hans@ncar.ucar.EDU (Hans Johnsen) (10/13/90)
The following is a newspaper article from the Ottawa Citizen. It is posted to make the point that, no matter what some people on this net think, sexism still exists in a big way. Keep in mind that the speech in question was given to a YOUTH group. As long as this poison is being taught to young people, equality will never be acheived. Church troubles blamed on gays, feminists ----------------------------------------- WINNIPEG(CP) - Homosexuality, feminism and "modern theology" are to blame for problems facing the Roman Catholic Church, a Catholic youth conference was told. Rev. John Sembrat, a priest and teacher for 18 years, said on the weekend that Catholics have made a mistake by trying to conform to the modern world. "The Catholic Church is not on trial, it's really homosexuality and sexual liberation," he said. Priests accused of sex crimes are victims of "perverted modern theology," who don't take their vows seriously, and feminism is as bad as witchcraft, he said. "Feminists like us to believe they are fighting for human rights but it is a ruthless, cold, blood-thirsty lesbian-driven hatred of men and motherhood." --------------------------------------------------------- [Anti-catholic comments deleted.] [Folks, religion is a touchy subject. There is no reason that it can't be discussed *as it pertains to feminism*. However, let's refrain from indiscriminate religion-bashing. For every church you can levy accusations against, I and others can come up with counter-examples. In followups on this topic, let's keep criticisms and praises of churches, priests, religious persons as specific as possible, and avoid generalities. Respect the fact that people of many different religious beliefs (including none) read this board; respect the fact that every religion has adherents working to change some aspects of the religion, etc. I'd like to see some serious followups to this thread without it degenerating into a religious flame-fest (that just makes more work for us in rejecting articles, <grin>). OK? OK! Now, that said, I think this particular priest should be hung by the toes. Sigh. --CLT]
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/13/90)
Being from a catholic background myself, I believe catholicism and feminism are fundamentally incompatible. In fact, the entire Judaeo-Christian-Islamic family of genetically related religions have several fatal flaws that render them useless for the development of spirituality in a manner unvitiated by gender bias. First of all, god is consistently referred to as male, unlike the supreme deities of many other religions. When he does choose to sire a child, he does so with no advance warning to the person involved. We now call that rape. [Actually, I believe the angel Gabriel was sent down to ask her. Isn't that what the "Anunciation" celebrates? --CLT] Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary, as far as god is concerned. The results of this are obvious. While women are welcome to perform, say, fundraising duties or other auxiliary functions, they are almost universally excluded from the power structure of organized Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions. [How do you account for the presence of female priests in non Roman Catholic churches? The Methodists, Episcopalians, and others have ordained female priests. I'm not disputing your original point, but it appears that there are winds of change -- do you think that religions are capable of change? --CLT] JMM in Pasadena.
caress@northstar90.dartmouth.edu (P. Caress) (10/14/90)
In article <1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >First of all, god is consistently referred to as male, unlike the >supreme deities of many other religions. I believe that some translations of the Bible have eliminated gender specific references to God (for what it's worth). Also, at my college's convocation, the opening prayer began with the invocation, "Mother, Father, Great Spirit..." >Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to >men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary, >as far as god is concerned. >The results of this are obvious. While women are welcome to perform, >say, fundraising duties or other auxiliary functions, they are almost >universally excluded from the power structure of organized >Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions. Having described yourself as being raised Catholic, you must know examples of women to whom God has spoken and who have thereby acquired the status of sainthood. (For that matter, Joan of Arc hardly performed "fund-raising duties or other auxillary functions." *grin*) During the Middle Ages, several "Mystics" were women. Their writings were influential. I have heard of female faith healers, though I'm sure there must be a lot more male faith healers. Do the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions have gender bias? Yes, considering that they were created in patriarchical societies. Will they always have this bias? No, considering that modern religions will conform (however belatedly) to modern society. After all, it isn't as if every single person who steps into a church is a sexist idiot; most people are more enlightened than the priest referred to in the first article of this thread.
2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/15/90)
In article <1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > Being from a catholic background myself, I believe catholicism and > feminism are fundamentally incompatible. In fact, the entire > Judaeo-Christian-Islamic family of genetically related religions have > several fatal flaws that render them useless for the development of > spirituality in a manner unvitiated by gender bias. You might want to take a moment to read Matthew Fox, and a little stuff on liberation theology before you say catholocism and feminism are incompatible. And there are historical women prophets, both in Tanakh and Catholic history. Hildegard of Bingen being one of my favorites. Maybe it was old Matthew that the author of the priest had in mind when he said 'feminism is as bad as witchcraft.' Starhawk, a very prominent feminist and Witch, has taught at Holy Names College in Oakland, CA where Matthew is the director of Institute in Culture and Creation Spirituality. Pick up a copy of Original Blessing for an overview of his theology. It is wonderful reading. He lays down the groundwork for a feminist theology. Rosemary Radford Ruether, may also be someone to look into. Basically Patriarchy and feminism are incompatible, but suprisingly enough, Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions need not be patriarchal. Holy persons draw to themselves all that is earthly... The earth is at the same time mother, She is mother of all that is natural, mother of all that is human. She is mother of all, for contained in her are the seeds of all. -Hildegarde of Bingen German Catholic prophetess of the 11th Century. Abbess of both a men's and women's monastery. And for a Prophetess in Tanakh: (Deborah summons Barak to her, and prophesies) "The Lord, the God of Isreal, commands you, 'Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking ten thousand from the tribe of Zebulun. And I will draw out Sisera, the General of Jabin's army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops; and I will give him unto you hand.'" Barak said to her, "If you will go with me, I will go; but if you will not go with me, I will not go." And she said, "I will surely go with you; nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman." Then Deborah arose, and went with Barak to Kedesh. Judges 4, 6-9 RSV Stephen R. Figgins University of Kansas 2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/16/90)
2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu writes: >You might want to take a moment to read Matthew Fox, and a little >stuff on liberation theology before you say catholocism and feminism >are incompatible. And there are historical women prophets, both in >Tanakh and Catholic history. Hildegard of Bingen being one of my >favorites. These women are outnumbered a thousand to one. I'm disappointed that anyone would undertake to be an apologist for this grotesque situation. > Rosemary Radford Ruether, may also be someone to look into. >Basically Patriarchy and feminism are incompatible, but suprisingly >enough, Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions need not be patriarchal. Go yell that out on a Saudi street sometime. >are the seeds of all. > -Hildegarde of Bingen > German Catholic prophetess of the 11th Century. > Abbess of both a men's and women's monastery. >And for a Prophetess in Tanakh: In case you hadn't noticed, my point was not that God didn't speak to women at all, but that he(!) had a lopsided preference for men. OK, you've found two women over 3 thousand years. What about the thousands of men? What about the scriptures themselves, which are quite patriarchal and completely counter to feminism? Jones Murphy Caltech
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/16/90)
>[Actually, I believe the angel Gabriel was sent down to ask her. >Isn't that what the "Anunciation" celebrates? --CLT] Gabriel didn't ask her. He informed her. According to Luke 1:26-38, Gabriel laid out the programme quite poetically but did not ask for Mary's consent. morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to >men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary, >as far as god is concerned. >[How do you account for the presence of female priests in non Roman >Catholic churches? The Methodists, Episcopalians, and others have >ordained female priests. I'm not disputing your original point, but >it appears that there are winds of change -- do you think that >religions are capable of change? --CLT] I think some sects of Christianity are fully aware of the moral bankruptcy of sexism and are relaxing accordingly. Notice that Islam, a fifth of humanity and growing fast, is making no such concessions. What is sad is that women are so eager to join the clergy without questioning god's well-documented preference for speaking to men. Where does that leave them? I think religions are obviously capable of change. They have all (even Islam) evolved considerably since their beginnings. I guess we have to ask if what we're getting out of religion is worth the injustice. JMM in Pasadena.
cel@cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) (10/16/90)
It is my belief that Mary Daly, whom I have not yet had the fortune to read, but who's written such enticingly titled books as "Beyond God the Father", and "Gyn/Ecology", is on the faculty at Boston College, a, get this, Jesuit university. I find this highly amusing, and a sign of hope for the institutional Catholic church. Chris -- "Life's a bitch and then you die." cel@cs.duke.edu Down with Gender! Enjoy today.
cr2r+@andrew.cmu.edu (Christian M. Restifo) (10/17/90)
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >First of all, god is consistently referred to as male, unlike the >supreme deities of many other religions. When he does choose to sire a >child, he does so with no advance warning to the person involved. We >now call that rape. Last I heard, rape was criminal solicitation, i.e. forcing someone to have sex with you. "Immculate conception" is something very different. I doubt god came to the virgin mary, beat her into submission, and then had sex with her. >Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to >men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary, >as far as god is concerned. I agree with you on the point of god talking only to men. However, I don't think you can argue that god intended women to be auxiliary components of the church. The church is a political institution run by human beings. It is flawed just like any other political organization. Although some religious scholars will point to certain parts of the bible as proof that women are inferior to men, the document as a whole does not call for the submission of women. What you have here is a little knowledge becoming a dangerous thing. Note: I'm not picking on any one religion. I'm just calling it as I see it. -Chris Restifo cr2r@andrew.cmu.edu "All opinions stated here are not the opinions of anybody, even myself."
2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu (10/18/90)
In article <1990Oct15.170444.13116@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > > In case you hadn't noticed, my point was not that God didn't speak to women at > all, but that he(!) had a lopsided preference for men. OK, you've found two > women over 3 thousand years. What about the thousands of men? What about the > scriptures themselves, which are quite patriarchal and completely counter to > feminism? > The women I sighted were not an apology for Christianity. You had claimed there were no women prophets, I gave examples of two. There were many others, most of them we will never know about, because of the "lopsided preference for men." I am in agreement with you that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions are very patriarchal. But I don't believe in trashing the myths entirely. The works of feminist theologians, both past and present show that these traditions do not HAVE to be patriarchal. That they continue to be so, I find sad, but many are trying to change that. I wish them great success. In condemning Christianity for overlooking women, let us not ourselves overlook the achievements of Christian women. Stephen R. Figgins University of Kansas 2flmlife@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu
phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (10/18/90)
In article <1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > Being from a catholic background myself, I believe catholicism and > feminism are fundamentally incompatible. In fact, the entire > Judaeo-Christian-Islamic family of genetically related religions have > several fatal flaws that render them useless for the development of > spirituality in a manner unvitiated by gender bias. Well, I am afraid that I totally disagree with this. I find the teachings of Jesus and the tenets of feminism (and socialism for that matter) absolutely compatible. I am no feminist theorist but I believe feminism is about true equality between men and women. Jesus was about true equality among all people ("love your neighbour (male or female) as yourself") I believe that the trappings of Christianity (the church hierarchy etc..) reflect the fact that our world has been a patriarchy for the last several thousand years and it is a certainty that the church hierarchy has enforced patriarchy, but I believe that it has nothing to do with the essence of Jesus' philosophy. > First of all, god is consistently referred to as male, unlike the > supreme deities of many other religions. When he does choose to sire a > child, he does so with no advance warning to the person involved. We > now call that rape. > Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to > men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary, > as far as god is concerned. If God is real, I don't think It necessarily conforms to any human point of view (including my own I suppose). > The results of this are obvious. While women are welcome to perform, > say, fundraising duties or other auxiliary functions, they are almost > universally excluded from the power structure of organized > Judaeo-Christian-Islamic religions. True, but I would like to think that this could change and that Christianity will still survive. Female priests now exist in the Protestant churches, and the Catholic church will not survive unless it follows suit. T. Hartin
bweiss@cs.arizona.EDU (Beth Weiss) (10/18/90)
> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >> Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to >> men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary, >> as far as god is concerned. Is it true that god prefers to talk to men, or is it true that only men were listened to at that time, and so times god talked to women weren't recorded? Certainly, Christ is male. All the _published_ prophets are male. But I don't think that means women are purely auxiliary. If you view the Bible as the true word of god, then certainly you have to assume that god talks primarily to men. However, a theist who views the Bible as a collection of people's views of the word of god might well wonder if the literate men may have modified any section that referred to (or should have referred to) women. --beth bweiss@cs.arizona.edu
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/18/90)
phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: >Well, I am afraid that I totally disagree with this. I find the teachings >of Jesus and the tenets of feminism (and socialism for that matter) >absolutely compatible. You're missing the point. A *male* god sent down a *male* to redeem us. That's a significant sign of androcentrism. >I am no feminist theorist but I believe feminism is about true equality >between men and women. Jesus was about true equality among all people >("love your neighbour (male or female) as yourself") Jesus sounds like a really wise *man*. Get it? Like his dad and the overwhelming majority of prophets, Jesus was male. >I believe that the trappings of Christianity (the church hierarchy etc..) >reflect the fact that our world has been a patriarchy for the last several >thousand years and it is a certainty that the church hierarchy has enforced >patriarchy, but I believe that it has nothing to do with the essence of >Jesus' philosophy. Like I said before, that's not the point. The beauty of Jesus' teachings is not the issue. His gender is the issue, since it so happens that his divine daddy and all known angels have the same gender. >If God is real, I don't think It necessarily conforms to any >human point of view (including my own I suppose). Wait. You're happy to cite the Bible's account of Christ's teachings, but quick to drop the old scriptures when it comes to God's gender. Hmmm... Remember that the accounts you have of Christ are also written from a human point of view. A *male* point of view. >True, but I would like to think that this could change and that >Christianity will still survive. Female priests now exist in the >Protestant churches, and the Catholic church will not survive unless it >follows suit. This is quite misleading. Only a tiny minority of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic denominations "allow" women to enter the clergy, both in terms of denominations and total flock. That's not going to change in a hurry. The ordination of women ranks very low on my list of threats to the Catholic church's vitality. The church's stand on birth control, abortion and divorce rank far higher. I'm impressed by the misguided tenacity with which people attempt to rationalize and even deny the gender bias of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition. I realize now that I was quite lucky to survive my years of Catholic indoctrination with my ability to question reasonably intact. Jones Murphy Physics Dept. Caltech.
morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) (10/18/90)
bweiss@cs.arizona.EDU (Beth Weiss) writes: >Is it true that god prefers to talk to men, or is it true that only >men were listened to at that time, and so times god talked to women >weren't recorded? Certainly, Christ is male. All the _published_ >prophets are male. But I don't think that means women are purely >auxiliary. If you really *want* to believe in God, I suppose you can construct various hypotheses that preserve a non-sexist god. Why, though? Besides, by doing so, you're leaving canonical Judaeo-Christian-Islam, which is the subject of this thread. No, women aren't auxiliary except in the scriptures. >If you view the Bible as the true word of god, then certainly you >have to assume that god talks primarily to men. However, a theist who >views the Bible as a collection of people's views of the word of god >might well wonder if the literate men may have modified any section >that referred to (or should have referred to) women. Like I said, by doing so we would stray from the original thread. Why bend over backwards to preserve the non-sexist god, though. What does feminism gain from this exercise? Not a whole lot, as far as I can tell. Comments? Jones Physics Dept. Caltech
cel@cs.duke.edu (Chris Lane) (10/18/90)
[Please consider whether followups should go to talk.religion.misc instead of or in addition to soc.feminism. - MHN] In article <26502@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.EDU (Beth Weiss) writes: >> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >>> Most damning, however, is that god consistently prefers to talk to >>> men. All prophets are male, as is Christ. Women are purely auxiliary, ^^ >>> as far as god is concerned. >Is it true that god prefers to talk to men, or is it true that only >men were listened to at that time, and so times god talked to women >weren't recorded? Certainly, Christ is male. All the _published_ ^^ Well, perhaps this shouldn't be in soc.feminism (or it could go in soc.feminism.thealogy), but surely it is only true to say Jesus was male. If one believes that gender is not truth, and not pervasive in experience (i.e. one is not always acting or living *as a man* or *as a woman*, often gender is simply not a part of life (I've heard a definition of harrassment as being having gender placed on a person at inappropriate times)), then there is clearly no call for a living Christ to be male or female. Even if one believes in a Christ that is a person, it is a fundamental tenant of feminism that Gender is *not* necessary for Personhood. One can worship a male Christ or a female Christ, the gender is more for the historical worshipper than anything else. >--beth >bweiss@cs.arizona.edu Well, that's my $0.02 for the morning. -- "Life's a bitch and then you die." cel@cs.duke.edu Down with Gender! Enjoy today.
jan@orc.olivetti.COM (Jan Parcel) (10/19/90)
In article <1990Oct18.003900.28134@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >You're missing the point. A *male* god sent down a *male* to redeem >us. That's a significant sign of androcentrism. I like the theologian who points out that standard theology, as in "It is not because you were the greatest of nations I chose you..," says that God chooses the form *least* like God for revelation. Just as David was short and little so that it would be a miracle for him to beat Goliath, so was Jesus incarnated in the *least* meek form, in the form *least* likely to suffer and die without fighting back, so that it would be clear that it was God and not the material chosen for the revelation that was functioning. In other words, just as mighty God chose poor little David, so did feminine God choose poor male Jesus to show us how God does the "saving" thing. You see, the same writing can be interpreted many ways from within the same tradition, depending on what outcome the interpreter is predisposed towards. >The ordination of women ranks very low on my list of threats to the >Catholic church's vitality. Firstly, I consider the *lack* of ordination of women to be a threat to the churches' vitality. But some of this all follows. The Catholic stance is that women don't "resemble" Christ. I agree with the quote "What Christ did not suffer, Christ did not redeem.", i.e. either He took human form and redeemed all humans or he took man's form and redeemed all men. Either way, I belong in a church with women priests. (All of the above is INTERNAL logic, not an assertion of truth aimed at non-Christians) >The church's stand on birth control, >abortion and divorce rank far higher. These stands are decided in councils of priests and bishops. If they start ordaining and consecrating women, eventually the councils' makeup will change. >I'm impressed by the misguided tenacity with which people attempt to >rationalize and even deny the gender bias of Judaeo-Christian-Islamic >tradition. I realize now that I was quite lucky to survive my years of >Catholic indoctrination with my ability to question reasonably intact. It was *very* painful to me to arrive at the conclusion that my religion, in which I had experienced much genuine joy and growth, was extremely gender-biased. For a long time, I tried to get other people at church to see it my way. But they could see I was hurting, which hardly made me an example to emulate. Later I stopped attending, but I haven't yet gone to another religion, and from what I am hearing, my denomination may very well catch up to me yet. And the "underground" in the American Catholic church is the most vital, amazing, radical, loving, movement of the whole bunch! (I am Episcopalian.) You would be surprised what dissidents can do to revitalize an institution. I don't think the issue is decided yet. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ jan@orc.olivetti.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ We must worship Universal Consciousness as each of the 5 genders in turn if we wish to be fully open to Yr glory. -- St. Xyphlb of Alpha III
phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au (10/23/90)
In article <1990Oct18.003900.28134@nntp-server.caltech.edu>, morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.edu (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: > phs265y@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes: >>Well, I am afraid that I totally disagree with this. I find the teachings >>of Jesus and the tenets of feminism (and socialism for that matter) >>absolutely compatible. > You're missing the point. A *male* god sent down a *male* to redeem > us. That's a significant sign of androcentrism. I don't think you have understood my point of view. I agree with you in that I think that most of what is associated with the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic tradition; the intolerance, the oppression, the hierarchy, the gender bias, the sexism, is disgusting. However, buried under all the crap is a principle of equality. Now let me sincerely apologize for the fact that a person with male genitals expounded this view but if it makes you feel any better I'm sure that there were many women both before and after Jesus who also held a similar world view. A male dominated world would not place a women at the centre of an organized religion. A principle of equality means, I believe, fighting against oppression, against gender bias, against sexism, against racism, against capitalism. If we have to throw out religious rituals and write a new bible to achieve this, then it's fine by me. T. Hartin
lynn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Lynn Klein) (10/24/90)
In article <1990Oct12.214229.23575@nntp-server.caltech.edu> morphy@truebalt.cco.caltech.EDU (Jones Maxime Murphy) writes: >Being from a catholic background myself, I believe catholicism and >feminism are fundamentally incompatible. Yes, if you roll over and play dead (as many Catholics unfortunately do). I'm in my fifth year of graduate studies at the Jesuit School of Theology at the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley. When I came there, totally naive about sexism, feminism was a given in every single class I took (though perhaps not always welcomed by a a few reluctant teachers). My faith matured and deepened beyond what I could describe here. It's been very painful, but growing up has been well worth it. The Jesuit School of Theology, not to mention the Graduate Theological Union, is packed with feminist faculty (most notably Sandra Schneiders, mentioned on an earlier post, who wrote the excellent "Women and the Word" -- a short but incredible read). The Catholic church there is certainly compatible with feminism. Lynn Klein