HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing
The arrogance of organized religion

(or rather, its staunch defenders¹)

The latest preacher in our discussion of religion, particularly the Catholic church, brought on this latest jewel, by someone who signs the comment as Mary:

If you want to think of priests as leaders, go right ahead, but you’re wrong, they’re not: they have a very, very specific role, they are priests, they offer the Sacraments.

Bishops, cardinals and Popes come from the community of priests, so they are men.

Baseball coaches come from the ranks of ballplayers, so they are ballplayers. See? Not insidious, just logical.

If you are so minded to consider the father of a family the only leader: (1) get into the right century and (2) where does that leave the woman? By your logic, the woman, being unable to produce sperm, cannot be a leader of the family. We know that’s obviously wrong.

Some of our most fundamental roles are specific to our sex: mother, father, sister, brother. Also priest.

You are looking at what the priest does and who he is with the eyes of an outsider and someone who has never opened a catechism or even a good dictionary before speaking. I think you would be relieved if you spent ten minutes reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church on priesthood and the roles of the sexes.

I’m almost speechless at the idiocy.

So priests can offer the sacraments, women can’t be priests…but there is no discrimination. And coaches are not leaders? Never mind that, if we were to follow this ‘logic,’ then we start with the premise that women can’t even be players, which confirms the church’s misogyny, thank you very much.

Then again, this idjit is talking about fundamental roles for the sexes–enough said.


~ ~ ~

¹ If only they could see how their behaviour drives even more people away from whichever church they chose to ‘defend’

Once more with feeling: the misogyny of organized religion.

I posted a couple of days ago about the homophobia of many visible Catholic priests. The absolute lack of connection that the Catholic church has with the real world and the lives of the people within it has motivated many of us to renounce our once-faith.

That is bad enough, right? But for those in the church who cling to the belief that there is something good in the institution, even when some of its leaders are flawed and misguided, we have this:

The Vatican published a report on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious criticizing them for spending too much effort on poverty and social injustice and not enough on their male leadership’s anti-abortion and anti-gay agenda.

Seriously? Is it possible for any institution whose focus are the teachings of Christ to spend too much effort on poverty? Well, paint me purple and call me Herbert.

From the article:

Public disagreement with the bishops — “who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals” — is unacceptable.

The bishops…who are men.

Because women are, you know, inferior and unworthy.

Which is why Pope Benedict, may karma catch up with him soonest, has declared it an impossibility that women would ever be ordained. That would be akin to admitting women are as human beings as men, for goodness sake!

So now some other bishops will take over and rewrite the Conference statues and shit, to make sure the nuns adhere to the letter of the church–Jesus’ actual teachings be damned.

Way to go, assholes, way to go.


These guys are perfect examples

of why I no longer consider myself Catholic–more, they make me ashamed to admit that at one point I was Catholic.

Bishop John Nienstedt violates the separation of church and state, directing priests in his diocesis to ‘to defend and define marriage.” Just over a year ago, he used church funds to pay for anti gay marriage DVDs to be made and distributed in his state. (Why again are Catholic churches tax exempt when they are obviously and publicly engaging in politic issues?).

Bishop Daniel Jenky compares Obama’s policies to Nazi religious prosecution (yes, he did go there).

And newly minted Cardinal Timonthy Dolan, for whom “The definition of marriage is a given:  it is a lifelong union of love and fidelity leading, please God, to children, between one man and one woman.” (so what, when the husband beats the hell out of everyone else in the family, or both parents neglect, abuse or kill their kids…why is that considered marriage, then?)

/rant (for now)