Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Where are the Children?

According to some religious feminists, their "children" are the books they are writing. The late John Paul II famously uttered the condemnation, "a culture of death". And that is exactly what we have with the religious feminists. They trumpet on their blogs their decision to surgically render themselves barren because they are concerned that the hormones they have been consuming to make themselves medically barren may fail and, horror or horrors, they might become pregnant! Then, of course, they have the option of abortion, tearing their little one limb from limb and removing him from the place of safety by the piece, counting to make sure all of him is truly dead and gone from her body. But abortion is messy and bloody and ever so gauche because it indicates a failure of the myth that sex, that gift of the Author of life by which we most closely mirror Him as Creator, can safely be made sterile.

So, though I doubt the late pontiff had the sort of religious feminists published by CBE and CT on his radar, he certainly had the culture pegged.

It all points to the perennial problem of religious feminists. This is the fear of lesser authorities, God's shepherds, overseers, His vice regents, as it were. They hate submission to anyone but the self - witness their posts about "my truth" and their postmodern hermeneutics. But they also fear the submission of those who place themselves under authority, willingly and with humility. The men who are faithful shepherds may be hated, but the women who humbly submit are despised.

Their "children" are books and blogs which, rather than growing into the faith, into maturity steadily lead where their ideas lead - to darkness, death and increasingly self-delusional heresies. It is a culture of death more powerful than any of them are willing to admit or, likely, able to recognize.

The culture of death is a culture with no authority but the self. The culture of life acknowledges the authority which stands outside the self, the One who gives life and commands submission to His will, His words, and His vice regents.

Romans 1:20-25, NAS
For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what was made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and of four-footed animals and crawling creatures. Therefore, God gave them over in the lusts of their heart to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen


Travels With Uncle Sam said...

Boy, you have written the truth.

Dave said...

Although I don't call myself a religious feminist, I think you would call me one, but I believe that all of us should submit. I don't have a problem with submission. I love it. It is the example that Christ has set for me.

Fr. Bill said...

The mark of a religious feminist, Dave, is his (or her) support for the notion that women should never submit to a male precisely because the woman is a woman and the one to whom she submits is a male.

No one on the patriarchal side ever denies that all men submit to someone, and in almost all cases that someone is another male.

And, no, it's not relevent that male children are subject to their mothers. Scripture allows for that condition, and provides for a time when the young male can only advance in masculine maturity because he is brought along toward that goal by oldwer, wiser men. See the Book of Proverbs for details.

So, yes, everyone submits to someone. No biggie.

But, that's not what Kamilla is talking about here, And your concession that she will rightly deem you a religious feminist tells me you know what she's saying, and that you -- like many religious feminists in this kind of discussion -- try to answer with non sequiturs, special pleading, and similar off the subject remarks.

Dave said...

Bill, you have failed to understand me, and so I wonder if you have understood the example Christ has set. I believe that I should submit to my brothers and sisters in Christ. That is the example Christ set and that is the direction that Paul constantly points us in.

I do not know what the mark of a religious feminist is, as it is a term that appears to have been used to label those with certain beliefs by another group, that I do not belong to. But, as someone Kamilla might call a religious feminist I certainly believe that all Christian women should submit to all Christian men. I also believe that all Christian men should submit to all Christian women.

Perhaps Kamilla would not label me a religious feminist, though she has in the past. Or perhaps you people who create the labels do not know what you are talking about?

Dave said...

Bill, I believe your first paragraph can be taken one of two ways. Perhaps you woud like to clarify what exactly you mean. My dictionary define feminism as an egalitarian movement, not one where women choose to differentiate between genders for the reason of who should or should not submit to who.

But as I said, I have not come up with the term "religious feminist".

Kamilla said...


I'm going to ask you to not comment again -- ever. You lie and then you lie about your lies.

Yes, I would call you a religious feminist, but only because that is what you *are*. And Fr. Bill has nailed you to the wall here.

I would only add one thing to his assessment of your beliefs and your style of special pleading. You do not love submission. If you did, you would submit to Holy Scripture along with the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit who has been guiding the Church for two millennia.

Now please, go away.