In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Category: Religion

At the Vatican, Exceptions Make the Rule

An interesting take on the Vatican through the lens of Italian law.

Although this is a difficult point for many Anglo-Saxons to grasp, when the Vatican makes statements like “no gays in the priesthood,” it doesn’t actually mean “no gays in the priesthood.” It means, “As a general rule, this is not a good idea, but we all know there will be exceptions.”

Understanding this distinction requires an appreciation of Italian concepts of law, which hold sway throughout the thought world of the Vatican. The law, according to such thinking, expresses an ideal. It describes a perfect state of affairs from which many people will inevitably fall short. This view is far removed from the typical Anglo-Saxon approach, which expects the law to dictate what people actually do.

(…)

Catholic cultures are based on the passionate quest for spiritual perfection, Dawson writes, unlike the “bourgeois” culture of the United States, which, shaped by Protestantism and based on practical reason, gives priority to economic concerns. As one senior Vatican official put it to me some time ago, “Law describes the way things would work if men were angels.”

This value system means that while Vatican officials often project a stern moral image on the public stage, in intimate settings they can be strikingly patient and understanding. Policymakers in the Vatican tend not to get as worked up as many Americans by the large numbers of Catholics in the developed world who flout church regulations on birth control, for example. It’s not that Vatican officials don’t believe in the regulations. Rather, they believe the very nature of an ideal is that many people will fail to realize it.

Of course, one can debate whether a ban on birth control, or on gays in seminaries, ought to be the ideal. The point is that although Vatican officials will never say so out loud, few actually expect those rules to be upheld in all cases.

We’ll see how this pans out when it comes to gay men in the church.

Amy Wellborn tosses in her non-sensical two cents as well:

Why is it considered unfair to expect priests and seminarians to live by the values of the institution they serve? Others may call it a purge, but I call it truth in advertising.

A seminary has a dual responsibility. It owes the future priest preparation for a life of sacrifice, unique witness and engagement with other human beings at moments of joy and pain in a society that has no respect for his vocation.

But a seminary also owes us, the people in the pews, psychologically mature priests who aren’t engaged in an eternal and ego-driven struggle with their own problems, who are prepared to serve, to teach and preach – with integrity and honesty.

But… I thought the whole Catholic view was that “gay is ok — unless you act on it”? Your average gay semarian isn’t acting on it any more than a straight one is. Where’s the false advertising? Where’s the lack of service and sacrifice? Perhaps this is what the previous author was talking about when he referenced American’s Protestant-based bourgy view on laws and rules.

At least Amy does us all a favor by being truthful — she views gays as psychologically immature egomaniacs who lack integriy and honesty.

p.s. I do love serving as your latest hobby, but I think it’s time to move on, pal.

Stark Raving Atheist

Looks like someone’s got a little crush on the Feministe ladies. And, apparently, we (or at least I) are/am tools of the religious right (who knew?), intent on making gays and lesbians hate themselves by way of discovering Jesus. You learn something new every day.

I would just keep arguing this out on RA’s site, but I’m tired — and since he doesn’t leave trackbacks here, I’m bringin’ it home. I probably won’t argue my point much further here, because I think I was pretty clear in the first place, but here’s my take on religion: I consider my own beliefs to be private. I don’t think they’re any better or worse than yours, and I don’t like arguing about them in a public forum, because to me, they’re deeply personal, and between me and my God. If the fact that I believe in God makes me an idiot, fine. I don’t promote my own religion as the best one; I don’t think you’re going to hell if you don’t follow my line of belief. I recognize my religious and spiritual beliefs are often inconsistent. When it comes to the religious beliefs of others, as long as they aren’t hurting anyone and they’re not being pushed onto me, I’m cool with it. I don’t think it’s my place to tell anyone that they’re stupid or wrong for believing what they do; I don’t think hostility towards religion in general is at all productive.

Interestingly, the Raving Atheist also posts on Dawn Eden’s blog — although you wouldn’t even know they were the same person by the tone of the posts. I wonder how Dawn feels about being told her religion is a joke and she’s “retarded” (not my word choice) for believing in God at all?

Scopes Monkey Trials, part deux

Why are we still debating this? Listen up, wingnuts: Science class is for teaching science, not religion. Not “we don’t know, so God must have done it.” Not “evolution is only a theory” (gravity is also only a theory, but I’m not gonna start agitating for my kids to be taught intelligent falling). End of story.

“Nearly 2,000 years ago, someone died on a cross for us,” said board member William Buckingham, who urged his colleagues to include intelligent design in ninth-grade science classes. “Shouldn’t we have the courage to stand up for him?”

I must have missed the part in the Bible where Jesus says, “Thou shalt not teach your children accurate scientific information.”

Rockin’ With the Lord

Hugo thinks Christian music is seen as inherently uncool in the secular world. What he doesn’t know is that all the kool kids listen to Christian music, even a godless, atheist heathen like me.

One of my not-so secret secrets is my love for this band label: Sounds Familyre. I believe every artist on this label is either a) putting out specifically Christian music, or b) Biblically-inspired, morally explorative music. This label is the brainchild of Daniel Smith, head of the band The Danielson Famile.

You can get most of the following mp3s from their website, thus these mp3s will be removed from our servers in a few days. Catch while catch can. Right click, save as.

The Danielson Famile puts out some of the quirkiest feel-good music that I have ever heard. My first listen was both amused and slightly skeptical because of the childish, chiming voices and melodies. It grew on me — and it will grow on you if you have an appreciation for the noisy, upbeat, and avant garde. And yes, they are wholeheartedly serious and are supposed to be a great treat live.

All the kids in the Danielson Famile were fathered by Lenny Smith, a laudable musician in his own right. This song, overtly Biblical, rocks like the best bands of the 1960s. Smith has a back catalogue of songs stretching back at least thirty years that are to be released in album-length selections over the next few years.

This Dan Zimmerman tune has had me rocking out for days. It absolutely plows through musical darkness and light. Great song.

Of the artists I list here, the most popular artist who deals with Christianity in his music is Sufjan Stevens. This indie rock god “came out” as a Christian two years ago with his album “Seven Swans,” whereas his spirituality was only hinted at in previous albums. I highly recommend it as well as his other albums, especially the conceptual geographic- and culturally-themed albums “Michigan” and “Illinois”. His music is all-ages friendly with solid composition and unusual arrangments and instumental choices. Almost all of his songs deal with moral stories or personal tales of hardship, but all capture the beauty of humanity with his lovely voice and lyrical content without being overt or preachy. Just wonderful.

See also: A more comprehensive review of Seven Swans.

If anyone has any similar artists to share, I’d love to hear your suggestions in the comments.

UPDATE: This song I just found (notice: decidedly unchristian) is an electropop Too Short cover with a female vocalist. I can’t decide if it sucks or not.

Gay Men (and others) Respond to Vatican Decision

As I wrote a few days ago, gay men are likely going to be “weeded out” of the priesthood. Now, the New York Times has their reactions. It’s telling (and logical) that none of the gay semarians interviewed for this article wanted their names used.

“I find that I am becoming more and more angry,” said a 40-year-old priest on the West Coast who said he had not decided whether to reveal his homosexuality publicly. “This is the church I’ve given my life to and I believe in. I look at every person I come in contact with as someone who’s created in the image and likeness of God, and I expect that from the church that I’m a part of. But I always feel like I’m ‘less than.’ ”

Compare that to the reaction of the anti-gays, some of which are truly bizarre:

Helen Dunn, a retired teacher, said it was important to weed out gay men at the seminary level, “because that’s where the problems start.”

“They’re looking for something they can’t get,” Ms. Dunn added.

…and that would be? I don’t get it. Why are gay semarians looking for “something they can’t get” in a way that straight ones aren’t? Why do I get the feeling that in her view, the “something they can’t get” is God’s love?

Bruno Basedy, 55, an immigrant from Colombia, said that homosexuality was “no good” and demonstrated acceptable conduct by singing the theme from Wagner’s wedding march.

So homosexuality is no good, but homosexuals singing wedding songs are a-ok. Or maybe just middle-aged men singing wedding songs are ok. Or marriage is ok for gay semarians? Got it.

The Rev. John Trigilio Jr., president of the Confraternity of Catholic Clergy, a conservative 400-member group based in Harrisburg, Pa., said that barring gay men from seminaries was “for their own good,” just as the church once barred epileptics from the priesthood.

“It’s pretty much the same thing,” Father Trigilio said. “The work and the ministry of the priesthood is going to be too demanding and will put a strain on them. He’s going to have to spend five to eight years in a seminary where he’s only going to be with men.”

Uh… right. And then he might have a massive seizure. And it’s not like gay men are used to living in a world where there are a whole helluva lotta other men around.

(Side question: Does the Church still ban epileptics from being priests? That strikes me as a little overzealous).

One gay seminarian in his 30’s responded that such reasoning was “ridiculous” and that he has lived harmoniously for four years with a group of mostly heterosexual seminarians.

“Homosexual men are socialized differently,” he said. “We have spent our whole lives living and working with other men. We’ve been on the same school teams, shared the same locker rooms, been in the same fraternities, and we are accustomed to being around people to whom we are attracted. To suggest that because one has a homosexual orientation one is unable to control one’s sexual impulses is, frankly, insulting.”

Amen.

The Holocaust: Really, It Was About Jesus

By now, everyone has probably heard the sad news that Nazi hunter Simon Weisenthal died earlier this week. I have a lot I’d like to say about him, but can’t find words that are appropriately laudatory — he was an amazing figure, and his death is a huge loss for the entire world.

But hey, why pay him the respect he deserves and honor the memory of all the Jews and other minority groups killed in the Holocaust when we can make this about Jesus, “King of the Jews”? Surely that’s not offensive. Ain’t nothin wrong with taking the genocide of millions of innocent people and making it about me and my god.

I can understand that Jews find no comfort in the thought that the Nazis held them responsible for the coming of Christ, that the victims of Auschwitz were, therefore, unwitting martyrs for His sake. For centuries, they had been pursued as Christ-killers. Suddenly, they were attacked as Christ-bearers. Here is an antithesis, an irony a Jew cannot but find hard to take. It may even be offensive to him to think of his kinsmen tortured by the Nazis as forced witnesses to Jesus.

Ya think?

UPDATE: Dawn’s still going. Now it’s “The Jews’ and the Christians’ Holocaust Suffering: A Covenant in Blood.”

I’m not here to argue that Nazis were Christians, or that no Christians were harmed in the Holocaust. But taking the purposeful slaughter of Jews, gypsies, Africans, gays and other minority groups — a slaughter that killed more than 5 million Jews alone– and saying, no, really, it was about Christianity and Jesus the whole time! is unbelievably offensive and disgustingly self-centered. Yes, the Holocaust is inarguably a tragedy for everyone, Christians like myself included. But it is also a uniquely Jewish tradegy (and not because they were “martyrs for Christ”). My European relatives were affected, and in learning about what happened I was affected, but no one was trying to wipe my people off the face of the earth. That’s a pretty big difference, and one that I’m certainly not disrespectful enough to try and co-opt as my own. I’ll leave that to Dawn (who yes, I know is of Jewish heritage) and her self-involved minions.

Hijab Barbie

Well, not Barbie exactly — Fulla, and she’s a best-seller in the Mideast. She has the same, uh, “dimensions” as Barbie, but darker hair and features. She comes complete with a hijab, a prayer rug, and solid traditional values.

Fulla is another one of those things that I have mixed feelings about. On one hand, it’s great that girls are playing with a doll that resembles them (at least facially), and that doesn’t present whiteness, blonde hair and blue eyes as a beauty standard in a part of the world where that’s not exactly the norm. It’s good that innovative people in other countries have taken what has largely been a Western-created phenomenon and reshaped it to fit their culture instead of just swallowing it as-is. And Fulla can be a good role model in some aspects:

Though Fulla will never have a boyfriend doll like Barbie’s Ken, Mr. Abidin said, a Doctor Fulla and a Teacher Fulla will be introduced soon. “These are two respected careers for women that we would like to encourage small girls to follow,” he said.

Can’t argue with that (although I wonder what careers aren’t “respected”?)

But not everything about Fulla is so fantastic.

Maan Abdul Salam, a Syrian women’s rights advocate, said Fulla was emblematic of a trend toward Islamic conservatism sweeping the Middle East. Though statistics are hard to come by, he said, the percentage of young Arab women who wear the hijab is far higher now than it was a decade ago, and though many girls are wearing it by choice, others are being pressured to do so.

I think we can all agree that that’s bad — not wearing the hijab in itself, but lacking choice in the matter.

Fatima Ghayeh, who at 15 is a few years past playing with dolls herself, said she felt “sad that no one plays with Barbie anymore.” But, pressed for further explanation, Ms. Ghayeh, dressed in a white hijab and ankle-length khaki coat, appeared to change her mind.

“My friends and I loved Barbie more than anything,” she said. “But maybe it’s good that girls have Fulla now. If the girls put scarves on their dolls when they’re young, it might make it easier when their time comes. Sometimes it is difficult for girls to put on the hijab. They feel it is the end of childhood.” “Fulla shows girls that the hijab is a normal part of a woman’s life.”

There’s something incredibly painful about that quote, isn’t there? When a doll serves to ease you out of a life of relative freedom and into one where it seems that at least some young women feel very contrained, and where they recognize that something has been lost?

So I’m still torn on this one. But my instinct tells me that anything which purports to promote “traditional values” probably isn’t great for women’s rights — considering that “traditional values” is typically code for selective, oppressive values under the guise of “God said so” and “In the good old days…”