Is the Catholic church a force for good in the world?

[aneeshm]

Unlike universalist prescriptivists, I actually believe in human bio-diversity and psycho-diversity. ...blahblah

Am I the only one that has the urge to smack aneeshm based solely on how he writes?

Why, you racist little pig! You're well aware that English isn't my first language.

Now, does this sort of language help the discussion along? Why keep calling Ben names, then?

Allowing men and women to choose their preferred distribution of duties in their relationship is now misogyny?

You and Ben are incapable of seeing this is not the case. What other people are advocating is this type of democratic system. What you and Ben are advocating is nothing of the sort.

This is exactly what I, at least, am advocating. I am simply recognising that Ben's way - the Catholic Church's way - of distributing responsibilities and duties is also a valid one, as opposed to many here who are saying that it is somehow evil or invalid because that's not how they and their spouse do it, or because they disagree with it. Force doesn't enter into it at any point, so assuming that the choice on both sides was an informed one, why should I object?

What I'm saying here is that I view Ben's way of distributing responsibilities and duties as one among many, within the system we just agreed upon, with each couple choosing their own. If there are people who are happy with doing it his way, why should I bother them? He himself has said that what he is saying only applies if the couple consists of Christians who view the Church and God's commandments the way he does. If you're not like that, what he does is of no concern to you, so where's the problem?

[loinburger]

I'd like to point out that what BK and aneeshm are advocating is not necessarily sexist. I'm friends with a woman - one of the most intelligent, strong-willed, and opinionated I know - who is in a long term relationship with a man in which she voluntarily chooses to engage in a subservient role. It is gratifying and natural to her to act this way within that sphere of her life. Both of the participants in the relationship understand that it is simply a mode of behaving and not a normative rule. And both of them are extremely happy together.

Certainly some women will choose to take a more subservient role than others, just as some men will choose to take a more subservient role than others. (As far as I could tell, both sets of my grandparents were quite happy - in one relationship my grandfather generally wore the pants in the family, in the other my grandmother generally wore the pants in the family. That's not because they believed That's The Way It Ought To Be, that's simply because everybody was most comfortable with assuming that level of dominance/subservience.) And if a man (or woman) says that they can only have a relationship with somebody who is subservient to them, then I may think that they're sexist (or at the very least have control issues), but that's neither here nor there.

"I am a man and to some significant degree my wife is subservient to me." "Okay, thanks for sharing."

"I am a man and I would be uncomfortable having a relationship with a woman who was not to some significant degree subservient to me." "Okay, you might have some issues."

"I am a man and I believe that it is a Good Thing for all women to be to some significant degree subservient to their husbands." "Okay, your opinions are a bunch of sexist crap."

[Imran Siddiqui]

the Catholic Church's way - of distributing responsibilities and duties is also a valid one, as opposed to many here who are saying that it is somehow evil or invalid because that's not how they and their spouse do it, or because they disagree with it. Force doesn't enter into it at any point, so assuming that the choice on both sides was an informed one, why should I object?

You are a complete moron. So the Catholic Church says men are the head of the household and decision makers and you are assuming that Catholic women made an informed choice to not be head of households and not be decision makers? And your only response is if they don't agree with it... don't be Catholic (like picking a religion is like picking out clothes?)

What planet are your from again?

[Asher]

Is this a Pakistan vs India thing?

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's more of a sanity vs insanity thing.

[Asher]

Is that different?

[aneeshm]

I'd like to point out that what BK and aneeshm are advocating is not necessarily sexist.

I am neither advocating nor opposing what Ben is saying. I'm simply pointing out that he isn't some sort of misogynist monster, as is being made out.

I would contend that the relationship BK and aneeshm describe may or may not be sexist, but it most certainly is stupid. Defining roles based on poorly generalized sets of behavior is a recipe for disaster.

Absolutely. Which is why I said that this is fine iff both people involved make an informed choice, and they decide the model which suits them best. The "Bennian" model may suit some, as you describe. It may not suit others - who are free to use a different model.

Was it stupid, for instance, for the couple who you describe? If they're happy together, it isn't defining roles based on poorly generalised sets of behaviour. It's more like defining roles based on what you, through introspection, have decided is the best for you. Those who share Ben's views on Christianity and the structure Christian family life should have, along with his preference for such a structure, can and in fact actually do do this, and are happy with it.

Relationships require nuance and compromise.

Of course.

[Lorizael]

It's more like defining roles based on what you, through introspection, have decided is the best for you. Those who share Ben's views on Christianity and the structure Christian family life should have, along with his preference for such a structure, can and in fact actually do do this, and are happy with it.

Yeah, but what do you think BK will do if he happens to fall in love with a good Christian girl who, despite what his poorly generalized opinions indicate, is better at making decisions than he is?

[aneeshm]

You are a complete moron. So the Catholic Church says men are the head of the household and decision makers and you are assuming that Catholic women made an informed choice to not be head of households and not be decision makers? And your only response is if they don't agree with it... don't be Catholic (like picking a religion is like picking out clothes?)

What planet are your from again?

I am not making any assumptions about Catholic women.

I am saying that the Catholic model is one among many, and one which is valid as far as those who use it and find happiness within it are concerned.

Your problem is the potential for abuse the opinions of the CC may have. I am concerned with the validity of some of those opinions as far as individual choices are concerned, as one opinion in a spectrum.

The two discussions are separate, so let's not confuse them.

[aneeshm]

Yeah, but what do you think BK will do if he happens to fall in love with a good Christian girl who, despite what his poorly generalized opinions indicate, is better at making decisions than he is?

That's something you'd better ask him. He can answer it better than I can - I am, after all, not he.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am not making any assumptions about Catholic women.

I am saying that the Catholic model is one among many, and one which is valid as far as those who use it and find happiness within it are concerned.

Your problem is the potential for abuse the opinions of the CC may have. I am concerned with the validity of some of those opinions as far as individual choices are concerned, as one opinion in a spectrum.

The two discussions are separate, so let's not confuse them.

The thread topic is about CATHOLICISM. Ben is talking about relationships structures according to the scriptures. So what in the **** are you talking about?

[aneeshm]

The thread topic is about CATHOLICISM. Ben is talking about relationships structures according to the scriptures. So what in the **** are you talking about?

Read what I wrote again. I was discussing the validity of the opinions of the CC on this topic as one among a spectrum of possible opinions.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Read what I wrote again. I was discussing the validity of the opinions of the CC on this topic as one among a spectrum of possible opinions.

Because both parties coming to a decision on their own based on their circumstances and ideals is completely consistent with an authoritative body deciding all that for you.

[Arrian]

Are you married Loin? This applies to marital relationships only.

He may not be, but I am. And there is no one in the King of the House role in my marriage. We're a team, and we make important decisions by talking about them together and arriving at a joint decision. For some things, we may decide ahead of time that the call will be made by either me or her, just so we don't have to worry about it. But there is no ONE in charge. We're both in charge. It works well for us (it is certainly possible that is so because we are very similar when it comes to important things, who knows?). When our daughter is born, we will use the same approach to determine the rules, responses to rule breaking, etc for the child. You can ask me how that worked out in a few years, but I've no reason to expect it won't work just fine.

One of my wife's friends is a Fundy Christian. Her husband likes to say things like "[daugher's name], who's in charge?" and hear "You, Daddy!"

That's their call. I find it creepy.

-Arrian

[Drake Tungsten]

there is no one in the King of the House role in my marriage. We're a team, and we make important decisions by talking about them together and arriving at a joint decision.

Sorry...