In all fairness to Catholicism, it does
work well,in a syncretic sense,with many
traditional African religious beliefs.
Much to the chagrin of and more recently
the resignation of this fact to clergy
members the world over.

Of course, that assumes that traditional African religious beliefs work well or are beneficial.

Then again, why be fair to Catholicism. It is rarely fair and I have 43 years of experience with it. (Thankfully, I escaped...)

Whether it works well or is beneficial
depends, of course, on the depth of the
followers belief.

Why be fair? Because I'm too tired and
groggy on pain meds to go on a good long
tirade of the myriad things that are so
very wrong with the R.C. Church at the
present. I quit following it's tenets as
soon as I was given a choice.

Hard to believe but Vodun was only just
recognized as a legitimate religion in
Haiti in 2003 despite the efforts of the
R.C. church against it.

For those who want more Goddesses and don't want to embrace the bogus, made-up religion that is Wicca, Catholicism is one of the better options, what with the cult of the virgin and the marionites and the various sects that worship Mary as if she were a god.

Dave

Cerulean, You really need to write for Dave. Letterman, not our Dave.

:=]

As an apostasized Catholic myself, I am still constantly amazed at the sheer number of people who leave the religion, and also at the number who leave it angry, disgusted, or disillusioned. With any organization comprised of normally observant members, this would raise a red flag that something is very, very wrong. Ah, but wait: We ARE talking the Catholic church here, an institution infamous for 2 millenia for its arrogance, totalitarianism, and unhestitating use of brute strength or any other means to destroy and subdue its enemies. Witness the caring tactics of the Church against the kids who originally brought up the pedophilia charges. Witness the comments of the current loving pastor/ Pope that these people were all part of a 'conspiracy' against the Church! Ah, yes: "feed my lambs", indeed. Feed them what - arsenic? No one who values freedom, honesty, integrity, or intelligence buys into the Catholic church - or any other organized religion, for that matter. Organized Religion, and the Catholic church foremost among such concerns, is all about mind control, poitical power, and money. Only those unable or unwilling to think for themselves adhere to Organized Religion, and the Catholic church foremost among these. Please note I say "ORGANIZED Religion". Religion in and of itself seems to be innocuous, even benevolent, in general. But I have never seen an Organized Religion of any stripe which could say the same. All the ones I am familiar with are out for whatever they can get, by whatever means, including spiritual and emotional blackmail of members, potential members, and nonmembers alike. Unfortunately, I don't think there's any way to redress this situation, since it seems also to be human nature to flock to anyone who can or will dictate and exercise authority on behalf of the general public. J.C. did well to refer to believers as "sheep".

For those who want more Goddesses and don't want to embrace the bogus, made-up religion that is Wicca, Catholicism is one of the better options...

Dave, this argument totally ignores the crucial parameter in Cerulean's list: Really piss off parents without getting tattoo... Anyone with children who've been teens knows this is the real impetus to do anything.

i thought all religions were 'made up'.

certainly i've made up thousands. one of these days, man, one of em will take off.

True enough, Mark. But most religions are made up based on some event or the teachings of some prophet or some long-standing belief system. Wicca was made up in the last 50 years by some chubby lesbians who actually believed the drivel in Margaret Murray's The Witch Cult in Western Europe and decided to base a religion on it.

My problem with Wicca is that it claims to be the survival of an ancient religion when the practices and beliefs which it claims to preserve are demonstrably the a-hystorical invention of a marginally crazy woman who basically made up an entire fictional history of witchcraft out of whole cloth. As a historian that offends me - a lot.

I have more respect for neo-pagans who admit they're recreating ancient religion rather than making bogus claims to be the inheritors of a religion which never actually existed.

Dave

My problem with Wicca is that it claims to be the survival of an ancient religion when the practices and beliefs which it claims to preserve are demonstrably the a-hystorical invention of a marginally crazy woman who basically made up an entire fictional history of witchcraft out of whole cloth. As a historian that offends me - a lot.

I've been saying similar for years now, for much the same reasons. Great to see someone else writing it.

plenty of religions claim all sortsa stuff.

i think you just don't like chubby lesbians.

;-)

Well, since they're lesbians they definitely don't want to have sex with me, so I guess they might as well be chubby if that makes them happy.

Dave

I recommend the Encyclopedia of Witchcraft and Demonology (ASIN 0517362457), sadly out of print, but often available at used bookstores. It makes a fine balance for Wiccan literature.

I always pictured Dave as being chubby.

Thanks to anyone who made a postive comment or liked my work! This sure got a lot of responses. I'm the type of person who responds to things a lot and I will need to read these comments over more thoroughly and respond more thoroughly, if I do, or write those never sent letters, when I have time to go through all the emotions involved. Yes, I am a sensitive smartass. Again, thanks to all who said anything positive. Writers live for that.

Richard, the one thing I've never been described as is 'chubby'. Chubby implies cute and rounded, and I'm anything but cute and rotund. I'm more of a frankenstein monster type.

Dave

There are more than a few Wiccans in Carmel Valley, near where I live. There are forested and winding roads all through the hills and every now and then you'll come to a little stripmall of artist studios. They all live in the hills and sculpt, paint, write, etc. and sell everything from goth furniture to actual statues of Roman gods that are 10 feet tall and probably weigh a ton. They also turn redwood trees into actual tree houses as big as large apartments, VERY nicely crafted. Those sell for upwards of 100,000 each at least.

I don't know any of them on more than an acquaintance level, but many of the creative people out here are Wiccans and are always positive and have a sparkle in their eye. They're always happy. I don't know anything about different branches or subsets of Wiccanery. or is it Wiccianism?

Wicca.

I never said Wiccans were bad people or non-creative or evil or anything, Steve. They just believe in a religion which ranks just a bit too high on my bogus meter, though still well under scientology, which came from the same 'let's make up a religion' movement of the 1930s - thanks Mr. Crowley.

Dave

I was just offering my perspective on Wiccans within the thread, as well, rather than attempting to counter or debate anybody. There are all types of people everywhere, so there will be all types of Wiccans.

yes the 'let's make up a religion' movement of 1,800+ years ago was much better.

Dave,Mr.Crowley wasn't just playing some
"Let's make up a new religion" game.

What Crowley was following was directly
descended from the Magic Lodges of turn
of the century Europe and the teachings
of Eliphas Levi and the "Ordo Templis
Orientalis" and myriad other lodges in
France,Germany and Britain,chiefly.

What Levi and others were following was
handed down from the Middle Ages which
was handed down from the ancient magical
teachings of the Egyptians,the Sumerians
the Babylonians and on and on.Maybe they
got their knowledge from Chutulu and the
"ancient ones" or some such shit.

Crowley put his own demented twist onto
things already known. But regardless of
this, he was not by any means,inventing
anything new.

Imagine no religion

I'm afraid you've been suckered, HW. Cryptohistory was one of my specialties in grad school.

There's a discontinuity in Crowley's history as well. Actually several. First, the groups of the late 19th century like the OTO and the Ancient Order of Hibernia can't actually trace documentable historical antecedents back before the start of the 18th century. The best they can do is establish a tenuous connection to St. Germaine and the Freemasons. But the Freemasons, despite their claims, cannot trace their own ancestry back even as far as the Knights Templar - who were all killed anyway - and in turn the Knights Templars' claims to be descended from the Roman mystery cults is completely unsupportable. And in fact, the Cult of Hermes Trismegistos' claim to any relationship with the already long extinct priesthood of Thoth was almost certianly entirely bogus.

The only shared legacy of all of these organizations is that they benefited fromt he trappings of mystery and having an ancient legacy, so they borrowed the concept and the very mantle of the similar groups which had gone before. But again, nothing was handed down generation to generation - that's just self-serving fantasy.

As for Crowley himself, he was cast out by the mystics of the Victorian era because he departed so radically from their relatively harmless philosophicall approach to magic. Crowley's complete reformulation of their beliefs into his version of philosophical Satanism was an entirely new religion unto itself. This is why Waite and the other mystics and crypto-druids disowned him - they also weren't big fans of the flimflammery and sex magic. And, of course, Hubbard based Scientology on Crowley's philosophy and Wicca was formed to a large extent in reaction against Crowley's anthro-centric viewpoint.

Dave

Scientology Kills

Dave, I know that Crowley was largely
disowned by his peers and that's why he
started his Abbey Of Thelema. Also,I do
agree that he reaped what he should've
for his con jobs.My point is that he was
not doing anything NEW as you claimed
only adding new twists to that which was
already there before him.A point that
you seemed to have missed in your haste
and that you stated as being so in your
previous post.

I disagree that the Knights Templar and
Freemason connection is as tenuous as
you claim. All of the books I've read
on the subject seem to make the connect
seem highly probable.Though, much of it
IS based on speculative theory supported
by loose historical facts instead of the
opposite. So'I'll concede this point.

I'll take a witch over a devout Christian any day

Crowley, Wiccans, Cryptohistory, Grad School, oh my...


Jeesus, Dave, is there any subject you're not a condescending asshole/"expert" on? DO YOU EVER READ THE SHIT YOU WRITE? Do you lecture your wife and kids like this? If so, don't you have a fear that they'll come stab you in your sleep some night?

Gawd, you remind me of a journalist/lawyer/feminist/African-American/Native-American/teacher named MacDiva.

Actually, you make her sound like Dale Carnegie.

Example:
DaveNalle on the classic, right-wing stereotype "chubby lesbians": "...Well, since they're lesbians they definitely don't want to have sex with me..."

I wouldn't be too sure there, Dave. Some lesbians could be attracted to a big blowhard with no balls.

Anyway, Mr. Expert Grad Student Who Just Discovered His Frontal Lobe and Wants To Play With It In Public --I'd love to hear your views on massively disturbed Libertarians who supplement their inferiority complexes by playing "genius" on a web-based message board.

We're all ears.

re: Witches vs Catholics


Why Witches are More Fun:

1) Virgin Mary wouldn't remain a virgin long;

2) Witches alway have the best CD collections;

3) Witches don't limit *wine consumption to one tiny little sip;

4) Drinking *blood is sometimes not restricted to a "symbolic act";

5) Not against abortion; as a matter of fact, it's okay to sacrifice live babies during special events!

6) Naked ceremonies; save money on outfits;

7) Male priests like to have sex with women instead of young boys;

Dave certainly isn't an expert on the environment.

>>Jeesus, Dave, is there any subject you're not a condescending asshole/"expert" on? <<

Yes, I know very little about the psychological disorder you're suffering from.

>>DO YOU EVER READ THE SHIT YOU WRITE? Do you lecture your wife and kids like this? If so, don't you have a fear that they'll come stab you in your sleep some night?<<

I don't lecture them any more than I can avoid, but they're generally sensible people.

>>Gawd, you remind me of a journalist/lawyer/feminist/African-American/Native-American/teacher named MacDiva.

Actually, you make her sound like Dale Carnegie.<<

Out of curiosity, is there some stuff you write that makes sense? I'd like to see some.

>>Anyway, Mr. Expert Grad Student Who Just Discovered His Frontal Lobe and Wants To Play With It In Public<<

Shark, I've been out of grad school for almost 15 years, but whatver.

>> --I'd love to hear your views on massively disturbed Libertarians who supplement their inferiority complexes by playing "genius" on a web-based message board.<<

Probably about the same as my views of narcissistic, hyperactive juveniles who insist on making personal attacks on anyone they don't agree with out of pure frustration at their own inability to form any kind of coherent thought or engage in a two-way discussion.

Dave

re: Shark's comment #30 -

Hilarious, Shark! You're the funniest, most creative writer on Blogcritics!

xxoo
Shark

Dave, let's get something straight.

1) I don't take anything "here" serious except my reputation and personal integrity.

2) Everything Shark types is done with a smile on his face.

3) Shark is just one of many characters who I've created in my work -- but he's the only character of mine who plays on Blogcritics. I don't agree with everything 'he' says or does, but 'he' cracks me up a lot, and sometimes I learn something profound from what appears on the surface to be satirical one-liners.

4) Everything he says is true.

5) He kinda likes having you around, sort of a love-hate thingy.

xxoo
M [Shark's Handler]

Shark, you're a nut. And you might want to talk to your alternative personalities about their personal attacks and the fact that the joker-like rictus on their shared face isn't coming through the CRT all that well. And even PoopyCaca is funnier most of the time.

Dave

okay, glad that's resolved

Hmm, Christianity and Wicca... from experience reading other blogs, I'm actually amazed this didn't turn into a Buffy thread.

Oh wait, it just did!

Actually, Buffy is significant for its almost total avoidance of the issue of Christianity in any form. Despite the presence of demons and vampires and the supernatural, there's nary a priest, exorcist or fundamentalist loon to be seen. Really sort of bizarre that they never chose to pursue the potential plotlines in that area.

Ok, NOW it's a thread on Buffy.

Dave

Buffy does employ the classic use of the crucifix to ward off vampires, but that's more of a vampire-lore thing than a religion thing.

In Season Seven, one of the Big Bads was indeed an evil priest, played by none other than Nathon Fillion, who as we all know is our Captain Mal Reynolds, ready to take to the skies in Serenity (based upon the brilliant Firefly) in September.

They also used holy water on Buffy to ward off the vamps.

I missed most of season 7 because of a work conflict, but I'm looking forward to it eagerly on DVD. Never saw the episodes with the evil priest.

As for the crucifixes and holy water, yes, they popped up now and again, but did you ever see them getting the water blessed? Hell, Willow could have just as easily blessed it as Wiccan holy water. And I don't remember a lot of cross usage after the first season. Vampires usually didn't last long enough for a cross to mean much.

Dave

In Buffy season four there was that fundamentalist who had run a sadistic orphanage in what became a frat house.

Good screed, Nancy. I agree with it. I appreciate the comments by Bennet Dawson and Steve S. Dave and Shark, you both know very little about Wicca. There is new kind of syndrome where people vilify others for imagined irregularities, inaccuracies, or imperfections. Although done with a tone of authority, these grievances don't bear scrutiny.

Insecurity about women getting out of their places almost always traces back to a man who is not secure in himself.

If the value of a religion could be measured in the its power to make its followers open and loving people, where would your belief system rank?

Being skeptical about Wicca makes us insecure about women and wanting to put them in their place? I don't see it.

As a belief set I've got no problem with Wicca, but my background is as a historian and I don't like the way it misrepresents its origins.

I'd still take Wicca as a life philosophy above most major religions.

Dave

"Dave and Shark, you both know very little about Wicca."

Heh. I know plenty, just don't take it serious enough to be any more than indifferent.

BTW -- Comment #30 WERE FUCKING JOKES, which confirms my experience with Wiccans as the most humorless paganists on the planet.

Anecdote warning: a few years ago, I wrote a Halloween satire for my weekly column wherein I included about two [obviously JOKING] lines about Wiccans. My editor called and said, "You' might want to take out those lines; you're going to get a lot of flack from these people."

I said, "It's just a joke; leave it in."

The next week, I had more hate mail than any column I've ever done.

Which shows two things:

1) Editors can be right every now and then.

2) Wiccans don't think it's *funny.

*BTW: I understand; if my fellow cultists had been burned alive throughout history as a form of explicit cultural criticism, I'd be a bit touchy myself...

Eric: "...okay, glad that's resolved"

Yeah, I'm a nut, but then you deleted the comments where Dave falsely accused me of posting under other names, apologized, and admitted he was a dick.

I don't care, mind you, but it makes a bit more sense of the currently out-of-context weirdness of comments #33 &34.

Peace.



PS: "I'm a dick." -- DaveNalle


(love that quote! hehe)

....uh.. and

: )

too!

>>"Dave and Shark, you both know very little about Wicca."

Heh. I know plenty, just don't take it serious enough to be any more than indifferent. <<

I didn't bother to respond to this earlier, but since Shark did, wth.

Not only do I know pretty much everything there is to know about Wicca and just about every other aspect of paganism, it's not just something I've read up on, though I have done that. I have practicing Wiccans in my family and had relationships with a couple in college (I was in the SCA back then) - so I guess you could say I know Wicca intimately....

Dave

Jokes are supposed to be funny, and those weren't. I am a humorist and have published a cover story of my humor in a magazine as well as dozens of articles, also in magazines.

Sharks Jokes may not be funny, but at least he doesn't try to use his resume to prove he's a comedian.

Dave

>>>Wicca was made up in the last 50 years by some chubby lesbians who actually believed the drivel in Margaret Murray's The Witch Cult in Western Europe and decided to base a religion on it<<<

Murray was a definite influence on Wicca. But, Gerald Gardner, from England, created Wicca, and had used a mish-mash of aspects from different esoteric groups, and freemasonry, to do it. And then he claimed it to be ancient witchcraft. Which it wasn't....

Wiccans now know this, and many ARE stating that Wicca is a new religion.

Wiccans need to move on and just stop listening to those who want to keep rubbing their noses into the same old pile of poo.
Wicca was so new at one time that, obviously, no one was going to know much about it. GG could say what he wanted, then, in order to create followers.
However, anyone who is truly Wiccan and has experienced its spiritual essence, knows the value of it.

Whether GG made up stories or not, it doesn't really matter now. Wicca has taken on a life of its own, and from a Pagan spiritual viewpoint that is exactly what the God and Goddess wanted.
GG and his work was just one of many matches that helped the Gods to re-light their fires on earth (and so, IN THAT WAY, what GG was dealing with WAS very ancient).

ALL religions were new at some point. And ALL religions have their not-so-savory aspects. Wicca is no different.

Today, Wicca works for many people. Its followers are helping to re-awaken the old Gods, and by doing so, the old Gods are, in turn, waking up more followers.
Awakening the Gods is a main focus for many Wiccans, and of Neo-Pagans in general. It's working.

I'm not Wiccan myself, but I did start out my Pagan walk on it's path. I now follow Druidism.

Peace,
Catbird

WE WITCHS DO NOT WORSHIP THE DEVILL OK YOU YOU STUPID DUM ASS IGNORANT CLOSE MINDED STUPID IDIOT CHRISTIAN BASTARDS SO LEAVE US ALONE AND GO TO YOUR HELL A HOPE ALL YOU CHRISTIANS GET BURNED ALIVE IN YOUR OWN CHUCHS.FUCK YOU CHRISTIANS FUCK YOU!!!!!!:O AHHHHHHH!!!!!! :o

Is this supposed to be funny?

"The Cult of the Virgin" is not a Goddess cult. Catholics not only do not say that the Virgin Mary is a Goddess, she is held up as an example of perfect feminine submission, humility and obedience to male authority. I can't tell you how many Catholic propaganda books on feminine virtue I've read with the virgin Mary held up as the ultimate woman, because she's a glorified icon of "long-suffering" and "obedience." Mary is seen just like a christian mother is seen - someone who submits to her husband and father and can intercede on behalf of her children by begging favours from them for her children. She has no power of her own, her power is the power to ask god just like everyone else, only she is seen as having a better chance of succeeding because she's the perfectly pure, perfectly obedient, perfectly submissive wife, daughter and mother. She is central to Catholic doctrine though, because women's submission and obedience is central to Catholic structure. So they glorify her, to sell this idea.

Acceptance of male dominance is the Virgin Mary's main purpose, which the Cahtolic religion openly promoted for women in the past, (and lately, since those nasty feminists the pope condemned have gotten the whole terrible idea of freedom and equality in their pretty little heads, the Catholic church has promoted more subversively. But trust me, the church in general will push this idea as far as they can get away with. And the new pope is already starting this little campaign.)

So no, she is not a Goddess. One of the reasons so many Catholics are upset at the Da Vinci Code, for instance, is the idea that there is a Feminine Divine hidden away in Catholic tradition (there isn't, the da Vinci Code is very far-fetched fiction.)

Soooo.... Don't be fooled by the crown and the many statues of her looking queenly - what she represents is not the power of the Goddess, but the humility of a glorified slave, designed to make the loss of your freedom and equality look appealing enough to take part in. I know whereof I speak, I grew up Catholic and took catechism lessons all through grade school and in my teens was forced to study Catholic philosophy in depth, something I'm sure my heart or brain will never recover from. It is a vile, vile religion as far as I'm concerned and just about any pagan nonsense is preferrable.

If you want to make your Goddess religion a viable alternative though, I recommend acquiring a lot of structure and power - people run to those things when things get bad - i.e. when there's war and pain and death and stuff. It's why so many convert to Catholicism in times like these - they sound so certain and people crave certainty when things are uncertain. There's already a structure in place - large communities, churches, money, political power. It's what your little religion needs to grow into, so people like me can have a place of comfort from the torture, death, male-supremacy, woman-hating religions.

"Mary manfiests all the zeal which a spouse should have for the glory of her husband." --Jean-Jacques Olier

Catholic theology proposes that Mary's willed obedience (Lk 1:38) is contrasted with Eve's disobedience (Gn 3:6), an idea with roots in the writings of the Church Fathers. Mary is not equal to Christ in Catholic theology. --Wikipedia encylcopedia

"In the Roman Catholic tradition the Virgin Mary is held up as a role model for women. She symbolizes female "virtues" such as obedience, submission, chastity and silence. In fervent Catholic countries, Catholic women are encouraged to emulate her. In fact the more women submit and self-efface themselves the more they are praised for being "good" Christian women. The Roman Catholic Church glorifies one woman while it rubbishes all the rest." --Atheist foundation

As an erstwhile Catholic, I'll beg to differ: the official RC dogma is that Mary is a "co-redeemer" with Christ, is the distributor of graces from God, and a mediator between humanity and God & Christ. Further titles officially pinned by The Church include "Mediatrix" among others. Co-redeemer? Mediatrix? Sure sounds like a goddess cult to me, & the vigor of the RC denial makes me think they doth protest too much.

Well I think Co-redemptrix is a title like "maintenence engineer" (janitor) that is ultimately a meaningless bolstering of Mary's myth considering her context. Her co-redemption depends on her aforementioned perfect submission and obedience to her son, husband and father. Again, her power is coming from her father god, not her own volition, "co-redemptrix" or not. Mediatrix means what I was discussing above - the ability for Mary to beg favors of god - i.e. mediate on behalf of her children. It in no way suggests any other power than the power of a chosen woman to submit to a powerful male authority.

The reason I think this needs to be addressed so strongly is because of some of the new fiction coming from the left - "the Da Vinci code" (and the many other attempts at feminist, revisionist interpretations of traditional philosophy), many women are under the false impression that Catholicism is a woman-friendly religion, a secret Goddess cult where they will find refuge - and ultimately the liberty of feminism in a comforting, ancient structure. Nothing could be further from the truth.

For those unsuspecting folks who have been duped by this: That book (and the revisionist philosophy that inspired it) is not, and will not ever be, endorsed by the church or the majority of it's members worldwide. Mary will never be an actual Goddess, and is not seen as such by most of her traditional followers, of which I know many. In twenty years of Catholic training, and in-depth reading of Catholic philosphy I never heard of such a thing. In fact, one of the things traditional Catholics resent most about Protestant interpretation of the Mary myth, is the assumption that they worship her, and that she's a Goddess.

But make no mistake, they will take the converts that this fantasy inspires, that's for sure - if they can lure so many more women into this essentially patriarchal religion, they will be happy to take the new members into the fold, and eventually assimilate their children and teach them correct interpretation of Mary and the "correct" role for women. They work hard at this already, and those who wish to pretend Mary is a Goddess are ultimately helping them. The money, converts and energy you put into this huge religion will also go to support their political goals which are as anti-woman as they can get away with at any moment in time. Even if you are pretending you are worshipping a Goddess your energy is going into a very anti-Goddess institution.

-------------

As an aside, some Catholic tradition of hatred that might be hard to explain to future generations, especially in light of the fact that the church canonized these people as saints, the highest honor the Catholic Church can bestow:

St. Ambrose "Adam was led to sin by Even and Eve by Adam. It is just and right that woman accept as lord and master him whom she led to sin."

St. John Crysostom (345?-407) "Among all savage beasts none is found so harmful as woman."

St. Clement of Alexandria "Let us set our womenfolk on the road to goodness by teaching them...to display...submissiveness, to observe silence. Every woman should be overwhelmed with shame at the thought that she is a woman."

St. Thomas Aquinas (considered one of the church's great philosophers): "Woman is defective and accidental...and misbegotten...a male gone awry...the result in some weakness in the father's generative power."

This propaganda is as vile and hateful as anything coming out of extreme racist ideology, so I think my KKK metaphor below is apporpriate. I understand the suprise people feel at how many people leave Catholicism completely angry, disgusted, or disillusioned. Well, I'll tell you why - because beneath all the lovely images, the incense, fancy words, grand myth, glorified history and bells and whistles is a core so rotten and hateful you would be hard pressed to find any hate group that can match it. And yet, because it is still so huge, so powerful and so adept at propaganda it keeps itself alive.

---------------

The response on behalf of women:

Elizabeth Cady Stanton - one of the first feminists who worked tirelessly to win us the vote and challenger of all religious propaganda, wrote "The human mind which is ever oscillating between the extremes of authority and individualism, and if the former - the Catholic idea - ever finds lodgement in the minds of this people, we will ring the death-knell of American liberties."

-------------


I think the trend of trying to make huge, patriarchal religions like Islam and Catholicism friendly to women is an impossible task - like trying to turn the Ku Klux Klan into African American-friendly institution. They're just too inherently anti-woman. It's also lacking the confidence in ourselves create something of our own. I think if women want refuge we have to forge our own way - have the courage to create our own myths, philosphy, religion, imagine the world in new ways that are unique to us. It takes great faith in ourselves and our right to interpret the great mysteries of life to do this. And that's why I admire these Goddess religions that are springing up. There is potential here for the first, great world religion that truly elevates the feminine, and is authentically created with a core of *women's* philosophy, not revisionist philosophy of religions created and dominated by men.

But again, that will depend on how much faith we have in our visions of the future, our ability to create great structure, our resistence to attacks upon it and the quality of the vision itself. I do believe the seeds of some of these things are in place, and there are fascinating things in store for us in future. *fingers crossed.*

Welcome Jan. Firey, intelligent, rebellious women can only improve Blogcritics. Nancy has actually been very critical of the Catholic Church herself. She's quite an impressive social critic.

I believe that you are right about the ultimate aims of the Church's hierarchy but there are millions of worshipers all over the world. Who can say what is in their hearts? Even in their bones, people remember when there was a woman in the Godhead.

Thanks again for your well-written and fiery contributions.

My work is not going to appear here in the future. My new writings will be appearing at: cerulean.blog.com

I'd be open to publishing guest editorials too.

Guess now is as good a time as to pimp your weak ass blog which you hadn't written to in 4 months, eh?

Celeste, you can't criticize Cerulean. By your name you're female and as we all know now no women are allowed on BC.

Dave

Good thing I carry a severed phallus (a la Elena Bobbitt) in my purse in case I need to pretend.

Of course, since Dave Nalle is an anagram for Dana Level, maybe you could be a lady too. Make Cerulean's dreams come true!

There are many many Catholics who see the person of the Holy Spirit as female.

Pope JPII has written officially that God is neither male nor female.

"I'd be open to publishing guest editorials too."

But Cerulean is not open to facts that disagree with her version of events.

Thanks for the warm welcome Cerulean. I think I've posted once on blogcritics a long time ago, but it was hit and run, I never got a chance to check up on the debate again. So I'm revisiting a little to see what's going on, it's all quite interesting, y'all seem like great people. I'm sorry you're leaving, though! I'll be sure to check up on your blog, thanks.

And I wasn't criticizing Nancy of course, I like what she has to say, I more or less just wanted to put my two (or more like five) cents in on the CC.

And yes, I know plenty of Catholics who have wonderful hearts, who are taken in by the surface philosophy of love. A lot of dangerous institutions are made up of good people who are attracted to surface propaganda, though. Who rather tragically, dedicate their lives to institutions that are ultimately toxic. I admire their good hearts, but still think they're mistaken.

"Pope JPII has written officially that God is neither male nor female."

The Catholic church has made a couple of very slight nods to an attempt to make it less sexist. I just think the danger is with so much anti-woman sentiment in it's history, and woven through it's philosophy that you can't reform this instition. Any temporary nods to feminism are likely to be temporary.

Sorry typo alert - institution. I don't have much time to write let alone check typos. Probably more in there, too. ;)

But most religions are made up based on some event or the teachings of some prophet or some long-standing belief system.

i have a question and i'm asking because i don't know, and i'm not asking anyone in particular...
what religion was founded on a long-standing belief system? this assumes that when the religion was founded, the belief system was already long-standing, yes? so wouldn't the long-standing belief system itself be the religion?

Why do Catholics worship a man in Rome??? Doesn't the worshipping of the Pope go against the 1st Commandment???

Didn't Jesus say don't address anyone as father but God himself??? Don't Catholics address Priests as father???

Remember when Mary wanted to speak to Jesus and someone told Jesus that his mother and brothers are waiting outside and Jesus said, "My mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it???" This was the only mention of Mary in the bilbe. So why do Catholics worship Mary as the mother of God??? Didn't Jesus say that everyone who follows the word of God is his mother???

Anthony, I'll assume that your questions are borne of ignorance, and that you're not just trying to be antagonistic. While I'm not a Roman Catholic, I can still answer your questions after doing just a little bit of reading on the subject.

1. Roman Catholics do not "worship" the Pope. He is their leader, just as any pastor is the leader of his congregation. There are some unfortunate recent doctrines concerning infallibility with which I disagree, but generally speaking, the Pope is just a man.

2. Christians around the world -- including Protestants -- still refer to their own fathers as "Father," amazingly enough. This is either grossly in error, or, more likely, people are willing to allow for subtlety except when it comes to Roman Catholics.

My own pastor, a priest in the Episcopal Church USA, eschews the normal title of "Father" precisely because so many people can point to the verse you reference, but it isn't as dramatic an argument as is widely believed.

Finally, the only mention of Mary in the Bible? Hardly! The gospels are full of references to her, including a statement from an archangel telling her that she would be blessed among all women and honored forever and so on. As it happens, Roman Catholics do not "worship" Mary, either, though I think many tend to accord her outsized honor. Incidentally, this was a trait common to Protestants as well until very recently.

Life isn't as simple as it would appear from reading individual commenters on Blogcritics.org, and Christian doctrine is no different. I'm a Protestant for a reason, but Roman Catholics aren't quite as obviously stupid as your questions might lead one to believe.

:-)

Phillip, from what I see the Pope is a power hungry dictator and people do seem to worship him.

It says it clear in the Bible. Jesus said don't ever lower yourself and call someone Father or allow someone else to call you Father for God is your Father and everyone on Earth is equal as Brothers.

That goes for Protestants too. I am a former Methodist and I always referred to my minister by his first name, Micah.

I cannot find it the above in the Bible, but I know it is either in Mathew or Mark. I read it the other day.

Besides the birth of Jesus Mary is hardly mentioned. Jesus said that that wasn't his mother. Every women who follows the words of God is his mother.

And they don't worship Mary???


"Hail Mary,
Full of Grace,
The Lord is with thee.
Blessed art thou among women,
and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary,
Mother of God,
pray for us sinners now,
and at the hour of death.

Amen."

I get my beliefs from the Bible and the Bible only. Not Blogcritics Commenters or some dictator in Rome.

My father, a Catholic, tells me this story from his childhood:

Him, his widow mother, and 5 brothers and sisters grew up and lived in Los Angeles in a poor neighborhood.

They were very Religious. His mother wanted him to become a Priest. They attended Mass every week. And on Sunday they went without dinner just so they could put a handful of change in collection plate. They were very poor. What they ate was already small, but they went without dinner on Sundays.

Then one day as 10 year father was walking with his family after Church the Priest drove by and waved. He was driving a brand new Mercedes. They were starving just so they can give to a who lives off the unfortune of its people.

My father never went to Church again in his entire life. He told his mother to go to Hell when she talked about him becomming a corrupted Priest.

He still has faith in Jesus, but he has no faith in the Church. He is so Anti-Church that he refused to let my very religious Methodist wife baptize any of their 5 children.

O.K. I promise to proof read from now on.

Change "Then one day as 10 year father.." to "Then one day as my 10 year old father..."

Change, "just so they can give to a who lives..." to "just so they can give to an organization who lives..."

Change, "that he refused to let my very religious Methodist wife..." to "that he refused to let his very religious Methodist wife..."

"O.K. I promise to proof read from now on."

"Proofread" is one word. HAHAHAHAHA!

"Then one day as my 10 year old father..."

How could you have a 10-year-old father? He must not have paid attention to the absitenence training in school like you.

"just so they can give to an organization who lives..."

an organization isn't a person, so it should read "organization that lives"

Anthony, this is a little silly, really. You claim to get your beliefs from the Bible only, and I think you believe that, and yet you are reciting the standard anti-RCC 101 stuff most protestants (including me) were "taught" (not usually on purpose) as a child.

We *all* form our opinion based on a wide variety of inputs, and rarely are those inputs as clear as we believe them to be.

So anyway, back to the subject at hand: Do some people accord outsized honor to the Pope? Sure, and many don't. I do think that the office has been held by some power-hungry madmen who expanded it far beyond how the Bishop of Rome's role was ever envisioned in the first few centuries of the church.

However, I don't see that as ground for rejecting the RCC out of hand. All groups of people have problems, because they are made up of people! Your own former church, the Methodist Church, was founded by people who followed Wesley, but Wesley himself refused to leave the Anglican Church into which he had poured his life, so they did so posthumously. Believe me, every group has had its fair share of crazy dude. The current Pope, at least, seems more solid than many.

You've radically mis-represented the words of Jesus, imputing an emphasis on egalitarianism that He didn't. In Matthew 23, Jesus was specifically addressing those who "preach, but do not practice" (Matthew 23:3) and "do all their deeds to be seen by others." (Matthew 23:5) In contrast to that, Jesus suggested that we should be humble, saying specifically, "But you are not to be called rabbi [teacher], for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

Certainly he was not forbidding the use of the terms "teacher" or "father" in that context, but rather cautioning against rewarding the proud.

I call my pastor "Bill," but most Protestant ministers, including most Methodist ministers I've know, have tended to use some form of title, like "Reverend," or "Pastor," both of which would be denied given an overly-strict view of the passage such as would also deny the use of the title "Father."

On Mary, I *really* don't care except that I hate too see people's beliefs misrepresented. You first charged that the only reference to Mary was a denial of her, and have since said that she isn't mentioned after Jesus' birth, and neither is true.

In fact, the words of the "Hail Mary" prayer reminded me from where they came: Luke 1. "Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." That comes from Luke 1:28! Luke 1:42 continues the theme (and the prayer), with "Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb."

In fact, the only objectionable bits in the prayer are that it is addressed to Mary at all, and she is asked to intercede for us. After all, Christ is the one mediator between God and man already.

Nevertheless, the prayer does not constitute "worship," unless one is determined to make it do so.

By the way, Jesus never said Mary wasn't His mother. To do so would have been quite contrary to the other passages which describe how Mary will be remembered and honored forever. Instead, he said that those who do the will of God are His family. The emphasis of Matthew 12 or Luke 3 is essentially the opposite of the way you're representing them.

Anyway, I'm tired of defending Roman Catholics, since I don't even agree with their Mariology or their titles, but please, do a little more reading before you attack a billion people who tend to understand these issues better than you've demonstrated so far. Thanks.

Phillip, I know where Hail Mary comes from. Why do Roman Catholics ask Mary for forgiveness for their sins??? They could ask God, but they don't. That is against the 1st Commandment.

In Mathew 23.5 Jesus cleary said it. Don't try and rephraise him.

--------
Some guide to God, huh??? Driving a Mercedes and molesting little kids.

And in comments 69, 70, and 72, you violate that clear and simple statement every bit as much as any Roman Catholic does! Or is it maybe not *exactly* as isolated as all that?

RCCs don't ask Mary for forgiveness of their sins, and if they did so, it still wouldn't be a violation of the first commandment, though it would be wrong on other grounds. You're losing ground with every comment, man. Read some more before trying again, m'kay?

No disagreement that many priests -- and protestant pastors, and Christians, and wiccans, and everyday Joe Schmoes of any stripe -- are crappy human beings. My own theology tells me that *everybody* sucks, but that isn't much grounds for rejecting religious faith altogether. Rather, let's find those guys, drag them out into an alley, and bea... oh, wait. I mean, let's, um, pray for them. Or something.

Let's go a step further. Let's hang those motherfuckers in the public square. Then behead Michael Jackson for getting away with what he did.

Yeah, I knew better than to take you seriously, AG, but maybe someday you'll think about how wrong you were on every factual point you've raised here, and you'll be more careful or gracious in the future.

I can hope, at least.

Great points, Phillip. Thanks for taking the time for all of that. It may have been wasted on AG, but I got a lot out of it.

Cheers!

Well Phillip in comment 77 you didn't get my drift. I was being sarcastic. I am 100% anti-Death in any way shape or form. I believe in should be automatic life sentences for child molestation.

I do harbor some violent feelings toward Jackson though.

Hey Phillip haven't you have any shame about criticism priest. Come on, this is not something an educated person should do. Let me ask you something, do you believe in karma?

We're all Jews -- like it or not! Jesus was one and only after his death did Christianity take form. Of course this Jewish connection is denied but I don't think anyone can prove otherwise. Yes, sorry to rub it in but we are all JEWS!!! Be proud.

Philip, from a quick perusal of your comments, you did a pretty solid job of explaining Catholic beliefs. Any time you want to step up to the plate and convert...

:)

JM, I believe that Jesus Christ overturns karma in a most dramatic way, not that this has anything to do with the rest of your comment.

MT, I don't think that anyone has ever denied that Jesus was Jewish. Quite the contrary in fact. But, um, read Galatians and, heck, the entire New Testament to see what effect that has on those who follow Jesus as the Christ.

Baronius, thanks, but I don't plan to cross the Tiber. I'm not even Anglo-Catholic, but instead about as low-church Anglican as you're ever gonna find. :-)

I'd like to thank Phillip Wynn for helping to counter some of the widespread fallacies about the Catholic Church. Pretty nice of an Anglican to go to all that trouble. ;-)

It seems to me that anti-Catholicism is pretty much the last form of discrimination that is still considered PC.

If the original post had been about jews, blacks, women or cripples, it would have been attacked as racist, anti-Semitic, sexist, or insensitive. But jokes making fun of Catholics are just fine.

I haven't set foot in a church since I was 18 (a long time ago), so I don't claim to be a good defender of the church's teaching. But whenever someone tells me what Catholicism is, it is usually a vulgar caricature. I remember enough to know that.

PS: Jan's diatribe about what Mary (#54) represents within Catholic teaching is wrong, wrong, wrong. It's fine if she wishes to educate the masses on feminism, but make your points without attributing false significance and imagined motives to Mary. Falsehoods, even when their aim is noble, are still falsehoods.

The RCC has never preached the servitude or submission of women, and has a history of assisting organizations that help empower women (and minorities too). The only thing they don't support is abortion-- which has nothing to do with Mary, either.

I was raised Catholic, and I remember the business of Mary being a kind of conduit to Jesus. She was like a big sister, which I thought was important in that women were treated like crap by Christianity. You could pray to Mary and on her behalf she would speak to Jesus for you. And if Jesus was a good boy he would listen to his mother. ;)

I don't practice wicca, but I see the appeal. Cool incense, neat votive candles, nifty spells, black clothes, all sorts of fun stuff.

I live near Salem so I see lots of pagans and wiccans. Salem just erected a statue of Elizabeth Mongomery as Samantha in "Bewitched". Salem is now even more commercialized than it already was.

Am I the only person on earth who has never seen Buffy?

You haven't seen Buffy? Yeah, you may be all alone!

I have heard Roman Catholic lay-people describe Mary as a sort of maternal go-between, able to get Jesus to listen to her by virtue of her role as His mother. I personall consider this idea to be atrociously hideous, for all sorts of reasons. It's also far more popular among uneducated laypeople than among more educated clergy, so I don't actually know what sort of "official" teaching there is on this.

Somewaht the point of Christianity is that all of us -- male or female, young or old, Jew or Gentile -- can approach Christ directly, boldy even, as an adopted child of God. There are many cultural reasons why people shy away from this, which is why I think the idea of praying to the dead is so popular, but it just isn't necessary.

I guess I'm alone, then. I was a major "X-Phile". Does that give me some brownie points? ;)

Yes, you're right about some Catholic-lay people seeing Mary as a go-between. I think it's a cultural thing. I remember it from when I was a kid. I can't attest as to the education level of the people who saw Mary that way, as I have been out of the Catholic church for many years. I don't think it's recognized by "official" teachings, though.

Those teenagers that came looking for witchcraft has the right to express their beliefs freely. But they don't have to drag the Catholic fayth into this.

Mary's role as intermediary isn't unique; the idea is that we all pray for each other. I'd as soon ask Mary for her prayers as I would my parents. And it is official church teaching. In the Mass, we pray:

I confess to Almighty God, and to you my brothers and sisters, that I have sinned through my own fault; in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done and it what I have failed to do. And I ask Blessed Mary ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you my brothers and sisters, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

In the old Latin Mass (if I remember correctly) Michael, Peter, Paul, and maybe some other saints are also mentioned by name. So this isn't a new thing or a regional thing.