In further proof that the Traditionalists are the intellectual equivalent of Liberals, only at the opposite temperamental pole, Pope Francis, who is "persona non grata" amongst them, has once again confounded expectations by laying the boot into Feminism and Gender Theory. Quelle Surprise!
In his THIRD condemnation of Gender studies during his Papacy, Francis makes a shout out to the Manosphere!
The marital and family bond is something serious; it is for everyone, not just for believers. I would like to urge intellectuals not to abandon this topic, as though it had become secondary to commitment in favor of a freer and more just society.To be quite honest though, Francis once again goes into traditional Platonic Love mode.
"To resolve their relationship problems, man and woman need instead to talk more to one another, listen more to one another, know one another more, love one another more. They need to treat one another with respect and cooperate in friendship. With these human foundations, sustained by the grace of God, it is possible to plan a marital and family union for the whole of life.Pope Francis seems to be proof that the Traditionalists will do all the possibly can to let the Liberals win. The Liberals are the Catholic Church's Sefton.
Bonus Link.
I don't agree with all the things that Zmirak says because I don't think Francis is an enemy of the Right, he's opposed to Traditionalists. The way to think about what is going on in the Catholic Church is not a Right/Left dichotomy rather, it is a Tradtionalist/Right/Left trichotomy. With the Trads and the Left both working to undermine the Right.
Perhaps we have our first Reactionary Pope.
It is not a statement that will do a huge amount for a positive view of traditional marital relationships, perhaps, but it is a step in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteUnderneath all the fluffy stuff, he is restating the complementarity line. I think one could spin this statement in a way that is positive for social conservatives.
When the pope refers to "knowing each other" better, this could of course include husband's knowing what really turns wives on. "complementarity" is not a bad start.
ReplyDelete@ Julian.
ReplyDeleteI thought the comment interesting for the simple fact that he called on intellectuals to shore up the "complementarian" position. I would have thought that the Church would have had this issue stitched up.
There's a whiff of change in the air.
I think both Pope Francis and the poster make good points...from what I read in his entire talk he does address this statement:
ReplyDelete'men to act like men and women to act like women and then do the talking'
'With gender theory, which argues that male and female characteristics are largely malleable social constructs, he said, "we risk going backward."
http://ncronline.org/blogs/francis-chronicles/pope-francis-gender-theory-problem-not-solution
The Platonist or Gnostic approach is weak. But Francis is less feminist than JPII, who never saw women in power, unlike Francis.
ReplyDeleteA reference to scriptural headship would shore up Francis' position but he is trying to make nice.
Also Pope Francis is probably continuing a line of reactionary popes.
ReplyDeleteThe first reactionary pope IMO was Pope Paul VI with his Humanae Vitae...and how basically every prediction he made about what hormonal birth control would do to men and women has come true.
Pope John Paul II had Theology of the Body.
I'd have to do some digging to see if Benedict XVI addressed this but there does seem to be a theme among popes since the sexual revolution of reminding everyone about how men and women operate.
@ Earl
ReplyDeleteI'm on the record as stating that Humanae Vitae was not a good document. The rot really kicked in after the document was issued. My older colleagues told me of how it split the Catholic medical profession.
The standard explanation for the baleful effects with affected the Church after its promulgation is that the People were weak in faith and turned their backs on the Pope, but I think that perhaps another possibility should be countenanced. Perhaps the baleful effects were as a result of the document being flawed in some way.
I don't think that Paul V1 will be remembered as a good Pope.One man's heroic defiance is another's obstinancy.
JPII is a different matter, especially in his earlier days. He shored up the Church, and made it a force to be reckoned with again. I reckon his greatest legacy will be Veritatis Splendor. Though it's interesting that he too wanted to develop a theology of the body. But his personalistic approach doesn't cut the mustard in my opinion, you gotta bring back Aquinas. (Theological shock and awe)
Benedict was great in his own way but he was a theologian, not an action man. He was reactionary insofar that he pushed for the Truth.
Francis, I reckon is the real deal. The other two fought the idiot left, Francis will fight the idiot right.
@Dave
A bit of south American machismo would not go astray.
'Perhaps the baleful effects were as a result of the document being flawed in some way.'
ReplyDeleteWhat was the flaw about it?
@ Earl,
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the prohibition of contraception was not intrinsically wrong rather it is the understanding of the nature of coitus itself that is the issue.
You might find this old post of mine interesting.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2013/09/the-teleology-of-coitus.html
So you agree in principle with the document but argue the church doesn't understand coitus? I think when you start bringing the will of God into the picture it makes more sense.
ReplyDeleteOne can argue that a woman's cycle when it's not interfered with from hormonal contraception really gives God complete control over her womb when a sexual act is made. There are times a woman is a fertile as can be and it doesn't happen. And in her infertile periods we know of...God can still make it happen (plenty of biblical examples of barren women having kids). Even when a woman is on hormonal contraception she can still conceive. Point being is that God controls the womb when it comes to a sexual act.
@Earl
ReplyDeleteI don't really want to turn this into a discussion with regard to HV.
Though, you may be interested in this previous post of mine.
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2013_10_09_archive.html
I fail to see what the difference is between how a woman's cycle operates in the middle age's versus now. What has changed is we have a better idea about how it operates due to modern science. That's amoral. The lesson of morality is how people use this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteBesides the reason why the church is around making proclamations is that it goes with new revelations in relative time. Just because we know more about things doesn't change how God designed it.
What do you think of JPII's comment: "I am the feminist pope."?
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Marxism/Critical Theory creeping into the RCC went into overdrive with that?
@Greg
ReplyDeleteDo you think the Marxism/Critical Theory creeping into the RCC went into overdrive with that?
Context Greg, context.
When the Pope uses the term feminist he's not using it in same the way the mainstream media is. Papal feminism is more an advocacy for women within the Catholic Church and not at the expense of men. JP11 was not pro-Choice.
This information is very helpful thank me :D :D
ReplyDeletevisit back my website ^_^
biro jasa sim
biro jasa bpkb
biro jasa perizinan
biro jasa stnk
really cool your sharingobat ejakulasi dini
ReplyDelete