In the previous post, the insanity stemming from the first few sentences has been covered. The rest of it still needs to be dealt with. It contains dangerous precedents and social ideas, making inroads to possible massive changes in the future. Through wiggle words, appealing to emotions and using verbose verbiage with little substance, a pathway to many later errors is paved. All that is to be done now, is figure out what this handbasket by the path is.
It remains true, however, that the status of women in the world is subject to large differences arising primarily from socio-cultural factors. The dignity of women needs to be defended and promoted. It is not simply a problem of resources, but of a different cultural perspective, as highlighted by the plight of women in many emerging countries. In many contexts, still, being a woman provokes discrimination: The gift of motherhood is penalized rather than valued. On the other hand, a woman’s sterility, in some cultures, is a condition that leads to social discrimination.
I’m sorry, I thought we were the Catholic Church, not Amnesty International? While we should be concerned with the plight of others, since when has the church convened a council to deal with “socio-cultural” factors? Doctrine is what is to be dealt with, the supernatural, the deposit of faith, the laws that govern the church. Not pseudo-charitable nonsense catchphrases. With that aside, we shall move on.
Yes the status of women globally differs from culture to culture. Usually the more negative status applies in non Christian nations. This does concern the church, in that these nations are not converted to Catholicism. Upon conversion, the status of women would be greatly lifted. Our greatest saint is a woman, the Mother of God, the Theotokos herself. It was a woman God raised up to perfection, to bring Him into the world. There is nothing worthier for any human to achieve. How great to bring women into the true faith, where they have spiritual protections and legal rights. How glorious to deliver men unto Christ, so they may learn to imitate Him, and be to their wives as Christ is to the Church. By baptizing, purifying and educating the men, we have already done much for the plight of women.
What this document says, however, is that the differences between men and women are social and cultural. There is absolutely no reference to Christ or the Church. The separation between the two sexes relies solely on “socio-cultural” forces. Some societies and cultures harm women, some do not. No explanation is given, simply stating the fact that yes, there are global problems. It is inferenced that this primary issue is in itself the problem. There is no word on how these cultural social problems came to be, or the power structures that keep them in place. This is establishing a precedent; that it is generally the consensus of the people that shape how, where and what women do and how women are viewed. With no context, these statements can be applied to any situation in which ideas about women are shifting, or felt to be “old fashioned” or “oppressive”. Ergo female altar boys. The case of boys serving the altar is a “social and cultural” paradigm. While this statement ostensibly does not have anything to do with any such idea, it is open enough for a lawyer to step in and say “hey, we have social and cultural customs ‘keeping women down’ too.” This is how radical changes start. It is setting up the framework for future change.
This ties into the inherent dignity of women. Never mind that we are all as worthless dust, and we are sinners, nothing but worms before the majesty of God. We have dignity, by being born in sin, living in sin, and being concerned solely with the material world. The dignity of women is at risk, here; the answer has of late been to put them into every job and category of men. Everything men do, preserve female dignity by including them. Once more: ergo female altar boys.