Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminism’ Category

“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.”

“I. 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.”

Pope Leo XIII confirmed the Catholic Encyclopedia’s very canonists:

“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 (On Capital and Labor) # 42 1891)

Now if women have been prohibited to hold public office, because of the preservation of the modesty and dignity of the woman, what’s the implication when women do hold public offices as we see today, which liberals defend as the praiseworthy advancement of women?

It means the preservation of modesty and dignity for those women is lost. Does modesty and dignity of women not concern morality? 

Women are not even to be dressed as men unless there’s an extraordinary circumstance. Necessity excuses from the law.

Many who identify as Catholics are also promoting the modernist idea that it’s not immodest and undignified for  women to hold public office just as they promote immodest and undignified clothing, especially the kind we see in the hot month of July. 

Moral theologians, Frs. John McHugh and Charles Callan write in their “Moral Theology: A Complete Course Based on St. Thomas Aquinas and the Best Modern Authorities”:

“Women should not be compelled to take up an occupation unsuited to their sex.” 

The theologians are not talking about the capabilities of women. Some women can be stronger than some men. Some women are much more intelligent than some men and can make excellent decisions. They have the ability to do most every job a man can do and do it better in many cases. The issue is not about the capability of women. The pope, canonists, and moral theologians can only mean occupations that would not preserve the modesty and dignity peculiar to women.

Those who point to Christian queens as proof women can hold public office and have authority over men make a false conclusion.

Queens are not occupations that women go out and apply for. Neither is the mother who may order and command her adult son still living at home. Queenship and motherhood require a certain type of authority unlike any other authority, which exists out of necessity. What public office requires a woman out of necessity?

Today is the feast of St. Elizabeth of Portuagal. She was a model Christian queen. After the king’s death, she retired to a monastery of the Poor Clares and joined the Third Order of St. Francis. Her whole life was devoted to the sick and poor. Her acts as queen were not commander but as servant and peacemaker.

Saint Elizabeth of Aragon in the Alvalade battlefield“, by Roque Gameiro, in Quadros da História de Portugal (“Pictures of the History of Portugal”, 1917).

In defending the morality of women holding public office, some Catholics turn to Pope Pius XII’s teaching on women [1]. The pope, however, never taught that women can hold public office. He taught that they can have political careers as members of public assemblies. Public assemblies can be nothing more than a gathering of citizens to voice opinions and vote. That’s an indirect participation in politics, a far cry from holding the position of president, governor, judge, magistrate, sheriff, military and police officer, lawyer, etc.

The Church has the 2000 year practice that women can’t hold public office, because of the perservation of the modesty and dignity peculiar to women. The Church Fathers are universal on the role of women in society. Popes don’t have the authority to say after 2000 years it’s modest and dignified for women to hold public office, because the culture says so. IT’S ALWAYS BEEN FORBIDDEN and ALWAYS WILL BE! 

Accepted norms in our heathenistic world doesn’t make them okay or valid. We are not bound in obedience to an invalid civil authority. We may cooperate with the evil materially, but God only requires our obedience to lawful authority.

There’s a flawed argument that says the 1917 Code of Law must spell out that women can’t hold public office. Actually, it’s the other way around. Because it has always and everywhere been forbidden for women to hold public office (because of the modesty and dignity of women) there would have to be a canon law that would permit women to hold public office, but alas, canon law can’t permit a cultural revolutionary immoral practice. [2] It would be an argument against the Catholic Church if canon law permitted an immoral practice as morally acceptable.

It’s been argued that popes have never specifically condemned it. Therefore, it may be tolerated as permissible. For instance, when Jeannette Rankin was elected to Congress in 1916 followed by other women entering public office, no popes condemn the election and practice as immoral.

The problem with this argument is the assumption that there’s nothing wrong with something, because it’s not been specifically condemned by the Church. Throughout history, we see popes not condemning evil and immoral practices for years and there are several reasons for this. Popes may have been busy with other problems, or they could have been lazy, or they were just ignorant. For instance, the deposing of popes by emperors and empresses wasn’t condemned for hundreds of years as evil and wrong. The popes actually capitulated. Some unjust wars were never condemned. Pope Martin V didn’t condemn the English invasion of France. It was Heaven, which intervened with St. Joan of Arc to inspire the French to fight away the English. [4]

It wasn’t until modern times that women actually became involved in holding public offices. It’s completely revolutionary. Pope St. Pius X was the last pope to really stamp out modernists who wanted to introduce it. His successors were much more lax and did very little to nothing to stop them. Monsignor Joseph Clifford Fenton wrote in his diary about Pope St. Pius X’s successors:

“I do not think that any little work on our part is going to bring good to the Church. We should, I believe, face the facts. Since the death of [Pope] St. Pius X the Church has been directed by weak and liberal popes, who have flooded the hierarchy with unworthy and stupid men. This present conciliar set-up makes this all the more apparent. [Fr.] Ed Hanahoe, the only intelligent and faithful member of [Cardinal] Bea’s secretariat has been left off the list of the periti. Such idiots as [Mgr. John S.] Quinn and the sneak [Fr. Frederick] McManus have been put on. [Fr. George] Tavard is there as an American, God help us. From surface appearance it would seem that the Lord Christ is abandoning His Church. The thoughts of many are being revealed. As one priest used to say, to excuse his own liberalism, which, in the bottom of his heart he knew was wrong, ‘for the last few decades the tendency in Rome has been to favor the liberals.’ That is the policy now. We can only do what we can to overt an ever more complete disloyalty to Christ.” (Oct. 19, 1962) [5]

Is there any wonder popes didn’t condemn the feminism after Pope St. Pius X?

In 1906, Pope St. Pius X told an Austrian feminist, “Women electors, women deputies? Oh, no!…Women in Parliaments! That is all we need! The men have already caused enough confusion there! Imagine what would happen if there were women there!” (Hause & Kenny, ‘The development of the Catholic Women’s Suffrage Movement’, pp. 11-30)

In 1909, Pope St. Pius X told French Politicians, “Women can never be man’s equal,” said the Pope [St. Pius X], “and cannot therefore enjoy equal rights. Few women would ever desire to legislate, and those who did would only be classed as eccentrics.” (NYT April 22, 1909)

Sadly many Catholics think women are man’s equal. They’ll say I Timothy 2:12-13 refers only to the home and Church, while everywhere else women can rule men. Theoretically, it would mean that women can rule the whole world by holding all places of authority, except of course, the home and Church. What absurdity! The home and the Church are the perfect models for society. Such cultural “Catholics” take the separation of Church and state to whole new level.

Besides, the requirement of the wife to be subordinate in the home doesn’t mean merely in the house, but in society as a whole. It would be impossible to be subordinate to the husband and his superior in society. To be subordinate to the husband means everywhere at all times.

“As Christ is the head of the Church, and so also the husband is superior to the wife in authority (Eph., v. 23).” [3]

Is the Church ever head of Christ? It would be impossible for a wife to ever hold public office and fulfill the role of wife. Does the Church only obey Christ in Church but in society Christ may have to obey the Church? This is precisely the implication of the modernist’s argument. It’s totally absurd!

The principle extends to unmarried women, too, “For Adam was first formed; then Eve (I Tim. 2:13.)” St. Paul’s natural law argument transcends time, culture and marriage. Adam is not just Eve’s superior as husband, but as a man to a woman.

 

 

Footnotes

[1] Papal Directives For The Woman Of Today – Papal Encyclicals

[2] That a contrary custom may make another custom ineffective, is evident; for custom is law, and therefore, as a law is revoked by a contrary law, so also a custom may be revoked by a contrary custom. Only we must notice that the contrary custom must fully cover the old custom and be vested with the requisites set forth above. As to the effect which a contrary law exerts upon a custom, the canon says that it does not revoke a custom unless it contains an express clause to that effect. (A COMMENTARY ON THE NEW CODE OF CANON LAW – THE REV. P. CHARLES AUGUSTINE O.S.B., D.D.)

[3] Moral Theology by Charles J. Callan and John A. McHugh – Free Ebook (gutenberg.org)

[4] St. Joan of Arc wore men’s clothing out of necessity and was never a commander of the French army. She was more like a mascot carrying the banner, fighting, and leading the way like a fearless marine private hitting the beach at Normandy. She relayed Heaven’s commands as a messenger, not as commander. 

[5] Explosive! The Personal Diaries of Mgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton – Modernism & Vatican II – Novus Ordo Watch

 

Read Full Post »

One of my pet peeves in the world today is feminism. I have a particular hatred for it as one can deduce from an article I posted as First Timothy 2:12: The Bible Verse that Nobody Believes In.

Feminism is defined as the advocacy of women’s rights on the basis of the equality of the sexes. But what is meant by the equality of the sexes and how is it defined?

The only true equality between the two sexes exists in the fact that when Baptized in Christ, we make up one Body (Gal. 3:26-29). We are equal in human dignity. Within the realm of human dignity, women should have a right to work and have a higher education. However, we are not equal in authority (II Tim. 2:12-14).

The “women’s rights” which are advocated in society by the feminist movement necessarily place women in an equal or higher authority. These so-called rights attack the dignity of the human person. The unborn are murdered, motherhood is downgraded, and masculinity is frowned upon and rejected. Feminism of the feminist movement is a rejection of truth. It is in this understanding of feminism which I’m referring to in this study.

My daughter recently asked, “When did feminism first begin?” I immediately thought of Eve. The story found in Genesis is one of the most fascinating and mysterious found in the Bible. I’ve thought about it intensely over the years. When I began to explain the account in Genesis in relation to feminism, I came up with an idea that seems to make sense to me. The following is only my opinion which I’ll gladly renounce if found to be at a variance with the decision of the Church.

Take another look at Genesis 3:

3 Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” 2 And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; 3 but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” 4 But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not die. 5 For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate; and she also gave some to her husband, and he ate. 7 Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.

Notice that Satan went to Eve first, why?

I suspect that it’s because Satan was inferior to God and he understood that his own fall could best be applied to one who like himself was an inferior. God through St. Paul made it clear that Adam was Eve’s superior by natural law in creation (I Tim. 2:12-14). Keep in mind that Adam and Eve were made perfect and enjoyed preternatural gifts and wisdom that surpasses our own today. Also, noteworthy is the fact that Satan (whose intelligence was given to him by God) knows that the best way to get to Adam is through Eve. Don’t we know that the best way to go to Jesus, the Second Adam, is through Mary, the New Eve?

The devil first attempted to make God out to be unreasonable when he asked Eve, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” because what else were Adam and Eve going to eat but fruit from the trees in the garden? However, Eve knew her faith well. She countered the devil with God’s reasonable command that it was only from one tree in the garden they couldn’t eat from. Eve added, “nor even touch it,” because she knows to stay away from it completely.

Now Satan presents the lie and deception that eating the fruit from that tree of knowledge would bring wisdom that would make one like God. It was Satan’s desire to be like God, too. Eve knows that if she eats of the tree before Adam believing the devil’s lie is true, she will possess wisdom and power over and above that of Adam. She will be like God, but Adam will not. She will no longer be his inferior but rather his superior. Hence, the fruit looked appealing.

Eve should have consulted Adam before making such a big decision but she didn’t. This was her big chance to get ahead and become like God and Adam’s boss.

Once she ate, she immediately knew it was a mistake. Whenever a soul loses sanctifying grace, he is aware of it and feels the pain of loss. In Eve’s case, it would be even greater because of the preternatural gifts and the state of grace she was conceived in. Her loss would have been devastating to her. Not only did she lose God and sanctifying grace, but she became even lesser to Adam than before. If Adam never sinned, I wonder what the relation between men and women would be like today.

Instead of preventing Adam from making the same mistake, she had to bring him down to her level. The profound humiliation for Eve was too much. She can’t be the only fool. Eve became like Satan and seduced Adam, who listened to a woman over God. It’s bad when a woman thinks she ought to be boss, but it is worse when a man lets her. Adam should have consulted God first but he didn’t. He let Eve make a decision for him as one who had authority over him and God. Perhaps, Adam was more concerned about what Eve thought of him rather than what God thought of him. He was a woman-pleasing coward at that moment and became less than what he was created for.

Feminism is a form of pride whereby man thinks he knows better than God. Feminism is an affront to God’s order of creation. Therefore, the First Sin is pride which is the root of feminism. Other vices stem from feminism, such as abortion, homosexuality, and so-called transgender-ism.

What I find most interesting about the story of Adam and Eve and feminism is that we don’t see feminism on a grand scale throughout history as we do in today’s world. It’s as if Satan was saving this one vice for the end of time, which first brought mankind down in the first-place. I firmly believe that the problem doesn’t lie in the woman as much as with the man. Feminism only reigns when men become feminists or compromisers.

The consequences of the fall are greater with the sin of Adam because Original Sin is contracted because Adam fell, not Eve. If men today give in to feminism the consequences are feminism reigns in the world. If men don’t give in, feminism exists only in the minds, hopes, and dreams of evil women. Alas, feminism reigns in our world because men are feminists and/or cowards. So while feminism concerns the First Sin, it is the compromise of Adam that sealed our fate. Today, men compromising with women either through acceptance of feminism or the fear of feminists, keep the abomination going.

Pope St. Pius X declared in E Supremi on the “the distinguishing mark of Antichrist” “man has with infinite temerity put himself in the place of God, raising himself above all that is called God; in such wise that although he cannot utterly extinguish in himself all knowledge of God, he has contemned God’s majesty and, as it were, made of the universe a temple wherein he himself is to be adored. ‘He sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself as if he were God’ (II. Thess. Ii., 2).”

Pride is the key vice of Antichrist. Mankind rejects God’s order of creation in accepting feminism. In other words, mankind is telling God that His Way and Will is not how it shall be, and this is how mankind puts himself in the place of God. The distinguishing fruits of Antichrist are feminism along with the other vices that stem from pride. Thus, the first sin becomes the last.

Read Full Post »