"Join us! We're not really into powerful women or gay people, either!"
The New York Times reports on an unusual move by Vatican officials to try to lure Anglicans into the Catholic Church:
In an extraordinary bid to lure traditionalist Anglicans en masse, the Vatican said Tuesday that it would make it easier for Anglicans uncomfortable with their church's acceptance of female priests and openly gay bishops to join the Roman Catholic Church while retaining many of their traditions.
Anglicans would be able "to enter full communion with the Catholic Church while preserving elements of the distinctive Anglican spiritual and liturgical patrimony," Cardinal William J. Levada, the prefect for the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, said at a news conference here.
The Vatican is trying to capitalize on fear of teh gays and teh womens within the Anglican Church. There are plenty of Catholics struggling against patriarchy within their own faith community, but now the Vatican is basically saying they're the church for Christians who only want supposedly straight cis men in positions of power. And they're saying bigotry trumps almost everything that's divided the two churches since the Reformation. It's a pretty disgusting recruitment strategy.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Vatican to Anglicans: Come be bigots with us!.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16729
> only want supposedly straight cis men in positions of power
Yep, but these men are prohibited from having sexual contacts. Serious disadvantage.
Anyway I am glad that feminism ruins religion.
But the Vatican's willingness to preserve elements of the Anglican tradition extends to allowing married priests and bishops! It's really sort of a 'WTF, woah' move, to my outsider eyes. What implications will this have for the Vatican's own clergy?
Celibate priesthood is not a requirement, it is a tradition in the Roman Catholic church. There have always been eastern right churches in in the catholic communion that have married priests.
It won't affect Rome's clergy. Any Anglican priest who wants to be a Roman Catholic priest will have to be ordained again. The Roman Catholic Church has already done this for some married Anglican priests who have converted. Married Anglican Bishops who enter into full communion with Rome and wish to be ordained will not be able to be bishops, but will be "Ordinaries" which means they will have pastoral authority over their diocese as a bishop would, but that will be the extent of their position. Any future bishops will have to come from unmarried ranks, just as is done in the Orthodox Tradition.
Thank you, nothing like someone actually knowing what they're talking about a midst the Catholic-bashing orgy.
Wouldn't it be better if Feminism and religion could get along in some way? If feminism kills religion then how is it going to help the majority of the women in the world who are, as a matter of fact, religious? Is it your job to protect these poor dumb women and help them dump their faith? Or is feminism a special club for you and your educated, priviledged, atheist friends?
Is this a suprise? Anything the pope or church does I just automatically assume has some kind of biggoted sexist underhanded agenda anyways.
Ever since he made it quite clear that "controception is bad".
Seems consistent with the way the pope has reached out to traditional Catholics. Basically they want to get the most traditional people because they have the most kids and therefore growth. Of course not letting priests marry kind of wrecks the growth thing. Go figure.
THERE! I fixed him!
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a354/pj_twenty/Art%20work/pope_benedict_451.jpg
=)
Liz
Unicorns and leprechans are more likely!
THIS IS GENIUS.
ArtByMoretti, you rock my world!
Wonderful! :D
So, will Henry VIII get his annulment?
Another reason not to be religious. In fact, there is no religion that treats women as equals.
Unitarian Universalism does.
http://uua.org/visitors/justicediversity/7012.shtml
I was saying that to my roommate the other day: I remember my world religions class in high school and every new faith I read about it was like "Oh good grief, did ANY of you get the memo about women not being property?!"
Exactly. Why respect a religion that fundamentally doesn't respect me? It's like when women tell me they aren't feminists because they're not anti-men. Guess what? Individual men might not be anti-women, but the basic tenant of the structure that privileges them is anti-YOU.
I don't think Catholicism (I am Catholic) is the problem. It's the Vatican. Don't hate the game, hate the player. I hope things will change, no matter what the Vatican decrees: women in the church make up their minds
Right. And while I respect people with different beliefs because I am a peaceful person, that doesn't mean I have to hold their religion in high esteem. I think feministing.com posted about the topic earlier. They tried to explore whether it was possible to be religious and feminist. But going off of Christianity, I would say no. I grew up in a Christian household, so in our particular denomination, and probably most denominations, they took the Bible as the word of god, so if you don't agree with some part of the Bible (e.g. that women are inferior) then you're in disagreement with God's teachings. I think it's all or nothing. I'm not a Christian but I don't think we can pick and choose what we want to believe out of the Bible. Being selective with what we want to believe allows religion to morph with changing social mores, making it more propagative and insidious. That is why I am no longer a Christian.
"In our particular denomination, and probably most denominations, they took the Bible as the word of god, so if you don't agree with some part of the Bible (e.g. that women are inferior) then you're in disagreement with God's teachings. I think it's all or nothing. I'm not a Christian but I don't think we can pick and choose what we want to believe out of the Bible."
There are Christian denominations where all that is required for membership is a belief that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, He died for your sins, and through Him you are saved. A belief in Biblical inerrency is not required. There are scores of theologians who fight what they call "legalism" in Christianity, and who find intelligent, thoughtful and logically consistent justifications for what you call "picking and choosing". I think dismissing the work of these scholars out of hand is overly simplistic.
Not to minimize your own journey and your reasons for your own faith or lack thereof. I am just pointing out to anyone else who might read this that your assertions are not representative of all of Christianity.
Secondly, I find: "Being selective with what we want to believe allows religion to morph with changing social mores, making it more propagative and insidious." surprising, because in my opinion and my experience, a religion that changes with the times is more generous, more joyful, and better for humanity, not worse.
"There are Christian denominations where all that is required for membership is a belief that Jesus is your Lord and Saviour, He died for your sins, and through Him you are saved. A belief in Biblical inerrency is not required."
Interesting. Where do these denominations get their idea that 'Jesus is your Lord and Saviour', etc etc? They get it from the Bible. So they must believe that it's inerrant about *that* particular idea. There is no objective evidence that Jesus is anyone's saviour or that he died for anyone's so-called 'sins' - there's not even any evidence that a person called Jesus even existed, other than writings from the Christian tradition (which are hearsay, not evidence). It's all based on the Bible, nothing more.
So it seems that if a person believes Jesus is their saviour, they have to accept without question the literal truth of at least some of the Bible.
Another misconception. Catholics do not adopt a purely literal interpretation of the bible.
Each book is written and interpreted biblically. It is believe by Catholics to be inspired by God, but written by humans and subject to (re)interpretation. Some books are allegorical and poetic like 'Song of Solomon', others are a more direct account like the Book of John.
The Catholic Church does not regard women as inferior but complimentary and different (wait...I hear atheists snickering in the distance). We do not accept gender theory, but neither do we accept certain forms of essentialism which regard women as irrelevant in the public sphere.
But you are right about relativism/selecting what you want of truth for your own convenience...it leads to trouble.
Episcopalianism (not the right-wing Anglicans breaking off, but the liberal Episcopal Church USA) does. The Presiding Bishop over ECUSA is a woman, Katharine Jefferts Schori.
Also, as someone else pointed out above, the UUs treat women as equals as well.
But don't let the fact that there are religions that treat women as equals dissuade you from believing that all religions are sexist. We wouldn't want reality to get in the way of your stereotypes about religion.
Liberal Quakers do too.
Not all religions follow the Abrahamic God or the teachings there of. Even so, not all people who identify as as a follower of that God follow the majority of the Churchs' beliefs anyway. I'm always surprised to hear comments like this from a community that claims so often that minorities shouldn't be overlooked and tread upon. I guess while skin color doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else, being religious still means you're a lower form of human, even if your religion follows the same beliefs as feminism. Good to know.
People don't choose their skin colour. You're born with it. However, most adults are in a position to exercise choice over their religious beliefs and therefore should be held responsible for that choice. If they choose to follow a religion that is complicit in the oppression of women, then they shouldn't be surprised by receiving a negative reaction from those who support women.
Oh I agree with you. My problem is with the statement...
"In fact, there is no religion that treats women as equals."
Which is bull. Yes many religions oppress all kinds of people (many people who are not religious oppress others as well), but not all religions are the same. Acting like all religions are religious people are abusive nuts is not productive. Personally, coming from a religion run by a woman and consists mainly of women, that statement made my hairs stand on end.
the ba'hai religion treats all people as equals. the sect of judaism i belong to treats women as equals. it is not practiced 'by the book' at all, but rather has adapted to today quite well. women are an accepted, respected and equal part of the service, as are gblt, as are every ethnicity...as long as everyone has an interest in judaism and wants to be a part of the community.
But there is a difference between individual spirituality and religious institutions. I may choose to revere Christ and celebrate certain Catholic holy days while still considering myself a Pagan and a feminist. "Being selective with what we want to believe" makes us individuals.
Institutions with power and money tend to become insidious whether or not their people take an "all or nothing" approach. In fact, I'd say the Church was way more insidious back when so-called heretics were being tortured and murdered, wouldn't you say.
Do not confuse bureaucracy with personal choice, or blame what is ultimately the result of greed and hate on spirituality. Religion is used to justify terrible acts, but belief itself is not to blame.
If you believe that another human being is less human than yourself, and then you act on that belief in a way that hurts said person... can we really say that the belief is not in any way related to that action?
The Roman Catholic Church teaches HIV+ husbands in Africa that they cannot use a condom even to save the life of their wives. This is just the tip (pardon the pun) of the iceberg. Holding a nonsensical ideal above actual humanity is a hallmark of the Catholic Church. I think these beliefs are detrimental to humanity itself.
Re: Catholic Pagans. The essential story of Christ is that of complete self-sacrifice. Christ was God - and yet died on the cross - then was resurrected. He didn't die again after that. This is totally contrary to Pagan spirituality which is cyclical, polytheistic, etc. Might want to read about Cardinal Francis Arinze, he is an African Pagan convert to Catholicism.
The Vatican has money and power and must be stopped: This 'sell the vatican' nonsense is really over the top. No one is complaining about the consumer-driven (RED) campaign serving to satisfy our own greed culture or the fact that we spend enough money on cosmetics in one year to feed all of Africa. The Pope owns nothing. The Pope has never owned anything. Go to the Vatican and look at the Will of Each one. They have NOTHING to leave behind nothing because they own nothing. Now look at the will of past CEO's of the United Way, Planned Parenthood, the ONE Campaign. The Pope has no personal time to himself, he has no children because he has adopted the world as his children and therefore does not have SEX with them (in a family which has it's problems but does not abuse at the same rate as the general population)...his role is as father. He like many others have given up their lives to live with the poor in solidarity.
Read Caritas in Veritate and you will understand the real ethic behind the world's poverty and suffering...This Pope has such brilliant insight, and it's a shame we have to spend more time wading through such ignorance to see it.
-------
Snowpiece on human beings being equal: If you believe that another human being is less human than yourself, and then you act on that belief in a way that hurts said person... can we really say that the belief is not in any way related to that action?
Snowpiece, are we talking gays or embryos?
Catholic Church on the unborn: Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception
Catholic Church on homosexuals: They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity.
So...based on your actions...what are your beliefs?
Snowpiece on hir impression of the Church's teaching on condoms: I have worked with Catholic Students in Kenya and they practice ABC. That is the Catholic Campaign. Abstinence, Be Faithful or use Condoms.
So there is a statement on whether we should be using condoms, and then there is the daily happenings of life. Catholic Church statements have philosophical roots. Consumeristic ethics are what drive the condom industry. I need to have more sex, more pleasure, less responsibility, less committment to family. This is totally contrary to the Catholic teaching on human dignity. People use condoms to protect their lives, but the objective should be to move beyond them to faithful, committed relationships.
Yeah. It's with this announcement that I finally tipped over the apex of my crisis of faith and am now considering myself culturally Catholic and officially shopping for a new religion. Although I'm not sure I'll have any because I'm not sure I'll find one that fits based on my theological beliefs in the Trinity and universal baptism and forgiveness. The religions that encompass those generally are also patriarchal, gay-hating, misogynist organizations. Le sigh.
At one point I had hope that with a new pope (after Ratzinger - I won't even recognize his chosen name because I have no respect for him whatsoever), the Church will change for the better. But...it's become more and more clear that it's recommitting itself to hate. With the way this announcement was worded...well it's just so sad when you realize that the Church you love, hates you back.
I know the feeling—or at least, I know a similar one. I left the Roman Catholic Church a long time ago because I had Issues with a lot of its actions. I eventually became extremely sour towards it, even as I continued to pray the Rosary and read the Bible (mostly the Psalms). I eventually embraced Paganism, and to my everlasting embarrassment, briefly became one of those "OMG TEH XTIANS R TEH EVULL N THEY STOLE EVRYTHING FRUM UZ PAGANZ!!!"* types—because, you know, two paths that are (ideally, of course, if not always in practice) dedicated to compassion, love and making the world a better place absolutely have to be mortal enemies. I eventually calmed down and, after a great deal of meditation and thought and worry, wound up as a very eclectic and somewhat surprised Christo-Pagan, which may not be the easiest or the purest expression of either faith, but it seems to be working for me at this point.
If I ever go back to Christianity "full-time", though, it won't be to the Roman Catholic Church. I joined an Anglican choir last year, which I admit was a bit of an odd decision, and I've found that Anglicanism—at least, Anglicanism as it's practiced locally—is far less problematic for me as a feminist (or even as a human being!) than the Roman Catholic Church ever was.
Whatever you end up doing, I wish you the best of luck in finding the path that's right for you. You might be surprised by where you end up—I know I sure was—but it's worth looking for. :)
*Wow, it hurt my brain to type that.
Thanks for the support :) I often find a lack of it on left-leaning sites, it's refreshing to see someone who went down the same path. I don't think I'm at a point to choose a different path, but at least I'm at a point where I know I need to get off this one (although I don't want to end up one of the myriad Catholic-bashing ex-Catholics; we have enough trouble from the religious right! Along with the cultural aspects....). It's so frustrating to watch someone else pervert an ideology you believe in, especially when it affects other people's perception of you! OTOH, it's really difficult to find a respectful belief system at all as a woman in the patriarchy, religion aside or included (I've met terribly sexist atheists, agnostics, etc as well as judeo-islam-christian folk). Maybe I should start my own religion :P
You could be on to something there. ;)
In all seriousness, though, I think the trick to not becoming a Catholic-bashing ex-Catholic is to remember that whatever's going on at the Vatican, most of the actual believers are decent people, and how they deal with the Vatican's actions (or lack thereof) is up to them.
Uh yeah, I pretty much ignore everything this current Pope decides to let spew forth from his mouth. I've long been what my mother calls Renegade Catholic (as has my Mother and also I'm encouraging my daughter that direction lol) - we dig the spirituality of it all, but the Church is clearly completely delusional on social issues, so we just ignore them. God loves me anyway, so does Jesus. So, there.
This smacks of a desperate ploy to retain power and money, two things The Roman Catholic Church has always been accused of placing above salvation and good works.
Quite the opposite. The Catholic Church will be losing money.
It's actually the poorer African and British Anglican parishes that are the most likely to enter the Catholic Church because they have the most disagreement with the woman- and gay-friendly policies of recent years. It's the richer American Anglicans (or Episcopals) who are the ones who will not join. There was a huge resistance in Africa and Britain to the progressive policies of the American Anglicans, but they felt powerless to stop it because most of the money came from the U.S. Now the Catholic Church is basically saying, "We'll fund you so that you can stay bigoted." This is a HUGE deal in Britain.
I'm anti-religious in varying degrees depending on what truth claims the religion institution makes. I think my fellow skeptics need to take a step back and examine the qualitative differences between faith groups. I don't think all religions are created equal anymore than I think all ideas in general are created equal.
The Universal Unitarian church makes very different assertions (to authority and knowledge) than the Catholic Church makes. The Catholic Church has really done some permanent damage by railing against birth control. People have died because of this shit, and it can be directly attributed to the church's basic tenets. Show me the last person who died of aids because of Unitarian missionary work. For that matter, when's the last time a buddhist or a jane hindu did something comparable?
All religions I know of contain some dogma (if they didn't I don't think they would even be called religions) and I think most major religions hijack personal spiritual experiences to confirm that dogma. But lazy, blanket claims make a mockery out of religious skepticism.
Finally, something on identity:
People who criticize religion are often accused of attacking people's identities, and there is some truth to that. I was raised Catholic and I know that a lot of people practice catholicism for the sense of community and for comforting nature of prayer (both of these, I think, are good, flexible components of religion). But if a person has the ability to reject the church (and I know it takes a large degree of privilege to be able to do so) I think it should be done. If any other organization one belonged to discriminated against women and gays so blatantly (a country club, a campus group) one would probably resign from it.
What's a jane hindu? Do you mean jain? Jainism is a separate religion from Hinduism. I'm not familiar with Janeism, maybe similar to Judyism?
Oh, and Jains believe all forms of birth control to be sinful and unnatural and recommend only celibacy as a method to control birth. They're probably not out there campaigning against condoms so vociferously as catholics, but they don't sound like a bastion of tolerance and progressiveness either.
And one of the two main sects of Jains, the Digambars, believe that women cannot attain moksha in the same birth. Sorry, ladies no liberation from samsara for you!
I think this is ultimately a good thing for the progressive wing of the Anglican church. If conservative Anglicans have an alternative to the Anglican communion that allows them to preserve their own liturgy, the anti-gay and anti-female priest wing of the Anglican church may become less prominent.
The thing is, there's already an alternative. Admittedly, the Anglican Communion Network isn't as widespread as the Catholic Church, but it's every bit as conservative.
I want JP2 back, even for a little while. :-( This new Pope makes me sad inside.
I do find it curious that he's uniting himself closer with the Church of England's rather Extremist branch because the Catholic Church, while it says some pretty weird stuff, hasn't been militant since the Middle Ages (Papal States and all that).
I wonder if there's a racial component to this because the majority of the world's Practicing Faithful are no longer white (they're Latino, Asian and African).
The majority of the most conservative Anglican churches aren't white, either, actually, - lots of them are African. Plus, one of the large-scale conversions that's already happened is the entire Anglican diocese of Amritsar in India. It's not like this is a move that only applies to upper class white Anglican churches - it seems like those may well be the least affected.
(wikipedia on Anglican reforms: "More conservative elements within Anglicanism (primarily African churches and factions within North American Anglicanism) have opposed these proposals.")
JPII authored the Theology of the Body, which wrapped up anti-contraception, heterosexism, and sexist male-only clegy into one nice neat self-consistent package. Benedict XVI is just continuing his work in that vein. Aside from that, Benedict XVI has been been a dissapointment to the ultraconservative types that licked their chops when Ratzinger "God's Rottweiler" was appointed pope. He's much less conservative than they had hoped.
John Paul II was every bit as conservative as his apprentice has turned out to be, he was just a lot more charismatic and not tainted by (completely unfair) associations with Nazi Germany from being conscripted as a teenager.
Charming. Just when you think the Pope can't sink any lower he surprises you.
I think we need to say that men and women have equal dignity...but we women are not the same as men...so to say we are 'equal' to men is misleading and dishonest.
The Catholic Church carries on Apostolic orders, which were given to men. That does not mean women are not huge contributors to the Church. If women want to serve God in His Catholic Church, there are many ways to do so. If a woman wants to serve only as a priest, than she has motives other than service.
As a woman, it is clear to me that men and women are complimentary...NOT interchangeable....this is key and important for you on this blog to accept.
Jesus gave apostolic orders to his twelve apostles who were all men, but he didn't say only men could receive apostolic succession. It is disingenuous for the catholic church to say "we can't let women be priests because Jesus only passed it on to men." Those same twelve men were Jews, by that logic only Jews could receive apostolic orders.
Furthermore...the Pope is REACTING to Anglicans who have approached the Church now for years...this is not a unilateral move. Before you all start saying that the Church is doing this to poach and recruit, first learn of what you speak, otherwise you risk showing your ignorance.
Protestants, including Anglicans and Episcopaliansl need to make up their mind: Are Catholics "scared of the feminine" or are they "heretics and unbiblical having accorded a woman (only), Mary, Divine status, through the Mariology or the teachings about Mary, the Mother of Jesus? What about the status of other women in the Church, like the saints Catherine of Siena, Teresa of Avila and Theresa of Liseaux, all accorded the rank of Doctors of the Church a title equivalent to that of Saint Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas and St.Jerome.? Can they point to any women like that with the same status in their traditions. Do they know or have ever heard of them? What about the hundreds and hundreds of other women saints, many of them Martyrs for the Faith, who are held up as figures of honour and to imitate and emulate for all Catholics, men and women? Are they aware that the church was the first organisation in western civilisation to place women in positions of power and influence as Heads of Religious Orders, Abbeys, convents, priories, with authority over regulation, rules, lands, property and significant regional administration in both church and civil matters? The Church does not ordain women to the ranks of the priesthood because it does not have authority from Christ to do so: he only ordained men as priests and they stand in "Loco Christi", that is in the "place of Christ" who called himself the "Bridegroom" (a male term" while the church was his "Bride" (a female term)
LaVallette:
You Go!
It makes me shake my head, Fox gets lampooned (rightfully) for it's bigotry all the time but this site is every bit as bigoted towards religion and especially Catholicism.