Author
|
Topic: Vatican: Feminism is dangerous
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 31 July 2004 01:14 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Debra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 117
|
posted 31 July 2004 03:16 PM
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
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
Congregation for the Doctrine of the FaithHmm 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trisha
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 387
|
posted 31 July 2004 05:19 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 31 July 2004 05:39 PM
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
|
|
|
beverly
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5064
|
posted 31 July 2004 06:00 PM
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
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
|
|
|
Bacchus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4722
|
posted 31 July 2004 06:12 PM
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
|
|
|
|
Agent 204
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4668
|
posted 31 July 2004 06:20 PM
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
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 31 July 2004 06:31 PM
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
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 31 July 2004 06:39 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838
|
posted 31 July 2004 07:32 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
exiled armadillo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6389
|
posted 01 August 2004 01:00 AM
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659
|
posted 01 August 2004 12:30 PM
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
|
|
|
Panama Jack
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6478
|
posted 01 August 2004 01:25 PM
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
|
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 01 August 2004 03:01 PM
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938
|
posted 02 August 2004 11:47 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014
|
posted 02 August 2004 01:47 PM
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
|
|
|
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308
|
posted 02 August 2004 04:24 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214
|
posted 02 August 2004 10:14 PM
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
|
|
|
Scott Piatkowski
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1299
|
posted 02 August 2004 11:05 PM
"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
|
|
|
|
Mr. Magoo
guilty-pleasure
Babbler # 3469
|
posted 03 August 2004 11:09 AM
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
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 03 August 2004 11:18 AM
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
|
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 03 August 2004 11:36 AM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dances with swords
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5214
|
posted 03 August 2004 04:15 PM
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 05:30 PM
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
|