If you can’t abuse a child, ordain a woman instead

by Richard on July 16, 2010

PamBG rails against the Vatican

Apparently, on some Planet Ratzinger in a universe of parallel morality far far away, violating the stricture of Church tradition and ordaining women is equal in immorality to sexual abuse of a child. Wow, if that’s the case then we really had better get cracking and make sure that we pounce on feminist theologians. We wouldn’t them influencing anyone to think that women can usurp the priestly duties and stand as an intermediary between god and Man (capitalizations deliberate).

This has got to be one of the most egregious violations of common sense, decency and natural justice.

{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }


Pam 07.17.10 at 7:53 am

Very disappointing. My husband and closest female friend are Catholic and neither agree with that rubbish.


Kim 07.17.10 at 10:47 am

Cf. what the magisterium declares God’s “natural law” has to say about sex - e.g., that birth control is the moral equivalent of sodomy, and masturbation more sinful than rape.


Pam 07.18.10 at 5:17 am

No wonder Benny & co. are getting such bad press. They need to wake up to themselves (a good Aussie saying) and quick!


Mark Byron 07.18.10 at 9:13 pm

“masturbation more sinful than rape.”

Kim, could you get a cite for that in Catholic teaching? They may not mention rape in some teaching since it is clearly wrong, but I’d love to see where Catholic teaching actually authenticates that quote.


Kim 07.18.10 at 10:11 pm

It’s the teaching of Thomas Aquinas, which I presume is Catholic teaching too. The reason that masturbation is morally more severe a sin than rape is that it is a “sin against nature” (like sodomy and bestiality), because procreation is ruled out ab initio; rape, on the other hand, is merely (!) a “sin against right reason” (like fornication and adultery). Procreation as the defining purpose of sex is the hinge on which this moral logic turns.

Btw, in a moral climate in which homosexuality is no longer condemned outright by many Christian theologians, you can see why Rome remains adamant in its prohibition of contraception, even in the face of the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. In Roman reasoning, based on so-called natural law, permissiveness on contraception would open the door to permissiveness on homosexuality, the common denominator being the non-starter of procreation. Love it or hate it, given the premise, you’ve got to admire the sheer stubborn consistency of the logic.


Pam 07.19.10 at 2:43 am

No, I don’t admire the sheer stubborn consistency of the logic of bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic men. Catholic women should walk out.


PamBG 07.19.10 at 11:11 am

I’m not sure that I attribute this to men as a gender unless, of course, we want to make the case that more men than women would be likely to think that intellectual consistency is more important than the actual, lived moral and ethical outcomes of human beings.

The sacrificing of human outcomes to intellectual consistency is really the root of the problem here and I don’t admire it one bit either.


Pam 07.20.10 at 2:07 am

I agree Pam. But, nevertheless, the Catholic church is run by a male patriarchy who can’t embrace the normality of equality. There are many wonderful, self-sacrificing men and women in the Catholic church who love their church and are being let down by these dinosaurs.

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>