babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Vatican: Feminism is dangerous

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Vatican: Feminism is dangerous
Gir Draxon
leftist-rightie and rightist-leftie
Babbler # 3804

posted 31 July 2004 01:02 PM      Profile for Gir Draxon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Modern feminism's fight for power and gender equality is undermining the traditional concept of family and creating a climate where gay marriages are seen as acceptable, the Vatican said Saturday.

Vatican Says Modern Feminism Dangerous for Family


From: Arkham Asylum | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 01:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
From Gir's link:

quote:
Ratzinger says the letter is meant "as a starting point for further examination in the Church, as well as an impetus for dialogue."

Shut up, Ratzinger. The Vatican and the Church hierarchy have no understanding of the word "dialogue", other than a talk-fest that will end only when everyone agrees with or is too tired anymore to dispute the Church's fore-gone conclusions.

Dialogue is not possible.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 31 July 2004 01:18 PM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You know what's really bad for families? Enabling and covering up sexual abuse of children.

Whenever I see bad stuff about the Catholic church though, I remind myself that it does also have a tradition of working for social justice, which inspired both Michael Moore and Dennis Kucinich.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 03:03 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Vatican and anyone in the Catholic Church, including any individual churches, priests, and parishioners who identify themselves with the Catholic church and are not not openly speaking out against this bullshit, can kiss my feminist ass.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117

posted 31 July 2004 03:16 PM      Profile for Debra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
These quotesa are from the Globe articleI think the first one speaks volumes.

quote:
It also warned of challenges to fundamentals of church teaching, saying the blurring of differences “would consider as lacking in importance and relevance the fact that the Son of God assumed human nature in its male form.”

quote:
In stressing that men and women are different, the document said, “From the first moment of their creation, man and woman are different, and will remain so for eternity.”

But it said the “temporal and earthly expression of sexuality is transient,” and cited Scripture suggesting that a married couple's existence in heaven would be celibate.



So in other words if you are a nice little catholic girl while here on earth you will be rewarded with no sex and will still be second class. Nice.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Debra ]


From: The only difference between graffiti & philosophy is the word fuck... | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 31 July 2004 03:22 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

"Recent years have seen new approaches to women's issues" including a tendency "to emphasize strongly conditions of subordination in order to give rise to antagonism," it said.

Sounds like a southern US senator in the days of segregation saying, "why are those uppity blacks focusing on their second-class status? It just causes trouble between the races."

quote:

The document is a booklet-letter to bishops by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Vatican department in charge of safeguarding and interpreting doctrine.

Ratzinger. Why am I not surprised?


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 31 July 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Hmm that used to have a different name a few years ago. The Inquisition

Fortunately, there is NO chance ratzinger would become pope after John Paul II


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 31 July 2004 04:12 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It doesn't matter. With the decline of the church in the liberal West, you will likely have reactionarier Popes from the more conservative ROTW.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 04:14 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Yep. It's going to get even uglier just before the end.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 31 July 2004 04:17 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The church is actually acting as representative of what it sees at its constituency. Even if it wanted to change, it's really in a no-win situation.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 05:06 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Bacchus:
Fortunately, there is NO chance ratzinger would become pope after John Paul II

I hope he does. The sooner the Catholic Church throws itself into total irrelevancy, the better. I can't think of a better way than to make someone who unapologetically and openly spouts the bigotry that the Vatican stands for into the Pope.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387

posted 31 July 2004 05:19 PM      Profile for Trisha     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Church teaches that it cannot change the rules banning women from the priesthood because Christ chose only men as his apostles.

This isn't entirely true. The twelve were the inner circle and all documents referred to men, as fit the times, but the bible speaks of women travelling with them without talking much of their roles until later, when John speaks of and to churches led by women. John didn't like women much, but he never put down these leaders or refused to deal with a church because a woman led it. That means there were women priests not all that long after Christ's day, maybe even during.

About the article, a lot fewer families are sending their children to become priests and nuns and the church is probably feeling the crunch. Families are also usually much smaller today than in my parent's time.


From: Thunder Bay, Ontario | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 31 July 2004 05:23 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To me, what the church does in governing its internal affairs is its own business. If someone doesn't like it, they can leave. But when they call for turning back the clock on women's rights, thereby entering the public arena, slapping them, or Inquisitor Ratzinger, down is fair game.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 31 July 2004 05:32 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
WOW did the Pope suddenly wake up from a coma. I saw this on the bottom of the news station scroll and I was like, is this one of those do you remember when? things...

I'm with Michelle the Pope can kiss my feminist ass.

Now I better go say 10 hail mary's or I'll burn in hell with Simone de Beavoir.


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 05:39 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Alright, that does it.

Look, I think it's completely appropriate to discuss issues about the Catholic church, but when it just becomes an opportunity for bashing, I draw the line. I would never hope for the decline into irrelevance of Islam or Judaism or the Baptists, or all the other belief systems in the world (...although, personally, that's where I think they're headed) and I certainly wouldn't be calling for people to kiss my ass, or for people who are not sufficiently vocal in their opposition to kiss my ass.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 31 July 2004 05:45 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For the masochists among us, here's the full text of this retrograde screed.
From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 31 July 2004 06:00 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hinterland I have no interest in debating with you whether or not my telling the Catholic Church to kiss my feminist butt is OK are not. I said it I stand by it - I think I have as woman every right to be angry.

But should have I expected more from a Church that is against abortion and the pill .. I doubt it.

quote:
The Church, expert in humanity,

Now that made me laugh so hard I couldn't read any further. EXPERTS in humanity. Who are they kidding.


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 06:03 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hinterland I have no interest in debating with you whether or not my telling the Catholic Church to kiss my feminist butt is OK are not

I didn't invite you to a debate. I said that if this is going to another thread where people start Catholic bashing, I'm going to say something about it. If you don't like that, too bad.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 31 July 2004 06:10 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, Hinterland the Church opens itself up for criticism. It sets itself up on the pedestal, and everyone of us have the right to discuss its failings.

I still harbour deep resentment for all the blasted eating rituals. My Granny would fast when it was very poor for her health.


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722

posted 31 July 2004 06:12 PM      Profile for Bacchus     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Plus the fact that Ratzinger could never be Pope. The various 'political parties' among the Cardinals does not have him anywhere as their poster boy, not even as a compromise candidate.

Try reading "The Conclave" for more details. A fascinating look at the various parties involved

A criticism is not the same as bashing

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Bacchus ]


From: n/a | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 31 July 2004 06:16 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
John Lennon had something to say about the irrelevance of religion..something like imagine there's no heaven above us only sky.... it's only a concept .
When the church engages in bashing the majority of the World's population, women, then they open the door to whatever comes back at them.
I have felt , since being a little girl and being first silenced and then kicked out of Sunday school for asking too many questions, that all churches could kiss my ass.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 31 July 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
When the church engages in bashing the majority of the World's population, women, then they open the door to whatever comes back at them.

Or let me see, (putting finger to chin) people with AIDS, gays and lesbians ..... the list is endless.


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 31 July 2004 06:20 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I would never hope for the decline into irrelevance of Islam or Judaism or the Baptists,

I would. Any religion that's based on the idea that God dictated a text to some chosen guy (and as we all know, it's almost always a guy) is suspect to me. I don't care whether you think the appropriate text is the Bible, the Koran, the Torah, or the Weekly World News, it's just a text, and to put too much stock in it is dangerous.

Now I grant that in all of the major religions there are good, decent, non-fundamentalist people who don't take those books as the literal truth. But if you've gone that far, why stop there? Presumably anyone who calls him/herself a Christian, for example, still has to give the Bible some privileged status, and once you admit that it's not the literal word of God one has to wonder why it's more important than, say, the Koran, or the works of Plato and Aristotle for that matter.

I think that humanity at large is realizing this too, because if I'm not mistaken the moderate churches are simultaneously losing ground to both secularism and to the fundies. And that's a good thing, in my opinion. I don't deny that organized religion has played an important role in the development of human civilization, but maybe it's time we got beyond such things.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 06:29 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I wouldn't. When changes occur too quickly and enough people think they're being backed into a corner, then the inevitable backlash occurs, which makes life difficult for everyone. This is what we're seeing with the Christo-Republican movement that's happening in the States (...and creeping into Canada), the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and the backlash against feminism. Not only that, but the resentment inherent in this kind of social upheaval is manipulated by the powerful to maintain their positions of privilege.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Look, I think it's completely appropriate to discuss issues about the Catholic church, but when it just becomes an opportunity for bashing, I draw the line. I would never hope for the decline into irrelevance of Islam or Judaism or the Baptists, or all the other belief systems in the world

I would, if they were hierarchical, top-down organizations run by men, who make anti-feminist, homophobic bigotry official church policy that everyone affiliated with the official church must promote.

I hope the Southern Baptist Convention's bigotry makes them decline into irrelevancy. I hope fundamentalist sects of Islam who preach hatred against women and gays decline into irrelevancy. I hope Mormon churches affiliated with the main Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Saints, who preach misogyny and homophobia declines into irrelevancy. If there are orthodox Jewish sects that oppress women and gays, I hope they decline into irrelevancy.

And I hope that the Catholic church, run by misogynists and homophobes in the Vatican, and those who affiliate themselves with churches that follow the Vatican's teachings, declines into irrelevancy.

As for my comment about people who are active members of the Catholic church, publicly identify themselves as Catholic, but don't speak out against the bigotry that their leaders espouse - I said that because I knew if I didn't add that in, people would come up with all sorts of examples of Catholics who belong to the church but are actively trying to change things, and who speak out against the oppression advocated by the church. Those are not the people who can kiss my feminist ass.

I think that if you're going to publicly affiliate yourself with an organization that has mysogyny and hatred of gays and lesbians as part of their mandate, then yeah, I think you do have a responsibility to speak out against those things publicly. And if you say you subscribe to a belief system whose core principles include homophobia and misogyny, and you don't specify that you don't believe in those things, then yeah, I think it's reasonable to assume that you either believe in those things, or by staying silent and acquiescent, you are supporting those things with your presence.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Michelle ]


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668

posted 31 July 2004 06:34 PM      Profile for Agent 204   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
I wouldn't. When changes occur too quickly and enough people think they're being backed into a corner, then the inevitable backlash occurs,

Interesting point, but I think the key phrase in your post is "too quickly". I still think scripture-based religion is something we should evolve beyond, even if we must do it slowly.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Mike Keenan ]


From: home of the Guess Who | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I said that because I knew if I didn't add that in, people would come up with all sorts of examples of Catholics who belong to the church but are actively trying to change things, and who speak out against the oppression advocated by the church.

And you didn't want people to come up with examples of that? Why? Because you've heard it all before, or it's not what you want people to post, or...what?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 31 July 2004 06:39 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well said Michelle. I should change my post, but instead I will post a correction. The VATICAN can kiss.....

Also not only all the things Michelle said, but the Church as we have just witnessed holds itself up as being the experts on humanity. If you are going to do that as an organization everyone has the right to criticize you - especially when you are soooo wrong.

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: kuba ]


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 06:42 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No. Because I didn't want people to think I was including those Catholics who fight against the injustice promoted by the Vatican in my invitation to kiss my feminist ass. I included that because I didn't want people to misunderstand and think I was bashing all Catholics. I'm only bashing the misogynist and homophobic Catholics. In other words, the Vatican, churches affiliated with the Vatican that promote and do not counter misogynistic and homophobic teachings, priests who promote and do not counter misogynistic and homophobic teachings, and individuals who publicly identify themselves as active Catholic Church members who do not speak out against misogynistic and homophobic doctrine.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 06:49 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Then, I completely misunderstood that Michelle. I looked seriously at that post, and I was trying to figure out who exactly you were excluding. It wasn't clear to me.
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 06:50 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's possible that I didn't express myself clearly enough. I tend to froth a bit when I get on the subject of those idiots in the Vatican, and the people who support them. Which is, unfortunately, far too many people. All of whom can...well, you know.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 31 July 2004 07:32 PM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As a male who heartily supports feminism, I hereby add my ass to Michelle's and Kuba's.

Let's make it a gender-balanced ass-kissing, just to piss 'em off.

Hopefully, the majority of Catholics will take this archaic edict about as seriously as they take the Vatican's official policy on birth control.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 08:10 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Hopefully, the majority of Catholics will take this archaic edict about as seriously as they take the Vatican's official policy on birth control.

Hopefully? Is there any serious doubt? And if they don't take it as seriously as you think they should, they should kiss your ass, right? I still think there's a problem here.

Maybe I'll start a thread on Muslim apostasy, or the role of women in Orthodox Judaism and ask all of those adherents to "kiss my ass".

[ 31 July 2004: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, as long as you're only including those Muslims or Orthodox Jews who advocate misogyny or homophobia, I'll join you!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 31 July 2004 08:12 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
Are you daring me?
From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 31 July 2004 08:25 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No!
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Melsky
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4748

posted 31 July 2004 09:22 PM      Profile for Melsky   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by beluga2:

Hopefully, the majority of Catholics will take this archaic edict about as seriously as they take the Vatican's official policy on birth control.

I think anyone who takes this seriously is not a feminist and likely never would be one.


From: Toronto | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 31 July 2004 11:19 PM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I opbject to most strenously is that all of the worlds ills as they see it (homosexuality,break down of the family structure) is now our fault. What just because I demand to be treated as something other than a second class citizen I am creating the ills of the world as they see it?

This is just bloody typical. blame the woman, who is going to stand up and tell them all to blow it out their butts? No one! This just propogates domestic violence reaffirming the right of the man to dominate and beat his chosen slave, bound to him by holy matrimony.

They should have a creed like doctors that above all do no harm. if they can't then they should keep their mouths shut. and that goes for their stance on birth control and homosexuality too.


From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 31 July 2004 11:44 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm going to play "Church's advocate" like I did on a thread I started regarding homosexuality and the NDP that was never...consummated. So forgive me.
quote:
What I opbject to most strenously is that all of the worlds ills as they see it (homosexuality,break down of the family structure) is now our fault. What just because I demand to be treated as something other than a second class citizen I am creating the ills of the world as they see it?
If your goal is that a particular Normality exists that you view as Inherently Good, then what do you do? You focus on what challenges that Normality. Anything that challenges that Inherently Good Normality is by definition the greatest Harm, right?

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 01 August 2004 01:00 AM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
If your goal is that a particular Normality exists that you view as Inherently Good, then what do you do? You focus on what challenges that Normality. Anything that challenges that Inherently Good Normality is by definition the greatest Harm, right?

In a knee-jerk world yes. but just because the horse got out of the barn and kicked over the gas can which hit the smoke house, sending everything up in flames doesn't mean that horses getting out of the barn is bad or evil.

If the whole of the system or ideology is based on respect of all living creatures, (I might be in error assuming that is a tenent of christianity) then repressing one only makes the eventual backlash that much stronger.

Homosexuality has been around longer than the Church, just becuase they refuse to see it doesn't mean it wasn't there. but that doesn't mean they can blame feminists with it, its a non-sequitor.

any ideology that professes to love one another (but keeping the little wifey in line by beating her once a week) is hypocritical.

[ 01 August 2004: Message edited by: exiled_armadillo ]


From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 01 August 2004 02:20 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In a knee-jerk world yes. but just because the horse got out of the barn and kicked over the gas can which hit the smoke house, sending everything up in flames doesn't mean that horses getting out of the barn is bad or evil.
But in this case, the horse chose to deliberately kick over the gas can onto the smoke house (I don't know what a smoke house is...). They said it was "dangerous", btw, not "evil." That is, the ideology is like an unsecure barn. Actually, I don't think this analogy works at all. They're saying that the ideology necessarily leads to the situation where the Inherently Good Natural Order is Harmed, and thus must be treated with great caution in order to minimize the Harm.
quote:
If the whole of the system or ideology is based on respect of all living creatures, (I might be in error assuming that is a tenent of christianity) then repressing one only makes the eventual backlash that much stronger.
Respect for all living creatures...in their Natural Place. This requires that all living creatures remain in their Natural Place. Anything that exists in its Natural Place is by definition not repressed. Anything that leaves its Natural Place (or causes it to leave) is thus Harmful, and no longer deserving of respect. This is how they see it. The problem is that most of us have decided that "Natural Place" doesn't really mean anything, but to them its fundamental.
quote:
Homosexuality has been around longer than the Church, just becuase they refuse to see it doesn't mean it wasn't there. but that doesn't mean they can blame feminists with it, its a non-sequitor.
It doesn't matter whether or not an Intrinsically Disordered (their language) state was always there; the question is whether it is recognized as Normal. Normal things can only be those that exist in the Inherently Good Natural Order; anything else is the disordering of Normality. Thus, feminism is being blamed for making something Intrinsically Disordered (even assuming it always existed) into something Normal. This is even worse than something leaving its Natural Place; it is denying Natural Places and setting the entirety of human society into Disorder, which is defined as Harm.
quote:
any ideology that professes to love one another (but keeping the little wifey in line by beating her once a week) is hypocritical.
They never advocated beating. This is unfair.

[ 01 August 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 01 August 2004 03:26 AM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But in this case, the horse chose to deliberately kick over the gas can onto the smoke house (I don't know what a smoke house is...). They said it was "dangerous", btw, not "evil." That is, the ideology is like an unsecure barn. Actually, I don't think this analogy works at all. They're saying that the ideology necessarily leads to the situation where the Inherently Good Natural Order is Harmed, and thus must be treated with great caution in order to minimize the Harm.

First off the natural place for a horse is not in a barn. That would mean that you are arguing that a womans place is to be a second class citizen. There were matriarchical (sp?) societies before there were partiarchical societies, so who can reasonably say which is right or natural.

quote:
Respect for all living creatures...in their Natural Place. This requires that all living creatures remain in their Natural Place. Anything that exists in its Natural Place is by definition not repressed. Anything that leaves its Natural Place (or causes it to leave) is thus Harmful, and no longer deserving of respect. This is how they see it. The problem is that most of us have decided that "Natural Place" doesn't really mean anything, but to them its fundamental.

Second we are arguing against the age old belief that it is acceptable to treat women like chattel. Women are not possessions and they only way for them to remain in the natural place you have selected for them is for them to be considered less than men or second class. I mean it might be different if we were as stupid as a plow horse or an animal that doesn't have the capacity to reason, but we do.

quote:
It doesn't matter whether or not an Intrinsically Disordered (their language) state was always there; the question is whether it is recognized as Normal. Normal things can only be those that exist in the Inherently Good Natural Order; anything else is the disordering of Normality. Thus, feminism is being blamed for making something Intrinsically Disordered (even assuming it always existed) into something Normal. This is even worse than something leaving its Natural Place; it is denying Natural Places and setting the entirety of human society into Disorder, which is defined as Harm.

This is still lays the blame on feminism and women. Who is to say that since homosexuality pre-dated feminism that society being aware that there were some people who weren't what the church considered "normal" didn't provoke people to realize that some of us are different and that just because they say something is natural that it isn't.

quote:
They never advocated beating. This is unfair.

What does fair have to do with it? I was told that if I was to be a proper christian wife, that I should submit to my husband. This from our priest and two different christian (penecostal) and one catholic counsellor. I also have (some where in the cobwebs of my house) an article that supports this. The pressure on women to submit is incredible. My family ostracized me because I would not submit to being beaten. is it fair of them to expect me and other women to submit to this? do you think its natural to submit to a man who is throwing kitchen tables at you?

This is what they see as the natural way of things. but there is nothing natural about beating your spouce. Its in inhumane and cruel beyond, and if feminism is creating a change so that women realize they don't have to put with this, I say more power to them. Did you see the article about the guy in the phillipines last week that nailed his wifes mouth shut and beat her to death? the neighbours didn't think anything of it because beating your family is common place there.

[ 01 August 2004: Message edited by: exiled_armadillo ]

[ 01 August 2004: Message edited by: exiled_armadillo ]


From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 01 August 2004 04:10 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I should note that I myself am not arguing this on my own behalf. I am doing you all a Great Favour and arguing the "Church's advocate" case so that this thread is not an echo chamber on a very interesting aspect of this topic. With that disclaimer:
quote:
First off the natural place for a horse is not in a barn. That would mean that you are arguing that a womans place is to be a second class citizen. There were matriarchical (sp?) societies before there were partiarchical societies, so who can reasonably say which is right or natural.
Fine, wherever the Natural Place for a horse is. Note that the Church believes that the Natural Place for animals is wherever humans put them, humanely of course.

As for matriarchal societies, I myself am not convinced of this claim, as I understand that the interpretation of the archaeological evidence is quite subject to dispute.

quote:
Second we are arguing against the age old belief that it is acceptable to treat women like chattel. Women are not possessions and they only way for them to remain in the natural place you have selected for them is for them to be considered less than men or second class.
Nothing in its Place is second-class. All Places are equal in Moral Weight. This discussion of second-class can only begin when you reject the need for the acceptance of Place. The Church (probably correctly) believes that feminism fundamentally leads to a rejection of the notion of Place, and hence the Church advocates a return to a society containing a belief in the metaphyical equality of Places and hence their acceptance.
quote:
This is still lays the blame on feminism and women. Who is to say that since homosexuality pre-dated feminism that society being aware that there were some people who weren't what the church considered "normal" didn't provoke people to realize that some of us are different and that just because they say something is natural that it isn't.
It may have provoked some people to think tht homosexuality is Normal, but they would never have said it, because the overall climate would have contained an assumed belief in Place. If one believes that men and women have a particular Place, then "some of us" can't be "different" in those dimensions, and the Church clearly believes if there are people who really are different, then since sexuality is a volutary behaviour, they should suppress this difference in order to maintain the overall Natural Order of society. To the Church, the order is paramount goodness.
quote:
This is what they see as the natural way of things. but there is nothing natural about beating your spouce. Its in inhumane and cruel beyond, and if feminism is creating a change so that women realize they don't have to put with this, I say more power to them. Did you see the article about the guy in the phillipines last week that nailed his wifes mouth shut and beat her to death? the neighbours didn't think anything of it because beating your family is common place there.
We are talking about the official policy and statements of the Church. From this Holy See we have never seen a statement legitimizing wife-beating. It is not the fault of the Pope that individual, low-level Catholic officials give advice that has not been prescribed by the Church. Isn't it?

[ 01 August 2004: Message edited by: Mandos ]


From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 01 August 2004 04:31 AM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
There are subjects I am sure they weight in on and others they don't. they know that their membership is falling, they are stuck between a rock and a hard place becuase like all black and white, all or nothing philosophies if they change it even a little that opens the door for other change.

they have a hard enough time weighting in on the subjects they are willing to tackle. There isa diosces (sp?) here in New Westminster taht thinks there is no problem with homosexuality. If Christ the founding father of christianity can forgive and eat with beggars, walk amongst leppers then why can't they tolerate homosexuality?


The barn in my analogy is a man-made construct as is "womans place". In the story about the phillipines they see their behaviour as part of the natural order, but does that mean it is right? is just? and should we preserve something just for that reason?

The pope himself is staunchly against birth control. This causes all the catholics in africa, which has been struggling with aids for years, to spread this disease becuase the leader of their faith, the pope, says using any kind of contraception is bad.

this also results in lots of kids in each family, they don't have enough to feed them becuase of famine and they eak out their lives in the worst hell hole on earth. is this the natural order of things? is this right?

so I am sorry to say but with me at least the catholic church has no more moral right to make these pronouncements than George W Bush.

If there is a god and a final judgement day... i'm glad I'm not them.
P.S. I'm not feminist either I just agree with the concepts (what little I know of them)


From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 August 2004 07:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
am doing you all a Great Favour and arguing the "Church's advocate" case so that this thread is not an echo chamber on a very interesting aspect of this topic.

Mandos, what your whole "church advocate" thing breaks down to is, they have a completely different world view about the kind of order that should be in place in society.

Believe it or not, we already knew that this was the problem and the difference in opinion that we were having with the Catholic church. Basically, you're stating the obvious as though it were profound. Feminists have been struggling against these oppressive views of "normalcy" for decades now. Hell, for over a century now! Shockingly, feminists don't need a man to condescend to do us any "great favours" by telling us what we already know. We are experts at recognizing institutionally-enforced "normality". That is what we've been calling "the patriarchy" and "compulsive heterosexuality" and other fun buzz phrases like that, from the very beginning.

We understand the world view behind it. We just find it repugnant. Which is why we speak out against it as we do. You can play "church's advocate" if you want to, obviously, but please, enough with the condescending attitude that you're doing it as a favour to enlighten us about where the difference of opinion comes in. We already know that.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 August 2004 09:05 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wot Michelle said, at least in her direct address to Mandos. I feel that Mandos is falling for the old fallacy that we cannot have a balanced debate, or a debate at all, unless we have opposed viewpoints that we treat equally. Horsefeathers. There are many viewpoints opposed to mine that I don't feel I have to think about for two seconds -- a defence of slavery would be one, eg, and a defence of torture a second.

Wot Hinterland said earlier as well, though. To me, the Catholic church, like all churches, is Catholics, and many of the church doctrines that would deny that view are in fact very recent and clearly corrupt inventions -- "infallibility," eg, is a C19 doctrine. Catholic philosophical traditions are old and diverse and complex and often brilliant, unto the present day (as are those of the other major religions); I know next to nothing about them, only enough to be humbled by my own ignorance, especially when I meet a Jesuit.

I also don't like demanding from anyone a standard denunciation of anything: that looks to much to me like the flip side of a loyalty oath. I'm sure the world is full of lovely Catholic souls who don't believe the misogynist shit but who also are not inclined to make public statements about political and sociological issues. Yay freedom and independent thought.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 01 August 2004 12:20 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You can play "church's advocate" if you want to, obviously, but please, enough with the condescending attitude that you're doing it as a favour to enlighten us about where the difference of opinion comes in. We already know that.
That's why there was a winkie there.

From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 August 2004 12:30 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Michelle wrote:
I think that if you're going to publicly affiliate yourself with an organization that has mysogyny and hatred of gays and lesbians as part of their mandate, then yeah, I think you do have a responsibility to speak out against those things publicly.

This is, i think, completely right. And those still, small voices are there. Not enough yet, but i truly believe that more and more they are there.

Otherwise, have to agree that until Ratzinger and the Pope (who, for all the good that he does when he speaks up against war and the social injustice inherent in capitalism, is complicit in mass murder by the way he refuses to let condoms be used for the prevention of AIDS) learn the meaning of the word "dialogue" and implement it in the church by being able to listen as well as pontificate, they should shut the hell up.


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
tully s
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6445

posted 01 August 2004 01:10 PM      Profile for tully s        Edit/Delete Post
not only are they 40 years late with this but in 2004 they decide to respond to an outdated version of north american feminism. they suggest "cooperation" between genders not "competition". well competition may have been a part of it for some feminists a couple of decades ago, but not anymore. we have long since moved from equality (we can do everything you can) to equity (we do different thing but ours are not any less worthy than yours).
as for Ratzinger becoming pope and sending the RC church into the land of the forgotten - sounds like my friend who recently said she hoped for W Bush to win the upcoming election. for those very same reasons....

From: left of centre | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 01 August 2004 01:25 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

I also don't like demanding from anyone a standard denunciation of anything: that looks to much to me like the flip side of a loyalty oath. I'm sure the world is full of lovely Catholic souls who don't believe the misogynist shit but who also are not inclined to make public statements about political and sociological issues. Yay freedom and independent thought.

Right on Skdad:

My mom still identifies herself as "Catholic", mostly for the community of folks/choir etc. That said, I don't think she'll even notice this silliness coming from the Holy See ...

I notice that about many individuals who still identify themselves as Catholic.... they're exceptionally good at puttting on the horse blinders on and still being good people, depite what their church tells what they're supposed to believe.

What's the strategic thinking behind this silly edict? Is there enough 'anti-feminist' sentinment with Catholic women to make this successful [and not further alienate people like my mum]?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 August 2004 01:45 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I notice that about many individuals who still identify themselves as Catholic.... they're exceptionally good at puttting on the horse blinders on and still being good people, depite what their church tells what they're supposed to believe.

Sorry, but if those people are publicly supporting and identifying themselves with a church with homophobic and misogynistic beliefs, without speaking out against the repugnant things their church stands for, then I don't have any more respect for them than I would with a "basically nice person" who belongs to the Heritage Front but doesn't really know much about their anti-semitic or racist values.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 01 August 2004 02:36 PM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maybe part of the problem is the Vatican sees itself at the head of a family, but most people in the church see themselves as part of a community. Most people are dissenting by ignoring the pronouncements of Rome, rather than by protesting against them. Those are still voices of dissent, though.

This is not meant to prove anything, just out of interest: Australia's commissioner on sexual discrimination praises Vatican document

Critics within the church call Vatican statement "ridiculous"


From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 August 2004 03:01 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A good socialist would also note that there are what liberals euphemistically refer to as demographic problems -- ie, the majority of church members are now, I believe, in third world countries, and those congregations tend to be more conservative than Western European or North American congregations. (There are exceptions.)

Thus, the ancient European church finds itself with a pope who is an old Cold Warrior, fronting a church whose majority are the oppressed masses of impoverished states.

It is all very well for middle-class North Americans to rail against the social conservatism of the RCs, and there is much more to rail against, I should think, in their financial dealings. None the less, on social issues, they face some complex problems. The African church in particular, I believe, is radically conservative, and its numbers are huge.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lagatta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2534

posted 01 August 2004 04:15 PM      Profile for lagatta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes. The situation is more complex in Latin America, where Liberation Theology types were active in the Brazilian PT and MST and many other important progressive movements (Heloisa Helena, one of the most left-wing PT parliamentarians, was from this milieu). Though there are also right-wing Opus Dei-type Catholics, who were very influential in the military dictatorships of Brazil and the Southern Cone states... The hard-right fundamentalists in Latin America tend to be Evangelicals, heavily influenced by fundy churches in the US.

Michelle, scathing as I am about the Pope and the teachings of the Church, I don't really see my relatives who still attend mass (but who would all consider the Pope's latest statement to be hogwash) in the same light as Heritage Front members. For a lot of people it is more about their faith in God and the social milieu church provides than pondering holy writs. People who join the Heritage Front do so out of ideology.

[ 01 August 2004: Message edited by: lagatta ]


From: Se non ora, quando? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478

posted 01 August 2004 04:57 PM      Profile for Panama Jack     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:

Sorry, but if those people are publicly supporting and identifying themselves with a church with homophobic and misogynistic beliefs, without speaking out against the repugnant things their church stands for, then I don't have any more respect for them than I would with a "basically nice person" who belongs to the Heritage Front but doesn't really know much about their anti-semitic or racist values.

Well... I personally put a distinction between people who publically support the clergy-hierarchy vs. those who self-identify themselves as part of the "Catholic community". It's hard to completly deny yourself your cultural heritege, even if you fundalmentally disagree with many of its tenants.

Unfortunately, the RC's greatest strengths (in terms of doing social "good") is also it's greatest weakness, as it makes it prone to covering up shameful acts and attitudes that will probably persist for a long time [I think anybody who seriously thinks the RC Church is going to wither away into complete obcurcity is DREAMING, far too powerful politically and culturally... ]

It's sort of analogous to painting all "American patriots" with the same brush -- one can protest Imperialist actions of the State without having to advocate that states (or institutions in this case) complete destruction.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 01 August 2004 05:50 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Didn't the Vatican say there was no sex in heaven?

How about hell? I think that will be my aim in life as I am already a member of BWAGA.


From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 01 August 2004 06:31 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No sex in heaven. Not exactly a selling point!
From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 August 2004 08:52 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know, tell me about it. Hey, I can't wait to get to heaven, where I don't get to have SEX anymore!

And here I was thinking paradise would be as much sex as one desires without having to worry about AIDS or birth control.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
clersal
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 370

posted 01 August 2004 08:55 PM      Profile for clersal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I guess hell is our answer. At least it will be warm.
From: Canton Marchand, Québec | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389

posted 01 August 2004 11:49 PM      Profile for exiled armadillo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah and the conversations will probably be more interesting1
From: Politicians and diapers should be changed frequently and for the same reason | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 02 August 2004 12:52 AM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Has anyone here seen the Magdalen sisters? Very disturbing movie. Ireland certainly seems to have come a long way, at least in terms of women's rights.
From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 02 August 2004 02:34 AM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think the idea is that heaven is a nonphysical state with a pleasure (the presence of divinity) that transcends sexual pleasure along with all other pleasures that belong to the transient Life Of The Body.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2004 08:47 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know. We were horsing around.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 August 2004 09:16 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
I think the idea is that heaven is a nonphysical state with a pleasure (the presence of divinity) that transcends sexual pleasure along with all other pleasures that belong to the transient Life Of The Body.

Really? I always thought of it as a porn movie, where you get to be the star.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2004 09:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Then where do porn stars go for their eternal rest?
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 August 2004 09:24 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To hell.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2004 09:26 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But...according to The Devil In Miss Jones...oh never mind.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 02 August 2004 11:47 AM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

"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 a 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."

Some women suggested the Vatican is taking a patronizing attitude it would not take toward men.


http://tinyurl.com/3knbn


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2004 11:57 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
"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.

And had it been, the authors and those who agree with them would also have been invited to kiss my feminist ass.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 02 August 2004 12:47 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think that if the rector of Al-Azhar had written such a document and published it in English to world media, not only feminists but a whole troop of Little Green Footballers would have been jubilantly crying foul.
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 02 August 2004 01:37 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
Quite a reaction here to the Vatican. Why do you all care so much? People can make their own decisions on these matters. And the Vatican, being in charge of Catholic doctrine, has the right to issue such opinions.
Its all relative too: This is one organizations view: different strokes...

From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 August 2004 01:47 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
That was the most lethargic post I've ever read on Babble.

Why do you care that we care?


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 02 August 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by libertarian:
And the Vatican, being in charge of Catholic doctrine, has the right to issue such opinions.

And feminists, being in charge of feminist doctrine, have the right to issue the opinion that the Vatican are a bunch of idiots when they issue misogynist or homophobic doctrine.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 02 August 2004 04:24 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
When changes occur too quickly and enough people think they're being backed into a corner, then the inevitable backlash occurs, which makes life difficult for everyone. This is what we're seeing with the Christo-Republican movement that's happening in the States (...and creeping into Canada), the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, and the backlash against feminism.

While your core point about quick changes has some validity, I don't believe it has much to do with some of the ones you mention.
The Christo-Republican movement has more to do with things getting worse than with them changing per se. That is, it's not social change that's doing it--it's a process where people lose their family farms or can't make ends meet on them, poverty increases among the lower end of the middle class and so forth, and certain elite groups prey on this by pointing out an enemy to hate for it, in this case the sinful and secular. Also blacks and foreigners. It's no accident that racism etc. have gone hand in hand with that movement. Leftist attempts at pointing out the plutocrats instead have foundered on the complexity of the message and lack of media access.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism is, again, a reaction to things being bad. It's in large part a resistance against oppression. I've noticed that when it gains power, it tends to lose steam after a while. And again, in much of the Islamic world there were competing leftist movements against oppression. Many of these were basically quite successful--in Iran, Iraq, Indonesia etc. there were strong socialist and/or communist movements. But US-backed dictatorships repressed those movements viciously on US advice, killing hundreds of thousands in Indonesia alone. So the only non-slaughtered resistance tended to be religious-based, and religious resistance movements tend to be fanatical just because that's where you get the kind of emotional charge to dare an effective resistance.
The backlash against feminism? Not sure. In North America and Islamic areas it seems to be largely an outgrowth of the other stuff. So I'm not convinced any of this is really a backlash against rapid social change.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 02 August 2004 04:37 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
How odd. I get the impression you wanted disagree with me, but then you re-stated pretty much what I intended on saying with my shorter post, only with more words.

Things "getting worse" is in fact change. And the backlash against feminism definitely has a lot to do with men not able or willing to accept a changed role in society from the one they traditionally had.


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
libertarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6136

posted 02 August 2004 06:46 PM      Profile for libertarian        Edit/Delete Post
I still don't see why anyone cares what the Vatican pronounces. Are all of you Catholics?
No one listens to the Pope anyway.
Lethargic? Guess so.

From: Chicago | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 02 August 2004 09:48 PM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by kuba:
Sorry, Hinterland the Church opens itself up for criticism. It sets itself up on the pedestal, and everyone of us have the right to discuss its failings.

I still harbour deep resentment for all the blasted eating rituals. My Granny would fast when it was very poor for her health.


Canon law forbids those in poor health from fasting. You can drop the resentment.


From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 02 August 2004 10:14 PM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mandos:
I think the idea is that heaven is a nonphysical state with a pleasure (the presence of divinity) that transcends sexual pleasure along with all other pleasures that belong to the transient Life Of The Body.

I'm not so sure about this. Moreover, whether there is sex in heaven or not is not a really important point, or even doctrine. People seem incapable of making distinctions between things that are actually doctrine, and things that some guy may have said into a microphone off hand. In any case, this "transient life of the body" stuff doesn't wash with the actual theology on heaven. The key point - and this is mentioned in the creed-- is the resurrection of the body, which means the body is reunited with the soul in a glorified way. The difference between this and the "transient" option is that one is obviously a framework that glorifies the body, rather than denigrates it. Yes, the present bodies die, but the belief that Christ rose bodily from the dead provoked a long tradition of looking to our own bodily resurrection. To view the body as simply ephemeral isn't very Catholic.

I would associate this "transient" kind of attitude more with a puritanical strain of fundamentalist protestantism, or with the Jansenist heresy, or with the poor hopeless Irish Catholics, whose folk bastardizations of the more body-positive aspects of the faith were largely due to the influence of, you got it, Jansenist heretics. Unfortunately we have lots of the puritanical, and the Irish Catholic influence here in North America.

Catholic theology is fairly similar to the Jewish intellectual tradition in that it involves thousands of years of philosophy and differing opinions, and that teachings change, albeit slowly, with the times. It is not a religion that sticks rigidly to the text. This is important to note in a debate like this one, where we're dealing with a Vatican document along with a whole pile of cultural anecdotes, snippets of analysis, and various other flotsam. It's a hard target to pin down

Which is why I'm not too worried about "Catholic-bashing", as others are. More often than not, it's too far off the mark to even bother contradicting. And the "bashers" are too far from interested in learning about the intricacies of the faith, because they find it far too offensive from the angle by which they've viewed it.

As for the document, I've had a look at the original, and it's all recycled. The only interesting thing about it is why they would choose to release it now-- looks like they're tying up loose ends in case someone around there kicks the can. The other thing I noted- and again, this has been showing up in documents for 20 years-- is that the Pope was reading French feminist theory. This is not a stretch, as he's a phenomenologist by training and the disciplines overlap considerably. So when the old, Second Wave model gets dissed in favour of a more French-style difference feminism, it's very calculated.

And difference feminism is one of the many reasons why I can, in fact, be an active feminist and a practicing Catholic. But this post is too long already.


From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 02 August 2004 10:15 PM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh, and also, I won't miss Ratzinger much when he's gone.

The Pope has some good stuff though.


From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299

posted 02 August 2004 11:05 PM      Profile for Scott Piatkowski   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"The Pope", by Meryn Cadell (1991)

    It began as a regular day in my room with a cup of hot black coffee.
    Well, sure I was depressed, but I always am,
    some people love life, well not me.

    But then the choppers came
    two by two by ten
    announcing Apocalypse of a different kind

    So I ran out of my room, ran down the stairs,
    down the street, into Nathan Phillips Square
    people, people running and horses everywhere, yeah

    The pope, pope, pope, pope, pope.
    we all here to see the pope, pope, pope, pope, pope.
    Well, you got your pope pennants, buttons, your pope clothes,
    You got your pope binoculars to see him up close
    and I cried when I saw that man in white.
    I cried, much to my surrounders' delight.
    I cried, 'cause I couldn’t breathe anymore; I cried
    'cause people were stepping on my feet.
    Hey, hey Mr. Holiness way over there,
    Maybe we love you, but we're sadly lacking air.

    Well I love that man, Pope John Paul the 3rd
    I love him probably more than he deserves.
    Okay, so he persecutes homosexuals, does not believe in abortion,
    visits with Kurt Waldheim and tells us not to take the pill ...
    There’s still a certain je ne sais quoi –
    Some peace, some love, some goodwill.

    Yeah, the pope, pope, pope, pope, pope.
    we all here to see the pope, pope, pope, pope, pope.
    Well, you got your pope pennants, buttons, your pope clothes,
    You got your pope binoculars to see him up close
    and I cried when I saw that man in white.
    I cried, much to my surrounders' delight.
    I cried, 'cause I couldn’t breathe anymore; I cried
    'cause people were stepping on my feet.
    Hey, hey Mr. Holiness way over there,
    Maybe we love you, but we're sadly lacking air.

    Then he scooted away in that great Popemobile
    I was feeling so trampled, I didn’t know what else to feel
    Then we all kissed the ground where John Paul had been ...
    I can hardly wait till someone famous comes to town again.

    Yeah, the pope, pope, pope, pope, pope.
    Uh huh, the pope, pope, pope, pope, pope, pope, pope.


From: Kitchener-Waterloo | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
erick satie
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6538

posted 02 August 2004 11:32 PM      Profile for erick satie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Witches Hammer (Malleus Malefaicarum) published by Pope Pius I in the late 1400s suggested that women were created from a bent rib from Adam’s side and so Women are lesser humans that need to be watched closely and killed for their own sake if necessary. Women have been murdered then and since. On the Klu Klux Klan web site the assertion is that people of dark skin and Jews were created before Adam (God’s Divine Creation) and are therefore Animals not worthy of Human Rights. On the Focus on the Family Web site in a paper supporting heterosexual marriage only it states that “Heterosexuals are the Divine Gender” and “marriage a Divine institution” (Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve). A former Mormon doctrine was that black people are decedents of Cain, the son of Eve and Adam, who killed his brother and received a black curse on all his decedents, and therefore Blacks can be members of the church but in a junior member type capacity. It is clear that Christian supremacists throughout history and now have used a literal yet twisted version of the creation story to say that we “lesser people” are not lesser due to our “sin” or because of the cruel hand of Darwin, but because God Almighty made us lesser and never considered us full persons in his Glorious Creation. Or because God, in His Omnipotence, allowed our type of “abomination” to flow from Eve’s seductive weakness and Man’s subsequent “fall”. Tragically one of the arguments put forward by those opposing interracial marriage was that since the offspring of a black and white person would be like that of a horse and donkey – namely a mule – then blacks and whites should not marry because it flies in the face of marriage for “proper” procreation. Even animals have suffered under these "Catholic" notions from Genesis that mand was given dominion over the animals which has been taken to meen that we can abuse them as we wish and even torture them for entertainment. In this the immoral nature of those who rationalize ongoing unequal legal and social standing based on harmful and freely held religious tenants must be challenged. Those who choose to live in the brutal heritage of historical ignorance and Christian Supremacist ideals are a risk to Canadian social fabric and to the welbeing of other humans and usually animals as well.
From: vancouver | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 03 August 2004 10:43 AM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
apparently the Church has a feminist working for it
From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 August 2004 11:09 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is that why bashing Capitalism is fine, and bashing Conservatism is fine, and bashing politics and politicians and trade organizations and Zionism and ads with scantily clad women in them is all fine, but any overzealous criticism of the Catholic church is hastily suppressed?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659

posted 03 August 2004 11:17 AM      Profile for swallow     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who's been suppressed?
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 August 2004 11:18 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
Is that why bashing Capitalism is fine, and bashing Conservatism is fine, and bashing politics and politicians and trade organizations and Zionism and ads with scantily clad women in them is all fine, but any overzealous criticism of the Catholic church is hastily suppressed?

Huh? Suppressed? On babble?

I'd say there has been a lot more religion-bashing generally on babble than otherwise. Seriously, Mr M.

dances, I can't make that link work --


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 03 August 2004 11:24 AM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, skdadl. I'll give it another try later. Anyway it's a letter from Suzanne Scorsone to the Toronto Star today, easily accessible.

If this doesn't work, I'll take suggestions


From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 August 2004 11:36 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Got it, dances.

Hmmn. On the one hand, that letter is better than I expected it to be -- I knew Scorsone was a local spokesperson for the church, and the letters of hers that I've read before usually read to me like the letters to the ed we often see from cabinet ministers, just repeating the official line, explaining nothing.

There's a lot of double-talk there too, though. I don't know -- I never take PR pronouncements very seriously. She's had a lot of practice in psyching out her audiences.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 August 2004 11:40 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Huh? Suppressed? On babble?

Should I have said "shushed"?


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 August 2004 11:42 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
... no. I won't. ...
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 03 August 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
But isn't it interesting that she's got a voice at all? And that she's able to publicly identify as feminist? Isn't that the kind of thing people would hope for, but wouldn't expect to actually see?
From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 August 2004 11:43 AM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you mean post, I think one slipped out anyway.

Be a devil. Go for it.


From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 03 August 2004 12:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

Hey. Where did the halo go? That one is supposed to have a halo. ?

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469

posted 03 August 2004 12:07 PM      Profile for Mr. Magoo   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Is that the Holy Ghost?
From: ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°`°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø,¸_¸,ø¤°°¤ø, | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 August 2004 02:29 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Moreover, whether there is sex in heaven or not is not a really important point, or even doctrine.

Not important!? I would say it's damn important. By all accounts there aren't a lot of things to do in heaven. I suppose you could speak to God, but he is omnipotent and has an entire universe to take care of, so I would imagine that might be difficult to do.
You might try talking to the residents but I would imagine that would be quite boring, given that the place is filled with monks and nuns, who would have very few personal experiences to share, given the fact that they have been cloistered for the majority of their lives. So what's left? Sex.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 03 August 2004 02:42 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
By all accounts there aren't a lot of things to do in heaven.

I thought there would be lots to do. But I suppose if you think about it the party will be a happenin' down below.


From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 August 2004 03:23 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
or with the poor hopeless Irish Catholics, whose folk bastardizations of the more body-positive aspects of the faith were largely due to the influence of, you got it, Jansenist heretics. Unfortunately we have lots of the puritanical, and the Irish Catholic influence here in North America.

I have to admit to being fascinated by Irish catholicism. I find its connection to Pegan faiths to be very interesting. I have the same sort interest in Mexican catholicism. It's wonderful to see how people in these countries have mixed the ancient religions of the region with their Christianity. The christian cult was based on an ancient Egyptian myth anyway.


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 03 August 2004 03:38 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:


Not important!? I would say it's damn important. By all accounts there aren't a lot of things to do in heaven. I suppose you could speak to God, but he is omnipotent and has an entire universe to take care of, so I would imagine that might be difficult to do.
You might try talking to the residents but I would imagine that would be quite boring, given that the place is filled with monks and nuns, who would have very few personal experiences to share, given the fact that they have been cloistered for the majority of their lives. So what's left? Sex.


Are you implying this will be a solo activity? Because if it is, it doesn't sound like "heaven" to me.


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 03 August 2004 04:15 PM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CMOT Dibbler:

I have to admit to being fascinated by Irish catholicism. I find its connection to Pegan faiths to be very interesting. I have the same sort interest in Mexican catholicism. It's wonderful to see how people in these countries have mixed the ancient religions of the region with their Christianity. The christian cult was based on an ancient Egyptian myth anyway.


Oh, the pagan stuff is great, it's the Jansenist stuff I have a problem with. And that comes from the French, who ended up pretty sex-positive in the end. But I suppose being on the Continent they had better circulation of ideas (and squashers of heresies.)

I do agree that lots of folk Catholicisms are pretty neat. They're great for numerous reasons, but my favourite is usually the way they maintain some form of goddess worship. This has a lot to do with maintaining the eros of the rituals too, I'll bet.

I'd like to see more people referring to multiple "Catholicisms" the way they refer to multiple "feminisms".


From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 03 August 2004 04:22 PM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Also, re: "not important", I meant not something relevant to the theology of heaven, not unimportant to us deliciously sex-obsessed ordinary folk.

The official-line theology of heaven as it stands is pretty bare-bones: being eternally in the presence of God, whereas hell would be the eternal absence of God. And if God is love, welllllllll.... I've always found that the most mind-blowing sex is the loving kind. So I would imagine, by a process of heavy extrapolation, that heaven would be like THE BEST FUCKING SEX EVER!!!


From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064

posted 03 August 2004 04:25 PM      Profile for beverly     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thank you for clearing that up!
From: In my Apartment!!!! | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 August 2004 04:53 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are you implying this will be a solo activity? Because if it is, it doesn't sound like "heaven" to me.

I would prefer a partner naturally. But I don't think anyone would be willing to couple with me, as The Kingdom is probably loaded with mother Terresa wannabes and short on Mary Magdalens

Dances with swords: which forms of Catholicism have a positive attitude toward sexuality?


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214

posted 03 August 2004 05:30 PM      Profile for dances with swords     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, I plan on being in heaven, and would fall in the Magdalen category. (Last time I confessed illicit sex, the priest asked for my phone number afterwards!)(I had him reported.) Also, by then I plan not to be so scrupulous about my choice of sexual partners, because I'll be in HEAVEN, so what could go wrong? So you can be sure that you will have SOME HOPE.

My circuitous route to heaven involves focussing a lot on the "God-is-love" idea and not so much on the "God as paternalistic dictator" idea. It's quite cozy. I'd recommend it.

Strains of sex-positive Catholicism? Well, I'd look to cultures that speak Romance languages first. I remember a Jewish friend of mine asking about the pilgrims at World Youth Day-- he said "what kind of pilgrim parades around in bikini tops? What do you have happening over there in Catholicsm?" I said, "In Catholicism, we have Brazilians." Somehow people in these societies, so close to the headquarters of the religion, are not as fraught with sexual issues and repression as we are over here in North America. Look at friggin' Quebec, though. Historically, a pretty Catholic place. Ontario? Not so much. Quebec? SO MUCH SEXIER THAN ONTARIO. I knew already that sex-denying wasn't a core tenet of Catholicism, but these little cultural things serve to drive them home.

On a more theological level, you're probably going to end up asking about St. Paul and St. Augustine, aren't you? Both of them get roundly blamed for dooming all of Christianity to puritanism. I think it's relevant to look at general ideas about the body when discerning attitudes towards sex. And both of these guys were very serious in their orthodoxy, and in the formation of a fledgling religion, they absolutely stressed that the body was not to be denigrated.

As the early Church built up a Christology, discarding various upsurging ideas as heresies, etc., it became very clear that what people were stressing was a total unity between Christ's humanity and divinity, body and soul. Those who tried to deny the importance of Christ's embodied humanity, through process of consensus, just didn't make it into the canon. Of course, this became one of the great philosophical battles that has raged for centuries within Christianity. The rise of monasticism, with its body-denying bent, does have its place. But was never the only way to be a Christian.

I can give you references for St. Paul-- areas where misinterpretation of the Greek has led people to believe he was denouncing the physical "flesh", in first Corinthians, for example, where he was in fact referring to an aspect of the soul. And as for St. Augustine, after struggling through Manicheanism as a youth, he was very careful to build a Christian theology that did not allow for a degraded, materially evil created world. He put great emphasis on the importance and the sacredness of the created world. His personal struggle with sex had more to do with an out-of-control need that he himself felt was excessive (His famous prayer was "Lord, give me chastity- but not yet") not to be confused with a hatred of sex in general.

These are both minor points along the way. Catholicsm has always retained a heavily erotic flavour, with its emphasis on the embodied Christ, present in the Eucharist, on rituals that involve all the senses, on looking towards the resurrection of the body.

As for the theology of sex itself, this too has been subject to centuries of speculation, philosophical and theological, on and off the record. The Thomistic drive to define sex according to natural law, defining the act by its end (according to him, procreation) alone-- is not the be-all and end-all of Catholic thought on sex. Current thinking has it that sex is for the couple's unity, not just procreation.

The trend away from basing all thought on natural law may have something to do with this-- the current Pope, for his part, is very much up on contemporary continental philosophy, and has a PhD in it to boot. His book, Love and Responsibility, published in the 60s, combines traditional Catholic philosophy with the work of contemporary philosophers and sexologists, as well as his experience in the pastoral care of couples, and is an incredibly equitable and deeply human text. In fact, I heard a hilarious radio program in which a group of German Marxist feminists did a blind read of the book and deemed it "one of the greatest works on gender of the 20th century". Of course, people hear what they want to hear. To most, the Pope is a bigot, not a philosopher, and his immense output of writing is so much chaff, because they already know they'll disagree with it. If they did take a second look, they'd be surprised what they found.

I AM DEEPLY SORRY THIS IS SO LONG

and I also apologize for my obsessive use of caps lock

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: dances with swords ]


From: toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
CMOT Dibbler
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4117

posted 03 August 2004 06:27 PM      Profile for CMOT Dibbler     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What is Jansenist Catholicism?

The Pope has his good points, there is no doubt, But it should be remembered that it was he who ordered the Inquisition reinstated. The panzer Cardinal didn't do it all by himself. John Paul also feels he can deny a woman birth-control and the right choose, two things that have prevented me from truly liking the man.

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: CMOT Dibbler ]


From: Just outside Fernie, British Columbia | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Hailey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6438

posted 03 August 2004 09:06 PM      Profile for Hailey     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Upon further consideration post deleted.

[ 03 August 2004: Message edited by: Hailey ]


From: candyland | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Socrates
sock-puppet
Babbler # 6376

posted 03 August 2004 09:23 PM      Profile for Socrates   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Welcome back Hailey, I hope you had a wonderful wedding!

quote:
[originally posted by Michelle] not not openly speaking out against this bullshit, can kiss my feminist ass.

Well said Michelle, I too add my decidedly male ass to the ranks of those waiting to be kissed! (I think we needent hold our breath )

Anyone propogating bigotry is deserving of ridicule, whether church or individual.


From: Viva Sandinismo! | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 03 August 2004 09:51 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And on that note, this being the 106th post...
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca