• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

Christianity Women Bring Violence On Themselves: Priest

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
How did this women invite her own rape? She was leaving gurdwara when it happened. This story, which occurred in Punjab, is one we have not covered, it was over-shadowed by the Delhi case. Read it and figure how this woman could have asked for it. She did commit suicide. Folks, this is not just about India. It happens worldwide. Figure how the remedy offered fits the crime!

...this is part of a larger account of the Delhi rape case, but is about a completely different incident. Police, village elders, even a woman accomplice, not getting it.

Meanwhile, the family of an 18-year-old woman in the northern Indian state of Punjab who committed suicide on Wednesday after being raped last month by two men blamed the police for her death on Friday.

Relatives of the woman say she killed herself because the police delayed registering the case or arresting the rapists.

If the police “had done their job, she would be alive today,” the woman’s sister, Charanjit Kaur, 28, said in a phone interview. “They didn’t listen to us; they didn’t act.”

On Friday, the Punjab high court intervened, asking the police to explain their delay. Three police officers have been suspended in the case, according to news media reports. Punjab police officials did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.

Ms. Kaur said her sister was abducted by two men from a place of worship near the small town of Badshahpur on Nov. 13 and was drugged and raped repeatedly.

When the woman reported the episode at the local police station a few days later, she was asked to describe it in graphic detail and was “humiliated,” her sister said.

Over the next few days, Ms. Kaur said, her mother and sister were repeatedly called to the police station and forced to sit there all day.

But the case was not registered for two weeks, as police officials and village elders tried to broker a deal between the men accused of the rape and the victim. In some parts of India, women are commonly married to men who have raped them.

Ms. Kaur said the police told her family that, because they were poor, they would not be able to fight the matter in court. “They kept putting pressure on my family to take money or marry the accused or just somehow settle the matter,” she said.


After no agreement was reached, the police registered the case, but they did not make any arrests.

The victim was stalked and harassed by the men accused of the rape, who threatened to kill her and her family if she refused to drop the complaint, her suicide note said.

“They have ruined my life,” the note read, according to Ms. Kaur. The note names two men and a woman who allegedly helped the other two men as they kidnapped her. Those two men have now been arrested, the police said Friday.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/29/w...for-victim-of-gang-rape-in-india.html?hp&_r=0
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Dear friends,

I want to sincerely thank sister Ishna ji for highlighting this article and bringing it to my attention. I am naturally disturbed by this individual priest's atrocious words towards women who are victims of domestic violence. The outrage in wider Italian society would surely be echoed by any sane, rational individual with even one ounce of compassion. There is nothing in the New Testament or in the Sacred Tradition of the Church which would in any way lay the blame for a sexually abused woman on some alleged and groundless choice of clothing on her part.

Quite a range of strong views have been expressed in this thread regarding Catholicism itself - rather than just this individual priest's words - and they are not without cause either. I feel compelled to answer everyone in kind because I am as far as I can tell the only active, practising Catholic on SPN and so really the only one able to provide some discussion/debate on a few points regarding my religion itself, rather than this priest's words which I am sure we are all on exacty the same page regarding.

A few posters seem to be from a Catholic background or heritage, so I can sympathise fully with the rawness that this issue might hold on a personal level for those people, if something connected to this or a similar circumstance might have been a contributing factor in their conversion to another faith and way of life.

I should say, first of all if it even needs to be said, that the words of this priest are in direct contravention to Catholic teachings. I can see that some, I would say especially our sister Akasha, would disagree with me and I welcome a fruitful dialogue on this front with her and I honestly hope that despite our obvious disagreements we can diverge from each other in a spirit of mutual respect and love.

To begin, I would like her to read an official document of Venerable Pope Paul VI:


"...If we were to reduce to a few brief essentials these brief indications concerning the place women should have in a renewed society, we might say: Let us willingly vote for
  1. (1) the recognition of the civil rights of women as the full equals of men, whenever these rights have not yet been acknowledged;
  2. (2) laws that will make it really possible for women to fill the same professional, social and political roles as men, according to the individual capacities of the person;
  3. (3) the acknowledgment, respect and protection of the special prerogatives of women in marriage, family, education and society;
  4. (4) the maintenance and defense of the dignity of women as persons, unmarried women, wives and widows; and the help they need, especially when the husband is absent, disabled or imprisoned, that is, when he cannot fulfill his function in the family..."
- Venerable Pope Paul VI (The Role of Women in Contemporary Society," The Pope Speaks, XIX (December 8, 1974), 316)


If Chile or any other Catholic majority nation failed to implement the principles outlined above, then they are not acting in accordance with official church teaching, as I feel Akasha to be intimating, just as many in the Punjab do not adhere to the gurus teachings on gender equality.

In 2009 Pope Benedict XVI wrote a letter to the bishops of Africa regarding the inferior status of and violence towards women in many African nations:


"...There are places and cultures where women are discriminated against or undervalued for the sole fact of being women, where acts of violence are consummated in regard to women.... Faced with such grave and persistent phenomena the Christian commitment appears all the more urgent so that everywhere it may promote a culture that recognizes the
dignity that belongs to women, in law and in concrete reality..."



Our friend Akasha wrote:



And the above is EXACTLY why I left the Catholic religion!!!! Well, in addition to that my beliefs in reincarnation etc really didn't sit well with Christianity either...but Catholicism is HUGELY mysogynistic!!! They believe that women should be barefoot, perpetually pregnant, and subordinate / slaves to men...It is in fact the opposite because Mary ... the very image of a virgin, submissive, mother, etc. is what all Catholic women
are being compared to. So unless a women is stuck at home raising kids, is submissive, etc then she is not seen as leading a worthwhile life.



Dear sister Akasha ji,

Thank you for your post, I have read over and reflected on it carefully.
You are correct that Catholicism would not accept reincarnation, and so I am glad that you had the courage to follow the dictates of your conscience and adhere to this belief in the face of church dogma which rejected it.


I would say first of all that official Catholic teaching does not suggest that the female gender is in any way inferior to men. We believe in the equality of human beings regardless of gender. The problem with the idea expressed above, is that the Early Church was most popular in its preaching amongst women:


Christianity seems to have been especially successful among women. It was often through the wives that it penetrated the upper classes of society in the first instance. Christians believed in the equality of men and women before God and found in the New Testament commands that husbands should treat their wives with such consideration and love as Christ manifested for his Church. Christian teaching about the sanctity of marriage offered a powerful safeguard to married women (Henry Chadwick, The Early Church, Penguin,
58–59).

Would it not be strange for women to flock to a new exotic religion which treated them with "misogynistic disdain"? Something about Christianity was particularly appealing to Roman women. What would you say it was Akasha?

The records are there. Women were the most fervent of missionaries. Mary Magdalene was the first witness to the resurrection. Phoebe, the deacon, was renowned by Paul. Women read letters such as Paul's out to their communities. Saint Perpetua, the most famous martyr of the early church, was of course a woman - and a noble one at that.

One of the ridicules that educated Christians received from Roman polemicists of the era, was that the church's central doctrine - the resurrection of the Christ (however understood literally or spiritually) was founded on the testimony of women.

Celsus, a Greek philosopher who lived in the second century A.D., was highly antagonistic to Christianity and wrote a number of works listing arguments against it. One of the arguments he believed most telling went like this: Christianity can’t be true, because the written accounts of the resurrection are based on the testimony of women—and we all know women are hysterical. And many of Celsus’ readers agreed: For them, that was a major problem. In ancient societies, as you know, women were marginalized, and the testimony of women was never given much credence.

Celsus wrote in part of Saint Mary Magdalene:

"...After death he rose again...But who saw this? A hysterical female and perhaps some other one of those who were deluded by the same sorcery" (apud Origen, C. Cels. 2.5s).

Elsewhere he dismissed the resurrection as the result of "womanish fantasies".

Compare this to how the Early Christian Church viewed it women heroines, in this case Junia a female Apostle referred to by Paul and Mary Magdalene, the Apostle to the Apostles:

"...[Junia] To be an Apostle is something great. But to be outstanding among the Apostles [as Paul says of Junia] - just think what a wonderful song of praise that is! They were outstanding on the basis of their works and virtous actions. Indeed, how great the wisdom of this woman must have been that she was deemed worthy of the title of Apostle...[Mary] How is this? A woman again is honored and proclaimed victorious! Again are we men put to shame. Or rather, we are not put to shame only,but have even an honor conferred upon us. For an honor we have, in that there are such women among us, but we are put to shame, in that we men are left so far behind by them. For the women of those days were more spirited than lions, sharing with the Apostles their labors for the Gospel’s sake. In this way they went travelling with them, and also performed all other ministries. And even in Christ’s day there followed Him women, “which ministered unto Him of their substance” (Luke viii. 3), and waited upon the Teacher..."

- Saint John Chrysostom (349–407), early catholic church father


I highly doubt that a religion which responds to Roman pagans ridiculing its women as "hysterical females" with the idea that they have the spirits of "lions" should be dismissed so easily as misogynistic.

Lion-like women do not strike me as submissive sterotypes. These were strong, courageous women like Saint Joan of Arc much later on the middle ages, she who was the greatest of all catholic soldier-saints, of which there were many but of whose number she is undoubtefly the queen and empress of them all.

You see Christianity was so popular amongst women and its early days were peopled with heroines who outshone the men because its often railed against Roman sexism towards women.

The Church influenced the status of women in various ways in the Roman Empire: condemning the infanticide of girls (rife in the Empire because they could not earn money or prestige for the family), divorce (women could be dispensed rather easily), incest, polygamy and counting the marital infidelity of men as equally sinful to that of women. That last point particularly enraged the early church and endeared women to it.

In the Roman Empire, husbands were allowed to leave their wife. Wives were denied a reciprocal right. Early Church Fathers pointed to the Gospel of Mark, which describes Jesus labelling men or women who divorced and remarried as adulterers. In Rome men were allowed to have multiple lovers whilst women often ended up dead as punishment for their adulterous affairs. In the early Roman Law the jus tori belonged to the husband. There was, therefore, no such thing as the crime of <!--k23-->adultery on the part of a husband towards his wife. Saint Gregory of Nazianzus wrote vehemently against the practice of punishing women who committed adultery while overlooking the same acts by men.


"Married women were attracted to the Christian ideal that men and women shared the same obligatory moral code. Women often converted first and introduced the religion to their social network; it was in this way that the religion often spread to the upper classes of society."


In Roman marriages, after a period of 12 months, the husband assumed Manus (that is ownership) over his wife, as he would over any other of his moveable property. Marriages were often arranged between families for social benefit. Divorce was also incredibly easy, straightforward and common for men while woman were no consulted ar all. The Early Christians, alternatively, taught that marriage was an equal bond of love between a man and a woman that reflected the love between Christ and his Church. Saint Paul tells us that in a Christian marriage the wife owns the husband's body and he owns her body; that is a mutual ownership that completely runs counter to Roman understandings of marriage, and indeed Roman Law which stipulated the ownership only of the husband over the wife:



Quote:
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%"><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset" class=alt2>"...For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife..."

- Corinthians 7:4





</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

In many ways therefore, Christianity opposed the sexism of Roman law thus attracting women to en masse, such that Romans often derided it as a "religion of women, cripples and slaves" (partly true since Jesus was particularly close to the outcasts of society and some early popes had been former slaves).
Read this from the current pope:

"...Women in particular were sensitive to the new, different, noble, and mysterious something that made its appearence in Jesus, and in special ways he drew them into his company. In contrast to the contemporary Jewish custom, by which women were viewed as being secondary status, Jesus achieved something like an emancipation of women. Because of this social status, women belonged somehow in this category of little ones, who were assured of God's special love and his special attention. And by so doing he called forth the charism of womem. In their meeting with him, the two women of Bethany come especially into our field of vision. They show us how, from then on, women play an essential part, as living and active members, in the building up of the Church. It was the women who stayed by Jesus faithfully, to the foot of the Cross. In contrast to them, the [male] disciples had all long since made themselves scarce. Mary Magdalene...she in particular, not Peter or John, was now the first person permitted to report his Resurrection. A remarkable fact, when we consider that in the Orient women were simply not considered capable of bearing witness in court. On that account Saint Augustine called Mary Magdalene the Apostle of the Apostles. And that title has remained. Right up to 1962 the Preface of the Apostles was read in the liturgy on her day, because she was reckoned as being "the woman apostle". The fact that Mary Magdalene was the first to bring the message of the Resurrection to the Apostles shows once more the especially close and warm relationship Jesus had with this woman. We can also detect that in the dialogue, when he simply says, when she does not recognize him, the name "Mary". And then she recognizes him and falls at his feet: "Rabboni, my Master". That expresses reverence, distancing herself from his greatness, yet at the same time her great love for him..."

- Pope Benedict XVI, interviewed by Peter Seewald in "God and the World: believing and living in our time"



Consider also this medeival picture from the St Albans Psalter (created in the 12th century):

Mary_Magdalen_announcing_the_resurrection.jpg



Read:
"...The St. Albans Psalter, probably commissioned by the anchoress and then prioress Christina of Markyate, depicts Mary authoritatively proclaiming the resurrection to the eleven remaining apostles. This illumination invites viewers to imagine Mary as the twelfth apostle....A column divides the scene into unequal parts, with Mary Magdalen in profile isolated commandingly in her own rectangle while the eleven apostles crowd together under an arch. Mary is telling the disciples that she has seen the risen Lord (John 20:18). The apostles look amazed, clutching books and raising their hands...Mary’s authoritative role as ‘apostle to the apostles’ derives from her witness of Christ’s risen body in the previous scene..."

Now consider this painting in light of this from Pope John Paul II (1920-2005):

“...From the beginning of Christ's mission, women show to him and to his mystery a special sensitivity which is characteristic of their femininity. It must also be said that this is especially confirmed in the Paschal Mystery, not only at the Cross but also at the dawn of the Resurrection. The women are the first at the tomb. They are the first to find it empty. They are the first to hear "He is not here. He has risen, as he said." (Mt 28:6). They are the first to embrace his feet (cf. Mt 28:9), They are also the first to be called to announce this truth to the Apostles (cf. Mt 28:1-10, Lk 24:8-11). The Gospel of John (cf. also Mk 16:9) emphasizes the special role of Mary Magdalene. She is the first to meet the Risen Christ. At first she thinks he is the gardener; she recognizes him only when he calls her by name: "Jesus said to her, 'Mary'…. Hence she came to be called "the apostle of the Apostles". Mary Magdalene was the first eyewitness of the Risen Christ, and for this reason she was also the first to bear witness to him before the Apostles. This event, in a sense, crowns all that has been said previously about Christ entrusting divine truths to women as well as men. One can say that this fulfilled the words of the Prophet: 'I will pour out my spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy'. Everything that has been said so far about Christ's attitude to women confirms and clarifies, in the Holy Spirit, the truth about the equality of man and woman. One must speak of an essential "equality", since both of them - the woman as much as the man - are created in the image and likeness of God. Both of them are equally capable of receiving the outpouring of divine truth and love in the Holy Spirit..."(Jl 3:1) (cf. Mulieris Dignitatem, n.16)
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Ishna.. that Ephesians 5 quote in its entirety still puts women in subordination to men. It says the men have to love their wives but not submit to them. (treating someone well and loving them is not the same as submitting to them...) In other words, women are supposed to do what the man says and serve him and he is supposed to treat her well in return. Still sounds like a slave / master relationship to me. When I say equality, that means nobody has to 'submit' to the other at the detriment of their own desires and dreams. You work as a team.

Akasha sister, haven't you overlooked something very key here? mundahug

In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul prefaces his whole discussion of headship in chapter 5 with a statement clearly indicating that neither party has power over the other: "Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph. 5:21).

For some reason you seem to have skipped over this verse. In the early Christian community everyone, male or female, was supposed to submit to the other as a baptized brother or sister. There was an early Christian saying attributed to Jesus which went, "let one who has power renounce it". This "submission" or "subjection" had nothing to do with a master/slave relationship of power over another but rather that the greatest should strive to become the least, those who want to be leaders should serve so that they do not view themselves as being tyrants with power over other equal human beings, stemming from words uttered by Jesus:

"...He who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted..."

- Jesus (Matthew 23:1-12)

"...Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many..."

- Jesus (Mark 10:32-45)


Also consider this verse which seems to fit the "male dominance" criteria:

“...Wives, be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. Husbands, love your wives and never treat them harshly....”

- Colossians 3:18-19


What does "love" mean in a Christian context? Paul's definition of love in I Corinthians 13:4-7: "Love is patient and kind; love is not jealous or boastful, it is not arrogant or rude. Love does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrong, but rejoices in the right. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends."

So part of that "love" for his wife is that he shouldn't insist on his own way, according to the Christian understanding of love.

Also this passage:

"...You husbands in the same way, live with your wives in an understanding way, paying honour to the woman as the physically weaker sex; and showing her honor as an equal heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered..."

- 1 Peter 3:7
 
Last edited:

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
Your explanations still don't explain one thing:

I can just as easily love my husband as he loves me. But the Bible does not ever tell men to be subject to their wives. Only the reverse. There is a clear headship that is taught in the Bible and that is that women are at the bottom and not be in leadership positions or positions of authority over men.

And women will never be ordained as Priests or have any leadership roles in the Catholic religion.

You can't argue that there is a hierarchy there. And that women are below men in that hierarchy.

That is not equality.... no matter how much women are 'loved' and yes I grew up Catholic, took first communion,... never was confirmed though because at that young age, I started to question why I could never be a Priest or even (at the time) an Altar girl.

But this is getting away from the original post.... so that's where I will end it.
 

WWW

SPNer
Jun 25, 2011
17
11
Akasha,
I think you fundamentally do not understand the catholic faith. You resent it without understanding it, and I do not think that you realize that you don't understand it. You seem to be carrying around this "former catholic" thing, just let it go and be a sikh. Your resentment for your old religion clouds your judgement, and plenty to learn about sikhism without wasting your time on this stuff.
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
The conversation has been essentially a debate regarding the Roman Catholic religion and the role of women. The main points in the OP regarding a priest's comment on rape, and public outrage, have basically dimmed. Therefore, the thread is moved to Interfaith Dialogs/Christianity.
 
Last edited:

Ishna

Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,261
5,193
Further to the OP:

Catholic Priest Blames Italy’s Stiletto Murders on Women

by Barbie Latza Nadeau <TIME class=timestamp property="dc:created" datetime="2012-12-28T09:45:00.000Z" pubdate="pubdate">Dec 28, 2012 4:45 AM EST

It’s no surprise that misogyny appears to be alive and well in certain corners of Catholic Italy, where women are hardly viewed as men’s equals. But in the town of Lerici, near Turin, parish priest Father Piero Corsi sparked unprecedented outrage this Christmas, when he chose the delicate issue of femicide, or the killing of women in domestic disputes, as his Christmas bulletin theme.

Thus far in 2012, 120 women have been killed in domestic disputes in Italy, a third more than last year. Last June the United Nations Human Rights Council urged Italian leaders to combat domestic violence by putting the issue on the national agenda, pointing out that domestic violence in Italy was more prevalent than any other type of violence in the country. According to the domestic-violence hotline, Telefono Rosa, one woman is killed every two days in Italy by a man who once loved her. “This is an atrocity that can no longer be tolerated in a civilized country,” Maria Gabriella Carnieri Moscatelli, head of Telefono Rosa, told The Daily Beast.

Most analysts attribute the spike in violence to the changing role of women in society and a new law that has made violent crimes, once considered acts of passion, easier to prosecute as standard murders. Corsi had a different interpretation. In his annual letter to his parishioners, which he affixed to the church bulletin board on Christmas Eve as he does every holiday season, the priest blamed the problem squarely on women themselves. "Is it possible that men have turned randomly crazy all of a sudden?” he wrote. “We don't believe so. The point is that more and more women provoke, fall into arrogance, believe they are too independent and exacerbate tensions. They trigger the worst instincts, leading to violence and sexual abuse. They should consider self-examination and ask the question: did we ask for it?"

Corsi also wrote that women are becoming far too confident, “leaving the children to play alone, not keeping a tidy house and serving cold suppers and fast food.” He wrote that a man can’t help but to lose his wits when his clothes aren’t clean and ironed, or if the house is not neatly organized, underscoring the sad fact that in Italy, most household chores are still the sole responsibility of the woman, whether she works outside the home or not. He also blamed women’s fashion choices as a trigger for violence: “How often do we see girls and even mature women walking on the streets in provocative and tight clothing?" he wrote.

The letter appears to be a badly misinterpreted take on “Mulieres Dignitatem,” Pope John Paul II’s 1988 apostolic treatise on the dignity of women, which sought to define the Catholic Church’s take on gender equality by setting strict limits on women’s roles in the church and at home.

Corsi’s letter went viral in Italy after several parishioners were offended and sent photos of the letter to the media. Corsi’s parish did not return a call for comment, but when approached by a RAI Radio reporter to clarify what he meant, Corsi reportedly said: "I don't know if you are homosexual or not, but what do you feel when you see a naked woman? Is that not the woman's form of violence to unveil herself that way?"

Since Corsi posted the letter, a dialogue about gender—one long ignored in Italy—has ensued. The letter caused enough outrage that the bishop of nearby La Spezia ordered that it be removed from the church board and has asked Corsi to refrain from commenting on the matter. Even the Vatican quickly sought to distance the church in Rome from Father Corsi’s missive. “There is widespread often dramatic violence against women and you can not think at all that it's the fault of women themselves,” Monsignor Vincenzo Paglia, the president of the Vatican’s Congregation for the Family, told Vatican Radio on Thursday. “We all have responsibility for what we say, and words are often heavy.”

For some of Corsi’s critics, that’s not enough. Moscatelli is calling on both outgoing prime minister Mario Monti and the pope to intervene by reeducating men about equality. “We believe Father Corsi’s message is an incitement to violent behavior against women because it offers an unheard-of motivation for criminal acts against them,” said Moscatelli. “In Italy, which has the highest number of femicides in Europe and a very high level of domestic violence, an episode like this is no longer tolerable.”

Source: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...y-s-stiletto-murders-on-women.html#body_text6</TIME>
 

Ishna

Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,261
5,193
I just had a reasonably good read of the Mulieres Dignitatem, and although I started to skim from about half way through, it didn't seem all that antagonistic to me.

However, I did learn that since I'm no longer a virgin, and don't intend to become a mother, I'm pretty much screwed. lol
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Your explanations still don't explain one thing:

I can just as easily love my husband as he loves me. But the Bible does not ever tell men to be subject to their wives. Only the reverse. There is a clear headship that is taught in the Bible and that is that women are at the bottom and not be in leadership positions or positions of authority over men.

And women will never be ordained as Priests or have any leadership roles in the Catholic religion.

You can't argue that there is a hierarchy there. And that women are below men in that hierarchy.

That is not equality.... no matter how much women are 'loved' and yes I grew up Catholic, took first communion,... never was confirmed though because at that young age, I started to question why I could never be a Priest or even (at the time) an Altar girl.

But this is getting away from the original post.... so that's where I will end it.

Akasha kaurhug

The odd thing is that the church does not interpret these passages as meaning male dominance over women. Consider Blessed Pope John Paul II's words:

John Paul II writes (quoting an authority from the past): "Authentic conjugal love presupposes and requires that a man have a profound respect for the equal dignity of his wife: 'You are not her master...but her husband; she was not given you to be your slave, but your wife. . . . Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love."' (FC 25).

Thus he clarified that Catholics do not believe the very thing you are insinuating.

The quote in John Paul II's phrase comes from the church father st Ambrose:

"...You are not her master but her husband; she was not given to you to be your slave, but your wife. ... Reciprocate her attentiveness to you and be grateful to her for her love

- Saint Ambrose of Milan (330 – 397), early church father



So as you can see the Early Church also did not interpret these passages as connotating some kind of master/slave relationship between husband and wife.

Pope Pius XI (1857 – 1939) stressed even more than John Paul the intrinsic equality of men and women when commenting on this specific passage in Ephesians: "This subjection [to her husband] does not deny or take away the liberty which fully belongs to the woman both in view of her dignity as a human person, and in view of her most noble office as wife and mother and companion; nor does it bid her obey her husband's every request if not in harmony with right reason or the dignity due to wife, nor, in fine, does it imply that the wife should be put on a level with those persons who in law are called minors..."

He furthermore said that, "If the husband neglect his duty, it falls to the wife to take his place in directing the family" (CC).

It should be noted that the Catholic Church also does not believe in sola scriptura nor do we accept biblical inerrancy as defined by Protestants. The Bible was written by human authors and the spirit of God made use of their own ideas, thoughts, cultural, social and religious background and expressed divine truths through this.

A final thought: I find it interesting that none of your quotes come from Jesus but rather from Paul's letters, Jesus of course is recorded in catholic sacred tradition from the early second century as saying:

"...For the Lord Jesus himself, being asked when the kingdom would come, replied, ‘When the two shall be one, that which is without as that which is within, and the male with the female, neither male nor female’..."

- Jesus Christ, (Second Epistle of Clement, early second century)


The Apostolic Father in this holy epistle goes on to provide an interpretation of this saying of the Lord which the Church has passed down (although its not in the Bible we Catholics regard Sacred Tradition as divinely revealed unlike Protestants):


"...Now [...] "the male with the female, neither male nor female," this he says so that a brother, seeing a sister, might have no thought concerning her as a female and that she might have no thought concerning him as a male..."


This is what the Early Catholic Church taught based upon Jesus' teachings.

Hardly a "misogynist". peacesignkaur
On the issue of women and the hierarchy, I will write a post on that and put it in this thread later today or tommorrow. It deserves more treatment in its own right.
 
Last edited:
Nov 23, 2010
263
599
www ji
Akasha,
I think you fundamentally do not understand the catholic faith. You resent it without understanding it, and I do not think that you realize that you don't understand it. You seem to be carrying around this "former catholic" thing, just let it go and be a sikh. Your resentment for your old religion clouds your judgement, and plenty to learn about sikhism without wasting your time on this stuff.

You come across as extremely pompous. I think You owe Akasha an explanation as to what you mean rather than saying that just saying she doesn't understand the Catholic faith and more over how she should spend her time.
What is it that YOU mean?
 

Ishna

Writer
SPNer
May 9, 2006
3,261
5,193
Vouthon ji said:
On the issue of women and the hierarchy, I will write a post on that and put it in this thread later today or tommorrow. It deserves more treatment in its own right.

Very keen to read your thoughts on this particular subject, brother. Thanks for your insight on the thread to date. peacesignkaur
 

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
I personally do not have the mental energy to read Mulieres Dignitatem, and therefore will rely on respected forum members to provide mini-reports as needed. I do know, after significant Internet searching, that the Roman church does view rape as a violation of personal dignity, and homicide as a mortal sin. All this proves what we have understood to be true time and again, religion by religion, ethnic group by ethnic group, and nation by nation: The scriptures people adhere to rarely match actual deeds and words. Culture trumps religion and there appears to be no end to it. It teaches obedience not morality. Yet that is what Guru Nanak meant by living a nightmare, by being unconscious. Individuals do not accept their divine gift, their ability to choose the "good" and make a moral choice, in spite of culture. From another thread:

I feel saddened to see that rape is still being treated as something one is born with or takes to over-night. No one till now has introspected and said as mother "we will BELIEVE when a girl comes to us complaining about our teenage sons," "we will not tell our daughters to shut up and live with it.," "we will not tarnish the reputation of the girl and glorify the son." Rather we are screaming about more cops, fall of a government and capital punishment. The first two may happen, but the third one is up for a serious question, are we ready to turn in those people who we call family members? Are we ready to make that change?
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
However, I did learn that since I'm no longer a virgin, and don't intend to become a mother, I'm pretty much screwed. lol

You might be interested in St Catherine of Siena. Life in 14th-century Siena seemed to offer 16-year-old Catherine Benincasa only two alternatives, an arranged marriage or life as an enclosed nun. She rejected both and became an independent living woman without the support of a man or life as a passive nun.

Instead by herself on a solitary mission to France after years of letter-writing, she ended the Avignon exile of the papacy and saved the city of Rome by walking at the pope's side back into Rome before dying at the tender age of 33 and who said:


"Catherine: My sex, you know is here an obstacle for many reasons, whether because men disparage it or because of modesty, for it is not good that a woman consort with men.

God: Isn't it I who have created the human race, and divided it into male and female? I dispense where I want the grace of my spirit. In my eyes there is neither male nor female nor rich nor poor. All are equal for I can work my will through all equally"

- Saint Catherine of Siena (1347–1380), Catholic mystic & Doctor of the Church


That's recorded by Raymond of Capua, her biographer. This was obviously her challenge to men who tried to disparage her. Quite handy I suppose to be able to claim that you are a female prophet with a divinely guided mission peacesignkaur

She became one of history's first female politicians. She also taught:


"...Be who God meant you to be and you will set the world on fire..."

- Saint Catherine of Siena (1347–1380), Catholic mystic & Doctor of the Church


This quote from her was read out at Prince William and Kate's wedding because they were married on Catherine of Siena's feastday.

I do not think that she accepted "male dominance" and she is a Doctor of the Church (the highest honour the church can confer on a canonised saint for his/her writings).

BTW on the sexual issue, Saint Hildegard of Bingen - another Doctor of the Church - wrote extensively on the female orgasm. This was quite revolutionary, since most societies including ancient Rome, had had no or little regard for women's sexual pleasure:


"...When a woman is making love with a man, a sense of heat in her brain, which brings forth with it sensual delight, communicates the taste of that delight during the act and summons forth the emission of the man’s seed. And when the seed has fallen into its place, that vehement heat descending from her brain draws the seed to itself and holds it...."

- Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), philosopher, mystic, visionary, artist, poet, composer, theologian and Doctor of the Catholic Church


A little bit on her:


Hildegard of Bingen was a twelfth century nun, possibly with repressed lesbian desires, who had visions, was a proto-scientist, advised the Pope, composed music, and, er, wrote about the role of the brain in the female orgasm.

Great Lives just had a fantastic programme about her where they read out her description of the female orgasm and how it is driven by a ‘sense of heat’ in the brain.

Remember, if you could possibly forget, that this was written by a nun in the 12th century.

What's interesting is the speculation about how she got to know about the female orgasm so, uh, intimately when she lived in a convent full of women....I'll leave that to the imagination....icecreamkaur

Also Bernini's "The Ecstasy of St Theresa". A lot of people are shocked to find it in a cathedral in Rome. St Teresa is having an orgasmic experience, and the arrow of the angel piercing her heart is deliberately phallic shaped, as it appeared in her recorded vision. I saw a program on it once in which an Italian scholar said that the church at the time saw no problem with depicting a woman having an erotic experience of great pleasure in a church building, as the Baroque period from which it stemmed often mixed eroticism with spirituality.

Jacques Lacan, for example, whilst discussing the female orgasm, said that "you only have to go and look at Bernini's statue in Rome to understand immediately that she's coming, there is no doubt about it." ("Encore," Sem. XX: 70-71)


xteresafull.jpg


Her description from her writings:


"...Beside me on the left appeared an angel in bodily form . . . He was not tall but short, and very beautiful; and his face was so aflame that he appeared to be one of the highest ranks of angels, who seem to be all on fire . . . In his hands I saw a great golden spear, and at the iron tip there appeared to be a point of fire. This he plunged into my heart several times so that it penetrated my entrails. When he pulled it out I felt that he took them with it, and left me utterly consumed by the great love of God. The pain was so severe that it made me utter several moans. The sweetness caused by this intense pain is so extreme that one can not possibly wish it to cease, nor is one's soul content with anything but God. This is not a physical but a spiritual pain, though the body has some share in it -- even a considerable share..."

- Saint Teresa of Avila (1515 – 1582), catholic mystic & Doctor of the Church

A friend of mine who visited Rome as part of a school trip once said that the pupils all burst into laughter when they saw Berninin's masterpiece with the orgasming St Teresa in a corner while the priest standing beside it conducted mass and people were bowing their heads in prayer. I suppose it can be quite funny if one is not used to it, just like all the nudity on the ceiling of the Basilica of St Peter's painted by Michaelangelo.
 
Last edited:

spnadmin

1947-2014 (Archived)
SPNer
Jun 17, 2004
14,500
19,219
Vouthon ji

This from St. Hildegaard is exactly the thinking that the Roman Church brings to bear upon women, shaming them when they have been physically violated and then get pregnant. The dreadful thing about it is that women buy into this thinking and blame other women, including their own daughters.

"...When a woman is making love with a man, a sense of heat in her brain, which brings forth with it sensual delight, communicates the taste of that delight during the act and summons forth the emission of the man’s seed. And when the seed has fallen into its place, that vehement heat descending from her brain draws the seed to itself and holds it...."

- Saint Hildegard of Bingen (1098-1179), philosopher, mystic, visionary, artist, poet, composer, theologian and Doctor of the Catholic Church
. Her logic is as follows: A woman becomes pregnant ("draws the seed to herself and holds it") when she enjoys the act with a man. If she did get pregnant, then she enjoyed it. Because she enjoyed it, it was not a rape.

Now I am not kidding about this. More than one woman, including my sister, has told me that a Roman priest has conveyed this as gospel truth during religious instructions. It is a serious breach of civilized behavior. It means that even though the Roman church sees rape as a violation of the person, it qualifies the meaning of rape in a way that poses a danger to women. It is the idea of "Come on, babe! You really do like it! Don't pretend that you don't!" Or, "Well, she is pregnant isn't she? So, how could it be a rape? She must have come on to him and is just looking for pity (or child support)." We all know people who think this way. welcomekaur
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Vouthon ji

This from St. Hildegaard is exactly the thinking that the Roman Church brings to bear upon women, shaming them when they have been physically violated and then get pregnant. The dreadful thing about it is that women buy into this thinking and blame other women, including their own daughters.

. Her logic is as follows: A woman becomes pregnant ("draws the seed to herself and holds it") when she enjoys the act with a man. If she did get pregnant, then she enjoyed it. Because she enjoyed it, it was not a rape.

Now I am not kidding about this. More than one woman, including my sister, has told me that a Roman priest has conveyed this as gospel truth during religious instructions. It is a serious breach of civilized behavior. It means that even though the Roman church sees rape as a violation of the person, it qualifies the meaning of rape in a way that poses a danger to women. It is the idea of "Come on, babe! You really do like it! Don't pretend that you don't!" Or, "Well, she is pregnant isn't she? So, how could it be a rape? She must have come on to him and is just looking for pity (or child support)." We all know people who think this way. welcomekaur

Brother SPN,

I can asure you that the Roman church teaches no such thing. Rape is rape according to the catechism, a violation of a woman's dignity and a mortal sin imperiling the salvation of the perpetrator, whether she gets pregnant from it or not. I have never heard of this and I know of no trace of it in recorded history of official ecclesial documents.

That bit about the heat drawing the seed is related more to how the female orgasm causes the cervix to draw the semen farther in, which is simply Hildegard's biological description. It comes from one of her treatises on biology.

I actually think that you have taken an innocent remark from a 12th century nun on human biology as she understood it through her scientific investigations into the role played by the cervix in the sexual act (an act of "love" as she saw it between husband and wife and not a rape!), and have placed upon it an interpretation which has nothing to do with it regarding an alleged church understanding that rape would not be rape if the woman becomes pregnant.

Its not talking about rape in any way nor is it making some kind of apologetic for it. If you read up on any scholars who have wrote on this passage they will explain the biological point that Hildegard was making about the brain's activity during sexual arousal and the cervix.

I am greatly surprised to read such an allegation from you, although if something did occur on a personal level as you say then I am appalled but do not attribute it to catholic teaching. I should add that I firmly take you at your word and believe you, however I cannot say otherwise than that it is not catholic teaching.

There are great cultural problems for example in Italy, which has a well-known culture of silence when it comes to women who suffer from abuse due to the excessively masculine orientation of society but this is no more 'catholic' than the Punjab is authentically 'sikh'.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
"Come on, babe! You really do like it! Don't pretend that you don't!" Or, "Well, she is pregnant isn't she? So, how could it be a rape? She must have come on to him and is just looking for pity (or child support)."

I am sorry brother SPN but this time you have really lost me. Such an attitude is gravely immoral and would never be acceptable under catholic teaching.

Cultures where women are oppressed and relegated to inferior status to men and which have significant catholic populations, I can believe that, but official catholic teaching absolutely not.

The Catechism offers a clear moral teaching:
"Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always an intrinsically evil act. Graver still is the rape of children committed by parents (incest) or those responsible for the education of the children entrusted to them." (no. 2356)

"Always intrinsically evil act" according to the Catechism.

Furthermore (and I hate even reading such stuff since it is ghastly to imagine what women and men who are victims of rape endure):

The rapist, including his sperm, is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman's dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love.

I don't think that it could be clearer than that.
 
Last edited:

Harkiran Kaur

Leader

Writer
SPNer
Jul 20, 2012
1,393
1,921
Vouthon, but what then if a woman does get pregnant from a rape? Abortion according to Catholicism is not acceptable even in that case. So the woman is forced to deliver a child conceived from a terrifying experience, and she is forced to relive the rape over and over.
Also, in cases where the Mother's life is in danger and the pregnancy is not viable, there have been women who were refused termination of the pregnancy, which could have saved their lives. One recent case was in Ireland, where the woman was miscarrying. The baby inside her was deceased. But they would not terminate the pregnancy, citing that Ireland is a 'Catholic' country. (I believe this case was actually posted here) and the woman died because of massive internal infection.

And www: I do have an intimate knowledge of the Catholic religion, from a viewpoint many others do not, because my Father had studied to be a Catholic Priest for 3 years. So I have much knowledge about what he learned during those 3 years, and the attitudes about women.

FAct remains, women will NEVER have a leadership role in the Catholic religion ever.... no Pope will ever change the fact that Catholic religion will not ordain women. And women unless they remain virgins, or become Mothers (through marriage), are not seen as embracing their God given role of wife, mother, helper. Independence is seen as breaking away from what we were 'supposed' to be.

In any case.... rape is NEVER the victim's fault!!!!! EVER!
 
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Vouthon, but what then if a woman does get pregnant from a rape? Abortion according to Catholicism is not acceptable even in that case. So the woman is forced to deliver a child conceived from a terrifying experience, and she is forced to relive the rape over and over.

The Catholic Church has a strong tradition against direct abortion which goes back 2,000 years and this is well known because the church often speaks out on this issue, to much ridicule from the secular world. This is because it values human life without qualifications. To this end the Catholic Church even opposes the death penalty for mass murderers.

Nevertheless the Catholic Church does teach the following:

In accord with the Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Care Services (no. 36), the care for the rape victim has four aspects: First, she must receive spiritual and psychological support and counseling to help her deal with the trauma of the attack. Such support and counseling will probably continue for some time after the immediate period.
Second, health care providers need to cooperate with law enforcement officials, gathering evidence that can be used in the prosecution of the rapist.

Third, the victim needs treatment for bruises, cuts, or other injuries.
Finally, health care providers must provide treatment to prevent the possible contraction of venereal disease and pregnancy. The Directives state, "A woman who has been raped may defend herself against a conception resulting from sexual assault. If, after appropriate testing, there is no evidence that conception has occurred already, she may be treated with medication that would prevent ovulation, sperm capacitation, or fertilization. It is not permissible, however, to initiate or to recommend treatments that have as their purpose or direct effect the removal, destruction, or interference with the implantation of a fertilized ovum."(no. 36)

The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman's dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy.

Also, in cases where the Mother's life is in danger and the pregnancy is not viable, there have been women who were refused termination of the pregnancy, which could have saved their lives. One recent case was in Ireland, where the woman was miscarrying. The baby inside her was deceased. But they would not terminate the pregnancy, citing that Ireland is a 'Catholic' country. (I believe this case was actually posted here) and the woman died because of massive internal infection.


Akasha ji, I addressed this in another thread. It is off-topic but I encourage you to read my replies on that thread in which I referred to the relevant documents and please do debate with me there if you so wish.

And www: I do have an intimate knowledge of the Catholic religion, from a viewpoint many others do not, because my Father had studied to be a Catholic Priest for 3 years. So I have much knowledge about what he learned during those 3 years, and the attitudes about women.

I think that one thing this thread has established beyond doubt is that simply being ordained a priest does not therefore mean that one has a genuine knowledge of the catholic faith. Also, while priests have the authority to teach in their own dioceses and tend their flock, they are not part of the official teaching authority of the church reserved to bishops.

FAct remains, women will NEVER have a leadership role in the Catholic religion ever.... no Pope will ever change the fact that Catholic religion will not ordain women. And women unless they remain virgins, or become Mothers (through marriage), are not seen as embracing their God given role of wife, mother, helper. Independence is seen as breaking away from what we were 'supposed' to be.

Women are not allowed a leadership role in the Baha'i Faith, nor are there any Orthodox female priests, Coptic female priests, Armenian Apostolic female priests or female clerics in Shi'a Islam. Even Buddhism has unequal restrictions on women nuns. I don't see any significant reaction from you towards them.

I will address the ordination issue in another post when I have the time.

In any case.... rape is NEVER the victim's fault!!!!!

Amen to that.
 
Last edited:
Feb 23, 2012
391
642
United Kingdom
Since sister Akasha has brought up the issue of abortion, I thought she might like to consider this from a prominent Sikh scholar (who also happens to be a lady):


"...Sikh moral and ethical values are based on the idea of natural law - similar to the Roman Catholic idea of natural law - the way God wants the universe too work...Nowhere in the Guru Granth Sahib is divorce mentioned because marriage is preordained by God. The Gurus believed in the commitment to marriage...Sikh theology, like Catholic theology supports the idea that there is only one kind of morally good sexual act: sex between a man and woman who are married and who are having sex to conceive and raise children to perpetuate God's creation...According to the Guru Granth Sahib human life begins immediately at the moment of conception and that creation of life is the will of God...The embryo or zygote that God has created is a divine gift which has to be nurtured and nourished to prepare it for the world, and the time in the womb is a valuable element of the spiritual development of the human being...For Sikhs an embryo or foetus has feelings as soon as conception takes place. In the Guru Granth Sahib there are verses which describe how the unborn child has the ability to meditate upon God's name as soon as it is conceived...Since Sikh theology argues that the soul is 'born' immediately upon conception it can be infered that it would be a sin to abort a foetus because, first, human life is created by God, and second, to abort the life would be to interfere with God's creative work...The sex of a child is preordained and God's hukam (will). Children are gifts from God and couples should accept God's will...From an analysis of the Guru Granth Sahib it is clear that the Gurus had a high respect for life, which they viewed as a gift from God. Thus, a Sikh has to accept that the life he/she has was decided by our karma and that God has determined how many breaths we 'breathe'. The injuction that God has preordained how long we live and whether we have to suffer goes against the increasing modern practice of euthanasia and mercy killings. As a result there is no place for mercy killing, assisted suicide or euthanasia in Sikhism, for death happens when God commands it..."

- Jagbir Jhutti-Johal (in "Sikhism Today")


Sikh morality as understood by some Sikhs such as the above scholar is practically identical to traditional Catholic moral theology, with more liberal-minded Sikhs and Catholics also having practically the same opinion.
 
Last edited:
📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel:
Top