sinisterspark
Posted on 23. Dec, 2009 by sinisterspark in Oplan Pepe
I would never characterize myself as a religious person, but there was a time when I thought religion was an important part of my life. I have found myself a couple of times sobbing by myself in the church chapel and feeling better afterward; I have gotten hope and inspiration from words of a priest. I believed in the transformational power of the religious community in the lives of others. I had faith. I had not ventured to learn about what the Catholic Church has done in the past, but what I had known then, 10 years ago, was that in the most part, the Church was a force of good in the world.
I studied in a Catholic all-girls school that was, by most accounts, a feminist school. We had joined protests against the government. We (students and teachers alike) believed in equality of women to men and would have been the type to fight for it, tooth and nail. We were never the type of women who would cower in a corner. Never in my Catholic education did I expect that this brand of feminist values were against what the Catholic Church really stood for.
I mean, I should have seen the signs. We were made to think that condoms caused infections and pills caused cancer, never mind its effectiveness against pregnancy. Sure, we were shown an actual IUD (which looked like a fishing line or something, BTW). However, my whole sexual education and family planning class can be summed up as follows – ‘any sort of artificial or chemical means of birth control will likely give you cancer/permanent fertility damage/infection/allergic reactions’.
Nevertheless, I just assumed my teachers were somewhat misinformed. They can’t possibly really believe this right?
In the last 10 years I have witnessed the Church vocally protest against things that generally give women freedom, relief, equal rights, and empowerment.
Divorce. What was so wrong with divorce? Firstly, they can prevent Catholics from divorcing all they want, but why prevent the entire country from getting one? I think we are only one of a handful of countries not allowed to divorce, and this is mainly due to the Catholic lobby. A divorce can allow a woman (and a man) freedom from an abusive relationship. A divorce gives separated partners certain rights not available in a legal separation or annulment. Preventing divorce is not going to help families already broken in the first place. It just keeps unhappy families unhappy for the rest of their lives.
In addition, separation and annulment is not kosher with the Church either. When I was getting married in the Guadalupe Church just a few years ago, me and my husband were asked to sign a document promising that we are not to separate or annul our marriage even in case of (1) insanity; (2) infidelity and having children with another partner; (3) homosexuality; (4) physical and verbal abuse; (5) and fraud. Most of these are, by the way, legal grounds for annulment and separation that are allowed by the Family Code. Why should people force themselves to keep married under these circumstances? Why is this right? There is a reason why the law thinks these are reasonable grounds for separation and annulment. Why doesn’t the Church agree to the same?
Artificial means of birth control and choice, period. Why does the Catholic Church feel the need to ‘legislate’ on these matters when even other religious sects are keeping out of it? Why does this group of allegedly celibate people get to say when or how or why women have sex? Why do they choose to express their disapproval through misinformation instead of actual facts? Is it really that hard to say, “condoms are effective, but they are evil” instead of the lies that “condoms are not effective” and “women on the pill get cancer” and “population growth is not a problem”? Why are they using their mighty power to block reproductive health aid that is much needed in the Philippines and in Africa?
I wonder what they think the world would look like if women had the final say regarding baby-making. Women are capable of making a choice consistent with their religious beliefs without the need for an all-powerful institution to block their access to the ‘other’ options. Women can handle truth and facts and make good decisions and choices for themselves, thank you, if they’d only let them.
The role of women in the Church. In most Catholic churches that I have gone to, women were the most dedicated in fund-raising, community building, organizing and just plain worshiping Jesus and God and Mary and the Holy Spirit and all that it represents. It pains me to see that women are still treated as second-class citizens by the organization they so support. Why are these women relegated to these roles of servitude and prayer-power-powwows when they can do much more? Why does the church focus and prioritize merely the uterus of these women to the point that the lives of these women are mere accessories to the baby-making potential they possess? Why do women not have much of a say in the Vatican when setting Church policy on reproductive issues and family?
Homosexuality. I find it disturbing that the Church finds it so easy to condemn a group of fellow human beings just for being who they are. It is unkind and discriminatory to its core. If the Church can hide behind scripture on this, they should also condemn the rest of the human race because somehow, somewhere in that same scripture they have condemned those people as well.
I have mostly questions, because the Catholics I know and love would not stand for the values that these policies represent. There is no logical reason in this day and age for these policies to exist. I see the Church now as merely an oppressive organization of men in robes that through its bureaucracy has betrayed what it was supposed to stand for. If there is a God that stood for love and community and kindness, He did not intend to have his organization of worshipers to act like this. To have a set of beliefs arbitrarily imposed on a group of willing believers in a way that is illogical, misleading, and propagates inequality and poverty is already so wrong as it is; to impose it on a country that needs so much to think for itself and achieve economic growth and political and social maturity is something I could not stand for.
God may very well be a force of good in the world, but the Catholic Church is a destructive force that needs to be stopped.
Ditto! We believe in Providence in exactly the same way. But don’t single out the Catholic Church. There’s fundamentalist Islam, Protestantism, and Judaism too. And I bet faiths like Hinduism would have similarly oppressive doctrines. Indeed, God in Its Absolute Perfection, would never be some sexist, evil, tyrannical bigot like world religions make him out to be. Because why in Heaven’s name would God be an asshole? It simply defeats the omni stuff we attribute to It.
I am sure that sinister park is aware of the oppressive doctrines of other religions, but she is referring to her own experiences as a Filipino Catholic! Don’t you get it? Your imaginary “God in Its Absolute Perfection” is defined by its holy book, whatever brand it is. Your Christian version of God is the jealous, petty and vindictive god.
Reighben was makign a rhetorical statement as to why would a religion misrepresent god as a bigot, the way the Catholic Church had.
i’m not sure if there is an edit option, so I assume you might have figured that out. I’m just clarifying it from my perspective.
I’m sorry but I just didn’t get what you mean by your message. Please expound.
You know what? I really like you, as a feminist in its true essence (unlike those so-called feminist, but not actually in a way they are), and I truly admire the way you attack the Catholic Church, you really have the guts.
By the way, I read in a Marie Claire Magazine about a woman writer (forgot her name, darn!) who said that all single women are entitled to a sex life. I know many so-called purists and conservatives will give a raise of eyebrows about that and I hope you could give an opinion about it.
I am suspicious of your praise as you probably don’t know me and have no basis to judge my feminism.
On the other question – I believe that all men and women are entitled to a sex life (as do all animals in this world). Why the hell not?
Oh yes we can have an idea of what your feminism is! A writer always to an extent denudes him/herself! A rational thinker will come to that conclusion
My two cents: Every one has a right to ” ‘None of your god-damned business’ what I do in my privacy.”
Catholics don’t board planes with explosive underwear and profess to do this in the Name of God. So I don’t buy her thesis at all. I think this rationalist blogger is blasting away (albeit illogically) at a convenient target! Now how about aiming it at the nearest mosque?
First Point
You don’t need a bomb to kill people. Denying women essential reproductive health services can kill just as Dead as a bomb. It can even be more effective: it can kill generations.
Second Point: Blood thirstyness
BTW catholics were the first Initiator of religious war. Please read up on the first crusade. Even the Orthodox Church and Islam found the Latin Church’s “crusade” an abomination.
The reasons why Islam is as fundamentally intollerant is actually a result of the crusades. IF you’ve read about Church history and read BOTH texts of both sides; Arabs were actually more egaletarian than the Christians. Their women, then, held more rights and privileges than that of christian women.
Also, please read up the Inquisition, the Protestant Movement, history of slavery and Mein Kampf. For something close to home read up on Hermano Puli, the role of the catholic church in Philippine history, etc…
Please double check the meaning of logic, cause if there were any illogical arguments you can cite a specific fallacy the blogger had comited.
Since you can’t and probably wont, then your claim is a false one and a irresponsible attack (because you did not present or point to any evidence for your argument neither did you create a constructive method of inquiry).
Too bad that’s the best you can do. It seems you haven’t read any history of Islam, even by those with more liberal viewpoints. The thesis you have is already a weak logical counterpoint since “explosive underwear” was designed to kill.
“Rationalists” defending intolerance? by justifying historical wrongs? At least Rich Dawkins does not fall into that trap. He is consistent and while I believe he is preaching a religion, he has never defended intolerance of any kind.
The kind of “rationalism” in this blog is nothing but a kind of religion! It is a great disservice to rationalism!
Sinisterspark’s target is the Catholic Church because this is what she is familiar with. This is her background as do most Filipinos. You just want the attention taken off the Catholic Church and get it on the Muslims instead. That can be another topic and can best be handled by people familiar with Islam. Besides so much has been written about Islam, and I am sure that you have seen them. You haven’t refuted anything that was said against the Catholic Church because they are painfully true. I don’t want to repeat what Nikolas has said, he did a very good job about it.
You are repeating what believers like to say that atheism is a religion. It is not. All religions have gods, dogmas and beliefs that cannot be proven. If it gives you comfort to call atheism a religion, so be it.
Oh, and by the way, just like the ‘explosive underwear’, those torture devices commissioned by the Catholic Church to punish the heretics – they were also designed to kill, but even better. They can deliver a slow and painful death. The Catholic Church is a better designer!