Women Criticize Vatican Document on Feminism

[leftchick]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&ncid=564&e=32&u=/nm/20040801/ts_nm/pope_women_dc_4

<snip>
"I thought for sure I was the 1960s and Archie Bunker had been appointed theologian to the Pope," she said, referring to the character in an old American TV series whose bigoted views included opposition to any form of women's rights.


<snip>

The document, which re-stated Catholic Church positions, including the ban on female priests, said that many women felt they had to be "adversaries of men" in order to be themselves.


It criticized feminism's attempt to erase gender differences, saying it had inspired ideologies questioning the traditional family structure of a mother and a father and making homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent.


"Such observations could only be made by men who have no significant relationships with women and no knowledge of the enormous positive changes the women's rights movement has meant for both men and women," Kissling said.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

1. They nailed it

when they said that "Such observations could only be made by men who have no significant relationships with women..."

[Fenris]

2. They do have signifigant relationships with other men though.

;)

Low, yes. But fair.

[aquart]

8. And children. Don't forget the children.

[Baltimoreboy]

12. Ah, more anti-Catholic bullshit

It's so typical.

[smirkymonkey]

23. But it's true!

We'll discontinue the anti-Catholic bullshit when the Catholic Church enforces a no-tolerance policy against it's ordained child molesters.

[struggle4progress]

24. In my town, one of the priests published an op-ed in the local paper ...

... saying that he would report sexual predators to the police.

Sweeping generalizations about the Catholics are really unfair.

[smirkymonkey]

26. However, I did not accuse ALL Catholics or even

ALL Priests. I simply stated that the Church as a whole needs to stop protecting those Priests and Catholics who DO molest children.

[Baltimoreboy]

32. It protects those who have confessed within sanctity of the confessional

Because it can't reveal what is said under that sacrament.

[jdj]

93. Oh, that makes it okay then.

Not.

This is why Jesus called priests "empty canals".

[Baltimoreboy]

102. It makes it a violation of a sacred sacrament to reveal the information

Or act on it.

[struggle4progress]

33. What function does the phrase "Church as a whole" serve, ...

... other than to signal some sweeping generalization?

I do not consider the Church to be identical with its governing hierarchy. The vast majority of Catholics, and even the vast majority of priests, were not directly involved in any of these disgraceful scandals, were shocked to learn about them, and certainly have not "protected" the guilty.

[smirkymonkey]

81. Clarification: The governing hierarchy...

responsible for setting the tone for the Catholic Church worldwide.

And don't tell me this doesn't trickle down to individual parishes, because it does.

Disclaimer: Note, once again, I am not condemning all INDIVIDUAL Catholics or Priests. I understand that good and evil can co-exist within a single institution.

[jdj]

38. Those priests that stuck their willies into children brought this

plague of criticism upon the crutch, I mean church, so people need to complain to them, and accept it. No one needs to apologize for talking about the church's centuries old betrayal of children (and women). I care more about the children that were raped than I do about someone waxing violated ove this justifiable outrage.

[Baltimoreboy]

152. I love the crutch comment

It says it all.

[October]

87. In my local parish,

the priest addressed his congregation forcefully denying the accusations made public against him for the molestation of a young man decades ago...he vowed to fight...

The congregation rose to its feet and applauded the man.

All the papers reported it -- with a warm, generous, positive slant.

Months later, the priest quietly resigned when many new allegations arose. This, by the way, was reported on page A26 or so.

Generalizations work both ways. Oftentimes, because a man wears a collar, he is more trusted, etc.

[jdj]

94. More trusted by CHILDREN.

That's what people seem to be forgetting. Imagine how being sexually abused by what you think of as a "holy" man could completely fuck up your concept of and relationship to God for the rest of your life.

[bloom]

30. well, perhaps if the Pope would quit with the anti-women bullshit...

and the anti-gay bullshit, and trying to influence American politics, had zero tolerance for child molesting priests, and so on and so forth...

and generally did not bring the protesting on hisself... then it might stop.

[AngryAmish]

47. Yes that Pope needs to stop trying to influence US policy

Especially with that anti-death penalty BS.


The bigotry I encounter here sometimes...

[TeacherCreature]

42. Anti catholic bullshit? How dare you?

The Pope is interfering in the lives of millions or people who are not catholic with his lousy politics.
No one is attacking your religion, we are attacking your clueless Pope that women are not going backwards to suit him.
Women are now at fault for gay marriage? :eyes: The pope has declared war on women's rights and if catholics won't stop him the rest of us will.

[Baltimoreboy]

44. Here's how I dare

Every single thread about the Catholic Church says priests are pedophiles and the pope is a cross-dresser or gay or something. These are not intelligent criticism, they are completely unfounded hate attacks that sound like something from Klan literature.

That's how.

If you disagree with him, fine. Say so. But if you want to attack him as many do, expect me to respond.

As an aside, how do you intend to "stop him."

[jdj]

46. God is going to stop him soon enough.

he's gonna die and go to hell.

[Baltimoreboy]

55. Yes, he will die. So will you and I

The hell part is up to God.

Judge not, lest ye be judged.

[jdj]

88. Don't go all biblical on me.

That's your hangup.

[Baltimoreboy]

129. Not a hangup, just part of who I am

And religious or not, it still applies.

[Darth_Kitten]

59. Why is blaming women so okay with you?

You seem not to see that it the CATHOLIC pope that is going on the offensive against ALL women. :eyes:

[Baltimoreboy]

85. No he's not

Women are a big part of the church then and now. They are just not the part you wish.

[smirkymonkey]

82. So?? Turnabout is fair play.

Note to Pope: Stay the fuck out of our politics and the lives of non-Catholics and we promise we won't say anything mean about you anymore.

:nopity:

[Baltimoreboy]

86. This is about culture, not politics

And he is talking to Catholics who can choose to listen...or not.

[Djinn]

108. but it's OK for the Pope

to make asinine declarations about women? it's OK to claim anyone that's had an abortion, pre marital sex or used contraception and not repented will go to hell? It's OK for the Catholic Church to state that anti-zionist are anti-semitic? Gee those sound like unfounded hate attacks.

btw - my scorn isn't directed at Catholics soley, nor just to Christians but towards anyone trying to tell me or my elected officials that I should run my life based on THEIR interpretations of writings written thousands of years ago about someone who may not have ever existed.

[Baltimoreboy]

118. It is OK

It's freedom of religion. It's freedom of speech. Take your pick.

And, as an aside, most anti-Zionists (not all) ARE anti-Semitic.

[Matilda]

121. I have to take issue with you on your aside.

Once perhaps, anti-Zionism was a cover for anti-Semitism (or
anti-Jewishness to be really correct), but in today's climate,
I don't think so.

Israel in the past ten years has moved so far to the right, and
under Sharon has become so bloody-mindedly brutal that many people
who hardly gave the lot of the Palestinians a second thought are
now beginning to feel very uncomfortable about what is happening
to them. I do believe it's now possible to say that one is anti-
Zionist and mean just exactly that.

Edit: grammar

[Djinn]

123. Exactly it's freedom of speech

and if the pope can slag me off (not personally but then people here aren't personally slagging Catholics either) then I can slag him and his organistaion off - it's a wonderful thing.

BTW Your comment about anti-zionist being anti-semitic is really ignorant and offensive. MANY Jews both religious and secular are anti-zionists and many non jews who are appalled by bigotry consider themselves anti-zionists, in fact they consider that AS people appalled by bigotry they HAVE to be anti-zionists

[Baltimoreboy]

126. Most not all ARE anti-Semitic

The pope is not slagging on you. You and he have differences of opinions, but it isn't personal.

Yes, many Jews oppose Israel's actions on this or that, but they don't oppose the existence of the state of Israel and that's what anti-Zionists are generally after.

[Djinn]

128. you are completely wrong sorry

The Pope claims that certain actions of mine are morally reprehensible and MUST be absolved - THAT is slagging, moer so than people pointing out that the church long ago lost credibility on the moral issue

Most anti-zionists ARE NOT anti-semitic - what makes you think you can make a sweeping statement like that? It is every bit as offensive as making a claim that "not ALL Cathiolic priest molest children but most do" see sweeping claims with no proof are ignorant aren't they?

You're also wrong re anti-zionists Jews, here's some names you can google to see that many Jews NEVER agreed with teh establishment of Israel and beleive that a one state solution would be best.

Neturei Karta
TRUE TORAH JEWS - Jews Against Zionism

and a quote from Jews against the occupation (who beleive in the right of return for Palestinian refugees)

"Judaism is a cultural and religious identity, which must not be equated with Zionism, a political movement. Criticism of the state of Israel, its policies, or the idea of a Jewish state does not by itself constitute anti-Semitism. Dismissing critics of Israel or of Zionism as "anti-Semitic" is a means of stifling debate and masking the impact of the occupation."

You can also find plenty of Jewish DUers who feel the same way.

[Baltimoreboy]

130. Here's why i say that

I've read what they have to say here and elsewhere.

Many of their posts seem to disappear fast at various discussion boards, but if you watch closely, you will see the dirty underbelly of the anti-Zionist movement.

As for the rest of the world, how many pro-Semitic anti-Zionist Muslims do you think you'll find?

[Djinn]

132. I personally know plenty actually

although "pro-semitic" is kind of a stupid term the people I know are no more "pro-semitic" than they are "pro-catholic" or "pro-american" they do however despise any bigotry and are ardent about defending ANYONE against racism/bigotry.

I think that perhaps you need to look at your OWN bigotry (don't have a very good opinion of muslims or anti-zionists do you, you know you do things like make sweeping judgements about them - how many of the billion muslims wordlwide did you speak to before making this statement?) and perhaps the Catholic church's bigotry against women before you start throwing stones at others.

[Baltimoreboy]

134. I don't have a good opinion of people who want to destroy Israel

I don't care if they are Muslims, Christians, Democrats or even Catholics.

However, Muslims currently excel in the active role of trying to destroy Israel and the Jews who reside there. That doesn't blame ALL Muslims, but as a group they are know for their hatred of Israel because it is true.

Israel in case you forgot is the homeland for the Jewish people.

[Djinn]

139. Destroy Israel?

how does ending the occupation and allowing the return of refugees destroy Israel????

"Israel in case you forgot is the homeland for the Jewish people."

In case YOU forgot it was the homeland of many OTHER people (Jewish, Christian and Muslims) BEFORE it became Israel - do they have any rights.

You still can not see why it is hypocritical for you to accuse those of bringing up the Church's record re child abuse (again SOME not ALL priests) of bigotry and hate speech but then turn around and do the same thing to people who do not agree with Zionism and Muslims - yes you say some not all but that's exactly what you've accused others of hate speech for.

[Baltimoreboy]

141. Returning refugees?

You mean flooding Israel with a ton of people -- many of whom were never born in Israel -- and turning Israel into another Arab dominated nation? Gee, I can see looking around the Mideast how you might think that would turn out well for the Jewish people.

Israel is the one place in the Mideast where people of various faiths DO have rights. Now, tell me about the thriving Jewish communities in the Arab or Muslim world.

[Djinn]

145. without getting this thrown into the IP dungeon

You mean flooding Israel with a ton of people -- many of whom were never born in Israel

umm what? if they're refugees they were born there - hence the name refugee. And it's strange that you think "flooding" in arabs is so awful when the establishment of Israel was PREDICATED on the "flooding in" of Jews who were certainly not BORN THERE.

Tell me again that hilarious one about Israel and it's rights for non jews - hint if you actually look into this you'll find many many rights that aer definetly not extended to non jews in Israel.

[Baltimoreboy]

153. Not so in the case of I/P

Again, a reason I try to avoid that place. But check around, you will find the Palestinian refugee count includes every Palestinian born since 1948.

Don't you expect an Arab majority nation would be the end of Israel?

I have been to Israel and I know about the rights of non-Jews. Now, tell me about the rights of Jews or even Christians in Arab and Muslim nations.

[Djinn]

160. so what should they be classified as

they can't be legally classified as Palestinian because Palestine doesn't legally exist - being born somewhere doesn't make you a citizen of that place. If one's parents are refugees then children born to them who do not receive other citizenship are also refugees.

Would you call a child born in a refugee camp in Chad to Sudanese parents fleeing Darfur citizens of Chad? or would you call them refugees?

[Malva Zebrina]

125. gee--it is so bad to hate a pedophile.

that any posting of the facts about the pedophilia that was rampant in the church and that was further compounded by a cover up and by acdtually re assigning the pedophiles to another parish to abuse more children and the complete distancing from the children--the children, goddam it, in favor of the priests, who saw a good thing when they signed up to be priests, is absolutely cruel and absolutely deserves every goddam bit of criticism any person in their right mind can muster.

It is the CHILDREN here who are the victims--NOT the filthy priests.

Who the hell cares if these filthy child abusers confessed?
That is a reason to defend them?

Sick

The religion is sick by not recognizing the rights of women. It will do more to dissolve this corrupted religion than any atheist can ever be accused of.

[Baltimoreboy]

133. Pedophila is a problem worldwide

Pedophiles are drawn to areas and professions that work with kids.

The teacher who had sex with her 12 year old student just got out of jail. I don't see any threads about how teachers are a threat to children.

As for how the church handled this, you show your ignorance about Catholic belief. If you confess something, I don't know it. Even more, I must forgive you and assume you will sin no more.

Women have had limited standing in the church for hundreds and hundreds of years. The church is still here.

[Malva Zebrina]

136. you are the one who needs a brush up on logic

You maintain that the abuse of children on the part of more than 300 priests,and who knows how many others, men who gain the trust of children and their parents because they are in some way considered more trustworthy than ordinary teachers, with the actions of one teacher and think that is the reason that we MUST excuse these filthy men who , incredibly were protected by other filthy men because, of al goddam things, they confessed!??

I don't give a damn if they confessed or not.

They should have been arrested and put into prison. The rest of the filthy men who run things saw fit to protect them and indeed, instead of putting them, according to law, into prison, saw fit to reassign them to other places where their persersion would still be fulfilled.


This was in your mind, right, because they confessed. They should have been put into prison,as that teacher you so sanctimoniously cited as an example that would serve to defend these filthy bastards, was. Was she NOT punished according to the law?

and were not the filthy bastard pedophiles protected and NOT punished according to law?


Common sense should tell anyone with any sense of morals, that it is the CHILDREN who are the victims and NOT the filthy bastards called priests who you are attempting to defend.

I take it you have not had any children yet, for you seem to not be aware of the intense feelings of protection that parents have toward their beloved children--so strong that NO priest, NO Pope, NO ONE, will hurt their child and if they do, they will suffer their wrath.

Defending these filthy men who masaqueraded as holy men and wore the costume of the sanctified hierophant who actually was a conduit for the worshipped god, in order to pracdtice their perversion, is despicable.

for your information--I was born and baptized at the age of one week, into the Catholic religion and went through the entire parochial school system--grade one through four years of high school in an all girls Catholic school taught by nuns. I know the religion and find it absurd when it comes to the attitudes toward women--if not immoral, priggish and unethical.

It has nothing to be proud of at all. I am happy to announce that I would be proud to go to hell and converse with a Carl Sagan, or a Ghandi, or any one of the great atheist thinkers, than go to heaven and have to spend eternity with some pedophile abuser.

[Baltimoreboy]

142. I guess that explains why you aren't a priest

Because you "don't give a damn if they confessed or not."

I have no problem putting pedophiles in prison. I do have a problem with trying to force the church to take action when I can't formally know about the crimes because of the seal of the confessional.

As for the priests I am trying to defend, it's the many thousands who do good work and see to it that the Catholic Church is one of the world's largest helpers of the poor.

As for your view of heaven, I was always taught anyone can get there if they are sorry for their sins.

[TeacherCreature]

148. She's not a priest because she is a woman

and couldn't be one if she wanted. What the heck is that all about?

[Matilda]

140. I was taught that when I went to confession, if I confessed to a sin

that was also a crime in the eyes of the law, I wouldn't be able to
receive absolution until I had also made reparation for the crime I
had committed.

So that means that even if a priest confessed to the sin of
paedophilia, he couldn't receive absolution until he also confessed
his crime to the authorities and paid the penalty, as I understand
the situation.

I think that would also mean that while the confessor (presumably
the priest's superior) couldn't publicly reveal the crime if it
was made under the seal of the confessional, it would be wrong for
him to grant absolution, and he should take steps to make sure that
the priest was never again in a position where the crime (sin) could
be repeated.

If the priest just told his superior but not under the seal of the
confessional, there would be no reason why he shouldn't be handed
over to the police and charged.

[Baltimoreboy]

143. Not what I was taught

And I had a lot (sometimes too much) Catholic education.

Even if you are right, the seal of the confessional would still apply and the priest could go on with his service to the church unhindered.

As I said in another post, I fully support sending pedophiles to prison. I just oppose blaming the church for the problem.

[Matilda]

156. If someone committed murder, and confessed it to a priest

but said he had no intention of going to the police, the priest
couldn't and wouldn't give him absolution, because before there's
absolution there has to be genuine repentance. And if the person
has the intention of keeping quiet and avoiding accepting the
responsibility, then there's no repentance, and therefore he can't
be forgiven.

[TeacherCreature]

149. When teachers molest children

They aren't reassigned to another school with a slap on the hand.

[Baltimoreboy]

154. No they get a slap on the hand from the court

Mary Kay only got six months for raping a 12-year-old boy.

It took a second offense to get her more prison time.

[TeacherCreature]

161. was she protected from prosecution?

Did the school hide her in another district and tell her vitim to get over it?

[TeacherCreature]

147. wow, lots of extraneous side issues there

I think the Pope should mind his own business and I will make sure women are protected from his sicko politics.

[Tsiyu]

3. This Makes Me Laugh My Ass Off

Here are guys who refuse to even participate in that wonderful institution of DaddyMommyBabyBabyBabyBaby.......telling everyone else how terrible it is that other human beings are refusing to participate in the DaddyMommyBabyBabyBaby....thing.

And feminists created homosexuality? Damn!

This is too freaking hilarious. Just like what comes out of the White House. Pure unadulterated lies, lunacy and self-serving dogma that only a fool could support.

Yes, women. You are the evil ones, to blame for everything. The Pope says so....

[customerserviceguy]

36. You get the prize

buddyhollysghost said,

Here are guys who refuse to even participate in that wonderful institution of DaddyMommyBabyBabyBabyBaby.......telling everyone else how terrible it is that other human beings are refusing to participate in the DaddyMommyBabyBabyBaby....thing.

Now, I grew up Catholic (recovered from it, fortunately) and I hate it when other so-called "Christians" attack Catholic beliefs and practices, but this really summed things up! I always wondered what qualified Catholic priests to be experts on marital advice...

[Dem2theMax]

52. Boy, this is good news for Big Dog.

"Yes, women. You are the evil ones, to blame for everything. The Pope says so...."

Clinton's finally off the hook! ;-)

[Tsiyu]

54. Yes

Clinton's Penis has received Official Papal Absolution.

Cheney's Potty Mouth is next....

[leftchick]

4. I LOVED this part....

and I am Catholic too.... :)


<snip>
Emma Bonino, a former European commissioner and current member of the European parliament, said the Vatican was writing about a world that she said no longer exists.


"This letter could easily have been written by an imam of al-Azhar," she said referring to Sunni Islam's most respected institution of religious learning in Cairo.


"To be fair to the Catholic Church, no religion is a great friend of women," she told the Corriere della Sera newspaper. "They pay you a lot of compliments but when push comes to shove they ask you to stay in your place: wife, nurse, mother and grandmother."

[flamingyouth]

5. That last line is so true

It applies to the extreme wing of any patriarchal religion.:hi:

[lumpy]

7. Personally I love the role of

wife,nurse,mother and grandmother and I am all of those things. But when the going has gotten tough, which allowed my talents to expand, I have enjoyed the role of father, breadwinner, plumber, gardner, painter, gardener, electrician, economic decision maker, diplomat, peacemaker,while at the same time excersizing the role of wife and mother. I, as well as many many women, have excersized more talent than any man I have ever known. I admire men for their stengths and do not denigrate them at all. But as a woman I have experienced many more diverse talents. No man, included the Pope will, and never has, told me how to conduct my life or influenced my beliefs.

[leftchick]

9. well said lumpy....

and I agree whole heartedly! :)

[aquart]

10. Proverbs Chapter 31 This is what the Bible says:

A wife of noble character who can find?
She is worth far more than rubies. -10
Her husband has full confidence in her
and lacks nothing of value. -11
She brings him good, not harm,
all the days of her life. -12
She selects wool and flax
and works with eager hands. -13 CRAFTS
She is like the merchant ships,
bringing her food from afar. -14 EXPORT/IMPORT
She gets up while it is still dark;
she provides food for her family GOURMET COOKING
and portions for her servant girls. -15 CATERING
She considers a field and buys it; REAL ESTATE
out of her earnings she plants a vineyard. -16 AGRICULTURE
She sets about her work vigorously;
her arms are strong for her tasks. -17 WEIGHT TRAINING
She sees that her trading is profitable, ACCOUNTING
and her lamp does not go out at night. -18
In her hand she holds the distaff
and grasps the spindle with her fingers. -19
She opens her arms to the poor PHILANTHROPY
and extends her hands to the needy. -20
When it snows, she has no fear for her household;
for all of them are clothed in scarlet. -21
She makes coverings for her bed; DECORATING
she is clothed in fine linen and purple. -22 FASHION
Her husband is respected at the city gate,
where he takes his seat among the elders of the land. -23
She makes linen garments and sells them, RAG TRADE
and supplies the merchants with sashes. -24
She is clothed with strength and dignity; ATHLETICS
she can laugh at the days to come. -25
She speaks with wisdom, COUNSELING
and faithful instruction is on her tongue. -26 TEACHING
She watches over the affairs of her household
and does not eat the bread of idleness. -27
Her children arise and call her blessed;
her husband also, and he praises her: -28
"Many women do noble things,
but you surpass them all." -29
Charm is deceptive, and beauty is fleeting;
but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. -30
Give her the reward she has earned,
and let her works bring her praise at the city gate. -31 HERSTORY

The Bible discusses Martha Stewart. And praises her.

[NashVegas]

11. LMAO

That's wonderful.

[SemperEadem]

110. The operative word in this is " noble character"

most divorced men would agree that that little thing got past them in regards to their ex "ruby".

[Baltimoreboy]

13. You don't denigrate us?

"I, as well as many many women, have excersized more talent than any man I have ever known."

Sure could have fooled me.

Men and women are equal except when women want to say they are better than men. When men say it, it's bigoted. When women say it, they're liberated.

[lumpy]

14. Women have more diverse roles in life

than men do, out of necessity, perhaps. Nevertheless it is the truth. I do not denigrate men and I can't stand the Ms. forum. I am a mother of men and I have all respect in the world for their abilities which actually are quite diverse. They have been raised with the ability to care for a child, sew on a button, cook a mean stew as well as the ability to plumb a toilet or repair a car. You know why? Because I didn't discourage them from learning to do 'the womenly things'also. One thing also, they respect me for my abilities. In my mother's generation and the bulk of mine it was rare for 'real' men to change a diaper or do the dishes. Times have changed for many men who are now willing to do those womanly chores, especially since so many women have joined the work force out of necessity or desire for a career. I celebrate this advance in male liberation. If a man is around to mow the lawn, I have no problem if he wants the job, and I appreciate it no end. Congratulations, if you are liberated young man. Isn't it great ? Now if you could get rid of that uncomfortable tie you may be wearing. Hey, I love men, I envy their bodily strength, the bravery, the male role and the ability to pee without sitting down.

[Baltimoreboy]

16. No, women are no better than men

No worse either.

Men have diverse roles as well -- husband, father, son, brother, breadwinner (still that way in many families), preacher, cook, gardener, etc.

As for "womanly" duties. I learned how to sew, cook, do laundry, iron and other stuff -- from my father. He was much better at it than my mom.

[lumpy]

17. Sounds like you are complete man.

Does me good to hear this from you. I didn't want to express my opinion of women who have taken advantage of their 'liberation'; that's a whole other subject.

[aquart]

40. I delight in explaining "women's work" to my students.

The ones who think everything important was done by strong men in the saddle, with six guns or in armor or warning the British were coming.

Explaining what women's work was in the millenniums before electricity boggles their tender minds. Especially the bit about the many many many ways to kill a nasty husband....like not properly cleaning a wound......oh yes.

[Matilda]

65. I wish I knew how you did it.

If I suggested to my son that he learn to sew on a button, he'd
say he doesn't care if he's missing a button. And he doesn't
either, but I do - so I sew on the buttons.

[Darth_Kitten]

60. Yet when the church puts down women though, YOU defend them.....

come on, you say you believe men and women to be equal, yet you cannot defend women when the catholic church proclaims them to be lesser beings. Yet you defend priests because you seem to believe that everybody is calling them pedophiles when I see no such thing here. :eyes:

You must really not think much of women in reality because when women are openly scorned and put down you don't care, yet for any imagined slight against the catholic church you are out full force.

Interesting.......

[Eloriel]

66. Or any imagined slight against men

You're exactly right. Bah!

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

29. CLASSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!

:yourock:

"To be fair to the Catholic Church, no religion is a great friend of women," she told the Corriere della Sera newspaper. "They pay you a lot of compliments but when push comes to shove they ask you to stay in your place: wife, nurse, mother and grandmother."

[MichiganVote]

6. Love the Archie Bunker comment

Now hear this Pontiff, conservatives and other assorted flavors,

We're not going back so "shove it."

[bain_sidhe]

15. So speaketh the guy who ...

wears a dress, has never had heterosexual sex, and lives only with other men.

Ok, whatever. :eyes:

[Martha Cook]

18. Women are wrong

I dont understand. Isnt this what women want? They want womanhood to be respected. They also want to be equal. Radical feminists do not speak for all women. I know alot of women of color and white women who do not agree with the "I dont need a man" theory.


Men and women compliment one another. Men should be the best that they can be. Women should be the best that they can be. Mary is respected in the Catholic Church because she gave birth to Christ. ( I am not Catholic) . Motherhood is revered.




I dont understand what is wrong with respecting motherhood and respecting the work that women do outside of the home. I dont get certian women at time.

[alarimer]

19. the Pope is a sexist pig

All religions do this to some extent, but it is worse on the extreme fringes. Why anyone whould want to be part of any prganization that treats women as if they should only be baby-factories is beyond me. I despise all religions equally.

[Martha Cook]

20. Women are wrong

When I look at women in Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East they understand. They they understand the role of women as nurturers. At the same time they work to better themselves. You can have it all. Women in the developed world dont get it.

The pope is not sexist. Religon is not sexist. People need to quit running at the mouth and insulting religon.

[leftchick]

22. "nurturers" = subservients in most of those cultures you ....

give as examples. How quaint... :eyes:

[smirkymonkey]

27. Goodbye Martha!

Enjoy your trip back to Fantasy Land!

[JerseygirlCT]

31. I disagree heartily with you

Women in much of Africa, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East still live under highly restrictive, patriarchical systems that equate them to so much chattel.

Some, even many women are terrific nurturers. Some, even many men are too. Being a good nurturer should never limit you to that job.

Certainly parenthood ought to be far more valued in our society than it is. But relegating women to a particular role is just wrong.

Coming from an institution that resolutely refuses to treat women as anything but second-hand citizens, it's highly insulting. I don't want pretty speeches about how important my nurturing skills are and how highly valued motherhood is in the RCC. I don't want flowery comments about how important Mary is. When the Church starts ordaining women, talk to me about how much they value them then.

Until then, they're blowing smoke.

[jdj]

48. And even so

the cultures of Africa and Asia are so many and so diverse you cannot generalize, which just highlights the ignorance of the tombstoned poster. The reverse of jingoism is "it's better 'over there'" a kind of utopianism. Life on this planet seems to amount to a struggle for dominance and in humans a tendency to enslave and exploit less powerful subgroups, but there is an infinite amount of variation in how these patterns have eventually manifested themselves over the ages. In some societies it sucks for women, in some, not so much. In some ancient ages in some cultures it was actually better, in some worse, in some, better and worse, like the ancestors of the scythians who practiced brutal human sacrifice but had female priestesses (same with the Maya), or with the huns who were nomadic and conquest-focused but practiced polyandry. It's a cultural crapshoot, and a never-ending struggle for women. I personally think, despite the cave-man propaganda (that is now being debunked by anthropologists), that women were much more revered when life-span was shorter and the infant mortality rate was higher, and the earth was still full of predators before we climbed to the top of the food chain.

[Eloriel]

71. Oh, well said, JerseyGirl! Brava!!

There's not a thing I can add to that. ;-) Except perhaps to repeat my favorite line:

When the Church starts ordaining women, talk to me about how much they value them then.

[JerseygirlCT]

78. Thanks Eloriel!

I've been enjoying your posts, too!

[Darth_Kitten]

62. Right, women of the third world have every advantage over us.......

they know their place.... :eyes:

People need to quit running at the mouth and insulting WOMEN. Women kinda matter, ya know?? :eyes:

[Eloriel]

70. When religion stops hurting people in the name of God

we'll stop confronting religion on its sins and failings.

[leftchick]

21. Did you actually read the posted article?

you may find what is so objected to by Catholic women like myself in there.

[TeacherCreature]

41. What?

who doesn't respect motherhood?

[Eloriel]

69. Oh, dear, where to start.

Radical feminists do not speak for all women.

Actually, we do, in exactly the same way that Martin Luther King, Jr., for instance, spoke for all blacks including those who were afraid of his courage and leadership and his "rocking the boat." And in exactly the same way abolitionists working to end slavery spoke for all blacks, even those who weren't too eager to be free with all the NEW problems that would bring for them.

That said, there's no "requirement" for "all women" to take advantge of the freedoms and wider opportunities that came about because those awful radical feminists fought for them starting back in the late 60s. They can make attracting a man and getting married as their main or only real goal in life, the only outlet for their talents if they want to. They can buy into the myth (lie) that motherhood is actually respected by this society, and also the one that women are put on a pedestal (which helps make their chains less apparent) if they want to. They can participate in the sexual objectification of their bodies by posing for Playboy or working in the sex industry if they want to. Those bad ole radical feminists can't make them stop, prevent them from starting, or even wake them the hell up.

I know alot of women of color and white women who do not agree with the "I dont need a man" theory.

That's a shame. That means that think they "need a man" to be a whole person instead of, like men, being able to define themselves, think and act as independent, self-directing, adult human beings, of which an intimate relationship is merely a very important part of their lives. That means that if they don't HAVE a man, they'll likely think there's something "wrong" with them -- that they're inadequate, not attractive enough, whatever. That means that they'll make certain decisions and take certain steps just to attract a man so that they will have "proof" (esp. to themselves!) that they're "good enough" (marketable, basically).

That means they may do things that are contrary to their own best interests (like stay with an abuser, drunk or addict) in order to KEEP that man. That means that they devalue their own talents and believe the lie that they can't make it on their own, and so don't try because after all, if they just find the right man, they'll be whole and complete and their man will take care of them.

Most insidious of all, that means they'll also see themselves in competition with other women to "get a man" because after all, their self-worth and even their economic survival depends on it.

Of course, all that doesn't apply to each and every woman who rejects the radical feminist theory that women are people too. But it applies to a lot of women and worse, are the kinds of self-devaluing subconscious beliefs (also called "internalized oppression") that help keep individual women living self-circumscribed lives, and helps keep all women still seen as inferior in this society.

I consider myself a radical feminist (in case you didn't notice :-) )and am happily married (tho it took 2 tries including becoming a feminist between the marriages to give me the tools with which to choose much more wisely). No way do I define myself BY my marriage or my mate, nor would I feel somehow less than a woman if I weren't married.

It would behoove you to study feminism a little bit. Then you'd have a better understanding of what you wish to criticize.

[smirkymonkey]

25. LOL!

I feel the same way when I hear of couples attending pre-cana! What on earth can a celibate(supposedly), unmarried, sheltered from the world priest have to offer to couples about to enter matrimony?

Cheezus! The irrationality of it all astounds me. :eyes:

[struggle4progress]

28. Did anybody read the actual document?

I'm not a Ratzinger fan, but it seems only fair to read what he wrote before criticizing it.

http://www.catholic.org/featured/headline.php?ID=1201


While I'm not thrilled with it, it doesn't say that the world was a better place when women were regarded as men's property or anything similar.

[DemBones DemBones]

35. Of course not. They probably didn't read anything except

a headline "Pope Warns Feminists" before going on auto-spew.

Anti-Catholicism runs deep in this country and requires no thought, merely repetition of stereotypes.

[jdj]

39. We've heard it all before.

"Anti-catholicism"? Nothing gripes me more than when people (or children) who have been truly victimized are over-shadowed by people who cop victimization for no apparent reason other than because they can . This is the 21st century. There is no religion anywhere that could rape children and institutionally protect the predators that would not bear a permanent stigma from it. Cry me a river if you want, but I'll be crying for the children who didn't HAVE to bear the rapes of these predator priests if only the CAHTOLIC CHURCH wouldn't have protected them and looked the other way.

[struggle4progress]

43. Yes, the Catholic Church is imperfect ...

... and some of these problems finally ended my flirtation with Catholicism.

There is, of course, a natural and understandable tendency to mock moralists when they fail to live according to the standards they preached.

But most of the people I meet, including most Catholics, are fundamentally decent, even if they fail somewhat as saints.

To portray Catholicism simply as the story of the Church's ineffective response to a few rather unsavory priests is evidence of either ignorance or a deliberate intent to mispresent the facts.

The Catholic church is a large institution, and Catholicism correspondingly has many faces: in particular, it also has an important and attractive progressive face.

I regard a blanket condemnation of the Church and its members as evidence of prejudice.

[jdj]

45. Regard away.

I regard this as prejudice (you know, the real kind).

"It criticized feminism's attempt to erase gender differences, saying it had inspired ideologies questioning the traditional family structure of a mother and a father and making homosexuality and heterosexuality virtually equivalent."

Since this is a statement issued from the vatican, what facts are being "misrepresented"? I have no respect for anyone, specifically any adult, who puts the "reputation" and feewings of adults before the well-being of children. The church's years of obfuscation of it's sexual abuse epidemic are what made the bed in which it and it's members now lay. I will always be fighting for the children, and these whining, simpering adults who regard protecting themselves from shame as a higher priority than making sure children are not sexually battered need to grow the hell up and get over themselves. And the fact that you refer to the scandal as involving a few "rather unsavory" (how kind you are to the rapists!) priests, shows on which side your loyalties lie. Let me put it this way, who would Jesus protect???????????????????????

[struggle4progress]

51. You need not convince me that the Catholic Church ...

... has not sensitively addressed issues posed by women's continuing struggle for liberation. That is, in fact, one of the issues that finally kept me from joining the Catholic Church. And the sexual scandal was another such issue.

Certainly, nobody of sound mind, or having normal human decency, will defend child abuse. So I say again that most of the Catholics I have ever met would neither condone nor excuse such behavior under any circumstances. And if you take the view that our humanity requires us to provide special consideration to the weakest members of our society, including especially children, then I believe you actually have much in common with the majority of Catholics, who have been taught a social gospel providing precisely this view.

I do however note that, on the thinnest acquaintance, you are ready to proclaim on which side my "loyalties" lie. To me, it is precisely that quickness to judge which strongly suggests bias.

[jdj]

89. Go on with your bad self.

You said it.

A rapist is a rapist, not "rather unsavory". Perhaps you should re-read and edit your posts instead of whining about what WHAT YOU WROTE reveals about you after it is too late.

Your'e not getting my point. You can call me prejudiced, or you can call me biased, or you can call me Stan, etc, etc, ad nauseum. I don't care what a bunch of whiny adults think, especially when these whiny adults should be devoting their energies to making sure this never happens again, or in fact isn't happening at this moment (which I am sure it probably is)if indeed they are truly concerned about protecting the reputation of the Catholic Church, instead of defending the indefensible on a message board on the internet.

Have you REALLY and TRULY thought about what calling anyone who refuses to forget what the church did to these children biased, what that could mean for innocent children? You can either think about that, or you can jump on the pedophile bandwagon by trying to shut people up. I know liberals are supposed to be squeamish when confronted with accusations of prejudice, and immediately turn all wishy-washy and apologetic. Sorry, Mac. You picked the wrong liberal.

[struggle4progress]

96. Reflexively shrieking "rapist pedophile" as a Pavlovian response ...

... to "Catholic" doesn't really count as protecting children in my book: it may, however, count as smear politics, unattractively topped with self-righteous.

It is certainly fine with me if you plan never to forget that those ugly events transpired; it is even better if you take a concrete interest in real events and practical policies to prevent such crimes in the future.

You're not getting my point: I simply say it's unacceptable to broadly tar Catholics in this manner.

[playahata1]

50. ANY institution that disrespects women deserves to be censured.

And that includes the Roman Catholic Church. Why do you -- and a few others on this board -- equate legitimate criticism of church policy and dogma with "Anti-Catholicism"? The Church is NOT above reproach.

[Baltimoreboy]

56. Depends on how you do it

Many here insist on mingling their complaints with hate speech.

[Darth_Kitten]

61. Oh, I know hate speech and it is NOT here......

:eyes:

[Baltimoreboy]

84. Isn't that in the eye of the beholder?

Women are offended by the C word, many men are not.
Blacks are offended by the N word, many other races are not.
And so on and so on.

[Djinn]

109. Baltimoreboy, if the GOP produced this

would you be criticising it?

[Baltimoreboy]

119. Would the responses include anti-Catholic hate speech?

Like many of these have?

[Djinn]

127. hate speech I guess is in the eye of the beholder

I consider calling anti-zionists anti-semitic hate speech

[Baltimoreboy]

131. I didn't say they all were

Many are. Look around the world if you doubt me.

[Djinn]

135. and many priests

catholic and otherwise ARE peadophiles, look around the world if you doubt me.

Works both ways

[Baltimoreboy]

155. Actually, it doesn't work that way

The vast majority of priests do good work and don't molest anyone. The vast majority of anti-Zionists want to see Israel destroyed.

[Djinn]

157. wrong again

yes the vast majority of priests and nuns dfo good work - have worked with some in the past and they were great people - however MANY did molest kids and many many others covered that fact up.

And your statement that "The vast majority of anti-Zionists want to see Israel destroyed" is just more hyperbole, what you see as "destroyed" others see as a real democracy, also you stated that anti-zionists are anti-semitic which is a WHOLE other thing than "destroying" Israel - support of Israel is NOT required for Jews and many do not actually support it - are they anti-semitic?. This argument really isn't going anywhere you're just going to stick to YOUR bigotry while decrying other people for theirs.

[Baltimoreboy]

158. Hyperbole? Ask the large Jewish communities in the Arab world

Oh that's right, they don't exist? Why? They were chased out of there. I believe the popular term is ethnic cleansing.

A real democracy? Like where in the Arab world? Where have they embraced Jews as equal partners and not targets? Where would they share power? Or, let's be honest, they would make life so miserable that many Jews would leave and the remainder would be caught up in a civil war.

[Djinn]

159. pre Israel's establishment

Jews and Muslims lived peacefully together throughout the area, particularly in what is now Israel.

Either way you want to slice it -

"Most anti-zionists are anti-semites"

is as stupid, sweeping, erroneus and offensive a statement as

"MOst catholic priests are peadophiles"

[squidbro]

99. A little touchy are we?

Perhaps if the Pope were interested in truly following the Bible and improving the lot of mankind, he would garner more respect.

Why is it that the Catholic church always becomes political? Religion is a personal matter and one that shouldn't be subject to legislation.

Laws won't make an individual ethical. And if that person won't follow the laws as given by the Pontiff, it meant death at the hands of the church in previous ages.

When the church cannot even ensure the ethics of their own leaders (the priests), the Pope has no right and no privilege in telling me or anyone else how to live, and certainly should NOT be able to legislate his religious precepts into laws.

If anyone thinks that the Pope has no desire to legislate religious beliefs into laws, think again. The church did so with Galileo in the past and are more than prepared to do it again.

Why else does the Catholic church work to introduce legislation to outlaw abortion?

And would Malachi Martin in his well-written, although verbose book known as "The Keys to this Blood" be wrong when he states that the Pope's objective is the takeover of the world's politics and instituting a government run by the catholic church?

Let's be honest. The Pope has a religious-political agenda driven by a deeply held belief system. I believe it is wrong. The Pope believes it is right, however, and is acting on it. It's okay for him to believe it, but I have no desire living under a religious autocracy with the Pope as supreme leader (as the vicar of the son of God).

He is just a man like anyone else. He is not God's spokesman and his words do not have ultimate authority over my life or the lives of those who have no desire to follow him. I know he believes that his words have ultimate authority regardless, as do along with a number of other Catholics, but I do not and neither do a number of others. Martin Luther immediately comes to mind as one who rejected the Pope's so-called authority as the vicar of the son of God.

Let's not be deluded. The Catholic church has a political agenda to take over as the polical leader of the world with a religious mandate.

It is wrong. Just as wrong as if Osama attempted to do the same thing in the name of Islam.

If people have strong negative feelings about the Pope and the Catholic church, it is because they are deserved.

[Eloriel]

72. In my case, DemBones

the anti-Catholic sentiment comes from personal experience, having grown up in the Church. If that's not "thought" enough for you, tough.

[JerseygirlCT]

80. Well, I'm certainly not "anti-Catholic", although you could fairly claim -

I have an intense dislike for the current hierarchy in Rome. I don't mistake those crazy, bigoted old men (sorry, but how else to describe, say, Ratzinger?) for the Catholic church.

I was raised Catholic, my family is still Catholic, I spent 12 years in Catholic school. Being anti-Catholic would be like being anti-self.

Which is not to say that there are some very, very serious problems with the Catholic church. And for me, the biggest is its treatment of women. I do think that someday the people of the church will change that, with God's help. But change happens so very slowly with such entrenched organizations.

[Matilda]

67. This, I think, is pure Ratzinger.

He is an arch-conservative, and the report says it all: "The
Holy Father approved it after an audience given to Ratzinger."

In other words, Ratzinger thought it all up, wrote it, and got the
Pope's seal of approval. You wonder if the Pope even knows what
he's approving.

[Matilda]

68. It's actually a very well-crafted document, with good arguments

presented in the way only a very clever theologian can. As a
Catholic, I can see where he's coming from, and there are some
very beautiful passages.

If we take much of Ratzinger's chronicle of the role and status of
women at face value, it's hard to find a justification for the
Church's stand against women priests, and I think it comes down to
the attitude of many men to female sexuality. I'm not talking about
hatred so much as fear - the old fear expressed in the saying that
"a woman knows that a child is hers; a man only believes it is his."
That is why traditionally many societies and religions have tried
to limit women's autonomy - if a woman is kept housebound, if her
sexuality is treated as an evil and threatening thing, it's much
easier to keep her on a short leash, with the approval of the
society, and therefore her husband will be quite sure that his heir
is definitely his own. All the Christian churches have conspired
in the continuation of this legacy from Judaism, and it has also
become a source of male power within the churches, most especially
the Catholic church.

How else to explain the extension of concern with a woman's virtue,
both before and within marriage, to the flawed logic that she is
therefore unfit to exercise any spiritual office? Beyond the very
real fact that it would be extremely difficult for a woman to
combine marriage and motherhood with the very demanding role of a
priest, there is no logical or fair reason why she should not, if
she chooses to do so. If she feels she has the necessary physical
and emotional support, or if she chooses to renounce motherhood,
I can think of no earthly reason why she shouldn't - except that the
men are not going to give up their power that easily.

If you read Ratzinger's document in full, its arguments do fall down
quite noticeably at the end, when he tries to justify denying the
priesthood to the women he professes deserve love, respect, and
equality before God in every way except one.

[Crowdance]

74. Excellent post, Matilda!

Your reasoning rings very true to this former catholic.

[Eloriel]

75. Good post. Let me also point out that they're also afraid of

women's spiritual power. That's why they had to kill all those witches. And THAT, more than anything (tho they also don't want to give up their superior status as males) is why they are unlikely to EVER ordain women. Ordaining women would also remind them, I think, of their wickeness during The Burning Times. The very word itself -- "priestess" -- will never pass their lips.

[Matilda]

76. It seems extremely unlikely at this point.

But with ordinations declining in the West at a rapid rate, what
are they going to do when there are no more men being ordained?

The Vatican is currently floating a document called "Redemptionis
Sacramentum" which seems to be about taking the Church back to pre-
Vatican II days, and one of their major concerns is the involvement
of the laity not only in parish business, but in the liturgy and
the sacraments. The reality is, if the laity didn't play a greater
role than they ever have before, many more churches would be forced
to close down. The laity are simply taking over many of the roles
formerly the province of the parish priest and his assistants.

They're going to have to come to terms with allowing priests to
marry, or ordaining women. Preferably both!

[JerseygirlCT]

79. Although it seems at the same time, that they're trying to

limit the participation of at least some of the laity, even -- like female altar servers.

I think they'll do anything before they'll go for women's ordination. We'll see married men, we'll continue to see very little selectivity at seminaries... they'll go to almost any lengths to avoid having women play an equal role in the life of the church.

[SemperEadem]

111. dwindling ordination rates

that sort of parallels the Catholic Church in England back when the black death swept through in the 14th century... plague killed so many priests that extreme unction was allowed to be said by lay men and even women!!!!!! gasp!!!!!

[Matilda]

122. It also parallels the lot of women after World War II.

All over the world, women did the work of men in every field during
the war, and did it well, but when the conflict was over, it was
back to the kitchen.

And I think the 1950s was possibly the most reactionary decade in
the last century as far as the role of women was concerned. Why
did women let themselves be used this way?

[JerseygirlCT]

77. Nail on head...

And it's those little exceptions that get them every time.

I'm always amazed that they cannot see beyond themselves to recognize the bigotry that's just become nearly innate in the RCC -- and by extention in many other Christian churches.

I agree with you -- I do think, bottom-line -- it always comes back to the fear of women's sexuality and fertility. Both the idea that we can do something they never can (bear a child) and the idea, as you said, that paternity can be doubted. Control is necessary then, to stay in charge.

I'm now an Episcopalian, and I have had two female priests -- both of them married and mothers. They've handled the demands of the job quite nicely, I have to say.

I truly pray that someday the RCC will see the huge and horrible harm they've done to women over the centuries and will change their ways. I doubt very highly I'll see this in my lifetime.

[Matilda]

83. It may be forced on them, but it will take quite a battle, I think.

There's definitely a block of arch-conservatives in the Vatican
who are trying to turn back the clock, aided by the Pope's infirmity.
As mentioned in another post, getting rid of altar girls - that's
significant, because having boys serve was a way of familiarising
them with the ritual - getting them "warmed up" as possible future
priests. Can't have that happening with girls, can we? My daughter,
now 20, was one of the first altar girls at our church and loved
doing the job, but my son didn't want to know. I think that's how
it is across the board.

There's such a difference between Catholics who were raised pre-
Vatican II and today's Catholic teens and children - there is
absolutely no way that a young person today is going to accept all
the authoritarianism that went down in earlier generations.

If the Church doesn't keep in step, it's going to lose most of its
flock within the next couple of generations.

[JerseygirlCT]

100. I think you're right

I was raised in a pretty progressive parish. When the bishop said: no more altar girls -- well, our pastor ignored him.
Continued to do so on other matters, too. (Gotta love that guy).

If it weren't for the women, our large parish could never have functioned.

There always seem to be some people more comfortable with authoritarianism (see the GOP of today...), but on the whole European and US Catholics are not going to be dragged back into pre-Vatican II days easily. But since the current Pope has stacked the college of cardinals with his own (conservative) picks, I'd guess the next Pope will be just as conservative. Where the pull between the laity and the clergy happens will be interesting to see.

[Matilda]

101. I'm also lucky to be in a progressive parish, run by the Jesuits.

Our parish priest was very open to change, but he's now been
transferred, because he got up the nose of the extremely conservative
archbishop. But the new priest seems to be very open as well, he
just seems to be able to play the political game a bit better than
the previous one. That's what it's all about in the end - politics.

I think John Paul should have retired years ago - if he was head of
a multinational corporation - which the Church is - he'd have been
forced out. I think the Vatican heavies are having a fine old time
on his watch, dragging out all the old conservative values and
trying to take us back to the fifties. The Pope's drugged to the
eyeballs most of the time, and looks as if he doesn't know what day
it is. Very sad - for him, for the Church, and for us.

[jdj]

91. I would say that is is also about sexuality as well

and the struggle against it, and the fear of it, which is present in Hinduism which is older than recorded history, so it must have been around for a while. This disturbs me more than legitimacy of heirs really, which if one reads between the lines in the old testament seems to spring from the fear of interbreeding and breeding into an "ungody" race, if one believes,as at least christians do, that they can trace the bloodline of Jesus back to Adam. By 'this' I mean assigning sexuality onto women, which denies women full humanity, and it is this tendency that drapes women in long black veils when men in these cultures can't or won't or don't have to accept that sexuality is a thought in THEIR head, without the brain between THEIR ears, there is no boner, to be crude, no matter how many women standing around seductively displaying their ankles, or whatever cultural signal indicates sexuality. They make women the sex, or the sexual desire, and women bear this like Jesus bore his cross, it's a tragedy, really, to imprison women in such a limited definition. Culturally, in this country we escaped that definition in perhaps the 60's, no earlier.

[Matilda]

97. Remember - way back, in the Garden, when Adam and Eve got sprung

eating the apple, what did Adam do? He blamed the woman, first
chance he got. Seems to me that's where it all started.

Extraordinary isn't it? It's only in the past fifty years
that female sexuality has been "officially" recognised; until the
advent of feminist thinking on sex, all the woman was expected to
do was submit. And yet societies through the ages have always
blamed women when men misbehaved. Women were expected to dress
modestly, speak when spoken to, and keep their eyes downcast, but
when a man's sexuality got the better of him, it was always because
he had been tempted by the woman. It was so convenient, and because
men have the physical power, they could reinforce this attitude,
if necessary by beating the woman into submission. I'm sure it's
no coincidence that until very recently, men also had the financial
power to back up their authority - a woman's inheritance went to
her husband, she wasn't allowed to go out and work to earn her own
money, so she was always financially dependent on someone else.
And at no time in history did the Church speak out against this
injustice, rather they backed it to the hilt. Woman has always
been at once the victim and the supposed instigator of all sin.

Perhaps churchmen are victims of this prejudicial thinking as well,
having absorbed the attitudes of society and the Church - and the
churchmen of today who are making policy were raised in an age
predating feminism. But they are all highly intelligent and well-
educated, and there really is not much excuse for them not exercising
their intelligence in the direction of tolerance and humanity,
instead of reinforcing what is nothing less than blind prejudice.

I'm afraid that I'm often hard pressed to see any resemblance between
the Christ of the gospels and the church hierarchy.

[DemBones DemBones]

34. What a surprise! eom

[jdj]

37. I don't care if it does fuck everthink up.

We have been on the verge of blowing up the entire world for about 50 years now, so guess what? "Traditional" doesn't work.

And this claptrap about erasing differences...like all the other 'isms' feminism questions valuations, period, and tells people like the pope where he can stick them.

[Endangered Specie]

49. Let me get this straight...

Femiminism, the concept that women are equal - BAD
Fondling and screwing the alter boys - GOOD

[gatlingforme]

53. Isn't it funny that the Catholic Church can disapprove of Homosexual

behavior and yet that same behavior is prevelent in the seminaries?

[Baltimoreboy]

57. Isn't it funny that ANY active sexual behavior breaks church rules

for priests? Not to mention, rules against pre-marital sex?

[gatlingforme]

64. you are right about that.

[jdj]

92. It's tragically degenerate that these men who are supposed

to represent the pinnacle of honesty and goodness decide that to get around the rules they just need to rape children, because children can be scared to death, are easily bowled over by authority, and many times not believed in cases like these.

[Baltimoreboy]

103. I think psychologists would say they are sick

Personally, I don't think I would be so tolerant. In any case, pedophiles tend to be drawn to fields where they can ply their trade.

[Matilda]

105. They are sick - like an alcoholic who just can't say no to a drink.

But that the Church has protected these people for decades
(centuries?) and ignored their responsibility to protect the
most innocent of their flock is something I really can't understand.

The people at the top of the tree in the Church hierarchy are very
smart and well-trained - they knew exactly what they were doing,
and should be held to account as much as the individuals who
committed the crimes. Nothing can justify their actions.

"Whatsovever you do unto one of these, you do unto me".

[SemperEadem]

112. it goes even further..

they not only didn't protect and ignored, the predatory priest has the power to brainwash an impressionable, developing, innocent child with threats of eternal damnation if they didn't do as told. The destruction of trust, especially on that level, is what makes this so incomprehensibly heinous...

to impact a child's developing belief system in such an injurous way is beyond wrong; then to be able to disappear deep into the folds of the mother church's skirts, protected, shuffled from parish to parish with more young minds to destroy==all the while, the politico-priests, aka bishops and cardinals, are turning a blind eye to the offense because it's just too vulgar to think about or deal with is what folks can't stomach and won't stop speaking out against until the problem is dealt with in a satisfactory manner.

[Matilda]

113. I understand what you're saying, and saying "sorry" isn't enough.

I don't think even now that the hierarchy, closeted in the Vatican
and sheltered from reality, really comprehend just how much damage
has been done to the Church by these revelations. And damage
continues to be done - the offending priests or bishops should be
unfrocked (i.e. kicked out), whether or not they have to face a
civil court trial.

Until that happens, I'm afraid nobody can really believe that the
Church is dealing with the problem as they should, and the whole
Church will continue to suffer as a result.

That's a double tragedy, because there are many fine priests out
there, struggling to do their bit for humanity, but all are being
branded.

[Sahjhan]

58. This is why I'm not a Catholic.

[Mari333]

63. Read the Malleus Mallifecarum

If this book isnt a wake up call to the role of women in history in the Catholic Church, I dont know what it. I asked a priest if I could find this book at a Catholic bookstore and he was shocked I even mentioned the book...its a dirty secret
But its available haha at bookstores! All women should read it, the Witches Hammer, and how women were murdered and scapegoated by the church and the angry self loathing hateful old men who ran the church..
Men like St Paul and St Augustine and more, who hate women (because they hate themselves) with a passion...

http://www.malleusmaleficarum.org/

[jdj]

90. Which reminds me: this may be old news to some

but they are saying that the witch trials may have been related to behavior among townspeople both here and overseas, that was caused by argot poisoning of the rye that peasants grew. When immigrants came to New England, they grew rye in marshy areas, and the rye was poisoned. The woman spearheading the study (it was actually her graduate thesis in the 70's)has done timelines that show that occurences of the symptoms, which were apparently real and identical to the effects of LSD (or a bad acid trip for the unsuspecting)all mesh with years in which the weather was abnormally wet, contributing to an environment for the rye to become spoiled.)

So it appears as though we got a double dose of misogyny. First women were accused of witchcraft and tortured and burned, then women's characters were impugned for making false accusations and gossiping which lead to the death of innocents. It's okay as long as there is still a woman to blame somewhere I guess.

[Princess Turandot]

117. Interesting..

they were however mostly Protestants, I believe, not RC, so let's not mix up the two. Joan of Arc, you got us on..

[neverborn]

98. Kramer and Sprenger...

If there's a hell, these men are burning in the hottest fires of it.

NEVER AGAIN. NEVER AGAIN.

[ignatius 2]

73. Crazy women, back to the dark ages for thee!!! The Pope needs t

find a good nursing home somewhere.

It seems that religious zealots of all denominations have problems with thinking, productive women. Maybe they fear women could do it better..run the world that is.

[jdj]

95. Can it be said of the vatican, that like Bush,

they are just trying to mobilize their base?

Because it is so identical to what republicans in this country have done that it is creepy.

[Princess Turandot]

104. What I have a problem with is that ..

this paper prepared by the Vatican, presents virtually nothing new in their thinking on most of these issues. Yet it made headlines in so many newspapers. None of the articles that I've read about this bother to mention that the Vatican's view on gays, gay marriage and womens' roles in Catholicism is mirrored by many if not the majority of other religious sects in the world. I might be wrong, but I believe only reformed Judaism accepts female rabbis. Many Protestant groups do not have female ministers. Jewish women who are divorced cannot re-marry in their faith without a 'get' which is the written permission of their ex-husband. The Episcopalian Church in the US is on the verge of splitting into 2 groups over the ordination of a gay bishop. Orthodox and many Conservative Jews, many other Protestant sects and Islam are also anti-gay or anti-gay marriage, and many practioners of Islamic 'sharia' law think being gay is a reason to chop your head off. Yet it is the Catholics who get the bad press on most of these issues. I think that may be why some Catholics consider the coverage of Catholicism in the US to be 'bashing'.

I consider myself to be a Catholic, although I don't know if the Vatican would. I'm not anti-gay. I'm female but I do not believe that the Church views women as second class citizens, because it has not been my personal experience and because try as I may, I can't get excited over the male priest rule, perhaps because I've never wanted to be a priest. I think the Church's greatest failing vis a vis women and itself in general is its stance against birth control, although I don't believe that it is the Church's view which prevents easy access to birth control in the US: that's the province of the protestant religious rightwingers. Ironically, a change in the opinion of the Church on birth control might contribute to a sea change which would reduce abortions, which they see as a far greater evil. (I'm pro-choice, for the record.) As to influencing votes in America, I think the Vatican has long written off most US Catholics as being post Vatican II 'menu' Catholics, who take from religion what they want to, and I find it difficult to believe that they think sending out such missives will influence the vote in the US, much less change the even more important (at least to them) life practices of US Catholics.

As to the comments which have been posted in this thread about the deplorable actions of certain Catholic priests, and the cover-ups of those sins by some of the US bishops, I often wonder about something never discussed in these reports. If one could actually add up the amount of child or other abuse in the US over the last 4 decades by all other professions trusted with the care of children, such as teachers, sports coaches or even their own relatives,do people really believe that the rate of abuse would be substantially less, and that there have not been people along the way who have not acted in ways that some of the Catholic bishops have, i.e. passed the problem along to someone else?? Sadly, I don't think that Catholic priests are alone in this behaviour: I think they just happen to be a more quantifiable group. I don't say this to excuse the behaviour of the priests: in my mind it reflects how the media likes to cover Catholicism and point out it's failings.

[Matilda]

106. You make some excellent points.

I wonder if the pronoucements of the Church get so much attention
simply because its reach is so wide, and it's so powerful that (a)
it's an easy target, and (b) if by chance the Church ever did modify
its stance, it would really rock the boat as far as other Christian
religions are concerned.

I agree with you on birth control - it shocked all but the most
conservative Catholics at the time, because the advice of most of
the bishops at the time was that the Church's stand should be
relaxed, but Pope Paul VI went against all the advice. But obviously
most people made up their own minds, and they've been doing that
ever since. The worst result of that decision to my mind is the
current situation in Africa, where Catholic nuns on the spot want to
encourage the men, especially those who have had to leave their
families to move where there's work, to use condoms, because of
the enormous numbers of people who have HIV/AIDS, but the Church
forbids it. It's such a head-in-sand attitude, it defies
comprehension.

I've never had any desire to be a priest either, but it's really a
matter of principle, isn't it? It's like a carryover from the days
when the Church taught that women not only had smaller brains than
men, they had no souls either. It's time they admitted that women
really are fully-functioning human beings.

Welcome to DU, Princess Turandot!

[Princess Turandot]

116. Thank you for the welcome..You'll be happy to know this:

I worked for an order of nuns a few years ago, who do health ministery work in Africa and other places, and I know that while they do not publically announce it, they absolutely encourage the use of condems, not because of fear of pregnancy but because of fear of AIDS. They follow a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. I don't know if they give out condoms: that might make what they are doing too obvious and they would not want to risk a problem. While nuns are required to follow the rules set by the bishop in their archdiocese, when it comes to most things, they function as independent entities.
And where they do have the option of saying 'no' to something they do not agree with, they do so, even if it risks the ire of the local bishop.This group was very happy when a new bishop pulled into town, because the prior one couldn't stand their 'attitude', since they never did what he asked them to do, if it was optional. The kowtowing nuns of my days in Catholic school often were women who entered the convent out of the need for free support and education, and by the time they hit they hit their 50's, no longer wanted to be nuns. The nuns whom I have known in recent years, entered their organization already college educated,and did so because they wanted to provide service to people combined with a clear religious belief in the goodness of the message of J.C. Interestingly, while I truly never wanted to be a priest, I was pretty inspired about what these nuns did, because on a day to day basis, they helped more people than I think the average priest would, including a few things which were on the gray line re: civil legality.

I'm not sure why I've never felt the desire to become a priest. However, I'm also someone who was upset when NYC did away with its height requirement for police cadets, in part because they needed to do so to accomodate women. Maybe I'm sexist female, but if a cop has to bust into my apartment where someone is trying to kill me, I'd prefer him to be a 6 foot tall guy, not a 5 foot tall woman OR man.

A few years ago, I saw a program on TV about how the major news networks have already made reservations years ago, to use certain buildings in Rome to cover the death of John Paul II. (They all wanted the best view of the Vatican.) It was pretty bizarre.The shame of it is that all they will probably speak about are the US sex scandals, rather than talk about everything that he did.

[Djinn]

137. Also know of nuns

that work with prostitutes who distribute condoms, it's not surprising I guess that religious folk of all levels and stripes tend to be more realistic if they actually work with people in the real world rather than surround themselves with all the pomp, ceremony and toadies

[squidbro]

107. Perhaps if the pope wouldn't claim sole authority of all things religious

Perhaps if the Pope weren't so bold and presumptuous in his beliefs.

But, to be honest, most people aren't really Catholic bashing, they are bashing bigotry. As the Pope claims to be the supreme leader of the religious world, he naturally becomes the focus of vitriol and anger.

The Pope leads the largest body of religious people on the planet. While Islam has an equal number of members, they do not have a single speaker like the catholic church. If the pope were to moderate some of the religious bigotry, he, along with the church would gain much more respect. It would also serve as an impetus to the reform of other churches and religious groups apart from catholicism.

We cannot forget the atrocities of religious bigotry. Else we will witness the rebirth of the Spanish inquisition.

The rejection of popery is also not a rejection of all individuals who identify themselves as catholic. There are many catholics, including nuns and priests who are very decent and caring people. However, the leadership of the church needs to change the way they do things.

[Princess Turandot]

114. I'm not accusing this board of bigotry..

I'm saying that bashing Catholicism on the media is still politically correct, as far as I am concerned.The pope has actually done quite a few things against bigotry: he's appointed numerous bishops who are not causasian, and is the first Pope as far as any one knows to enter a synagogue, the one in Rome.He has engaged many other religious groups for inter-faith dialogues to an unprecedented degree. He is the Pope who has acknowledged that the Church should have done more during WW2 to help the Jews, I'm sure in part because he himself was part of the Polish resistance. I'm sure there are quite a few members of the Vatican Curia who wish that they had not picked a Pope strong enough to survive his shooting (by a crazy Muslim Turk, whom he visited and forgave in prison) because they have not been happy with his reaching out to other faiths and bringing more minorities into the upper levels of the church. He kept the thought of freedom alive in Poland, bringing courage to the Solidarity Movement there to stand up to the puppet Polish communist government. Poland was the first country to do that successfully, and I was shocked during the Reagan burial hoopla to hear a CNN commentator mention that the Pope had as much to do with the fall of communism as Reagan and Gorbachev, and probably more than Reagan did. He is the first Pope to condemn the death penalty and has tried to intervene in many executions which occur in the US and adamantly condemns war.(He did not condemn the Afghanistan campaign because he believed we did that to defend ourselves; he condemed the Iraq war because it wasn't the same thing.) Hell, he even believes that evolution makes sense, unless scientists reject the notion that at some point, an evolved human was given a soul, because he is too smart to thing that literal creationism is the answer.

He will not accept people being gay as the result of nature/God; I'm not defending that, it just is a fact of how he sees things.He isn't being bold and presumptious: no Pope prior to him had a different opinion. He does not however suggest that gays should be killed for their actions a la the long ago Spanish Inquisition or current Islamic Sharia laws. The Pope doesn't claim to be the sole authority in all manners religious in the entire world; his pronouncements are only intended for Catholics. The notion of Papal infallibility, if that's what you are referring to by any chance, is assumed under very specific conditions and has only happened once in this century, and was not done by this Pope.The radical right religious which is the source right now for mixing religion with civil matters would never by influenced by his views, since as you say, they are 'popery'. Most of his 'meddling' in civic affairs in the US have been diametrically opposed to what the radical right wants: no war, no executions, care for the poor etc etc.It's the radical religious right which stokes religious based bigotry in the US, not the Catholic church.

It would have been wonderful if this man of tremendous intellect had not turned out to be so conservative/traditional in some of his views. But they are views he inherited, not invented, and I think regretfully, will not all change until several generations of Cardinals have passed away.

[Matilda]

120. The truth is that now the Pope is so ill

you can never be sure what he's actually saying, and what the Curia
are saying for him. I have no doubt that the radical right in the
Vatican wait for him to have a bad day, and then get him to sign off
on something totally reactionary which is then put out in his name.

That's not to say that he doesn't have a brand of conservatism that
I for one don't share. I have read that he always thought that
Vatican II went too far in a progressive direction, and I think he's
done all he could to stall things. Now somebody is trying to roll
back the changes altogether, but whether it's all him, or the
conservatives in the Curia I wouldn't know. And I don't think he's
addressed the issue of paedophilia in the Church in the right way -
there's still a sense that protection of the institution of the
Church is more important than the care of those who've been
irreparably damaged.

As for female ordination - to base that on the Bible, and the fact
that Jesus didn't ordain any women (Mary Magdalene? Some gospels
say she was one of the apostles, but the Church has squashed those)
is a furphy - he didn't ordain any Africans either, or any Poles
for that matter. It's a pathetic argument, and unworthy of a great
institution.

[TaleWgnDg]

115. well, here it is straight from the mouth of the Vatican . . .

"(W)omen, in order to be themselves, must make themselves the adversaries of men. Faced with the abuse of power, the answer for women is to seek power. This process leads to opposition between men and women, in which the identity and role of one are emphasized to the disadvantage of the other, leading to harmful confusion regarding the human person, which has its most immediate and lethal effects in the structure of the family."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

My strong suggestion for all of us is to go to this url and print out a copy of this "LETTER TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
ON THE COLLABORATION OF MEN AND WOMEN IN THE CHURCH AND IN THE WORLD" authored by the Vatican. Read is closely. Read it thoroughly. Read it in its totality.

Then ponder its bedfellows, the "Christian 'Right'," the extremists in the Muslim faith, some Orthodox religions whether Jewish or Eastern Christian Orthodox . . . all of whom stand together impeding the rights of women and children around the globe. Much of whom march together in the U.N. against women's rights and that of their children, restricting access to women's healthcare issues including condoms and abortion information.

As a longtime practicing family law attorney, I've seen its devastation all too long . . . and know that our own U.S. Supreme Court hangs on a thread which can and will be cut if GWBush is re-elected as our president who nominates federal judges across our nation's courts including the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Mari333]

124. Patriarchy..a dying breed of old coots

they can all SHOVE IT.

[TaleWgnDg]

138. Mari333 . . .

old sage "saying" I've often repeated throughout my lifetime:

GET ANGRY! GET INVOLVED! GET ACTIVE! :bounce:

join some grassroots organizations . . . political too . . . volunteer . . . gather your like neighbors, relatives, co-workers . . .

and please remember that these are NOT "a dying breed of old coots;" instead, they sit in the white house, they sit all across the federal administrative agencies, in congress, they occupy your federal government's highest public "law office" (the Department of Justice, John Ashcroft and others) and have organizations funded w/ their efforts . . .

GET ANGRY! GET INVOLVED! GET ACTIVE! :bounce:

[happyslug]

144. Here is the actual document :

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040731_collaboration_en.html

The vatican Web Site:
http://www.vatican.va/phome_en.htm

[calimary]

146. And let's remember, an elderly, single man wrote this.

Someone who's been celibate most of his life, never married, has no children, and sure is qualified to know how women feel. I tell ya, as a Catholic, I am ashamed! Not to mention - utterly disgusted.

[Matilda]

150. For me, the disappointment lies in the fact that none of these men

have honestly examined their conscience.

One of the positives of confession (and this will be hard for non-
Catholics to understand) is the Examination of Conscience. Before
Confession, you're supposed to question yourself hard about things
you might have done that are "wrong" i.e. have damaged someone else,
or been detrimental to your spiritual growth. It's amazing how you
can kid yourself and make excuses for your behaviour, but you try
to be more honest and dig out those times when you really have been
less than you could be.

This is what I think they're not doing, from the Pope on down - are
they really asking themselves what lies at the root of their
objections to women taking their place besides men in every respect?
I do really believe it's fear, and the desire to control, but I
don't think any of them are acknowledging this, not for one moment,
and once again, it sets a bad example. More and more, I have the
feeling that there's one rule for the hierarchy, and another for
the rest of us.

[Skittles]

151. the pope's advice is good

for any woman who wishes to end up in a battered woman's shelter