Crappy quote of the day
From the Guardian (Where else?):
It is only institutional religion that continues to regard women as second-class citizens.
That’s not so bad I hear you say. We only have to look at Islam…..
The Guardian continues:
If Catholicism believes that recruiting a handful of renegade Anglicans who share its institutional misogyny will buttress its position it is mistaken.
That’s right it’s Catholicism.
So presumably Catholicism has no female Doctors of the Church.
Or perhaps Catholicism has no venerated female saints.
Not to mention Mary of course.
To reduce the Ordinariate to the singular issue of female ordination as this crappy article does, simply displays the utter ignorance and bias of the author.
However, this ignorance is not exclusive to the Guardian.
UPDATE: Oh and here’s another woeful article from the Guardian, fisked competently and thoroughly by Caroline over at I have a Snail in my Pocket.
Tags: Christianity, Media
January 17th, 2011 at 10:24 am
So the response is “women have some positions so it’s not really as bad as that?”
Inequality is inequality, no matter the magnitude.
January 17th, 2011 at 10:25 am
The Guardian is the worst, though, along with the Independent – even the religion writers seem ill-informed. The word ‘misogyny’ is bandied about as freely as ‘homophobia’. But newspapers have to sell – I remember reading on Ruth Gledhill’s blog once that she had difficulty in getting any religion article past the newsdesk, so it has to be sensationalised a bit to appeal to popular culture. Sadly it just feeds public ignorance. Sometimes the headlines are even worse, but these are not generally written by the writer of the article, but by a sub-editor.
Many supposedly Christian websites also bandy these words about freely – there is currently a discussion amongst the thinklies on Thinking Anglicans about just this issue.
January 17th, 2011 at 10:36 am
January 17th, 2011 at 12:07 pm
The Guardian’s reputation is well-known here across the pond, too, along with the BBC.
January 17th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
‘recruiting a handful of renegade Anglicans’?! – Recruited they were not! This came about after repeated pleading from traditional Anglicans (with much prayer) who were desperate to find a orthodox and doctrinally sound spiritual home.
January 17th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
Pretty fascist lot, the Guardian.
January 17th, 2011 at 1:13 pm
Agreed, Stephen, but it seems (read the thinklies) that many are not content with making it impossible for anglo-catholics to stay within the Anglican Communion, but are deliberately misrepresenting their position and projecting falsehoods (to assuage, or cover up, their own guilt??).
They play on theological ignorance (illustrated ably by Cabal above) to bolster their own position. For many, this is just a means to an end, as they know that women bishops are necessary to ease in openly gay bishops. Just read WATCH, (women and the church) who threw in their lot with Inclusive Church some time ago.
Lisa – the UK is far less religious than the US. With the decline of Christianity there is simply little understanding of Catholic teaching, and the people who are employed by the Guardian and the BBC simply see things through their own lens, and cannot see that there is any need for any other. (In spite of the BBC’s head honcho, Mark Thompson, professing to be a Christian!)
January 17th, 2011 at 1:15 pm
“They play on theological ignorance (illustrated ably by Cabal above)”
Oh, we’re playing this game now?
So Jill, what persuaded you to sell out your own gender?
January 17th, 2011 at 2:48 pm
I saw this lead article in Sunday’s Observer and agreed with nearly every word. It’s very sad – both the status of women in institutional religion and the pathetic antics of the bishops. They bring themselves into disrepute.
Many outside the Catholic church know we are equal in Christ but the Catholic church continues intrinsically misogynistic and, as Cabal says, “Inequality is inequality, no matter the magnitude.”
I particularly warmed to the paragraph:
“In the face of poverty, climate change, natural disasters and all the other challenges facing our planet for religious institutions to be consumed in bickering about whether women can be priests is the stuff of satire.”
Beyond satire, almost.
January 17th, 2011 at 3:11 pm
“Many outside the Catholic church know we are equal in Christ but the Catholic church continues intrinsically misogynistic and, as Cabal says, “Inequality is inequality, no matter the magnitude.””
But not only do they have female saints – and Mary (all positions your average female RCC member can really aspire to!), the Muslims are worse, so that’s all ok then!
I mean, imagine if, back when women were trying to break through several glass ceilings, the head of a major business went “Hey, how about this – when you die one out of a few hundred million of you will be made an honorary CEO?”
I’ll bet one or two of those saints will be a little hacked off they didn’t ask for more in this life than the booby prize when they turn up to heaven and find that God finds mankind’s systems of worship/self-aggrandising are utterly meaningless.
January 17th, 2011 at 3:43 pm
Sophie and Cabal,
You really don’t know what you’re talking about. Jesus picked 12 men as His apostles. Maybe you should take up your grievances with Him. Equality doesn’t mean that men and woman get to do the exact same things. Men can’t have babies, does that mean they are lesser than women? In the Church, Mary is considered the most perfect human. She is the highest elevated creature because she was chosen to bring our Savior into the world. Only a woman can do that. This doesn’t make women better than men does it? Somehow, I don’t think you’d see it that way. And yet Mary is very powerful.
And for the priesthood, they are representatives of Christ. Christ was a man. And again, He picked 12 men, not women to lead His Church.
This doesn’t make men better than women. It’s a separate job. It’s different. Not that women wouldn’t be able to handle the duties of the priesthood but that’s not how Jesus left things. Mothers aren’t fathers and fathers aren’t mothers. That doesn’t mean they’re inequal.
And as far is this quote Sophie,
“In the face of poverty, climate change, natural disasters and all the other challenges facing our planet for religious institutions to be consumed in bickering about whether women can be priests is the stuff of satire.”
The only ones bickering about whether women can be priests or not are those outside the Church. Inside the Church, it is not up for discussion and never has been. So I find that very telling. The Church is the largest charitable organization on the planet and many of it’s religious are right smack dab in the middle of the poverty and places of recent natural disasters and risking their lives going to the worst most dangerous places. I wonder if the writer to this article would care to venture over to the Congo or Darfur or Sudan. Or do they prefer to “bicker” over whether or not women should become priests instead?
January 17th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
@ Sylvia: You write: “The only ones bickering about whether women can be priests or not are those outside the Church. Inside the Church, it is not up for discussion and never has been.”
I’m assuming this monolithic “Church” is the RCC? Because of course, though this may astound you, to a lot of Christians the RCC isn’t very relevant.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:29 pm
“But not only do they have female saints – and Mary (all positions your average female RCC member can really aspire to!), the Muslims are worse, so that’s all ok then!”
Your caricature of the Church really shows you know nothing about it. Look up St. Catherine of Sienna and tell me she’s some shrinking powerless violet.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
@Sylvia:
“Your caricature of the Church really shows you know nothing about it. Look up St. Catherine of Sienna and tell me she’s some shrinking powerless violet.”
Firstly, this is hardly a caricature – more a summary of the *ahem* “rebuttal” to the Guardian article presented in the OP.
And I’m not claiming that the female saints were shy retiring violets – only that being beatified is not exactly likely for millions of female RCC members (nor is being the mother of Christ, obviously).
Using both of these excuses as a carrot-on-a-stick to placate calls for equality in RCC hierarchy is simply shameful – the only thing more shameful is how readily some will sell out their own gender and accept such guff.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:40 pm
I’m assuming this monolithic “Church” is the RCC? Because of course, though this may astound you, to a lot of Christians the RCC isn’t very relevant.
Yes, this monolithic “Church is in reference to the Catholic Church. That’s what the article is on, no?
Again, the only ones bickering are those outside the Catholic Church. Thanks for clarifying it even more for me.
January 17th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
@ Sylvia: As last July “The Vatican made the “attempted ordination” of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism” then debate within the RCC is pretty much stifled, is it not?
This does not mean that many Catholics – including nuns – passionately disagree. Just that the Vatican, as usual, is behaving like a little foot-stamping emperor, determined that wearing frocks and waving perfume can only ever be a game played by boys…
January 17th, 2011 at 4:59 pm
Selling out their gender? What is equality to you? If I as a woman, wanted to become a CEO of a company, there’s nothing to stop me from doing that. The Catholic Church doesn’t stop me. In fact, there are women ceo’s that run Catholic hospitals, schools, organizations ect. There just aren’t women priests, bishops and popes. Again, take up your beef with Jesus. Being a priest isn’t like being a ceo. He is representing Jesus or standing in for Him. Another phrase is Persona Cristi. Jesus is a man. I don’t see how agreeing with that is selling out my gender. It is what it is. Jesus is a man, Jesus picked 12 men to carry on His ministry. They in turn ordained more men and so on and so on.
And being beatified isn’t likely for millions of Catholic men either. But sainthood is an equal opportunity title.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:07 pm
Well said on all counts Sylvia.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:09 pm
I doubt these Catholic critics have ever even graced our church, or know of its teachings in any depth, and yet this doesn’t stop them pompously judging it and us.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
@ Sylvia: As last July “The Vatican made the “attempted ordination” of women one of the gravest crimes under church law, putting it in the same category as clerical sex abuse of minors, heresy and schism” then debate within the RCC is pretty much stifled, is it not?
This does not mean that many Catholics – including nuns – passionately disagree. Just that the Vatican, as usual, is behaving like a little foot-stamping emperor, determined that wearing frocks and waving perfume can only ever be a game played by boys…
Honestly, as a Catholic, I’ve really only heard people outside the Church complain about this. I’m sure there are a some but this just isn’t something that most Catholics have on their minds. There are countless other denominations to join and some have women ministers so I don’t know why people keep harping on this. Now, if someone inside the Church was trying to ordain women knowing full well that it goes against the Church then they are indeed being heretical. Religious vocation take a vow of obedience and when they go against that they’re breaking their vows.
And it’s not up for discussion because the pope has no power to change it. He really doesn’t. His hands are tied because this is how it has been for 2000 years. And I’ve explained why it has been like this for 2000 years. It has nothing to with men being better than women or vice versa.
January 17th, 2011 at 5:24 pm
Thank you, Suzie and Sylvia. I’m not RC, but at least I can grasp the fact that ‘equal’ doesn’t have to mean ‘the same’ and that women, far from being second-class citizens, are equally valued.
Women cannot be fathers, but nor can men be mothers. That doesn’t mean that mothers are more, or less, necessary and valuable than fathers – they just have different roles. It is the same in Catholic teaching on sex, and was up until the day before yesterday in the Church of England, but now there is no room for anyone who holds on to this precept.
Get that into your heads, O ignorant ones, and stop coming out with this crap. I suppose it can be excused in atheists who really don’t know any better, because they have never been told, but for those who purport to be Christians …
January 17th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
@ Sylvia: You write: “I’ve really only heard people outside the Church complain about this. I’m sure there are a some but this just isn’t something that most Catholics have on their minds. There are countless other denominations to join and some have women ministers so I don’t know why people keep harping on this. Now, if someone inside the Church was trying to ordain women knowing full well that it goes against the Church then they are indeed being heretical. ”
Read what you’ve written again. Please. Do you not notice the complete cognitive dissonance between the statement “I’ve really only heard people outside the Church complain about this” and ” if someone inside the Church was trying to ordain women knowing full well that it goes against the Church then they are indeed being heretical”?
It’s beyond parody. No one cares…. Of course they don’t. But if they did they’d be heretics…
Not according to the National Coalition of American Nuns site: “More than 100 Roman Catholic nuns from 22 religious congregations have written the Vatican protesting the threatened excommunication of Rev. Roy Bourgeois, a Maryknoll priest who publicly favors the ordination of women. In July, he participated in the ordination ceremony of a woman priest.”
Then, of course, there’s the Women’s Ordination Conference. This doesn’t look as though there’s no dissent.
As for the argument that Jesus chose men, on this basis all priests would also have to be Jewish. And bearded perhaps? Answering to only a few permitted names… Can’t have a Benedict because Jesus didn’t have a Benedict, did he?
It’s ridiculous.
January 18th, 2011 at 9:35 am
I see that Jackie Bruchi at Stand Firm has picked up on this very topic.
http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/27121
January 18th, 2011 at 10:53 am
I would submit that there is a World of difference between misogyny (wonderful scrabble word!) and inequality. To any outsider such as myself, the perception is that the Church – the Catholic Church in particular – has been guilty of misogyny in the past. There is less evidence that this is still the case, although there are still occurences that echo that sorry state.
But with inequality its a different matter. Nobody could claim that there is anything like equality between the sexes in the Church. This is in large part a doctrinal issue. There are many within the Church who think that we should move with the times, and many who do not. That is surely at the foundation of this argument. Accusing the Church of misogyny may make a great journalistic headline, but I don’t think it quite captures the mainstream religious behaviour.
To an outsider such as myself, it just lookslike a sad and unseemly internal squabble from which all come out as losers. You don’t need atheists such as myself to destroy the Church. You’re doing a pretty good of it yourselves.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:06 am
It’s only a good scrabble word if you can spell it, Simian! I have seen countless variations.
Moving with the times should not mean dumping Christian doctrine. Ordination is not a career ladder. The orders of Bishop, Priest and Deacon have quite different functions, and moving from one order to another is in no way ‘promotion’ as in the secular understanding.
You might well ask why it is that the Bishop gets the big house – well, yes, so do I sometimes. That might well have to change.
January 18th, 2011 at 11:35 am
You don’t need atheists such as myself to destroy the Church. You’re doing a pretty good of it yourselves.
@Simian,
You have an extremely high opinion of yourself and of atheists.
Atheists couldn’t destroy the Church, nor can people. Not even the gates of Hades shall prevail against Her.
2000 years we have been going and we are stronger than ever!
January 18th, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@ Sylvia: You write: “I’ve really only heard people outside the Church complain about this. I’m sure there are a some but this just isn’t something that most Catholics have on their minds. There are countless other denominations to join and some have women ministers so I don’t know why people keep harping on this. Now, if someone inside the Church was trying to ordain women knowing full well that it goes against the Church then they are indeed being heretical. ”
Sophie says…”Read what you’ve written again. Please. Do you not notice the complete cognitive dissonance between the statement “I’ve really only heard people outside the Church complain about this” and ” if someone inside the Church was trying to ordain women knowing full well that it goes against the Church then they are indeed being heretical”?
It’s beyond parody. No one cares…. Of course they don’t. But if they did they’d be heretics…”
No the cognitive dissonance is on your part. Actually, your ignorance and lack of knowledge on the history of Christianity is daunting.
Look at the history of heresies in the church. There’s quite a number of them. Arianism, Gnosticism, Nestorianism, ect. Sure, there was a movement of a relative minority of religious trying to change doctrine or rewrite it and come up with their own ideas of how things should be or what we should believe… But that doesn’t make them right. And if they hold forth and disobey their leaders and go against the Church and undermine it, it makes them heretical and schismatic.
For example, Do you wish that Christianity had adopted the belief that Jesus is half God and half human? That would be called Monophysitism from the 5th century. Or perhaps Arianism of the 4th century is more to your taste? Do you agree with Arius that Jesus was created by God and therefore less than God instead of equal to and begotten by God the Father? Arius had the support of many bishops too. Ad movements go it would put this movement that women should be priests to shame! So, just because there are some in the Church that think women should be fathers doesn’t mean they’re right and if they are nuns or other religious deliberately ordaining women to become priest that is heretical and schismatic.
There are over a billion Catholics in the world, so you’re telling me that because 100 nuns want to change things and the media wants to sensationalize it, ( because they usually only report on negative issues in the Church,) that that somehow makes them to be “many?” and I am in the minority and in my own bubble? Get a course on math and statistics along with Church history while you’re at it.
“As for the argument that Jesus chose men, on this basis all priests would also have to be Jewish. And bearded perhaps? Answering to only a few permitted names… Can’t have a Benedict because Jesus didn’t have a Benedict, did he?
It’s ridiculous.”
Lets see…What’s ridiculous is how easy this is to rebut. As far as whether or not priest should still be Jewish ect, that was taken care at the council of Jerusalum which is in your Bible Acts 15:1. It said men didn’t need to become Jewish to be Christian.
But I doubt this will satisfy you as you seem to have a lot of contempt for the Catholic Church so I’m done here. You may have the last rant. God bless!
January 18th, 2011 at 5:22 pm
Sophie’s theology appears to come straight from the pages of Ekklesia’s website, so I think you will not find much in common, Sylvia.
January 18th, 2011 at 7:56 pm
Jill. I agree!
Phoebs – I did not intend to promote myself or atheism as superior. I was just reflecting what some Christians perceive as a threat and explaining that I did not think that was the main threat.
I think you’ll find I’ve been consistent in saying that I see a continuing role for the Church and I don’t wish to see it’s demise. I just don’t happen to believe in God myself, but I wish no ill to mainstream Christians
January 20th, 2011 at 2:01 am
Hi, I am from Australia.
One would think that in 2011 any well informed religiously and Spiritually literate person should be able to recognize institutionally created (self-serving) dogmas for what they are.
Please find a completely different understanding of the all important emotional-sexual dimensions of our existence-being via these references.
http://www.dabase.org/2armP1.htm#ch1
http://www.dabase.org/meaning.htm
http://www.dabase.org/beyoedip.htm
On the Secrets of the Kingdom as taught by Jesus while he was alive.
http://www.beezone.com/up/secretsofkingdomofgod.html
A radical critique of conventional religion altogether.
http://www.beezone.com/up/criticismcuresheart.html
http://www.adidam.org/teaching/aletheon/truth-religion.aspx