Author: has written 5094 posts for this blog.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index
15 Responses
Comments are closed.
(or browse the Archives by date, category, tags etc)
Recent Comments
- macavitykitsune on Angelina Jolie and her mastectomy. (It was going to come up eventually.)
- macavitykitsune on Angelina Jolie and her mastectomy. (It was going to come up eventually.)
- Angel H. on Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
- Donna L on Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
- IrishUp on Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
- Miguel on Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
- WestEndGirl on Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
- Librarygoose on Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
- trees on No, actually. No. Violence against women actually isn’t funny.
- Donna L on Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
Recent Posts
- Weekly Open Thread with Tapestry
- Angelina Jolie and her mastectomy. (It was going to come up eventually.)
- No, actually. No. Violence against women actually isn’t funny.
- Mother’s Day is Over – But Pregnancy Discrimination Isn’t
- LGBT community to the state of Minnesota: “YOU’RE WELCOME.”
- How to be an ally with bisexuals
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday
- Weekly Open Thread with May dancers
- I definitely want to pet your dog.
- Purity Culture and Sexual Assault
Most Commented Recent Posts
- How to be an ally with bisexuals (194)
- I definitely want to pet your dog. (188)
- Weekly Open Thread with May dancers (114)
- Angelina Jolie and her mastectomy. (It was going to come up eventually.) (97)
- Should you speak out at a wedding of a friend marrying an abusive man? (82)
- Elizabeth Smart didn't run because she felt dirty and worthless. (69)
- No, actually. No. Violence against women actually isn't funny. (60)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (45)
- Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday (45)
- Cleveland Kidnappings, Rapes and Torture (37)
Yes Means Yes!
Reproductive Health Matters
We’re in the Guardian
More of Feministe On
Sponsored By
Tried and Tested
The authors of this website have hand-selected these titles because we believe they may be of interest to a feminist audience.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
Consider them for gifts to friends, family, or yourself! We do receive some income if you choose to order these titles based on our recommendations. All funds help support our costs to provide this space.
I’m not a big fan of the pope, but this was quite endearing. I wonder if he spays/neuters his pets.
But he won’t be a Crazy Cat Pope until he wears them like a coat and throws them at heretics.
lol
Question for those in the know:
If the Pope wanted to (I know he doesn’t) could he drop the ban on artificial birth control and women clergy?
roger ailes (the good one) has the goods but not the lol art.
http://rogerailes.blogspot.com/2008/04/cat-and-rat-greatest-newspaper-in.html
Anna, the answer is, of course, complicated.
Ultimately, he can definitely reverse the position regarding birth control fairly easily (easily being meant in the sense of doctrine, not in terms of politics).
Female clergy is a bit stickier, I think, since JPII actually made a statement regarding female clergy that was deemed to be “final,” insofar as final goes. I have no idea if that makes changing the church’s position (especially so soon after his death) trickier.
Ultimately, I don’t see either position lasting another 100 years. We’ll likely see married priests first, of course, for the obvious reasons. But once the church starts losing its hold on Africa and South America it’ll change its tune soon enough.
Just curious… what do y’all think of this?
Anna, the first, absolutely. Thomas Aquinas adhered to Old Testament rules about “when life begins”–which AFAIK are still part of Judaic Law (?)…
According to this, the modern concept of “when life begins”–blah blah, is from about 1847. Before that, nobody had a clue:
http://review.society.cz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=78&Itemid=2
Contraception is recent, therefore opposition is recent.
As for the second one? It’s simply tradition, as the rule about priests being single also is. It has never been declared ex cathedra. If someone could make the case to the Magisterium and the Curia, and force the issue, we might be able to get some action.
Trouble is, you can’t make the theological case from a feminist POV and win in the Vatican…it has to be totally based on doctrinally-correct Catholicism. Of course, you could, but so far, I don’t think a feminist theologian has done it. You gotta go by the existing rules, like Hillary has. And yes, those existing rules favor you-know-who…
I think it could be done. I’ve done it on Catholic message boards and blogs, but I don’t think they are listening to ME! :P
The only final statement in the Church regarding “a manner of faith and morals in conflict” is an EX CATHEDRA statement by the Pope, at that point, officially considered infallible. Until then, mere opinion.
JPII never delivered that statement, what he said was, basically “Don’t push me, or I’ll go ex cathedra on your ass”… still, it was a non-delivered threat.
The point is still therefore open.
I still have a comment in moderation, so the above comment is incomplete!
Wikipedia says the women clergy part is declared infallible under the “ordinary and universal magisterium.” Yes/No?
And I would sincerely love to hear the doctrinally correct case for female clergy and birth control if you can.
1) Birth control
If the rule concerning birth control can be shown to be a recent add-on, it is therefore man-made and invalid. Above, I was saying it was only discovered around 1847 how/when life begins. Before that time, there was “the doctrine of quickening”–and anything taking place before quickening (movement of fetus as felt by the mother or midwife), including induced miscarriages, were DOCTRINALLY (not necessarily socially) regarded as matters of women’s convenience and men DIDN’T WANT TO KNOW. (You know, ew.)
So, the rule is an add-on and insupportable by previous dogma or by Holy Scripture. In fact, we can argue that scripture and tradition support the opposite view, as the Episcopalian/Anglican churches have. Jewish law still adheres to the early position, which was first explicated in Christian texts by Thomas Aquinas.
2) Women priests
Liturgically and dogmatically, the priest takes the place of Christ in the Mass. He is central to the sacrament. So, the theological argument is, Christ was male so the person taking his role in the liturgy must also be male.
Christ was also 33 years old, Hebrew, of indeterminate color (likely very dark), given to longish sermonizing, had some strange friends, etc. (A smart theologian could be even more specific, but identity politics has given me a head start.) ALL of these identifying characteristics are intrinsic to who Christ was, yet we don’t use any of this criteria to screen for the priesthood. Priests are of all ages, colors, nationalities; some are born into other religions and convert (mine did), some aren’t given to talking much, etc. If the directive is to “preach the gospel to all nations” –then all nations will have believers, and eventually, priests. This is understood, and always has been.
Priests are even permitted (under your basic don’t ask/don’t tell formulation) to be gay or bisexual in orientation (not in practice, same celibacy rules exist for everyone), particularly in liberal orders such as the Society of Jesus (Jesuits). Do we make the case that they can’t be gay/hetero unless Jesus was gay/hetero? No. As central as sexuality is to identify, that isn’t considered a factor.
Jesus’ primary social identity was as a Hebrew, that is to say, a Jew. Are only Jews allowed to be priests? No. As central as ethnicity and social caste is to identify, neither are considered a factor.
The question is: why is gender the one aspect of His identity that must be duplicated in a priest?
It’s irrational and discriminatory and is based on tradition (in this case, sexism), not doctrine. I therefore declare it man-made, and is heresy. LET IT BE ANATHEMA!
(((Okay, yes, I admit I’ve always wanted to say that!!!))))
If magisterium isn’t capitalized, then no. Or rather, means nothing.
One of them dodgy Mel Gibson types wrote that.
Dammit. I happen to intensely dislike the pope, and here he goes caring about animals! Bet he doesn’t desex them though *sulk*
In all seriousness, desexing cats would seem hypocritical for him surely, yet it’s pretty bloody pointless to take in strays but allow them to breed.
Wow. What assholes not letting him have a cat colony in tha Popal Palace. Don’t they know owning a cat makes you live longer?
And ditto to spaying/neutering cats. I wish someone could ask him. Maybe we should contact that woman Jan Fredericks of Wayne of N.J. maybe she would know.