Men, Beer, & Sex
This is normally a recipe for moral disaster. However, in this case our own John Lalley was on the scene to take care of things. No, this wasn’t his bachelor party. John recently spoke at a session of Theology on Tap in Dayton, OH on John Paul II’s Theology of the Body, which he entitled “The Man Show.†He made some of the same important points that we have been discussing here. One insightful observation that he made is the paradoxical other side of the coin in what is happening to our sexual identities in our egalitarian (i.e. equality equals sameness) culture. I have mentioned that women have been masculinized to a great degree in our society. In other words, all too many are rejecting their femininity as a precondition of moving into (and rightfully so) areas of society traditionally adopted by men. For example, vulgar language and interpersonal aggressiveness are fallen masculine traits. Sadly, this is extending into sexual sinfulness as well. While they are both equally sinful, these fallen behaviors are even more damaging to the feminine person then they are to males because they distort her very feminine identity. As John Paul the Great says in Mulieris dignitatem:Â
Â
even the rightful opposition of women to what is expressed in the biblical words “He shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16) must not under any condition lead to the “masculinization” of women. In the name of liberation from male “domination”, women must not appropriate to themselves male characteristics contrary to their own feminine “originality”. There is a well-founded fear that if they take this path, women will not “reach fulfillment”, but instead will deform and lose what constitutes their essential richness (10).
The flip side of the coin is the push to move men toward femininity. There is now a general sense that men should adopt feminine modes of behavior, especially in interpersonal relations with women. Men certainly have a more of a task to become “civilized,†in general, than do women. However, even though they have much to learn from women, adopting their feminine traits is not one of them.
The same is true of men. Men must not feel pressured to be feminized in order to be more like women, whose natural gifts do tend to make them more “civilized†on average. Rather, our interpersonal relations, by disinterestedly giving ourselves to others, expecting nothing in return, will enable us to become more authentic men. It is in fact better to give than receive or perhaps one could also so, it is in giving that we truly receive. When we give ourselves we receive our more authentic, fulfilled, holy selves in return.
.jpg)
Well, since no one has said ANYTHING…I’ll put my one cent in!
First, let us “ladies” thank GOD for men still around who believe this way ! I Thank David, John, and Mr. Fagan (from his statement in “The Cathlic Telegraph) for speaking out about relaiming our SPIRITUAL heritage. I am one women who says “feminine equality” has gone too far and enough is enough already! Mr. Fagan gave a wonderful synopsis, “One of the key things that I learned is that to be a Catholic husband, you are first obedient to the Father, Son, and Spirit. What wife wouldn’t want to be submissive to a man who is submissive to God?”…Amen
Comment by Joyce M — September 30, 2005 @ 1:57 am
Also, Mr. Fagan said, “When you do it God’s way, it’s perfect. It just flows like water.”
Comment by Joyce M — September 30, 2005 @ 2:01 am
Joyce, you used the 10 letter word, which has a really negative connotation by today’s standards. I don’t think many realize that we are submmissive to a husband, we are ultimately submmitting to God. Real power comes from the humility and trust in God.
Comment by Anonymous — September 30, 2005 @ 7:05 am
The modern paradigmn of a feminist, in what I see, is the celebration of masculinity in women. On the other side of the spectrum, is the celebration of femininity in men, or the term gay. It’s like our country has become a dictatorship of relativism.
Comment by Anonymous — September 30, 2005 @ 5:10 pm
What about submitting to each other? I think a marriage should be one where both are submissive to the other person, regardless of gender. Why do women have to go through men to be sumissive to God?
Comment by Anonymous — October 1, 2005 @ 5:17 pm
Why do women have to go through men to be sumissive to God?
Anon - I discuss this in some of my previous posts you might want to search the archives for mutual submission. In short, women do not need to submit to men; wives must be submissive to their husbands. In other words, this submission is limited to the Great Mystery that St. Paul talks about in Ephesians 5. It is not a general requirement of women to men. This is important.
However, even in the Great Mystery of Ephesians 5, it begins exactly as you intuit. St. Paul says that husbands and wives must submit to each other out of reverence for Christ. He focuses on the wife’s submission to her husband as the Church submits to her Bridegroom. This is your answer as to why wives must submit to the authority of their husbands. The husband is given authority over his family in order to guide them in the ways of Christ so that all are sanctified. But this authority, as Jesus says, is one of service not of power or caprice. This is the same as submitting to Church authority or submitting to secular authority. Authority is participation in God’s authority for the sole purpose of serving. That is the point the commenters are making–if a husband lives up to his responsibility of serving his family for their salvation, submitting is a joy not oppression.
So what is this mutual submission? Well the husband is not a divine person as is Christ. He does not have all of the gifts necessary. As Pius XI points out, and John Paul the Great continues, women have primacy in the order of love. The husband must submit to his wife’s primacy in love. The result of this is that proper decision making is done in mutual reciprocity. A consensus if you will. However, there may be some cases when this is not possible. In the end, the husband will have to answer to God for the way he has used his authority to serve his family.
Comment by David — October 1, 2005 @ 9:29 pm
I see, David. Very nice. My comment before was, of course, reffering to within the context of marriage.
That’s a nice way of thinking of marriage and what I suppose is really being “submissive” to another. A bit of an idealist view, but one that should in theory be pretty natural.
Comment by Anonymous — October 3, 2005 @ 9:20 am
what are you talking about? women shouldn’t be allowed rights.
Comment by Anonymous — October 3, 2005 @ 11:23 am
Anon 9:20am - perhaps it may seem to be idealist, but doesn’t that apply to Christianity itself? Jesus tells us that we must be perfect as His Father is perfect. G.K. Chesterton put it this way, to live a fully Christian life is not hard, but it is humanly impossible. In other words, it is only through the grace of the Sacraments and through prayer that we can put aside our selfishness that comes from concupisence and move ever closer to the holiness that makes this “ideal” a real possibility.
Comment by David — October 3, 2005 @ 8:06 pm
Oh I agree there too (this is anon 9:20am and 5:17pm). It would be silly if any religion was not based on idealism. Afterall, if we strive for mediocre, we can only approach mediocrity… but if we strive for the ideal or for perfection, then we can approach perfection.
Comment by wondertwin — October 4, 2005 @ 7:44 am