Courageously Defying The Holy Roman Empire, Amnesty International Stands Tall
Amnesty International has recently taken a monumentally courageous step for which I am profoundly grateful. But it may cost them dearly.
This month, in it’s 28th International Council Meeting in Mexico City, Amnesty International reaffirmed its April decision to support abortion rights in certain circumstances such as sexual violence, rape, incest, or where the health, human rights or life of a woman are endangered. This is especially relevant in places such as Darfur, where rape is widely used as a weapon of war and terror. But the policy decision has created a huge outcry from powerful forces within the Roman Catholic Church. The voices of disapproval and outrage are ringing everywhere; from the Vatican right down to long time peace activist Fr. Daniel Berrigan. A large group of Catholic clergy and organizations are calling upon Catholics worldwide to join them in a financial and personal boycott of the human rights organization.
The Vatican declared that “Amnesty International has betrayed its mission”. The head of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Cardinal Renato Marino stated, “AI has betrayed all of its faithful supporters throughout the years, both individuals and orgnizations who have trusted AI for its integral mission of promoting and protecting human rights”. He went on to say that “Individuals and Catholic organizations must withdraw their support for Amnesty International worldwide”. Upon announcing his own withdrawal from AI, British Bishop Rev. Michael Evans, along with other clergymen, cited the 1989 United Nations International Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Convention states that a child needs “special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection before as well as after birth.” The Bishop went on to say that “such appauling violence against the most vulnerable and defenseless form of human life in a woman’s womb” cannot be tolerated.
Combined with a lack of self awareness and serious self reflection, hubris can be one of the most insideously dangerous traits within human personality. When this kind of self righteous, myopic thinking dictates to the minds and hearts of the masses, it always has disastrous social consequences. We need only look to historical events, both past and present for the proof.
Since so many in the clergy are eager to point to the UN International Convention, I think we should consider the Church’s own record regarding the ’safeguard’ and ‘care’ of its own children. If these men are sincerely concerned about the welfare and protection of minors, why are they not calling for Catholics worldwide to stop giving financial support to their own church? In light of the countless crimes of sexual violence and rape perpetrated against children within their own parishes, where are the resounding calls for a boycott of the Church itself?
Rev. William Skylstad, head of the U.S. Conference of Bishops claims that “The decision undermines Amnesty’s long standing moral authority”. I can think of no institution with less moral authority when it comes to the protection of children than the Catholic Church. I wonder what sort of ‘legal protection’ and ’safeguards’ Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger had in mind back in 2001 when, as ‘Prefect of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith’, he issued an edict ordering Bishops worldwide to keep all incidents of clerical pedophilia from legal or public disclosure. The Cardinal, now known as Pope Benedict XVI, ordered that all information regarding child sexual abuse be sent to Rome, and handled through ’secret tribunals’. The reputation of the Church itself must take precedence above all other considerations - including the health and welfare of its victimized and abused children. Loyalty to the institution supercedes caring and concern for the ‘most vulnerable’ within its own flock.
Why do these men express more caring and concern for embryos that are part of a woman’s womb, than for children who are real, whole human beings; indivduals whom they personally know or know about? Why are children whose psyches and bodies have been abused, violated and permanently damaged, not treated with basic human concern or respect? Where are their ‘human rights’? These clergymen say that the ‘unborn’ cannot speak for themselves or defend themselves. So why has the Church stifled the speech and rendered defenseless, children who have real lives. Why such callous disregard for the ‘already born’?
Perhaps in the eyes of these men, the victimized children are not seen as human beings, but as potential threats to the power and image of the Church. It is far easier to take a strong stand about the impersonal, theorectical concept of potential life, as defined in the ‘letter of church law’, than to actually feel compassion toward an identifiable child who could potentially ‘rock the boat’. Adherence to dogma does not require true empathy or humanity. But it does serve well the interests of empire. The survival of the Church trumps the ‘Spirit of the Law’. Isn’t this precisely what Jesus was speaking about?
Before any individual, institution or government can claim moral ‘authority’ they must first, at the very least, establish moral ‘crediblity’. This implies proof of a fully working conscience and evidence of character. These qualitites cannot be inherited or simply self declared. For this church to speak against Amnesty International, to the point of attempting to undermine it’s very existence, is blatantly hypocritical and disgraceful. AI is being discredited and even demonized, because it chooses to hold to its own sense of integrity and conscience. Cardinal Martino says, “To selectively justify abortion, even in the case of rape, is to define the innocent child within the womb, as an enemy and thing that must be destroyed…”
It seems rather obvious to me, that no male has the innate authority to legislate what goes on within a woman’s own womb. It is a sacred place which ‘Nature’, in its infinite wisdom, obviously designed and entrusted to feminine wisdom and care. And the notion that Catholic clergymen claim the right to dictate to any woman concerning her most intimate physiology, is really quite audacious. These are men whose very lifestyle suggests a belief that distance from women fosters closeness to God. It is mind boggling to think that they actually percieve themselves to be credible authorities in this realm. The very idea is just grandiose and foolish.
Empathy is the prelude to compassion. But it can only be developed through direct, personal connection and essential identification with the ‘other’. It is the deepest form of interpersonal understanding. If this is missing, then generic legalism, in all of its guises, becomes the fall back position. The ‘letter of the law’ rules the day. I believe this is something Jesus spoke of as well. These men have chosen to distance themselves from the very people whose lives and bodies they wish to control; over whom, they once again, proclaim ‘moral authority’.
Amnesty International has made itself quite clear. It will not be blackmailed into submission by the Church. This tactic of secular ‘ex-communication’, the ‘boycott’, will not bring AI to its knees. Neither the heart nor the soul of this organization is for sale. Amnesty International has indeed surpassed itself. I believe it will surely survive -even without the blessings of the Pontif and his legions. After all, Amnesty International does stand upon a much higher principle; one that transcends the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic Church.
Rita Corriel is a practicing psychotherapist, activist and writer living in Pennsylvania.
This is wonderful news.
And indeed, who are the Catholic clergy to try to impose their own patriarchal views on women? When the Catholic clergy can be raped, impregnated, and be responsible for a rapist’s child, their opinions might be far more interesting.
The Catholic church and the American right-wing fundamentalists need to stop obsessing about abortion, stop trying to control women’s most intimate and moral lives, and begin paying beneficent attention to children who are already born if they want to be truly Christ-like. I agree that women should be the determiners of their pregnancies, not a bunch of men who refuse to intimately relate to women, and who protect and permit their fellows to sexually abuse those same children. They certainly don’t transcend their sexuality into sainthood but rather mock that which is natural and even good.
It’s sick.
kudos to AI. i know there are good people in the catholic church (how could there not be, w/a billion members?) but the church as an institution is an enemy of human progress, especially for women. i know many examples from the filipino community of the horrible, horrible effects of catholic teaching on people, esp. women.
and when is the nazi pope going to come out and unequivocally and forthrightly condemn the iraq war, and threaten w/excommunication participants in that holocaust, especially the leaders?
Amnesty international has taken the ‘high road’ and spoken truth to power once again. Thank you!
“I can think of no institution with less moral authority when it comes to the protection of children than the Catholic Church.”
When the dimensions of the sexual abuse scandal were brought to the full light of day, the Jesuit journal “America” declared that the hierarchy ought to declare a moratorium on issuing sexual diktats for at least a decade. When Ratzinger became pope, one of his first actions was to order the dismissal of Fr. Thomas Reese as editor of “America.”
The laity have been much more progressive than the hierarchy, but the most regressive among the hierarchy have effectively shifted the blame onto progressive bishops, despite the fact that Cardinal Law was given protection inside the Vatican itself.
Fr. Andrew Greeley has been one of the most outspoken of American clerics against both the sexual abuse & the reactionary power politics; he doesn’t regard clerical celibacy as an evil; it’s the context & it’s relation to choice that matters, and the hierarchy desires to pre-empt all choice & to subsume all conscience within its own abstract versions.
Why doesn’t amnesty international start with the muslim treatment of women. What a bunch of cowards.
Are they just afraid they will get their heads cut off? I guess I understand though. If I am walking down the street and michael jackson and mike tyson are acting like butt-holes toward some woman I would attack michael jackson first.
Let’s keep things in perspective people.
What fascinates me is that there is no mention by the church (I refuse to capitalize it) of the burden carried by the victims of rape/abuse. There is no mention of the quality of life that these women are left with - to say nothing of the children born to them who are not wanted by the families/communities.
Taking care of those who are alive versus those cellular packets that have the potential for life is a strong stance supporting women and valuing their quality of life.
Yea!!! Amnesty International is RIGHT ON!!
For those DNA bundles that can not survive for months outside of a woman’s womb, the All-That-Is can watch over them - and if they are truly meant to be - the All-That-Is can make it so.
That means that those of us who disagree need to dig deep into our pockets and help out Amnesty International.
I think it’s time that women find their own spiritual roots that empower them rather than denigrate them. Women need to reject women-hating religious traditions.
Who cares what the Catholic church thinks! About anything. Bunch of perverts in Rome.
“hy doesn’t amnesty international start with the muslim treatment of women. What a bunch of cowards.”
For the lazy & vicious who are incapable of looking up AI’s statements & activities regarding Islamic countries –
http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-2md/index
including this on the situation under the current regime in Iran–
http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGMDE130852007?open&of=ENG-2MD
Nonetheless, they don’t follow the prescriptions of the neofascisti in Washington.
Difficult but worthwhile reading: A BRIEF, LIBERAL, CATHOLIC DEFENSE OF ABORTION, by Daniel A. Dombrowski & Robert Deltete. Concludes that it is a “safely probable opinion” the the abortion before the “fetus” is viable - can live outside the womb - is morally acceptable. It is a living human entity but not a living human person.
“What fascinates me is that there is no mention by the church (I refuse to capitalize it) of the burden carried by the victims of rape/abuse. There is no mention of the quality of life that these women are left with - to say nothing of the children born to them who are not wanted by the families/communities.”
In arguing with orthodox, who will just shut off the cries of common sense, you can point out that the prohbition CONTRADICTS THE CHURCH’S OWN TEACHING ON THE DIGNITY OF MARRIAGE, FAMILY, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN. The birth of children is supposed to express the holiness, the sacramental character of marriage; but BY THEIR OWN RULE, rape & incest are a profanation, a sacrilege, violation, indignity. So they can’t support their position EVEN ON THEIR OWN PROFESSED PRINCIPLES.
“The Bishop went on to say that “such appauling violence against the most vulnerable and defenseless form of human life in a woman’s womb” cannot be tolerated.”
The rape wasn’t such an appauling violence and the women weren’t defenseless but they should carry this pregnancy to full term?
“When this kind of self righteous, myopic thinking dictates to the minds and hearts of the masses, it always has disastrous social consequences.”
I couldn’t have said it better. Thank you Rita!
That’s just one of the reasons I left the Catholic Church decades ago.
I notice a lot of heat here, but not much light. Perhaps we should hear from Olga Bonfiglia on this? My sense is that she speaks for a lot of Catholics whose voices are being drowned out by the vitriol I have read so far. I’ve stated my position as a former “practicing” Catholic elsewhere in these pages, but I think it sad that an organization like AI should cut loose a large portion of its support with a gesture it may not have needed to make.
“My sense is that she speaks for a lot of Catholics whose voices are being drowned out by the vitriol I have read so far. I’ve stated my position as a former “practicing” Catholic elsewhere in these pages, but I think it sad that an organization like AI should cut loose a large portion of its support with a gesture it may not have needed to make.”
I’m a former Catholic as well.
It’s the hierarchy which is waging the campaign against Amnesty International, not the other way around.
Nor is it only a ‘gesture’ — the hierarchy continues to use its charitable works as extortion, against AI, against the UN, against all organizations that insist that the rights conscience of the pregnant woman can’t be nullified by what the hierarchy says her conscience ought to say.
I have stopped tithing to the former Nazi’s collection plate and send it to Amnisty instead.
Theocratic cruelty and intollerance is no way for humanity to find compassonate gods.
Women need to be protected from the need to resort to lye solution douches, knitting needles and coat hangers and to be supported wholly by those who will provide the safe care they deserve.
What we really need to the whole abortion issue is a PRE-EMPTIVE solution. Even the most passionate Pro-choice person, doesn’t really want to have an abortion. It’s just a shitty choice some of us have to make. In the case of Darfur, the church and AI should cooperate on ways to prevent rape, and the church should have just shut their mouths on abortion. But let’s ask ourselves, away from extreme examples like Darfur, why are abortions necessary in America? I see a million birth control advertisements on t.v. So why aren’t we using them?
O.K. lets get back to the catholic church. And as i vomit a little in my mouth, since I’m a hard-core atheist. Honestly, just because there are sicko priest pedophiles, the non-sexual offenders do have a right to say their opinions on abortion. The catholic church isn’t going away and if you want change you have to meet them half way.
damon,
The only “half-way” point seems to be contraception, but the CC doesn’t permit that either. I don’t see how any change will occur in either side in my lifetime.
And if used, contraception doesn’t always work. Then the foolish young often don’t use it because they’re careless and thoughtless. While it may work in primitive societies, we don’t need children trying to raise children. They can’t even support themselves, much less themselves and a child, so much of the responsibility falls to others. Too bad contraception isn’t considered to be cool among some groups. Though I don’t know what Yaz is like as a contraceptive, they have some neat TV ads in this area, featuring young women, obviously well off, talking about it.
Anyway, I think the CC interferes in peoples’ sexual lives at levels they have no moral business to be in. Not being Catholic myself, it seems incredibly presumptuous for a bunch of male clerics to tell women what they can and cannot do about their reproductive lives.
This actually goes beyond the usual argument about the woman’s right to choose, important though that is. This is about the increasing use of rape as a weapon of war and terror!
Unless we can bring peace to the countries where this is happening, the use of rape as a weapon of war will only increase. And unless the churches and the rest of us follow AI’s example, there will be increasing numbers of raped women and resulting children who are victims of these war crimes, making living in peace that much more difficult to achieve.
The church and the government should NOT have anything to do with me womb, what I do in my private life, or be in my doctors office. Get the hell out of my life!
WHAT FOOLS & Dichterfreund: Good points.
BREN says, “Unless we can bring peace to the countries where this is happening, the use of rape as a weapon of war will only increase.” In my view the entire patriarchal structure of the church is a form of rape in that it renders women powerless. The misogyny is disgusting and it’s lasted centuries. Take the word NUN, how does it differ in meaning and intent from NONE, as in, no power or influence to you little ladies; now just let us claim power to your wombs that all births be given the male name of the father, and you dangerous bitches with your unbridled sexual desires (all like EVE) kept on safe, tight leashes with access to neither birth control nor abortion, even if conception was rendered under the most heinous and degrading of circumstances. That’s some religion!
Great article, Rita! This diatribe of the Catholic “club” against AI for caring about women is all part of male monotheistic religions continuing to express their hatred and fear of women. Reminiscent of the 14th-17th century witchhunts, the stance by the Pope and President Bush that AIDS medical care be tied to abstinence propagating unnecessary death of untold numbers of AIDS victims and of course mostly innocent women and children is clearly their modern-day style of witchhunt. The underlying message, “Sex is bad, women are evil, have no rights, and need to be controlled by men/church.” This unmitigated audacity to think they have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body is every day thankfully swelling the ranks of “recovering Catholics.” The more and sooner women rebel against prejudice, suppression and denigration promoted by these religions the more likely there may be a chance for our planet Earth to survive our present headlong course toward extinction.
Meg declares:
Who cares what the Catholic church thinks! About anything. Bunch of perverts in Rome.
*******************
Because the heirarchy of the RC Church (faithful Catholics please note I am not speaking to or about you unless you choose to stand in solidarity with the historical baggage of your church’s clergy) has consistently been the most mysogynistic, hateful, persecuting, and vicious imposers of cruelty on women known to mankind.
Just because they do not have armed forces at their disposal (like in crusade and inquisition times)does not mean their capacity to inflioct cruelty has diminished. (Oh by the way, Lil Jeb Bush is a Roman Cathollic so God only knows what sort of shenanigans he might get into if elected President)
Just because there are individual priests and nuns who might have compassion and sensibiity does not mean that the officially hateful position of the organization as a whole has changed.
The proof is the reaction of the papacy. Such intolerance deserves the same on the part of those exposed to it. They still have lotsa money. power, and influence and a history that shows that when sufficiently provoked they will do anything “in God’s name” no less.
Ironies, irony being a euphemism for hypocrisy, abound. Perhaps the Catholic Church is directly competing with AI in some way and thus needs a reason to keep others from swelling the ranks of the other side.
It is a very good article but I am confused at one point. When Rita says: “human rights or life of a woman are endangered,” is AI taking the standard pro-choice approach to abortion? Without the word “rights” in that sentence, AI would be taking a qualified pro-life position.
If I were to imitate the Catholic Church, since I myself am pro-life, I would not participate in peace protests with the local peace group in my area. But since I do not imitate the Catholic Church here, I have found a couple of pro-choice people who are more comfortable in talking about the abortion issue with me than they are with other pro-life advocates. And as for me, I can celebrate what I agree with with my local peace group rather than allowing a single, though important, issue keep me from working for peace. Perhaps the Catholic Church is robbing itself of important opportunities by taking this hard-line stance.
Finally, a point of disagreement. I agree with Cardinal Martino’s statement: “To selectively justify abortion, even in the case of rape, is to define the innocent child within the womb, as an enemy and thing that must be destroyed.” What should be implicit with that statement, however, should be a solemn pledge to provide all necessary resources to all women who are in need and who follow the teachings of the Church.
But a more important point is this: “what is human life?” Despite the unequal burdens being born by the two genders in bringing life into this world, this is a question for all of us. For if, for each unborn, the human status of that unborn is determined solely by the mother based on her situation at the time, are we not implying that the definition of human life is relative rather than absolute? And if the definition of human life is relative, then who else gets to decide the human status of another life depending on the circumstances?
Are we forgetting that the Catholic Church has condemned two million African women to death by condemning the use of condoms thus exposing them to AIDS? It has NO moral authority.
I started out being calm and rational about this topic, and as i don’t usually do I laid out the case for everyone to agree. But the usual generalizations still surface, soo as i do best, I’m going to be a complete asshole. anney, yes the catholic church doesn’t give the o.k. to contraceptives, if they really wanted to decrease abortions they would, but it’s all a marketing play, i have no idea who came up with it , but it works.
Next on to bren, As awful as all these atrocities done to women in resource rich countries, tell us, does your wife wear a diamond ring?
Now to Siouxrose, As much as you think the “man” is suppressing you, or your crazy tarot card analogy is relevant. Women are not powerless. They have the power to make us annoyed to the extent that us men listen to with their insistence that politics have something to do with astrology.
On to Rebel Farmer. Have you even seen an abortion? It’s a bloody mess. Baby parts all squirming. I do not recommend it.
I have an idea change from rethoric and embrace thought.
I don’t know anyone who is pro abortion. I know people who are pro choice. I’m pro the plan B pill, pro contraception and pro condom use. I am also aware that rape, incest and the woman’s health changes things and believe in that strongly enough to overcome an aversion to an unfortunate procedure but one which in these cases is necessary. I am against late term abortions unless to save the life (health) of the mother. Abortions should be performed only in the first trimester otherwise.
But other than my opinion, it isn’t up to me what a woman decides is right for herself. That said it is a failing of the modern era to see everything in simplistic terms and allow spin to define debate. To disagree with the church’s hierarchy’s position, to debate the faults or merits of it and to show them where there may be error is necessary and valid.
But how does this author support her arguement? She argues apples and then talks about oranges? Whenever someone has a criticism of the CC’s position on a matter, apparently all they need do is mention the sex abuse scandals and they need say no more about anything. Neither awful priests nor awful protestant ministers like Haggard or the televangelist who was arrested for beating, kicking and stomping on his wife last week define their churches. These acts are criminal. What has that to do with this debate on abortion?
I personally agree with AI and would probably have agreed with this author’s debate had she actually chosen to debate. But these days … shooting for the dumbing down debate is so much easier.
Also… if she refers to someone like a peace activist, youmd think she’d have the integrity to quote what he said and let her readers judge for themselves. Here she just throws in his name for gratuitous effect… another cheap shot.
Bugs,
I don’t think it is a cheap shot. Rather, we should question whether the scandals of the Church are part of a systemic rather than isolated problem.
What I find in the conservative movements in the Churches is that they have become totally ingrown in resources and in almost all goals. Ingrown in resources means that we are only allowed to listen to certain people and listening to others will be harmful. Home schools or private religious schools are other examples of conservatives being ingrown when informational resources from outside the Church are not utilized. The conservative Churches are ingrown in goals in that the believer is taught to be so concerned about the status of their own soul to the extent that the sufferings of many people are ignored.
There is one goal of the Conservative Churches that is not ingrown, that goal is to control the world outside of itself. What many conservatives essentially do is to not listen to the outside world while demanding that that world not only listen to what they say but to repent as well.
Most everyone goes to church as a safeguard, as if that endeavor serves as a magic talisman or provides them with a magic key to enter the promised land and escape some alternate horror. Most people go to church out of fear. I really believe that is what motivates most people. What else is there to be found within a church which neither speaks of nor offers any techniques or methods to increase one’s spiritual/mental ‘awareness’ in this life? The Christian Church certainly offers no practical, hands on method for developing ‘Enlightenment’. It doesn’t even speak of such things, either conceptually or practically. If a Religion doesn’t offer a way to connect with God PERSONALLY, it is a front for something else, namely power, politics, and control. The Church has systematically stamped out native and ‘pagan’ spiritual practices which emphasized the personal connection of the individual to the divine, not requiring a priest - or intermediary.
I went to Church and Sunday School every week, until I was a teenager, and I couldn’t tell you the first thing about what the religion taught, because it was so obviously teaching nothing. Nor did I ever hear any elder sage within the church community offer a single bit of information that would act as either tool, technique, or revelation to help manifest things greater. Because the Church has nothing to offer in this area.
What the Church does primarily offer is some advice towards developing the heart, prayer, and benevolent conscience in the lucky ones. It also offers that ’safety pill’ for the hereafter. However, for anyone who believes that about the hereafter, why is it so difficult to then believe in the ’supernatural’ in terms of the possibility that each person may develop that supernatural awareness or connection with God while still living? Is that too far a stretch? Shouldn’t be. Supernatural is supernatural, after all.
But that leads us to the hypocritical/other agenda elements in the Church.
I have been wondering for some time now, if, amidst all the hot air everyone in politics is blowing about their ‘faith’ or ‘religion’, when any Christian Leaders, either political or religous, will stand up and start screaming about the UNCHRISTIAN nature of the war in Iraq and George Bush.
Where are all of the voices of the Church with regard to this war, as a few others in this post have rightly mentioned?
Where are the Great Christian Leaders for Peace and Love and etc., etc.? And, if YOU are a Christian (or any religion for that matter) and your Church Leader/Elder/Priest/etc is NOT speaking out against Bush and this war, and you are a subscriber to that Church and its teachings, are you not also SUPPORTING THE WAR and Bush?
Great for Amnesty International, by the way.
Religions are all regressive.
For those of you who think that opposing the
Roman Catholic Church is to support abortion, it is not that alone.
It is to oppose the use of any and all contraception except the “rhythm method” which manifestly does not work–witness the vast herds of poor, uneducated, Roman Catholic mnasses throughout the world.
It is also supporting the proposition that the ONLY LEGITIMATE PURPOSE FOR SEXUAL RELATIONS IS PROCREATION.
Pleasure, intimacy, and transcendent bonding be damned–Il Papa and all his “celibate’ henchmen think such things degrading and depraved.
Don’t tell me that Catholics really don’t believe that because it doesn’t really matter whether they “believe” it or not–they suppport the institution that promotes it. Kind of like apathetic Americans with their war-mongering government.
fbelcast August 27th, 2007 1:00 am
“Are we forgetting that the Catholic Church has condemned two million African women to death by condemning the use of condoms thus exposing them to AIDS? It has NO moral authority.”
How about the millions of children born with the virus who didn’t and don’t get the drugs they need and then die from AIDS?
I haven’t heard the Vatican’s position, but born-again Bush wants to spend our tax dollars to give African men circumcisions to help reduce the spread of Aids.
It would be interesting to read the (scientific?) research that led to this decision.
J Mc Candless: Good analysis.
DAMON 13: I don’t suffer fools kindly. I have read your postings and never seen anything remotely imaginative or particularly intelligent or incisive. In contrast, there are MANY who post on CD who I learn from, applaud and affirm. I have a few critics, but by and large, readers appreciate the metaphysical and/or mystical metaphors I bring to enlarge some of the concerns we all share. Your comments in response to my posting are unbelievably narrow and completely miss my points. It’s not about me as woman feeling under the power of “the man.” THIS woman has overpowered PLENTY of men, particularly intellectually… but the point is policy, sweetheart, or how religion has acted to dis-empower women frequently starting with their claim to their own genitals.
I will not parlay further with you. Attack as you will. Some people have the capacity to take the board away from their own eyes, while others just argue as they remind blind to what they cannot let themselves see.
To Bugs: The point appears to be that the catholic church is hypocracy incarnated. And i appreciate the fact that someone is pointing this out. When heads of any organization make such self righteous proclamations, than they need to be ready to hear a response. They are talking about how concerned they are about children, as their complaint with AI. But it is obviously NOT the case! Obviously…
The article does make a case - about the fact that the hierarchy and some clergy are bashing and attempting to destroy AI because it does not agree with the church’s law. And as far as Daniel Berrigan is concerned, much to my own dismay, he has spoken out against AI (i checked it out), because of his belief that all abortion is wrong, under all circumstances. He has been quoted by the orthodox press. He is withdrawing from the organization. That being said,
I think it makes Rita’s point even more relevant, between living separately and avoiding intimacy with women, and the “letter of the law” being the “fallback position”. After all, when one is celebate, there is a need to keep emotional distance as well, because love might actually develop, and that could be ‘dangerous’ to the church. Love…I mean, that would be soooo against Jesus’s teaching, right?
Also: great comments JMcCandless, SiouxRose, Poet, Dichterfreund!!
I guess Damon thinks Catholics always do what the Chruch tells them not to. (Not that I blame the poor, mis-guided fools. And not that I feel sorry for the miserable lot.)
“A marketing ploy???” Are you sure?
Great read from everyone on this topic. Thanks.
FREEDOM = CHOICE(S)
Peace to you and yours.
I really hate it when people use “talking points”
Pro-Abortion…..not for a minute. Its Pro-Choice.
Though I oppose abortion on principal, I wouldn’t for a minute suggest a woman follow any other course than the one dictated by her own consience. She bears the responsibilty so the choice should be hers alone.
And frankly since I’m unlikely to have an abortion my opinion is as worthless on this point as the opinion of all other men.