May 17, 2012

Further and further

In the scant two months since I walked out, the RCC have doubled down on their reprehensible politicking over the contraceptive mandate, one bishop accusing Obama of being like Hitler and (more recently) a college dropping healthcare entirely in order to deny women access to contraception. Meanwhile the Vatican has smacked down 80% of US women religious (i.e. nuns) for too much focus on social justice (instead of the anti-gay and anti-contraception activism the Pope wants). And then a few days ago, the bishops decided to investigate the Girl Scouts for not conforming well enough to doctrine.

First of all, the clear conclusion here is that I picked a good time to walk out; it certainly hasn't gotten any better since then. (An alternative conclusion was that my presence was the only thing holding it all together, but I am skeptical of this possibility.)

I'd also like to draw attention to a common thread, though. What do all these have in common? Women... women... women. How on earth does anyone defend this? I feel like I've been saying and typing the word "misogyny" an awful lot lately, such that it becomes bleached of its meaning, but seriously, it's getting more and more difficult to even imagine alternative explanations.

"For years, motivational speakers and the like have been touting how the Chinese word for "crisis" is made of "danger" and "opportunity," which (1) is bullshit and (2) is a little insulting as it implies Chinese words were created to teach lessons, unlike any other culture where words are created because you need to say that thing." --Christina H

Posted by blahedo at 11:55am on 17 May 2012
Comments
Has anyone even offered alternative reasons? It seems like I've just heard denials of a war on women but no explanation why it is so important to put barriers between women and whatever the church doesn't like them doing rather than talking to women like they are adults that can be reasoned with? Is this because they think they can bully women into having more children? They can't even recruit enough religious as it is. Do they think rebuking religious women like they are rebellious children will up the numbers? Posted by lee at 12:14pm on 17 May 2012
It's not motivated by the calculus of membership, it's motivated by the momentum of extremism. The more the Republican party gave up on the black vote, the more voice bigotry had in the party, the more blacks fled the party, the more dominated by racial animus their agenda became. It's a positive feedback loop limited only by the need to not become so obviously extremist that they cannot win elections. But the Papal pulpit only needs to win one key election, and he already won that one. So now, because ecumenical voices and liberal voices have been made unwelcome, they withdraw, either from the church or from the fray. And that concentrates reactionaries in the decision making seats. And the natural tendency of isolated groups, and who lives a more isolated life than a bishop, really, to echo-chamber the ideas already being aired, results in the normalization of radical beliefs. Posted by Mike at 12:56pm on 17 May 2012
While the RCC is losing numbers and families just aren't sending their kids off to become priests like they use to, the RCC has one powerful weapon in their arsenal. Qui tacet consentire videtur - He who is silent appears to consent. Many Cradle Catholics for whatever reason wish to recieve the Rite of Marriage in a Catholic ceremony in a Catholic Church. So we go along with the circus until we get hitched and then silently hate ourselves for collaborating indirectly. Posted by Icarus at 1:26pm on 17 May 2012
Any comment on the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposition to the Violence Against Women Act? Posted by lee at 9:27am on 11 Mar 2013
Post a comment









Write this number out in numeral form: nine hundred and twenty three
 [?]

Remember personal info?






Valid XHTML 1.0!