Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => Fighting Errors in the Modern World => Topic started by: Isaac C Bishop on December 01, 2024, 10:24:40 AM
-
My latest article in The Postal Magazine looks at women during the Middle Ages and corrects many misconceptions about them. Much of the modern feminist movement simply restored what women already had before the return of secular Roman law during the 14th century. And at no time were women more valued or loved than in the Middle Ages. They were involved in financial decisions, educated, worked in various professions, and held enormous political power!
https://www.thepostil.com/women-in-the-middle-ages/
-
My latest article in The Postal Magazine looks at women during the Middle Ages and corrects many misconceptions about them. Much of the modern feminist movement simply restored what women already had before the return of secular Roman law during the 14th century. And at no time were women more valued or loved than in the Middle Ages. They were involved in financial decisions, educated, worked in various professions, and held enormous political power!
https://www.thepostil.com/women-in-the-middle-ages/
Wow it's quite long. I haven't finished reading it but I wanted to ask. Near the beginning it mentions that before the return of Roman law women did not need to have parents consent for marriage. Was this state law? Church law? Right now a women must be at least 18 to marry without parental consent, how did this work during the time period mentioned above?
-
An opinion expressed in the 12th century by André le Chapelain is said to be the standard male view of women at that time:
all the good things of this life are given by God to do your [women’s] will and that of other ladies. It is evident, and for me absolutely clear, that men are nothing, that they are incapable of drinking at the source of goodness if they are not impelled to do so by women. However, women being the origin and cause of every good, and God having given them such a great prerogative…so it is obvious that each man must try to serve ladies so that he may be illuminated by their grace. …For all the good done by living beings is done through the love of women, in order to be praised by them, and to be able to extol the gifts that they give, without which nothing is done in life that deserves praise” (Pernoud, 97)
This just seems wrong and extreme... Perhaps women were a lot better in the past but this level of simping still seems too much. Especially considering how secular women act...
-
1950s wife × :'(
1450s wife ✔️ :incense:
-
I heard a secular opinion on the matter and it makes sense. In former (sane) times, women valued family and children. So, men had to adjust their goals to accommodate what their women wanted. Thus, society in general, valued family/children.
In modern times, most women don’t value family nor children as the top priority (and in many cases, these arent even in the top 3 priorities). Thus, men aren’t adjusting their goals and society isn’t focused on the family.
-
I heard a secular opinion on the matter and it makes sense. In former (sane) times, women valued family and children. So, men had to adjust their goals to accommodate what their women wanted. Thus, society in general, valued family/children.
In modern times, most women don’t value family nor children as the top priority (and in many cases, these arent even in the top 3 priorities). Thus, men aren’t adjusting their goals and society isn’t focused on the family.
I agree with you. I don't know why you got a down vote.
Women do have a lot of power to lead civilization to God if they focus on what God wants them to focus on. Most women here on CathInfo do value family and nurturing relationships toward God, I think we are such a small population that maybe we feel like it doesn't really matter. I know I feel that way sometimes.
-
Yes and there are a good number of protestants who are pro-family, but they are still modernized to a degree, where they want a small family (limiting God's will) "balanced" by a career of some type. While this approach is pro-family, it's still far from the Catholic ideal (and norm) of pre-WW2 times.
-
Yes and there are a good number of protestants who are pro-family, but they are still modernized to a degree, where they want a small family (limiting God's will) "balanced" by a career of some type. While this approach is pro-family, it's still far from the Catholic ideal (and norm) of pre-WW2 times.
Instead of just down voting. Maybe we can discuss the issues.
Women need to nurture by showing love first to their husband, then to their children, and then to their neighbor. If they do not have a husband and family, then they do that by their prayer life and helping their community. The more love woman put out there the more love will be returned.
This will then trickle into the rest of society.
I know that this is not how I sounded at first, but I have been paying attention and I see that with out love and respect, men cannot do the job they are expected to do. Women are suppose to teach people how to love.
-
I know that this is not how I sounded at first, but I have been paying attention and I see that with out love and respect, men cannot do the job they are expected to do. Women are suppose to teach people how to love.
I would be less than half the man I am, were it not for my wife's love and esteem.
I have such pity for liberal husbands who suffer such terribly selfish wives. I suspect that they would be far better men if it were otherwise
-
The old saying, is that society/men are only as good as are the women - if the women are inferior/sinful/not elevated, men won't be better than that, won't rise above that.
-
Instead of just down voting. Maybe we can discuss the issues.
Women need to nurture by showing love first to their husband, then to their children, and then to their neighbor. If they do not have a husband and family, then they do that by their prayer life and helping their community. The more love woman put out there the more love will be returned.
This will then trickle into the rest of society.
I know that this is not how I sounded at first, but I have been paying attention and I see that with out love and respect, men cannot do the job they are expected to do. Women are suppose to teach people how to love.
I would be less than half the man I am, were it not for my wife's love and esteem.
I have such pity for liberal husbands who suffer such terribly selfish wives. I suspect that they would be far better men if it were otherwise
The old saying, is that society/men are only as good as are the women - if the women are inferior/sinful/not elevated, men won't be better than that, won't rise above that.
Well said, it's why so many men become toxic/players because they have become bitter towards women due to being hurt, either by their mothers or other women. Women also become bitter when hurt by men, like their fathers or other men.... A vicious cycle. Plus Jєωιѕн propaganda encouraging this and making things much much worse.
-
My latest article in The Postal Magazine looks at women during the Middle Ages and corrects many misconceptions about them. Much of the modern feminist movement simply restored what women already had before the return of secular Roman law during the 14th century. And at no time were women more valued or loved than in the Middle Ages. They were involved in financial decisions, educated, worked in various professions, and held enormous political power!
https://www.thepostil.com/women-in-the-middle-ages/
I apologize in advance because my response is not related directly to your post... But I had a look at The Postil website and I was wondering why The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle were advertised on it? De Gaulle was not a war hero. In fact he was a deserter who escaped the execution squad because his superior thought he had been killed in action, in March 1916. He surrendered to the enemy and gave them the information they wanted. He was freed after 33 months.
After he came into power, his dossier was disappeared. Admiral Muselier said de Gaulle was "the greatest deserter of the French Army". He came into power in 1958 by promising the French in Algeria to always keep Algeria French... and gave Algeria its independence in 1962, after having the French Army shoot the French population in Algiers.
He also facilitated the penetration of Communists in the French government.
Not someone whose war memoirs we should be promoting, in my opinion... ;-)
-
This just seems wrong and extreme... Perhaps women were a lot better in the past but this level of simping still seems too much. Especially considering how secular women act...
You call it simping. I call it chivalry. Only when women are respected and protected for their feminine virtues, they may take on the responsibility to safeguard the society's morals, and not to desperately become a lesser version of men who are secular.
-
I apologize in advance because my response is not related directly to your post... But I had a look at The Postil website and I was wondering why The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle were advertised on it? De Gaulle was not a war hero. In fact he was a deserter who escaped the execution squad because his superior thought he had been killed in action, in March 1916. He surrendered to the enemy and gave them the information they wanted. He was freed after 33 months.
After he came into power, his dossier was disappeared. Admiral Muselier said de Gaulle was "the greatest deserter of the French Army". He came into power in 1958 by promising the French in Algeria to always keep Algeria French... and gave Algeria its independence in 1962, after having the French Army shoot the French population in Algiers.
He also facilitated the penetration of Communists in the French government.
Not someone whose war memoirs we should be promoting, in my opinion... ;-)
De Gaulle is one in a long line of traitors that betrayed France. He was worst in many ways because he is considered to the 'right'. However, he covered for the communist massacre of 100,000 patriots in the years following the second world war, in the 'épuration' and left education and culture in the hands of the left.
There is one silver lining though, he said of the Jews after the 6 day war: " the Jews, hitherto dispersed, but who had remained what they had always been, that is to say, an elite people, sure of themselves and domineering, have they not come, once gathered in the site of their former greatness, to change into ardent and conquering ambition the very moving wishes which they had formed for nineteen centuries: next year in Jerusalem"
That was the end for him as (((they))) programmed the May 1969 riots that brought down in his government.
I was not particuarly enthusiastic when our SSPX school, took the children to visit the Normandy D Day beaches for a school outing, when instead they could have visited the tomb of the Marechal Pétain in the île d'Yeu in the Vendée instead. It would be if a US SSPX school took the children to visit the Lincoln Memorial rather than the grave of Stonewall Jackson. It just doesn't seem right
-
You call it simping. I call it chivalry. Only when women are respected and protected for their feminine virtues, they may take on the responsibility to safeguard the society's morals, and not to desperately become a lesser version of men who are secular.
all the good things of this life are given by God to do your [women’s] will and that of other ladies. It is evident, and for me absolutely clear, that men are nothing, that they are incapable of drinking at the source of goodness if they are not impelled to do so by women. However, women being the origin and cause of every good, and God having given them such a great prerogative…so it is obvious that each man must try to serve ladies so that he may be illuminated by their grace. …For all the good done by living beings is done through the love of women, in order to be praised by them, and to be able to extol the gifts that they give, without which nothing is done in life that deserves praise” (Pernoud, 97)
Really pay attention. This filth isn't even Catholic let alone chivalrous.
-
Really pay attention. This filth isn't even Catholic let alone chivalrous.
I believe it's merely figure of speech of the literature(!) of that period known as courtly love. It's not meant to be read as church teaching but more like a way to understand the status of women with lense of history as the OP did.
-
I believe it's merely figure of speech of the literature(!) of that period known as courtly love. It's not meant to be read as church teaching but more like a way to understand the status of women with lense of history as the OP did.
That cannot be.
An opinion expressed in the 12th century by André le Chapelain is said to be the standard male view of women at that time:
There is seriously something wrong here if this was the standard view of men. I'm not saying it's church teaching but from how extreme it is, it clearly elevated women to an inordinate position, outside the order God has made.
I find reading it utterly vile and repulsive. It doesn't seem like chivalry at all but propaganda.
-
all the good things of this life are given by God to do your [women’s] will and that of other ladies. It is evident, and for me absolutely clear, that men are nothing, that they are incapable of drinking at the source of goodness if they are not impelled to do so by women. However, women being the origin and cause of every good, and God having given them such a great prerogative…so it is obvious that each man must try to serve ladies so that he may be illuminated by their grace. …For all the good done by living beings is done through the love of women, in order to be praised by them, and to be able to extol the gifts that they give, without which nothing is done in life that deserves praise” (Pernoud, 97)
I believe it's merely figure of speech of the literature(!) of that period known as courtly love. It's not meant to be read as church teaching but more like a way to understand the status of women with lense of history as the OP did.
In a way, I agree that it uses a type of figure of speech. I haven't read the work from which the excerpt is taken, but it strikes me as satirical. The French have a uniquely biting wit that comes through even in translation.
-
I haven't read the work from which the excerpt is taken, but it strikes me as satirical. The French have a uniquely biting wit that even comes through in translations.
If it's satire then why would the author of the article have
An opinion expressed in the 12th century by André le Chapelain is said to be the standard male view of women at that time:
-
If it's satire then why would the author of the article have
An opinion expressed in the 12th century by André le Chapelain is said to be the standard male view of women at that time:
Well, just because someone writes a book, doesn't make everything in it true or accurate. A reasonable question to be asked when reading it is "who said it was the standard male view of women at that time?" Does he give any corroborating view from other authors of the time?
-
You call it simping. I call it chivalry. Only when women are respected and protected for their feminine virtues, they may take on the responsibility to safeguard the society's morals, and not to desperately become a lesser version of men who are secular.
:confused: What? Your comments sound like some catholic-feminization.
1. It's the Church's job to safeguard society's morals, and also the responsibility of both men and women. To think that it's soley the job of women is just nuts.
2. Virtuous women deserve chivalry. Most women do not.
-
I believe it's merely figure of speech of the literature(!) of that period known as courtly love. It's not meant to be read as church teaching but more like a way to understand the status of women with lense of history as the OP did.
That was my impression too. It sounded like an example from the medieval "courtly love" literary genre. If so, it is neither Church teaching nor especially representative of everyday thinking. I think that Chaucer gives more representative views of women. Wikipedia has an article on courtly love that people can look at if they are curious: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtly_love)
-
:confused: What? Your comments sound like some catholic-feminization.
1. It's the Church's job to safeguard society's morals, and also the responsibility of both men and women. To think that it's soley the job of women is just nuts.
That was very much like my reaction. It reminded me of the early suffragette movement. Its major rationale for claiming that women should vote was a baseless assumption that women have a better moral sense than men and should be involved in government in order to guard society's morals. Closely tied to this movement, was the temperance movement. The female strategy for moral improvement was to to make alcohol illegal. History shows how that idea failed.
Women can contribute to the morality of society, but this is usually within the traditional spheres as wives, mothers, nuns, grandmothers, etc. Men have an equally important contribution in their roles, which includes the more public areas of society.
-
In a way, I agree that it uses a type of figure of speech. I haven't read the work from which the excerpt is taken, but it strikes me as satirical. The French have a uniquely biting wit that comes through even in translation.
Me neither, but I just looked it up, as I guessed, "André Le Chapelain was a French writer on the art of courtly love". https://www.britannica.com/biography/Andre-le-Chapelain
I don't think people on the forum is particularly familiar with that genre, nor the meaning of it. So FYI Courtly love is between a Lady and a knight, there's a significant social class dynamic here and a knight praising the Lady is just like how government officials praise the emperor/queen. Yet the so to speak "the level of simping," I believe, is present in love letters and poems throughout history :laugh2:
The Church doesn't deem those literature as beneficial. Many of them are full of vice and infamous. But trying to rationale it "but the reality is so and so" is missing the point of the literature. It's NOT supposed to be realistic. It's supposed to be an IDEAL. So ideally women should be very virtuous, very noble, very pure, and the very dirty filthy men (author is speaking for himself humbly) can aspire after them.
-
That was very much like my reaction. It reminded me of the early suffragette movement. Its major rationale for claiming that women should vote was a baseless assumption that women have a better moral sense than men and should be involved in government in order to guard society's morals. Closely tied to this movement, was the temperance movement. The female strategy for moral improvement was to to make alcohol illegal. History shows how that idea failed.
Women can contribute to the morality of society, but this is usually within the traditional spheres as wives, mothers, nuns, grandmothers, etc. Men have an equally important contribution in their roles, which includes the more public areas of society.
So you're saying women voting is wrong. And I am saying voting is wrong. Democracy leads the society down to the drain, so if it did, it was not women's fault. I don't see how anything would be different today if there was never women voting.
-
So you're saying women voting is wrong. And I am saying voting is wrong. Democracy leads the society down to the drain, so if it did, it was not women's fault. I don't see how anything would be different today if there was never women voting.
I am saying that the original justification for women voting was wrong, based on a false assumption about women's alleged moral superiority. I am inclined to agree with you about voting in general. Although I am not sure how much of the problem is democracy in itself and how much is all the "Enlightenment" baggage that comes with it. The entire philosophical system leads to intellectual rot.
-
It's supposed to be an IDEAL. So ideally women should be very virtuous, very noble, very pure, and the very dirty filthy men (author is speaking for himself humbly) can aspire after them.
It's a literary ideal. There isn't anything like this in theology or Scripture. The closest Catholic thinking to this is recognizing the Blessed Virgin Mary as a very virtuous and pure ideal. Both men and women aspire after that ideal.
-
De Gaulle is one in a long line of traitors that betrayed France. He was worst in many ways because he is considered to the 'right'. However, he covered for the communist massacre of 100,000 patriots in the years following the second world war, in the 'épuration' and left education and culture in the hands of the left.
There is one silver lining though, he said of the Jєωs after the 6 day war: " the Jєωs, hitherto dispersed, but who had remained what they had always been, that is to say, an elite people, sure of themselves and domineering, have they not come, once gathered in the site of their former greatness, to change into ardent and conquering ambition the very moving wishes which they had formed for nineteen centuries: next year in Jerusalem"
That was the end for him as (((they))) programmed the May 1969 riots that brought down in his government.
I was not particuarly enthusiastic when our SSPX school, took the children to visit the Normandy D Day beaches for a school outing, when instead they could have visited the tomb of the Marechal Pétain in the île d'Yeu in the Vendée instead. It would be if a US SSPX school took the children to visit the Lincoln Memorial rather than the grave of Stonewall Jackson. It just doesn't seem right
Appalling but not surprising from the SSPX... The anti-gaullist priests are pretty much all in the SSPX - resistance now, ironically! 😊
-
It should not surprise us that our modern families devoid of a mother at home lack feminine traits. Our modern world lacks compassion, forgiveness, and empathy for others. Cancel culture is a perfect example of removing feminine traits from our hearts and homes by removing mothers; it is our modern Inquisition.
If you can’t even get recent history correct, then no one should trust what you have to say about history centuries ago. Cancel culture and Covid were the very embodiment of a feminine worldview.
-
Delete
-
I apologize in advance because my response is not related directly to your post... But I had a look at The Postil website and I was wondering why The War Memoirs of Charles de Gaulle were advertised on it? De Gaulle was not a war hero. In fact he was a deserter who escaped the execution squad because his superior thought he had been killed in action, in March 1916. He surrendered to the enemy and gave them the information they wanted. He was freed after 33 months.
After he came into power, his dossier was disappeared. Admiral Muselier said de Gaulle was "the greatest deserter of the French Army". He came into power in 1958 by promising the French in Algeria to always keep Algeria French... and gave Algeria its independence in 1962, after having the French Army shoot the French population in Algiers.
He also facilitated the penetration of Communists in the French government.
Not someone whose war memoirs we should be promoting, in my opinion... ;-)
I cannot speak to this, but perhaps you could contact the editors? They might be able to assist you.
-
Well, just because someone writes a book, doesn't make everything in it true or accurate. A reasonable question to be asked when reading it is "who said it was the standard male view of women at that time?" Does he give any corroborating view from other authors of the time?
I was quoting the historian below who described it as a typical view of the time.
Régine Pernoud (17 June 1909, [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Château-Chinon[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Château-Chinon_(Ville)), [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Nièvre[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nièvre) – 22 April 1998, Paris) was a French historian and archivist.[color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)][1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Régine_Pernoud#cite_note-1)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Pernoud was one of the most prolific medievalists in 20th century France; more than any other single scholar of her time, her work advanced and expanded the study of [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Joan of Arc[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc)
-
Wow it's quite long. I haven't finished reading it but I wanted to ask. Near the beginning it mentions that before the return of Roman law women did not need to have parents consent for marriage. Was this state law? Church law? Right now a women must be at least 18 to marry without parental consent, how did this work during the time period mentioned above?
The family, and the individual were the most prominent influences. The Church would, however, especially with nobility, interfere on some marriage that were often incest-rial or adulterous.
-
I was quoting the historian below who described it as a typical view of the time.
Régine Pernoud (17 June 1909, [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Château-Chinon[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Château-Chinon_(Ville)), [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Nièvre[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nièvre) – 22 April 1998, Paris) was a French historian and archivist.[color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)][1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Régine_Pernoud#cite_note-1)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Pernoud was one of the most prolific medievalists in 20th century France; more than any other single scholar of her time, her work advanced and expanded the study of [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Joan of Arc[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc)
Yes, I realized that. I was questioning Miss Pernoud, not necessarily yourself.
She takes her excerpt from the Eighth Dialogue of this work (begins near bottom of page):
https://archive.org/details/artofcourtlylove0000andr_b8m2/page/107/mode/1up
(https://archive.org/details/artofcourtlylove0000andr_b8m2/page/107/mode/1up)It may be somewhat bold, but I do question Miss Pernoud's assertion that her chosen excerpt is indicative of the common view of women at the time. The author seemingly admits (https://archive.org/details/artofcourtlylove0000andr_b8m2/page/187/mode/1up?view=theater) that this is an instructional book on 'chatting her up' as some would say. Though, especially because the author was a Priest, I still view the work as more satirical or at least farcical in nature.
(https://i.imgur.com/Vdghwpa.png)
-
I was quoting the historian below who described it as a typical view of the time.
Régine Pernoud (17 June 1909, [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Château-Chinon[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Château-Chinon_(Ville)), [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Nièvre[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nièvre) – 22 April 1998, Paris) was a French historian and archivist.[color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)][1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Régine_Pernoud#cite_note-1)[/iurl][/font][/size][/color] Pernoud was one of the most prolific medievalists in 20th century France; more than any other single scholar of her time, her work advanced and expanded the study of [color=var(--color-progressive,#36c)]Joan of Arc[/color] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc)
I forgot to add that my use of the word "he" is probably the cause of the confusion. Apologies, I had switched to speaking in terms of a general principal, but using "she" would've avoided a misunderstanding.
Well, just because someone writes a book, doesn't make everything in it true or accurate. A reasonable question to be asked when reading it is "who said it was the standard male view of women at that time?" Does he she give any corroborating view from other authors of the time?
-
Refuting the Anti-Catholic Lies
of the e-pamphlet Life in the 1500’s
Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D. (https://www.traditioninaction.org/History/A_005_Myths1500s.html)
-
Yes, I realized that. I was questioning Miss Pernoud, not necessarily yourself.
She takes her excerpt from the Eighth Dialogue of this work (begins near bottom of page):
https://archive.org/details/artofcourtlylove0000andr_b8m2/page/107/mode/1up
(https://archive.org/details/artofcourtlylove0000andr_b8m2/page/107/mode/1up)It may be somewhat bold, but I do question Miss Pernoud's assertion that her chosen excerpt is indicative of the common view of women at the time. The author seemingly admits (https://archive.org/details/artofcourtlylove0000andr_b8m2/page/187/mode/1up?view=theater) that this is an instructional book on 'chatting her up' as some would say. Though, especially because the author was a Priest, I still view the work as more satirical or at least farcical in nature.
(https://i.imgur.com/Vdghwpa.png)
Great stuff.