(no subject)

[labellementeuse]

Everyone must read this now: 14 Thoughts for the New Pope: Condoms. Female priests. Stop Gay Bashing. And Dammit, Do Something About Christian Rock.

Relatedly, Russell Brown asks What Would Jesus Have on His Ipod? And his readers, including Margaret Mayman omgwtf, tell him (scroll down. A lot.)

I love that man's blog. I do, I do.

Comments

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

I just read it again and the WHOLE THING is a massive rant about how Catholic doctrine is "bitter" and destructive and the priests are repressed paedophiles.

You read it right: Endorse condoms. Crazy, isn't it? But this is what millions were hoping for. Condoms and birth control and finally allow your miserable, repressed priests to get married and have sex so as to avoid mental breakdown and spiritual angst and gross pedophilic urges. Hold to the Old Ways on this topic, Benedict, and you'll simply become even more archaic and silly and disrespected to the point where no one of the independent-minded and especially female persuasion anywhere in the world will have any respect for what you stand for. I am so not kidding

That?? Is prejudice and smugness, basically.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

Point by point:

"You read it right: Endorse condoms. Crazy, isn't it?"

I'm not sure what's either prejudiced or smug about this- actually, I don't think any of it is smug, although I will let you have sneering. Prejudiced? Uh, the Catholic Church has an explicit policy against condoms and other forms of contraception. Saying that is not bigotry, it's just the truth.

"But this is what millions were hoping for."
I was. Liberal Catholics all over the world were- see this post (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_04_17_dish_archive.html#111396439658162809). Probably, all those people in Africa who know that condoms do help prevent the spread of AIDS, and are watching Catholics ignore it, probably they were hoping for it too. Probably all those conservative Catholic wives with umpteen children- not that, thankfully, we have so many of those- probably, secretly, they were hoping for it too. Did you know that a child born within less than a year of another has an incredibly diminished chance of survival? That children in very large families also have a diminished rate of survival of childhood? (I can't give you statistics, unfortunately). Probably women who've been knocked up by a guy they didn't want to marry who then insisted on marrying them and refusing to let them have an abortion, probably they were sort of hoping for it too.

"Condoms and birth control and finally allow your miserable, repressed priests to get married and have sex so as to avoid mental breakdown and spiritual angst and gross pedophilic urges."
Condoms and birthcontrol: see above.
"miserable, repressed priests": Not smug. Perhaps prejudiced, except hang on a second, wait, Catholics aren't even allowed to masturbate and priests aren't allowed to marry (or, presumably, have intercourse with prostitutes.) What does this leave them?
... hang on, nothing. So of course, all these guys in the seminaries, they're not unhappy with it or repressed at all.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not belittling that choice. I just don't think it's a good one to force people to make.

"mental breakdown and spiritual angst and gross pedophilic urges."
Mental breakdown: I don't know what Freud says about the sort of sexual repression practiced by Catholic priests but I bet it's telling.
As for gross pedophilic urges: I think this is more of a jab at the Catholic church for not responding better to the claims of child abuse: I know that in America people feel really angry that the Church did not respond adequately.

"Hold to the Old Ways on this topic, Benedict, and you'll simply become even more archaic and silly and disrespected to the point where no one of the independent-minded and especially female persuasion anywhere in the world will have any respect for what you stand for."

archaic and silly? You know what- believing and preaching that condoms do not prevent the spread of HIV is not merely archaic and silly and counter to science, it's also irresponsible. Ultimately it's murder.

disrespected? How many Catholics today do you know who don't believe condoms are an effective form of contraception as well as something of an aid- not complete- against the spread of STDS?

no-one of the independent-minded and especially female persuasion will have any respect for what you stand for?
I can see how this would be offensive to devout- very devout- Catholics. But I don't think it's prejudiced or smug. As a woman I certainly don't hold with it.

"I am so not kidding"
Flippant? Yeah, but then, it's a satire. Prejudiced? Smug? Nah.

[miriamus.livejournal.com]

okay, so you're a better arguer than me ;) you win.


But still - the stance on the condom thing is totally justified. But I still think the piece is way too hostile.

[labellementeuse.livejournal.com]

:P Thank you.

See, I didn't think it was hostile at all. Satirical, which maybe has that sneering element, but not actively hostile.