from the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30).
God Bless,
Joanna S.
ASM and Joanna S,
DeleteThank you for your responses. That helps clear up in my head what is meant by pusillanimity in its proper distinction.
Lee
Question (for anybody):
ReplyDeleteSay we are on the verge of having a major war and there is a draft, would it be considered pusillanimous for those eligible to be picked for the draft to dodge if they get picked? Let's also say in addition to this that the individual is a conscientious objector not just because he is afraid but because he doesn't want to fight in a war he believes is unjust or because he doesn't want to fight with transgenders or have women command him in battle. Are we to subject ourselves in obedience to such orders for the sake of duty and obedience or would it be considered pride to say no because you don't believe in who or what or why you are fighting?
Lee
It would be a sin to freely take orders from a woman. I Tim. 2:12-13. It would be more likely to be pusillanimous to go along with the draft. It takes great courage to stand against evil authority especially when it will cost you your freedom. Our duty is to truth FIRST! We don't obey evil commands. Besides, what authority does a fake president and congressmen have? The same as the fake pope. Congresswomen have ABOSULUTELY no authority before God.
DeleteSaddlery Tack,
DeleteI think you're taking St. Paul's admonition against women having positions of leadership in the Church hierarchy (as seen in the Haydock commentary for this verse, and Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 which covers a similar issue) and applying it too broadly. If were a sin to freely take orders from a woman *period*, then what does it say that the Catholic Church includes queens and empresses among the ranks of the saints? What of St. Joan of Arc, for example? Were the noblemen who commanded the French armies sinning by accepting her advice and guidance?
I do not think it prudent to take the Scriptural admonitions against women having authority in spiritual matters (especially with regards to the hierarchy of the Church) and apply them to positions of secular authority.
1 Corinthians 14:34-35: "Let women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted them to speak, but to be subject, as also the law saith. But if they would learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is a shame for a woman to speak in the church."
Per the commentary 'An Exposition of the Epistles of Saint Paul and of the Catholic Epistles' from Tuam's Archbishop John McEvilly (1818—1902) on these same verses:
xxxx
34. In the common Greek, “let your women,” &c.; your, is wanting in the chief MSS. Females are, therefore, incapable of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. It has been already shown (chap. 11) that there is no contradiction between the injunctions of the Apostle in this place and chapter 11. For, although in chapter 11 the Apostle only condemns the practice of women propheysing with unveiled heads, he by no means permits them to prophesy at all, even when their heads are veiled. It did not fall within his scope, in that passage, to condemn the practice of women speaking at all in public. All that he had in view was to censure the immodesty of female dress in public assemblies. The other abuse of their speaking at all, in public, he reserves for this place.
“As also the law saith.” The “law,” here, as well as in verse 21, denotes, in a general way, the Scripture of the Old Testament. In Genesis (chap. 3, verse 16), the woman is told, that she “shall be under the power of her husband.”
35. Let her consult her husband at home. Unless there be a question of knowledge indispensable for salvation, it would be much better for her to be without it altogether, than expose herself by going about to make inquiries of other men, in case her own husband could not instruct her. Of course, in every such case, the ministers of religion are the only persons to be consulted. “For a woman.” In the common Greek, γυναιξιν for women. The chief MSS. have the singular, γυναιειν.
xxxx
(To be continued)
(Continuing)
DeleteNow, for Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on these same verses from 1 Corinthians:
xxxx
Ver. 34.—Let women keep silence in the churches. Ambrose, and after him Anselm, say that even the prophetesses are to keep silence: (1.) Because it is against the order of nature and of the Law, in Gen. 3:16, for women, who have been made subject to men, to speak in their presence. (2.) Because it is opposed to the modesty and humility which befits them. (3.) Because man is endowed with better judgment, reason, discursive power, and discretion than woman. (4.) She is rightly bidden, says S. Anselm, to keep silence, because when she spoke it was to persuade man to sin (Gen. 3:6). (5.) To curb her loquacity, for, as it is said, “when two women quarrel it is like the beating of two cymbals or the clanging of two bells.” This might readily enough happen in the church if they were allowed to teach. About this silence enjoined on women, see notes on 1 Tim. 2:9. How much is it then against the command of S. Paul, against all law, right, and seemliness, for a woman to be the head of a church!
Tropologically woman stands for passion and lust, man for reason. Let the first then be silent and obey the reason. Cf. S. Chrysostom (Hom. 37 in Morali.). Aristotle (de Nat. Animal, lib. ix. c. 1) says: “Woman is more pitiful and more inclined to tears than man; also more envious, more ready to complain, to utter curses, and to revenge; she is besides more anxious and desponding than man, more pert and untruthful, and more easily deceived.”
Ver. 35.—And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home. Hence Primasius says that men ought to be well taught enough to teach their wives in matters of faith. But what if they are themselves untaught, as is often the case? Who, then, is to teach the woman? Primasius answers that they have preachers, confessors, and teachers to instruct them. Again, it is better for them to be ignorant of some things that are not essentials than to ask and learn about them in public, to their own shame and the scandal of the Church.
You may say that it is recorded in S. Luke 2:38 that Anna the prophetess spoke in the Temple to all concerning Christ. The answer is that she spoke to all in private, and one by one, not in a church assembly, nor in the Temple properly so called, for neither man nor woman, but the priests alone, were allowed to enter the Temple at Jerusalem. Anna, then, spoke to the women singly in the court of the women; for, as Josephus says, the women had a court distinct from the men’s court.
You may say again, “Nuns sing in their churches.” I answer that theirs is not a church in the sense of being an assembly of the faithful, but merely a choir of nuns. The Apostle does not forbid women to speak or sing among women, but he forbids it in the common assembly only, where both men and women meet. In this Cajetan agrees. Moreover, S. Paul does not allude to such public speaking as is sanctioned by authority, but that particular and individual speech which consists in teaching, exhorting, and asking questions.
Add to this that he is speaking of married women only, for he orders such to keep silence in the church and be subject to their husbands, and ask them at home what they want to know.
xxxx
It is certainly not ideal nor preferable for women to be in places of authority in general, given natural divisions between the two sexes and the natural gifts therein.
However (and I do invite correction on this if I am wrong), I do not think it is intrinsically sinful for a woman to hold a place of lawful authority in matters of civil administration or secular governance. As the above commentaries cited show, the Scriptural rebukes against women in authority are directed specifically to the realms of ecclesial jurisdiction, doctrinal teaching, and spiritual leadership.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A sin to take orders from a women? That would implicate every person who ever took orders from a queen, even a Catholic queen. That's a bit of an extreme I think.
DeleteWrong. No Church teaching or theologian teaches that ABSOLUTELY no woman can hold a CIVIL office.
DeleteNow, turning to Lee's question: there is support enough within Church History regarding the concept of conscientious objectors. St. Maximilian of Numidia was obliged to serve in the army per Roman law; however, knowing the pagan superstitions practiced in the army at that time, and fearful for the sanctity of his soul, he refused to receive the soldier's mark. For this obstinate refusal, the local proconsul condemned him to death and beheaded him with a sword at around 295 or 296.
DeleteAnother example from more recent times is Franz Jägerstätter of Austria; when Germany occupied Austria in 1938, he was the only person in his village to vote against the German annexation of Austria (which was nonetheless suppressed and reported by local authorities as being of unanimous approval). His work as a sacristan at his local parish church allowed him deferral from service for a time, but he was finally drafted in 1940 and conscripted into the Wehrmacht. He refused the Hitler oath, and managed to gain exemption to return home in 1941 as a farmer; alas, his delaying actions did not last forever, and he was called to active duty in early 1943. When reporting to his garrison, Franz declared his conscientious objection, and refused to serve (even as a medic). Imprisoned for dereliction of duty and undermining morale, Franz — who, having heard of Fr. Franz Reinisch's* fate, was determined to follow in his footsteps — was sentenced to death for sedition July 6, 1943; he was executed by guillotine three days later. His last recorded words were "I am completely bound in inner union with the Lord."
So with this said, there may come a time where — given the particular character and circumstances of the events at hand — where civil disobedience on your part may be warranted if you truly believe (based on the known facts available) that obedience would endanger your salvation, going by the above examples.
*Fr. Franz Reinisch (1903—1942), convinced by 1941 that Hitler was the personification of the Antichrist, refused to take the oath of allegiance when he was called to serve in the Wehrmacht. Upon the declaration of his death sentence on August 20, 1942, Fr. Reinisch is recorded as saying, "This convict is not a revolutionary; a revolutionary is a head of state or a public enemy who fights with fists and violence. I am a Catholic priest with only the weapons of the Holy Spirit and the Faith; but I know what I am fighting for." Early the next day, after one final confession and receiving viaticum, he was beheaded by guillotine.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Germany was fighting communist USSR.
Delete-Andrew
ASM,
DeleteThank you for the historical example. I know a lot of women would hate Saddlery Tack's response, maybe because of PRIDE but I agree with him. When men are effeminate they act like a woman and everybody knows its wrong, just as everybody knows it's wrong for men to hit or beat women one on one. Also everybody now is complaining that biological men who "identify" as women are competing in women's sports because people know it's not equal and yet due to our perverse culture its okay to have G.I. Jane's in the military. Men have failed miserably and because of their tolerance and carelessness, the LGBT and feminist have gotten away with their sick agenda over the years.
In saying all of that, I don't believe women should have a rank in the military which gives them the opportunity to command or fight on an equal level with men like today. I'm sure I'll be called sexist, chauvinist, or whatever but because of liberalism which is the real virus much deadly than covid or the experimental vaccine, we live in a perverse culture.
St. Joan of Arc was certainly an exception to the rule but even she didn't want to ride, fight, or dress like a man. Through her prophecies and secret knowledge revealed to her by the saints, she had to convince the king that it was God's will for her to save France. It's debatable whether she fought or was an inspirational leader. I'm not sure if Catholic queens commanded armies to fight but if they did, it was only because of the absence of a king. Is there any historical examples of Catholic queens fighting alongside her armies like that of kings?
Lee
Andrew,
DeleteGermany under Hitler was a national socialist country - this is precisely what the name of its ruling party (the NSDAP, that is Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei = the National Socialist German Workers' Party) stands for. They were leftists, communists, bolsheviks. Their "nationalism" was to lure the ignorant German masses, angry and upset with the post World War I socio-economic conditions (military suppression under the Treaty of Versailles, economic crisis, political and social corruption of the 1920s, and a general sense of defeat in the German nation).
Hitler and Stalin worked hand in hand, partitioned Poland anew in the late summer of 1939 (see the secret protocol of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact!). As a result, my homeland was attacked with no declaration of war on Sep 1, 1939 by the Germans, and then 17 days later by the Soviets. The failed German invasion of the Soviet Union took place in 1941 - until that time socialist Germany under Hitler and communist Russia under Stalin had been military and economic allies! They remained ideologically allied due to their respective bolshevism.
Don't fall for the so-called historical revisionism. See the facts for yourself.
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Andrew, please, stop that.
DeleteLee, cite a theologian that teaches we should not recognize a woman holding a CIVIL office.
DeleteI'm not a woman, by the way.
Men have pre-eminence over women in society, but that doesn't mean Saddlery's private and incorrect interpretation of the verse, barring absolutely all women from civil office, is correct.
One example of the Church recognizing a queen regnant is the 1851 Spanish Concordat, between Pope Pius IX and Queen Isabela II of Spain, where the Spanish royal prerogatives were recognized to have remained unharmed.
St. Anthony Mary Claret was btw the queen's confessor. Too bad for Saddlery that the saint took orders from the queen and recognized her authority. Too bad that Pope Pius IX appointed the saint as archbishop at the request of the queen. The saint ran away for a while from Spain to Pope Pius IX not because the saint realized that the queen was a woman after all, but because she recognized the unified Kingdom of Italy, until Pope Pius IX ordered the saint to go back to Spain and absolve the queen, not for being a female monarch, but for recognizing the new Italian secular government.
Also note that in King St. Louis IX's minority, her devout mother ruled France as regent.
From Introibo's article, "Calumniating The King":
"His [Louis IX's] extremely devout and pious mother, Queen Blanche, became Regent of France which meant that she could rule France by making binding decisions in the name of her son until he was old enough to rule on his own. She was the de facto ruler of France from 1226-1235, making her the most powerful woman in Europe, if not the entire world at that time. She was a brilliant woman, and made many shrewd alliances and deals with other nobility, ensuring that her son would rule over an even more powerful France."
Also in his absence for the Crusades, his wife Queen Margaret also ruled as regent.
That doesn't change that men have pre-eminence in society over women, as Catholicism teaches. It just means Saddlery's extreme position is false.
Andrew,
That's such a bad argument. "Monophysites were fighting against Nestorians." They're still both heretics.
"The Petite Église fought the Revolution" They're still schismatics.
But then, you said before that you like the excommunicated Nazi Leon Degrelle too, because he fought communists.
Anon 10:30,
DeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia: Women in canon law: “Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works: “Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.” Public offices are those in which public authority is exercised; civil offices, those connected otherwise with municipal affairs. The reason given by canonists for this prohibition is not the levity, weakness, or fragility of the female sex, but the preservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to woman.”
Hope that satisfies you.
Also I did not say I was against queens holding office but for somebody to name me a time when they fought in battles with men as did kings.
Explain to me what Tim 2:12-14 means "Let the women learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. : And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
Notice how it says "nor to usurp the authority of man"
Lee
I guess I have to qualify my statement since an extreme interpretation was forced onto my words. Women do have authority over themselves and property. I didn't say absolutely with all situations but with congresswomen. Mother Superiors have authority over their convents, which priests have to follow. Queens have dominion over their kingdoms. However, if we make exceptions for everything then you might as well throw out I Tim 2:12-13, which is what everybody does anymore.
DeleteWomen have been forbidden to hold public office by the Church. That's a fact! It has been so well practiced that it wasn't necessary for a bunch of theological writings on the subject. Men don't take orders from women. Those who defend women cops, military officers, governors, and congresswomen, etc. are not on the side of God and Scripture!!!! ST. Paul gives a natural law argument using creation. IT IS INTRINSICALLY WRONG for women to command! You most certainly don't see Our Lady doing so. She asks and suggests but never commands and if anybody has the right, she does. Take notice to the true Queen!
To Lee and Saddlery Tack,
DeleteI suppose the question then becomes as follows:
Suppose one lives in a nation or society that is largely unconcerned with or ungoverned by canonical legislation (usually due to being a non-Catholic country per historical circumstances), and a woman ends up obtaining civil power (whether it be through democratic, autocratic, or monarchic processes) such that they are recognized as the lawful civil authority (and the degrees of civil authority, especially in America, span far and wide from minor local bureaucrats to the halls of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court). In this event, would a Catholic be *committing a sin* by obeying this woman in civil matters on which authority has been duly entrusted to them?
My initial impulse is to say 'no', but I invite correction from Introibo (or anyone with more thorough knowledge) on this matter.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
ASM, I think your question is much like the mask issue. It might be a sin and it might not. It depends on the circumstances. Your question is answered by the moral theologians on cooperation with evil. I've spent a lot of time wrapping my head around it and it is a deep subject.
DeleteHowever, woman living as some type of commander as you mentioned would be living in mortal sin because the natural law is written on our hearts. We all know better, just like the practicing homosexual knows in his heart that he's in error.
When I was in the military, I once told a female lieutenant what she could do with her orders. I was about to lose my freedom in a big way, but the Lord delivered me. Since then I've made big decisions much like that one and the Lord not only delivered me, but greatly blessed me everytime for making a stand. I'm 100% sure that I'm on the money with this. I'm repulsed when I see women judges, officers, etc. just as much as seeing homosexuality promoted everywhere. The same argument is used for both situations.
ASM,
DeleteIs your initial response to say 'no' because you don't want to rock the boat? Not that I promote the Amish but do you ever see their women running for office or joining the military? If not, why do you think that is?
As to your question, I guess it depends on the circumstances. If a woman police officer tasered me and proceeded to pull out her gun for not following her commands, I suppose I would have no choice but to obey, unless I let her shoot me and possibly take my life. Does it make it right that she has been given this usurped authority? No it does not.
As I've said, men are the reason our society at large is where it is at, especially when the feminist movement became so bold. Feminism lead to the LGBT and now the few men who are still real men (not soy boys) are attacked more than ever if they dare man up by standing up for the right things. It's designed this way by not only the elites who want to depopulate the world but also by their father Satan who is the god of this world.
God designed men and women's proper roles. While women today are taught girl power in order to be on equal footing with men in every aspect (PRIDE), men are trained to be pusillanimous (daughter of PRIDE) so they let them take over.
Lee
A Simple Man, Lee, Saddlery Tack,
Delete1. A Simple Man is correct that "...the Scriptural rebukes against women in authority are directed specifically to the realms of ecclesial jurisdiction, doctrinal teaching, and spiritual leadership." While there are one or two theologians and canonists who teach women cannot hold civil authority, they are the vast minority. There are many examples of women in leadership roles, as one commenter pointed out, Queen Blanche [mother of King St. Louis IX], Queen Margaret {the saint's wife], and Queen Isabella.
2. From the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia,
"The Catholic Church has made no doctrinal pronouncement on the question of women's rights in the present meaning of that term. It has from the beginning vindicated the dignity of womanhood and declared that in spiritual matters man and woman are equal, according to the words of St. Paul: "There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). The Church has also jealously guarded the sanctity of home life, now so disastrously infringed by the divorce evil, and while upholding the husband's headship of the family has also vindicated the position of the mother and wife in the household. Where family rights and duties and womanly dignity are not violated in other fields of action, the Church opposes no barrier to woman's progress."
3. I agree with A Simple Man (and Saddlery Tack) that "It is certainly not ideal nor preferable for women to be in places of authority in general, given natural divisions between the two sexes and the natural gifts therein."
It is certainly not ideal. In 1916, Jeannette Rankin was elected the first Congresswoman from Montana as a Republican. She ran for Senate in 1918 and lost. She regained her Congressional seat in 1940. Neither Pope Benedict XV, nor Pope Pius XII, nor any Catholic prelate objected to her running or serving.
4. Theologian Cahill summarized Church teaching the best:
"...the Church pays a wise regard to the sentiments and customs of different nations and to the social needs and circumstances of particular times. Hence, no work and no study, for which women are not physically unfit, is discouraged by the Church, provided always that there be nothing in either contrary to Christian modesty, or prejudicial to the order and interests of the Christian family." (See "The Framework of a Christian State" [1932], pgs. 427-428).
5. A Simple Man asks, "In this event, would a Catholic be *committing a sin* by obeying this woman in civil matters on which authority has been duly entrusted to them?" For all the reasons enumerated above, I answer in the negative.
God Bless you all and thank you for the great discussions of issues in these comments!
---Introibo
Lee,
DeleteThe Catholic Encyclopedia: While, however, man is called to share directly in the affairs of the state, female influence can be ordinarily exerted upon such matters only indirectly. Consequently, it is only in exceptional cases that in Christian kingdoms the direct sovereignty is placed in the hands of woman, as is shown by the women who have ascended thrones. In the Church this exception is excluded, so far as it refers to the clerical office.
As you see, men clearly have pre-eminence over women in society.
But if you agree with Saddlery (as you said) that women ABSOLUTELY cannot hold a CIVIL office, how do you explain that with what the encyclopedia said above and when you said there can be queen regnants and female regents?
Saddlery,
No, there are no exceptions to the truth. The question is if your position is the truth.
"IT IS INTRINSICALLY WRONG for women to command!"
INTRINSICALLY wrong? Explain St. Joan of Arc COMMANDING troops.
"Queens have dominion over their women"
You proved it is not INTRINSICALLY wrong for women to command.
"You most certainly don't see Our Lady doing so. She asks and suggests but never commands and if anybody has the right, she does."
Pope Pius XII wrote: "Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth--and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul--let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and *****commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.*****" ("Ad Caeli Reginam," emphasis mine)
Note: "COMMANDS"!
In the same encyclical, he states that Mary is Queen because of being the Mother of God and because of her close cooperation in the redemption. She is both Queen-Mother and Queen-Regnant.
Also, if you happen to believe in some private apparitions approved by the Church, you do know that Mary COMMANDS! Our Lady of Guadalupe even rebuked St. Juan Diego for not following an order. You'll also know that the angels in heaven wait for her COMMANDS, especially St. Michael.
"Take notice to the true Queen!"
Correct!
Oops, sorry. Late comment. I typed long enough that I didn't see Introibo's intervention.
DeleteI do hope that seals the topic though. Thanks for the comment Introibo.
Anon 8:42,
DeleteI also quoted an old Catholic Encyclopedia answering your question in regards to whether women are permitted to hold public office. It said, that, "Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators... and canonists made the "prohibition not for levity, weakness, or fragility of the female sex, but the preservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to woman.” How do you answer that?
For fairness I'll explain myself the best I can. Queens have a different type of public office in a monarchical society as opposed to our modern republic/democratic society which is divided into many local branches of government voted by the people. We the people do not get to choose a king or queen, but we do get to choose politicians for public office. In other words, a queen knows her place and must act as a substitute of authority until a king can regain the thrown because that's how it is built. Women being placed in authority by citizens is not a good idea and I would say wrong, although now that our society has gone to pot admittedly I do like a handful of women in office. Women such as Majorie Taylor Green of Georgia and Kristi Noem of South Dakota, but should they be doing what they are doing? It should be men sadly, just like with everything else, be it the police, military, etc.
Should husbands obey their wives and treat them as head of the household? It's like the old saying who wears the pants in the family. A man I used to work with was from Guinea and one day he made a joke by mocking the song "American Woman" sung by Lenny Kravitz where he added to the lyrics "American Woman, they're going to take over" followed by a chuckle. He told me that in his country women are much different. He said they act like women and like it, whereas here many act like men or self entitled as if equal to men and can't get enough of it.
Lee
"How do you answer that?"
DeleteAs Introibo wrote above: "While there are one or two theologians and canonists who teach women cannot hold civil authority, they are the vast minority."
"Queens have a different type of public office in a monarchical society as opposed to our modern republic/democratic society which is divided into many local branches of government voted by the people."
Even if they are different types of civil offices, they are nevertheless both civil offices, which still means it is not true that women absolutely cannot hold civil offices.
"In other words, a queen knows her place and must act as a substitute of authority until a king can regain the thrown because that's how it is built."
I'm not sure what you mean. In Catholic, or rather former Catholic countries like England and Spain, the queen regnant was not required, even morally, to abdicate once they have a male heir in the age of majority.
Note that I am neither a woman nor feminist. In fact, I prefer the system of the medieval Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem, and England under the Catholic monarchs Mary I and Philip II, where the queen regnant shares power with his husband, the jure uxoris king.
Also:
Delete"Should husbands obey their wives and treat them as head of the household?"
Of course not. Scripture forbids that.
"A man I used to work with was from Guinea and one day he made a joke by mocking the song "American Woman" sung by Lenny Kravitz where he added to the lyrics "American Woman, they're going to take over" followed by a chuckle. He told me that in his country women are much different. He said they act like women and like it, whereas here many act like men or self entitled as if equal to men and can't get enough of it."
Then he's lucky Guinea is preserved from feminism, at least for now. Feminism is one of the core doctrines of the modern world. I don't think the antichrist will come before it's established throughout the world.
Anonymous June 29, 2021 at 8:42 PM
DeleteJoan of Arc didn't command troops. She relayed heaven's wishes.
Angels aren't men.
Our Lady of Guadalupe didn't command as you think but she is the Queen of Queens and has a right to command but She doesn't do so. She asks. Pay attention to that detail.
Saddlery,
DeleteSt. Joan of Arc led the French army in victory at, and relieved the city of Orléans.
She successfully sieged Jargeau, Meung, Beaugency, Troyes, and Saint-Pierre-le Moûtier.
Her troops won open-field battles at Patay, Montépilloy, and Lagny.
She led French forces into a number of stunning victories over the English, and Reims was captured.
She led her army deep into English-controlled territory to see King Charles VII crowned King of France.
Those are simple facts easily found on the internet:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Joan-of-Arc
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/joan-of-arc-relieves-orleans
https://scottmanning.com/content/joan-of-arc-military-successes-and-failures/#:~:text=Joan%20went%20on%20to%20successfully,surrendered14%20without%20a%20fight.
Take a look at this image.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e9/Lenepveu%2C_Jeanne_d%27Arc_au_si%C3%A8ge_d%27Orl%C3%A9ans.jpg
Why do you think she wore an armor and headed to many battles in the middle of soldiers with a banner if she was just some prophet?
"Angels aren't men."
Never said they are.
"Our Lady of Guadalupe didn't command as you think but she is the Queen of Queens and has a right to command but She doesn't do so. She asks. Pay attention to that detail."
1. Have you read the story of Our Lady of Guadalupe?
St. Juan Diego said to her: "Noble lady and most loved Mistress, I did what you ***COMMANDED***. Even though it was difficult to be admitted to speak with the Bishop, I saw His Excellency and communicated to him your message. He received me kindly and listened with attention. But when he answered me, it seemed as if he did not believe me." (emphasis mine)
As you can see, asking and commanding doesn't always contradict with each other. One can do both.
Why did St. Juan Diego say that she COMMANDED him? That contradicts verbatim what you said that she didn't command him, nor commanded at all.
2. Again, read Pope Pius XII's "Ad Caeli Reginam"
Pope Pius XII wrote: "Whoever, therefore, reverences the Queen of heaven and earth--and let no one consider himself exempt from this tribute of a grateful and loving soul--let him invoke the most effective of Queens, the Mediatrix of peace; let him respect and preserve peace, which is not wickedness unpunished nor freedom without restraint, but a well-ordered harmony under the rule of the will of God; to its safeguarding and growth the gentle urgings and *****commands of the Virgin Mary impel us.*****" ("Ad Caeli Reginam," emphasis mine)
Again, her urgings and COMMANDS impel us. How can they compel us if, as you stated, she actually doesn't give commands?
3. You said that "IT IS INTRINSICALLY WRONG for women to command!" so how can Mary have the right to command?
It's saying that she has the right to sin, but she just doesn't. That's not true and it will be heretical, impious, and false to say so.
Lee,
DeleteIt's not a matter of not wishing to rock the boat, but of legitimately trying to account for not only the Church's teaching, but also the Church's praxis throughout history (for there are many things that Church has tolerated within non-Catholic countries that she nonetheless forbids within her own halls, insofar as it goes to things which are not intrinsically immoral).
I say this because, at least as far as America is concerned, I can easily see a situation arise where (with regards to a congressional, gubernatorial, or presidential election) where the final two candidates are a rock-ribbed conservative with traditional moral values (who happens to be a woman) or a full-blown Communist (who happens to be a man). In that particular case, for the sake of the common good alone, I would cast a vote for the woman without hesitation. (But this is just hypothetically speaking.)
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Joan of Arc didn't command with authority. She probably did lead (go in first) but she most certainly didn't command as you think. You're reading into something that's not there. Banner carriers like Joan aren't commanders, they are banner carriers, much like buglers and drummers aren't commanders. They all wear battle gear but that doesn't mean they all are commanders. Your argument fails.
DeleteThe word command can mean request. Our Lady of Guadalupe requested that Juan Diego and that can be said to be a command, but not command as in an order. She didn't order Juan but lovingly requested. DID YOU READ THE STORY? Again, like a Protestant, you're reading into something that's not there by misinterpreting basics.
Learn how words can be used like worship. It can mean adore or honor. It can be said that we worship Mary, but you must understand how words are used. We don't adore her but we honor her and that can be said that we worship her.
You brought up angels as if Mary commanding them has something to do with women ordering men.
You don't see Our Lady giving orders.
Women can have jurisdiction, but under very specific circumstances.
You never see Jesus correcting the world for having women in subordinate positions only. You never see the Church correcting the "unethical" or "immoral" prohibition of keeping women in subordinate positions only.
But you just keeping arguing why women are equal in authority with men and you'll find yourself in hell. It's blasphemy just like arguing for the "right" of homosexuality.
Anon 6:44
DeleteIf men should not obey their wives as heads of the household (as you admit) why shouldn't it be any different with men obeying women in public office or even as a boss at a job?
If you are so passionate in believing that women can command in a place of authority and take office in order to lead, why don't we just start promoting the idea that it's okay in general and ignore scripture, the "minority" of canonists and continue on as normal. Will that solve the problem?
ASM
Why don't we just be tolerant as you suggest and vote for women as the "common good" without hesitation and ignore any extremes so that way more women can be police officers, judges, military commanders, and so long as they are better fit for the job? Nobody cares what men say nowadays anyways, so why not?
Lee
Saddlery,
DeleteEither you don't know how to read or you're intentionally twisting my words.
I have said many times that:
1. Men have pre-eminence over women in society
Therefore they are NOT equal.
2. I am NOT a feminist.
Now,
Why do you think St. Joan of Arc led troops in battle? You said she went first. But she herself said she never killed anyone!
"The word command can mean request."
Yes, you can command and request at the same time. But it's nonsense to say that command isn't actually command! What a world.
If you think that's just private interpretation:
1. Which "public interpretation" do you want to rely on? The Church? Did the Church interpret the private apparition?
2. Yours?
a. Why is your private interpretation correct and mine not?
b. Your private interpretation twists St. Juan Diego's words. "Command" isn't "command"?
We do adore Mary, but in A DIFFERENT SENSE.
Commanding can also be in A DIFFERENT SENSE, but it still means one has authority to do so.
If I ask a glass of water from, say my father, did I COMMAND him? After all "command" can be not "command" but "ask"?
"You never see Jesus correcting the world for having women in subordinate positions only. You never see the Church correcting the "unethical" or "immoral" prohibition of keeping women in subordinate positions only."
Yes, because it is true that women are subordinate! What's not true is your extreme position!
"But you just keeping arguing why women are equal in authority with men"
I never did! Calumny.
"and you'll find yourself in hell."
You know what that sin is called?
"It's blasphemy just like arguing for the "right" of homosexuality."
Have you even read Introibo's comment above?
Stop placing words in my mouth.
It's like you're just angry your position was extreme and wrong.
Lee,
Delete"If men should not obey their wives as heads of the household (as you admit) why shouldn't it be any different with men obeying women in public office or even as a boss at a job?"
It is not supposed to be ordinary but it is not intrinsically wrong, as said by Introibo above. There's a difference. It is not natural that your head of state is the head of state. He can even be removed from that office, and he can have his power changed. The same is not true with natural relations. The wife can never be head of the household while the husband serves him, just as the children can never command their parents.
"If you are so passionate in believing that women can command in a place of authority and take office in order to lead, why don't we just start promoting the idea that it's okay in general and ignore scripture, the "minority" of canonists and continue on as normal. Will that solve the problem?"
1. I am not "passionate"
I do not want to have women in authority. I never said that. Take the lead? Who said that?
I have repeated so many times:
a. I am NOT a feminist
b. Men have pre-eminence over women in society
2. Did I ever say we should disobey scripture? Did the Church allow the works of majority of theologians and canonists to clearly contradict Scripture?
3. Ignore "minority" of canonists?
a. Why quote "minority"?
Don't you trust Introibo, that they are indeed the minority? He said "one or two theologians and canonists". You might as well believe a pope can be a heretic, because one theologian, even after Vatican I, (if I'm not mistaken, it was the eminent theologian Cardinal Billot) said so. But I believe we both agree that it is NOT wise or correct to believe that a pope can be a heretic.
3. Are you saying the Church allowed the works of majority of theologians and canonists who clearly contradict Scripture?
If I need to follow an interpretation, I will follow them, not "one or two theologians and canonists", though you certainly can without being a heretic.
Anon 8:29,
DeleteIt certainly isn't "natural" for women to command or lead men in comparison to men being head of the household and being responsible for that role. Bad argument.
You say you do not want women in authority and are not a feminist and yet you keep defending the idea that it is not wrong for them to be charge.
I didn't say you disobeyed scripture but asked if it would be okay to ignore it and just consider it normal for women to do the things you have no problem with, namely being in command or in the lead in society.
So the "minority" of canonist are wrong just because the majority automatically is right? Is that how it works? A majority of "Catholics" believe Francis is the pope. Does that make it so? A majority of sedevacantist believe you can go against Pius XII's reforms to the liturgy. Does that mean they are right?
Lee
AnonymousJune 30, 2021 at 8:01 PM
DeleteYou are the one twisting words. Either women have authority over men or they don't.
Joan of Ark had no authority over men. She didn't command. Period! SHE LED WITH A BANNER! I never said she killed anyone. YOU'RE THE ONE TWISTING WORDS.
Command is not the same as an order from an offial. You'll hear all the time, "Is that an order?" Women aren't commanders. Get that through your head. If I'm an extremist, then so is God. He built it into creation and ST. Paul relayed it to us.
Everything else you say is just blah, blah, blah. You're just rambling,
Lee, Saddlery Track,
DeleteRead Introibo's comment above.
It is clearly not intrinsically wrong for women to have a civil office.
You disagree with what Introibo said on No. 1, 2, 4, and 5. Refute his points first.
We all agree on No. 3.
Specifically Lee,
The question for you is why did the Catholic Church allow all these theologians and canonists to teach that it is not intrinsically wrong for women to hold a civil office?
First, theologians and canonists are approved by the Church. Second, their works are approved by the Church. Third, their works approved by bishops can be placed in the Index of Forbidden Books. Are you saying all popes and cardinals in charge of that apparently missed all these majority of theologians and canonists?
Your analogy is inapposite. Did the Catholic Church allow all these "Catholics" to accept Francis as pope? No.
I trust the majority of theologians and canonists, and I trust the Catholic Church who approved and allowed their works.
Specifically Saddlery,
I never said you said she killed anyone. Back at you, it's still you who's twisting.
You never refuted Pope Pius XII who said Mary commands, but I won't cite any more sources since you'll just say "command" isn't "command".
You didn't mind Introibo's comment above. Try refuting all he said first. Do that instead.
Anon 8:11
DeleteIntroibo makes the assertion that the vast minority of canonist/theologians teach that women shouldn't lead or command. Other than Cahill, he quoted a Catholic Encyclopedia.
Let's go over what he quoted:
The Catholic Encyclopedia: The Catholic Church has made no doctrinal pronouncement on the question of women's rights in the present meaning of that term... Where family rights and duties and womanly dignity are not violated in other fields of action, the Church opposes no barrier to woman's progress."
Does this mean women can be leaders over men in civil affairs for the sake of progress? No. Notice how it says, "womanly dignity are not violated in other fields of action" How would women be violating their dignity in other fields of action? Notice how it doesn't say they can lead or command but it opposes no barrier to woman's progress. I'm not against women's progress, just against the violation of their dignity in a field of action that they should not be placed in. Otherwise why would the Catholic Encyclopedia say this: "Women are ineligible to all civil and public offices, and therefore they cannot be judges, nor hold a magistracy, nor act as lawyers, judicial intercessors, or procurators.”
Now lets look at theologian Cahill: "Hence, no work and no study, for which women are not physically unfit, is discouraged by the Church, provided always that there be nothing in either contrary to Christian modesty, or prejudicial to the order and interests of the Christian family."
Does this mean women can lead or command men in civil affairs? No. Women can work jobs that are physical if they like, provided there is nothing contrary to Christian modesty or prejudicial to the Christian family.
So the real question is if the Church canonist/theologians be the minority who teach women aren't not allowed to lead or command in civil affairs please quote all the majority of theologians/canonist who specifically teach that it is okay for women to command/boss/lead men in civil affairs. I haven't seen one yet. Please don't go off on a tangent about queens.
Lee
AnonymousJuly 1, 2021 at 8:11 AM
DeleteYou claim you're not a feminist and then argue that women can be commanders in military using Joan of Arc as an example. YOU'RE A FEMINIST!
You say I'm an extremist even though I clarified that women have jurisdiction over themselvses and property giving examples of Mother Superiors and queens. They just can't be in positions of commanders. Yet, you argue they can be congresswomen, etc. YOU ARE A FEMINIST PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
Refuting Pope Pius XII? I already told you about the different types of commands. I don't have to refute Pope Pius XII because I have no problem with what he stated. I already said Mary has the right to command because She is the Queen of Heaven, but She never does so. That's all. She makes loving requests.
You say men have pre-eminence over women but then argue that women can have pre-eminence over men. So which is it?
I'm only extreme to the modernist who rejects the natural law.
Whose the boss? Kamala Harris or her husband, Amy Comey Barret or her husband, Nancy Pelosi or her husband?
Gentlemen,
DeleteI feel it necessary to interject. I respect all the commenters, especially Lee, Saddlery TacK, and A Simple Man. The anonymous poster may be a long time reader/commenter or not; I don't know, but I respect his opinion and civil discourse in these comments.
In any case, I hope we can agree to disagree agreeably.
These two points are certain, and we all agree:
1) Women are completely forbidden to have any authority in the Church by Divine Positive Law. A Mother Superior may command the nuns under her charge to do something, but she has nothing to say to a man--not even a layman. Women may not preach, serve at the altar, and cannot be validly receive the sacrament of Holy Orders in ANY degree (deacon, priest, bishop). Women must obey their husbands as head of the family (unless he commands something that is intrinsically immoral; e.g., "I order you to get an abortion").
2. It is not ideal for women to hold positions of CIVIL AUTHORITY. Men are best suited for those positions.
(Continued below)
Here's where we diverge and how I answer:
DeleteA) It is not contrary to Natural Law for a woman to hold civil authority, because if this were the case NO EXCEPTION COULD EVER BE TOLERATED. Yet, we clearly see historical examples of Catholic females leading, such as Queen Blanche of France. The fact that King St. Louis IX could not rule yet because he was a minor in no way derogates from the historical fact that she DID rule, and ruled BETTER than most male leaders of the time (12226-1235). If such were contrary to the Natural Law, the pope would have excommunicated her and appointed a male regent.
Homosexuality is against the Natural Law. If several men are shipwrecked on a deserted island for several years, they may not engage in homosexuality or attempt to "marry" because of a lack of women and declare it some "exception."
B) The fact that Catholic countries did not allow women to hold certain civil positions is therefore AN IDEAL not a precept which admits of no exceptions. In fact, such a code could not be maintained in 2021 where there are no more Catholic countries. What if a majority of women were elected to hold public office in a democratic republic? Is that ipso facto grounds for overthrowing the government? Anyone familiar with Church teaching on rebellion against civil authority would know the answer is in the negative.
C) Canonists who held women couldn't hold public authority wrote prior to the 1917 Code which is the one that was last promulgated and has binding force as it was never rescinded when Pope Pius XII died. Neither the Code nor any authoritative commentary by the great canonists (e.g., Buscaren, Augustine, Ramstein, Abbo and Hannon) states or teaches that women may not hold certain offices. If such were the case, you'd better believe it would be mentioned. When women were elected to public office in the United States, it was not condemned by any bishop or Pope.
D) The dispositive teaching comes from Pope Pius XII. In 1947, His Holiness issued "Papal Directives for the Women of Today." In Section IV, addressing the women of the world, Pope Pius XII writes:
"There remains to be considered the domain of political life. In many circumstances, We have already touched upon it. This domain has several distinct aspects: the safeguard and care of the sacred interests of woman, by means of legislation and administration that respects her rights, dignity, and social function — THE PARTICIPATION OF SOME WOMEN IN POLITICAL LIFE for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all.
Your [women's] own role is, in general, to work toward making woman always more conscious of her sacred rights, of her duties, and of her power to help mold public opinion, through her daily contacts, and to influence legislation and administration by the proper use of her prerogatives as citizen. Such is your common role. It does not mean that YOU ARE ALL to have political careers as members of public assemblies. Most of you must continue to give the greater part of your time and of your loving attention to the care of your homes and families." (Emphasis mine).
The pontiff clearly teaches that SOME WOMEN can hold political office for the common good--but it does not mean they are ALL TO HAVE POLITICAL CAREERS AS MEMBERS OF PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES.
Since it is permitted for some women to hold public office (if it does not undermine the family), and such participation is good, then it logically follows that women are not forbidden to have civil authority over men because public office includes voting on laws that have binding authority over both men and women. Is it ideal? No. The pontiff reminds women of their greatest role in civil affairs, that of raising a family, and that most should be there.
Men should hold the role of civil leadership, but women are not thereby absolutely forbidden, and can help the common good.
God Bless you all,
---Introibo
Once again thank you for the interjection Introibo. I agree with both of your interjections.
DeleteI don't know what counts as a long time reader/commenter, but I've read this excellent blog and the comments here for around a year (so I was really wondering about Lee because I knew he was quite better than this).
Sorry for the way I sounded, I hate neither of them, though I hope by now they realize how unwise and absurd their position is above.
Hope this discussion now closes, but if I can still reply:
1. Lee, see Introibo's commentS above.
2. Saddlery, of course I forgive you for calling me a "feminist", but as I hope you now see after reading Introibo's comment, if I'm a feminist, so are the popes who didn't excommunicate queen Blanche of France, Mary I of England, Isabel II of Spain, etc., King St. Louis IX for allowing his wife to rule, Catholic canonists after 1917, the popes who tolerated them, and Pope Pius XII. (Yes, it him who also said Mary commands in "Ad Caeli Reginam!) Salve Regina!
As to your intriguing last question, I answer, according to the points made by Introibo above: I would say it depends. In regards to the State, the women have power (as Introibo pointed out, they can) given to them, but in regards to their homes, their husbands have power over them.
That said, if you're still not convinced by Introibo, we can agree to disagree, as he said.
DeleteBelieving that women absolutely cannot rule, though incorrect, is not of course heresy.
Anon and Introibo,
DeleteA king represents a kingdom. This means he owns that kingdom and everything is his. It's also the queens. Naturally if a family owns a property, they have rights to that property. When a king dies or is no longer king for whatever reason it is officially the queens. She has a right to her kingdom because it is hers just as if a father dies it becomes the wife's property. By nature they have a right to their property and have authority over it.
Also if a man sins, a woman has a right to tell him (command him) to stop. As I've said I'm not against these aspects.
When can agree to disagree, but if Anon is going to call my position absurd, then he would have to say the Catholic Encyclopedia from 1913 and 2 Tim 12-14 is absurd. To say something is not ideal leans to say I don't like it, but I'm going to put up with it. It is either right or wrong.
What it comes down to is not recognizing a woman's authority in a high position because it becomes inconvenient and it would require a life changing event for us personally which nobody want to do. I understand the hardship in this. Do we recognize Joe Biden as the legitimate president? But because it is not ideal we just go ahead and say so anyways.
Lee
Anon,
DeleteIf your wife (assuming you were married) was the governor of a state, would you say to her I'm the head of you in our household but when you decide to exercise your governance as you see fit for the entire state and I'll obey you without hesitation.
Talk about absurd.
Lee
Lee, thanks for agreeing to disagree.
DeleteI hope these will be the final comments in this convo, but to answer what you replied:
1. The Catholic Encyclopedia is not absurd, and it supports Introibo's and my position.
Introibo (and I) quoted from the same encyclopedia supporting the position.
What *you* quoted reads in full: "I. Ulpian (Dig., I, 16, 195) gives a celebrated rule of law which most canonists have embodied in their works."
As said by Introibo above, canonists *after* 1917 (when the 1917 code was promulgated) do not say that women intrinsically cannot hold a civil office.
2. For 2 Tim 12-14.
Once again, it is offensive to pious ears that the Catholic Church approved and allowed all approved canonists after 1917 to say something that clearly contradicts Scripture.
What is the explanation? Simple, it is only in context of Church office. Read Haydock's commentary for example. Even he didn't apply these verses to civil offices. I do not like privately interpreting Scripture, so I trust the Church, her theologians, and her canonists.
Trust the Church, Lee.
Another example, as Introibo said above, no pontiff, not Benedict XV or Pius XII, nor any other Catholic prelate objected to Jeannette Rankin running and elected congresswoman, or other women holding other civil offices.
Just trust the Church, and it'll all be fine.
Follow up:
DeleteI know of no law btw that states that the spouse is the heir to the throne.
It is usually the eldest son. In some Catholic countries, the eldest daughter was allowed if there is no son.
It's not natural, it depends on the changeable fundamental laws.
Spain for example allowed women. This changed when Spain became a male-only monarchy when the royal house of Bourbon ruled it in the 18th century. This was again changed when King Ferdinand VII allowed her daughter to rule. The Carlist wars followed, where the Carlists supported the deceased king's brother instead. The Church stayed neutral in the war, though majority of bishops supported the government of the queen. Of course, as said above, St. Mary Anthony Claret recognized the queen and was her confessor, and Pope Pius IX also recognized the government.
So it's not natural. It's changeable law, though you're free to clarify.
Sorry to make this longer, but you, Lee, asked: "If your wife (assuming you were married) was the governor of a state, would you say to her I'm the head of you in our household but when you decide to exercise your governance as you see fit for the entire state and I'll obey you without hesitation."
DeleteAccording to the points laid out by Introibo above, yes.
Also, once again, that situation is not ideal.
DeleteAnon.
DeleteI'm enjoying this discussion and I mean no hard feelings to you or Introibo. You both bring up good points to consider.
Still I have not seen any quote from canonists/theologians that say specifically that it's okay for women to lead after the 1917 code of canon law. Regarding Pius XII let's look at this again... "The participation of some women in political life for the good, the welfare, and the progress of all" still does not mean women should be able or be allowed to lead/command/boss men around in the public. It could simply mean that they can vote, work for a candidate, etc. Voting allowance for women was changed by Pius XII because Pope St. Pius X was against women voting.
The Haydock bible (at least the one I have) says in the commentary that Tim 2:12 refers to women usurping the man's authority in PUBLIC. So it's not offensive to pious ears at all and I do trust the Church. Again we can agree to disagree but as long as my points are clear that's all I care about. Just so you know.
You seriously would have no problem (hypothetically speaking) to be your wife's head at home, but not if she were the governor of your state eh? LOL. Talk about progressive. So what would you like to called? The first man instead of the first lady. The first man, as in the second in command after your wife.
Lee
Lee,
DeleteIntroibo's points were laid clear enough. Why do you think I, can convince you if you're still not convinced by his points and think it's progressive. If you're continuing it just because you're "enjoying" it (as you said you are), then I'm out. Discussing casually is fine, but if you look at the post by ASM above, you'll know this is not the place.
Last:
1. Introibo wrote: "Neither the Code nor any authoritative commentary by the great canonists (e.g., Buscaren, Augustine, Ramstein, Abbo and Hannon) states or teaches that women may not hold certain offices. If such were the case, you'd better believe it would be mentioned. When women were elected to public office in the United States, it was not condemned by any bishop or Pope."
2. What is offensive to pious ears is to say that the Church tolerated error in that scale you suggest. You suggest to disobey congresswomen. Which pope or Catholic prelate even said that? Nope, they all tolerated. And that is a serious matter, since it will be mortal sin to disobey authority, or to obey illegitimate authority.
3. Talk about progressive? As said, it is not ideal, but it is a problem if you disobey civil authority. You hate this analogy for some reason, that in some Catholic monarchies in the past, queen regnants ruled. What do you want, the king or prince consort to be exempt from the laws because he's the husband? Was that the case? With all that you said, at this point, I don't care what's "absurd" or "progressive" in your opinion anymore. "Second in command"? What on earth are you talking about?
Anon.
DeleteAgain, you didn't quote a canonist/theologian. You quoted Introibo. Which pope ever said that you must obey a woman's authority if she be head of something? Toleration is not the same thing. It's not a mortal sin to disobey a congresswoman or any women in public office who can make or decide laws. If so, then would it be a mortal sin not to recognize homosexual marriage? That's the law now across all 50 states thanks to our supreme court's 2015 decision (with all women of the court voting in favor of it [imagine that] at that time). That's where your logic goes.
You say it's not "ideal." Saying it's not ideal means it is not perfect or completely suitable. Why is that? Is it because there is something wrong with it? I wish you would be "out" because I'm tired of reading your responses. You just keep repeating all arguments that can be knocked down when looking at them closer.
Lee
1. Read: "[Introibo:] If such were the case, you'd better believe it would be mentioned." Since 1917, none? OK then.
Delete2. What's wrong with quoting Introibo? I already said he had the clearest points, and I'm not making any more. I'm just clarifying and answering your questions. Of course I'll quote him.
3. Also look above, Pope Pius XII, "Papal Directives for the Women of Today." (Section IV) He states that women can hold civil offices. That's not yet authoritative?
4. "Is it because there is something wrong with it?"
We've talked about this for days but you still do not get the basic arguments from the opposing side. Yes, there is something wrong with women ruling.
An imperfect analogy: Is there something wrong with communists and freemasons getting government offices? Yes. Will you disobey all their laws, even those not harmful? No, according to Catholic theology.
The above is only an imperfect analogy as freemasons and communists must not hold offices if possible. But this explains why Catholic monarchies allowed, though not ordinarily, females in offices, proving they are not ideal but at the same time not intrinsically wrong.
5. Basically: "Not to oppose error is to approve it; and not to defend truth is to suppress it; and indeed to neglect to confound evil men, when we can do it, is no less a sin than to encourage them." - Pope St. Felix III
In the scenario you suggested:
a. Congresswomen ran and were elected, and no Catholic prelate or pope, not Benedict XV or his successors, objected, thereby allowing much Catholics fall into mortal sin for obeying a woman.
b. Popes allowed women to rule in the middle ages by not excommunicating them, King St. Louis IX also did not object to his wife, and Catholics in France, England, and Spain fell to mortal sin for obeying a woman. (Once again, it is not natural for any civil head to rule. It can be taken away, even if illicitly. Civil authority is only natural in the sense that humans need civil authority, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia)
6. You said you were enjoying it and had no hard feelings to me (and Intro), but just after 1 reply after you said that, you're tired and you want me out?
We agreed to disagree, so I answered your questions, not to continue the convo indefinitely after Introibo commented (after all, if you're not convinced by his points, I won't bother, I can't make more meaningful arguments as he did above). Move on. See for example Saddlery. After Introibo's second interjection, Saddlery's not seen anymore, he's learned and he's gone. If he wasn't convinced, he knows he won't be, so Saddlery didn't bother any longer.
Anon,
DeleteSome participation in political life does not mean they can lead/command/boss men. Pius XII was talking about how they fight against social doctrines and programs that undermine the family and that they should vote to fight communism. I explained the king and queens property rights and their authority to command over a kingdom. So stop bringing up queens. It's a moot point.
Here are what popes have said about women:
Pope Leo XIII "Women, again, are not suited for certain occupations; a woman is by nature fitted for home-work, and it is that which is best adapted at once to preserve her modesty and to promote the good bringing up of children and the well-being of the family." RERUM NOVARUM #42
You tell me what occupations women are not suited for?
Pope St. Pius X: 'There is much to admire in the feminist desire to elevate women intellectually and socially, but the Lord protect us from political feminism.' The Catholic Historical Review vol 76, no 3
"Benedict XV was anxious about women who had entered the workforce during World War I. He saw that women were in occupations 'ill befitting their sex' and others 'abandoned the duties of housewife for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current state of life.' The Catholic Historical Review vol 76, no 3 Pg 512
Why would he agree with Leo XIII by saying occupation ill befitting their sex and even went as far as to call it reckless?
Pope Pius XII: "This effective collaboration in social and political life in no way alters the special character of the normal action of woman. Associating herself with man in his work in the area of civil institutions, she will apply herself principally tot tasks which call for tact, delicate feelings, and maternal instinct, rather than administrative rigidity." The Pope Speaks by Pantheon Pg. 60
Normal action of women? Administrative rigidity? I thought according to you it's completely normal for them to be in control alongside men.
BTW who said the popes tolerated it? Just because they didn't say much about it doesn't mean they tolerated it. In fact, everything they say about women indicated that they should not be in positions that are not befitting to their sex. Military, police, government as the Catholic Encyclopedia during Pius X time said. You are the one who doesn't trust the Church.
Lee
What do you really want, to agree to disagree or to continue?
DeleteYou went from "no hard feelings" and "I'm enjoying this" quickly to this passionate.
Before I continue, you need to know it's over. It's done. ASM didn't reply here, Saddlery's gone, I said we agreed to disagree, and none of us are expecting Introibo to intervene again. (Are you?) It's just you who's very passionate for some reason. Just let it go now. It's over.
To help, I will allow you to have the last word as long as you do not ask a question or ask for a reply. I don't mind if it will be snarky.
Now:
1. A kingdom isn't just some property that gets passed with strict and the same "natural" laws. By the 1851 concordat, Spain was a modern constitutional monarchy. So your argument fails.
2. There were many male regents throughout the history of the Kingdom of France. Why did St. Louis IX allow his wife and mother as regents then? Why didn't he condemn him mother once he was crowned king?
3. "You tell me what occupations women are not suited for?"
That's right Lee, I'll tell you something neither me nor Introibo absolutely and totally and really didn't say more than once here: civil office. That's right! It's not ideal congresswomen get elected, they're not suited for it, and it's something absolutely newly said here! Women shouldn't lead! No one ever said it before, which is why the questions are so fresh!
4. "Pope St. Pius X: 'There is much to admire in the feminist desire to elevate women intellectually and socially, but the Lord protect us from political feminism."
"Benedict XV was anxious about women who had entered the workforce during World War I. He saw that women were in occupations 'ill befitting their sex' and others 'abandoned the duties of housewife for which they were fashioned, to cast themselves recklessly into the current state of life."
"Pope Pius XII: "This effective collaboration in social and political life in no way alters the special character of the normal action of woman. Associating herself with man in his work in the area of civil institutions, she will apply herself principally tot tasks which call for tact, delicate feelings, and maternal instinct, rather than administrative rigidity."
Indeed. But what about it? What does this have to do with anything I (or Intro) said?
5. "Why would he agree with Leo XIII by saying occupation ill befitting their sex and even went as far as to call it reckless?"
Why would he agree? Gasp, is it because it's true?
6. "Normal action of women? Administrative rigidity? I thought according to you it's completely normal for them to be in control alongside men."
OK that settles it. You made me realize I've wasted my time. When did I (or Intro) say something as absurd as that, that it's completely normal for them to be in control alongside men? Is that what you think I was arguing? If so, then that explains how absurd this conversation became.
Also see he does say it is not entirely impermissible, which is what I (and Introibo) just said all along.
7. "BTW who said the popes tolerated it? Just because they didn't say much about it doesn't mean they tolerated it."
Really Lee? The Vicars of Christ, nor any of their subordinates, not saying much while millions of Catholics fall to something which you say is mortal sin?
8. "In fact, everything they say about women indicated that they should not be in positions that are not befitting to their sex. Military, police, government as the Catholic Encyclopedia during Pius X time said."
Correct Lee, now it's time to talk to the correct person.
Anon.
DeleteYour beef is whether it's a mortal sin to obey women in authority.
Is it a mortal sin? I don't know. I guess it depends on the circumstances and what an individual knows. The same can be said for women who usurp man's authority while taking the authoritative position that's not befitting to them. It would seem that it's a sin of some type but in order for something to be a mortal sin, it has to be: 1: Serious matter (this qualifies in my opinion) 2: You must know it's a sin (I don't think anybody would think it's a sin for women to be in command but one could argue that people would think that some impure sins are not sins or just small sins. Is this a good excuse?) 3: You must have full consent of the will (This would vary depending on the individual and the circumstance)
Whatever the case may be, one thing is for certain its not right for women to take positions of authority and this is why our world is so massively screwed up today and why it will continue to get worse.
Lee
You haven't heard from me because I've been busy. I'm not changing my position one iota because I know the natural and divine law as St. Paul tells us. The CE tells us that women are NOT to be directly influencial in affairs of the state. It's a sin. Obedience due is another matter. I'm of the position that not only is it a sin for a woman to hold public office, but that it's illigitimate and no obedience is due.
DeleteOoh, what a surprise.
DeleteSaddlery,
Read Introibo @ 3:16 PM
You may give a refutation (point by point) or not.
The second one.
Deletehttps://stevensperay.wordpress.com/2021/07/08/catholic-teaching-on-women-holding-public-office/
DeleteLee,
ReplyDeletethat's a great question!
My take is that the first and foremost obligation of ours is to save our souls, and this is where Our Lord admits of no pusillanimity; with regards to worldly matters, and esp. in our age of overt masonic influence, we should be most prudent so as not to get hushed into obedience to false masters.
This is just my humble opinion, and I'm writing this as a person who used to be obsessed with politics: if there's going to be a conventional war, I wouldn't engage in it. The political confusion of our age is jut massive, and I wouldn't want to be fighting unwittingly for "the bad guys". The Anti-Christ is supposed to mask himself as "the good guy", people are already getting disillusioned by the governments of their respective countries, and looking for a secular "savior" - that's the impression I got from scrolling through the so-called conservative accounts on Polish Twitter and what have you (people who didn't fall for the corona scam but are no Catholics, I reckon they're mostly practising or lapsed Novus Ordos, given the religious landscape in Poland).
I've personally lost all interest in modern politics, and feel mightily betrayed by the current government in my country. The next big worldwide conflict could be the setting of a stage for the Anti-Christ. Let's courageously guard our souls and those around us against the filth and corruption that still lies ahead.
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Excellent Joanna! God bless you!
DeleteThank you Joanna S. That was a prudent response and well thought out.
DeleteLee
Thank you for your kind words, my friends!
DeleteGod Bless,
Joanna S.
A Simple Man:Well done an excellent article.Have you take note how effeminate how young men have become in recent years.I was born in 1942 and it is so sad to see how the modern school system is brainwashing them.
ReplyDeleteAnon@6:10 PM,
DeleteIt's really quite amazing. The trend of greater effeminacy has skyrocketed since my time in university, which wasn't even that long ago (2006-2011).
Even the majority of the loonies in academia at that time would look at today's crazies and wonder what in the world had happened. Either that, or they were still capable back then of keeping it under wraps.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A recent article very related to this post:
ReplyDeletehttps://novusordowatch.org/2021/06/francis-endorses-james-martin/
Introibo,
ReplyDeleteI have a question about the parable of the tares (Matthew 13:24-43).What is meant by the field: the world or the church? Our Lord says that the field is the world. St. Augustine, on the other hand, states that the field is the Catholic Church. I have heard the charge that St. Augustine misrepresented the parable of the tares in order to explain the existence of so many sinners in the Church. The good seed was originally supposed to mean the members of the Church - Christians, and the tares meant non-Christians. St. Augustine changed this to mean that the field is the Church, the good seed are the good Catholics, and the tares are the bad Catholics. How should this be understood and how would you respond to the charge?
God bless,
Paweł
Paweł,
DeletePrior to these various parables, Christ prefaces them by saying "the kingdom of heaven is likened to", thus drawing the immediate connection to His Church. Although He does say that the field is the world in verse 38, it does not thereby imply a contradiction in the interpretation of the Fathers of its meaning in light of the other parables. Per Cornelius a Lapide's commentary on this parable:
xxxx
When the multitudes were sent away, &c., … declare unto us the parable of the tares. For this seemed more obscure than the others, and to contain severer threats.
The field is the world, &c. The field is the world, not the Church, for by the tares of this field many understand heretics, who are not in the Church, especially when they are public and manifest.
Children of the kingdom: These are faithful, righteous, and persevering in justice, and therefore elected by God to be heirs of the kingdom of Heaven. Whence, in verse 43, they are called the righteous. These are the sons of the Heavenly Father, “which were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” (John 1:13).
Observe: the righteous are here called seed, because although die [recte the] seed which Christ sows is the Word of God, spoken as well outwardly by the lips, as inwardly in the heart by grace; nevertheless, because the fruit of this seed is the conversion of the faithful, and their justification, therefore the righteous also are called seed, i.e., the fruit of the seed, and the harvest.
But the tares, &c. Gr. υἱοὶ τοῦ πονηροῦ, i.e., the sons of that wicked, namely the devil: thus the Syriac and Arabic. Therefore they themselves are evil, for the offspring follow their father. As the sons of God are good and divine, so are the sons of the devil wicked and diabolical.
Observe: by tares and children of the wicked one, some understand heretics, because they are the most injurious kind of tares, inasmuch as they choke and destroy the faithful and faith from their foundation. So S. Chrysostom, Euthymius, and S. Augustine (l. quest. in Matth. q. 11) who, however, retracts (l. 2 Retract. c. 27) and teaches from S. Cyprian, that tares denote all the wicked in the Church. SS. Gregory, Ambrose, and Theophylact teach the same. For all wicked persons, by their evil life, hurt the faithful and the Church, as tares injure wheat, and choke it. Falsely then from this passage (verse 29), where Christ forbids these tares to be plucked up, and subjoins, Let both grow together, the Innovators infer that heretics are not to be punished and extirpated. For by parity of reasoning they might conclude that murderers and thieves must not be punished; for they too are tares. And I say that Christ does not here absolutely forbid these tares to be plucked up, but says that no one must attempt to root them all up together; nor at a time when they cannot be distinguished from the wheat; or when there is danger of pulling up the wheat at the same time with them. But all this does not apply when anyone is a manifest heretic, especially if he teaches and infects others with his heresy. For such a one does more harm to the Church than a murderer, for the one only kills the body, but the other the soul. See 1 Cor. 5:13, Gal. 5:12, where the Apostle commands impious persons, especially false teachers, to be taken away and extirpated. Thus Origen and S. Augustine—the latter indeed was at first of opinion that heretics ought not to be put to death, yea, that they ought not even to be compelled to resume the faith which they have professed in baptism. But afterwards, when he had been taught by experience how perverse and obstinate heretics are, he changed his opinion and taught the contrary. He says, “I had not yet learnt either what great wickedness they would venture upon, if they could do it with impunity; or how much careful discipline could effect to make a change in them for the better.” (l. 2, cont. Parmen. c. 2, and 2 Retract. c. 5).
xxxx
Does this clarify?
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
A Simple Man,
DeleteThank you for your response.
I would like to ask what is your opinion on COVID-19 vaccines? I am considering whether to get vaccinated, but I am afraid of the potential bad side effects in a few years (I am 18). My parents insist on it since I am supposed to go on vacation with friends.
Paweł
I hope A Simple Man won't find it disrespectful if I offer my piece of advice to Paweł.
DeleteHere's a short article in Polish, documenting (some) of the victims of this experimental injection:
https://www.bibula.com/?p=126230
(including a press conference by Sen. Ron Johnson on the adverse reactions to the jab, with the vaccine victims and their families - this one's in English).
Wanting to go on vacation is a poor argument for injecting oneself with a non-clinically tested substance, which has already been proven to be lethal in otherwise healthy people. Friends come and go, parents cannot exercise their authority over their grown-up children - it is your life, your health, and ultimately your decision. Dig into the subject, and you'll discover how much of the uncomfortable truth about this vax is left unsaid by the media.
True Restoration produced a podcast with Fr. Stephen McKenna and Dr. Daniel Stanislowski on the covid vax a few months ago (free of charge, courtesy of Novus Ordo Watch):
https://www.truerestoration.org/pastoralia-episode-19-the-covid-vaccine/
Heart of Jesus, in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, have mercy on us!
Our Lady, Seat of Wisdom, pray for us!
God Bless,
Joanna S.
P.S. On the subject of obedience of children towards their parents, see this entry from the Catholic Encyclopedia: https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/parents
or this one:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11478c.htm
In essence: "children are released from parental control when they attain their majority, or are legally emancipated."
Joanna,
DeleteNot at all! Beyond the articles I contribute, my rank is that of a mere commenter, same as anyone else. I have no monopoly on who replies to who.
Paweł,
Full disclosure: I am not a medical professional.
As someone older than you who nonetheless still falls outside of the statistical categories in terms of age that are of higher risk to COVID, I made the determination not to get any of the vaccines due to the following:
- The unusual nature of these experimental vaccines (which some might argue can't be classified as vaccines in the conventional meaning of the term, due to their different means of triggering an immune response compared to traditional, decades-old vaccines).
- The sheer push by numerous facets of popular society for people to get vaccinated over a virus which, in the grand scheme of things, is generally fatal only to certain age groups and demographics. (No joke, I've seen adds from *AXE Body Spray* of all things talking about how 'sexy' it is to get vaccinated. That just makes me want to get vaccinated *less*.)
- The back-and-forth from various government officials (Fauci et al) regarding the efficacy of vaccines and certain medical treatments, while others (hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, etc.) are ignored or outright vilified.
I believe I've had COVID myself by this point (not that I've gone to a doctor to verify one way or another) since my mother was diagnosed with it merely two days after we had a large Memorial Day cookout. All I came down with was about 10-14 days of semi-consistent coughing, with a few of those days coming with a sinus headache. But that's it.
Only you can make the final decision as to whether to get the vaccine or not, but simply based on all of the above, I would be very hesitant to do so.
(And FYI, since you are 18 — and thus of the age of majority in Poland — refusing to get the vaccine just because your parents say you should would not be a sin against the Fifth Commandment, as you would be presumably making a duly-informed decision that taking the vaccine would lead to greater health risks for yourself and others as compared to those from not taking it.)
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
An advice from Fr. Stephen McKenna in Novus Ordo Watch:
Deletehttps://novusordowatch.org/2020/12/the-morality-of-vaccinations/
A Simple Man.We would value your comments on a youtube video by What Catholics Believe(SSPV) that has Father William Jenkins discussing Charity and the Thuc Bishops.Have you watched and listened to it.We attend a SSPV Chapel but when on vacation attend Churches and Chapels who have priests from the Thuc-line.We do not agree with Father Jenkins.Are there any other folk who read this blog from the SSPV.We would like your comments too.God bless you all.
ReplyDeleteI attend an SSPV chapel weekly, the way I see it, they are wrong on the Thuc issue. I would have no problem going to the CMRI for example. Love the SSPV, but they are wrong in my opinion.
DeleteAnon@9:13 PM,
DeleteWhich video are you referring to? Fr. Jenkins has done several on Thuc throughout the years.
In all honesty, what decided it for me was this website: http://www.thucbishops.com/
Traditionalist Mario Derksen's open letter was thorough enough to answer any potential objections I had, but he was also of good faith enough to include the objections to the Thuc consecrations as well in their own words (or at least the links to them).
Regardless of whatever issues his Excellency Ngo Dinh Thuc may have had in his personal life after Vatican 2 and the fall of Vietnam (and also notwithstanding errors in personal judgment he had when consecrating unworthy men), their validity is not a concern for me as far as the episcopal lineage for Pivarunas/Sanborn/Dolan/etc goes.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
I attend CSPV and send stipends to Thuc line Chapels.(not Sanborn Dolan nor CMRI and yes there are other Thuc line Chapels outside these groups)
DeleteMy fault,forgot to add this fact.
DeleteBp.Drapier,main consecrator of Bp.Thuc,was consecrated by 3 separate Eastern Rite lines.
His 2 co-consecrators were of 2 separate Roman Rite lines.
I forget who Ord Bp.Drapier.
Bp.Thuc had an extremely unique lineage and the rules which they apply to +Thuc can apply to +Mendez.
+Mendez "ordained" AND "consecrated" using the Novus Ordo new "Rites" and openly 'offered' the Novus Ordo throughout the 70's & 80's.
None of this matters as both Bishops, when conferring the trad-Rites,are presumed to make Priests and Bishops.
Pray for these groups and the Resistance to unite with the same Catholic dogma beliefs and unite.
SSPV seems happy that Bp. Kelly is in a direct lineage from Pope St. Pius X, but one of Bp. Thuc's co-consecrators is also in a direct lineage from Pope St. Pius X.
Delete@anon10:01pm
DeleteArchbishop Antonin-Fernand Drapier, O.P. (cons. 1929), Titular Archbishop of Neocaesarea in Ponto, was consecrated by Bishop François Daoud (David) (cons. 1910), Bishop of Amadiyah (Chaldean).
His lineage descends back to Archbishop Youhanan VIII Hormez, Archbishop of Mossul (Chaldean) who was reconciled to the Catholic Church and was proclaimed Patriarch of Babylon by Pope Pius VIII in 1830.
Hormez was consecrated bishop by the Nestorian Patriarch Eliya XI, Patriarch of all the East.
That's all how far Bp. Thuc's principal lineage can go.
Bp. Thuc's co-consecrators have a Latin lineage and both, like most other Latin-rite bishops, descend from Scipione Cardinal Rebiba, Titular [Latin] Patriarch of Constantinople (Bp. Dumortier, one of Bp. Thuc's co-consecrators, descends through Pope St. Pius X).
(I also agree none of this matters)
Thuc had 2 Roman Rite lines,
DeleteCardinals Rebiba and d’Estouteville.
Is it mortal sin to believe in someone defaming a cleric and relaying that information without further proper investigation first?
ReplyDeleteHello, question, what are Ordos of sedevacantist congregations (CMRI, CSPV, etc) based on?
ReplyDeleteAre they based on feasts of a particular country (US)? Or are they universal?
Anon@1:52 AM,
DeleteAs far as I'm aware for CMRI (I can't speak for Dolan/Sanborn, or SSPV/CSPV), they use the liturgical calendar that was in place for North America at the time that Pius XII died. As such, they also celebrate the particular feasts in place for America at the time of 1958 (and also follow the Holy Days of Obligation accordingly, as those may differ from country to country).
I cannot speak for CMRI's apostolates in foreign countries, but I imagine the same principle would hold: the calendar in place in 1958 at the time Pius XII died takes precedence, which would include any local feasts as applicable.
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
I've read that CMRI uses the 1956 rubrics.
DeleteASM, what does that mean, and why 1956? Or does rubrics refer to rubrics of the Mass?
Anon@10:30 PM,
DeleteI assume this is simply referring to the Ordo/liturgy that was in effect during 1956. I imagine 1956 is emphasized because that was the year after the changes made to the Holy Week rites that were promulgated by Pius XII.
Introibo previously wrote on this subject here: https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2021/03/a-bugnini-free-holy-week.html
Sincerely,
A Simple Man
Oh okay. Makes sense.
DeleteAccording to traditio.com:
DeleteIn 1956, Pope Pius XII revised the rubrics and calendar of Mass and Divine Office.
But for some reason, it also says the Holy Week was revised ("gutted" in their words) in 1956.
Hey Introibo or anyone else for that matter, I'm looking for a traditional Catholic catechism that is written in Tagolog for some Filipino relatives, all I can find is 2016 version . Any suggestions are greatly appreciated, thanks and God bless.
ReplyDeleteTry asking Fr. Joven Soliman or those running the Chapel of the MHT.
DeleteAsk Fr. Joven Soliman or the Chapel of the MHT.
DeleteDavid,
DeleteI don't personally know of any, so I would definitely ask Fr. Soliman. Thank you to my readers for suggesting him!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Oops, I was the two anons above.
DeleteHello. I am being encouraged to take Fluxetine (prozac) to take care of a mental health issue (an obsessive disorder) but i am afraid of the secondary effects. What do all of you think can you answer please? Also I ask for prayers.
ReplyDeleteanon@4:24
DeleteMy friend, please be assured of my prayers. The question you are asking is to be answered by a Board Certified psychiatrist from whom you get a second opinion. It is not immoral to take drugs to help you with mental issues--it is laudatory to seek help.
As a lawyer and former science teacher who runes a blog, I have ZERO competence to advise you in a medicinal/psychiatric issue. You have my prayers, and I ask all my readers to pray for you as well.
God Bless and Cure you,
---Introibo
Dear Anonymous,
Deletein your afflictions, please invoke St. Dymphna. There's a beautiful devotional booklet (1951 imprimatur) on this glorious Irish martyr and patroness of those troubled with mental issues:
https://archive.org/details/devotioninhonoro00unse/mode/2up
Also, ask St. Joseph, Solace of the wretched, for his powerful intercession.
I hope you keep commenting - you'll find fine company here!
You're in my prayers!
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Thank you for your prayers and i will pray for you to. I have asked my therapist and says that secondary effects are not very common, yet I also wanted to ask here.
DeletePray Litany of Loreto for 9 days straight.
DeleteAsk for an answer every time you pray this devotion,meaning all 9 days.
A Simple Man:The youtube video on the Thuc Bishops was done three years ago and called Charity and the Thuc Bishops.Father Wiliam Jenkins said that the Thuc Bishops are non-Catholic and Mario Derkson is wrong on a number of issues.In his open debate with Father Cekada years ago he said Mount Saint Michaels is not only schismatic but a sect.We would value your good comments.To the above SSPV/CSPV folk,what do your chapel friends say on the Thuc/CMRI issues?God bless you
ReplyDeleteWe don't discuss Thuc line at CSPV chapels.
DeleteWe're there to honor our Blessed Lord,save our Soul,support the Priests and Bishops.
Nothing personal but polemics are not proper at Holy Mass,especially if you send money to Thuc line Chapels.
It would also cause unnecessary trouble for the Clergy who's there to help save our Soul,not be debate moderator.
Keep quiet and pray for unity is the better option.
+JMJ
Well done Simple Man.Like your writing.Keep up the good work.
ReplyDeleteGood writing I agree but my attention span is being decimated by the internet and past TV viewing.
DeleteA person who's born raised + made all Sacraments as Catholic before 1956,
ReplyDeletedies in 2021,
receives Novus Ordo "Sacraments" + "Funeral Mass" at behest of Family,
and the best trad-Catholic relatives can do is have valid Priest offer 1
Holy Sacrifice of the Mass days before this person dies + 1 more H.S.O.T.M. by valid Priest days after they die,is it possible the Soul went Purgatory or straight to Hell?
Don't hold back as I've prayed for this person before + After their Death.
What does the Church and Doctors of the Church say about this event?
If that person kept all the basic, catechismal tenets of the Faith, and died with a perfectly contrite heart (detesting one's sins and feeling sorry for having offended God, out of love for Him who is all Good and deserving of all our love, and with a desire to confess these sins), then he/she died a Catholic, at least in the internal forum, and saved his/her soul.
DeleteSee this entry from Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) on contrition, specifically subheading: Perfect contrition without the sacrament (at the bottom of the page):
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04337a.htm
God Bless,
Joanna S.
Joanna,
DeleteThank you as always for your comments and contributions to this blog!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Is the use of the word "faggot" vulgarity?
ReplyDeleteSearched in Google.
Deletefag·got
/ˈfaɡət/
Learn to pronounce
noun
1.
OFFENSIVE•NORTH AMERICAN
a gay man.
2.
a bundle of sticks or twigs bound together as fuel
It's offensive, plus it means a gay man.
So, I should not use it to refer to those who are sodomites
DeleteAgreed.
DeleteI've read that all deaths are painful due to the separation of soul and body. Is that true?
ReplyDelete@anon8:25
DeleteThere is no Church doctrine, nor any approved theologian or canonist of whom I am aware, that teaches separation of the soul and body at death involves pain. It seems untrue as the soul cannot feel pain since it is immaterial; the only possible cause of pain would have to be supernatural (Hell fire) not natural. Furthermore, the separation is not an event over time, so if instantaneous when it occurs, bodily pain seems absent as well.
God Bless,
---Introibo
And what a way to cap off 'Pride Month': having a choir of sodomites cheerfully sing about how they're literally coming for the children: https://notthebee.com/article/the-san-fran-gay-choir-says-its-coming-to-convert-our-kids
ReplyDeleteShaking my head,
A Simple Man
ASM,
DeleteTruly terrifying my friend!
God Bless,
---Introibo
Imagine my shock.
Delete