Feminism and Catholicism: The Church is not Misogynistic, in fact the polar opposite
You really are coming off as a charlatan. "CON:That is Pro"s thesis but there has
been little evidence yet provided to support that position." No, that was not my thesis,
it was a COUNTER to your point in R1. My thesis was this (which oddly enough is usually
found near the start of someone's argument): "The church celebrates women, celebrates
their femininity, celebrates their ability to bring life into a world of death, and
in fact holds that the FIRST and perhaps GREATEST Christians in history were in fact,
women! There is a biblical and historical foundation for all of these ideas." You
go on to say that since there is SOME discrimination against women, there must be
some level of misogyny. No, this is a logical fallacy, I can tell you are going to
have trouble on the LSAT. Further more, discrimination is not always a bad thing,
as seen in the second entry of the definition I previously provided. It simply means you are able to see the difference in something. An Analogy, we celebrate the beauty of the color white, and the color black by themselves,
but we do not always need to make them exactly the same or mix them together to make
gray. I'm just going to generally sum up some of your points instead of being systematic,
because debates are not about convincing the opponent, but getting your side out there for the audience. So you say in the beginning that I provide no evidence
for my thesis. Now that we have established that you cannot even find where my thesis
is, and I have provided it, I will tell you that I did provide examples and evidence
for it in everything I refuted and countered in R1. While it is obvious that you can
make a nice presentation, do research, and cite well...you really just cherry pick
what you want. I mean that's what debating is though, in the competitive sense, but
I can tell you really don't have a desire to see the other side. You cite a bishop.
One bishop. Judas was a bishop, too. Here let me do a quote mining experiment: From
Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood founder, "[We should] apply a stern and rigid
policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny
is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted
to offspring." ^http://www.lifenews.com... Well that must represent the whole view
of the organization. Eugenics is great, how can anyone be opposed to it! So now let's
move onto the subject of pornography, which you countered clumsily by saying, "In
fact, Church policy condemns most sex and sexuality outside the precincts of connubial
baby-making but pornography is not the only way to objectify a woman. When women are
denied access to birth control, they are reduced to make-defined function. Men are
encouraged to follow their callings while women are the machines that bear and raise
the children of men." Let me correct you there...it's not MOST SEX and sexuality,
it is ALL sex. Men and women are both called to celibate lives. And no, we are not
confined to "baby-making", but rather challenged to practice self-denial, mutual love
and respect, and not put pills in our body. You are seriously undercutting how Catholics
view sex. Men are called to the same limits as women, thus totally destroying the
discrimination aspect. But I did not see you mention that. You are a skilled writer,
you are only letting the audience see what you want them to. Secondly, this does nothing
to counter that the secular world, which you are in support of, has it's largest industries
profit off of objectifying women, e.g. Pornography and advertisements. Go watch an
hour of TV and tell if you DONT see something that objectifies women, sells sex, or
spurs on racism. Thirdly, I cannot be a priest either. It's a supernatural calling,
and I'm not going to spell out the Sacraments of Vocation for you because this is
not an RCIA class. If you really have interest you can start another debate, message
me personally, attend an RCIA class, or bring this up on Catholic Answers. No one
is forced to do anything in the Catholic Church. The vast majority of Catholics are
not clerical, and the vast majority of the lay people live lives contrary to all of
the Church's teachings. This is what Jesus showed us from His ministry on Earth. He
hung around tax collectors, prostitutes, poor people, sinners, etc. Any seriously
practicing Catholic will tell you they fall short on some of the church's teachings,
let's just say in the realm of sexuality, but they are not kicked out nor are they
forced to go. Women can be CEO's of fortune 500 companies and be fully functioning
members of the Catholic Church. They can have sex, or not. They can use NFP, or not.
They can follow the rules or not. They aren't kicked out, nor forced to do anything
by anyone. Women are also able to follow their callings within the church, and women
are capable of doing things that men are not. So now onto your counter to my "medical
student" analogy. You're misusing the analogy. It was simply meant to illustrate that
there are CERTAIN circumstances where we treat unequal people (unequal in certain
aspects) unequally, and that is not injustice. You make ANOTHER LOGICAL FALLACY (covered
up by decent rhetoric) by making it into a false analogy. "Taken from the side, and
you are not well learned..." Actually, I was paraphrasing my girlfriend. I don't know
who that guy is you quoted. But kudos for you for knowing that. I like how you totally
did not address how that verse and story can be taken to mean something other than
you clumsily showed it to me. Once again, letting the audience see what you want it
to and ignoring any detractors. Here is another example: "An odd conception since
Mary is generally thought to supersede Christianity, unencumbered by sin or death.
The Catholic Church teaches that the church was founded the moment Jesus said "You
are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Which would make Peter the
first Christian and through whom all popes assert their primacy. Paul was the figure
who truly defined Christianity. However, I doubt the apostles would have approved
of ranking Christians hierarchically." That is when the church was founded (or at
Pentecost when they received more Holy Orders), but Christianity started with Christ's
resurrection. And who were the first believers? Women. Who doubted? Men. Paul is NOT
the figure who defined Christianity. And the Church totally does have a hierarchy
and ranks Christians. Why do you think we have Papal Primacy, Canonization, the God
Head, choirs of angels, levels in heaven, etc. So yes, you are not well versed in
actual Catholic teaching. Sorry if it bad rhetoric for me to point our when you quote
mine, say objectively false things, and play fast and loose with history. "As Pro
states, Mary is a complicated figure, a relatively spare portrait on which misogynists
and feminists each paint fraught ideologies" Never said that, but thanks for making
something up. Seriously, you are just putting words in my mouth at this point. Desperate
much? PRO: " [Women] are inherently better Christians and People." CON: A fairly sexist
generalization. ^If it is, it certainly is not misogynistic. "CON: People are not
things. Beauty is subjective, superficial, and ephemeral." Well, if you look at how
we view God, everything in the physical universe is a thing. God is "Ipsum Esse" and
outside of "thing"-dom for lack of a better word. He has no genus or classification.
He is the uncaused caused. We are in the genus "human" if you will, but God is not.
So what the Pope is saying, is that women are the most beautiful of all creation,
i.e. out of everything in the world. We have different perspectives. Out of space.