Women critics say pope left them out

[NNN0LHI]

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Pope John Paul II won a reputation as a crusader for human rights during his long papacy, but reform-minded Catholic women think he left out half of humanity along the way.

The Polish pontiff was a staunch defender of traditional Church policies on women, refusing to consider ordaining them priests or approving contraception, condoms or abortion.

At times his and his conservative advisers even tried to roll back reforms from the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)that gave women a more active role in the liturgy and allowed altar girls to serve Mass.

Liberal women are a minority in the Church, mostly educated westerners far out numbered by their more traditional sisters in the Third World, but they rank among the pope's staunchest critics on issues that pit the Church against the modern world.

http://www.swissinfo.org/sen/swissinfo.html?siteSect=143&sid=5651288&cKey=1112500217000

[Skittles]

1. unbelievably misogynistic

ugh

[billbuckhead]

2. But the Pope's a nice guy

If he only knew?

[Skittles]

5. *sigh*

it gets tiresome, this "you're offending my faith" stuff. I will call misogyny as I see it and I see it loud and clearly here.

[TahitiNut]

21. The demographics of the clergy compared to the laity is wildly ...

... out of whack. Even looking at the College of Cardinals, one is struck by the overwhelming imbalance in favor of white, European males. When one attempts to rationalize this against the mission and objectives of the Church, one is left bereft of any apologetic and cannot but suspect deep-seated antipathy for racial and ethnic diversity.

[Skittles]

30. I feel the same way looking at Congress

ya know?

[TahitiNut]

33. Is there a Black Caucus of Cardinals?

:evilgrin: How many female Cardinals are there? :crazy:

[MountainLaurel]

3. And it's only gonna get worse

Because the likelihood is high that they're going to vote in someone even more hateful toward the "inferior" sex.

[fishwax]

24. sad but true (n/t)

[noamnety]

4. I posted about this in another forum

I came across some interesting history on why the vatican opposed (and will continue to oppose) birth control, posted in the choice and reproductive freedom forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=217x1497

[magnussun]

6. So what

The bible is the bible, and that is how it is. The Pope followed what the bible said, he didn't allow the world's culture to dicatate which direction the church went. I respect him for that.

M

[Sandpiper]

7. You respect the pope for adhering to 3000 year old attitudes

On gender relations?


The bible also says slavery is ok.


Should the Pope have followed that teaching too?

[leesa]

8. No kidding! Only a twit would respect the notion that someone would

adhere to an ancient text written when the world was very underpopulated and the tribal child death rate was extremely high. Get real...and get with the current millenia.

[Erika]

10. Catholics are accepting the dogma against womens rights

but rallying against the restriction of women's rights. The Catholics are very divided.

[ngGale]

15. Yes, we are - very divided...

there doesn't seem to be room for a liberal Catholic anymore. This feeling of being left out became worse with John Kerry. Never could figure why we could doubt our own, the good in his heart. His policy was so unlike Bush.
Kerry, a man torn himself between being Catholic and trying to be the President of all the people. A centered, fair man and look what we have now! <sniff sniff>

[cap]

20. yup... and the Schiavo mess doesnt help

I think we need a "Dean revolution" in the Church and have the laity start a bottom up movement...

Folks have working to leave out the "submissive" texts in the liturgy

Check out these folks:

A call for national dialogue on women's leadership in the church
http://www.cta-usa.org/wicl/16howtowit.html

http://www.cnwe.org/links.htm

[Kathy in Cambridge]

28. There's no room for a liberal Catholic anywahere

including here, in case you haven't noticed. :eyes:

[magnussun]

23. A "twit?"

"No kidding! Only a twit would respect the notion that someone would"
adhere to an ancient text written when the world was very underpopulated and the tribal child death rate was extremely high. Get real...and get with the current millenia."

You have completely twisted what I have said, and personally insulted me to boot. Have I insulted you based on disagreements? Have I called you names? My mom taught me to "treat others as you wish to be treated." Is that lost on this generation?

Why is it that people must be so uncivil? I don't attack anyone, but saying something nice about another human being or having compassion for people you disagree with is an appropriate reason to act like a schoolyard bully and call people names? I may be be face to face with you, but I am a human being and I would NEVER call you a "twit" over any sort of disagreement.

M

[magnussun]

22. Women

"The bible also says slavery is ok.
Should the Pope have followed that teaching too?"

Did he? No. Actually, Christians were in the forefront of abolishing slavery, at a time when most people practiced it.
But slavery is a little different than not allowing women in the clergy. And incidentally, some Christian denominations do embrace this, and gays. It is the business of the Catholic church to make their own moral determinations. I am not a Catholic, hence stay out of their internal affairs. It is none of my business. But in general 85 years old men grew up in a different time. Cut the elderly some slack.

M

[fishwax]

25. Christians were also in the forefront of defending slavery

[magnussun]

26. Christians at least recognized slavery was wrong

And ended it. You can't say that others didn't practice it, or don't to this day.

M

[Kathy in Cambridge]

29. But other Christians supported it. Abolitionists were associated with

certain denominations. Do you think the ministers in plantation towns preached against the evils of slavery?

I'm Catholic by the way, and had a Catholic education. I see a lot of poor excuses for the Church's stances on this message board. Most Catholic I know are liberal-and highly critical of the Church, especially since the pedophilia scandals.

[rayofreason]

37. Christians and Slavery

Yes it is true that Christianity condoned slavery, as did every other religion and form of government for thousands of years. Even today, especially on the boundary between Dar al Islam and Christian/Animist Africa, slavery exists. Witness recent events in Niger.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4321699.stm

But it is also true that the moral imperative for the end of slavery came from Christian denominations who recognized that in Christ there can be no slave and master. When Lincoln said "If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong" he was guided by his deep religious faith, a faith that framed his second inaugural address. And yes, while this happened other denominations justified the "peculiar institution" in the Southern states. But in time those notions were defeated, and Christianity provided the overwhelming moral force for the civil rights movement, as anyone who has read MLK's letter from the Birmingham jail can attest.

Remember also that the gladitorial games continued for 92 years after Christianity was made the religion of the Empire, but that it was the martyrdom on Telemachus that was the trigger for Honorius to suppress the games once and for all.

Despite the uses to which Christianity has been put in order to justify privilige and oppression, on the scale of centuries the effect of Christianity has been to promote the respect and compassion for the individual.

[fishwax]

44. not all christians recognized it was wrong

some, in fact, gave their lives to defend the institution of slavery. I never said anything about what anyone else practiced, then or now.

[JohnKleeb]

27. and many were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement too

[fishwax]

43. yeah, that was in the post I was responding to

and i never said they weren't. (People who called themselves) christians were on both sides of the issue. The "christians" on the wrong side of the issue include denominations which are very powerful in our country today--the southern baptists came into existence basically to defend slavery.

[JohnKleeb]

46. Its cool

Yes, indeed. Dont know what the Catholics felt about Slavery though since they were few in this country at the time but many immigrants who were Catholic fought for the union.

[fishwax]

48. The Catholic church condemned slavery in the 1830s

There weren't nearly as many catholics in the U.S. then, as you say. I can't imagine many (if any) catholics fighting for the south, because msot of them were immigrants to the north, as you point out, and because I would imagine the south would have had a lot of anti-catholic sentiment then.

[JohnKleeb]

49. The South has always long had anti catholic sentiment

The Klan hated Catholics too. I had no idea about the church doing that, good for them.

[LostinVA]

35. UNITARIANS/ Congregationalists

were mainly the ones in this country advocating the abolishment of slavery.

"Cut the elderly some slack"? No, I won't. These outdated attitudes only somewhat affect us in the US and Western Europe, but are doing GREAT harm in Africa. Specifically the spread of AIDS. Both refusing to preach to congregations that condoms should be used, and for actively participating in an outdated, morally corrupt system that still keeps women basically chattel of their husbands. These attitudes have a very real effect on people's lives.

[Eloriel]

9. Well, if you want the Bible adhered to -- here are a few more things

but I think the Pope missed these. Perhaps you can alert the new guy, eh?

This circulated some time ago in response to Dr. Laura's assault on gay rights using the Bible as support:

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination ... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21: 7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1: 9. The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2. clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them?
Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan

[Erika]

11. My study of the Old Testament & the Koran shows

they are the same book. Of the same culture, and family, both families with Abraham as the common ancestor. Both books have "evil" such as incest and slavery inherent to both with acceptance. Such is the root of religion.

[libodem]

13. Rocka ma soul

in the bosom of Abraham, oh rocka ma soul.

[nolabels]

42. You have to admit though

It does make good sense to study what misogynous tendencies of three millenniums ago.

These are good examples for us to use in the here and now. We could make good use of them and solve ALL of our problems :banghead:

After all everyone knows that EVIL is situated in the demon possessed menstruating woman-beast :sarcasm:

Btw giving people religious history on a secular bent only makes them angry :evilgrin:

[regnaD kciN]

16. Sorry to disappoint you, but the Pope wasn't a fundie...

He followed what "Sacred Tradition" (only part of which is the Scriptures) taught. Evangelical protestants are the ones who guide themselves "by the Bible alone."

One may, of course differ with each.

[Orsino]

32. And either can be...

...religious fundamentalism.

Sorry, to disagree, but I think the Pope's perpetuation of religious dogma that denies the humanity of women and gays qualifies him as a fundie. That he seems actually to have cared about the poor, and gave at least lip service to an anti-war ethic, are beside the point.

[rodeodance]

18. similar to Bush resolutness!!

[DoYouEverWonder]

19. To bad the pope choose to follow the 13th Century version of the bible

instead of the true teachings of Jesus. Jesus treated women has equals and the apostles all had wives and families. JP was actually a follower of Paul of Tarsus, not Jesus.

[Tansy_Gold]

31. No, dear friend, the pope followed what THE CHURCH said

There isn't even consensus on what "the bible" is.

Prohibitions on married clergy have more to do with property rights and inherited wealth in the 6th century than with "the bible."

Prohibitions on abortion and contraception have more to do with control of women-as-property and children-as-assets than with "the bible."

If, as you stated in another thread, the next pope should address the issue of clerical celibacy, then are you admitting that 1400 years of this doctrine has been in error? How do you reconcile that with the doctrine of papal infallibility? Were other popes right, but then something changed so that another pope could rule the opposite way and still be correct? Or are Catholics simply expected to accept the absurd contradiction as not there?

In other words, could Jonah have swallowed the whale?

Much of what passes for "the bible" is in fact appended and formulated doctrine, such as the immaculate conception (which, for the uninformed IS NOT the same as the virgin birth). Doctrine made by men /sic/ can be changed by men, and it's usually much more political than dogmatic in origin.

If, on the other hand, one accepts papal infallibility on the interpretation of the bible as literally the word of god, then there is in fact no difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the fundamentalist protestant sects.

[TankLV]

45. Priestly celibacy is only limited to the "Roman" rite of the Catholic

Church. And in even in the "Roman" rite this hasn't always been so.

There are and have been thousands of married priests.

Our church has had several.

And yes, we are a part of the "Catholic Church".

Your premise is wrong.

[LostinVA]

34. The Church doesn't adhere to the Bible

It picks and chooses, just like Fundamentalists. The CHURCH is a "cafeteria" Christian.

[foreigncorrespondent]

39. No he didn't actually!

The Pope followed what the bible said

He followed his OWN interpretation of the Bible. As does Falwell, Robertson, Phelps, etc.

[hyphenate]

40. There are many ways

to follow the ways of the holy text in terms of loyalty and other ways to use that text to do exactly what you might want to do regardless. Just look at the so-called "Christian" principles of the radical religious right--they use the "bible" to push an agenda of intolerance, of hatred, of ignorance, of using power to dominate others, and of being able to do whatever the hell they want to do.

Over the two millennia since a Jew named Jesus lived, the world has changed drastically, but we must never forget that time has not stood still, and that changes have occurred through the centuries which make some of what the bible includes to be no longer applicable in any modern society. In fact, another thing we must remember is that it was MEN, men who wielded lots of power who made sure that they were the ones who were going to benefit the most with the laws and rules that were being set down, and the slant of the bible makes sure of that.

If people want to take what they want from the bible, that's all well and good, but they must not forget that there is plenty of bad stuff in the bible as well, and even today that bad stuff is used to justify a lot of the bad shit happening in the world today. Regardless of what religion or non-religion people are today, it's important to believe that good human beings are good, without having to check their consciences against an archaic text whose original goal was to keep people enslaved or create artificial hope for them with the promise of a better life after their deaths.

[libodem]

12. Womens' Rights

are one of the last bastions of civilization.

[Erika]

14. Think of women's garb

It has only been the last three or four decades since the Catholics demanded the women nuns to be shrouded from head to foot with total clothing. Taliban?

[Dogmudgeon]

17. If you want to Church to even entertain change ...

... you're going to have to schism.

A Reform Catholic Church, identical to the Roman Catholic Church except for sexual and "life" superstitions, would put real pressure on the hierarchy to examine the theories they have been erroneously defending as divine law.

Most Catholic schisms today are small, wacky, right-wing operations, like Hutton Gibson's little fiefdom; a large, well-organized, inclusive schism could gain a much larger number of adherents.

The quasi-official position of the Church is to sarcastically dismiss "Cafeteria Catholics," but to invoke a similar free-enterprise consumerist slogan, that if a person doesn't go along with the program, that they are free to leave and go somewhere else. With a direct competitor in the Free Marketplace of Faith, they would have to start listening to the dissenters.

The modern Roman Catholic Church is the decendant of just such a schism the the early 11th century. A number of "anti-popes" are called such simply because their schism was crushed by the medieval marriage of church and civil authority. That which remains today is the aggregate of the victorious factions. A schism that carried the full body of Catholic teachings (without the fashionably conservative add-ons) and preserved a line of Apostolic Succession would immediately compel a new ecumenical movement.

None of this would be necessary, of course, if the old one hadn't been strangled in its crib.

--p!

[Gloria]

36. I heard a discussion on Radio Canada today with a priest and a woman

who basically brought up the pedophiliac Law who got kicked upstairs to Rome; the convent at Auschwitz and how slowly the Pope acted on that; the AIDS problem; all the kids born who die of starvation....both thanks to the BS about using condoms....and then threw in the second-class status of women in the Church, for good measure.

It was really refreshing to hear some of the other aspects of the Pope and his Church.

Hey, if you're going to treat him as a political figure (as he himself did...even the priest said he created his own photo ops by traveling so much), then you have to look at the whole deal....

[hyphenate]

38. Well,

they DID say that the pope was bringing the church into a new century--they just didn't tell everyone it was the 12th century, not the 21st century.

The fact is, the Vatican and the Catholic church in general are as much an "old boys" club as most of the political groups in the world today. Women are not the minority in a population way, but in the mores and the way they are thought of in most circles is as archaic as the guys who supposedly wrote all the laws two millennia ago. Remember--men run things, not because they're as smart or smarter than women, but because they can physically, in most cases, beat the shit out of a woman without even thinking about it, and well, many men get their jollies out of doing so. Women are thought of as weak and weakwilled, and they are not considered in 2/3 of the world as being anything more than the childbearers that history has painted them.

In many Hispanic countries, beating your wife is "normal" as I learned from a Guatemalan friend whose brothers regularly took a belt or fist to their wives. Those in many western cultures see absolutely nothing wrong with keeping women under their thumbs, and a lot of repukes in our own country look at it the same way. You get more Phyllis Schaflys and Laura Bushes than you do Hillary Clintons or Barbara Boxers from the right, and heaven knows how many repuke women get regularly trashed by their hubbies just to keep them in line.

Sorry if I get defensive on this topic--I've seen WAY too much of it to not get pissed off when I see it--it's happened too long, too much and too blatant to merely stand by and watch that attitude consume the women in the world.

[barb162]

41. the pope would respond that everyone has their roles

I think he just looked back at the 2000 yr tradition and couldn't change like some protestant churches could. I don't agree with this view of women by the church hierarchy but there is no changing the church imo. I think there could have been many great women priests and cardinals.

[gauguin57]

47. It's 2005. And no women are allowed to be leaders in this church?

Barbaric. Disgusting. Effed up. I agree that women's rights were left out of John Paul's push for human rights.

And not only women's leadership roles have been denied ... but the protection of contraception. For starters. Not to mention choice over what happens to their own bodies.

I mean, COME ON!

Won't John Paul be surprised when he comes face to face with THE GODDESS in the afterlife?

[Voltaire99]

50. Come on. Asexual geezers also know better.

That's why they're infallible!