Yes, one church in which all women are subject to a man

I have said this before, but humanly speaking it is always nice to read someone else making the same point.

Michael Kozaki writes:

” … every  … [Roman Catholic] woman is under obedience to men at every layer …”

I was thinking last night – and this is not a dig at Protestants – as the saying goes, “a lot of my best friends are Protestants” – that one of America’s problems is surely that decadence has found an easier foothold in a nation that has always been based on Protestant approaches. The problem with democracy is that ultimately some undesirable gets control of the levers of power (this even happened in the worldwide Anglican Communion, which is now riven by Lesbian bishops and so on.)

Every Catholic woman is under nominal obedience to a man all her life, even if he is only her parish priest and confessor.

If I may  be permitted an analogy, here goes. I used briefly to work in a government department where one could make some career progress, but there was a ceiling. If you didn’t have certain qualifications, you could only rise to a certain point. The Catholic Church is like that. You can do very well, you can be very holy and influential, you can even – like the late Mother Angelica – found a TV station (EWTN). But, if you are a Catholic woman, you cannot rise above a certain station, no pun intended.

Catholic women can be just as major busybodies as women in Protestant churches. And, yes, they can encourage their daughters to be altar girls, and then bustle into the sanctuary to read the epistle. But, ultimately, they cannot be priests. They cannot be bishops. They cannot hear confessions or confect the sacrament of communion.

Likewise “leadership nuns” can issue position papers all year, and none of them will have the authority of the least emanation from Rome itself.

It is interesting too that the present pope has not chosen to appoint women cardinals, which is at least a theoretical possibility. He has specifically said no. And, I have yet to read the comment in context, but I was pleasantly surprised to read a reference to the “authority” of fathers in his latest statement, Amoris Laetitia.




6 responses to this post.

  1. Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 12, 2016 at 4:27 am

    A husband’s authority is among other things spiritual:


  2. Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 12, 2016 at 7:09 am

    Damian Thompson (UK journalist):

    In effect the Pope has decided not to go down the route of the Anglican Communion, which devolves major questions of doctrine and pastoral practice to local churches. That’s wise of him, because look what happened to international Anglicanism.


  3. Posted by Julian O'Dea on April 12, 2016 at 7:13 am

    This earlier post is relevant:

    Women as Moral Agents


  4. Posted by Jim on April 14, 2016 at 3:50 am

    Hard to take RC seriously when Pope Marxist I likes inviting human trash into Europe.

    But at least he’s got enough sense to [not] appoint women priests. The Protestant churches have gone totally haywire with their own Marxist BS when it comes to women. I don’t know if you look at Dalrock’s site. If you have you can see how gynocentric it’s gotten. Seems like everyone from atheist to Christian is totally blinded by pussy worship. So many cucks around these days.


  5. Posted by Molten on December 8, 2017 at 12:12 pm

    The Mormon church is very similar. Women only have authority over the women and children’s divisions of the church, namely the relief society and primary. Even then these groups are over seen by male leaders. The early church leaders have said a number of things on the matter. I will quote some that I have found that fit the general theme of your site. These aren’t technically considered doctrine but it is something to consider.

    Women are made to be led, and counselled, and directed

    When a wife is obedient to her husband there is union, there is heaven

    The wife becomes one flesh with her husband in another respect: when she presents herself to the man, and gives herself to him with an everlasting covenant, one that is not to be broken, she becomes his flesh, his property, his wife, as much so as the flesh and bone of his own body

    Had I copied the style of address adopted by the fashionable world, I might have said, “Ladies and gentlemen,” placing the fair in the van, but as this would only be to reverse the order of our being through life’s thorny way, ordained and established by heaven’s law…the hypocritical respect lavished upon females by the etiquette of the world in pushing them forward, and in exciting their vanity by making them most conspicuous in all the novels and romances


    • Posted by Julian O'Dea on December 8, 2017 at 12:29 pm

      Everybody is going mad trying to argue that women are equal to men or even superior. It is driving a lot of dishonesty and having ill-effects.

      I think the whole problem developed in about the Seventies. The rhetoric became one of sexual equality. That hasn’t been a great success but there has been a doubling-down lately, with frequent claims now that women are superior to men.

      Most women considered themselves to be inferior until quite recently. A surprising number of women still do. I don’t think this necessarily makes them unhappy. It is a mark of maturity to accept one’s own limitations. We all have to do it, men as well as women.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: