Philosophy in the Clouds

On board a recent flight from Rome to Duseldorff, I had the providential oppurtunity to sit right near a young priest belonging to the Legionares of Christ, Fr. Benjamin Clariond. I had observed him a bit while waiting to board our flight. He had the 'calm in the eye of the storm' quality to him and I found myself somewhat under his spell and drawn to watch his meditaive movements like a slow balanced dance. Wanting to talk, I turned to ask him a question, when I saw he was seated directly behind me, once we boarded. Suddenly we were enveloped by blue sky, clouds and philosophical discussion. I felt more and more liberated as the we naturally progressed, delving deeper into discussions of Gnostisism, Logic, the sacrament of Reconciliation, vocation, Marraige and the role of women! I found it so overwhelming that God would be so gracious as to place the right person with the right kind of thinking in my path, if only to answer the very 2 questions that had been bothering me as of late, one being my issues with the science of Logic and secondly witht the Aristolelian consideration of women. (when I have more time I will discuss these issuies and how we resolved them logically on that 2 hour flight)

It is more important to love the person,
than to win the argument.

Stein on Apologetics and Asceticism - Connection to Femininity?

From The Significance of Woman's Intrinsic Value in National Life (1928)

"The teacher thus needs a basic education in dogma and asceticism. Apologetics is certainly also good, but the former seems more important to me: ready arguments, as right as they may be, often do not have penetrating force. But she whose soul is formed through the truths of faith - and I call this ascetic formation - finds words which are proper for this human being and for this moment respectively."

Crazy isn't it! That's the first time I've read someone downplay apologetics in favor of the personalization of the message through a soul "formed through the truths of faith" - which to me seems an especially feminine strength! Quite empowering for those of us who cannot memorize the tracts of Augustine and tomes of other scholars, isn't it? :) Now if only we can get to that "ascetic soul formation" part.... hehehe ;)

My Protestant Bible Study Group and Lessons in Womanhood

For the past few months, I have attended a Non-denominational neighborhood women’s Bible Study group. (the term “Bible Study” was to me particularly misleading because, in my ignorance, I had thought we would be reading passages from the Bible and discussing them in their context and various interpretations… I was unaware, however, that “Bible Study” in non-Catholic terms to me equated into something like Protestant CCD – educational and informative, just…not what I had in mind) At my lovely neighbor's house (she's a wonderful woman), we watch DVD's by the Christian author Beth Moore about Living in the Holy Spirit. Beth Moore is a wonderful speaker and relates exceptionally to women... but that got me thinking about a number of things... things that made me feel uncomfortable, and pondersome, but, for lack of a better phrase, it didn't feel right to me.

As the youngest of the group (which consists of myself, another Catholic, some fallen-away Catholics, and Protestants), I noticed my mentality about such a study was noticeably different from that of the other women (including my mother). They all expressed the belief that... even if you don't agree one hundred percent with something, you take from it what you can and learn from that. That's why you read about other religions, and psychology, and different theologian's interpretations and connections to even your own religion.

This, to me, seemed a little off. While I'm all about learning about other interpretations, views, and especially ways of thinking, I suppose that I do take from it what I can but I don't know that now I would describe my objective as such (Although, back in high school I probably would have). I learn from the way they look at something, yes, but I think it’s important to evaluate first and foremost how that teaching compares with the Catholic teaching (this I learned from my orthodox Catholic friends). If it appears to be another perspective or example that would adhere also to infalliable teachings, then it is good to note. If it's not, it's good to learn to understand differences. But everything is in relation to how well that speaker adheres to the Truth while preaching in his or her own way. This Truth aspect I don’t think sticks as well with my neighbors, but I hope this is just my misinterpretation. In the opinions of most if not all of these woman (who are good, kind, and intelligent women), it's like... everyone has an equally valid way of viewing something. Since we're all working for the same end, anything also that you can use to "be a better person" is good. Only when I compared my perspective (which changed during college and a better grounding in the fundamentals of our faith) with theirs, did I see how radically different this fundamental basis for learning about religion and our role as women really was.

Orthodox Catholics would probably tell you a talk/discussion/theory etc. that is discussing womanhood is incomplete without the inclusion of the Virgin Mary. But, as we all have been taught, a discussion of womanhood that doesn't include her example doesn’t mean it's completely worthless. It may indeed possess vital parts of the truth, even while it deviates into other fallacies because Mary's presence is lacking.

My question in this day and age is... how important is it to really learn the non-Marianite feminisms and expressions of womanhood (apart from comparison)? I find the history of feminism fascinating and I like to learn a lot about them... but this question is particularly addressing, say for example... a woman who wants to learn more about her faith and femininity but doesn't want to make a career out of it ;)

While I certainly find value in going to learn about womanhood from say, a Protestant perspective, or a secular feminist's perspective...I don't think many of us would posit that it'd be acceptable to just go to such a discussion group in place of a Catholic one.

I think that today... so LITTLE is emphasized about true womanhood and the role of Mary that any further education in other expositions of womanhood almost cuts into that little bit that those women could possibly know of Mary. We are raised in secular humanism, where feminist mantras are engrained in our everyday culture. It seems to me, for the average woman, a misuse of time to learn any feminism that is not Marianite because of the many women's severe disassociation with the Blessed Mother and misunderstanding of the vital role she plays. I feel like...it's SO great if learning about womanhood in this way brings my neighbors closer to God. But the message is SO deeply lacking in the basic fundamentals of the very salvation they are trying to explicate! (because of the exclusion of things like Mary and the Eucharist....) - that such discussions are only rehashing things they've already learned in our culture and not bringing them closer to the Truth... even though it may be bringing them into a somewhat closer relationship with the Bible and God and such.

I wish they could learn about Mary, and how the sacraments, and grace, and the Eucharist, and the communion of saints take "living in the spirit" to a whole nother level that these evangelical DVD's can't even begin to touch on (not that I negate the good intentions of these missionaries, for they are in many respects much better people than I).

What do you think? In *Ideal-land*, every woman would go to a Catholic women’s study group to learn about her femininity and, if she desires, go to learn about other religions as well to help her understand her own. In the aftermath and continuation of feminist philosophies and New Age fundamentals, is going to such groups worth the time in light of the devastating widespread ignorance and misunderstanding of the Truth?

Theologian/Mystic

I wonder... is the definition of Theologian, as it is generally formulated, part of the problem with the question here? Meaning that... those who shaped the discourse of Theology and thus the definition of a Theologian are a select few in power. Perhaps, but not necessarily, because they are men and generally have different strengths and tendencies in thought, they have unfairly shaped what the accepted definition of a Theologian is to what a typical male theologian might be.Thus, those who are, in a true sense, Theologians, but not maintaining perhaps the abstraction, impersonalization, or distance of a traditional thinker, would not be granted the title they would rightly deserve. Julian of Norwich, if her theological contributions warrant, could perhaps follow under this title?

On a sidenote...why is it that for some reason, when I think of a theologian... I envision someone respectable, informed, and intelligent. But a mystic... I see one who is not necessarily intelligent, driven by whims, perhaps, a little out there at times. How did I get somehow turned away from those qualities which are some of the greatest strengths of feminine thinkers? Namely... empathetic, instinctive, creative in a nurturing, not necessarily original way.

How intertwined are mysticism and theology and what does that mean for the disciplines as academia has been shaped? What does this mean for the categorization of individuals like Julian of Norwich?

Julian of Norwich

Was this influential and holy woman, the first ever to compose a book in the vernacular English, a serious Theologian?
Or,
was she merely a learned Mystic?


Theologian

n : someone who is learned in Theology or who speculates about Theology (especially Christian Theology)

By this definition, although a very broad and secular one, anyone who merely speculates about Theology is a Theologian. In the loose sense, one most definately would define Julian as a Theologian. In the stricter sense, the one learned in Theology is the "serious" theologian.
The end of Theology is God Himself. The end of Christian mysticism is, once again, God Himself. Initially, the Mystic's understanding of God may seem to contadict the serious Theologian's apprehension. However, it seems to me that if such a statement were true, there would be an inherent contradiction in God Himself, and hence He would not exist. The essential and fundamental understanding of God revealed to the Mystic cannot contradict that very same Truth which the Theologian finds through other modes. Additionally, there seems to be no logical contradiction in one being both a Mystic and a Theologian.

Apologetics

I just educated my good friend Pam on what apologetics is :) She had never heard of it before. I was like... Pam... I just found out about it last year. It will ROCK your WORLD. I might not be very good at it. But it is amazing. What does interest me though is the name. Calling it apologetics makes me feel like people are "apologizing" for what the Church is... when they're really defending the Truth.

Time to check the dictionary.com ...

a·pol·o·get·ic (-pl-jtk) also a·pol·o·get·i·cal (--kl) adj.

1. Offering or expressing an apology or excuse: an apologetic note; an apologetic smile.
2. Self-deprecating; humble: an apologetic manner.
3. Serving as or containing a formal justification or defense: an apologetic treatise on church doctrine.

n. 1. A formal defense or apology.

(Middle English, formal defense, from Latin apologticus, from Greek apologtikos, suitable for defense, from apologeisthai, to defend oneself verbally, from apologos, apology, story. See apologue)

Ahhhh.... That looks better then. I wonder how "formal defense" eventually got connotated as "defending what you did wrong" and then "being sorry for what you did wrong" - when originally, there was no wrong! You're defending Truth.... Our silly mother tongue :)

Katrina Zeno (Every Woman’s Journey: Answering “Who Am I” for the Feminine Heart) paraphrasing highlights of JPII’ s Theology of the Body

"We are one nature, embodied in two ways, for the purpose of union and communion through a sincere gift of self…The feminine genius is the distinctive way a woman makes a gift of self in all her feminine fullness and originality as God intended her to be from the beginning…every woman is [thus] called to spiritual motherhood because motherhood is knit into the very structure of a woman’s being. "

Spiritus: A Journal of Christian Spirituality
Patricia Donohue-White

I understand three ways of beholding motherhood in God. The first is the ground of our nature's making; the second is the taking of our nature, and there begins the motherhood of grace; the third is motherhood at work. And in that is a forth-spreading by the same grace in length and in breadth, in height and in depth without end; and all is one love.1

The 14th century English mystic Julian of Norwich is justly renowned for her articulation of a theological maternity.2 Though the use of maternal images to express divine activity and the designation of Jesus as mother are not unique to Julian,her sophisticated and sustained development of these themes is unparalleled in Christian tradition3 and, until recent developments in feminist theology, Julian has stood alone in that tradition as a theologian bold enough to symbolize God systematically in both male and female terms.4 As many of her readers have observed, Julian does not simply "project conventional notions of human motherhood on to God."5 Rather, she sees motherhood as archetypically divine, and consequently views human motherhood as imaging or making visible "a function and a relationship that is first and foremost in God."6 By employing a range of images for the divine, including maternity and paternity, Julian's theologycan be read as one that transcends gender stereotypes yet simultaneously affirms the work that mothers do as paradigmatic images of God's work in the world.7

Welcome

Welcome to our little garden.