Feminism and Catholicism: The Church is not Misogynistic, in fact the polar opposite

PRO:"Misogyny is the hatred or dislike of women or girls. Catholicism does not hate women or girls." CON:That is Pro"s thesis but there has been little evidence yet provided to support that position. PRO: "You make a fallacy here in your next statement".Discrimination was not the definition, but merely one of many possible manifestations of misogyny." CON: If discrimination is one possible manifestation of misogyny and discrimination against women can be discovered in Church policy, then at least some misogyny has been demonstrated. Where"s the fallacy? PRO: "The church does not preach violence against women"" CON: January, 2016: "The Roman Catholic Archbishop of Toledo, Braulio Rodriguez, told his congregation that wives could avoid being hit by doing what they are told. Women could also escape being physically abused by not asking their husbands for a divorce , Rodriguez said. He told churchgoers in his sermon: "The majority of cases of domestic violence happen because the woman"s partner does not accept them, or rejects them for not accepting their demands."[1] PRO: "The sexual objectification of women happens a lot in the secular world though, through one of the largest and most profitable businesses in our world today: Pornography. Which is outright condemned by the Church CON: In fact, Church policy condemns most sex and sexuality outside the precincts of connubial baby-making but pornography is not the only way to objectify a woman. When women are denied access to birth control, they are reduced to make-defined function. Men are encouraged to follow their callings while women are the machines that bear and raise the children of men. When women say they are called to the priesthood and the Vatican refuses to acknowledge that calling, that is another kind of objectification: by the happenstance of gender, men carry on the dignity and responsibilities of the apostles but, quoting Aquinas, women are "defective and misbegotten." PRO: "Treating things that are UNEQUAL as EQUAL is as unjust as treating EQUAL things UNEQUALLY. The role of women in the Church is not equal to men, nor is men's to women" CON: I think we are finally getting some insight into PRO"s perspective here. PRO: "Would you want to treat a fresh out of medical school surgeon the same as a seasoned veteran and specialist for a life or death decision?" CON: So, by this analogy all men are the seasoned veterans and all women neophytes? PRO: "You are obviously not well learned in scripture and Catholic teaching." CON: Ad hominem. PRO: "Genesis tells us that woman was made from man's SIDE. For your spouse is to walk next to you and beside you as an equal, not behind you or in front of you. Eve was not made from his FOOT or his nether regions or his head." CON: You are paraphrasing Matthew Henry here, not Genesis. [2] Henry was a 19th century Puritan minister, not particularly feminist in outlook and decidedly anti-catholic. PRO: Furthermore, God punishes man just as well as women by forcing him to labor and toil and die. CON: Women are not exempt from toil or death, obviously. Eve and by her all women are subject to additional curses. PRO: "Men also have submission" CON: Yes, but again women have the greater burden: "Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything." [3] PRO: "All of the Bishops were men, and their teaching authority and tradition continued that practice." CON:Yes, the exclusion of women from the bishopric is traditional but how does that support Pro"s case? PRO: "Paul also spends about 95% of his writings in the Bible correcting, yelling at, and scolding MEN." CON: Not surprising. Literacy in 1st century Anatolia was roughly 10% and very few women were taught to read. Common social restrictions discouraged Romans and Jews from interacting with woman very often. Although Paul likely spent more time in the company of women then the average man, he would not have perceived much dividend in addressing women in letters. PRO: "The first, and GREATEST CHRISTIAN, was Mary. Mother of Jesus." CON: An odd conception since Mary is generally thought to supersede Christianity, unencumbered by sin or death. The Catholic Church teaches that the church was founded the moment Jesus said "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." Which would make Peter the first Christian and through whom all popes assert their primacy. Paul was the figure who truly defined Christianity. However, I doubt the apostles would have approved of ranking Christians hierarchically. As Pro states, Mary is a complicated figure, a relatively spare portrait on which misogynists and feminists each paint fraught ideologies. Many feminists point out that before Christianity, goddesses commanded men with autonomy (Dionysus, Cybele, Isis, etc.), but there is no discretely feminine power in the Trinity. As Simone de Beauvoir wrote: "For the first time in history the mother kneels before her son; she freely accepts her inferiority. This is the supreme masculine victory, consummated in the cult of the Virgin " it is the rehabilitation of woman through the accomplishment of her defeat." Irregardless, the veneration of Mary does not necessarily indicate a lack of misogyny. The veneration of Moses in Islam may suggest that Muslims should not be anti-semitic, but does that serve as proof that Muslim institutions are not anti-semitic? PRO: " [Women] are inherently better Christians and People." CON: A fairly sexist generalization. PRO: "I have personally seen women make decisions effecting Church life and function".great and transparent contributions women make on a daily basis DESPITE not being able to function as priests." CON: The fact is that women are excluded from positions of autonomous power. That women are also the more essential gender to Church continuity only makes their disenfranchisement more misogynist. Slaves were the lifeblood of early American cotton plantations, given every manner of responsibility in the function of that institution. Would we say then that those plantations were not inherently racist? Of course not, because blacks could not control their own destinies. Until women, as a majority of the Church, control their own destinies within that institution, the Church remains guilty of misogyny. PRO: Nuns vs Priests CON: We agree that monks and nuns submit to similar vows of poverty. The argument is that men may choose the more comfortable and exalted vocation of priesthood while women may not. PRO: "The Catholic Church does not kidnap women and make them be nuns." CON: No, and this is not question of civil rights. A church may order its membership as it sees fit. The question is whether that order reflects a misogynist outlook and the exclusion of women from the ranks of authority suggests that it is so. PRO: So, while the world sees being opposed to birth control as oppression, we see it as preserving the natural femininity of females. CON: Precisely my point. A woman who wishes to delay or abstain from motherhood is perceived as unnatural and unfeminine. Femininity is a quality essential to all of humanity"s missions of which baby-making is but a piece. PRO: I hardly see how when the Pope says, "women are the most beautiful thing God has made" as misogynistic. CON: People are not things. Beauty is subjective, superficial, and ephemeral. A beautiful thing suggests no authority or autonomy that needs to be acknowledged. A beautiful thing is nonessential. I look forward to Pro"s concluding remarks. [1]http://churchandstate.org.uk... [2]https://en.wikipedia.org...= [3]https://www.biblega...