wow. just wow.

'Feminism refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path at the end of which the suicide of thought and the death of womanhood is inevitable,'

obviously the problem here is all those uppity women ghosts disturbing the supernatural relations between the sexes!

'Feminism refuses the true nature of woman, confuses the natural and supernatural relations between the sexes and embarks upon a deviant path at the end of which the suicide of thought and the death of womanhood is inevitable,'

obviously the problem here is all those uppity women ghosts disturbing the supernatural relations between the sexes!

Yeah, once I went to a church with a friend, because I cared enough about my friend to participate in this request. It was a picnic I went to and every one was so nice. There was diversity in this church and environmental consciousness. I briefly thought to myself, perhaps I could go here...

Then a couple stood up and the wife said, "I am so grateful to G-d that I may be submissive to my husband."

I got the first ride from a stranger out of there, dust kicking up at my heels too!

I too vote for deviancy. There is no way I'll ever be cool with a religion/person that needs me to not think and follow a penis in order to maintain the fabric community.

Who buys this sh!t anymore?

And my Mom wonders why I'm not a Catholic anymore...gah! Women can't be in authority positions over boys, meaning that a teenage boy is, by default of his gender, superior to an adult woman? And what the hell do they mean, feminism leads to "suicide of thought"? Doesn't telling women that they should obey their husbands in all respects lead to the death of free thinking?

How can women fulfill their natural roles as mothers if they are not permitted to be in authority positions over boys?

I went to a St. Pius X elementary school, though in a different state. Ironically enough, I think they actually had more sports teams for girls than boys.

What the hell is "suicide of thought"? Speaking as an English teacher, "thought" does not have any agency; therefore it cannot kill itself.

Of course, I'm a woman, so despite my expertise, I'm sure I don't have the authority to correct the writer.

I honestly can't believe that people like this can still operate in the 21st century. Does this mean that they have no female teachers?

And, OK, there's a dangling modifier in my comment. But thought still can't commit suicide.

Miraculously, this was not my experience of Catholicism when I was growing up. Probably because my grandmother had a high lay position within our diocese, and since I had zero desire to be a priest I didn't consider why the option wasn't open to women.

Then I got to my Catholic college and realized we were just as crazy as all the other religious sects I'd been wary of.

Ugh, if you think that's bad, add in this gem from another part of the FAQ's

"A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed. However, marriage relationships are a serious matter and of great importance. Furthermore, the refusal of the marriage debt [read: sex] may cause a danger of incontinence. Consequently, it is a mortal sin to deprive one’s spouse of these relationships. The typical example of this is when a wife feels that she is justified in withholding the marriage debt because her feelings are hurt, or she is not appreciated enough. "

I'm pretty sure this isn't a typical Catholic belief, just some tangent this particular group went on. Just goes to show, though, that when groups start talking about submission and "suicide of thought" it's not long before they make the jump to removing all sexual autonomy.

As a recovering Catholic myself, I can say that it's EXACTLY this type of bullshit that caused me to stop going to church at age 12 (along with my mom, she had enough at that point too).

However, doesn't anyone else think it's ironic (at least ironic in an Alanis Morrisette type of way) that right next to that article there's a different article talking about the "NHL's Hottest Women"?

SarahMC:
I was wondering the same thing. Then it occurred to me that any woman of worth will be married to a man and thus, she will be submitting to his authority and he can guide her in how to raise her son. Or something.
I just find it hilarious that an adult woman is considered inferior to a group of teenage boys. Have y'all ever been around teenage boys? They are, for the most part, so goofy.

A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed.

What? What? I...know I should be focusing on the justification of marital rape, but I can't help it. My head exploded way before I got there because this pathetic excuse for a sentence makes no sense! What does this mean? The grammar doesn't work! It's completely incoherent!

So not only will they teach your kid misogyny, they won't teach him or her how to write a decent sentence. Great school you got there, guys.

I'd like to make a small correction to the post and some of the comments. This is NOT a Roman Catholic school. It is a religious school that follows the laws the Society of Pius X, a separate entity from the catholic church. The founder of this sect was excommunicated from the church and the sect has been known for its extremism against women and Jews. There are many valid criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church and as a Catholic I often struggle with the teachings, but this level of extremism is not directly connected.

I should add that, while I did not attend Catholic school myself, my father was CERTAINLY subservient to nuns who taught him during his teenage years.

Thank you, e. I was looking to post a same comment to that effect.

I do hope that the original story is edited to remove "Roman Catholic" from the school's description. These people were too nuts even for John Paul II, (not really known for his progressive views) so he kicked them out. Until Pope Ratzinger lets them back in (there's some talk he might), they aren't part of the Roman Catholic church.

To echo e, I agree that there are many valid criticisms against the Roman Catholic Church, which is why I am involved with Women's Ordination Conference and Catholics for a Free Choice, but Society of Pius X IS a radical conservative fringe group. Their beliefs are not part of the Catholic mainstream. And they're stupid and shouldn't get to play in the league if they discriminate against refs.

I think the original article was in error by not more clearly demarcating the difference between Roman Catholics in general and SSPX.

Count me in as another progressive Catholic who would like the post edited to state that these folks are not actually Roman Catholics.

While women certainly do not have the same rights as men in the RC church, I was never taught anything about submitting to a husband's leadership or not refusing sex with a man.

I went to an uber-cool progressive parish in NYC that was openly in favor of gay rights and the participation of laity in church activities.

Most Catholics are nothing like the wackos in the post, and half of us are pro-choice (really!).

E (and others) -

Thanks for clarifying the fact that SSPX is a separate entity from the Catholic church. I do hope the original post is corrected.

This is completely outrageous and if that school gets any government funding, it should be yanked immediately.

And, OK, there's a dangling modifier in my comment.

I find it freeing to occasionally dangle my modifiers (I also rather enjoy splitting infinitives).

Yeah, thanks for the clarification because I was incredibly confused as everybody I know who went to Catholic School was taught by nuns and those women certainly had authority over teenage boys!

Looks like this might be the same school that took a forfeit in a football game rather than a play against a team with a girl on it.

http://www.traditioninaction.org/Cultural/B005cpForfeitFootball.htm

Yes, thanks. I may be a heathen now, but I was raised in the Church and went to Catholic schools all my life. The SSPX are a bunch of lunatic fringers. I was taught in HS by Dominican nuns and the odd Jesuit priest, and let me tell you, there was no talk of submitting to anything or anyone except (lol) the authority of the Church. It was really shocking for me to read this story all over my blogs.

"... the nature of a woman makes her much more prone to the temptation of vanity, to show off her body, and the nature of a man makes him much more tempted by seeing this. Consequently, the gravest and most dangerous offenses against modesty, understood in its fourth and most restricted meaning, namely as against purity, are by women."

That's apparently one of the reasons it's more important to address what women wear more than what men wear.

This one is also mind-blowing:

"... there is a special form of immodesty that is characteristic of our modern times, and it is the immodesty of women wearing men’s clothes, most notably pants and shorts... It is this form of immodesty which is ultimately by far the most destructive of human relationships and of the virtue of purity."

I really don't understand how pants are "immodest," but then again, I really don't understand how ANY of the things on that list can actually be seriously believed by people.

I think I'm pretty done making my brain explode reading that list.

uplate6674- Do you mind me asking which parish? That sounds very interesting...

I think this part of the article is where the confusion of the school's sect/religion originated:

St. Mary's Academy, about 25 miles northwest of Topeka, is owned and operated by the Society of St. Pius X, which follows older Roman Catholic laws. The society's world leader, the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, was excommunicated by Pope John Paul II in the late 1980s.

As a lecter at my Catholic church (oh, that rarity of pop culture--the Catholic feminist!), I had to do to "wives, be subservient" reading this summer. My priest had to deal with an eye roll and an 'oh, really?' look from me, and was quick to invoke me in his sermon. That's got to be one of the most difficult readings for the modern church, to make sense of what that means now. I have so much respect for every church member (though maybe not the church itself) that steps out of the box and tries to make sense of this old fashioned religion in a modern context.

I do feel the need to point out that not all Catholic schools, or even religious schools in general, are like this. Since they rely fully on tuition payments, most are smart enough not to be jackasses like this and piss off the payers!

by:e, it's St. Paul the Apostle Church, near Columbus Circle. It's a Paulist parish, as opposed to an Archdiocesan one. (I hate the 'preach down' homiletic style of the Archdiocese of New York).

GottaBeMe - oh yes, those OLD laws. Meaning pre-Vatican II. Those would be Traditionalist Catholics, i.e., these are the same type of people as Mel Gibson. They believe that the reforms of Vatican II should never have happened and adhere to all the old-school rules and worship practices (including women wearing head coverings during Mass, priest speaking in Latin with his back to the congregation, praying for the conversion of the Jews, all that lovely stuff).

Note that TraditionalIST is different from TraditionAL. A Traditional Catholic believes in and adheres to every and all rules, practices, and opinions held by the *current* Church.

A liberal or progressive Catholic (sometimes disparagingly referred to as a 'cafeteria Catholic' because they pick and choose which rules make sense for them and which don't - and I proudly wear that label) disagrees with some or many of them and would like to see them change.

Despite what the party line is, we're definitely not all the same.

I have played sports all my life, and rugby the past three, and never once (in rugby anyway) have I had a woman referee. It is always a man, which is why I don't understand this. If a man can referee a women's game, why can't a woman referee a men's game? I know this school refused her on religious grounds, but I have heard this view from non-religious people, that women somehow are incapable of fully understanding or making correct calls in a sporting event. I want to see a woman referee the super bowl!

If a man can referee a women's game, why can't a woman referee a men's game?

It isn't about whether women are capable of making good calls, these folks believe men have a natural authority over women.
Women are supposed to submit to men (and like it!). Letting women referee a man's (or even boy's) game...that would madness, I tell you... madness!

God I saw this a couple days ago and it made me wanna vom. I grew up in the (presbyterian) church and never EVER heard anything about women being subservient to their husbands. This woman apparently isn't just subservient to adult men, but teens as well. Fuck that.

I also find it weird when religions obsess over male/female power dynamics instead of, oh I don't know, thinking about things that Jesus said about compassion, gratitude, forgiveness and generosity.

They are still dilly-dallying about what sanctions to give to the school. Officially, they should pull the school from the district competitions. They do not allow schools to pull refs if they are jews or muslims refing a catholic game. Nor on race. Let's see if women are human beings or if we will support women hating on some religious reason.

"How can women fulfill their natural roles as mothers if they are not permitted to be in authority positions over boys?"

I got the impression that some cultures out there believe the "natural role" of a mother is not an authority position over her sons and daughters but is a submissive position under her husband along with her sons and daughters (especially if her father gave her away to her husband).

"A debt in justice obliges under pain when a serious matter or quantity is owed. However, marriage relationships are a serious matter and of great importance. Furthermore, the refusal of the marriage debt [read: sex] may cause a danger of incontinence. Consequently, it is a mortal sin to deprive one’s spouse of these relationships. The typical example of this is when a wife feels that she is justified in withholding the marriage debt because her feelings are hurt, or she is not appreciated enough."

...or because she believes that abstinence is the only moral birth control?

"I really don't understand how pants are 'immodest,'"

Easy: trousers slow down access to an unwilling woman's or girl's vagina. No wonder some sexists don't like it when we wear trousers...

It isn't about whether women are capable of making good calls, these folks believe men have a natural authority over women.
oh i know that's what the story was about, that the issue was that she had authority over men. I was talking about other sports in general, like, professional and public school sports. In that arena, I don't think its about authority, I think its about the myth that men are better at sports.

I'm blaming this on Kansas more than on Catholicism itself. Catholic schools have a lot of leeway in how they conduct themselves. My Catholic high school was very liberal. Despite the squawking of a few (too conservative for Northern California) parents, there was a GLBT group on campus, we read books by such deviants as Truman Capote, and we learned real, not religionist, science.

Hell. Even in religion class, we learned that at least one, if not two, gospels were not actually written by Jesus' apostles.

Vanessa, this is a crazy situation, thanks for posting it.

For those who would defend Catholics and say that this is more of a commentary on midwestern sexism, I offer you only this:

Pope Benedict and many leading officials have said that they would oppose an AIDS vaccine or cure because it encourages sex outside of marriage.

Frankly, I go to a Catholic school and respect the people that I work with there (both who are my student peers and the teachers who practice the religion), but my open contempt for the church as a whole is something I've never covered up. I do it for the opportunity to expand my fluency as an atheist and challenge my ideas, as well as for the quality of education.

Frankly, I'm disgusted by this kind of crap every time I come on, and it's the reason I keep coming back, because I feel oblidged to know.

If men can ref and coach women's basketball (or any other sporting event), why can't women do the same.

Yet another example of a glass cieling, that keeps women from moving into the markets they deserve to be in often more than men.

Ok, I hope this doesn't come across as harsh, but I truly do not understand something here. I don't want to make it personal, so I will speak in general terms.

There are some people posting here who are concerned about labeling this school as Catholic when it is actually not. For the sake of accuracy, sure, it should be fixed.

What I don't understand is why people who are NOT OK with the schools decision ARE OK with the blatant misogyny in the bible? Just because your preacher or pastor or priest doesn't focus on the particularly repulsive anti-woman passages in the bible does not mean that those passages do not exist. Since Catholics and christians in the vast majority of denominations and divisions have the bible at the base of their faith, presumably since it in part contains the word of the god they worship, it would seem to me that the logical conclusion is that catholosicm and christianity, insofar as following the bible goes, are in direct conflict with feminism.

If I were a christian or catholic woman, how could I be less than and equal to at the same time? That's kind of like being dead and alive at the same time... it's just not possible.

My brother, sister, and I spent nearly all of my elementary and secondary school years at Catholic schools in both Australia (which is largely Catholic) and in California. Not once was sexism so blatant and ridiculous as what happened in this article. My siblings and I had teachers and school officials of both genders. I don't think a school with the above stated policies would ever get a student in either Australia or California. Catholics may be backwards in a lot of ways but there aren't THAT many assholes in charge of schools. After all of my Catholic schooling (and during) I still ended up being an independent thinker, and atheist and a feminist. I hope the students at uptight schools realize they have choices.

Ayla,

I'll try to tackle this though it is obviously a difficult subject. Rationalizing BELIEFS is always a difficult thing.

The Bible was written by many different authors a VERY LONG TIME AGO. It contains blatant contradictions makes declarations that are close to ridiculous in modern times. Many (maybe most?) Christians understand this and understand the Old Testament (which contains the passages you speak of as well as weird rulings on how hair should be worn and what fabrics are acceptable and how sinful eating shellfish is...) to be metaphorical. It is a story about God's role in history and not a literal dictate on how we should live our lives. More specific beliefs tend to be taken from the more liberal New Testament-largely a preaching on non-violence, forgiveness and caring for the less fortunate.

That is my personal view of the Bible. No where in my experience of Catholicism have I been taught that I am lesser than male church members. This may be different for others, but it is my experience.

As for the church teachings regarding contraception and homosexuality, I am very opposed to these. I don't , however, think that having different views from my church leaders or even from certain passages in the Bible makes me any less of a Catholic or a Christian. Everyone looks at the world through their own individual framework and I think religion is no different.