Sorry folks. No fiddling with the formula for Baptism. Still the old patriarchical “I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.” What will the poor feminists do? No more “Mother, Redeemer and Sanctifier.”
“Variations to the baptismal formula — using non-biblical designations of the Divine Persons — as considered in this reply, arise from so-called feminist theology,” being an attempt “to avoid using the words Father and Son which are held to be chauvinistic, substituting them with other names,” the note clarified. “Such variants, however, undermine faith in the Trinity.”
Not that the feminists will listen to the nasty patriarchy anyway. What a horrible thing for a father to be a father. What a horrible thing for the Holy Father to make sure that people are validly baptized, that they actually receive sanctifying grace and become members of the Church, and not go through life thinking they had received God’s grace when they really hadn’t.
Let the pagans have their earth worship and leave us Catholics alone.
I wonder if this feminist stuff has always been around but just in different forms. Nearly 30 years ago, my brother had a Sister for a theology teacher who said that God had no gender therefore she preferred calling Him, *her *and *she* and insisted everyone else do it, too. I remember saying to my brother, “Why did Jesus teach us to say ‘Our Father’ and ‘Abba’ then if we were to call Him by female names?” I think somehow women have felt less valued and they blame this on men. Therefore, if they can remove *men* from the picture, they can regain their value. It’s very warped, and very sad. Maybe these women have had very poor examples of men in their lives which have lead them to this conclusion.
Thus, the need for chivalry to come back again! Well, you’re probably before your time here, Father, with this ancient notion … I think men have now become insecure in their manliness and have lost respect for women and themselves, thus become selfish … so somehow they need to feel like *men* again and feel their own true worthiness before they can see the worthiness in othesrs …. or is that selfish?? Maybe they need to see the worthiness in others and then will recognize where they fit into the picture? Oy … as always, I’m utterly confused.
There is absolutely no question that this feminist stuff has always been around. You can even go as far back as our original mother, Eve. If she did not eat the apple, there wouldn’t be Original Sin. Now as a man Adam should have been watching over Eve like a husband should. She should have never felt the need to leave her hearth, if Adam kept it well protected. Needless to say that never happened. Now as punishment not only did God give the woman the “pain” of childrearing, not only in the birth, but in the actual raising of the children as well. Therefore she must remain in the home loving, caring, nurturing, training and raising her children not only to please God, but to please her husband as well. Now for the male punishment we must “toil” in the fields providing for our family, these “fields” not only being worked outside of the home in the public, but the “fields” of their household too. Meaning that the Father is the protector, provider, disciplinarian, and rock on which the family’s hearth is built.
Now we as Catholics can only achieve this through prayer, the sacraments, catechism, and the reading of the Holy Scriptures. Ephesians 5and 6 are good places to start for the well being of the family, and a blueprint for a truly Holy and happy marriage.
As far as men feeling insecure, or selfish, that is a clear representation of how they were brought up. If they were brought up by a mother and father that were never there for them because they were chasing the American dream of a house, 2.5 kids, 1 dog, a Goldfish, and endless amounts of material wealth, because they believed they were “providing” for their children, then of course there is going to be insecurity issues. Or if my mother was a “stay at home mother” and was rushing us off here and there, putting kids in all sorts of extracurricular activities keeping us away from the home than there would be issues of insecurity as well. Or maybe if the mother was always on the phone, or watching soaps, or surfing the net instead of raising her hearth than why are you surprised that boys and girls have issues of selfishness. Being raised in this destructive way of life I can personally vouch that I would have preferred to have less stuff, and more of my mother and father. Before I met my wife, who brought me to our beautiful Mother, I had issues of insecurity.
Why are you putting the entire blame on the men, and not recognizing the fact that women must be respectful towards men, and men must not only respect the woman but love them for their God given beauty. If this respect was shown to men by woman then the men could love the woman and earn their respect. Granted a lot has to do with the resurgence of chivalry, but in order for this to happen woman must take steps in order to abandon all that has been force fed to them by society, and respect men for being men.
It did indeed appear that I was putting the ‘blame’ on men … and I apologize for that because that is truly not how I feel. I guess I felt from the article of these wacky women and their agenda that it was quite obvious that women have ended up in the wrong place! Some of it is clearly due to the fact that maybe they weren’t surrounded by strong and caring men who felt women were worthy. But, some I’m quite sure is the good ol’ pride and ego that women can struggle with, too. Yes, many men I think no longer feel the respect of their wives and as I’ve said in other posts, they no longer know what to do to please women. (My husband’s famous ‘line’ is whether he should hold a door open for a woman or not … some women have gotten very angry at him for this!) So, women are surely not free of any blame. It takes both sexes to mess things up as they are and it will take both sexes to put the pieces back together again … with the focus on Our Lord instead of ourselves … always a challenge.
But, as this article states, it’s sad when people no longer see the sacraments as God designed but as something that they can manipulate to their pleasure. People have become quite bold.
This new age garbage sickens me…
As Catholics (true Christians) we are suppose to realize that there is a plague going on in modern, post modern and pre-modern society. This plague is filled with lies, deceit, selfishness, corruption, hatred, pridefulness, communism, fascism, socialism, Nazism, destruction of the family, and it is all labeled under one word Tolerance.
This very word “tolerance” has become the swan song for the feminists, the pro-gay agenda, liberals, teachers, politicians, school officials, and so on and so forth.
Why must we be tolerant of things we know are not only wrong but evil in nature. Then we get called bigots for opposing such things based on morality, and family values. It just disgusts me to see good Catholics turn away from the fight.
Not to upset anyone, or should I say the females, let your husband go to the front lines in any way possible and stand behind him at home taking care of your family. Let the men be the swordsmen, the knights, the one’s who go to battle, otherwise your not becoming part of the solution, your just adding to the problem.
Look I’m not saying you can not influence your husband to do what is right, and what should be done to defend God’s honor, and your family. You woman have such an awesome responsibility, and power over us men you don’t even realize. Unfortunately the feminists do realize what kind of power they can use to manipulate the male species, and thusly have done so. Isn’t it a beautiful thought that good catholic women will give up this public fight, hand it over to their husbands, all the while offering it up for the salvation of souls, and of the entire human race. What kind of demonstration of shear Marian grace would it be to show these feminists how to be truly feminine and take care of the hearth, and leave the world to us men.
Have faith if you let your men be men, and let them earn your respect, you will earn their love, and love will conquer all the evil in this world.
P.S. Jenn A, ask your husband if he gets just a little bit of satisfaction when he holds the door open for those who get angry at him. I know I do, it really is a great feeling. Is that wrong that I get pleasure for being a true man, when a untrue woman gets upset at a gesture I am making?
Set All Afire,
You make things sound so easy. 😉 Or, atleast so crystal clear! Sadly I feel that my family falls short of other families’ ability to live this completely holy life. My husband works long hours … with a long commute. Fortunately his travel is minimal but he cannot get out and fight all these battles as he would probably like. He gets home after we’ve eaten dinner, most nights, and he’s whipped. He many times falls into the habit of watching the tube because it’s *mindless*. I cannot blame him though I hate t.v. Can I influence him here? Perhaps … perhaps I could try harder. But, he works hard which has allowed me to stay home raising the family for nearly 2 decades. But, these battles I feel must get fought instead by me. Do I want to do this? Quite honestly, no! It exhausts me to even think about it but every so often, I start to realize that it needs to get done by SOMEONE. Then I ask, “Lord, is it me?”
I fear that the breakdown in our society have absolutely manifested itself in the family (preaching to the choir, here). Companies want blood from their employees … what used to be the job of 2 or 3 people is now the job of one. Layoffs are always aroudn the corner scaring employees to step it up yet another notch! But, this limits what this employee could once manage outside of his workday. Then, with the added expectations of schools and other activities and we have to work VERY hard to find balance all the time! Some families find this balance better than others but most struggle with it to some degree. So, we pray, pray, pray!
P.S. Does my husband still hold open doors … oh, yes. As he says, you really cannot win here … they’re mad if you open them and mad if you don’t. So, err by doing the *right* thing.
Have a blessed Sunday,
I was checking out your post, and I would like to invite you to post your reply to an open question to all believers, on my blog:
I am asking in all sincerity, because I do actually want to understand differing view points, and since you seem certain of your faith, I feel your input would be relevant.
Thank you in advance.
Thank you for the invitation and the respectful inquiry.
From your blog’s banner:
Based on your laud of skepticism, and your particular definition of it, I really think the the presuppositions to your question, namely, those concerning the possibility of certitude and how that might be defined, and in general the nature and scope of knowledge as opposed to belief (of any kind), are much more preliminary questions that need to be discussed before any dialog concerning the relative differences of religious faith can be fruitfully conducted.
Mind you, I only proceed in this fashion because your question has a context, and that context is a philosophical defense of something you call skepticism.
Thank you again.
My blog’s banner changes quite often (in fact it just changed today when I posted the new article “Skeptical quotes of the moment” to reflect one of the many quotes from this post).
While the quotes I choose often are a good reflection of some aspect that I agree with, they are not necessarily a reflection of my entire believe system, or a reflection of the “purpose” of my blog.
My last few posts, and the next few I have already begun to write are based in large part on topics (such as fast food being bad for you, suv’s being bad for the environment, etc) that need a dose of skepticism.
The post I have invited you to also is one that skepticism can be a major factor in, but it is not my primary focus on this post. My focus on this post is for people to give a description of why they came to their own personal beliefs, either because of or despite the evidence. This has lead to a number of “side” discussions, but the overall goal of this post is for people to understand that just because you have “faith” in your religion does not automatically make it right. There are many different religions, and people following ALL OF THEM are just as convinced that their religion is correct, and for many of the same reasons.
I understand your point, and am well aware of the subjective certitude of people of different faiths, as you might imagine. Nevertheless, it is one thing to suggest that conclusions should be based on evidence rather than assumptions, and that we should weigh the value of a conclusion proportionally to the matter in hand and the weight of the evidence, it is quite another to suggest that skepticism should be a habit of mind.
I believe the mind is meant to arrive at conclusions, and that it is a good thing that it should. I believe that there is such a thing as truth and the mind is fundamentally ordered to it and capable of finding it.
Perhaps, it is only a matter of definition. Perhaps you only mean that one should hesitate before drawing a conclusion. If, on the other hand, your skepticism is a epistemological assertion, then that is a much different matter.
If I told you the following:
That when you open your fridge, that a tiny invisible elf turns the light on. This elf by virtue of being tiny and invisible can not be seen, touched, heard, or in an way studied through man made means. This elf also leaves absolutely no trace of it’s being in your fridge, and your fridge is “designed” to look at if electricity is being used in conjunction with a small switch to turn on the light.
Obviously this argument is complete and utter bunk, and by DEFAULT you should be skeptical unless there is evidence to support my “elf theory”.
The same should go for any unusual claim, such as “natural medicines”, cryptological animals, alien visitations, ghosts, etc…
By default, if something seems to be outside the realm of the normal natural order of the way we understand the world to work, we should ALWAYS be skeptical…
I believe we should always be reasonable, and as I said above, our
Evidence that might be lead to more than one conclusion, or a parvity of evidence will inspire me to be skeptical of a conclusion thus drawn. Furthermore, if evidence is based on the testimony of a witness, I will want to know the value of that person’s testimony as a witness and give that testimony the value due to it–no less and no more.
If you wish to speak of elves, then I will discuss the question in context, or perhaps I will dismiss it altogether as too foolish to even discuss; however, if that is “skepticism,” then it is only in the sense that the matter at hand warrants it. On the face of any consideration of the matter, the evidence, reasonably considered, warrants dismissal.
The proposition that skepticism should become a habit of mind has far reaching consequences that need to be examined. The very word “skepticism” implies that you might be advocating for a philosophical or epistemological doubt about the possibility of firm conclusions.
We return to more fundamental questions which are implied in your advocacy of skepticism. If you do believe it should be a fundamental habit of mind, then more important than any discussion of God or faith are questions about the nature of truth, or perhaps the possibility of it, the nature of certitude and its value, and what constitutes true knowledge as opposed to mere belief.
I believe that a negative can never be proven 100%, but I also believe that we can “know” things to enough of a certainty to live our lives as if it is a “fact” one way or another.
Wit the elf for example, I can not PROVE that it does not exist, but I am not going to live my life as if there is a chance that it does (i.e. I’m not going to leave it snacks, etc).
With regards to gravity (which is technically another theory that is not yet actually proven 100%) I am going to live my life as if it is proven. I am not going to hold a coin out ni the air and have any expectation that it will do anything OTHER than fall directly to the ground.
While I think a skepticism approach to life is a good, valuable, and necessary outlook, I also believe that once enough evidence is put forth (or a lack of evidence) then one can make a perfectly reasonable assertion that something does or does not exist, and live their life under this assumption until new evidence comes forth that challenges that belief.
While by definition very few things can ever be “proven” 100%, we can live our lives with “good enough” evidence to support our knowledge and as new evidence comes to light, reevaluate certain aspects if need be.
From reading your replies, I think you would agree with this philosophy. I don’t think we are as far off as you first believed, it seems as if you believed I was of the mind set that “nothing can be certain, and how do we even know what reality is”. And while this is true on a theoretical debate kind of way, I live my life as if things are “certain enough”. I’ve had really odd debates with friends over these subjects, mostly as a running gag, but in my daily life I accept that things are as they seem.
Jen and Fire Setter,
Great insights! Everything is a struggle nowadays.
I think we could argue forever about who is most to blame, men or women? We all bear the burden, and finger pointing is generally an exercise in self-indulgence.
I have to admit, while I try to point out the things that need to be changed with respect to both sexes, I do believe that a higher responsibility belongs to the man as head of the family. It is generally men, who, for whatever reason, abandon their families. They may feel as though they have no choice, given the behavior of the woman, but the responsibility lies heavier with them.
I don’t have any doubts about gravity, either theoretical or practical, if one understands that when I use the term “gravity” here it means what it would to the average person. It is one thing to say that the scientific explanation of a particular phenomenon is an unproved theory, its another thing to entertain a doubt about an observable fact and its predictability.
Of course, there might be reasons why in one case or another gravity does not have its ordinary effect, but I have no doubt, theoretical or practical, that if I drop a coin it will fall. I don’t need “to live my life as if it is proven,” while theoretically entertaining a doubt. I don’t think skepticism in this respect is helpful at all.
If you agree with this as I have stated it, then I don’t think your use of the example of gravity is helpful to your advocacy of skepticism.
Indeed, that is exactly what I surmised, and I don’t think a merely theoretical debate on this point should be considered insignificant, even if one acts as though things were true in spite of the fact that they remain in doubt. This is precisely why I have brought up the more fundamental issues that seem to underlie your blog question.
Epistemological skepticism historically has called into question the external world, the ability to have any confidence that our ideas correspond to anything in reality, the principle of non-contradiction and the very self. Not much left.
In my view, it does no good to argue that these are merely theoretical doubts, that skeptics continue to act “on the best evidence” that common sense may be safely followed, while reserving judgment theoretically. This is a fundamental philosophical point of view and would by necessity become a first principle of logic and moral discretion.
. I am just merely trying to point out that the breakdown in the family is through the lack of fortitude, by the “father” in the family. I feel that the direct lack of this fortitude is in direct correlation to the lack of true feminine gentility that was shown by Our Lady. Jesus would have never started his public ministry if it we’re not for Mary giving her permission, and her blessing to start the beginning of the end. Jesus humbly obeyed the wishes of His mother to provide the miracle at the wedding feast, knowing all the time that he is taking the first step towards his passion.
Mothers and wives should be given their blessing, in true humility, to their sons or husbands, to pick up the sword and fight for Christ. In turn Husbands and sons should obey the wishes of those close to them. Meaning if wives were humble, hearth bearers, men could be humble, knights. I guess what I’m trying to say is that if wives asked their husbands to provide for their family financially laboring out of home, than wives could provide charity inside the home.
Woman do fight battles however, just not in the way a man does. God calls women to fight their spiritual battles in the private life through prayer, penance, sacrifice, mortification, and fasting. In contrast men fight their spiritual battle in the public realm aided by these sacrifices and mortifications. A Godly man goes out into the world and thwarts all the attacks on the family and on the church.