daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) (09/18/86)
Well folks the verdict is in; the Catholic Church did indeed hold an
official council on whether women had souls and you women did just make
it by one vote. I now have 3 references: _The_Rape_Of_The_A*P*E*_ by
Allen Sherman (page 202 for those who care), _Why_We_Burn:_Sexism_Exorcised_,
written by Meg Bowman and appeared in _The_Humanist_ magazine in the
November/December 83' issue and finally, an article witten by Dottie Lamm
(wife of the governor of Colorado) that appeared in the November 6th 1983
Denver Post. The title of the article was
_Tracing_Anger:_Its_roots_are_in_history_
and the excerpt from the article is as follows:
"Are Women Human?" (In the year 584, in Lyons, France, 43 Catholic
bishops and twenty men representing other bishops, after a lengthy
debate, took a vote. The results were: 32, yes; 31, no. Women
were declared human by one vote.) ---Council of Macon, France.
If you wish to find references to this council in Catholic literature
and:
1. you don't read french or latin or
2. you don't have access to rare books,
give it up. I searched through copious compendiums on church councils and
history. Each of these books professed to be a veritable fount of Catholic
knowledge. Only the _Catholic_Encyclopedia_ even mentions the council, and
it refuses to discuss the decisions and votes made (If I sound slightly
irritated, its because I am. You try searching through 17 or more 300 page
tomes which have all embarassing facts edited out). One of the other catholic
embarassments was the _Malleus_Maleficarum_ ("Hammer of Witches") written
in 1448 for Pope Innocent VIII. It started out as a treatise on witch
hunting, but ended up as a mysogynist's handbook. Here's some excerpts:
Beware of women when they weep. They are only bent on causing
evil, and their tears are false.
It is unwise for a man to marry. A wife is a destroyer of
friendship, a temptress, a threat to the household, a bringer of
misfortune, an evil. Woman is more bitter than death itself. She
seeks to ensnare and trap. He who is righteous will avoid her,
take flight from her. Only the sinner will permit himself to succumb
to her.
The minds of women are light and incapable of producing aught
that is wise or good.
Women can but destroy what men have created.
Women are repulsive to the touch. In intercourse, they are deadly
dangerous. The man who lies with them seeks death.
Women seek the destruction of man. Fear and despise them.
This book was kept around for hundreds of years (the church put out 28
editions) and 3 different Popes endorsed it as official church law.
If you happen to think that this purely Catholic demigogery, forget it.
The 3 sources I've got enumerate examples from every major religion and
nationality (You should here some of the things Martin Luthor said).
I want to thank the people that wrote me about my search for this
council. Some wrote to wish me luck. Some wrote to say that while they
thought I was serious in my quest, I was definitely mistaken and misled.
Some wrote to tell me I was obviously a slanderous flame-baiter. To all
these people I say thank you; you all encouraged me to search harder for
the truth. To those who supported and helped me: thanks, I couldn't have
succeeded without you. To those who thought I was probably a nice person, but
definitely misled: never underestimate the stupidity, bigotry and prejudice
of any organized religion or government. To the highly insultable reactionary
types: next time someone says that your sacred cow is deseased, before
throwing stones, look at the beast; they might be right.
Special thanks to:
Mary Jo Williams(udenva!mwilliams) who sent me the reference to
Dottie Lamms article,
Dottie Lamm for sending me a copy of the article,
Ken Arnold (cgl.ucsf.edu!arnold) for the reference to
_The_Rape_Of_The_A*P*E*_.
Enjoyed this Immensely,
Dave Butler
Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.
P.S. When I first politely made my request for information about the
council to the net there was a stampede to tell me how wrong I was and
that I should apologize. But when I posted my preliminary results,
there was a thundering silence. Wonder why that is.
P.S.S. I guess I don't owe the church or the net an apology.harwood@cvl.UUCP (David Harwood) (09/18/86)
In article <2738@pogo.UUCP> daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) writes: > > Well folks the verdict is in; the Catholic Church did indeed hold an > official council on whether women had souls and you women did just make >it by one vote. I now have 3 references: _The_Rape_Of_The_A*P*E*_ by >Allen Sherman (page 202 for those who care), _Why_We_Burn:_Sexism_Exorcised_, >written by Meg Bowman and appeared in _The_Humanist_ magazine in the >November/December 83' issue and finally, an article witten by Dottie Lamm >(wife of the governor of Colorado) that appeared in the November 6th 1983 >Denver Post. The title of the article was > _Tracing_Anger:_Its_roots_are_in_history_ >and the excerpt from the article is as follows: > > "Are Women Human?" (In the year 584, in Lyons, France, 43 Catholic > bishops and twenty men representing other bishops, after a lengthy > debate, took a vote. The results were: 32, yes; 31, no. Women > were declared human by one vote.) ---Council of Macon, France. > > If you wish to find references to this council in Catholic literature >and: > 1. you don't read french or latin or > 2. you don't have access to rare books, > >give it up. I searched through copious compendiums on church councils and >history. Each of these books professed to be a veritable fount of Catholic >knowledge. Only the _Catholic_Encyclopedia_ even mentions the council, and >it refuses to discuss the decisions and votes made (If I sound slightly >irritated, its because I am. You try searching through 17 or more 300 page >tomes which have all embarassing facts edited out). One of the other catholic >embarassments was the _Malleus_Maleficarum_ ("Hammer of Witches") written >in 1448 for Pope Innocent VIII. It started out as a treatise on witch >hunting, but ended up as a mysogynist's handbook. Here's some excerpts: > > Beware of women when they weep. They are only bent on causing > evil, and their tears are false. > It is unwise for a man to marry. A wife is a destroyer of > friendship, a temptress, a threat to the household, a bringer of > misfortune, an evil. Woman is more bitter than death itself. She > seeks to ensnare and trap. He who is righteous will avoid her, > take flight from her. Only the sinner will permit himself to succumb > to her. > The minds of women are light and incapable of producing aught > that is wise or good. > Women can but destroy what men have created. > Women are repulsive to the touch. In intercourse, they are deadly > dangerous. The man who lies with them seeks death. > Women seek the destruction of man. Fear and despise them. > >This book was kept around for hundreds of years (the church put out 28 >editions) and 3 different Popes endorsed it as official church law. > > If you happen to think that this purely Catholic demigogery, forget it. >The 3 sources I've got enumerate examples from every major religion and >nationality (You should here some of the things Martin Luthor said). > > I want to thank the people that wrote me about my search for this >council. Some wrote to wish me luck. Some wrote to say that while they >thought I was serious in my quest, I was definitely mistaken and misled. >Some wrote to tell me I was obviously a slanderous flame-baiter. To all >these people I say thank you; you all encouraged me to search harder for >the truth. To those who supported and helped me: thanks, I couldn't have >succeeded without you. To those who thought I was probably a nice person, but >definitely misled: never underestimate the stupidity, bigotry and prejudice >of any organized religion or government. To the highly insultable reactionary >types: next time someone says that your sacred cow is deseased, before >throwing stones, look at the beast; they might be right. > > Special thanks to: > Mary Jo Williams(udenva!mwilliams) who sent me the reference to > Dottie Lamms article, > Dottie Lamm for sending me a copy of the article, > Ken Arnold (cgl.ucsf.edu!arnold) for the reference to > _The_Rape_Of_The_A*P*E*_. > > > Enjoyed this Immensely, > > Dave Butler > > > Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life. > > P.S. When I first politely made my request for information about the > council to the net there was a stampede to tell me how wrong I was and > that I should apologize. But when I posted my preliminary results, > there was a thundering silence. Wonder why that is. > > P.S.S. I guess I don't owe the church or the net an apology. /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// Our Catholic Church has been wrong about many things, and its refusal to be publicly repentant for historical sins and atrocities remains an immense scandal to what the great apostle called the Gospel of reconciliation in Christ - the same Paul who proclaimed that in Christ, there is neither Jew or Gentile, master or slave, male or female,... but that all are equal in the spirit of Christ. You go on to say concerning your remarks, quoted in full above: > If you happen to think that this purely Catholic demigogery, forget it. and > Enjoyed this Immensely, Elsewhere Paul says that we should "speak the truth in love." The Church has not always done this. However, I never doubted for a moment but that you "Immensely" enjoy "demigogery" (sic), as you say, which is not "purely Catholic" -- but which, in this uncharitable world, is almost a universal, shall we say 'catholic', profession. Sinner among a Catholic Church, David Harwood
daveb@pogo.UUCP (10/05/86)
Just recently read a self-righteous flame from Rich Richardson in article <1134@mhuxt.UUCP>. When I first asked about the council I got flamed, and when I said I'd investigate and apologize if I was wrong, I was flamed. Now that I've posted the results, I'm being flamed again and essentially being called a liar. The flame essentially had 5 parts: 1. We don't know what they meant by the word "soul" or "human" in 584. 2. The concept of "rights" and the notion that slavery or serfdom is bad didn't exist back then. Everyone was an asshole by todays standards, and what the Church was doing was the norm. 3. The council probably wasn't a "real" Church council, and all of the references are "garbage", and they were probably all lying. 4. If the council isn't mentioned in the today's mainstream of Catholic Literature then it probably didn't happen, after all why would the Catholics cover it up? 5. As to all the other mysogyny (eg: _The_Hammer_Of_Witches_) that was just the popes, not the "Church". Well, Richard got pretty rough and self-righteous in his article, so I see no reason to hold back. Few times have I seen such blatant fatuous, supercilious hypocracy. 1. The Church claims to know what Moses meant by the words "human" and "soul" when he said it *over* 2000 years ago. It also knows what Joshua bar Joseph (Jesus' real name) meant when he said those same words 2000 years ago, but, according to Rich, modern non-Catholic scholars can't possibly know what the Catholic Church meant by those words 1500 years ago. The words obviously changed meanings during that time, and the scholars can't translate the Church vernacular of that period (Or did the Church just change the meaning of the words during the council?). Get off it Rich, in your own words, this argument is garbage. 2. As to it being acceptable to deny freedoms because everyone was doing it, that's bullshit. The Jews, (from which the Church says that it inherited the faith) frowns on both slavery and serfdom. According to Old Testament Law, a man could only *sell himself* into slavery, and never for more than 7 years. To discourage a man from wishing to be a slave after that, the man had to insist a nail be driven through his ear into the doorframe of the his new master's house. I'm sure there are other examples of people who didn't support slavery. But instead of following the lead of the more enlightened people and championing the cause of the slaves and the serfs, the Church itself became one of the largest owners of serfs by being one of the largest landholders. They didn't do this just because everybody else was; they did it because it was profitable. And now no one is supposed to judge the Church for what it did. What make the Church so special; it's judged millions of people and hundreds of religions, but no one is allowed to judge it. They even have a crime for judging the Church, its called heresy. 3. Rich I'll write this slowly so that you can keep up and not be confused. I found 4 references to the council, the three most detailed were not Catholic history books. None of the common mainstream literature that I found mentions the council *except one*, and that was the _Catholic_Encyclopedia_ (an excellent Catholic reference). The encyclopedia said (now read my lips Richard) that the council of Macon did exist, and at the second official, Church Sanctioned Council of Macon, one of the main issues was, quote "the disposition of women" (Did I go to fast for you Rich?). It also gave several (about 7) french references and about 5 english references to the council. The most recent of the english books is about 80 years old. This puts them in the category of rare books, which makes them almost impossible to get access to. You ask how the other people could get references when I couldn't, maybe they could read french or had access to these rare books. Which brings us to point 4. 4. We've seen that the council was reasonably well documented in Catholic literature until about 80 years ago, and now there's little or no information anywhere. Rich writes: > Call me old fashioned, but sometimes I'm inclined to believe the hundreds > of books that imply that something DIDN'T happen instead of the three or > four that insist something DID happen, but everybody's trying to cover it > up. Essentially, he wants to know how anyone, including the Church, could influence everyone to ignore a subject in Catholic literature. Maybe the Church didn't try to cover it up, maybe it was just suddenly forgotten. But Rich, I'd like you to explain why all these books that profess to be major reference works have no mention of this council, and also explain who else but the Church would have any reason to keep knowledge about the council restricted. Could it be that the last English books to mention the council came out about the time of women's suffrage? That suddenly the council became an embarrassing subject to the entire Church, and that if it became common knowledge there would have been a lot of Catholic suffragettes mad at the Church? Naw, couldn't be. The Church has always been open to public ridicule, just look how they treat nuns and priests, and even devotees that disagree with official Church policy on abortion, divorce and birth control. They've never used their influence to control the flow of information, conducted trials for heresy, or put books and authors under interdiction. The Church has never used its influence to bury books, or ideas or facts, so how could I ever have gotten such an idea. You tell us Rich, what was the real reason this council fell through the cracks in almost every the major Catholic reference book, even the ones dealing specifically with Church Councils. 5. Finally he says, it wasn't the Church's fault that bad things happened. It was the popes and the bishops, but never the Church. I think you're confusing the Catholic Church with the Catholic God, but then so does the Church. A church is a group of men that gather to worship their god. This group also tends to make a lot of rules to live by, which are their interpretation of their god's will. Now I find it amazing that the Church can hold about 90 generations of Jews guilty (even to the point of forgiving them) for the death of Joshua bar Joseph, but the Church refuses to take any responcibility for the thousands and thousands killed in the name of the Church (eg: the witch hunts, the inquisitions, the Church supported pogroms). We just get the explanation that it wasn't the Church; it was the pope and the bishops and the priests and their followings merely executing and torturing in the Church's name. Well if these people weren't the Church, then what is? Not only has the Church soiled its hands with blood, it has never publically repented (something it demands of everyone else). It has never apologized, and never tried to make specific restitution. The Church has done (and is doing) some great goods ( Catholic charities to the poor, Mother Teresa, the sanctuary for lepers in Hawaii, the agraculture and trade schools in Micronesia), but it has also done some great evils. If they won't even take responcibilty for the crimes of the past, how can we be sure that they won't repeat them in the future? Perhaps in discussing the mistakes of the past we can keep someone from having complete blind faith in a fallable Church (of any type) in the future. I also admit that it angers me when a group says "We are the way, We are perfection. We may judge and not be judged, and you all must follow us and our perfection, or be eternally punished", This is especially true when I can clearly see records of their past intolerance and cruelty. I also get angry when someone calls the work I did "garbage", without going to check out the facts himself (with the information I've given him). So Rich, I've now given you some good Catholic sources to investigate (again!), why don't you use them. Don't cop out; put a month or two into investigation, learn to read french and try to prove me wrong. If you do prove me wrong about the council, then I'll apologize. Of course if you can't prove me wrong, then I'll expect an apology from you. Feeling better for having vented my spleen, Dave Butler Its more important to know what is correct, rather than who is correct. Remember: Silly is a state of Mind, Stupid is a way of Life.