Here is some of the last bits of my tiff with kag1982 on the Crux website. As expected, she was unable to get through any kind of an exchange with me without reporting/deleting what I had to say. She pretty much deleted my next-to-last statement to her, rather than work up the conviction to respond to it.
It must have been very frustrating for her to lack the ability of reporting/deleting her critics on Catholic Answers Forum, from which she was promptly banned in 2013, having not lasted even a year there.
In any event, here is the link to the article, after which the confrontation began:
And below is the actual conversation that took place, including the deleted comment (which I marked with an * asterisk). There was a lot of content in that deleted comment, and I'm sure a lot of it infuriated her too much to work up an unemotional straight-forward reply. It was probably simply easier to just get the thing erased by Crux.
- - -
Why oh why do we think that Pope Francis cares about ending the culture wars? He is a notorious sexist who believes that women are nothing more than glorified wombs, not individual people and despises professional women. He was spouting off on sexism.. excuse me complementarity again today.
I think that Caitlyn Jenner has proven that there is nothing special about being a woman, now that anyone can become one.
Yes... I agree with that and think that this is why Pope Francis and friends are so against transgendered individuals. It exposes their campaign against uppity feminist. Pope Francis is a sexist but he doesn't like the bad PR that he gets by telling Catholic women that they are only broodmares for Jesus whose minds don't matter and who shouldn't have jobs.
If women are so distraught with being created as broodmares, why not have them transform into men?
I'm a woman; I accept and love that fact. But I am not a submissive dolly under a Catholic burqa who likes pretty girl clothes and babies and totally wants to be a mommy. I don't want to be a man but I want to be a fully realized woman outside of the Catholic Church's narrow version of womanhood. I am a woman and I accept that. I am also a woman who doesn't like cleaning, cooking, and being knocked up. I like being a woman not a submissive dolly who twirls around in pretty pink dresses and is a silly ditz who only exists to give their husbands babies and do menial housework. What Pope Francis doesn't get is that women exist who aren't submissive dollies and angels who desire to submit to their husbands whims, produce a gazillion kids, and be stay at home mommies who spend their days cleaning and doing housework. I'm sorry that this confuses you but there are women who like being women but reject the Catholic Church's narrow version of girly princess and nurturing mommy version of womanhood. We have educations and degrees and don't want to be bossed around by misogynist men.
This is different from the Caitlyn Jenner situation. I don't want male sexual parts; I want to be accepted as a women with a graduate degree who wasn't built to have babies and walk to steps behind her husband.
BTW are you my new traddie stalker... Just wondering. It seems like you guys take terms harassing me.
"You guys?" No. Just me. I think it is mere coincidence that we ran into each other twice so recently. Apparently, these two articles coincidentally interested us both. So, at least we have that common interest. Besides, don't you like fans?
Wait. Graduate degree?!? In what?
Oh nifty. I almost went for one of those. Ended up doing medical instead. Study the humanities up close and personal, I always say. Good luck.
"He is a notorious sexist who believes that women are nothing more than glorified wombs, not individual people..."
So, to get back on topic, what did Pope Francis say to make you think this? Are there any specific quotations that you have?
"We cannot forget the irreplaceable role of women in the family. The qualities of gentleness, of particular sensitivity and tenderness, which is abundant in the female soul, represent not only a genuine force for the life of families, for the irradiation of a climate of peace and harmony, but also a reality without which the human vocation would be unfeasible." - Pope Francis February 7, 2015
"A world where women are marginalized is a sterile world, because women don’t just bear life but transmit to us the ability to see otherwise, they see things differently. They transmit to us the ability to understand the world with different eyes, to understand things with hearts that are more creative, more patient, more tender." - Pope Francis March 8, 2015
"It occurs to me: why is it mainly women, who to pass on the faith? Simply because the one who brought us Jesus is a woman. It is the path chosen by Jesus. He wanted to have a mother: the gift of faith comes to us through women, as Jesus came to us through Mary"
There are more where these came from. The man spits out doozies about women as precious princesses at an alarming pace. In fact, it would be better if he never spoke about women again. Complementarity is a sexist concept. Separate but equal wasn't acceptable when it came to racism in the South, so how exactly is separate but equal acceptable when it comes to women.
So strange. I do not see how you could take offense in any way at what he was saying about women. If anything, I thought he was extolling women for their best qualities.
So, here is what I will now do. I will reverse what Pope Francis said, and ask you if you like my version better than his version. I only have time for one paragraph, so I will rewrite what Pope Francis said on February 7, 2015
"We can easily dismiss and forget the completely replaceable "role" women have in families. The female soul is harsh, callous, and cruel, and any gentleness, sensitivity, or tenderness is lacking in the female soul. Such qualities signify the death of families, strike discord and create war, and they create a false sense of reality that most people in their day-to-day jobs could definitely live without."
Is this new description more accurate?
The offense is that women aren't gentle and nurturing by virtue of their uterus and suggesting that they are is used to limit female opportunities. Nurturing and sensitivity aren't needed to excel in many leadership positions; "masculine" characteristics like assertiveness and logic are more important. What does a nurturing and tender women bring to negotiations with a character like Putin.. fresh brownies?
Okay, before we pursue this tangent any further, you do know that according to Scriptures, Eve was created after Adam, and that she was his helpmeet, and that after the Fall in the Garden of Eden, both the man and the woman received different curses. Right?
Furthermore, Eve did not have the capabilities that Adam did, nor vice versa, and there was no sex change surgery at that time.
And finally, what are your thoughts on the story of Lilith?
Yes, so thanking you for letting me know that you think that women are "subordinate" and lesser than men. This is what conservative Catholics (including Pope Francis) actually feel. No, Eve is not "lesser" and allowed to be bossed around by men and no she isn't man's docile and sweet helpmate. But it is interesting that you will at least concede that fertility is a curse. (Adam and Eve were basically sexless childlike creatures.)
As for the story of Creation and Adam and Eve, it is a myth. Adam and Eve didn't exist. The Catholic Church endorses Evolution and even the Big Bang Theory. The first place that I learned Adam and Eve weren't real people is in Catholic grade school. And Lilith was a Jewish myth that isn't even found in the Bible. (I think that it might be the Talmud. Jewish rabbis commenting on the Torah weren't fans of uppity feminists any more than conservative Catholic men are.)
BTW, you are agreeing that women should only be stay at home mommies and housewives and shouldn't have leadership positions or even jobs. Is that correct?
And thank you…for demonstrating that you will make assertions of what I think before I tell you.
"No, Eve is not 'lesser' and allowed to be bossed around by men and no she isn't man's docile and sweet helpmate." Indeed.
Eve is nothing at all, according to you. According to what you stated, she is a myth that never existed! So which is she? In one sentence, you write as if she was real, and not to be bossed around by Adam. But a sentence later, you say she never existed. It's difficult to follow you.
Going off on a different tangent for a moment, I think that people who proudly sport evolution are fun to listen to, due to their contradictions. Such a concept
supports the idea that right now in this world are segments of homo sapiens
that are less evolved than other homo sapiens.
Of course, the people who originate from sub-Saharan Africa—being the closest to the source of humanity's evolutionary origins—are obviously going to be the less developed of people. After all, they are missing certain genes that Caucasians and Asians possess. And of course, once you open the door to race talk, the conversational possibilities are endless! So have fun with that! But please, after telling me that you believe in evolution, don't tell me that all of the races are equal.
Should women "only be stay at home mommies and housewives?" No. But it is a noble goal to aim for, particularly for the modern women of our era.
Should women not " have leadership positions or even jobs." There are ideal
leadership roles for women, and indeed, women ought to be allowed jobs.
"Eve is nothing at all, according to you. According to what you stated, she is a myth that never existed! So which is she? In one sentence, you write as if she was"
I was using "Eve" as shorthand for woman. Women aren't lesser than men and aren't helpmates.
"Going off on a different tangent for a moment, I think that people who proudly sport evolution are fun to listen to, due totheir contradictions. " So you disagree with the Catholic Church on this including popes since Pius XII?
"But please, after telling me that you believein evolution, don't tell me that all of the races are equal." Everyone human on Earth is a Homo Sapien and is at the same level of evolution.
"No. But it is a noble goal to aim for,particularly for the modern women of our era."
Actually it isn't.
"There are idealleadership roles for women, and indeed, women ought to be allowed jobs." Just not leading countries or corporations... Unless you think that Putin will be appeased by fresh cookies made by your caricature of a girly angel-princess.
-You state: "Women aren't lesser than men and aren't helpmates." 'Lesser' is your word. As far as subordination, St. Paul would disagree with you. But then, you are a lapsed Catholic.
-You: "So you disagree with the Catholic Church on this including popes since Pius XII?" ...and... "Everyone human on Earth is a Homo Sapien and is at the same level of evolution."
Quite wrong. There are genetic differences between all of the different tribes of people. This is one of the reasons that you do not get sickle cell disease if you are a Caucasian. Have you ever seen the IQ surveys of different global regions? They are not homogeneous. These differences fall right into what evolution predicts, provided that you buy into the theory. The Catholic Church allows for its members to believe in either Creation or Evolution. However, it is an official teaching that Adam and Eve were literal. That is the official teaching of the Catholic Church, no matter how many priests or bishops wink and nod against it. Evolution is not the official teaching of the Church.
-"...your caricature of a girly angel-princess." This image is something that you have conjured. Not me. You've conjured it out of bitter spite during this discussion, and you own it completely. Your insistence to assign me positions and put words in my mouth continues. As for dealing with Putin, I highly doubt someone like Hillary Clinton will be any kind of an effective barrier to Russia's (and the world's) advances. Here is something from the Scriptures about how people feel with women rulers: "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they that lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." For the sake of comedy, I do look forward to a possible Hillary Clinton presidency. Should such an enthronement occur, the powers that be in the rest of the world will rightly take advantage of our obvious weakness and hammer the nail in America's coffin. A civilization with values such as yours cannot exist for long.
-Me: Women should strive to become mothers and stay at home. It is a noble goal.
You: "Actually it isn't."
Childless women who opt out for a career are failures when it comes to reproduction. This failure to have children is not imposed upon Western women by anyone else but themselves. Such women fail in their duty to their species and their genetic line. There is no responsibility greater for a human being. And yet, perpetuating souls is frowned upon and disparaged these days, and it's no wonder that women have never been unhappier and so unfulfilled. Either you think that women have more important purposes in life, or you think that women have no purpose in life at all.
Fortunately, you are wrong on most things that we have discussed, and the Blessed Holy Mother chose a path of life, giving birth to the Savior of the World who gives all people chance after chance at repentance and conversion. Heaven, after all, is the ultimate goal; not some sort of feminist utopian society that people struggle to achieve with their short fragile lives. And unfortunately for the West, birth rates are dropping off a cliff, courtesy of feminist narcissism. But this does not trouble me. It's comical to watch the world increase in danger due to Western policies based on such secular thinking. It is even more comical to observe people's hopes that it will always be a stable environment that will perpetually enable their selfish pursuits.
Again, I cannot imagine what a lapsed Catholic, such as yourself, would be doing on a Catholic media site. You, who disdains Church teaching with this level of emotion, still try to mix it up with Catholics as if God Himself will just change His mind on how He orders the universe. Could you be more than just a lapsed Catholic? Could you be completely faithless?
The tragedy here is that Pope Francis takes his trademark approach to the papacy in the hope of reaching out to the godless and the lapsed. But in reality, he is only emboldening opposition, such as in your case. So, when Gehring says something in this article, such as Pope Francis is "sparking hope for a better values debate in American politics," I chuckle.