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

PRO: "You go on to say that since there is SOME discrimination against women, there must be some level of misogyny." CON: Correct PRO:[Analogy of black & white] CON: White is a mixture of all the colors on the visible spectrum and by refraction can project any hue, black is the absence of light and cannot change. White has options, black does not. Or extended a different way: imagine any book, or painting, or film composed of only undifferentiated white or black, how dull and uninspiring would such work be! PRO: "You cite a bishop. One bishop. Judas was a bishop, too." CON: Pro offered an absolute: "The Church does not preach violence against women." Con offered a recent example of a high-ranking member of the Church (The Archbishop of Toledo) preaching violence against women from the pulpit during mass. A single exception is all that"s necessary to refute an absolute. A more accurate statement might be that the Church seldom preaches violence against women anymore. PRO: Quoting Margaret Sanger, etc. CON: A potentially useful quote in a debate about Planned Parenthood. Readers will note that Con raised abortion as one example by which the Church is demonstrably out of sync with the mainstream ideology of that institution"s female constituency. No defense of abortion is required in support of Con"s argument or need be inferred. PRO: Men are called to the same limits as women, thus totally destroying the discrimination aspect. But I did not see you mention that. CON: Con did note the disparity in excommunications for pedophile priests vs. feminist activists. That is, talking about sexual liberation for women is greater cause for punishment than outright rape by men: a fairly glaring example of gender discrimination. PRO: "meant to illustrate that there are CERTAIN circumstances where we treat unequal people (unequal in certain aspects) unequally" CON: Pro affirms that women are treated unequally within the Church. PRO: "Actually, I was paraphrasing my girlfriend. I don't know who that guy is you quoted." CON: Originally, Pro cited Genesis. Ouch. PRO: "... but Christianity started with Christ's resurrection." CON: From the official Catechism of the Catholic Church: "Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock" This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation...." [1] No women are mentioned. PRO: Paul is NOT the figure who defined Christianity. CON: The Encyclopedia Britannica describes Paul as: "often considered to be the second most important person in the history of Christianity." [after Christ] [2] PRO: "Never said that, but thanks for making something up." CON: Pro stated, "Please read on Mariology, which again is a very complex and intricate subject." Pro echoed the sentiment, "As Pro states, Mary is a complicated figure." PRO: " [Women] are inherently better Christians and People." [is not misogynistic.] CON: Yes it is, by lumping women into some different ideal than men, by placing women on a special pedestal, women are objectified, unlike other Christians and people. SUMMATION As stated in the first round, Pro"s contention that the Catholic Church is the opposite of misogynistic was and remains rather fuzzy. Con suggested that the term feminist might serve, but Pro has neither accepted or refuted that offering. Pro"s main argument seems to be that feminist critique must be in error because the Church celebrates women, but celebration of some group of people does not preclude bigotry against the same. Maine Governor Paul LePage celebrates Martin Luther King"s birthday but is nevertheless demonstrably racist in his public remarks. The NFL enthusiastically promotes breast cancer awareness but its players have an appalling record of domestic violence against women. Pro has also argued that some of the first and greatest Christians were women, which is indisputably true. Again, that fact does not preclude the possibility of bigotry any more than did the fact that the first Christians were Jewish preclude spectacular acts of anti-semitism throughout history. Pro points to the Catholic adoration of Mary as proof against misogyny but this hardly definitive as many misogynist cultures have worshipped female divinities. The Roman Republic worshipped many female deities and the Virgins of Vesta were deemed supremely sacred, but the Romans were markedly misogynistic. Prominent Sister Simone Campbell said of Pope Francis in an interview today: ""One thing I find rather annoying is that [Francis] doesn"t see us as "Eve-temptress," but more like Mary. That"s putting women on a pedestal. That"s as confining a cage." [3] In the absence of a framework establishing the opposite of misogyny, Con provided a definition that noted sexual discrimination, hostility, male supremacist ideas, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification of women as some examples of misogyny. Con argued that if the Church could be shown to exhibit some of these habits, then the Church could not be properly characterized as "the opposite of misogynistic" and Pro"s case proven false. Con offered traditional Church doctrine that inculpated and subordinated women for original sin. The cited doctrines were not specifically refuted, but Pro suggests the quotes were taken out of context insofar as God also punished men and that Paul also encouraged men to love their wives. But the burdens of guilt and submission were clearly unequal and more onerous on women. Con argued that the absence of women in the Vatican and ordained vocations constitutes discrimination. Pro agreed that men and women had unequal roles, but argued that women were not less important, only different. Pro applies several analogies- doctors vs. interns, child-raising, etc that don"t improve Pro"s case. Con maintains that if the positions of authority, autonomy, and even luxury are exclusively reserved for men, women are clearly afforded the less important role and discrimination demonstrated. Some men are promoted to positions where they can live in castles and wear velvet slippers at Church expense, no women are permitted such aspirations. Con also argued that Church politics are out of sync with women"s issues even to the point of harming the Church"s continuity. Pro defended Church policy at length as a protection of natural femininity but neither refuted the point nor demonstrated policies that reflect women"s values (there are certainly some). Con pointed to Pope Francis" remarks as an example of objectification, but really all these points contain some element- the focus on women as virgins and mothers and temptresses, the predominance of nuns in teaching and nursing, etc. Pro argued that the Church is anti-pornography and that pornography is the worst kind of female objectification. But opposing one type of objectification (particularly within the context of non prescribed sex) does not refute all objectification. In any case, Pro is not buying Con"s definition, so we"ll have to leave that up to readers. To the extent that evidence of some misogyny has been shown, Pro"s contention that the Catholic Church is the opposite of misogynist must be false -not necessarily irredeemable, certainly better than the past, but also certainly misogynist to some degree. Lastly, Con would ask readers to consider Pro"s reliance on ad hominem and the continuation of arguments in notes when evaluating conduct. Thanks again to Pro for instigating this debate and thanks in advance to readers for voting. Please vote Con. [1] http://www.vatican.va... [2]http://www.britannica.com... [3]https://www.washingtonpost.com...