|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
|
|
Sex, women and the Catholic Church
Readers' Comments:
Add a Comment
Commenting on this article is via email, so there will be a delay between making a comment and seeing it appear. 'Unsigned' posts will be marked 'Anonymous'. Your email address will not be disclosed, nor will your surname if provided. If you wish your full name published, or a link to your website, simply request this in your email. Unlike many other internet forums, we do not require you to register or join our club before you are allowed to comment. We realise that this restriction simply insulates forums from negative views, since many refuse to bother joining a group they disagree with just to disagree with it. |
|
Comments:
According to a news item on TVNZ today a nun in New York drove a church car while twice over the legal blood alcohol level. She sideswiped cars, drove over lawns and ended up crashing into a tree. It didn't specifically say she was Catholic but I assume she was. I wonder if the restrictions and oppression of the Church finally got to her causing her to kick over the traces. What better way to do it than get into a bottle of whiskey and create mayhem. If she hadn't been a danger to other people I would have said good on her.
Thanks for that titbit Bob. I suspect that there are many, many instances of nuns and priests losing the plot and acting in a manner inappropriate for their calling, however few happen in public. I can't imagine how any nun or priest exposed to the modern world and that think deeply about their belief doesn't struggle with the restrictions.
My opinon is the prests have sex anyway, but [by] moslesting boys. in 1983 they had a man my age, im 44, but any way he did not want his face shown on tv program, but he said in 1971 he was young, a preist feel on his penis so he said to the preist, do this [with] a girl or get married. the preist slapped him on the butt and said it is a sin to be with female but not a sin to morlest boys. Not in the bible???? Like in Florida the year Father Alberto a Spanish Catholic bishop had sex with a woman, what did the Head prests do? remove him off the posts so he stopped serving the Catholic Church. Now in diffenent religon and Married her. good for him. Now my wife is Catholic, I stopped going to Church for 3 reasons. Half of the members dont, and I repeat dont, do or study the bible says the real reason is if they go church that will keep out of hell but they do more sex, have babies out of wedlock, drink beer and wine and Jack Daniels, go to Concerts than I do, swear, say fuck then I do, But the Bible says those who does such things shall not enter the kingdom of God. Does that make such Sense?????
Whats with the phony boobs on this page. I mean, it appears to be a BRILLIANT commentary and yet you grace the page with silicone breasts. What gives please?
Update: We've since been sent a new photo found on the net which certainly appears natural and have put it in our article in place of the 'phony' one.
I've long held the belief that Catholicism is a cult that basically ensnares a hell of lot of people thru the perpetuation of fear. However, what is even more appalling is how the catholic church has historically preyed upon the poor and disadvantaged to not only give money they typically cannot afford to give, but to breed large numbers of new generations into this fear based cult to continue to give lots of money to keep those in Rome in the luxury they have become so accustomed to. I have come across a few people thru the years who refer to themselves as recovering catholics and typically attest to how hard it is to break free from their indoctrination.
We agree Natoya, and we also know a number of Catholics who are essentially non-religious in their day to day lives, but they still can't break free completely, they still harbour this nagging doubt about souls and hell and sin. Brainwashed when they were children, and so powerful that even solid reason struggles to make a dent.
Great article,
While the human brain struggles to cope with the concept of death, exploitation of the masses by 'clever' people by means of religious 'memes' is a logical consequence.
Being religious is a primitive but human trait that comes naturally and only evolutionary progress of the mind can and may eventually do away with the need.
One way for the human race to start exiting these (still) dark, middle ages would be to teach our two and three year olds about reality, truth and compassion instead of the lies and horrors being instilled into their receptive minds by parents, teachers and leaders at present.
We agree Karl, the minds of children are the key to a more rational and humane future, but unfortunately religions have always known this and started their brainwashing from birth, with the likes of baptisms, circumcisions and prayers at bedtime. There is still much work to be done.
Hi John, liked the article, and it sounds like an interesting book. But I have to wonder what was really happening on the ground. It’s one thing for the higher ups demanding these high ideals, it’s another to see if they are actually been practised.
History is filled with examples of people not adhering to the law of the land as it pertains to what happens in the bed room. I’m told for instance that there are still several states in America which ban sodomy and oral sex — at least its on the law books though I doubt if there’s been a successful prosecution in decades.
No doubt the ideals of the Catholic Church may have had some impact, but my own suspicion is that life on the ground was somewhat freer than the ideals demanded. Having seen some renaissance porn I’d have to say the modern purveyor’s have not learned anything new. As to the peasantry only knowing about the missionary position, as you pointed out, we only have the priest’s word for that and somehow I can’t imagine the average peasant telling a priest about the other activities they might have tried. I suspect they would have pleaded ignorance of everything except the official position.
One has to be careful determining what is happening by what the rules of society call for. As an example in the beginning of the 19th Century there are over two hundred crimes on British law codes that call for the death penalty including the crime of sodomy. You bugger someone you hang. So we might say that there was perhaps no sodomy or even homosexuality in Britain in 1800? No, the reality was this particular law was never enforced, the authorities knew no English jury would convict on a sodomy charge because the law was so harsh. Because of this the homosexual community in Britain at this time is pretty relaxed a kind of gentleman’s agreement to not make a public display and scare the sheep, and we won’t worry about what two consenting adults are doing behind closed doors.
Even today, the Vatican might call for a ban on contraception but a catholic friend of mine told me no priest in New Zealand would ever give penance to a catholic couple for using contraception. In fact how many humongous catholic families do you know? Its like any aspect of society what the powers that be might call for is now what us ordinary mortals do.
As to the issue of sex and the church — this is a far more complex issue with several interwoven strands. Such as the need for early Christians to distinguish themselves from their pagan neighbours and their more freer attitudes to sex. The Morality code adapted from their Judaic origins. My own personal favourite St Paul’s personal hang-ups (did Paul have problems getting laid?) The patriarchal society’s obsession at controlling female fertility. Attempting to put limitations on the human sex drive as a way of controlling your group. And later as the church became more organised and structured during the middle ages, imposing celibacy upon the priestly class to prevent bishoprics from becoming heredity fiefdoms handed down from father to son.
And finally to add into this mass, those human society universal’s marriage and incest laws, as there has never been a human society that has not in some form attempted to make rules on who you are allowed to have sex with and who you are not. This is not to say that these rules are exactly the same in all cases.
However, I would point out that Protestants can be even worse. With many of the protestant sects also adhering to similar awful rules and regulations about what should happen in the bed room. At the end of the day Christians can have some pretty strange hang-ups on sex. And then there was the Oneida Community in 19th century America with it’s rather open attitude to sex (at least until 1879.)
In a sense in whatever society you live in there are going to be rules governing sex. We are lucky we live in a society that has a liberal attitude to sex. But we still impose certain restrictions, and it is right that we do so (adult child sexual relations are simply wrong, end of story, no argument.) But I suspect that making those rules too harsh, too forbidding, and like any forbidden thing it goes underground or in this case behind closed bedroom doors.
Thanks for the comments Phill, and yes, it is always difficult to know exactly what people are doing in their private lives, especially from a historical perspective since we can't even ask them.
Unlike now though, we must remember that in the distant past it seems that the majority truly did believe that a god was watching their every move, even in the bedroom, and that they would be punished accordingly for any transgressions. Unlike some atheists we never transitioned from true believers to atheists and so can't know what it was like to truly believe someone was always watching you. To us it does seem unbelievable that you wouldn't just lie to the priest, but remember that these people tortured others and burnt witches at the stake because they truly believed. They believed that judgment from god was just as certain as we believe it is from our secular justice system. For peasants to believe that they could lie to their priest about their bedroom shenanigans would be to believe that there was no all-knowing god, to be a non-believer. And it was no good just the husband being a non-believer, his wife and children would have to be non-believers also, or they would just reveal to the priest during their confessions what he was hiding. As silly as it seems to us, it would appear that to many naive, ignorant peasants the thought of lying to their priest, and to their god, was inconceivable. Of course you and I would argue that if god truly existed and was all-knowing then he already knows what we did last night, so why waste time repeating it to the priest?
But you're right that we can't always believe the priests either. Just last week my mother told me about a Catholic childhood friend who was extremely fearful of going to confession each week. Since she didn't believe she had done anything wrong during the week, she nevertheless had to invent some believable sin to confess to the priest. The priest point blankly refused to believe anyone that said they had committed no sins, and thus this poor little girl had to invent and confess to a sin she hadn't committed. And of course she couldn't just reuse past sins as this would mean that she hadn't learnt from her mistakes. Thus a good and pure child was always seen as sinful and flawed by the priests. This continual terrorising by the Church ruined part of her childhood, and as we know, many adults never grow out of it, no matter how much they want to.
You said that 'somehow I can't imagine the average peasant telling a priest about the other activities they might have tried'. The book explained that after the priests became celibate, much of what they knew about sex did come from the peasants. However at one stage they discovered to their horror that they were actually educating some of the peasants in new sexual activities. Priests for example would ask if they had performed oral sex, and the naive peasant would ask what oral sex was. The priest would explain, the peasant would honestly answer no, but would head home keen to try it. Eventually the priests got orders that they must get information from peasants without imparting any.
You're right that 'We are lucky we live in a society that has a liberal attitude to sex', although of course there are many that would disagree and insist that we have gone way too far. Certain religious types still condemn premarital sex, homosexuality, contraception, public nudity, sexual equality etc. As you say, some US states still have laws against oral sex, and even we still have a law against blasphemy, although they are now seldom enforced. You mentioned homosexuality in Britain in 1800 and that no English jury would convict on a sodomy charge because the law was so harsh. Actuality they would and did, even playwright Oscar Wilde was sent to prison for homosexuality. Even today the religious have tried to enforce these old laws, and if our lawmakers truly believed that these laws are wrong, why haven't they repealed them? Because they do have support and it is easier for authorities to just turn a blind eye to them than repeal them. There is still much work to be done before all women have true equality and the church butts out of our sex lives, and then fades out altogether.
Perhaps if women knew just how badly they have been treated by the Church throughout history, and how the Bible supports much of this ill-treatment, they might be more inclined to go for a coffee and a muffin on Sunday than attend some church and be subjugated by some fantasy preaching priest.
Hi John points taken — however with regards to homosexuality in England during the 19th Century — yes Oscar Wilde was prosecuted and convicted and did time in Reading Gaol. But that was in the 1890's after the old death penalty laws had been repealed (some time in the first half of the 19th Century ) Before then there would have been no court case because no jury would convict and sentence someone to death for sodomy.
After the law had been repealed and replaced with a term of imprisonment attitudes started to change. I suspect (though I have never studied the question in depth) that Wilde's conviction was owed to three things, one the new reformed laws on homosexual repression, the growing conservatism of later Victorian society (caused by the growing middle class) and the fact that Wilde did go out of his way to make himself a bit of a martyr. Had he not pursued the case of libel against the father of his then lover the issue would never have come up. The fact is, in the first half of the 19th Century moral attitudes were somewhat freer than they became in the latter half.
Yes I think you're right Phill, Wilde did make things worse than they needed to have been, and the Victorian era did put a straightjacket on many things that were previously considered normal and natural. We are only now starting to rid ourselves of their prudishness. I think we are lucky too that the courts are divorcing themselves more and more from the Church. While they have of course been secular for some time now, we must remember that many judges, lawyers and jury members would still have been devout Christians and still guided and influenced by their faith. Just last night I heard Bishop Tamaki railing once again against the evil of homosexuality, and being supported by his congregation. Can you imagine how they would vote if any of them had jury duty on a trial involving homosexuality?
Hi John — yes it's one of my favourites. I especially enjoy the last minute repreive at the start of the film.
Return to Article
|
|
|
|
Support Science Not Superstition
|
|
www.sillybeliefs.com
Last Updated Jun 2011 |
Are they phony boobs? (see photo right). None of us have the expertise to tell the difference, and frankly we didn't even think about it, even though we're definitely not supporters of breast implants. We chose that image solely because (to us anyway) it simply expressed the title of our article: 'Sex, women and the Catholic Church'. The nudity suggests sex, the boobs women, and the cross the Church. Maybe we'll have to find a pic of some natural breasts with a cross, I'm sure there's plenty out there on the net.
Along these lines, have you ever seen the movie called