The Mystic Rose

Modern Application of 1 Maccabees 2:6-13

2007-12-12T07:40:00.001-08:00

1 Maccabees 2:6-13

6. When he [Mattathias] saw the sacrileges that were being committed in Judah and in Jerusalem,

7. he said: "Woe is me! Why was I born to see the ruin of my people and the rein of the holy city, and to sit idle while it is given into the hands of enemies, and the sanctuary into the hands of strangers?

8. "Her temple has become like a man disgraced,

9. her glorious ornaments have been carried off as spoils, Her infants have been murdered in her streets, and her young men by the sword of the enemy.

10. What nation has not taken its share of her realm, and laid its hand on her possessions?

11. All her adornment has been taken away. From being free, she has become a slave.

12. We see our sanctuary and our beauty and our glory laid waste, And the Gentiles have defiled them!

13. Why are we still alive?"

Every man sees the Fall again in his own time. It must always seem to be the worst time of all, or have just been so, from one's own eyes. In the last 50 years, we've seen so many gains of women with simultaneous intellectual and physical ruin.

"Her temple has become like a man disgraced" for the beauty and sanctity of what was truly feminine has been rejected in favor of what is a man's, disgracing both. How long will she repeat not only her own sins and weaknesses, but those that are particularly masculine too? Power, lust, isolation.

Since feminine objectification is rejected, her ornaments and beauties have been deemed of no true worth at all. Instead they are abused, stolen and neglected.

Her infants are murdered on the streets of abortion and in the laboratories of progress. Her brothers in soul by the sensual sword of sameness and domination.

In every nation are prostitutes sold and enslaved. Greedy hands laid immodestly on her physical body, tearing through to her soul.

No beauty is found in the adornments of essential femininity. Far from being "free" under the call of women's liberation, she has become a slave to her own deceived ideas and masculine temptations.

All that is true about sexuality and gender, it's goodness, beauty and wonderous meaning, has been laid waste and rejected for homogeneity, false equality, and a misguided search for truth.

And all who reject the Way are Gentiles in a sense - lost contributers to our destruction in the name of our liberation.

We are alive to pray, realize and redeem the humble glory God had intended for us.

Moving Out and Moving In

2007-11-06T09:23:00.000-08:00

Today is my husband and I's one month wedding anniversary.

Tomorrow will be our one month cohabitation anniversary - when I moved out of my parents' house and into his.

We made the 8 hour drive down to our Virginian apartment the day after our nuptials, listening to Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and talking about our enjoyment of the festivities. Although I had never seen the place where we were to make our first home, this fact gave me a sort of secret thrill like I was a pioneer girl taken from the lands of her family to a far away place she had never seen and wouldn't be returning from anytime soon.

It was quite dramatic for a passenger seat reverie.

With the delights of a companion to wake up beside every morning, it still feels like an extended slumber party in the least immature sense of the words. But with shared living space also come the delights of wet towels on the floor, disagreements over what exactly a dishcloth is used for, and personality shortages of anger or listlessnesses of spirit.

I don't know how people are comfortable with any of it without the consolation of marriage and permanent companionship. I enjoy it so much I think, even the not so fun things, because we are married. The thought of building a marriage and a home so excited me that "wifey" was my word of the day for the entire first week. I had a constant desire to do "wifey" things that I think, when we hopefully have children, will convert itself into wanting to do "mommy" things.

They just seem to come from the same place.

A good friend of mine is not so fortunate. Her relationship with her boyfriend, lasting for over 8 years as friends and lovers, was ended in pain two nights before my wedding. Though not officially affianced, they had what my husband and I termed a "common-law engagement". Everyone knew it was there, and they planned for life like it was. And though boyfriends and girlfriends are generally not invited to weddings, those who had a common-law engagement are nearly always welcome to come.

But... Her boyfriend never did propose. He never did grow up. He never was the man she needed him to be.

So what is left? A woman in tears whose future is markedly different from all she had planned it to be and all that she had given up for.

I think there are things she doesn't regret, though, at least not yet, and if I'm honest with myself there's a good chance she never will. And that's the hardest part for me to see...

There has been no expression of regret of her intimacy, of her self-giving, of the trust she had and the love she gave that ultimately could never be fully requited or fulfilled.

We had a conversation at the end of our senior year in college, where she was truly excited for me to engage in sex with my then-future husband for the "trusting" and "unconditional" feeling she felt with her boyfriend was a source of such happiness to her.

I thought it at the time but I couldn't say to her:

"Your love is made on the condition that no baby can ever come and had no vow of fidelity ever sworn. He can leave without cutting any strings for he has made no promise to love you - only to enjoy you. The only trust between you is one of hopeful faith that he won't abuse the spousal privileges you have given him unearned and unprotected. That is not unconditional love."

But she did everything she could for him for she is a hard and fast friend.

Recently, however, she was angry and quite upset, that her father had not let her move in with him. He said he wouldn't pay for a cent of her grad school if she did. In her tears, she cried that she would've done so anyway given time, appalled by her father's lack of understanding and antiquated social norms.

I think she knew I'd have little sympathy for that point. I didn't say anything and began to comfort her in other things. But again, it struck me as remarkable, in a disappointingly negative sense.

Yet again, I couldn't seem to get the words out:

"Your father is trying to protect you when you can't protect yourself. There is an intimacy in living together like the intimacy in sex, and neither work on a conditional love. If you had been living together, imagine how much greater your pain would be now."

Please don't think I'm cold for I know her pain is great and prolonged - she gave so much of herself to him. But it baffles me how, even knowing that, she can't seem to see or even flat out rejects what would've protected her, at least in a major part. The emotions, the connections, the trust and intimacy cannot thrive on terms of conditionality. The bond is looser, the liberties greater, but all are overlooked or praised in our culture of post-modern concubinage.

I may still be hurt many times over, in ways small and severe, but I can't imagine my husband and I even getting as far as we are now without the promise of love and reception of Christ on our wedding day.

But I still wish I could say at the time what I think and write more coherently days and weeks later. But is it my words that fail me, or my fear of hurting my friend more when she needs the love of a friend the most? How much can I say without pushing her away?

I hope the world soon, very soon moves out of this cheap, painful sexuality and into a life of chastity and true fulfillment.

On Being a "Difficult" Girl

2007-08-12T08:25:00.000-07:00

I know I’m not the easiest person to deal with, everyone has their own quirks, ups and downs, but I never thought I was “difficult” in the sense of expecting lavish gifts or constant doting. But then I realized that for some guys, for my old guy friends, I really was difficult to deal with. I internalized this line of thinking so much, that when talking with one of my guy friends a few years later I praised my then-fiancé because he knew, well, (I apologetically put it), he knew “how to deal with me, and my mood and what to say and what not to say”. At which point, my friend across the table at Starbucks lightly chuckled and said “well no, in your case that’s right.” I felt viciously insulted, but as I was trying to get on good terms with my old acquaintance and I didn’t know why I was so upset anyway, we just passed on to talk about other things.

But why did it make me so angry? I think it was because the reasons my old guy friends had found me more and more difficult, I had been becoming more and more proud of. They had plenty of other girls and friends they knew who were just as quirky, and perhaps less kind people. But what really drew a rift between us was morals and values, in the grander abstract sense yes, but also in the way we lived out everyday lives. I was very uncomfortable and very hurt when they would tell vulgar jokes or talk about getting it with girls or pornography. Yet, I was always “overreacting” or “being too emotional about it”. Why couldn’t I “lighten up a bit” and live and let live? This shouldn’t be upsetting me as much as it did.

After a few years away from them and surrounded by friends who were just as good of people, but who acted with more modesty and, in some sense, consideration about that in their lives, I realized that I should not be ashamed of being “difficult to deal with” if that has anything to do with the beauty that is inherent in our femininity. My modesty, which I couldn’t have even recognized and even denied at the time (as one unfortunate session watching underwater porn on a friend’s back porch confirms), is what should be and used to be assumed. That of course women were more “difficult to deal with” than men, particularly those whose vulnerable modesty prevented them from enjoying what men say they should.

Should I have been surprised? These old friends didn’t know how to respect women as women, but as man-like women who were as sexually pursuant as they. It isn’t about sexual desire, for that both sexes have, but something else. What drives other poor women to think that going home with a man they just met will make them happy? How can my friends do that? It upsets me very much, yet I always feel I am the one to blame for being upset. My education in catechetics and books like Shalit’s help me to realize otherwise, but it is a wound that never goes away. It’s always there, always shameful. My vulnerability exposed and offended and told that that is wrong, I should be as comfortable as anyone else or I have a problem.

I think I’ve concluded that I was a difficult woman to my male friend because he actually, and sadly, doesn’t know how to really treat a woman, any and every woman, with the respect, dignity and love she needs and deserves. He doesn’t realize his own attitude towards the opposite sex – thinking it is progressive and modern, treating them, in fact, like a man – or even worse. I may indeed be a lot to handle because of my whirlwind emotions or my moral beliefs – but they are the men who have been taught never to love unconditionally, never protect us, help us, love us for fear of regressing into antiquity’s failures, incurring the wrath of misguided women, or limiting their own satisfaction. That is truly sad.

Ann Gundlach wrote in an editorial to Family Foundations magazine about a man and a woman who were sexually active and living together:

“I immediately heard my Dad’s voice in my head, telling Dave to grow up, act like a man, and marry this woman…a real man makes a commitment, and that he is supposed to help protect the woman he loves. Instead, Dave is putting Amy at risk of desertion, emotional turmoil, financial complications, unplanned pregnancy, etc., by choosing to live together instead of marry, simply because there is no real commitment there…

Likewise, my Dad would tell Amy to grow up, to demand respect, and not allow a man to treat her like that.” [“Learn about love in real marriage” Family Foundations 33 (4) Jan/Feb 2007: 4.]

But if we do that - demand true respect instead of the watered down version left from the sexual and women’s movements - we will always be the difficult women. After having learned all about the feminists of the 20th century - I really, really don’t want to be a difficult woman. They became so ungodly in their own misguided attempts to play God. But, if I have to be one, I’d rather be difficult because I refuse to follow the world’s guidelines, instead of the Lord’s.

I wonder if Mary thought she was a difficult woman too.

Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge

2007-04-19T16:33:00.000-07:00

From Chapter 5, "Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: The Epistemological Strategy of the Encyclopedie" p. 191-213 in The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History by Robert Darnton, 1984.

"This [A] classification system is significant, Foucault argues, because of the sheer impossibility of thinkingit. By bring us up short against an inconceiveable set of categories, it exposes the arbitariness of the way we sort things out... An enemy defined as less than human may be annilated...

The word encyclopedia, Diderot explained in the Prospectus, derived from the Greek term for circle, signifying 'concatenation [enchainement] of the sciences.' Figurateively, it expressed the notion of a world of knowledge, which the Encylopedists could circumnavigate and map...

Chambers distinguished himself from his predecessors by propounding a view of knowedge as an integrated whole... a 'cyclopaedia,' which would encompass an entire circle of learning... [his] tree had no branch for philosophy as such. The sacred and the secular ran together through all its ramifications...

[In contrast to Bacon] 'We ought not to attempt to draw down or to submit the mysteries of God to our reason,' Bacon warned. So he separated religion from philosophy, underscoring 'the extreme prejudice which both religion and philosophy hath received by being commixed together; as that which undoubtedly will make a heretical religion and an imaginary and fabulous philosophy.

Nothing could be further from the reasoning of Diderot and d'Alembert. By subjecting religion to philosophy, they effectively dechristianized it... it seemed to subordinate theology to reason, which they described in a Lockean manner, as if one could arrive at a knowledge of God by building sensations into ever more complex and abstract ideas...

Bacon actually envisaged two trees of knowledge, one for revealed and one for antural theology, while the Encylopedists grouped revealed and natural theology together on a single tree and subordinated both to reason...

D'Alembert's Newton served as the perfect modern philosopher... because he restricted philosophy to the study of observed phenomena... By reducing all knowledge to sensation and refelction, he at last eliminated extraterrestrial truth from the world of learning...

[The Discours preliminaire] succeeded in dethroning the ancient queen of the sciences [theology] and in elevating philosophy to her place. Far from being a netural compendium of information, therefore, the modern Summa [Thomas Acquina's Summa Theologica] [aka the Encylopedia] shaped knowledge in such a way as to remove it from the clergy and to put it in the hands of intellectuals committted to the Enlightenment. The ultimate triumph of this strategy came with the secularization of education and the emergence of the modern scholarly disciplines during the nineteenth century. But the key engagement took place in the 1750s, when the Encylopedists recognized that knowledge was power and, by mapping the world of knowledge, set out to conquer it."

A couple of thoughts

1.) The necessity of delineating the non-human to define and eliminate your "enemies" ( aka, unborn children) - very interesting, also shows the masculine disposition of women who define when life begins and ends in their womb instead of intuitively realizing its sacredness at all points.

2.) The promise of grouping revealed and natural theology together for a holistic enterprise, but the temptation of using that to define God on your own terms. It is particularly noteworthy that in doing so, these philosophers subordianted all not to revelation, but to reason, ultimately, as Newton's point shows - to eliminate 'extraterrestrial truth' from the world of learning, and thus, from "academic" pursuits. Elimination thus of intuitive and revealed knowledge (feminine domains of intuition and spirituality) from what is "true knowledge".

3.) Irony of trying to make a "Circle of Knowledge" by hierarchically arranging it -- The Systemitizing and Classification of Knowledge in order to "conquer" it in a masculine way. What is a Feminine and Masculine combined way?

The Freedom of Empty Bombast and Licentious Desires

2007-04-16T07:33:00.000-07:00

What a connection was made in my mind today! When I read for the first time the New Testament letters of Peter. The Catholic Epistles are an amazing resource to explain against the errors of the women of our time.

In 2 Peter 1:20-21, the author writes, "Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God." No Reformation emphasis on Sola Fide or individual interpretation, however good the intention, can ever be said to claim any real authority under God. My words here now contain no authority if anything within them contradicts a fundamental doctrine or sensus fidelium of the Church.

Moreover, the fervant desire against heresy in favor of orthodox doctrine is a weight of truth against the arguement that Christianity is only a matter of "being a good person" or letting it be up to personal opinion because "no one really knows" and "only God judges". For even in Paul's letters, "there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and the unstable distort to their own distruction just as they do the other scriptures" (2 Peter 3:16). For "there will be false teachers among you, who will introduce destructive heresies"(2 Peter 2:1).There is Truth. And there is a right answer.

Moreover, for me, Second Peter's description of these false prophets at the end of Chapter 2 is a haunting portrayl of old feminist error. He writes,

For, talking empty bombast, they seduce with licentious desires of the flesh those who have barely escaped from people who live in error. They promise them freedom, though they themselves are slaves of corruption, for a person is a slave of whatever overcomes him... For it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment handed down to them. What is expressed in the true proverb has happened to them... "A bathed sow returns to wallowing in the mire." (2 Peter 2:18-19, 21-22)

Oh that I could write a treatise explicating this passage's application to the feminist movement!

The weight and potency of the empty bombast of "consciousness-raising" and "reclamations of power". The seductive desire of quarter-filled sex that denies procreation and thus true unity. The licentiousness of promiscuity, concubinage and on-demand divorce. All advocated by those who had barely escaped living in error - not in Peter's sense of Jews or Gentiles just recently converting to Christianity, rather, of falling away from his Gospel and his Church. The foremost feminist activists and scholars have disproportionately arisen among those who reject the Catholic faith. In order to advocate along the typical strains of old feminism, I would argue, you'd have to.

Old feminists promise the freedom of all the world, yet they are slaves of what has overcome them - the distorted masculine dispensation for power, lust and revenge and their own over-reliance on sentimentality and personal authority. Is it not better to be a slave of Christ?

The most dispairing cases being those who were once in the fold and who now reject its truth, light and love: Catholic women for "free choice" as if a decision to kill one's child was a power of liberation, proponents of a female priesthood which would deny their own authority and glory and worshippers of a female goddess who cannot ever be considered the Christian God. They had something of the truth, yet somehow they were led away. The Church must take the initiative to reconnect, touch, explain and bring them back as well as take responsibility for the women and girls struggling to see the light under her wings. So many have had their bodies washed clean through the waters of Baptism, but have yet returned to the sloth and darkness of the fetid mire. Mary, pray for your daughters!

Blessed are they who do not give in to the apple of domination but who when insulted, return no insult and when suffering, return no threats (1 Peter 2:23). For all that you do humbly, obediently and lovingly in the name of Christian Truth, blessed, blessed are you. (1 Peter 4:13-14)

The Importance of Living in Creation

2007-04-15T07:38:00.000-07:00

If we are truly looking to uncover the implications of a feminine perspective in theology, there is one aspect that has lately struck me as being of great import - that of living in creation.

Yesterday night I was at a day retreat with the fellow members of my Newman Club and we went to pray at the Blessed Sacrament. After kneeling in prayer, I sat back and picked up Thomas A Kempis' "The Imitation of Christ" and read a section on Truth and Freedom. The words, however, not to my dismay but certainly to my curiousity, emphasized the banalities of earthly and fleshly existence. Heaven is our true goal and the spiritual heaven is our fulfillment. This clicked with my friend Jeff's narrative of St. Francis an hour or so afterwards - a renunciation of the world, even if that time it was a significant improvement that a hermetical lifestyle was being practiced within it.

One of the implications of Theology of the Body, for me, though, is a celebration of all Creation for the mere fact that our physical realities make visible the invisible spiritual realities of God. They are not always something, then, to just be renounced or lived in poverty, denial and celibacy. These are all good and worthy things that do point us to the heavenly direction. But I do not believe Christian tradition has taken into account the implications of all that is to point us to Heaven - a spiritual and physical resurrection of our bodies. How are we to understand how to use the world and physicality well and God-like if our conceptions of sanctity and holiness do not incorporate the full reality of living in Creation well - of using our sexuality appropriately and with holy reverence and appreciation, of treating every drop of food as a component of the nourishment of Christ in the Eucharist, of rejoicing in the beauty - both natural and man-made beauty - of the clothes on our backs, the buildings we inhabit, the dressings of the world.

These can be abused. These can be idolized. Or, they can be seen as manifestations of the glory of God to be used joyfully and appropriately at every stage in our lives. John Paul the Great has given us the metaphysical understanding for how this can be so, but Women, as the body of the Church and symbol of Creation, can sense the impact of the world - its eyes that glow, skin that prickles, tongues that envelop, aromas that entrance, drums that resound and intution that ensues.

There have been saints that have lived in the world - wives and husbands, rulers and professionals, homemakers and academics - but what exactly is our appreciation for their worldliness? Why is it so important? I can't help but think, that that is exactly what our times need. A saint to live in the world and live in the world well - and who can show us the importance of doing so. For those of us who have realized that we are not called to the consecrated life, that is our calling. That is our vocation under God.

Anticipation of Old Feminism

2007-04-04T17:33:00.000-07:00

I wonder if Feminists from the past realized how many of the women they would "liberate" forty years down the road would come to read their tracts with the same dismay and tears as they themselves had when reading chauvinist patriarchy?

The faces of NOW indicate not without another fight.

The Stability of Truth in the Spirit of an Age

2007-02-27T19:00:00.000-08:00

"The teaching which I have rehearsed is indeed against the grain of the world, against the current of our time. But that, after all, is what the Church as teacher is for. The truths that are acceptable to a time - as, that we owe it as a debt of justice to provide out of our superfluity, for the destitute and the starving - these will be proclaimed not only by the Church: the Church teaches also those truths that are hateful to the spirit of an age."

G. E. M. Anscombe, female philosopher and feminine genius extraordinaire, from Contraception and Chastity, 1975.

Benedict's Catechesis on Women in Church History

2007-02-26T05:57:00.000-08:00

VATICAN CITY, FEB 14, 2007 (VIS) - The role of women in the history of the Church was the theme chosen by Benedict XVI for his catechesis at today's general audience, which was held in the Paul VI Hall in the presence of 20,000 people.

"Jesus chose 12 men as fathers of the new Israel, 'to be with Him and to be sent out to proclaim the message'," said the Holy Father, "but ... among the disciples many women were also chosen. ... They played an active role within the context of Jesus mission. In the first place ... the Virgin Mary, who with her faith and her maternal care worked in a unique way for our redemption. ... Having become a disciple of her Son, ... she followed Him even to the foot of the cross where she received a maternal mission for all his disciples in all times."

After mentioning other women who appear in various parts of the Gospel - such as Susanna, and Lazarus' sisters Martha and Mary - the Pope pointed out that "the women, unlike the Twelve, did not abandon Jesus at the hour of His Passion. Outstanding among them was Mary Magdalene ... who was the first witness of the Resurrection and announced it to the others." Pope Benedict also recalled how St. Thomas Aquinas referred to Mary Magdalene as "the apostle of the apostles."

In the first Christian communities, Benedict XVI went on, "the female presence was anything but secondary." St. Paul "starts from the fundamental principle according to which among the baptized 'there is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female'." Furthermore, "the Apostle admits that in the Christian community it is quite normal that there should be women who prophesy, in other words who pronounce openly under the influence of Holy Spirit for the edification of the community."

Therefore St. Paul's subsequent assertion that "women should be silent in the churches" must "be relativized," said the Pope, and he explained that "the problem ... of the relationship between these two apparently contradictory indications should be left to the exegetes."

"The history of Christianity would have developed quite differently without the generous contribution of many women," said the Pope and he recalled how John Paul II had written: "The Church gives thanks for each and every woman ... for all the manifestations of the feminine 'genius'."

"We share this appreciation, giving thanks to the Lord because He leads His Church, generation after generation, indiscriminately using men and women who know how to bring their faith to fruition ... for the good of the entire body of the Church.

Equality Under the Law in a Culture of Life

2007-02-24T06:13:00.000-08:00

This is the conclusion from my first talk for the Newman Club: "The Gift of Life: Abortion, Euthanasia and the Death Penalty". I think I did borrow at least some parts verbatim from other's articles and wove them into my own, particularly at the end, but I did not reference them. Not quite the best start for my new method :D, but it shall have to do.

Conclusion

The Church asserts that one cannot argue for any right to kill as a basic right of human beings and certainly not as a basis for any claim to universal human rights. Thus, a woman’s right to effectively kill her child cannot, by its very definition, serve as a basis for women’s rights. Doing so maligns and destroys the dignity of the most weak, vulnerable members of our society.

I purposely have waited till now to mention one clause of the Catechism’s remarks about abortion because I thought it was so apt and brought out something so profound that ties all of these issues together:

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation: "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.

Thus, these matters are not just about trying to insert “religious morality” into the civil state. A rational analysis in light of faith illustrates that by legalizing abortion, euthanasia and [in most instances] the death penalty, America is acting in grave contrast to its own ideals of equality. The result is the rule of the strong over the weak, who are counted as less than equal citizens under the law. This results in the mentality known as the “Culture of Death” that John Paul II has famously defined.

In contrast, Jesus’ ministry, from the Catholic perspective, is completely counter-cultural to modern mentality’s culture of death. He taught that suffering was beneficial, important, vital, full of dignity. Because it is through suffering, that we come to learn our own humility before God and our own connection to God.

As the Beatitudes speak, the meek will inherit the land, not the strong. Not the rich, the proud, the ones in control – but the weak, the defenseless, and the humble.

As a society, we often associate what is “receptive” (traditionally, a feminine trait) with being weak – children who depend on the mothers body for growth, the ill who depend on compassion and medical care, the criminal who depend on society’s containment so they do not injure themselves or others – society often looks upon all these people not as gifts, but as burdens. We are having more and more trouble appreciating and protecting them, and esteeming them precisely as receivers – acknowledging their indispensable part in the very real process of discovering and realizing ourselves as gifts from God, by God, and for God.

Woman's Abnormal Abdominal Growth

2007-02-23T23:43:00.000-08:00

In no rush to get to sleep tonight, I found my self in a rare poetry-writing mood. Reflecting upon the internal logic of a woman who denies the life within her womb, rejecting the real truths of science and of faith, I think she believes it to be merely a growth, like a tumor that is part of her body to try to control and fix. Though her voice is more like Modern Eve's, crafted by fear, anger and bitterness, than the actual beauty of her own. I am not a poet, so feel free to take my efforts lightly ;)

Woman's Abnormal Abdominal Growth

As soon as thick my lining grow
The mind within me starts to know –
In contrast to the heart’s fond care
And body’s efforts to prepare –
Reminding of the social No.

Thus to the Doctors! who prescribe
A Pill to make the Growth reside
No fear have I to do the deed
That Terminates the taxing seed
With Women’s laws do I abide.

Should I refuse this action weak to keep
Nine months a babe my arms would rock asleep…
But without heart and without thought
Life within cannot be caught.
I am Free to say it’s so!

Indeed I rage at Fate’s cruel heart
No more shall We be set apart
This Penalty for Freedom’s ease
While men no consequence appease?
Mistakes and Burdens from the start.

For why should I my Body’s rights
Submit to zealots who despite
All logic and all progress made
Insist my killing be forbade
Science demands no meek contrite.

But accidents caused by sexual acts?
When linked conception is with its objects?
Mothers’ bodies outward cry
Have cells rights to live or die?
Fertility I must Reject.

Genetic code is merely token
Forget faith for I have spoken.

No life within me to defend!
No soul within Cellular Blend!

Abnormal Growth of Abdomen.

The Courtship Ritual of Anti-Plagerism

2007-02-13T22:27:00.000-08:00

I'm really beginning to disdain the abstract formalities of introducing and establishing quotations or paraphrased ideas. The words as property "belonging" to another. If it is effective, I want to use its effectiveness as such without being hindered by the elaborate rituals of credit due. Shall I introduce the author in a dependent clausal link, or perhaps just the work that she has written? If I do so, I may omit the name of the author in the MLA parentheses but not in the Chicago footnote. So I must take a step back and determine if an introductory two sentences explaining this author's primary purpose for their particular contruction of a quality sentence I just wish I could seamlessly interweave into my essay. I step forward again, trudgingly admitting that such an in-depth character analysis detracts from my purpose, even in a circituitious way, and keeping in line with the argumentative style of writing decide to spin around - introducing the author with a momentary comma-pause right before the quote is interwoven into the sentence.

In expression my frustration at this dance, I do not mean to be selfish in a very contraceptive, utilitarian sense - that I want something for its good qualities without its bad. I fully acknowledge that writers and scholars have ideas, and those ideas should properly be associated with the way they had presented it - particularly for aid in tracing ideas and scholarship. [Trained as an undergraduate historian, I don't think I could ever eschew references].

Indeed, I will fully acknowledge that such words are not my own, if asked, and in a paper I should well cite. Perhaps in a speech including in a transcription the description of the location of places borrowed from at the bottom. But I certainly get frustrated having to insert "So and so said x" or "In this or that publication, it said y". If the phrasing, particularly as a speaker making a point (when you're not trying to use the credidation of the source to augment your argument) but also as a writer, why not, if you like the way someone phrased something in an argument, mold it seamlessly into your own as part of a coherent unit? An extended conversation and thought process hopefully improved upon and certainly presented in different ways.

Intelligence in composition includes not only originality in thought and paraphrasing in purpose, but also the quality use of effective modes of expression. If that means I shall quote whole passages without every refering to the source, but give technical credit for legal and consideration purposes, then what should it matter?

Is this method of presentation in the academic discourses, which as a whole structure and monitor the courtship ritual of anti-plagerism, a remnant of particular masculine ways of structuring information? As a whole, academic writing does indeed follow this pattern, but the history of citations and what plagerism is seems to be much more varied (as perusals of various students' final speeches at my colonial institution attest). What then are some alternatives that present this information in a more feminine way? A molded, interweaving cooperative use of language seems to me much more effective and beneficial to expressing one's idea, because, as women, and as people, we think in relation to other things, even if we don't always identify them.

The Infancy Gospel of James and Joseph's Part in the Triumph over Original Sin

2007-02-04T13:07:00.000-08:00

In reading a small portion of the Infancy Gospel of James in one of my New Testament textbooks, it struck me how one elaboration of that uncanonical text sheds light on one of the New Feminist theological developments of original sin (based upon John Paul the Great). While nothing in the Infancy Gospel is proclaimed as authoritative or accurate by the church, its influence is important enough to glean from beneath its wordings ideas that could help explain some elements of the Church's essential Truth. Indeed, as the textbook by Stephen L . Harris commented, "Traditional lore about Mary incorporated into the Infancy Gospel of James probably contributed significantly to the unique position that Jesus' mother eventually held in both the Greek Orthodox and Roman Catholic Churches...Although never officially admitted to the New Testament canon, in some Christian groups the book has exerted as much influence in shaping orthodox belief as have the canonical Gospels" (Harris, The New Testament, 5th ed, 263). Other lore contained in the book include information and names for Mary's parents, Anna and Joachim.

In interpretations of the Genesis narratives, the beginnings of original sin lay first and primarily with the temptation of Eve, seduced by the serpent. While Adam's acceptance of the fruit included all mankind in Eve's first sin, it was done after the fault had been initiated by his weaker wife. In more contemporary analyses, Eve did indeed do a fault by saying "No" to God, and thus departing from her role as a human and as a woman, but so too did Adam, simultaneously as or even before Eve's sin, by not fulfilling his role as a man, as a guardian of his wife - not in the domineering sense, but in the self-sacrificial love Jesus later exemplified and in the service of authority. A misunderstanding of the faults of each sex in the Fall of Mankind has also subsequently led to a misunderstanding of the nature of sex (as gender), sexuality and human relations. Mary's "Yes" to God and Jesus's sacrifice for the fault of all mankind thus redeemed humanity and overturned the Original Sin of Adam and Eve.

But Eve's "No" and Mary's "Yes" notably took place in very similiar contexts - without the presence of a Guardian male. While this may have been obvious to other theologians (I have not read widely enough to discern one way or the other), this fact was first illuminated to me in the reading of the Infancy Gospel of James which expands upon the life of Mary and the emotional turmoil they were put through when Jesus was conceived. It reads:

"She [Mary] was in her sixth month when one day Joseph came home from his building projects, entered his house, and found her pregnant. He struck himself in the fact, threw himself to the ground on sackcloth and began to cry bitterly: "What sort of face should I present to the Lord God? What prayer can I say on her behalf since I received her as a virgin from the temple of the Lord God and didn't protect her? Who has set this trap for me? Who has done this evil deed in my house? Who has lured this virgin away from me and violated her? The story of Adam has been repeated in my case, hasn't it? For just as Adam was praying when the serpent came and found Eve alone, decieved her, and corrupted her, so the same thing has happened to me."

Joseph first thinks, then, that he is merely another suffering man doomed to repeat the sins of Adam and Eve and that Satan has tempted and stolen the woman under his protectorate. But, beautifully, he acknowledges the part of the sin of Adam that has often gone overlooked or misunderstood - his failure in his duties as a man to protect that which is the most sacred and beautiful of life, in this case, the virgin Mary. He knows that he has repeated this sin of Adam and cries out in dismay, "What prayer can I say on her behalf...?" - the deed has already been done.

Interestingly, though, the Genesis account reveals nothing of Adam "praying when the serpent came and found Eve alone" - we simply know that he was not there, regardless of the reason. In light of what this commentary reveals about how original sin was overcome, it seems likely that Adam was not praying - he was simply not fulfilling one of his duties and remained alone somewhere else. If that is the case, then Joseph's own "prayer", as we can assume he was involved in because of the parallel he made to Adam, is the complete opposite of Adam's motivation for not guarding Eve. In Joseph's case, his virtuous prayer and connection with his God left his wife to find her own spiritual calling - to be the Mother of God with her resounding "Yes." This is a complete reversal from Adam's selfish pursuit of pure solitude when God had given him a companion.

Joseph also immediately recognized the seeming error of the woman under his guardianship. In his mind, she, under Satan's temptation, had committed a gross offense under Jewish law - pregnancy out of wedlock. He is thus turn, saying to hmself "If I try to cover up her sin, I'll end up going against the law of the Lord. And if I disclose her condition to the people of Israel, I'm afraid that the child inside her might be heaven-sent and I'll end up handing innocent blood over to a death sentence." Being a virtous man, as the canonical Gospels also record, he decided to "divorce her quietly". What a contrast Joseph's choice is from Adam's! who instead decided to succomb to his wife's temptations and eat of the fruit himself! Mary's resounding "Yes" is indeed the triumph and model of all mankind, but so is (perhaps on a lesser degree), Joseph's "Yes" to God - to his love of the Law, but also to his care and sensitivity to its circumstance and his openness to the revelation of God. This is indeed remarkable.

What, then, does this say about masculinity and femininity? In Adam's response to Eve is seen the response of weaker men to some of the more radical fallacies of the Feminist Movement - that their "No" to God is something to be followed and praised. If women should "own" their bodies, so should men. If the pursuit of sex solely for sexual pleasure is to be followed, the door is open for men to succomb to their own temptations as well. But in Joseph's response, he adapts his masculinity, as all holy men do (and all holy women do in vice versa), to express in his own actions some of the characteristic strengths of the opposite sex - caring about the person, sensitivity to complicated situations, and the openness of receptivity to God's call.

As New Feminists endeavouring to find the place of women, Mary's "Yes" has been a resounding affirmation of the love of God to which we are all called. But the position of men is equally as important in a feminim that advocates that complementary equality in dignity. Joseph's model as a human man trying to fulfill God's word is equally worthy of study. While he might not be the New Adam - as Jesus was in his sacrifical offering - he is certainly an Adam for all mankind to learn from.

Canticle - my newest find

2007-01-31T23:00:00.000-08:00

I finally subscribed to Canticle today. I dont know what took me so long. It was cumbersome to think about having to change my address every few months, but I decided I'd rather deal with that silly task and have regular, printed access to the kind of information that makes me so fulfilled and energized. After writing that comment about how New Feminism is not known by many today I was excited by the plethora of feminine genius resources I found on the Women of Grace website. They even have a workbook program like ENDOW! I hope I shall get to help with such a program in the coming years.

Speaking on New Feminism

2007-01-28T21:44:00.000-08:00

So many changes in New Feminism afloat! In the year or so that I've been periodically helping to edit the New Feminism page of Wikipedia, I've refreshingly found more and more information on this unparalleled new movement. There's even a new website specifically dedicated to it! http://www.thenewfeminism.net

Yet still, so few people have any idea at all what I am talking about when I mention New Feminism. Neither my "Women and Judaism" teacher of last semester nor my "History of American Feminism" teacher this had any idea what I was referencing. I suppose the nondescript character of the title doesn't help, but something more identifiable may come along soon. Although, if it doesn't, perhaps its generality will be something of an asset to set it apart as opposed to being a subset of Old Feminist movements. I thought about that today when debating whether or not to change the entry on Christian Feminism in Wikipedia. As it currently reads, it includes only Old Feminist critiques of Christianity. Is it appropriate to ally New Feminism with views it radically opposes in order to assert that there are more kinds of Christian feminism than what is currently thought of? Or should it remain completely separate and distinct? I haven't decided yet. Perhaps, as is the nature of Wikipedia, someone else will decide before me.

I'm also working on my presentations for my Newman Club explaining the controversial issues related to women and the Church - including Abortion, Contraception, Homosexuality, Women Priests, and New Feminism. It should be exciting but it's also a weight on my mind. I don't think I've yet found the strength of my own style to reach people. I have little fear of public speaking but am often flustered and don't think of the right things to say at the right time. I regret that that has never been my particular talent. I feel that in the long run, I might be more effective writing than speaking, the former of which I do really enjoy. But I can't help but feel, though, that there's something I'm not capitalizing on in the spoken word that can help me reach people. Several friends and strangers have been drawn to my reading voice during mass - it seems congenial to the ear - but in rhetoric it's effectiveness seems lost. Maybe I simply haven't enough experience in rhetoric yet, or maybe the way I'm trying to speak undermines the gift of a gentle voice. Regardless, I must learn how to speak with my own.

Records

2006-11-09T20:02:00.000-08:00

Its been ages since I've written here. I looked back at some of the articles and found myself fondly remembering an aspect of being in England, which is odd considering the period of isolation it embodies. Sitting alone in the library computer lab discussing feminine theology to my friend thousands of miles away! It was so neccesary at the time. I needed something. It makes sense that one simply needs certain releases, outlets, forums at one point in their life that they depart from and then come back to again.

It reminds me of my "diaries" from when I was a child. I'd keep a diary perfectly for about a week, write a bit every month or two, and then loose interest entirely. I'd feel compelled to keep up with my same standard length or quality of entry though I was never forced to do anything. I always wanted it to be great. I never did like being forced to do the same thing, every day, voluntarily.

Eventually I transitioned to what I'd call - a journal-like notebook. It had no dates and only quasi-specifics, but I could just write my thoughts and observations about life. I particularly felt the need to do descriptives, where I wrote what my life was like for a day - the patterns, people, places, looks, smells, personalities. It didn't matter that it didn't have time. Time was a restraint that I didn't really care to think about or want to be confined to if I stopped once sentence one day and picked up at that thought in the next.

In some ways I think that's what this blog is for me. That it is something that people really don't see, but perhaps I almost wish they could. Like a diary. Thoughts you need to write down, and need to come back to. It makes me smile to think of the things I thought about, what I think now, and what that means. It tells me my approach to writing hasn't changed greatly in 21 years. Some periods are very intense, and some are almost void of any written intellectual investigation.

Can you study theology like this? In spurts and pats, whims and intensities that never really go away but recede to focus on something even more - people, real life, love, work, sleep. Integrating a hobby with a career, an interest with a vocation. Will it loose its meaning for me? Is it permissible to have spats in this pursuit?

Liberated Women?

2006-01-02T21:23:00.000-08:00

I think the following article gives one example of how women are not respected in modern society.

Pornography is becoming so acceptable in Britain that even teenage girls see it as a career, writes Kira Cochrane‘Imagine if Starbucks offered a shot of alcohol with your morning coffee. Then there was beer in the office and at lunchtime we all automatically ordered a bottle of wine rather than sparkling water. If alcohol were that available we’d all start drinking more and any stigma would gradually disappear. And that’s how things are developing with porn.” So says Pamela Paul, the American author of Pornified: How Pornography is Transforming Our Lives, Our Relationships and Our Families.

Paul has been looking into the effects of pornography on society and her investigation seems incredibly timely. While Britons may lag behind their European counterparts in education and living standards, it was revealed last week that the UK has become the porn capital of Europe, with access to 27 porn television channels. Germany, our nearest rival, has just five.This represents only a tiny part of a £31.5 billion global industry. As even the most sheltered know, hardcore material is available over the internet, with 25% of all searches seeking to access one of the 1.3m porn websites. It’s also more available in magazines and even marketed directly to our mobile phones.

With so much material around, porn imagery has naturally crossed into the mainstream. It can now be found at children’s eye level on many supermarket newsstands (in magazines such as Nuts and Zoo), and in advertising (last year, for instance, a stereo system was promoted with a woman bound head to foot in black vinyl tape).It’s there in the lyrics of Christina Aguilera, the styling of Britney Spears and even the poses of mannequins in Madame Tussaud’s (where a waxwork of Kylie Minogue depicts her on all fours with her bottom poking into the air).

So it is not surprising that Paul’s research flags up some shocking findings, including the appeal of porn’s “glamour” image to young girls.“I found pre-teen girls who were putting pictures of porn stars on their personal web pages and providing links to porn websites,” she says. “I learnt about them through a porn actress who’d published a bestselling autobiography and was surprised when pre-teen girls showed up at signings. They said they saw her as a positive icon.”Although women have yet to catch up with men (and the material they access is usually much softer core, such as Sweet Action, the independent “porn for women” magazine), Paul found that more women are using porn: 32m women visited at least one adult website in January 2004, according to her study. In a magazine poll 41% of women said they had intentionally viewed or downloaded erotic films or photographs. More than one in 10 had watched or sexually interacted with someone on a live webcam.These findings support a recent British survey of 1,000 girls, aged 15-19, which found that 63% aspired to be glamour models, while 25% preferred the idea of lap dancing. For many, the erotic lifestyle and look is not seedy but has become aspirational.Paul also spoke to a group of twentysomething men who had grown up with the internet, “consuming porn literally every day since they were 14. Our sexual cues and desires are learnt during adolescence, and . . . these young men were regularly viewing bestiality and group sex”.

This last point underlines another reality about porn, says Paul. Most people have no idea of what is actually out there: “Baby boomers associate porn with Playboy or page 3.”Most women also believe that their husbands would never use porn but this could be a misconception, too. More men than ever are using porn and the material they are accessing is becoming progressively hard core. The heaviest demand on the internet is for “deviant” material, including paedophilia, bondage and sadomasochism.During the course of her research Paul spoke to 80 men. Even those who described themselves as “casual users” were watching as much as one hour of porn on the internet each day.

Although porn consumption among women is increasing, it is clear that many have mixed feelings about it. Many of the conversations that Paul had with young women, even those who used porn, began with “I’m not a prude, but . . .” or “I’m really liberal, but . . .” as if they had to apologise for feeling shocked by some of the things they had seen.They were afraid to show any concern or anxiety over porn for fear of being classified as “anti-sex”.“Embracing pornography has become almost a new form of political correctness,” says Paul. “Part of the reason for the change is that the anti-porn voices of the early 1980s, like Andrea Dworkin, were considered to be very extreme.“When calls began for censorship of porn back then, liberals and moderates became scared that this could be used to censor feminist books. At that stage the tide turned.” Ever since, Paul believes, many women have tried to accept pornography “by kidding themselves that men look at it simply because they love women”. While this is no doubt true of some genuine “casual users”, the comments from internet chatrooms tell another story.

“Looks like she’s had a few too many sandwiches!” writes one man, while another agrees: “She has no waistline — goes straight down from her shoulders!” And these are just the comments that are fit to print — most are horribly explicit.How is all this likely to progress? With so much porn imagery having flooded the mainstream, can it go any further — and can it be stopped? Paul believes that the right approach is one of “censure, not censor”.

By stigmatising porn in certain ways — as has been done with smoking — she believes that it could be pushed back out of the mainstream and into the more exclusively adult realm where it used to exist. “In Britain, the government has announced a crackdown on the most extreme websites that mix porn and violence, so that’s a start,” she says. “And I also think that just increasing people’s awareness of what porn really is can make a real difference. Before Fast Food Nation came out, people never really knew what was in their chicken nuggets.“Hopefully my book can go some way to exposing the reality of porn and its effects, too.”Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

2005-12-12T05:55:00.000-08:00

Essay 1.
The hierarchical model of asceticism was primarily based in the Greek philosophical school, in which the whole of the cosmos fit into a structured order of higher and lower. The spiritual realities, pneuma, were ranked higher then those things bound to the physical, material worlds, bound in the hyle. Thus, when those of a Greek background began taking up the new religion of Christianity for their own, they continued to hold onto their hierarchical understanding of the world, transferring this philosophy into a new theological context. This model tends to see the body and the physical in contradiction, constant opposition or obstacle to the spiritual plane that one should aspire to, in their understanding.
I primarily see this as a weakness in ones taking up of a mode of asceticism. Coming from a background of theological study which was ingrained not only in an understanding of this hierarchy, but which took this philosophical hierarchy ex cathedra, so to speak, I have seen its many detrimental effects. One tends to see the world as a “prison or cage” as this hierarchy begins to steep every aspect of ones life and thought. Ones “spiritual life” can easily become something in a sense detached from ones work, interaction and whole life. This philosophy taken over to theological contexts, in my experience, transferred an entire student body’s understanding of gender, filtered individual personalities into “a role,” and emphasized reason as higher then emotion. I find these issues to contend and we should gravely question whether or not the cosmos should be so strictly categorized, or in a theological context, whether Christ desires this compartmentalization of our entire being, for separation and disunity are always the result of the fall. Moreover, this hierarchy seems to be in contradiction to the message of Christ who says: “My yoke is easy and my burden light.” In this Christ commands us to take up his yoke, that yoke he carries being a very physical cross, one which we must embrace in heart, mind, strength and soul: in every aspect of our being. This hierarchy even seems to contrast with Saint Paul in his words to the Galatians, “there is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free person, woman nor man (imagine the cultural shock of a Greek audience),” Lastly I see it in contrast to the “baptismal equality” of John Paul II.
The incarnational model of asceticism can be seen demonstrated in the thought and lives of two thirteenths century men, Francis and Bonaventure. “The world itself was for Francis that form in which God may be known, loved and served. The sensible world, far from distracting a person fro the greater reality of abstractions, was the arena in which the activity of God could be discerned. Francis’ goal was not to free himself from the sensible world, but to practice holiness in participation with it (Miles, 115).” Perhaps a good illustration or expression of the incarnational model of asceticism is the [Benedictine] motto “Ora et labora,” which it seems links the call to pray unceasingly and yet to be living in equilibrium between body and soul, balanced, and as far as is possible, restoring the state of “Integritas.”
According to Miles’ understanding, the existential intentionality of all of humanity partakes in a particular energy, what she defines as a “desperate and unconscious demand: “the flesh” (Miles, 22).” I believe that in this century there is (perhaps a greater need then in past eras for a) new and positive asceticism, one which recognizes and properly channels the power and beauty of what “the flesh” speaks, both to and of our identity. I believe that this mysterious, magnetic force which Miles describes in the traditional semantics of Saint Paul (who introduced this terminology) is possibly a type of divine imprint, or map, ingrained in our being, in order to direct us towards the completion of our being, a concept not limited to the intellectual, dogmatic formulations of the Christian tradition, but rooted in every culture; in every heart.
The reason I suggest that a new asceticism is greatly needed in our time, is that the “desperate and unconscious demand” we observe in ourselves and humanity seems to have been heightened. We stand in the bleak ruins of the emotional and spiritual disasters of communism, ideologies spreading the love and honor death, world wars, and atomic bombs. The state of dehydration of the spirit within us, the lack of the nourishment one finds in meditation, silence, and inner quiet, creates a man more desperate and spirit-starved then in any known culture. The lacking of connection to “the source” is greater, ergo the desperation and demand is greater. The relentless demands of the flesh can only be satisfied by one-ness with the Life-source. Miles posits that the effect of the flesh’s desire being directed towards (and taking control of) the body, and the natural desires of the body, leads to an “agenda of sex, power and possession (Miles, 23).” There is evidence in observance of history and society that the flesh has generally taken control of the body in modern American culture, for these three goals are at the fiber of the media, trade and virtually every aspect of life in America today.
Any ascetic practice requires the body’s continual state of “nourishment and patterns of habit” to be reset, in order to reset the state of the soul, as they are intrinsically connected. At Miles’ suggestion, I believe it would be helpful to periodically “alter our eating patterns (which) . . . then loosens that detachment,” along with media fasts. I believe an effective way of implementing this in mainstream society is to bring to mind the very central focus of health already present and demonstrate as far as possible that spiritual health and physical health are intrinsically connected. Statistics and medical sciences (credible sources of knowledge to our society) reflect that, for example, multiple, random sexual partners is simply unhealthy and percentage wise, points to early death or illness. This could be seen as pointing to the soul-body link. Modern Americans already understand thoroughly that eating well is a good to be sought which makes one feel better, perform better, etc. We can very easily raise this already present understanding to the next level and incorporate the spiritual.

Essay 2.
In Paulsell’s writing, one considers the image of families eating together around a table. This image is highly symbolic in the Christian tradition (i.e., icons of the Trinity at a table). The meal symbolizes and brings about communion. It is reflective of the liturgical banquet, the sharing of persons, or inter-personal relation: another Trinitarian image found within the familial gathering.

The center of the whole of our Catholic faith is transubstantiated bread and wine. In this we can come to recognize our constant need and recognize our vulnerability within our need. We come to know in a very imminent way our own fragility and dependence in the experience of hunger. This physical state of need is also a state of soul. Our spiritual nourishment comes in the material form of actual physical nourishment, again, since the state of the body and soul is interconnected.

America’s eating habits seem to point to a general trend of a “starved” soul. The bulimic and the over-eater can’t fill themselves with enough food, as they have transferred that unrelenting, intangible hunger upon a finite, tangible thing.

The desert fathers and mothers had to maintain a state of constant dependence on God, similar to the Israelites, who relied upon the daily manna. One nun of Jerusalem, told of in the book Harlots of the Desert, “filled [a] basket with loaves and [a] jar with water and prayed . . . asking God that he would bless these loaves and this water so that they would last [her] until the end of my life. (Ward, 30).” From this perspective, one meets God in the desert, not always literally, but that state of complete dependence, of every aspect of oneself: and trust in Him to fulfill every form of hunger, both tangible and intangible.

Essay 3.
Both Augustine and John Paul go back to the beginning (genesis) of man to attempt and understand the state of man today, for one knows oneself better by knowing where one is coming from. Both are personalists, looking inside themselves and their own experience of life, sin and grace in grasping for an understanding of man before the fall. Augustine posited that “in the original human person, the will was intact and the motivation of the person was a delight I the intrinsically value object of human life (Miles, 65).” In this Augustine believed that originally man’s love were both properly ordered and freely given.
John Paul develops this idea when he discussed the “freedom of the gift.” This is that state in which man formerly dwelled, in which the body-soul flourished in the state of “integrity.” In this state, the body reveals the heart nakedly, honestly. Communication barriers disintegrate as a result of this honesty; one’s self-gift is self-less, of love.

Certain problems I see in John Paul’s “Original Unity” are 1) its esoteric, dense language, 2) its repititiousness 3) its sometimes vague and wordy deifinitions. His message is I believe life-changing and very crucial to the way we live our bodies and our faith, but as such, I believe it could have been more prudent to bring this “theology of the body” to the church in a more down-to-earth manner.

On the other hand, I also see its vague definition as a benefit, for if John Paul were to define “freedom of the gift” more solidly it possibly would not allow for a broad range of individual readings and life application. Every vocation or calling requires this gift, but each in different ways. So, I believe that if John Paul had focused on a specific, down-to-earth way of practicing this theology and self-gift, it would immediately be limited to those people living a state or calling which allows that particular manner of self-gift. For example, the nurse and the lawyer both give of themselves, but on different levels. He does not limit “freedom of the gift” to one particular calling. However, I do think John Paul ideally should have defined the differing levels of self-gift, for one sees obviously the self-gift of the celibate to be quite different from the married persons or the single person.

Baptismal Equality

2005-12-08T10:26:00.000-08:00

When Saint Paul says in Galatians, there is neither Jew or Greek, slave or free person, woman or man... what does that mean exactly? I'll try to do some research and get back to this.

2005-11-22T10:32:00.000-08:00

Just wanted to note that I found a fun new site and put it as a link! :

It's from the Catholic Educator's Resource, under Current Issues, their collection of orthodox articles on Feminism. It was the find of my day yesterday! :)

A Dis-embodied Theology of the Body?

2005-11-22T10:10:00.000-08:00

I found this article intriguing and quite worth the consideration for the sake of objectivity:

John Paul II on love, sex & pleasure
Luke Timothy Johnson

Papal teaching on human sexuality has received some positive reviews recently. A number of these have appeared in the journal First Things. In "Contraception: A Symposium" (December 1998), Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, O.F.M. Cap., declares that Pope Paul VI has a lock on the title of prophet because, in Humanae vitae, he was right. In the same issue, Janet E. Smith thinks that people who regard the papacy’s condemnation of contraception to be based on the "artificial" methods employed simply have not acquainted themselves with the richness of papal teaching. In particular, she says, "those who appreciate precise and profound philosophical reasoning should read Karol Wojtyla’s Love and Responsibility," while offering a strong recommendation also for "the extensive deliberations of Pope John Paul II." Even more recently, Jennifer J. Popiel ("Necessary Connections? Catholicism, Feminism, and Contraception," America, November 27, 1999) states that "unlike many women, I find the church’s doctrinal statements on contraception and reproduction to be clear and compelling," and argues that Natural Family Planning is fully compatible with feminism, since "only when we control our bodies will we truly control our lives."

George Weigel joins this chorus of praise in his biography of John Paul II, Witness to Hope (Cliff Street Books, 1999). Under the heading, "A New Galileo Crisis," Weigel traces the pope’s systematic response to the "pastoral and catechetical failure" of Humanae vitae in a series of 130 fifteen-minute conferences at papal audiences beginning on September 5, 1979 and concluding on November 28, 1984. The conferences were grouped into four clusters: "The Original Unity of Man and Woman," "Blessed Are the Pure of Heart," "The Theology of Marriage and Celibacy," and "Reflections on Humanae vitae." These talks were brought together under the title Theology of the Body: Human Love in the Divine Plan (Pauline Books and Media, 1997).

Weigel himself considers John Paul II’s work to be a "theological time bomb" that may take almost a century to appreciate fully, or even assimilate. It "may prove to be the decisive moment in exorcising the Manichaean demon and its deprecation of human sexuality from Catholic moral theology," because the pope takes "embodiedness" so seriously. Weigel considers these conferences to have "ramifications for all of theology," and wonders why so few contemporary theologians have taken up the challenge posed by the pope. He is surprised as well that so few priests preach these themes and only a "microscopic" portion of Catholics seem even aware of this great accomplishment, which he considers to be "a critical moment not only in Catholic theology, but in the history of modern thought." Weigel provides three possible reasons for this neglect: the density of the pope’s material, the media’s preoccupation with controversy rather than substance, and the fact that John Paul II is himself a figure of controversy. It will take time to appreciate him and his magnificent contribution.

Is Weigel right? Have the rest of us missed out on a theological advance of singular importance? Can the claims made for the pope’s Theology of the Body be sustained under examination? Recently, I devoted considerable time (and as much consciousness as I could muster) to reading through the 423 pages of the collected conferences, and I have reached a conclusion far different from Weigel’s. For all its length, earnestness, and good intentions, John Paul II’s work, far from being a breakthrough for modern thought, represents a mode of theology that has little to say to ordinary people because it shows so little awareness of ordinary life.

I want to make clear that I am here responding to the theological adequacy of papal teaching. I do not dispute the fact that in some respects papal positions can legitimately be called prophetic. Certainly, John Paul II’s call for a "culture of life" in the name of the gospel, against the complex "conspiracy of death" so pervasive in the contemporary world, deserves respect. Likewise, the pope’s attention to the "person" and to "continence" stand as prophetic in a time of sexualized identity and rationalized permissiveness. It is small wonder that those worried about moral confusion in matters sexual would want to accept all the papal teachings, since some of them are incontestably correct.

But I want to ask whether we ought to make some distinctions even where the pope does not, whether while approving some of his positions we can also challenge others. Weigel is correct in noting that these conferences are dense and difficult to read-what must they have been like to hear? But Weigel fails to note how mind-numbingly repetitious they are. He does not seem to notice that the pope only asserts and never demonstrates, and that he minimizes the flat internal contradictions among the conferences. For example, on October 1, 1980, the pope declares that a husband cannot be guilty of "lust in his heart" for his wife, but a week later, in the conference of October 8, he states confidently that even husbands can sin in this fashion. But beyond such relatively minor deficiencies (how many theological writings are not dense, repetitious, and inconsistent?), the pope’s Theology of the Body is fundamentally inadequate to the question it takes up. It is inadequate not in the obvious way that all theology is necessarily inadequate to its subject, and therefore should exhibit intellectual modesty, but in the sense that it simply does not engage what most ought to be engaged in a theology of the body. Because of its theological insufficiency, the pope’s teaching does not adequately respond to the anxieties of those who seek a Christian understanding of the body and of human sexuality and practical guidance for life as sexually active adults.

If the pope had only made casual or passing comments on the subject in a homily, then a critical response would be unfair. But everything suggests that John Paul II intended these conferences to be read as a "theology of the body" in the fullest sense of the term "theology." The pope uses academic terms like phenomenology and hermeneutics, refers to contemporary thinkers, provides copious notes, and in the very commitment to the subject over a period of five years in 130 conferences, indicates that he wants his comments to be given serious attention. It is perhaps appropriate to offer a number of observations concerning things that someone far removed from the corridors of doctrinal declaration, but not unschooled theologically, and certainly not disembodied, might want to see yet does not find in John Paul II’s discourses.

PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
A starting place is the title itself, which, while perhaps not chosen by the author, legitimately derives from his frequent reference to a "theology of the body" and his constant focus on "human love in the divine plan." Surely, though, an adequate theology of the body must encompass far more than human love, even if that were comprehensively treated! The pope cites 1 Corinthians 6:18 approvingly: "Flee fornication. Every sin a person commits is apart from the body. But the one who fornicates sins in his own body." But Paul’s rhetorical emphasis cannot be taken as sober description. Do not the sins of gluttony and drunkenness and sloth have as much to do with the body as fornication, and are not all the forms of avarice also dispositions of the body? Reducing a theology of the body to a consideration of sexuality falsifies the topic from the beginning. Of course, an adequate theological phenomenology of the body as the primordial mystery/symbol of human freedom and bondage must include every aspect of sexuality. But it must also embrace all the other ways in which human embodiedness both enables and limits human freedom through disposition of material possessions, through relationships to the environment, through artistic creativity, and through suffering-both sinful and sanctifying. The pope’s title provides the first example of the way in which a grander-or to use his word "vast"-conceptual framework serves to camouflage a distressingly narrow view of things.

The pope’s subtitle is "Human Love in the Divine Plan," but no real sense of human love as actually experienced emerges in these reflections. The topic of human love in all its dimensions has been wonderfully explored in the world’s literature, but none of its grandeur or giddiness appears in these talks, which remain at a level of abstraction far removed from novels and newspapers with their stories of people like us (though not so attractive). John Paul II thinks of himself as doing "phenomenology," but seems never to look at actual human experience. Instead, he dwells on the nuances of words in biblical narratives and declarations, while fantasizing an ethereal and all-encompassing mode of mutual self-donation between man and woman that lacks any of the messy, clumsy, awkward, charming, casual, and, yes, silly aspects of love in the flesh. Carnality, it is good to remember, is at least as much a matter of humor as of solemnity. In the pope’s formulations, human sexuality is observed by telescope from a distant planet. Solemn pronouncements are made on the basis of textual exegesis rather than living experience. The effect is something like that of a sunset painted by the unsighted.

The objection may be made: isn’t it proper to base theology in Scripture, and isn’t John Paul II correct to have devoted himself so sedulously to the analysis of biblical texts, rather than the slippery and shoddy stuff of experience? Well, that depends on how seriously one takes the Catholic tradition concerning the work of God’s Holy Spirit in the world. If we believe-and I think we have this right-that revelation is not exclusively biblical but occurs in the continuing experience of God in the structures of human freedom (see Dei verbum, 2.8), then an occasional glance toward human experience as actually lived may be appropriate, even for the magisterium.

As for the pope’s way of reading Scripture, the grade is mixed. Certainly he is careful with the texts. Nor does he misrepresent those aspects of the text he discusses in any major way-although he leaves the impression that Matthew’s "blessed are the pure of heart" (5:8) refers to chastity, when in fact he knows very well that the beatitude does not have that restricted sense. Even more questionable are the ways John Paul II selects and extrapolates from specific texts without sufficient grounding or explanation. First, he scarcely treats all the biblical evidence pertinent to the subject. His discourses center on a handful of admittedly important passages, with obligatory nods at other texts that might have rewarded far closer analysis, such as the Song of Songs (three conferences) and the Book of Tobit (one). Other important texts are given scant or no attention. A far richer understanding of Paul would have resulted, for example, from a more sustained and robust reading of 1 Corinthians 7, which truly does reveal the mutuality and reciprocity-and complexity-of married love.

Second, John Paul II does not deal with some of the difficulties presented by the texts he does select. For instance, he manages to use Matthew 19:3-9, on the question of marriage’s indissolubility, without ever adverting to the clause allowing divorce on the grounds of porneia (sexual morality) in both Matthew 5:32 and 19:9. What does that exceptive clause suggest about the distance between the ideal "in the beginning" evoked by Jesus, and the hard realities of actual marriages faced by the Matthean (and every subsequent) church?

Third, for all of his philosophical sophistication, John Paul II seems unaware of the dangers of deriving ontological conclusions from selected ancient narrative texts. He inveighs against the "hermeneutics of suspicion," but the remedy is not an uncritical reading that moves directly from the ancient story to an essential human condition. He focuses on the Yahwist creation account in Genesis 2, because that is the account cited by Jesus in his dispute with the Pharisees concerning divorce (Matt. 19:5), and, I suspect, because its narrative texture-not to mention its human feel-allows for the sort of phenomenological reflection he enjoys. But as the pope certainly understands, this creation account must also be joined to that in Genesis 1 if an adequate appreciation of what Jesus meant by "from the beginning" (Matt. 19:8) is to be gained. If Genesis 1-which has God creating humans in God’s image as male and female-had been employed more vigorously, certain emphases would be better balanced. John Paul II wants, for example, to have the term "man" mean both male and female. But the Genesis 2 account pushes him virtually to equate "man" with "male," with the unhappy result that males experience both the original solitude the pope wants to make distinctively human as well as the dominion over creation expressed by the naming of animals. Females inevitably appear as "helpers" and as complementary to the already rather complete humanity found in the male. Small wonder that in virtually none of his further reflections on sexuality do women appear as moral agents: Men can have lust in the hearts but not women; men can struggle with concupiscence but apparently women do not; men can exploit their wives sexually but women can’t exploit their husbands sexually.

Such tight focus on male and female in the biblical account also leaves out all the interesting ways in which human sexuality refuses to be contained within those standard gender designations, not only biologically but also psychologically and spiritually. What appears in the guise of description serves prescription: human love and sexuality can appear in only one approved form, with every other way of being either sexual or loving left out altogether. Is it not important at least to acknowledge that a significant portion of humans-even if we take a ludicrously low percentage, at least tens of millions-are homosexual? Are they left outside God’s plan if they are not part of the biblical story? Would not an adequate phenomenology of human sexuality, so concerned with "persons," after all, rather than statistics, take with great seriousness this part of the human family, who are also called to be loving, and in many fashions to create and foster the work and joy of creation?

Even within this normative framework, out of all the things that might be taken up and discussed within married love and the vocation of parenting, John Paul II’s conferences finally come down to a concentration on "the transmission of life." By the time he reaches his explicit discussion of Humanae vitae, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that every earlier textual choice and phenomenological reflection has been geared to a defense of Paul VI’s encyclical. However, there is virtually nothing in this defense that is strengthened by the conferences preceding it.

WHAT THE POPE LEAVES OUT
John Paul II is certainly to be appreciated for trying to place the knotty and disputed questions concerning procreation into a more comprehensive theology of the body. But there are a number of things lacking in these conferences and in the various declarations of the pope’s apologists. I will simply list some obvious ones without development.
Most important, I would like to see a greater intellectual modesty, not only concerning the "facts" of revelation but also with the "facts" of human embodiedness. In everything having to do with the body, we are in the realm of what Gabriel Marcel called mystery. The body does not present a series of problems that we can solve by detached analysis. The body rather is mystery in two significant ways. First, we don’t understand everything about the body, particularly our own body. The means by which we reveal ourselves to others and unite lovingly with others is not unambiguous. The body reveals itself to thought but also conceals itself from our minds. Second, we cannot detach ourselves from our bodies as though they were simply what we "have" rather than also what we "are." We are deeply implicated and cannot distance ourselves from the body without self-distortion. Our bodies are not only to be schooled by our minds and wills; they also instruct and discipline us in often humbling ways. Should not a genuine "theology of the body" begin with a posture of receptive attention to and learning from our bodies? Human bodies are part of God’s image and the means through which absolutely everything we can learn about God must come to us.

In this regard, I find much of contemporary talk about "controlling our bodies" exactly contrary to such humility, whether such language derives from technocrats seeking to engineer reproductive processes or from naturalists who seek the same control through continence. I am not suggesting that a lack of continence or temperance is a desirable goal. But self-control is not the entire point of sexual love; celibacy is not the goal of marriage! And it may help to remember, in all this talk of controlling the body, that Dante assigned a deeper place in hell to the cold and the cruel than to the lustful. It can be argued, especially from the evidence of this century, that more evil has been visited upon us by various Stalins of sexless self-control than by the (quickly exhausted) epicures of the erotic. Recognition of the ways in which we suffer, rather than steer, our bodies is a beginning of wisdom.

Along these lines, I would welcome from the pope some appreciation for the goodness of sexual pleasure-any bodily pleasure, come to think of it! Pleasure is, after all, God’s gift also. A sadly neglected text is 1 Timothy 6:17, where God supplies us all things richly for our enjoyment. Sexual passion, in papal teaching, appears mainly as an obstacle to authentic love. Many of us have experienced sexual passion as both humbling and liberating, a way in which our bodies know quicker and better than our minds, choose better and faster than our reluctant wills, even get us to where God apparently wants us in a way our minds never could. Along the same lines, papal teaching might find a good word to say about the sweetness of sexual love-also, I think, God’s gift. Amid all the talk of self-donation and mutuality, we should also remember, "plus, it feels good." Come to think of it, why not devote some meditation to the astonishing triumph of sexual fidelity in marriage? Faithfulness, when it is genuine, is the result of a delicate and attentive creativity between partners, and not simply the automatic product of "self-control." In short, a more adequate theology of the body would at least acknowledge the positive ways in which the body gifts us by "controlling" us.

As with pleasure so with pain. A theology of the body ought to recognize the ways in which human sexual existence is difficult: how arduous and ambiguous a process it is for any of us to become mature sexually; how unstable and shifting are our patterns of sexual identity; how unpredictable and vagrant are our desire and craving, as well as our revulsion and resistance; how little support there is for covenanted love in our world; how much the stresses of life together-and apart-bear upon our sexual expression. John Paul II and his apologists seem to think that concupiscence is our biggest challenge. How many of us would welcome a dose of concupiscence, when the grinding realities of sickness and need have drained the body of all its sap and sweetness, just as a reminder of being sentient! I would welcome the honest acknowledgment that for many who are married the pleasure and comfort of sexual love are most needed precisely when least available, not because of fertility rhythms, but because of sickness and anxiety and separation and loss. For that matter, a theology of the body ought to speak not only of an "original solitude" that is supposedly cured by marriage, but also of the "continuing solitude" of those both married and single, whose vocation is not celibacy yet whose erotic desires find, for these and many other reasons, no legitimate or sanctified expression, and, in these papal conferences, neither recognition nor concern.

The pope does not examine these and many other aspects of the body and of "human love in the divine plan." Instead, the theology of the body is reduced to sexuality, and sexuality to "the transmission of life." The descent to biologism is unavoidable. What is needed is a more generous appreciation of the way sexual energy pervades our interpersonal relations and creativity-including the life of prayer!-and a fuller understanding of covenanted love as life-giving and sustaining in multiple modes of parenting, community building, and world enhancement.

REVISITING ’HUMANAE VITAE’
John Paul II’s conferences and the recent articles I have quoted have meant to defend the correctness of Humanae vitae, but paradoxically they remind readers with any historical memory how flawed that instrument was, and how badly it is in need of a fundamental revisiting. George Weigel calls it a "pastoral and catechetical failure," as though the encyclical’s deficiencies were merely those of tone or effective communication. John Paul II’s biblical reflections, in fact, appear as nothing less than a major effort to ground Humanae vitae in something more than natural law; an implicit recognition of the argumentative inadequacy of Paul VI’s encyclical. As my earlier comments indicate, I would judge his success as slight. It would be a weary business to take up the entire encyclical again, but it is important at least to note five major deficiencies that require a genuinely theological response rather than enthusiastic or reluctant apology.

In these comments, I will speak of "artificial birth control" only in terms of using a condom, diaphragm, or other mechanical device, mainly because I have considerable unease concerning chemical interventions and their implications for women’s long-term health.
First, the encyclical represents a reversion to an act-centered morality, ignoring the important maturation of moral theology in the period leading up to and following Vatican II, which emphasized a person’s fundamental dispositions as more defining of moral character than isolated acts. I am far from suggesting that specific acts are not morally significant. But specific acts must also be placed within the context of a person’s character as revealed in consistent patterns of response. The difference is critical when the encyclical and John Paul II insist that it is not enough for married couples to be open to new life; rather, every act of intercourse must also be open, so that the use of a contraceptive in any single act in effect cancels the entire disposition of openness. But this is simply nonsense. I do not cancel my commitment to breathing when I hold my breath for a moment or when I go under anesthesia. Likewise, there is an important distinction to be maintained between basic moral dispositions and single actions. The woman who kills in self-defense (or in defense of her children) does not become a murderer. The focus on each act of intercourse rather than on the overall dispositions of married couples is morally distorting.

Second, the arguments of Paul VI and John Paul II sacrifice logic to moral brinkmanship. When Paul VI equated artificial birth control and abortion, he not only defied science but also provoked the opposite result of the one he intended. He wanted to elevate the moral seriousness of birth control but ended by trivializing the moral horror of abortion. Similarly, from one side of the mouth, John Paul II recognizes two ends of sexual love, unitive intimacy and procreation. But from the other side of his mouth he declares that if procreation is blocked, not only that end has been canceled but also the unitive end as well. He has thereby, despite his protestations to the contrary, simply reduced the two ends to one. This can be shown clearly by applying the logic in reverse, by insisting that sexual intercourse that is not a manifestation of intimacy or unity also cancels the procreative end of the act.

Third, the position of the popes and their apologists continues to reveal the pervasive sexism that becomes ever more obvious within official Catholicism. I have touched above on the way John Paul II’s reading of Scripture tends to reduce the moral agency of women within the marriage covenant and sexual relationships. This becomes glaringly obvious in the argument that artificial birth control is wrong because it tends to "instrumentalize" women for men’s pleasure by making the woman a passive object of passion rather than a partner in mutuality. Yet the argument makes more experiential sense in reverse. Few things sound more objectifying than the arguments of the natural family planners, whose focus remains tightly fixed on biological processes rather than on emotional and spiritual communication through the body. The view that "openness to life" is served with moral integrity by avoiding intercourse during fertile periods (arguably times of greatest female pleasure in making love) and is not served (and becomes morally reprehensible) by the mutual agreement to use a condom or diaphragm, would be laughable if it did not have such tragic consequences. And what could be more objectifying of women than speaking as though birth control were something that only served male concupiscence? How about women’s moral agency in the realm of sexual relations? Don’t all of us living in the real world of bodies know that women have plenty of reasons of their own to be relieved of worries about pregnancy for a time and to be freed for sexual enjoyment purely for the sake of intimacy and even celebration?

Fourth, the absolute prohibition of artificial birth control becomes increasingly scandalous in the face of massive medical realities. One might want to make an argument that distributing condoms to teenagers as a part of sex education is mistaken, but that argument, I think, has to do with misgivings concerning sex education-and a general culture of permissiveness-as a whole. But what about couples who can no longer have sexual relations because one of them has innocently been infected by hiv, and not to use a condom means also to infect the other with a potentially lethal virus? When does "openness to life" in every act become a cover for "death-dealing"? Given the fact that in Africa aids affects tens of millions of men, women, and children (very many of them Christian), is the refusal to allow the use of condoms (leaving aside other medical interventions and the changing of sexual mores) coming dangerously close to assisting in genocide? These are matters demanding the most careful consideration by the church, and the deepest compassion. It is difficult to avoid the sense that the failed logic supposedly marshaled in the defense of life is having just the opposite result. If the political enslavement of millions of Asians and Europeans led the papacy to combat the Soviet system in the name of compassion, and if the enslavement and murder of millions of Jews led the papacy to renounce the anti-Semitism of the Christian tradition in the name of compassion, should not compassion also lead at the very least to an examination of logic, when millions of Africans are enslaved and killed by a sexual pandemic?

Fifth, and finally, shouldn’t Humanae vitae be revisited rather than simply defended for the same reasons that it was a "pastoral and catechetical" failure the first time around? It failed to convince most of its readers not least because its readers knew that Paul VI spoke in the face of the recommendations of his own birth-control commission. The encyclical was, as Weigel calls it, a "new Galileo crisis," not simply because it pitted papal authority against science, but also because the papacy was wrong both substantively and formally. It generated an unprecedented crisis for papal authority precisely because it was authority exercised not only apart from but also in opposition to the process of discernment. Sad to say, John Paul’s theology of the body, for all its attention to Scripture, reveals the same deep disinterest in the ways the experience of married people, and especially women (guided by the Holy Spirit, as we devoutly pray) might inform theology and the decision-making process of the church. If papal teaching showed signs of attentiveness to such experience, and a willingness to learn from God’s work in the world as well as God’s word in the tradition, its pronouncements would be received with greater enthusiasm. A theology of the body ought at least to have feet that touch the ground.
Since God is the Living One who continuously presses upon us at every moment of creation, calling us to obedience and inviting us to a painful yet joyous quest of wisdom, theology must be inductive rather than deductive. Our reading of Scripture not only shapes our perceptions of the world, but is in turn shaped by our experiences of God in the fabric of our human freedom and in the cosmic play of God’s freedom. Theology that takes the self-disclosure of God in human experience with the same seriousness as it does God’s revelation in Scripture does not turn its back on tradition but recognizes that tradition must constantly be renewed by the powerful leading of the Spirit if it is not to become a form of falsehood. Theology so understood is a demanding and delicate conversation that, like sexual love itself, requires patience as well as passion. If we are to reach a better theology of human love and sexuality, then we must, in all humility, be willing to learn from the bodies and the stories of those whose response to God and to God’s world involves sexual love. That, at least, is a starting point.

Original Unity of Man and Woman (summery of THEO 436 notes)

2005-11-22T10:06:00.000-08:00

In John Paul's discourses entitled "The Original Unity of Man and Woman," he discusses three proposed original states of humankind, before the fall:

First "The Original Solitude," second, "The Original Unity of Man and Woman," and third, "Original Nakedness."

The Original Unity is the state pursued following the state of Original Solitude, for it is in Adam's (and more broadly humanity's) self-realization of an imminent state of aloneness which then leads to the seeking of unity.

The unity of man and woman is premised on mutuality, reciprocity, and complementarity.

Complementarity presupposes identity (common human nature), duality (one nature embodied in two ways) and unity/communion (ie, the purpose of duality is an orientation towards/capacity for communion). Hence, there is seen equality and difference. The communion of man and woman breaks down as a result of inequality.

The nature of this communion was, according to John Paul, interpersonal communion, that is, a union of persons realized through reciprocal gift of self and reciprocal receiving of the gift of the other (ie, imago Dei).

The paradigm of this unity is marraige. This is the nature of Christ's relation to the Church. The ultimate paradigm of this is found in the Trinity.

Quasi Definition of Catholic/Marian Feminism

2005-11-20T23:23:00.000-08:00

A while ago, hollyqdolly asked in response to 'My Protestant Bible Study Group...' What exactly Catholic/Marian Feminism was. I found a wonderful summarizing interview with Pia de Solenni [http://catholiceducation.org/articles/feminism/fe0022.html] where she discusses the different kinds of feminism and posted some useful parts here.

[TRUE FEMINISM]

"Woman is created in the image of God. Like man, she is created for the purpose of knowing, ultimately knowing God. True feminism, therefore, respects woman´s essential identity as an image of God. Where she differs from man, a true feminism understands that these differences are constructive and complementary.

As a result of many feminist theories, woman begins to be considered an atomistic individual, an individual without relations to others. Yet, we see that every aspect of our life — for both men and women — we need others. Our happiness relates intimately to our relations with others because we come to know ourselves and others, including God, through these relations. The Christian tradition has shown us that the feminine vocation is lived out in countless ways — look at the women saints. You can't put it in a box and say that a woman should do x, y and z.

True feminism concerns itself more with how a woman exists, rather than the jobs that she can do. Whatever she does, she does as a woman, not as a genderless creature. The same is obviously true for man.

[DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF FEMINISM]

Feminism can be categorized in many different ways. I think it's easier to break it down into general groups based on how the individual man and woman are considered in relation to each other. Under each of these groups, you´ll find people who might not even agree on their views, but their essential understanding of man and woman is the same.

That would give us about four basic categories.

First, there's feminism of equality. This feminism maintains that women and men are absolute equals and exactly the same. The differences are conditioned by external factors. This tradition can be traced to Plato who considered the body to be nothing more than the container of the genderless soul. It's also the tradition found in the 18th-century feminism started by Mary Wollstonecraft. John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor developed this thought in the 19th century. It's also held weight into the 20th and 21st centuries, especially in theories of androgyny.

Out of the feminism of equality arises feminism of difference. Within the feminism of difference, there are two major trends: polarity and complementarity. Polarity asserts that one sex is superior to the other. This trend includes thinkers like Mary Daly, Carol Gilligan and even Aristotle. Complementarity maintains that man and woman are different, but equal. John Paul II has most notably developed this thought.

Anti-essentialist feminism grew out of mid-19th century existentialism and the increasing sensitivity/awareness of the differences between man and woman. It's similar to feminism of equality, but it takes the claims much further. Within this view, women are understood to be limited by society's imposition of stereotypical feminine roles and prohibited from freely living out their own existence and creating their own essence. They seek an existence which is free from the impositions of others, especially those of a male-dominated society.

Deconstructivist feminism builds on all three groupings of feminist traditions. Besides saying as the anti-essentialists do — that essence is something created by experience, in the context of a community — deconstructivists maintain that things which are seen as true and somewhat absolute are, in fact, relative to the person. Most postmodern feminists are deconstructivists.

As Christians, we recognize the inherent equality of all human beings, man and woman. The differences are constructive even if we don´t understand them. Remember that the differences existed before original sin. The tensions that arise from them, however, are due to original sin.

Why should we settle for any system of thought that gives us anything less than being created in the image of God?

[So Marian feminism is JPII's feminism, a feminism of difference based on complementality. Hope this helps :)]

The Julian Oratorio

2005-11-15T10:30:00.000-08:00

Sunday Night I got to listen to the first public performance of the Julian Oratorio by Roger Mayor! (though it was recorded in 2002) I was very excited :) It was in Norwich Cathedral, and although it was only 6:30, because England's so far north, it was blacker than midnight (the sun sets at 4:30ish as of now, and gets darker the hours before). This was my first introduction to Norwich Cathedral - I hadn't been there yet. It's an Anglican Cathedral now, so I normally go to the Cathedral of St. John the Baptist, the Roman Catholic Church, built by the Duke of Norfolk in the 1800s. ( My friend who's a fan of Tudor History informed me that, for England, this is a more Catholic region because the Duke of Norfolk has always traditionally been from a Catholic family. Even during the Reformation, he had Catholic sympathies.)

I'm looking forward to seeing the Cathedral in the daytime, because at night it was absolutely beautiful. On my path to the ladies' I was walking under the stone outer edges of the courtyard, and it was really cool. The Oratorio was a choral work (with instruments) that set the words of Julian of Norwich to music. The acoustics were wonderful and the music powerful. A lovely time was had by all :) (or me at least! hehe)

Thoughts on JPII and Virginal Superiority

2005-11-14T13:30:00.000-08:00

I was reading Theology of the Body, the series entited 'Virginity for the Sake of the Kingdom' in "Life According to the Spirit". I just had some reactions to certain things he talked about that I just wanted to put into words so I wouldn't forget, and could look back on later:

p. 264 - ...continence for the kingdm of heaven in man's earthly life...[is] a king of exception to what is rather a general rule of this life...That such an exception contains within itself the anticipation of the exchatological life without marriage and proper to the "other world"...is not directly spoken of here by christ. It is a question indeed, not of continence in the kingdom of heaven, but of continence for the kingdome of heaven. The idea of virginity or of celibacy as an anticipation and eschatological sign...

Are we all in union and communism with each other and God in heaven? But does that mean physicall too? With our glorified bodies?

p. 267 - Such a human being [in heaven where people no longer marry], man and woman, indicates the eschatological virginity of the risen man. In him there will be revealed, I would say, the absolute an deternal nuptial meaning of the glorified body in union with God himself through the "face to face" vision of him, and glorified also through the union of a perfect intersubjectivity.

But if that's the case, is risen man really a virgin? If every conjugal act is symbolic of the loving union and communion with God, then a perpetual union and communism is a perpetual state of consummation. A virgin to other humans but the perpetual lover of God. But that's not quite right...you'd be renouncing other people...

p. 268 - The marriage of Mary and Joseph...conceals within itself, at the same time, the mystery of the perfect communion of the persons, of the man and hte woman in the conjugal pact, and also the mystery of that singular continence for the kingdom of heaven. This continence served, in the history of salvation, the most perfect fruitfulness of the Holy Spirit.

But how is that a 'conjugal pact' if Mary was perpetually virginal? There was no union or consummation, definitely a church requirement.

p. 269 - Such a continence must have impressed itself on [the disciples'] consiousness as a particular trait of likeneses to Christ, who had himself remained celibate "for the kingdom of heaven"...[which] attaches a particular meaning to that spiritual and supernatural fruitfulness of man which comes from the Holy Spirit...

Why is it for the kingdom of heaven? How is it supernatural?

p. 273 - From the context of the Gospel according to Matthew (MR 19:10-12), it can be seen sufficiently clearly that here it is not a question of diminishing hte value of matrimony in faor of continence, nor of lessening the value of one in comparison with the other. Instead, it is a question of breaking away from, with full awareness, that which in man, by the Creator's will, causes him to marry, and to move toward continence.

How does this make continence seem like a good thing? Consciously going against what God created your bodies for to know and understand him? Perhaps there are two ways to understand the union and communion? Physical (husband and wife) and spiritual (continence)?

p. 273-4 - By choosing continence for teh kingdom of heaven, man has the knowledge of being able in that way to fulfill himself differently and, in a certain way, more than through matrimoney, becoming a "true gift to others" (cf GS 24).

Is it really more, or more in the spiritual way? It's still kind of then saying understanding in the physical way is then less, and while good, not as good - when they're both different, like men and women are different.

p. 275 - In Christ's words recorded in Matthew (MT 19:11-12) we find a solid basis for admitting only this superiority, while we do not find any basis whatever for any disparagement of matrimony...

Mt( 19: 11-12) - p. 262 - Replying to the disciples who said, "If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry", "Not all men can receive the precept, but only those to whom it is given For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who had made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven. He whoe is able to receive this, let him receive it.

p. 275 - Certainly, he [Christ] said that this is an exceptional vocation, not a common one. In addition he affirmed that it is especially important and necessary to the kingdom of heaven. If we understand superiority to matrimony in this sense, we must admit that Christ set it out implicitly. However, he did not express it directly. Only Paul will say of those who choose matrimony taht they do "well". About those who are willing to live in voluntary continence, he will say that they do "better" (1 Cor 7:38).

I still don't see how Christ recognized this as 'superiority'. He's definitely implying that it was exceptional, important and necessary. The Church's Tradition stems from the Pauline belief doesn't it? Virginity is especially importnat to the kingdom of heaven above and marraige is especially important for our beinge and understanding on earth below. Virginity may be superior in the spiritual sense, but not the physical. And what about the resurrection? At which resurrection of our glorified bodies we are in perpetual consummation with the Lord, or else there'd be no reason for our bodies at all glorified in heaven. Because of the physical resurrection, there must be some great merit for the physical understand of God that is not superceded by the spiritually virginal.

Maybe? ?? ?? ??

Dover, Pennsylvania and Intelligent Design

2005-11-14T12:50:00.000-08:00

Many people are so harsh towards Intelligent Design. I have been previously as well, and while I don’t necessary advocate it unequivocally quite yet, I do think it merits more examination as a scientific inclusion than is currently being given by those who simply see it as a way to preach religion in schools. I also see this as connected to our goals of examining society and women, and questioning academia’s ways of thinking.

For example, one could look at the Intelligent Design argument and advocate it as an extension of what science currently constitutes. At present, since the Scientific Revolution, anything that science by definition examines must be able to be proven or disproven, tested, measured in some way, and repeated in standard experiments. I do give merit to that type of scientific analysis – it has led to so many great discoveries and improvements for humanity.

However, it is this definition which by nature excludes a fundamental challenge of Darwinian evolution (note : Darwinian): that of the potentially irreducible complexity of aspects of creation and the emphasis on Chance.

Intelligent Design posits that because certain things are irreducibly complex (meaning that they could not have evolved in isolation without other parts also existing), evolution itself could not have resulted in them – Another Power (like God) must have had a hand. In addition, a major Catholic argument against Darwinian evolution is his emphasis on chance – that all things occurred, including the development of human beings, because of a fortuitous survival of species best adapted to their environment and able to pass on their particular traits. The Catholic Church opposes this notion because it denies God’s infinite foresight and hindsight that exists out of time; a foresight that predestined humanity from the very beginning. “God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.” (Gen 1:31)

It seems to me that Intelligent Design has merit in a science classroom only if one extends the definition of science to take into account unobjective things – which currently isn’t too probable. Intelligent design is a critique and challenge to Darwinian evolution but it will not be allowed in the science classroom because it can only be asserted out of negation, and the inability to unequivocally prove certain aspects of evolution:

1. the irreducible complexity of certain aspects of creation (the human eye is an oft cited example, though there are others) and
2. the development of human creation as a special and unique, not chance, realization.

It is a challenge because it takes into account that science can’t prove chance development, because it can’t see outside factors – factors which it, because of the exclusion of religion, refuses to consider.

Instead of an attempt to put religion into science, Intelligent Design can be considered as an attempt to expose the bias of agnosticism – a bias science consistently overlooks because of its fundamental tenants.

What does this then have to do with the feminine perspective in academia and subsequent implications? More than at first appears.

First off, it is a challenge to objective ‘unbiased’ determinants of scientific truths. Objectivity is important, but science doesn’t necessarily have to always be so. By considering that which one cannot prove, but is still a possibility, we are extending the realms of understanding in the scientific world – connecting it to other truths of other disciplines (disciplines only arbitrarily divided by human intervention, as everything in the world is part of a holistic unity).

This process is a most feminine process – seeing the interconnection of disciplines and ways of understanding, curtailing some of the deficiencies of one-sided pursuit. It is a way of thinking and analyzing science that is not as abstracted and dehumanized, nor as isolated and disconnected from the real and living truth. This could be extended to other areas of thinking – such as Theology and Philosophy, our cup of tea, which often suffers from a similar yet opposite problem – that of the theoretical and exclusion of the concrete. The implications of these changes have extraordinary (and also possibly dangerous) potential. This could lead to an academic climate more conducive to female ways of thinking and understanding – which in turn could lead to a more holistic, developed, humane, and connected world system.

All those in favour of Intelligent Design in Dover, Pennsylvania have not succeeded in their intentions this week. It's possible that what they were trying to do was wrong, or the scientific community was not and will never be ready for such a radical adjustment to their system of inquiry and understanding. Regardless, the defeat of Intelligent Design in Pennsylvania does not negate in my mind its considerable implications for the ways of academia and how this could affect the female sex.

Theology of Everything/Nuptial Meaning of Everything - An Extension of Biblical Anthropology??

2005-11-14T00:45:00.000-08:00

The Theology of the Body dicusses the nuptial meaning of the body. It talks about the union and communion of persons and God through the spirit and the flesh, marriage and continence, and other such dichotomies. The body reveals God and is a symbol to help us understand Him and His World - our World. Why stop then at the body and sexuality?

Biblical analogies abound. We have wonderful symbolic references in the Bible refering to our bodies (Christ as the head, the Church as body and organs, et al), jobs, nature, etc. -- the whole world-- Does this then point to a sort of "Nuptial Meaning/Theology of Everything?"

At first I thought about was Mythology and Nature, etc. How the value of reoccuring archetypes in Christianity is not diminished because those archetypes are in used in other myths and religions; it's just a subconscious manifestation of what we all intrinsically know to be the truth or what we are searching for, because they in turn mean something about God. Then I got to more important matters: the real first thing I thought of (that I tossed aside to ponder a moment on mythology) was:

Why do we have five toes? And why do they wiggle? What does that show? What about nail enamel? What's up with nail enamel? And nails too now that I think about it. Interesting...

What does this world mean? And not just the Big Questions - Everyone focuses on those (and rightly so), but What about the everyday things? What about lily pads, drainpipes, contact lenses, pins and tacks, towels (ohhh, fuzzy :p ) 'To show the beauty and diversity of Creation' I'm sure is true, but there should be something more , that everyone kind of tosses aside as meaningless, or little, or not significant. But then we always hear it said that God is in all the little things - is that really only for our enjoyment and understanding of beauty? To spiritually connect with God? How can we look at these things and see a 'nuptial meaning'? A 'theology of the body'-type anthropomorphic implication?

I am aware that this may get a little funky, a little questionable, a little...not good - people's interpretations of us having 5 toes turning into eugenic prejudicial tracts in complete disalignment with the Church. I think it might be possible, thought, to speculate on these things -- all these crazy things in our world - to gain further insight into an extension of biblical anthropology to understand a 'Theology of the World', as long as we remain rooted in Church teachings and accept the limitations of our own beings and experiences.

What do you think?

Reflections on our Mission

2005-10-30T05:57:00.000-08:00

A philosophical investigation into the restoration of the feminine perspective in Theology and its implications for humanity.

I was just sitting around looking at our blog, when I really started to take a look at that subtitle you and I made up when we first created this. We sort of created the statement in a hurry, but not too much of a hurry that we didn't conciously know and choose the words that we wrote. However, now that we're sort of settled in, I think it warrants an examination of those things we are specifically trying to do.

A Philosophical Investigation

From an outside perspective, it might not appear that we are quite as textbooky 'philosophical' as could possibly be, but our goal was to really examine these questions that philosophy poses at the heart of itself - meaning, being, existence, purpose and God. And that many times philosophical examinations and ways of thinking about such things are quite limited in their scope because of the particular masculine bias perhaps inherent in what is considered philosophy, philosophical discourse and relevant philosophical components. What you and I wanted to do, was investigate a little more into what philosophy was and has been, and what it could be, if it indeed can be more than it already is. That philosophy is in some way, we feel in our guts, missing something that we can't always even accurately put our fingers on.

Some of it may be related to the handling of mysticism, to non-pointed, abstracted, delinated approaches, to the exclusion of the relationships,concrete, and personal, or just to the de-emphasis of a particular way of thinking about the way to examine who we are ourselves.

So then the first part of our goal, is to examine our own ways of knowing in as open and complete a philosophical manner as possible.

Into the Restoration

We are clearly then working under the assumption with this phrasing that the perspective we are trying to rediscover for ourselves has indeed, at one time, existed. For this to be the case, it could either have existed because others in the past explored it to such a depth already, or, as is more likely the case in my opinion, because it always existed from the beginning of time, only waiting to come to full realization of its potentiality.

Of the Feminine Perspective

Here we are definitely asserting that there is such a thing as a feminine perspective, which may vary from individual to individual, but is a certainty in this world under God -- that we are created "male and female", and that this itself has particular significance for both our philosophical investigation and any 'restoration' we are attempting to make. As classifying the perspective as feminine, we are also giving it sexual attributes, or a gender connotation. This might pose as a complication because there are many who would point out to us the social construction of gendered terms like 'feminine'. But I think that you and I would posit that we speak in reference to the feminine as encompassing all that a female in her dignity in the image of God is called to be, both in her specific aspects (your and I's feminine perspective) and the general aspects (the perspective of 'woman', which, as we believe there is a distinctive quality and dignity of woman as there is of man, can be assessed in that general sense).

The word feminine is then attached to the noun 'Perspective' -- literally meaning, 'to look through' something, a way of looking at, all around, through and of something. Our endeavour again is completely tied back to this notion of our ways of looking and understanding.

Our ways of looking and understanding are valuable to know in isolation, but it is also crucial to put them to some purpose, as follows in the subtitle:

In Theology

In particular, you and I are specifically concerned with what this means in the Catholic Church's traditions and teachings, Christian philosophical understandings, and how it plays out in the world - all crucial components of "the Study of God". We want to, in general but not always necessarily, gear our philosophical investigations about the feminine perspective to this subject which captures your and I's hearts and motivates us to do what we do - that we have the motivation, desire, and impulse (and hopefully the grace) to learn what we can for ourselves and what other use we can put it to.

We also seem to be asserting here that Theology for at least some part has lost these components of the feminine perspective that we are trying to restore in it (again, even if they only existed in Theology in its broadest inclusion of potentialities). Whether that be because of the development and history of the subject and the discourse, its subjects, its speakers, etc. can certainly also be a subject of discussion.

And its Implications for Humanity

This last part is my favorite, for I am always looking for the context and the implications of these abstracted concepts and ideals. What does this mean in real life --- for you, for me, for my mom and dad, for your best friend, for the little girl in India and the old man in Peru, for your great-great-great-grand niece not yet born and my great-great-great-uncle who has since passed away. The word as we're using it is literally referring to all the folds and complexities of life, for us "to involve, tangle, and connect closely". (hehehehe, it's going to be fun :D )

And also, what does it all mean and how it will it impact, not just the world, but Humanity. Humanity as understood as men and women in not just our bodies, or souls, but entire being past, present, future and eternal under God. This word is so important for us, I think, in light of what the Catholic Church teaches -- that woman is the model for all humanity, and the Virgin Mother as the whole of humanity in perfection. :)

Ideas on Mystical Theology

2005-10-22T14:59:00.000-07:00

"For women, then, poetry is not a luxury. It is a vital necessity of our existence. It forms the quality of the light within which we predicate our hopes and dreams toward survival and change, first made into language, then into idea, then into more tangible action. Poetry is the way we help give name to the nameless so it can be thought."
-Audre Lorde

If, one uses more mystical language to predicate ones concept of God, this then expresses the same reality of the "science of God" and is then, of course, a genuine Theological school, if not more so, for it in some way grasps the beauty and provides an apprehension of the fullness of God insofar as the mind is capable, having the capacity to be just as close to truth as technical semantical language, if only from a different and no less true perspective, and hence should not be dismissed as mere Mysticism.

St. Thomas - Vir est principum mulieris et finis

2005-10-20T01:00:00.000-07:00

"Man is the principle/source and end of woman."

I would like to clarify here what I think St. Thomas means when he calls man the principle and end of woman. First of all, a principle is that from which something else follows. Thus it signifies that woman was made from man. It signifies further the principle as primary and that which follows as subordinate. (The term that Paul used, that man is head of woman, corresponds to the Thomistic concept.) The "end" as St. Thomas uses it means, first of all, that to which another strives, that wherein it finds peace and fulfillment; hence this signifies that the meaning of the feminine being is fulfilled in union with man. End signifies further that for whose sake another exists. Thus, it means that because man needs woman to fulfill the meaning of his being, she was created for his sake. It does not seem to me that this means that woman was created only for the sake of man; for every creature has its own meaning, and that is its particular way of being an image of the divine being. Also, if the sexual relation is not justified by its own meaning and value, it was very possible indeed to assure human propagation by other means. nor do I understand that woman is denigated by having been created "for man's sake" unless it is misunderstood as it very well could be after the degeneracy of both sexes as a result of the Fall, i.e., that she is to serve man's won ends and satisfy his lust. That was not intended for the companion standing side by side with him over all other creatures. Rather, by her free, personal decision to be his helpmate, she enables him to becomes what he is intended to be. For "man is also not without woman," and that is why he must "leave father and mother in order to cling to his wife."

St. Edith Stein, Problems of Women's Education

Shekinah, the glory of God, Revealed in the Body

2005-10-19T18:26:00.000-07:00

There is so much confusion around us about what love really is. After all, for many people, saying "I love you," is really just a way of rationalizing the notion that it's okay to have another sexual fling. And, for many other people, saying "I love you," is primarily an attempt to take someone's emotions hostage, making the person some sort of psychological prisoner.

We can learn what real love is by looking at the God who is love. God's love gives. That's what love does. God gives us life, gives to us all of the created world, and then gives us the freedom to choose to give ourselves to one another.

This is the criteria we're going to use in all of our relationships to determine what is and is not love. Love gives and never uses. No form of using, not even mutually agreed upon using, can ever approximate or in any way contribute to bringing about real love.

For some of us this is hard to imagine, because our culture tells us that our sexuality is almost synonymous with the urge to use each other. But that kind of sexuality can only lead to shame and remorse and the death of love.

None of us can ever be fulfilled or happy so long as we look in the mirror and see a user looking back at us. None of us can be happy lying down next to someone who thinks that we can be reduced to an object to be used.

Using violates the very language of our bodies. Our bodies do in fact have a language. We can read the purpose of our creation in the language of our bodies because of the redemption which Christ has won for us. We can look upon our own bodies, and upon each other's bodies, and recognize in a certain sense what Adam and Eve saw when they looked upon each other's bodies in the Garden, naked and without shame.

What they saw, what we are capable of seeing, is that their bodies made it possible for them to make a gift of themselves to each other. They recognized that each was in a way made for the other, that they were in fact called to become one body. They recognized that they had the capacity to give themselves to one another in a way that would make them partners with God in giving life. And they were not ashamed, because were not tempted to use, but only to give.

Shame entered the garden with sin, when they realized that they were now prone to selfishness and using in the way they treated one another's bodies. But because of the gift we have in Jesus, we can see past that shame, past that sin, and recognize the truth of the human body. No human being can ever find fulfillment in using, but only in giving, and this fact is written not only in our consciences, but in the language of our bodies.

Here we have one of the most profound and effective ways for us to share the Gospel message with this culture, in this new millennium. Everyone, no matter how secular, is capable of discerning the fundamental truth presented here.

Our bodies are not objects to be used. We were made to give and to receive love. Using never leads to giving. Reject using, choose to give, and we will attain the desires of our hearts.

As we go forward in dating and courtship, we should continually strive to discern whether each relationship is truly giving, or has descended to the level of using--for using is the death of love.

Next, before we delve into the essence of truly love-giving relationships, we're going to take a moment to do an autopsy on the sort of dead relationship which is most prevalent in our culture.

Exam 1: Theology of the Body Midterm

2005-10-16T18:15:00.001-07:00

"Marriage is good and holy, holy continence is better, virginity is best of all." Explain the reasoning behind Augustine's defense of this hierarchy, with particular focus on his views regarding sexuality. How would you criticize Augustine's theology of the body from your own standpoint? Does anything in Augustine's theology ofthe body retain relevance today?

Augustine's view of holy continence, or voluntarily refraining from sexual union while in the married state as a great "gift of God" is an understanding originating from Saint Paul. Augustine phrases his view as such, "(Paul) tells us that this gift (of continence in marriage) is from God; although he classes it below that continence in which he would have all men be like himself... When these are shown to be gifts of God, it is meant that they must be sought from him if they are not already possesed." In this we see a construction of Augustine's hierarchy of goods and that he understands it as best for those already married to pursue this marital state. He takes Paul's view that living without a spouse in virginity in the sole pursuit of God as the highest good. As Paul says, "I would that all men were even as I myself."

Women and Leadership:

2005-10-11T18:23:00.000-07:00

I found it intriguing to note that the following article stresses not that women cannot hold leadership positions, but that women should not sacrifice who they are as women when it comes to a career. The particular skills of a woman can and do contribute greatly in the work force. How interesting that even secular sciences give full credit to the essential differences in the male:female approach to everything, especially in leadership.

[I do not intend to imply that hence, women should take over the Magesterial Hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church ;) Simply, I find it interesting and important to note that women can be and often are quite skilled and effective leaders. ]

5 Ways Women Make Better Leaders
By Jo Miller, Women's Leadership Coach

As a young recruiting consultant in Australia, my first job was working for a female boss. She took any criticism, even constructive criticism, as a personal attack on her position of power, and would wait weeks before launching a counter-attack on an unsuspecting subordinate. The experience was so unsettling it almost discouraged me from wanting to become a manager, and made me think twice before accepting the next job working for a woman. My former boss, like many women, felt it was necessary to be tough to compete in a man's world. Given this background, I was somewhat skeptical to learn about the ways that a woman's style of leadership differs from that of a man. It has often been said that women are better with the soft skills of management, like listening and communicating, while men excel at the hard skills such as analysis and decision-making. Conventional wisdom holds that a feminine leadership style would employ empathy rather than aggression, foster team-building instead of competition, and lead by consensus rather than by directing.In the late '80s and early '90s, management books coached women to break through glass ceilings by acting more like men. Corporate women were advised to wear shoulder pads and use sports and military analogies to "play hardball" and "divide and conquer." But it was never proven that acting like men made women more adept leaders. In six studies completed in the past decade, researchers in the United States compared the abilities of executive men and women. The methodologies varied widely, and included performance evaluations, questionnaires, observations and peer evaluations. Research confirmed conventional wisdom, that women did indeed excel at many of the soft skills of management. Conventional wisdom says that women lead better in these areas:

1. Team-Building

Women are good at encouraging participation and facilitating groups. A 1999 study by Lawrence A. Pfaff and Associates in Michigan found that one of the many ways women rated higher than men was in facilitating teamwork, a skill stereotypically feminine.

2. Empowering

Women are more likely than men to utilize facilitative leadership, a style that enables and encourages others (Porat, 1991). Facilitative leaders empower and motivate people rather than lead by reward and punishment.

3. Communication

Women working in education were found to use a more open communication style that came from their focus on relationships. As a result, they communicated more frequently than men with their colleagues, stakeholders and subordinates (Connor, 1992). In the business world, open communication encourages feedback and sharing of information and power.

4. Consensus-Building

Women are talented collaborators and support contributive, consensual decision-making (Porat, 1991). Team members appreciate knowing their contributions are valued. However, consensus building can have pitfalls for women. An over-reliance on this method of decision-making can make a leader indecisive and too dependent upon the opinions of others. A true leader knows when to stop conferring and propose a decision.

5. Almost Everything Else

But women's strengths are not limited to these skills alone. Of the six studies, five indicated that female bosses scored higher than men on a majority of leadership skills measured. In the sixth study, men and women ranked evenly.In the study by Lawrence A. Pfaff and Associates of more than 1000 managers in 211 organizations, women outranked men in soft skills such as communication and teamwork, but also in areas not traditionally considered female, such as planning, goal-setting and facilitating change. In areas traditionally considered male, such as decisiveness, women ranked on par with men. In Business Week, Shirley Ross, an industrial psychologist who oversaw a study for Hagberg Consulting Group, was quoted as saying ''Women are scoring higher on almost everything we look at". Evidence has mounted that if you are a woman, then statistically speaking, your natural, authentic leadership style is working just fine. Yet women try to be more like men, while men are unencumbered by such thoughts, and get ahead simply by being themselves. Can you imagine a male chief executive rising to the top job by pretending to be someone other than who he is? If you are a woman and want to be a better manager, don't try to lead more like a man. Lead like a strong woman, with confidence and backbone.

Jo Miller is a Women's Leadership Coach who helps managerial and executive women realize their potential as leaders.

Reading at Mass

2005-10-07T15:25:00.000-07:00

I love to read out loud, and I especially love to read at mass. A lot of people I've met have a fear of speaking in front of crowds, but it never bothered me quite as much. And it's nice to be complimented on something you really like to do that also lets you share God with other people.

But it's kind of sad too... :( As I've become more orthodox in my beliefs I am beginning to realize that, yes, it's ok that I'm reading, but...ideally...I never should have to. (At least not in the church mass proper). Because ideally...men serve their priestly vocation by leading the mass and women serve in many other vitally important ways, during and outside church... I know that it's not out of a deficiency on my part that I shouldn't actually in an ideal world be a reader at mass, but it is kind of sad to me because I love to do it.

I keep trying to think...the sacrifice of something that small, and really (if I'm honest with myself) that vain, is infinitely worth it when we see how it all actually does fit together to help us understand and give greater glory to God. Similiarly, maybe this can be applied on a larger scale with the changes in society that, as orthodox Catholics we should endeavour to make, that initially seem unfair, or insignificant, or even not our place to say anything about at all.

I think maybe it's hard to see why to take away or change certain things - the removal of which would anger not only radical feminists but also many women who have just happened to have grown up in a world with so many opportunities and certain expectations. It's hard to realize that just because we can do something doesn't mean that we should...and that the cumulative effect of all the little things in our 'equal', liberal, and relativistic society is what can be the most despirate and most despairing.

Cross-Cultural Comparisons and the General Apathy of the English

2005-10-05T11:44:00.000-07:00

While some might say that studying in England as an American doesn't necessarily give me the best perspective for cross-cultural comparison, in the realm of religion, I, surprisingly, would have to disagree.

The thing that strikes me the most is how very unreligious a people the English are. I am of course saying this as a generalization and there are many faithful people I am sure. But in combination with the English Studies we're doing as part of a Humanities course here and in my personal conversations with those around me...it is very different, yet very interesting to understand. My one flatmate described his country as "a nation of atheists, really". Most people, if forced to chose, check the box marked "C of E" on the census...but so few practice, and far fewer believe. Those that do appear to believe in something, and have faith of some sort, but not in any devout sense that would we think of it.

How could a country that, even in the early modern era, was a fervently religious country...become the victim of so much cynicism, disbelief, and pure apathy? Does it have something to do with the technological revolutions, various philosophical movements, or something inherent in the British national character that interplayed with them?I contrast this especially with of course America, but also other devout nations in the world. My flatmates and I had a 7 hour conversation last night about the differences between America and England and religion played a part for at least an hour of it. One of them talked about the decline of Christianity and it's status as a "dying religion" in Britain.

This last part struck me in relation to how the orthodoxy of a faith impacts the followers, or lack there of. Religions that are orthodox, that have truth, that have rules, are the ones that people seem to stick more closely to and believe in more fervently than any sort of relativistic, ever-changing, liberal version of any faith. Islam is a case in point: its followers have a strict set of unchanging beliefs from the Quran and a set of truths that can never and will never change. Compare that with Catholicism and Orthodox Christians - that appeal is similiar in all three. (one can also make a case for Pentecostal Christians, I am told, who assert a similiar belief in unchanging truths). Contrast that with the rather ambigious faiths of believers who either do not know the orthodoxy of their faith, reject it, or lack it intrinsically in their denomination's dogma (cafeteria Catholics, the American and British followers of certain Protestant denominations etc.).

It is a fascinating correlation.

Theology of the body

2005-09-15T17:32:00.000-07:00

1) Why did complete sexual renunciation appeal to some early Christians? What sorts of justification did the Encratites give for this practise (experiential and theological)?

Many of the Gentile converts, after their conversion and baptism, retained a Greek philosophical understanding of the cosmos, and of the body itself. From their perspective there was a hierarchy of being in which spirit, or pneuma, was assumed to be higher than matter, or hyle. The elite, higher class, educated (male) Roman citizens already possessed an understanding of the spiritual as superior to matter. This understanding of the body as lower they then transferred into their Christian faith.

THEO 436 [Questions...]

2005-09-02T07:02:00.000-07:00

Does Christianity encourage a positive or negative understanding of the body?

Christianity, at its heart encourages a positive and fully restored view of the entire human person- a body-soul composite which God Himself declared was "very good". However, in the enforcement by fallen human persons of certain tenets of Christianity, certain attempts to teach truth ultimetely cancel themselves out. What I mean by this is, for example, with the belief that the Church holds that sex before marraige is both damaging to the understanding of the human person, the language of sexuality and damaging to the life of grace, it becomes very easy for those in authority to give a misguided understanding of the human body itself, pleasure, etc. To illustrate this idea, take the example of the toddler who gets to close to a fire or a stovetop. Usually, out of fear for his life, his parents will punish him, perhaps yell at him, etc. as a sortof instictive survival response on the parents part. He may soon view fire as bad or very bad. Similarly, the Christian, may subconsciously start to see the body itself as evil. Ultimetely, we know the fire itself is not evil, it just needs to be properly utlized and respected or it becomes dangerous and harmful. So, the same way with the body needs to be properly understood as having great potentiality for harm. Similar to the toddler analogy, it is very simple for Christians to come to the perception of their bodies as bad or inherently detrimental to the life of grace.

Do practises such as asceticism and celibacy affirm or deny the goodness of the body? Can you think of other distinctly Christian practices that affirm and promote the goodness of embodiement?

It is very easy to see the practise of denying oneself and the body's natural inclinations as degrading. A monk's self-flagellation or Origen's castration quickly come to mind as ascetic practises which could be denying the goodness of the body. Extreme ascetic practise seems to disregard possibility of balance between free will and grace. However, Christ did warn that if the hand causes one to sin, it should be cut off and cast away. It seems to me from a proper Christian view that there needs to be an order of priority. If one is "harming" the body to avoid sin, it should never be from the motive that the body is EVIL in itself, but because sin is realized as THE greatest of all evils; greater than the loss of a hand is the loss of the life of grace, the loss of God's dwelling in the soul. Many influential Christians, such as Saint Thomas Aquinas and Saint Francis of Assisi, saw avoiding sin as a higher good then maintaining unmolested flesh. It is better for the hand to not function that for the soul to be dead in sin, from their perspective. This seems to be the ultimate priority of self-denial. Ideally, one should understand the inherent goodness of both the pneuma and the hyle, and the will, infused with love not fear, is strong enough to maintain the life of grace within (without castration)!

The Incarnation and the Sistine chapel ceiling (and all good art) strike me as a powerful testaments to the Christian understanding of the goodness of the human body.

Philosophy in the Clouds

2005-08-19T11:30:00.000-07:00

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)

2005-08-10T07:43:00.000-07:00

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

Stein on Apologetics and Asceticism - Connection to Femininity?

2005-08-10T01:24:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-09T23:30:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-07T23:52:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-07T11:17:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-07T00:33:00.000-07:00

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 :)

2005-08-07T00:18:00.000-07:00

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. "

2005-08-06T10:39:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-05T17:45:00.000-07:00

Welcome to our little garden.

First Conversation

2005-07-07T21:30:00.000-07:00

The Co-Contributers' First Conversation - The Discovery of our Similiar Views and Passion for Philosophy and True Femininity

Snowcatpa: hehe, so what's up?
Snowcatpa: I got your message about Chris west and marian feminism
Snowcatpa: bummed I can't go
Shekinah685: LOL
Snowcatpa: go you for being willing to drive!
Shekinah685: yeah i am psyched
Shekinah685: lol
Shekinah685: yeah well its on the way to my old school
Shekinah685: christendom
Shekinah685: heard of it?
Shekinah685: haha lol thats ok its a catholic college with like 300 undergrads
Shekinah685: so u go to dickinson what yer majoramation
Shekinah685: haShekinah685: whoa
Shekinah685: HAHASnowcatpa: hahah!
Snowcatpa: your words are funny
Shekinah685: scary
Shekinah685: HAHAHAH
Snowcatpa: I'm a history major
Shekinah685: coooooooooooooooooooool
Snowcatpa: I love history because I love learning everythhing
Shekinah685: i ws gonnamajor in that at christendom
Snowcatpa: and how things are the way they are, and what their meaning is and how they work with stuffSnowcatpa: serious?
Shekinah685: yes totally
Shekinah685: it swas awesome cuz it was like
Shekinah685: philosophy
Shekinah685: and why ppl think the way they do
Shekinah685: and lthe whole 10 yards
Snowcatpa: i love learning how people think the way they do!
Snowcatpa: i love thatSnowcatpa: i feel like i'd love philosophy
Snowcatpa: it's just....a lot of it has always turned me off, and i've been trying to learn why
Shekinah685: yes
Shekinah685: exactly
Snowcatpa: cause I love how people think differently
Shekinah685: yes ok
Snowcatpa: but so much of philosophy is the abstract thought with a = b but not C
Shekinah685: i have an idea like that
Snowcatpa: and not enough of why Aquinas said xyz after this or that
Shekinah685: when i went to christendom
Shekinah685: AHAHAHAHA
Shekinah685: YES
Shekinah685: YES
Shekinah685: OH MY GOSH
Shekinah685: its an I.O.
Shekinah685: LOL
Snowcatpa: it plagues me Sophia!!!
Shekinah685: ME TOO OMY GODH
Snowcatpa: I love it! but I do'nt understand why it has to be the way the discipline defines it!Shekinah685: cassie
Shekinah685: it shoulden't be
Snowcatpa: and the way the boys do
Shekinah685: wheni went to chrtendmom
Shekinah685: EXACTLY
Shekinah685: aaah
Shekinah685: i can't type
Shekinah685: they ruin it
Shekinah685: ok
Snowcatpa: and it's so hard to explain why
Shekinah685: lol
Shekinah685: breathe
Shekinah685: ok
Snowcatpa: i've always felt there was something missing from teh majority of philsophy
Shekinah685: hers my theory
Snowcatpa: and i've trioed explaning to Jeff
Snowcatpa: but he's all like perfect
Shekinah685: what do u mean
Snowcatpa: and I"m all liek... grrr... i can't explain it
Snowcatpa: he's so smart, you have no idea
Shekinah685: uh yeah i do haha
Shekinah685: lol
Snowcatpa: and with teh patience of a true apologist
Snowcatpa: and I feel like an idiot
Shekinah685: no
Shekinah685: he's just book smart
Shekinah685: lol
Shekinah685: haha
Snowcatpa: hehehe
Snowcatpa: your theory!
Snowcatpa: share
Shekinah685: ok i 'm being mean
Shekinah685: but my theory is
Shekinah685: that lol
Shekinah685: philosophy is not meant to be the way it is that ppl learn it
Shekinah685: they always learn it FOR something
Shekinah685: llike for ex
Shekinah685: "phikosophy is the handmaid of theology"
Shekinah685: but thats making it for something
Shekinah685: and before i went to christendomS
hekinah685: i was a natural philosopher
Shekinah685: you are too i think
Shekinah685: its not memorizing a term
Shekinah685: its about thinking and questioning
Snowcatpa: i do that! all the time
Snowcatpa: i thin kabout everything
Snowcatpa: peopel think it's random
Snowcatpa: or meaningless
Snowcatpa: and it's not
Shekinah685: yeees
Shekinah685: yes ppl always are like um whatevre
Shekinah685: and then ignore it
Shekinah685: aaaaaaaah
Shekinah685: i am so youShekinah685: only not
Shekinah685: LOL
Snowcatpa: LOL!!
Snowcatpa: I'm so glad we met Sophia
Shekinah685: are u golum
Shekinah685: haha
Shekinah685: HAHAHA
Shekinah685: schizo
Shekinah685: HAHA
Snowcatpa: hehehehe, sometimes I think so!
Shekinah685: me too
Shekinah685: ahh
Shekinah685: i am making you up
Shekinah685: HAHAA
Shekinah685: OMGOSH
Shekinah685: i just hate when ppl MKAE AQUINAS God
Shekinah685: HE's notShekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: ok just random thought
Snowcatpa: I KNOWShekinah685: breeeathe
Shekinah685: lol
Snowcatpa: all these men! (and by that I mean people too)
Snowcatpa: they're not perfect!
Snowcatpa: and aquinas
Snowcatpa: he's great, i'm sure
Snowcatpa: but i know what you mean
Snowcatpa: my theory that totally coexists with your theory
Snowcatpa: :Snowcatpa: all that people are concerned about is that 1+1 =2
Snowcatpa: that this logically leads to that or it doesn't
Snowcatpa: I am not disputing that 1+1 = 2
Snowcatpa: you're totally right!
Snowcatpa: butSnowcatpa: what are we counting?
Snowcatpa: whos' counting?
Snowcatpa: why are we counting?
Snowcatpa: was someone all like... woah... why is the number 1...1?
Snowcatpa: why are we even functioning in the base 10 number system?!
Snowcatpa: *breathing too
Snowcatpa: and how does the 1 work with teh twoSnowcatpa: like, what does my mom think of it?
Snowcatpa: is it pretty colored?
Snowcatpa: what do people feel about that?
Shekinah685: OMGOSHOH MY GOSH
Shekinah685: amen
Shekinah685: i love u
Shekinah685: hahah
Shekinah685: foreevr
Shekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: yeah todd and jeff drive me crazy
Shekinah685: and aquinas if i met him i'm sure i would love
Shekinah685: *him
Shekinah685: but i dunno
Shekinah685: haha
Shekinah685: i'm biased
Shekinah685: LOL
Snowcatpa: I'm so glad I've found someone that totally gets what I mean when i say that
Shekinah685: YES I DO
Snowcatpa: and it's like... but that's not getting down to what it's about
Snowcatpa: but it is!!
Shekinah685: ok
Shekinah685: its as if
Snowcatpa: i 'd be in awe of aquinas if I met him too
Snowcatpa: but as of now
Shekinah685: there is this blindness of logic
Snowcatpa: it's kind of like why I don't like the civil war
Shekinah685: HAHAHAHAHAA
Shekinah685: as of now
Snowcatpa: I'll explain:
Shekinah685: ok
Snowcatpa: i'm a history major, in central pennsyvlania, and because people also have like a guy-view of what history is, and most guys like war and guns, 3/5 people i talk to who like history either say the like best the Civil War, Military HIstory, or the military history of the civil war
Snowcatpa: I do'nt have anything aginst the civil war - but when everyone keeps going on about it no one's gonna appreciate it!!
Snowcatpa: hence my feelings of commisseration with your Aquinas
Shekinah685: HAHA
Shekinah685: actually i wrote a rant about it on the soul gender thread
Shekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: about aquinas
Shekinah685: OMGOSh---its the same way with theology
Shekinah685: it s like a man thing
Snowcatpa: i know! I read it!
Shekinah685: and they can't see "past" reason
Shekinah685: aaaaaah
Shekinah685: oh lolSnowcatpa: I was like SsssssWEEEET Semper!
Shekinah685: i mean reason is reason
Shekinah685: but its not infallible either
Snowcatpa: youre right!
Snowcatpa: it's blinding
Shekinah685: HAHAHAHHA
Shekinah685: yeah it def.. can be
Snowcatpa: and emotion or intuition for them is like....there...
Snowcatpa: but they see it more as a hindranceShekinah685: even GK chesterton says that
Snowcatpa: we work with it
Shekinah685: yeah i see it as this
Snowcatpa: oh! oh!!!
Snowcatpa: i have a great ananaly!
Snowcatpa: analogy!
Shekinah685: HAHAShekinah685: ok
Shekinah685: lead on
Shekinah685: siser suffragate
Shekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: HAHAHA
Snowcatpa: I started reading alot on how men and women think differently
Shekinah685: uhuh
Snowcatpa: and drew an analogy for myself
Snowcatpa: ok, so there's this forest
Shekinah685: haha cool
Snowcatpa: and men are on the fores
tSnowcatpa: they're on the paths
Snowcatpa: the paths are pretty straight - they go from end to end, some diagonal
Snowcatpa: but the guys are all about stickin to the path
Snowcatpa: they want to get from Here ................to There
Shekinah685: yes OMGOSOH
Snowcatpa: the quickest and least complicated way possible
Shekinah685: listen to this
Shekinah685: ok
Snowcatpa: I enter the forestS
hekinah685: lolSnowcatpa: and you do too
Shekinah685: yeah
Shekinah685: sorry
Snowcatpa: and we're like:
Snowcatpa: DUDE
Snowcatpa: COOL
Snowcatpa: we start fly ing around!
Shekinah685: AAAAAAHAA
Shekinah685: yeah
Snowcatpa: we're like... look! a path! but the...we're thiknin in teh trees
Snowcatpa: up down! we want to know which are maples and which are oaks
Snowcatpa: are are going in circles and spirals and just having a grand old time
Shekinah685: yer so great lol
Snowcatpa: we see that you can go from poitn a to point b
Snowcatpa: but we want to know how you guy there, and see the sights that really make the road an adventure, and enjoyable on the way
Snowcatpa: as 3are you!
Snowcatpa: what year are you btw?
Shekinah685: HAHAHAHAHAHShekinah685: um where were we
Shekinah685: i like yer icon
Shekinah685: pretty
Snowcatpa: thanks
Snowcatpa: I love flowers
Snowcatpa: JPII!
Snowcatpa: i was so excited to talk with you I didn't even notice!
Shekinah685: HAHAHAHAHA
Shekinah685: ,e too
Shekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: um umShekinah685: ok its like theres so much to say
Shekinah685: alla tonce
Shekinah685: i wish i coul telepathically opput my thought in you head
Shekinah685: lol
Shekinah685: and you could just say yeeah
Shekinah685: haha
Shekinah685: umum
Shekinah685: ok
Snowcatpa: LOL!!
Shekinah685: exactly
Snowcatpa: i have that thought too!!
Shekinah685: heres something ok
Shekinah685: I HAVE ALWAYS THOUGHT
Shekinah685: contrary to ARISTOTLE
Shekinah685: that meen are the ones who are irreasonable BECASUE
Shekinah685: FULL REASONING
Shekinah685: must included all factors
Shekinah685: and men are blind to including emotion in decision
Shekinah685: woman ionclude ebvverything
Shekinah685: AND
Snowcatpa: oh wow....
Shekinah685: i always thought it was a kindof brain damage
Snowcatpa: OH WOW
Snowcatpa: that's SO TRUE
Shekinah685: ok
Shekinah685: listen to this
Snowcatpa: they're the ones incomplete!
Snowcatpa: wow..
Snowcatpa: ok
Shekinah685: my friend mark told me
Shekinah685: well hopefull not imcomplete but thye can't really see the whole picture
Shekinah685: in decisions
Shekinah685: they don't factore it at all
Shekinah685: its like blinfdness
Shekinah685: to reality
Shekinah685: but mark said
Shekinah685: he learned in anthropology class
Shekinah685: what happens- HAHA we even tyope the same way
Shekinah685: -what haoppedn when the baby is int he womb
Shekinah685: if its a male
Shekinah685: all of a sudden there is a surge of testoserone
Shekinah685: in the brain
Shekinah685: which DAMAGES
Shekinah685: the brain, causinf something to be severed
Shekinah685: so men are incapable of takinf emotion into reason
Snowcatpa: that's CRAZY
Shekinah685: now-i know but its so true and once you know that it eexplains a lot
Snowcatpa: i just wish they could understand our way
Snowcatpa: i wish we could!Snowcatpa: but they're so one foucsed
Snowcatpa: we totally accept th ebenefits of their thinking!
Snowcatpa: why can't they ours?
Snowcatpa: outside of motherhood
Shekinah685: yyes they have to think a-b-c
Snowcatpa: even though it rocks in motherhood!
Shekinah685: we think a-c
Snowcatpa: we think... ABC DE FG! eveyrone sing!
Snowcatpa: wwait..
Shekinah685: yeah
Snowcatpa: why isa before d?
Snowcatpa: and what are we sinign about?
Shekinah685: LOL
Snowcatpa: who was the caveman that made
Snowcatpa: a
Shekinah685: HAHA
Snowcatpa: silly caveman
Shekinah685: HAHAHAHA
Shekinah685: yeah wow
Shekinah685: oh i forgot to clarify what an IO is
Shekinah685: haha
Snowcatpa: that is that?
Shekinah685: u can know since u are a girl
Shekinah685: an IO
Shekinah685: is when we were like agreeing
Shekinah685: it stands for
Shekinah685: intellectual orgasm
Shekinah685: HAHA
Shekinah685: my firend hooly ansdd i made it up
Shekinah685: *holly
Shekinah685: LOL
Snowcatpa: THAT;s GREAT!!!Snowcatpa:
Shekinah685: HAHHAHAHAHAH
Shekinah685: i know
Shekinah685: you can use it but you gotta give me creditShekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: kay? hahaSnowcatpa: word - ti's all yours Shekinah685: HAHAHAHAHAHHA
Shekinah685: oh!
Shekinah685: another thing
Shekinah685: wheni went to christendom- i forgot to finish this
Shekinah685: lol
Shekinah685: i was a natural philosopher
Shekinah685: like you are
Shekinah685: when i got to school and got into a PHILOSOPHY CLASS
Shekinah685: it was like killing itSnowcatpa: i do that! go back to thoughts
Snowcatpa: aww
Shekinah685: YOU ARE DOING IT DFOR A GRADE
Shekinah685: YOU ARE NOT PHILOSOPHISIZING
Shekinah685: HAHA
Shekinah685: I really mispelled that
Shekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: right from the start
Shekinah685: you are not really learning philosophy
Shekinah685: PLUS
Shekinah685: my prof was soooo soooo
Shekinah685: good but horrible
Snowcatpa: oh man..
Shekinah685: like true but SO SO SO
Shekinah685: frustrating
Shekinah685: like ok well this is what is
Shekinah685: accept
Shekinah685: no reeeal questioning
Shekinah685: you know?
Shekinah685: just this is what aristotle said
Shekinah685: accept
Shekinah685: or die
Shekinah685: HAHA
Shekinah685:
Shekinah685: or just fail
Shekinah685: HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
Snowcatpa: oh that would annoy the heck outta me
Shekinah685: yuup it was horrible
Shekinah685: and thats how everyone at CC was
Shekinah685: wel we have the truth
Shekinah685: thats that
Shekinah685: never question anything
Shekinah685: ever
Shekinah685: unspoken rule
Shekinah685: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH
Shekinah685: death
Snowcatpa: *puts on pince-nezes and a snotty accent* explaing the aristotian system of ethics in a precise 500 words, explicating on the nature of indivudals and the divine
Snowcatpa: i'd dieShekinah685: HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAH ROFL
Snowcatpa: how'd you come to love it?
Shekinah685: yup i am trasferring
Shekinah685: HAHAHA
Shekinah685: well i love the good things hate the bad things
Shekinah685: i'm going to steubie next semester
Shekinah685: i'm gonna do creative writing/journalism instead of history alhtough i love history
Shekinah685: and btw the bad things are really bad
Shekinah685: the god things are really goodShekinah685: LOL
Shekinah685: *good
Snowcatpa: lol! you're going to go to Stube!!!
Snowcatpa: you're gonna hve SO much fun!
Shekinah685: yeah
Shekinah685: i know i loveeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee it
Shekinah685: love love love
Shekinah685: lol
Snowcatpa: what were the bad things/
Shekinah685: oh i am 07
Shekinah685: btw
Shekinah685: haha
Shekinah685: u are too
Shekinah685: ?
Shekinah685: hhmm bad things
Shekinah685: mostly the lack of questioning
Snowcatpa: 07?
Shekinah685: ton of hypocrasy
Shekinah685: too
Shekinah685: year graduating you asked
Shekinah685: LOL
Snowcatpa: lack of questiong....goodness! how is that college?!?!!?
Snowcatpa: without questioning?!
Shekinah685: um, yup
Snowcatpa: I really think one of the among a bazillion other amaizng things baout men and women
Shekinah685: what
Snowcatpa: is that sometimes, they're th eonly thing that can get the other toreally go down the path to seeing Christ