You gotta love Capt. Roniel Aledo!

US Army Captain (Ret.) Roniel Aledo’s attempted debate with SSPX superior general Bishop Bernard Fellay in February, was in my opinion a KO (knockout) win in the first round for Captain Ron.:thumbsup:

Read here and see if you don’t agree jloughnan.tripod.com/afdebate.htm

Hello. I am Ron Aledo. I want to share with you this great article. Please post and distribute! Thank you!

Catholic Feminism

By Olalla Gambra Mariné PhD

The author, a university professor, establishes the just differences between the rights of women, rights that are there not because of gender, but because of human nature, and the manipulation that certain groups do of some real injustices in order to disturb the natural human order.

The great fraud of Feminism.

By feminism we understand a social and political movement that intends to reach equality among men and women.

It began with the British vote seekers in the XIX century, continued asking for equal education, work, salaries, etc. In itself these aspirations were not contrary to the Catholic Faith or Morals. How it is possible then, they had ended up asking for aberrations such as the “right” of abortion and sterilization?

From the beginning, all feminist goals had as measurement the rights of men: We ask for the right to vote as men do! A good paid job like men! Etc. While they were getting their objectives, they were asking for more and more, until reaching a point of conflict with the more obvious gender differences. Women decline maternity just because men don’t have it. Feminist ask for the right of “being owners of their bodies” to develop their personalities and professional aspirations before being mothers.

The feminist movement rejected the clear characteristic of the feminine being and avoided the natural vocation for women.

In this way “feminism” ended up defending a much more radical doctrine than the ones developed by men dominated societies.

This is true as there is no greater admiration than imitation. If a person admires another so much that makes an effort to be like that person and even commits violence against herself in order to be like that person, is not that the best evidence of admiration?

Women are different from men.

To avoid further confusion it is necessary for us to establish a clear definition of terms.
The human being in a general sense is defined as a rational animal. Animal as is in possession of a body with physical needs; rational as it has a vital principle of several faculties that are subordinated to the most perfect mean of knowledge.

Now, “human” is just the name of the species. The difference in sex is just an accident. Even Aristotle was looking for an answer about the meaning of this difference. The answer cannot be more evident:
The differences in sex among human beings are part of the matter not of the essence. Because body and soul are united there is no surprise in the accidental differences: anatomy and the common sense evidence demonstrate that a man’s body is different and designed for a different purpose than a woman’s body. Also the thinking procedure is different among women and men, even when both can reach the same conclusions.

The last element is the word “different” itself. It means that something is not same or equal; it states inequality among two elements. But it does not imply that one of the elements is better than the other. It is not a qualitative adjective. It tells us the reality in some aspects among woman and men, nothing else.

Further more it gives us reciprocity in the two terms: if one is different from the other, then the other is different from the one. In the other hand if one were inferior to the other, the other would not be inferior of the one.

The understanding “the women are different from men” as equivalent to “women are inferior from men” lacks logical base. This is an error that modern feminism makes. It also should make us doubt in its base/logic quality.

Admitting the essential identity of men and women we also understand their final goal, that of eternal salvation. This point is essential to understand the posture of the Catholic Church in the so called “gender war”.

The Commandments of the Law of God are the same to all human beings, there are not 10 commandments for men and 10 for women, they are all the same for all. We also see the same situation for the virtues, heaven and hell, the judgment, etc: they are the same for both men and women.

Duty.

Every person must follow their ultimate God given vocation. In other words each one must be responsible with their respective state. How is this related to the sexual difference?

If I am not wrong the differences from the Catholic doctrine viewpoint is only related to the religious vocation and marriage. In the rest the Church takes no position: if a woman wants to be police commander, carpenter o weight lifter in a carnival, she can as far as she keeps the necessary decency. The Christian doctrine will not place more restrictions than the ones her own nature gives her.

The real problem resides in marriage and family where all the main factors in the so called gender war are located. There is where all factors meet, until the Marxist influence introduced the idea of conflict of sex as a continuation of the conflict of social class.

In order to understand the daily problem that married people face we need to understand the basic principle according to the Catholic doctrine: no one is forced into marriage but once you are married your main duty becomes your family and your profession is subordinated to this (unless there is a major reason for an exemption).

This also contradicts another idea of modernism: the personal success understood as individual labor and its public recognition is illicit if that conflicts with the ultimate stability and end of marriage.

To better understand this doctrine that very well might serve as basis for a kind of Christian “feminism” it is not useless to remember that contrary to the mass media myth, family and procreation are above the individual interest of the espouses.

Family as basic element of society.

The state or government is the organization of the society and therefore must serve it, no backwards. The human being is sociable and organizes its relations in several groups with the family as base. It is in the family where individuals are developed. This means family is the base of society and all its organizations to include the state.

If family plays this fundamental role in the society, following God’s given Natural Order, the doctrine recognizes the importance of women.

For many reasons it is the mother the one who is closer to children in the first years. All educators and psychologists agree that those first years are essential for the formation of the child. In this period is when children learn the general concepts of the world they are living in, the basic moral principles that will guide their education, and they develop the first signs of their character that will later form their individual personalities.

During the first years that children spend at home their social foundation and education path is developed. Today’s children are the future and education is fundamental for society. Everybody understands this and this is the reason why educational programs are constant subject of political debate.

Lack of social value.

Despite the importance of education, mothers usually don’t receive great consideration. The same ones that say education is important say later on that women must be rescue from the “slavery” that is taking care of their children, and provide their formation and education. They don’t see the great contradiction of their position: education is a highly important and necessary element but women that stay home with their children to educate them are “slaves” of the traditional society. This is as absurd as if we want to save a prince to become king of a bishop to become Pope.

Why is a woman who teaches several children in elementary school highly regarded by feminists and why that same woman when providing formation to her own children just a “slave” according to feminists? And let’s not mention those women that don’t work outside from home.

The criterion is related in part to economical reasons, but above all to the search for success: the woman who works out of home receives a salary and as such she is taken in consideration by society. In contrast for all the hours she works with her children she receives no salary and no social security nor retirement account. The worst of this is that she only feels “realized” when she works in a profession and all the hours she spends as mother and wife appear to be stolen hours from her true vocation.

The causes of this situation are misinterpretations of values: among them the childish environment of the XIX romanticism that made women a weak and decorative object. In addition to this the social transformation with the triumph of liberalism and its all mighty godless state was another factor of importance. The state education with its godless and liberal views, against not only the Church but also the parent’s will, the money obsession of the Capitalist regime, and the assessment of success by Protestant and money making Calvinist standards, were all factors that came to diminish the proper rights of the home and family vocations.

That is the reason why people came to the conclusion that bringing money home was enough to accomplish parental duties. A good example of this are the English clubs of the XIX century. It is not just chance that those clubs were a great hit in England, the country where the Feminist movement had great success using the vote as excuse. If men were free of those “low” functions, then women wanted the same thing: children became duty of day cares and domestic service was in charge of the house. Obviously only those with enough resources were able to get that “freedom” and then get themselves “realized”. Society came to reject this standard and its results: disregard for the duties of marriage leads to the destruction of family. That is the reason of the reaction of many in England during the XIX century.

Catholic “Feminism”.

Against those values what we today call “feminism” came to be the so called solution.
Sadly the term “feminist” is so corrupt that it is most associated only with the unnatural and amoral idea of what a woman “really” is. This is a “solution” that far worse than the so called problem.

All that don’t agree with things such abortion reject feminist activism but most agree with a “moderate” feminism with no true doctrinal base. This is a kind of feminism that does not even accept the “feminism” label. This kind of “feminism” only limits itself to celebrate the “Day of the working woman”- March 8 in Spain- or claim for a certain number of women on electoral lists, which is a very low mission as they know they are in the list not because of their virtues but only because they are women: just one more piece of propaganda that is renamed “a great success” under the “equality” slogan. These two versions of feminism are wrong in different grades as the extreme version is active and the moderate version is passive.

But there have to be a right position about this issue. And a third answer to the problem might be something we can call Catholic “feminism”. This Catholic kind of “feminism” means applying the Christian principle of same rights and dignity in both sexes as remaining loyal to the Catholic Church doctrine. Its priority must be defend family as it has been under attack by both a individualist and money ruled society and by the extreme feminism that rejects maternity and its obligations as this is precisely the characteristic that most differentiates men from women.

Therefore it is necessary to restrict any social animosity even those not confessed by women. Two steps must be followed: first reinforce family and the positive image regarding maternity, education of children and housewife’s duties, and secondly pass those values to future generations.

The importance of this defense is only appreciated in its right meaning if we consider the immediate consequence of removing women and family from its right place: the disappearance of the Christian Social Order.

Olalla Gambra PhD

"410 - WEBSITE NO LONGER EXISTS

The Page You’ve Requested Is From A Site That Has Been Permanently Removed." … :\

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.