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
mtglass@mhuxt.UUCP (RICHARDSON) (09/26/86)
> In article <2738@pogo.UUCP> daveb@pogo.UUCP (Dave Butler) writes: I don't know where this topic came from, so maybe I'm going to end up shooting myself in the foot, but I think Dave Butler's posting, along with this whole bizarre project he was driven to pursue for one reason or another, smacks of great hubris and arrogance. > 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. What does this *mean*? What language was the discussion in? Does the 1986 American English word "soul" even roughly equate to whatever word they were debating? If it's so clear to us here and now that "women have souls", why didn't they see it just as clearly there and then? Could it be that our notion of "soul" hadn't evolved yet? Could it be that a priori it wasn't clear in those days that "soul" was separate from the notion of physical strength, social position, or anything else? Could it be there was some subtle theological or political consequence in the tangled fabric that was and is culture that made the issue less than simple? Maybe even something you don't *understand*? Could it be they didn`t have the lessons of Jeffersons and Elizabeths and Anthoneys to profit from? That they were starting from scratch in a world where women died in childbirth at 13, children were thrown onto spears by [gasp *illiterate*] pillaging barbarians and when the sun went down it got very very dark? Could it be that women had no rights because the notion of rights didn't exist? That nothing like it was expressible in their language? And that women weren't even *property* for the same reason, that the word simply did not have the meaning it does today? Could it be that "human" could not yet even be approximated by "homme", a word that expressed a confusing [to us] bundle of meanings tied to serfdom, social position, sex, and ultimately to "humus" [or, vaguely, `earth`], and that maybe extending the meaning to include women was indeed a radical and difficult notion? Could it be that things were so very different in 584 that it's just a teensy bit arrogant to judge them by our worldview? Naaaah. Let's face it. they were women-hating pigs. > "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. "43 Catholic bishops and twenty men represnting other bishops." What bishops? Who were these people and what was their claim to ecclesiastical precedence? Were they sent by the various patriarchs? In what sense were they entitled to speak for the Church? What does it mean to be "Catholic" in 584? >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. This is all garbage, Dave. What sources did *these* books cite? How come *they* could locate information on this alleged Council when you couldn't with all your work? The Denver Post is not my idea of an authoritative source. (Maybe I just feel less comfortable with authority than you do.) > 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. Dave, I'm not surprised that an alleged Church Council meeting in 6th century France is incompletely documented and only then in French and Latin. Why are you? Why do you take this very mundane fact and crank it up into some bizarre insight about censorship? specifically: > 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). "edited out"? "refuses to discuss"? Sorry. I don't buy conspiracy theories. While you seem to have some unresolved conflict with Roman Catholicism [and authority in general] your writing suggests a complete lack of insight about it as an institution. It's huge, Dave. It's incredibly old and incredibly huge. Vast numbers of bureaucrats from every culture in the world pursue their own agendas, in musty backwaters of church hieracrchy. They preach Limbo, they preach the Social Gospel, Militarism, and countless other doctrines and worldviews inconsistent with those set down by Rome. They are Marxists, Jesuits, Humanists, and Gnostics. The Roman Communion is too broad and varied to purge itself completely of records no matter how "embarassing". These compendiums you mention [assuming you were thorough] were written by radically different men and women in different languages in different times in different political circumstances. They reached the shelves of our libraries through countless different paths in scores of different editions. Church libraries, used bookstores, schools and public libraries. And you want us to believe that there has been a monolithic, concerted effort on the part of all these quarreling popes and cardinals to erase any record of this Council you mention? What do you mean "edited out"? With a knife? With a black marker like the CIA does? How could you tell references were edited out? From context? I don't know if I'm being iconoclastic, reactionary, or just an old fart, but, you know Dave, I wouldn't be surprised if, despite your [excellent, I'm sure] scholarship, there WAS no Council of Macon. 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. ["Chariots of the Gods?" comes to mind]. If there were such a Council, I would really be curious to know how it came to meet in the West right in the middle of a long period of Councils [and political domination] in the East. > One of the other catholic > embarassments was the _Malleus_Maleficarum_ ("Hammer of Witches") written > in 1448 for Pope Innocent VIII. > 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. Boy, how about those Catholic embarassments? Boy, 28 editions and three different popes endorsed it as official church law. Hey, that's *significant*. You know, what's so strange?....those popes were such a *together* group of people otherwise. Not a bad apple in the crowd. > 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). Wha...you mean there's MORE? > ...never underestimate the stupidity, bigotry and prejudice > of any organized religion or government. Damn those religions and governments. The world would be *so much* better without them. There would be no stupidity, no bigotry, no prejudice. There would be no misogyny, no oppression, no war. We'd all *LOVE* each other. R. Richardson