The interesting thing about this Radical school of homosexuality is that they, at the very least, get that the whole issue, THE question if you will, is about who we are as humans and it's got everything to do with being bodied individuals. Unlike their liberal counterparts who claim that there should be neutrality regarding sexual orientation, the Radical view does not pretend not to have an agenda and they don't pretend that none of it matters on a social, ontological and anthropological level. That being said, there are obvious and blatant problems here.
One quote from the book gave a self proclaimed account of what it means to be a Radicalesbian;
"As the source of self-hate and the lack of real self are rooted in our male-given identity, we must create a new sense of self. As long as we cling to the idea of 'being a woman,' we will sense some conflict with that incipient self, that sense of it, that sense of a whole person. It is very difficult to realize and accept that being 'feminine' and being a whole person are irreconcilable. Only women can give each other a new sense of self. That identity we have to develop with reference to ourselves, and not in relation to men. This consciousness is the revolutionary force from which all else will follow, for ours is an organic revolution."
An organic revolution indeed. My heart broke so many times as I read these chapters. These women who supposedly want so badly to deny their status as women are swinging for all they have at some shadow of the truth.
On the contrary, John Paul II's whole 'nuptial imagery' speaks of the dignity of being a woman and why, being a bodily, gendered, human has EVERYTHING to do with who we are, not in the sense that it opresses us or strips us of our freedom, quite the opposite, embracing who we are shows us who we are and finally frees us to be most fully human.
"Unless we refer to this order and primacy we cannot give a complete and adequate answer to the question about women's dignity and vocation. When we say that the woman is the one who receives love in order to love in return, this refers not only or above all to the specific spousal relationship of marriage. It means something more universal, based on the very fact of her being a woman within all the interpersonal relationships which, in the most varied ways, shape society and structure the interaction between all persons - men and women. In this broad and diversified context, a woman represents a particular value by the fact that she is a human person, and, at the same time, this particular person, by the fact of her femininity. This concerns each and every woman, independently of the cultural context in which she lives, and independently of her spiritual, psychological and physical characteristics, as for example, age, education, health, work, and whether she is married or single." (Mulieris Dignitatem 29)
"A woman's dignity is closely connected with the love which she receives by the very reason of her femininity; it is likewise connected with the love which she gives in return. The truth about the person and about love is thus confirmed. With regard to the truth about the person, we must turn again to the Second Vatican Council: "Man, who is the only creature on earth that God willed for its own sake, cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of self".59 This applies to every human being, as a person created in God's image, whether man or woman. This ontological affirmation also indicates the ethical dimension of a person's vocation. Woman can only hand herself by giving love to others." (30)
Have you read the book "Feminine, Free, and Faithful" by Rhonda Chervin? It's published by Ignatius Press. In the book, Rohnda Chervin discusses faithfulness to God as the key to unfolding a woman's feminine and free personality. I was lent the book by a seminarian friend of mine. Not exactly the kind of book you expect to be given by a seminarian, but very insightful. Definitely written to a woman's perspective though.
ReplyDelete